Don't we Christians learn everything the Jews were taught?
I was repeating your argument in my own words.
My own study today was on the law of leprosy.
It seems to be a "picture" of the fallen Israel itself...and, a way, a hope, of recovery.
We glean from our OT readings the "picture" or "presage" of Christ and a new covenant.
I wasn't inferring that the things from the OT must be adopted by anyone in the NT.
Option 3 is true.
Thank you for conceding the point.
The Jews were no longer under the Law after Jesus fulfilled the Law and prophets.
Wrong.
Jesus said:
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. - Matthew 5:17
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew5:17&version=NKJV
The law remained after Christ's fulfilling of the law. That's why Christ said, after teaching nothing but the law for three years, to
"go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, . . . teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you."
They had everything the Christians had, by the grace of God.
Nope. The Jews had the law, undergirded by grace. But they still had to follow the law.
Christians have grace. No requirement to follow a law.
Just because some didn't want to join with Peter and the rest of the disciples only means not all of the Jews wanted to come out from under the Law that we have been enabled to die to.
Peter taught the New Covenant and the Gospel of the Kingdom of Israel.
Your premise is wrong, thus your argument is wrong.
I agree that some didn't want to join with Peter and the rest of the disciples (excluding Paul, who wasn't in the picture yet). The problem is that you're conflating Paul's gospel with that of the Twelve. Here's a breakdown of what happened from Christ's ascension to Paul's conversion (which I consider the beginning of the Body of Christ, he being the first Christian), basically Acts 1 to Acts 9, and a little beyond:
Christ ascends and gives the Twelve (currently 11) the Great Commission.
The Twelve choose Matthias as Judas Iscariot's replacement.
The Twelve (now twelve with Matthias) are given the Holy Spirit to preach to those (as far as I can tell, only the Jews) around them.
The congregation of Jews living under the New Covenant, expecting Christ to return soon, begin sharing all things, living in communes, selling all that they had (what use do they have for earthly things when their Savior and Messiah will be returning soon?).
Ananias and Sapphira lie to God, being an image of the current condition of Israel (at the time).
Things only get worse from there, and not in a "we're obeying God, and suffering because of it" way, but in a "we're disobeying God and suffering because of it" way.
Stephen is accused of blasphemy.
Saul (Paul) persecutes the congregation of believing Jews, those who had recognized Christ as their Messiah and King and were part of the New Covenant.
Stephen is executed, overseen by Saul.
Saul, on his way to Damascus, is confronted by Jesus for persecuting the believing Jews, and places his faith in Christ, becoming the first Christian.
Paul, still blinded from his encounter with Christ, seeks out Ananias #2, who, through the laying of hands, transfers the authority of God to him. This is another image of the current state of Israel (at the time), where God has now officially cut unbelieving Israel off and grafted in the Body of Christ.
Later in Acts, we see Ananias #3, also an image of the current state of Israel (at the time), as someone who has fully rejected his Messiah (and Israel hers).
The Jews had the same chance we did to die to the Law.
Nope.
Some came with us, and others were left, or stayed, behind.
Nope. That's not what the Bible describes. Have you even read Acts, just to get an overview of it?
As the old testament is over, we will all be judged the same way.
Nope. We are not under the New Covenant God made with Israel, because we are not Israel.
True. What's your point?
The OT having ended, the Jews that continued to cling to it were, for lack of a better phrase, left behind.
Still conflating the New Covenant with Paul's Gospel of Grace.
The believing Jews (and the proselyte gentiles who) were under the New Covenant. They were still Jews/proselytes. Not Christians.
The Jews Paul converted were NOT part of the New Covenant, but were saved under his gospel of grace. They were now "no longer Jew nor Greek," but Christians.
Testament/covenant...same thing to me.
I recommend using "covenant" to make it less confusing.
Yes. Jesus spoke of this in a parable.
He also spoke this parable:
“A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it.And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’ ” - Luke 13:6-9
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke13:6-9&version=NKJV
Jesus came for three years, seeking for Israel to bear fruit.
After three years, it had bore none. He gave it an extra year, and since it STILL did not bear fruit, He cut off Israel, putting His plan for them on hold, and grafted in the Gentiles.
You mean we are not under the new covenant?
Correct. We are under Paul's gospel of the grace of God.
That's because of your paradigm. Try widening/changing your view a bit.
Well, there is a new topic for discussion.
It would mean we are not able to be saved.
Never said that, nor implied it.
The only reason you believe that to be the case is because of your paradigm of beliefs, which mashes together the New Covenant and Paul's gospel.
Separate the two, and that problem goes away.
I see no reason to believe that.
That's nice.
I see from whence you speak now.
"3" classes of men.
1. Jews, 2. Gentiles, 3. Converts.
I'll try to remember to call the Jewish converts "Jewish Converts" from now on.
Technically 4, if you include Christians. I won't even mention Gentile proselytes.
Jews, believing Jews, Gentiles, and Christians.
Jews, being Israel as a whole.
Believing Jews, those who accepted Christ as their Messiah under the New Covenant.
Gentiles.
And Christians, which are neither Jew nor Gentile, only exist under Paul's gospel of Grace for the whole world, and do not exist under the New Covenant made with Israel.
Not being able to track down the "them" you cite, I really can't respond.
But to use 1 Tim 1:16 to imply that Paul was the very first convert seems ludicrous.
Paul was the pattern for believers in the Body of Christ. He says so. God isn't disorganized that He needs to go thousands of believers before setting a standard for how someone should be saved.
