What is a true Christian?

[Shermana]

all things take place"

You may think all things have come to pass, I certainly don't.

Jesus is the end of the law.

The word is "Telos" which means more along the lines of "The final touches". It's like if I said "I finished my project" does that mean I terminated my project? If I said "I finished my life's work", does that mean I threw my life's work away?

Because Jesus himself said that every mosaic law is build around the principle of 'love'. Love is to govern a christians life and if it does, then the mosaic law will never be broken.

1 John 5:3 is quite clear, the love of G-d is obedience to his commandments. If you love G-d, you'll obey his Sabbath and honor Succoth. You kinda dodged my thing about where it says the Egyptians will honor Succoth. Was that part said in vain?

he is not speaking about 'rules' taking place here. He is talking about 'prophecy' taking place. So you may be misapplying this verse entirely if you think it refers only to Mosaic law and if you are using it as the basis of enforcing an adherence of mosaic law on christians.

No, you are the one misapplying the verse, he is in fact referring to rules, and the "all comes to pass" means all events until the end of time when heaven and earth pass away. Why do you think he says "Til heaven and earth pass away". When you say "only refers to Mosaic Law", are you saying it applies to more than just the Mosaic Law? As if Mosaic Law + something else?

As for "enforcing", all I'm doing is arguing against rampant and blatant misinterpretations of what Jesus said and intended. Do you even know what the "New Covenant" in Jeremiah is talking about? "The Law will be written on their hearts", in context to what's going on in Jeremiah how Israel has gone astray from the Law?

 

[Pegg]

You may think all things have come to pass, I certainly don't.

no i dont think all things have occured yet. But you seem to get the point that the 'all things must come to pass' is speaking about prophecies. So why is it not possible that Jesus had prophecy in mind when he said it?

The word is "Telos" which means more along the lines of "The final touches". It's like if I said "I finished my project" does that mean I terminated my project? If I said "I finished my life's work", does that mean I threw my life's work away?

if your project has been completed, you might start a new project, yes?

Or you might even put the old project to work for its intended purpose. But it surely doesnt mean that the project is only project you'll ever work on. And its the same with the messiah. The mosaic law was to lead the jews to the messiah...and then the messiah would lead the nations to God.

two different projects for two different purposes.

You kinda dodged my thing about where it says the Egyptians will honor Succoth. Was that part said in vain?

what is succoth in your view? and what relevance does it have?

No, you are the one misapplying the verse, he is in fact referring to rules, and the "all comes to pass" means all events until the end of time

he is referring to prophecies. Laws are not events. Only prophecies are 'events'

As for "enforcing", all I'm doing is arguing against rampant and blatant misinterpretations of what Jesus said and intended. Do you even know what the "New Covenant" in Jeremiah is talking about? "The Law will be written on their hearts", in context to what's going on in Jeremiah how Israel has gone astray from the Law?

thats right. The law of God was not in the heart of most of the Isrealite nation. they were disobeying God over and over again because the law was not in their heart.

So God was going to do away with the law all together.
Jeremiah 31:31 “Look! There are days coming,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; 32 not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, ‘which covenant of mine they themselves broke,

the new covenant would be different to the original mosaic law covenant. That means that the mosaic covenant would have to become obsolete and a new covenant installed.

What is that new covenant?

 

[Shermana]

Jesus specifically says "I have not come to abolish the Law". There you go, he did not come to "do away with the Mosaic Law" as you claim. He came to "fulfill it". And before you start going on about how "fulfill" means to "put to rest", you'd have to say the same for when Paul says "fulfill the Law of Christ", do you put to rest the Law of Christ by fulfilling it? Jesus specifically said that anyone who taught to not obey the Least of the commandments shall be called the least. That should end the debate right there, every time.

As for your "What is Succoth" question, it's a feast day where you live in tents. It specifically says the Egyptians will obey the holiday. It doesn't get much more plain.

 

[Pegg]

Jesus specifically says "I have not come to abolish the Law". There you go, he did not come to "do away with the Mosaic Law" as you claim. He came to "fulfill it".

Yep, i can agree with that. 'HE' came to fulfill it.

