Comet 3I/ATLAS is not expected to get very close to Earth; the closest it will come is approximately 1.8 astronomical units (about 170 million miles or 270 million kilometers)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3I_ATLAS_animation3.gif
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (66)
sorted by:
Thanks for asking Guy!
I said "Christ kept and is still keeping it, because he said he doesn't abolish it, and fulfill doesn't mean that it stops being law." I accepted separately here that Romans 7 says there are earthly laws only applicable until death, so let me portion that out. The spiritual component of the Mosaic law, to love neighbor as self, to love God with heart, mind, and strength, and in fact to show this love by spiritual application of any of the 613 traditional commands (e.g. not to cause someone to stumble who is in the category of blind), would be something that it'd be obvious Jesus didn't stop doing, the evidence being that he remains holy. But I didn't mean to imply that the Mosaic law with its many different ranges of application to time and person has totally the same character after someone has died. For instance, Jesus only got circumcised once and that fulfilled that command completely; but he retains his spiritual separation unto God thereby forever.
I haven't pressed this form of expressing the point into texts. A quick check shows that Rom. 7:14 emphasizes "the law is spiritual" as I glean from Matthew 5-7; Rom. 4:16 implies Jesus is still a man "of the law", Rom. 10:4 has "Christ is the end [telos, goal] of the law", and Rom. 13:10 "love is the fulfilling of the law" (cf. Gal. 5:14, James 1:25, 2:12) seems to cement the point.
No, I don't teach this, that would be legalism the same as anyone teaching any set of laws for salvation would be. "Have to" implies required for salvation. But we've already been saved by the physical keeping of the law being imputed to us; so now we "get to" keep the law of Christ (or to Christ), whatever he says goes, 1 Cor. 9:21. According to Romans 14, the person who decides he wants to keep more laws, who does so out of conviction and gratitude without any legalistic hope of payment, is to be accepted just as the one who does not so decide. So it's not a requirement, it's an option among expressions of Christianity among the nations. (Incidentally, less than half of the 613 laws can be kept literally in the absence of a temple, so Rabbinical Judaism has always taught that those laws don't matter as long as Jews say the right words in lieu and hope for the rebuilding; that's an annulment of more than half of Moses. But our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees, and so I have already kept all 613 laws because I did so in Christ since he gave that life of obedience to me. So we have a benefit over those who count the 613 scrupulously.)
The old covenant was never about legalism, but always about obeying in faith and gratitude for salvation (e.g. from Egypt). Legalists were never saved, but David was saved by faith and not works. Hebrews 11 says the righteous were all saved by faith the same as we, and Habakkuk 2:4, quoted 3 times in NT, shows that the righteous understood this embryonically.
I believe it's fact that Jesus kept all of the 613 commands insofar as he had part in carrying out their application (e.g. some commands are primarily upon women and so the man's part is only to ensure the command is fulfilled by the woman). Skil seems to think otherwise, so I commend my belief to him as a possibility to be considered. I have lots of evidence but we would need to start with what he's willing to accept and to define, so the question of openness to possibility needs to come early in the discussion.
Does that help explain?
in th.
because He said He*
"he" or "He"?
But it DOES mean we are UNDER a NEW COVENANT, NOT the OLD ONE.
Are we under both or only one? If we are still under OT law, then what did Jesus die for??
Is Jesus the only way to God? Yes or no?
that He remains Holy*
Jesus died. Then He rose. Now He is with the Father.
He retains His*
You mean unto the Father?? Jesus is God, but not the Father.
....
That doesn't mean we TODAY are obliged to try to fulfill it. I don't see you sacrificing bulls.
??
Doubtful. Whether He is "STILL" or not, there's no such implication.
And now it has been fulfilled. Thanks for citing a Verse directly proving that we AREN'T under it, and the New Covenant is how we can enter Heaven. No one comes to God EXECPT by Jesus.
Jesus doing all the work. Thanks for admitting that Jesus followed the Old Law so TODAY, it's on humanity to obey the NEW COVENANT.
"that people still have to follow the 613 Laws"
But you do teach that people still should follow the Old Covenant?
whatever He says*
as He*
Okay, I'll keep in mind that you like caps, it's not necessary to mark it every time. :) Keep in mind the KJV didn't think that many caps were necessary.
Obviously Jesus has always been The Only Way to God, even when His Name had not been announced to mankind. Yes, we're under the new covenant (between Christ and those in Him): we are "under the law to Christ" (1 Cor. 9:21). (That passage is full of paradoxes to be kept in tension: we are also "as under the law" of the Jews, 20, while still "not under the law", Rom. 6:14.) The reason we are not under the law (being the old covenant) is that we broke it, Rom. 7:9. The righteous before Christ also could not be righteous under the law, because they broke it, Jer. 31:31-34; they could only be righteous the same way we are, by faith in Messiah, Gen. 3:15, Hab. 2:4, Heb. 11 (starting with Abel's faith in the sacrificial system to reveal God). Jesus died to seal His obedience to the old covenant, which becomes our obedience because He brought us into Himself; this fulfills the old covenant and prepares Him to make a new covenant with those in Him that Adam couldn't make with those in him, the covenant of sharing Jesus's obedience.
Yes, Jesus as God the Son retains His spiritual separation unto God the Father by circumcision forever.
