Eph. 2:8-9 parallel with Titus 3:5 on good works

[Yeshua1]

You just contradicted yourself, you said it is not to keep the law in order to stay on God’s good side, but to please Him; however, that IS staying on God’s good side.

No, once have been saved by jesus, ALWAYS on His 'good side' in regards to relationship, how he loves and views me!

keeping His word, living as I should "pleases him", in the sense that he knows that its good for me!

 

[DHK]

So, stop saying I am separating something. I am explaining Old Testament and New Testament. It is never okay to sin like stealing and adultery, not before being saved or after.
It was a sin not to be circumcised in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament.

Ephesians 6:24 Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen. [SIZE=-1]Written from Rome unto the Ephesians by Tychicus.[/SIZE]

Paul wrote Ephesus in the 60's not long before his death, while he was imprisoned in Rome. This was more than 30 years after the death of Christ.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
--When he says salvation is not of works there is no reason that by this time he is referring to the works of the law. He was addressing Christians in the city of Ephesus, which is located in that land we now call Turkey. It was a Gentile land. There was no reason for him to be referring to the works of the law. Why would he be?

Salvation is not of works; any kind of works--not of good works. That is the meaning of works here. He is writing to Gentile Christians in Ephesus, Turkey, ca. 63.

The next verse verifies the interpretation given to the former two.
Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

The very purpose for which we are saved is to do good works. Those are the works that are being spoken of in verse 9. The passage is consistent. There is not one kind of work in verse 9 and another kind of works being spoken of in verse 10. That would be highly inconsistent. We are created unto good works. Salvation first (vs. 8,9), and then good works (vs. 10), for which the Christian has been created. We should be walking in or doing good works because we are saved. But we are not saved by our works. That fact is undeniable.

 

[Moriah]

Ephesians 6:24 Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen. [SIZE=-1]Written from Rome unto the Ephesians by Tychicus.[/SIZE]

Paul wrote Ephesus in the 60's not long before his death, while he was imprisoned in Rome. This was more than 30 years after the death of Christ.

The time when Paul wrote to the Ephesians does not change anything. There were still Jews then, and still Jews now.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
--When he says salvation is not of works there is no reason that by this time he is referring to the works of the law. He was addressing Christians in the city of Ephesus, which is located in that land we now call Turkey. It was a Gentile land. There was no reason for him to be referring to the works of the law. Why would he be?

Gentiles knew about the Jews and the works they did to be called children of God. They also knew they were not God’s children, that they were separated from God. I can give you scriptures of everything that I am saying, if it would help you understand those facts.
As for you thinking Ephesus was too far away to know about Jews and the law, then note that Paul from Tarsus is just as far away from Ephesus and Jerusalem.
You have proved nothing.

Salvation is not of works; any kind of works--not of good works. That is the meaning of works here. He is writing to Gentile Christians in Ephesus, Turkey, ca. 63.

The Jews who were the only people called God’s children; they were God’s children because of the works of the law, which included circumcision. The Jews had the works of the law, but through Jesus salvation is not longer by works of the law.

The next verse verifies the interpretation given to the former two.
Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

The very purpose for which we are saved is to do good works. Those are the works that are being spoken of in verse 9. The passage is consistent. There is not one kind of work in verse 9 and another kind of works being spoken of in verse 10. That would be highly inconsistent. We are created unto good works. Salvation first (vs. 8,9), and then good works (vs. 10), for which the Christian has been created. We should be walking in or doing good works because we are saved. But we are not saved by our works. That fact is undeniable.

I have already explained to you before which kind of works Paul was speaking about, I will explain it again.
Paul had just got through thanking the Ephesians for how they treated the saints. The Ephesians were probably very hospitable to the saints. After we are saved, those kind of good works of hospitableness are things we do because we are saved, and do not have to do with getting saved. It is never okay to do evil. The scriptures just do not teach that.

 

[Moriah]

My oh my! Didn't you even read YOUR OWN WORDS? Apparently not!

First, you said the law contains both circumcison and the ten commandments and they cannot be separated from "the Law" - Here are your own words:


Originally Posted by Moriah
I have explained this to you before, and I do not mind explaining it again.
The law is not separated into sections; the part of the law that tells of evil not to do is not separated from the ceremonial aspects of the law. It is a whole called the law. All of it together is the law. It is about obeying God. If God says to do it, to do it is right. The part of the law that says be circumcised, is something GOD said to do, to not do it would be breaking the law. To not be circumcised would be a sin like stealing, because it is disobeying God.

Thus the law cannot be separated or PARTED OUT but comes as a WHOLE inclusive of moral, ceremonial and civil applications.