None of the Isrealites could EVER fulfill the mosaic law Nor was it ever intended for them to fulfill. Paul highlights this very point, the law didnt make Isreal righteous...it merely forced them acknowledge their sins
Romans 3:19 Now we know that all the things the Law says it addresses to those under the Law, so that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become liable to God for punishment. 20 Therefore by works of law no flesh will be declared righteous before him, for by law is the accurate knowledge of sin

The only person who could fulfill the laws purpose is a perfect and sinless man. Only Jesus could filfill the law perfectly .... no other person from Isreal ever could. Hence why the new covenant was needed.

And the Apostle Peter also held to this conviction that the mosaic law was not something to be shouldered
Acts 15: 10 Now, therefore, why are YOU making a test of God by imposing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our forefathers nor we were capable of bearing? 11 On the contrary, we trust to get saved through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus in the same way as those people also

This is Christian theology right here. Mosaic law is not for christians and the apostles made it very clear that they believed the mosaic law had served its purpose.

And before you start going on about how "fulfill" means to "put to rest", you'd have to say the same for when Paul says "fulfill the Law of Christ", do you put to rest the Law of Christ by fulfilling it? Jesus specifically said that anyone who taught to not obey the Least of the commandments shall be called the least. That should end the debate right there, every time.

they are two different contexts. Jesus specifically said he came to 'fulfill' the law and all the apostles believed it meant that the law was 'abolished' by Christ

Galatians 3:19 Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness

Romans 7:6 But now we have been discharged from the Law

Ephesians 2:15 By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees

Colossians 2:14 and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us


And when Paul said to fulfill the law of the Christ, it was to be a 'continuous action'...
Galatians 6:2 Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and thus fulfill the law of the Christ

As for your "What is Succoth" question, it's a feast day where you live in tents. It specifically says the Egyptians will obey the holiday. It doesn't get much more plain.

can you give me the scripture reference.

 

[Shermana]

None of the Isrealites could EVER fulfill the mosaic law

Oh really? What parts do you think they could not EVER fulfill?

Nor was it ever intended for them to fulfill.

Wow, you must have some very interesting interpretations about why the Israelites were constantly being punished in the OT.

The only person who could fulfill the laws purpose is a perfect and sinless man

Why did Jesus say "I have not come for the righteous"?

And the Apostle Peter also held to this conviction that the mosaic law was not something to be shouldered
Acts 15: 10 Now, therefore, why are YOU making a test of God by imposing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our forefathers nor we were capable of bearing? 11 On the contrary, we trust to get saved through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus in the same way as those people also

You have a right to believe Acts 15 is historical and authentic and ignore the scholarly arguments against if you want.

they are two different contexts. Jesus specifically said he came to 'fulfill' the law and all the apostles believed it meant that the law was 'abolished' by Christ

Right, so when Jesus said "I have not come to abolish the Law", his disciples thought "Oh that means he came to abolish it".

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness

I already went over this, the word "Telos" in this context does not mean "termination", it means "finishing touches".

And when Paul said to fulfill the law of the Christ, it was to be a 'continuous action'...
Galatians 6:2 Go oncarrying the burdens of one another, and thus fulfill the law of the Christ

Therefore, when Jesus said "I have come to fulfill the Law" the same application of the word applies, especially when he said "I have not come to abolish the Law", which you seem to think the Apostles took as "I came to abolish the Law" as if they had hearing problems.

Ephesians 2:15 By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees

You are welcome to believe that Ephesians is authentic in the face of the unanimous scholarly opinion that its a spurious work.

Colossians 2:14 and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us

Probably referring to the Pharisaic interpretations. And adds to my argument about Paul being a false apostle assuming Colossians is authentic, which I think it is...so far. Though there is heavy disagreement. You'll learn one day that there was a major schism between the Judaizers and anti-Judaizers, and that the Anti-Judaizers invented many verses, if not books to support their agenda.

This is Christian theology right here. Mosaic law is not for christians and the apostles made it very clear that they believed the mosaic law had served its purpose.

So did I ask you about what Jesus said to the Rich man or not? Jesus specifically said that people who teach to not obey the commandments will be called the least. Who do you think he was referring to? Or do you think what he said was voided?

Galatians 3:19 Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made

That does not mean what you think it means.