Correct, and my point is that Israel was never obliged to try to fulfill it unless an Israelite (or new Israelite) were seeking to live with perfect righteousness, with the possibility of being Messiah for that generation when the Name of Messiah had not yet been revealed. (For instance, Ezekiel says that Noah, Daniel, and Job lived lives that were without fault before men, and Catholics generally hold that Mary did too.) But millennia of demonstrating that this couldn't happen by mere human effort were designed to lead up to the revelation that only God In Human Form could do it and have enough Righteousness to share.
So Abel did not sacrifice out of obligation but out of faith, it says. Now, we can't sacrifice bulls Levitically without a temple (though I do eat a lot of hamburgers); but the current Jews are very anxious that the red heifer be sacrificed according to all the same laws that it was in Jesus's day (when He directed people to use the holy water from that ceremony); so I cannot oppose the movement for that sacrifice. I learned from the dispensationalists "third temple bad", because Antichrist will defile it; but having read through Revelation more closely I understand that God's temporary permission for this defilement is to demonstrate the evil of evil and to cleanse it permanently, and so I don't oppose building the temple. Fact is that Ezekiel 40-48 is nine chapters about the layout and sacrifices in that temple being honorable to God, and as a literalist it seems to me that will happen again. But it can only happen the way that Abel, David, Solomon, or Paul sacrificed animals, namely by faith in God, both in what He's already revealed about his plan of salvation and what He has yet to reveal. (Going back one step from Abel, it appears that God himself, in the person of Jesus, sacrificed two animals because Adam and Eve were given skins, and probably a fellowship meal too for the insides.) Saying the third temple is likely to happen is not related at all to pressuring people to keep laws (including sacrifices) because a sacrifice of faith is voluntary but a sacrifice of legalism is held to be obligatory.
Matthew 5-7 shows that the law is more than the literal commands like "do not murder", it's spiritual and about even unrighteous anger and lust of the heart.
I grant Rom. 4:16 is debatable, I listed it because, in my understanding of interpretation, the present tense is significant because Jesus says to the Sadducees that it is. The present is not in the phrase "is of the law" but it's in "Abraham; who is the father of us all", and Gal. 3:16 shows that Jesus is uniquely the Seed of Abraham. We could argue that the seed "of the law" only applies when they are alive, which is the debatable point; but I listed it because it's a potential support despite being debatable, and it supports the other witnesses that are clearer.
Yes, we're not under the old law because we broke it, and we enter heaven by the free gift of Jesus that is His to share by His keeping it, and no other way. As I said, looking up destroy, abolish, fulfill, might be interesting, and with you I would take the effort even though I don't take the effort with those who aren't clearly committed to Truth. As a preview, "fulfill" in Greek translates three words about telos (goal), four about pleroma (fulness), and two generic words. I've previously done a study here on the "telos" function as being a final ongoing state and not just a conclusion that passes and fades. I would suspect that detailed study wouldn't teach that what is "fulfilled" is destroyed or abolished thereby; it's sure not true of fulfilled prophecy.
I don't teach that it's "on" us, that we "should", that we "have to" in a pressure sense, or that that was ever true of anyone. We could teach that without the pressure sense we "should" keep all the Mosaic physical and spiritual laws fitting to cultural context, but that would only be to prove that we haven't, and can't in ourselves. The teaching of "should" often leads to false guilt and legalism. The Ten Words say instead "thou shalt", "you shall", not "you should". Not because it's "on" us by pressure, but because we are enabled to grow into the life of the Ten Words. Always have been.
But I do teach that we "get to" obey the Ten Words and the Mosaic law. When people are asked to summarize the law of Christ in one or two commands, they typically go with the Golden Rule and the Shema, loving God with everything. But guess what, those are both Mosaic commands and not of the Ten Words! So I use odd ones like "no stumbling block before the blind" as a good example, because that's also an obscure command but its spiritual meaning, to be transparent with people and not hide traps for them, is clear and certainly part of Christian life. When Jesus says all the [613] commands hang on these two, He's saying they all connect to the same love principle in different applications of life.
Now, what Hebrew Roots people often do, as I learned when I started among them, is to take the commands Paul mentions in Colossians, namely kashruth and festivals, and make that their law, ignoring the other ~600 commands. Well, I learned that's only a "good start". These two categories are easy to do, and can be done without legalism, because nobody will fault you if you stop eating shrimp or if you fast for Day of Atonement like Paul did in Acts. (The fault is if you lay a yoke on others.) So I got into festival-keeping; this week is Feast of Tabernacles (the first full moon of fall), so as a family we usually put up a tent or sleep on the couch or sleeping bags, so as to honor the command imperfectly and to remember Jesus's perfect obedience to the command. That's something that's long been on our hearts, we have clear Romans 14 conscience about it, we don't judge others who don't do it, and we are blessed by the practice and discipline. I trust that you can see the difference between following a command that Jesus followed out of gratitude to Him, and following a command to earn something in return (legalism). I grant that it took me awhile to learn, and I needed God to guide me at every step because both legalists and antinomians tried to knock me off the learning path! But the Christian liberty Paul teaches, long a mystery to churchianity when it sticks to legalism only, becomes a liberation both from the law and to the law, and a joyful flow instead of a drudge's obedience.