Who laid his hands on Paul at Damascus?
Ananias #2.
Supra.
Who was Saul persecuting in Jerusalem? Unbelievers?
No. He was persecuting Jews who have accepted Christ as their Messiah, who are under the New Covenant.
Yeah, you do. Just not well enough. You're too focused on the trees that you miss the forest.
Now that I know you have a third kind of man in mind, I can follow your line of thought...better.
The body of Christ is comprised of ex-Jews and ex-Gentiles.
I guess it can be worded that way, but it's somewhat misleading.
Rather, under the current dispensation of grace, "Jew" is just an ethnic group, just another nationality in a world full of nations. In other words, they're a nation full of humans in need of a Savior. There's nothing inherently special about them (aside from their history and God's future plans for them). Thus, Galatians 3:28...
Think of the time we could have saved if you had stated the "third kind of man" point at the beginning.
It's been the point I've been making this entire time, Hoping!
I disagree with the second part of your reply.
That's nice.
That would imply the apostles and disciples who now had the gift of the Holy Ghost were still under the OC.
That isn't true.
Wrong.
It means they would still be under the New Covenant, which you seem to be leaving out, or merging with Paul's gospel, on of the two.
Old Covenant => made with Israel
New Covenant => made with Israel
Gospel of Grace => provided for the whole world.
Things that are different...
OK, we'll just call them Jewish-converts and/or Gentile-converts from now on
Or, you know, just call them Christians...
The OT was the picture of what was to come.
It came.
I don't get it. You're going to have to be more detailed than that.
Conversions changed which rules a man lived under.
Yup. But those who were saved under the New Covenant could not get saved under Paul's gospel, and vice versa. Or perhaps for the former, "did not," might be a better phrase to use, though the latter is certainly true.
Paul, a Jew, wasn't forced to be circumcised or eat no bacon after his conversion.
Consider this: Paul, a Jew, never entered the New Covenant God made with Israel. Instead, God gave him a different dispensation, a different set of house rules, to follow and preach.
You mean the body of Christ, . . . doesn't participate in the New Covenant?
Correct.
There are at least two churches in Scripture. Conflating the two will only cause confusion.
I can't wait to see your reasoning for that comment.
It's what I've been explaining this entire time!
And I gave you two examples, one generic and one specific, that shows you to be wrong.
They are not Christians if they are not in Christ.
Agreed. Yet that's not what we're talking about, is it?
There is no sin in Christ,
Agreed. Yet, again, Paul says:
Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. - Romans 7:13-25
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans7:13-25&version=NKJV
I want you to reread that again. Yes, again, after reading it just now.
Paul states explicitly that we who are in Christ, who are still inhabiting fleshly bodies, are still subject to the flesh. It's the flesh that causes us to sin, despite our identity being "in Him."
and "converts" are all in Christ.
Yes, Christians are "in Him."
Paul was writing his recollection of his pre-conversion life while tying to live the Law..and failing.
You're rationalizing. You're trying to make scripture fit your beliefs, and not the other way around.
Paul says "I
am carnal, sold under sin."
He's not speaking in the past tense. He's talking about his current life as a Christian.
Thus disproving your "Christians don't sin" claim.
Or are you going to claim that every pastor who cheats on his wife with another woman, gets caught, and destroys his marriage, are all non-believers?
Good, so without the flesh, or its vile affections and lusts, men can't commit sin.
And yet, men still live "in the flesh." Thus, while we are freed from sin, we still have to deal with the fleshy bodies we inhabit.
Our flesh is what causes us (yes, even Christians) to sin, when we give into it. Hence Paul's encouragement 1 Corinthians 9:24-27.
James wrote that lust is one of the key elements to what is called a sin in James 1:14-15
Without it, no sin.
Maybe you've heard of "lusts of the flesh"?
Last I checked, we still inhabit bodies of flesh.
You need to remember that Paul is writing in the present-narrative tense, wherein he is recalling a former time while still under the Law.
Or, he's writing about his past, while still including his current situation. No?
Rom 7:5..."For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."
He wasn't in the flesh anymore when he wrote Romans.
So he didn't have a body? (I kid)
So he didn't have to deal with his flesh anymore?
Because one chapter earlier, he said "I
Rom 7:23..."But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."
Answered in Rom 8:2..."For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
Rom 7:24..."O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"
Answered already in Rom 6:6..."Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."
Paul presented his OC laments, but also the NC answers to them.
Rom 6 is about the death of the flesh, old man.
Rom 7 is about Paul's recollections of desperation under the OC.
Rom 8 is about walking in the Spirit instead of in the flesh.
I deny your interpretation of these Scriptures.
Paul in Romans 7 is telling us that, as a Christian who struggles with sin, though that might be too strong a word to use, that our flesh is at war with Christ, while we are in Him. He's not talking about his time before his conversion. And the only way for one to arrive at that conclusion is to read it into the text, ie, eisegesis.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
As Jesus said, no man can serve two masters. (Matt 6:24)
Agreed. Never said nor indicated otherwise.
He also said whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. (John 8:34)
Yup.
We can't serve sin and Christ Jesus.
Agreed.
Why do you think Paul exhorts us in Romans 6 to "not let sin reign in our mortal bodies" if we cannot sin?
Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. - Romans 6:12-14
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans6:12-14&version=NKJV
supra - used in academic or legal texts to refer to someone or something mentioned above or earlier.