Also, let the reader note, you rely purely on Paul to get out of obeying the Law, which as I've made the case numerous times, is one of the reasons why the Ebionites and Nazarenes rejected him as a false apostle, and why many today are starting to reject him as well. It is purely through the Pauline epistles that the Antinomians support their doctrines. But you'll just accuse me of being selective about scripture as if the Roman Canon is somehow Inspired and not the product of redaction and Roman theology. You have yet to answer my question about how you determine which parts of the Law you think you actually have to obey or not.

Romans 3:19 Now we know that all the things the Law says it addresses to those under the Law, so that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become liable to God for punishment. 20 Therefore by works of law no flesh will be declared righteous before him, for by law is the accurate knowledge of sin

How does that jive with Romans 2:13 and 3:31?

So if you say that Christians are to not uphold the Law, you should snip out Romans 3:31, it conflicts with your Theology.

 

[Pegg]

Oh really? What parts do you think they could not EVER fulfill?
Wow, you must have some very interesting interpretations about why the Israelites were constantly being punished in the OT.

well they continually broke the commandment about worshiping other gods for a start. 'You shall have no other gods against my face" is one of the 10 commandments.

Why did Jesus say "I have not come for the righteous"?

a bit of context here please. He was speaking to the jewish priests who viewed themselves as righteous. He called them hypocrites because they were 'self' righteous.

Right, so when Jesus said "I have not come to abolish the Law", his disciples thought "Oh that means he came to abolish it".
I already went over this, the word "Telos" in this context does not mean "termination", it means "finishing touches".

the 'finishing touches' are what are added or changed when something something comes to its completion.

But if you think the 'finishing touches' mean that something was added (as one would do when they are making their finishing touches to a painting for example) to the law or changed....what did Jesus add or change to the mosaic law?

You are welcome to believe that Ephesians is authentic in the face of the unanimous scholarly opinion that its a spurious work.

thats what you said about Acts 15. So basically any scriptures that do not fit with your view are all fakes?

You'll learn one day that there was a major schism between the Judaizers and anti-Judaizers, and that the Anti-Judaizers invented many verses, if not books to support their agenda.

Can you give me an example of such books? Are they are part of the cannon? Or are they the very christians who the apostles warned us about to reject?

So did I ask you about what Jesus said to the Rich man or not? Jesus specifically said that people who teach to not obey the commandments will be called the least. Who do you think he was referring to? Or do you think what he said was voided?

Jesus said many things to many rich people...can you provide the scriptural reference please.

That does not mean what you think it means.
Also, let the reader note, you rely purely on Paul to get out of obeying the Law, which as I've made the case numerous times, is one of the reasons why the Ebionites and Nazarenes rejected him as a false apostle

It was the Apostle Peter who spoke at the council in Jerusalem as recorded by Luke in Acts 15...you also reject Peters words. So this is not really about Paul at all. Its about perspective. You dont agree with the perspective of the early christian church, so you toss out the parts you dont like no matter who said them or wrote them.

What about James when he speaks of the inflexibility of the law...are his words false too?
James 2:10 For whoever observes all the Law but makes a false step in one point, he has become an offender against them all.

And to call Paul a false apostle, then you'd have to say that James is also one because Paul wrote the same thing as James:
Galatians 3:10 For all those who depend upon works of law are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed is every one that does not continue in all the things written in the scroll of the Law in order to do them.”

But then, if James and Paul are false apostles, then Jeremiah is also a false prophhet because he also said the same thing:
Jeremiah 11:3 and you must say to them, ‘This is what Jehovah the God of Israel has said: “Cursed is the man that does not listen to the words of this covenant

and that just reminds me of where the original idea about being cursed comes from....
Deuteronomy 27:26 “‘Cursed is the one who will not put the words of this law in force by doing them.
Now you have even discredited the very law you are trying to defend. Its a dangerous path.
Thats what happens when you start discounting the writings of just one of the bible writers? You end up having to discredit them all. And the only one you are really discrediting is God himself because the bible is from him to us through chosen men.

You have yet to answer my question about how you determine which parts of the Law you think you actually have to obey or not.
How does that jive with Romans 2:13 and 3:31?

its very simple actually
Romans 13:10 Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; therefore love is the law’s fulfillment.

thats why Jesus said that all the commandments hinge on 'love'
because the mosaic law, in principle, is about how to treat your fellow man.
Matthew 22;37 ‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets

The kingly law of love is what Christians must observe:
James 2:8 If, now, YOU practice carrying out the kingly law according to the scripture: “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” YOU are doing quite well

 

[s2a]

Honestly? I sure wish Christians and other monotheistic adherents would design some definitive piety exam or test. I really do.

Since stonings, beheadings, mutilations, and stake burnings have become less popular in most civilized cultures of late....a clear an unequivocal written test of absolute piety and unquestionable believing faith sure would be an aid to all as to whom we should all fear and hate with true righteous justice.

*sigh*

 

[Shermana]

well they continually broke the commandment about worshiping other gods for a start. 'You shall have no other gods against my face" is one of the 10 commandments.

Yes, that's just one of them.

a bit of context here please. He was speaking to the jewish priests who viewed themselves as righteous. He called them hypocrites because they were 'self' righteous.

You're welcome to that opinion, but the part where he calls them hypocrites is a whole different story. The context is in the preceding verse:

Jesus answered them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.

the 'finishing touches' are what are added or changed when something something comes to its completion.

Nothing was changed, or you'd be denying what he said about not one iota of the Law being void.

But if you think the 'finishing touches' mean that something was added (as one would do when they are making their finishing touches to a painting for example) to the law or changed....what did Jesus add or change to the mosaic law?

Nothing really, he was clarifying. "Finishing touches" can be like a final coat of primer.

thats what you said about Acts 15. So basically any scriptures that do not fit with your view are all fakes?

Actually yes, and everything I claim about interpolations HAS SCHOLARLY BACKING. I am clear flat out saying that the antinomians, just like the Trinitarians, added many verses. Thus, if there's an antimonian verse, just like a Trinitarian verse, it's probably an interpolation. You act as if I do so without any evidence or scholarly backing. Every time.

Can you give me an example of such books?

Ephesians and Hebrews and 2 Peter.

Are they are part of the cannon? Or are they the very christians who the apostles warned us about to reject?

The anti-Judaizers are the ones who Jesus and Apostles warned to reject. As for part of the canon ,they are part of the Roman and Greek Orthodox Canon, which you apparently think were divinely selected or something. Do you think Clement was a false apostle? He believed that Apocalypse of Peter was canonical. Iraneus believed Enoch and Shepherd of Hermas should be Canonical, and SoH even appears in the Sinaiticus. Do you even know Canon history?

Jesus said many things to many rich people...can you provide the scriptural reference please.

Matthew 19:17

http://niv.scripturetext.com/matthew/19.htm

New International Version (©1984)
"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

I

t was the Apostle Peter who spoke at the council in Jerusalem as recorded by Luke in Acts 15...you also reject Peters words.

I reject Acts 15's authenticity, as do many scholars. You act as if one is not allowed to listen to scholarly arguments where it does not suit your argument, and accuse me of picking and choosing as if I have no scholarly backing.

So this is not really about Paul at all. Its about perspective. You dont agree with the perspective of the early christian church, so you toss out the parts you dont like no matter who said them or wrote them.

Do you even know the early church history? There was a schism between the Anti-Judaizers and the Judaizers. It's not just about "the early church", it's about two sides of the early church, and the Anti-Judaizers were the Johnny-come-latelies. Peter and James and Jude were the Judaizers. Any reputable scholar will tell you this.

What about James when he speaks of the inflexibility of the law...are his words false too?
James 2:10 For whoever observes all the Law but makes a false step in one point, he has become an offender against them all.

The word in question is "Panton" which means "The whole thing", not "All of them" as is commonly mistranslated. The concept is that if one breaks the Law, he is guilty of the Whole thing. The same applies to the US justice system, if you steal a candy bar, you're a criminal, you've broken the whole Law. Also, notice that he compares two DEATH PENALTY sins, adultery and murder.

And to call Paul a false apostle, then you'd have to say that James is also one because Paul wrote the same thing as James:

You're misinterpreting it.

Galatians 3:10 For all those who depend upon works of law are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed is every one that does not continue in all the things written in the scroll of the Law in order to do them.”

The concept of "under a curse" means that you are under it if you break it. Do you not believe there is penalty for breaking the commandments? Do you believe you can steal and murder and fornicate? If not, why not? (Note: Many often ignore this question when asked for some strange reason).

But then, if James and Paul are false apostles, then Jeremiah is also a false prophhet because he also said the same thing:

I never said that James was a false apostle. You just misinterpret him.

Jeremiah 11:3 and you must say to them, ‘This is what Jehovah the God of Israel has said: “Cursed is the man that does not listen to the words of this covenant

Are you even aware of the context of Jeremiah 11? Let me show you.

http://bible.cc/jeremiah/11-2.htm

2“Listen to the terms of this covenant and tell them to the people of Judah and to those who live in Jerusalem. 3Tell them that this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Cursed is the man who does not obey the terms of this covenant— 4the terms I commanded your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the iron-smelting furnace.’ I said, ‘Obey me and do everything I command you, and you will be my people, and I will be your God. 5Then I will fulfill the oath I swore to your forefathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey’—the land you possess today.”

It's like context means nothing to you, have you even read the book of Jeremiah? What part about the New Covenant saying "The Law will be upon their hearts" do you think means something other than the Mosaic Law?

and that just reminds me of where the original idea about being cursed comes from....
Deuteronomy 27:26 “‘Cursed is the one who will not put the words of this law in force by doing them.

That's the concept they're talking about! Those who do not obey the Law are the ones who invoke the curse of the Law. That's the very issue.

Now you have even discredited the very law you are trying to defend. Its a dangerous path.

Not whatsoever, you have discredited the concept of context, scholarly argument, and the "New covenant". I've seen these arguments by antinomians of all sorts. All I have to say is that you will in fact be called "among the least" at this rate.

Thats what happens when you start discounting the writings of just one of the bible writers?

This is what happens when you completely disregard the context of passages to cherry pick what you want it to say and avoid any and all scholarly argument, and misconstrue completely what a person says.

You end up having to discredit them all.

Not at all, I have not discredited James at all, or Jude. You just don't know how to understand what they're saying.

And the only one you are really discrediting is God himself because the bible is from him to us through chosen men.

Why don't you pray and ask G-d if I'm discrediting him or not. You may think that the Roman Canon was decided by "Chosen Man" if you wish.

its very simple actually
Romans 13:10 Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; therefore love is the law’s fulfillment.

And what does 1 John 5:3 say again? Love of G-d is obedience to his commandments. What do you think "love" is?

thats why Jesus said that all the commandments hinge on 'love'

The word is "hinge". Which means that if you love G-d you'll obey his commandments.

because the mosaic law, in principle, is about how to treat your fellow man.
Matthew 22;37 ‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets

Right, partly at least, it's about your relation with G-d as well, and your Theology is about avoiding the commandments of how to live up to as G-d commands as if they're some kind of curse that was never intended, which completely goes against everything the Prophets imply.

The kingly law of love is what Christians must observe:
James 2:8 If, now, YOU practice carrying out the kingly law according to the scripture: “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” YOU are doing quite well

[/quote]

And what does it mean to "love your neighbor"?

 

[garrydons]

Yes but many Christians would never accept me as being a Christian even though I believe and follow his teachings because I don't believe in the blood atonement or resurrection.

Shalom Cynthia, If a person dont believe in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ then he is not a true christian

 

[blackout]

A true christian is a christian
who feels the need to negate the validity
of all other christians who do not share
their own personal criteria
regarding what it means/takes to 'be a christian'.

 

[Shermana]

A true christian is a christian
who feels the need to negate the validity
of all other christians who do not share
their own personal criteria
regarding what it means/takes to 'be a christian'.

Indeed, a true Christian should feel compelled to combat what they perceive as heretical misconstruing of the intended concepts.

 

[s2a]

Shalom Cynthia, If a person dont believe in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ then he is not a true christian

Beyond any "confessional" offered by others that may or not meet your personal criterion in any piety test of what defines a :"True Christian"... then I submit and request that you design and offer some scale and measure that can be employed regularly and objectively repeated in that test to effectively determine beyond any/all equivocation as to whom "passes" or "fails" your proposed piety test.

That should be simple enough to draft and utilize universally, should it not?

Something viable and repeatedly verifiable to know for sure whom is condemned or saved? Whom is "false", and who is "true" Which sect of which Christian offshoot church is the "right" one, and ALL the others that are false or misled?

On what scale should these piety-meters be set to determine "true-Chistians"? 80% 90%. 98%? Chimpanzees are 98% "human"... but are still deemed "Apes" by we homo sapiens. But, what if an ape raised by human companions considers himself "human" too? What then?

How do you measure and (perhaps more importantly) accept by definition what being a "true Christian" is, or claims to be?

 

[Pegg]

And what does it mean to "love your neighbor"?

if you are following the mosaic law, you should know the answer to the question.

 

[Agnostic75]

If you are following the Mosaic law, you should know the answer to the question.

Under Mosaic law, people were supposed to be put to death for working on the Sabbath Day, for cursing at their parents, and for practicing the freedom of religion by worshiping other Gods. How was that an admirable system?

 

[Pegg]

btw shermana.... christians have the choice, they can either follow the 613 mosaic laws by learning them all, memorizing them and perhaps ticking them off each day to indicate that they have obeyed everyone of them on a daily basis.

or they can follow the 'kingly law' of love which is a fulfillment of the entire mosaic law.

However, this is the problem:
If you choose to obey the mosaic law, when you make a mistake you have to acknowledge it by offering God a sacrifice for sin. Now i dont know how you can do that without a levitical priesthood, but anyway, that what the moaic law requires.

or if you choose to apply the kingly law of Love, then when you make a mistake, you can ask forgiveness on the basis of Jesus name, and God will forgive you.

So its up to you...forgiveness comes one way or the other.

 

[Shermana]

btw shermana.... christians have the choice, they can either follow the 613 mosaic laws by learning them all, memorizing them and perhaps ticking them off each day to indicate that they have obeyed everyone of them on a daily basis.

They can choose to abide by Matthew 5:17-20 and 7:22-23 or take their chances as a "doer of Lawlessness".

or they can follow the 'kingly law' of love which is a fulfillment of the entire mosaic law.

Or they can determine that this is a misinterpretation of what it means to "love", and choose to ignore 1 John 5:3 which says that the Love of G-d is obedience to His commandments.

However, this is the problem:
If you choose to obey the mosaic law, when you make a mistake you have to acknowledge it by offering God a sacrifice for sin. Now i dont know how you can do that without a levitical priesthood, but anyway, that what the moaic law requires.

The same problem was with the Babylonian and Assyrian exiles. There lies the issue with Yashua being the Guilt offering of Isaiah 53:10. Go by your own book you consider canonical, hebrews 10:26.

or if you choose to apply the kingly law of Love, then when you make a mistake, you can ask forgiveness on the basis of Jesus name, and God will forgive you.

That be the point of Yashua being the Guilt offering, but what is "sin"? Lawlessness, 1 John 3:4. The mistake is when you run afoul of the Law.

So its up to you...forgiveness comes one way or the other.

Do you think all one needs to do if they fornicate, murder, rape, steal, defraud, etc is to ask for forgiveness and it's okay?

 

[Shermana]

if you are following the mosaic law, you should know the answer to the question.

Precisely. Obeying Mosaic Law is all about loving G-d and one's neighbor. That is why all teh commandments "hinge" on Love of G-d and neighbor.

 

[Pegg]

Under Mosaic law, people were supposed to be put to death for working on the Sabbath Day, for cursing at their parents, and for practicing the freedom of religion by worshiping other Gods. How was that an admirable system?

thats why the christian apostles were clear that the law was a burden difficult to carry
Acts 15:10 The apostle Peter said: "Now, therefore, why are YOU making a test of God by imposing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our forefathers nor we were capable of bearing?

The mosaic law was only for the Israelites, and it applied only to the Israelites. The jews were not allowed to met out the justice of the law on non believers...so if a pagan person was worshiping the idol, jews were not allowed to stone that person for example... the laws and requirements were only binding on Israelites/jews. Its purpose was to highlight sin...and it did its job very well.

 

[Pegg]

Precisely. Obeying Mosaic Law is all about loving G-d and one's neighbor. That is why all teh commandments "hinge" on Love of G-d and neighbor.

and the reverse should also be true

if you love God and your neighbor, you will not break any of the mosiac laws... so obedience will be natural even if you dont know what each of those 613 laws happen to be.

 

[Shermana]

and the reverse should also be true

if you love God and your neighbor, you will not break any of the mosiac laws... so obedience will be natural even if you dont know what each of those 613 laws happen to be.

That's what the concept of the New Covenant is in Jeremiah.