However, you then tried to tell us that although PART of the law applies to the Gentile, like thou shalt not kill, but other PARTS did not apply to the Gentile like "circumcision." Hence, you made a SEPARATION in the law by applying SOME PARTS to Jews and OTHER PARTS to Gentiles. Either the Law cannot be PARTED out - SEPARATED or it can - Which is it? You cannot have both ways!

If the Jew is UNDER THE LAW thou shalt not kill and the Law of thou shalt not kill cannot be separated from the law of circucmison then to be UNDER ONE PART is to be UNDER ALL PARTS or else you have DIVIDED and SEPARATED the Law some parts for Jews and other parts for Gentiles.

Don't you understand that your application DIVIDES the law between Jews and Gentiles? If that is the case, then it can be divided and all people are under the MORAL law but all people are not under the civil or ceremonial laws.

There is an Old Testament, which means Old Covenant, and there is a New Testament, which means New Covenant.

There are two separate Covenants.

 

[DHK]

The time when Paul wrote to the Ephesians does not change anything. There were still Jews then, and still Jews now.

Paul was not writing to Jews then, nor is the epistle written to the Jews now.
Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
--The above phrases refer to believers whether Jew or Gentile. They have nothing to do with Jews in specific.

Gentiles knew about the Jews and the works they did to be called children of God. They also knew they were not God’s children, that they were separated from God. I can give you scriptures of everything that I am saying, if it would help you understand those facts.

Are you a child of God?
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.
Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
1 John 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

Are you saying that only Jews are the children of God? What about 1John 3:10; 5:2? Do you not love God and keep his commandments? Is that not evidence that you are a child of God? Or do you deny this and say it is only written to Jews?

As for you thinking Ephesus was too far away to know about Jews and the law, then note that Paul from Tarsus is just as far away from Ephesus and Jerusalem.
You have proved nothing.

No, Ephesus was a very pagan city. It had the great Temple of Diana with all of its temple prostitutes. Read Acts 19. Remember the demonized woman that kept on following Paul as well. It was filled with idolatry and paganism.
This typifies Ephesus:
Acts 19:26-27 Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands: So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.

The Jews who were the only people called God’s children; they were God’s children because of the works of the law, which included circumcision. The Jews had the works of the law, but through Jesus salvation is not longer by works of the law.

The Jews in Ephesus were not God's children. You do err not knowing the Scriptures. Here is a picture of the Jews of Ephesus:

Acts 19:13-16 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

However in general the Jews acted like this:
Acts 19:8-9 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.
--Only some believed. Most were hardened and believed not. They spoke evil of that way. So much so that Paul had to depart from the Jews.

I have already explained to you before which kind of works Paul was speaking about, I will explain it again.
Paul had just got through thanking the Ephesians for how they treated the saints. The Ephesians were probably very hospitable to the saints. After we are saved, those kind of good works of hospitableness are things we do because we are saved, and do not have to do with getting saved. It is never okay to do evil. The scriptures just do not teach that.

It is evident that for the most part the Jews were not God's children. They were the children of Satan as Jesus called them in John 8:44.
Those who trusted Christ were called the children of God.

In Eph.2:10 we are saved, not of works, any kind of works, especially good works. Your merit can never get you to heaven. Your love for God cannot get you to heaven. Not prayer, love for the Word of God, not baptism, church attendance, or any good work can get you to heaven. No good work can.
The only thing that can get you to heaven is Christ. For by grace are you saved through faith. That is it. Faith in Christ alone.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
--After one is saved then he is ABLE to love God and God will accept his good works. A Christian is created and ordained to do good works. But he has no ability to do good works before that time. God will not accept them. They are just like filthy rags to Him.

 

[Moriah]

Paul was not writing to Jews then, nor is the epistle written to the Jews now.

Never said Ephesians were Jews. You should be more careful when you debate; you have not corrected me when you act as if you did.

Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
--The above phrases refer to believers whether Jew or Gentile. They have nothing to do with Jews in specific.

I never said they were or were not Jew or Gentile. Again, be more careful how you debate, you have not corrected me when you act as if you did.

Are you a child of God?
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.
Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
1 John 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

Are you saying that only Jews are the children of God?

In the Old Testament, only the Jews were called children of God. I am not under the Old Covenant of the Old Testament. I am in the Covenant with God in the New Covenant.

What about 1John 3:10; 5:2? Do you not love God and keep his commandments? Is that not evidence that you are a child of God? Or do you deny this and say it is only written to Jews?

There is an Old Testament, which means Old Covenant, which the Gentiles were not part of, for God did not make a Covenant with the Gentiles.

There is a New Testament, which means New Covenant, which the Gentiles can be a part.

No, Ephesus was a very pagan city. It had the great Temple of Diana with all of its temple prostitutes. Read Acts 19. Remember the demonized woman that kept on following Paul as well. It was filled with idolatry and paganism.

You say no, but it is true what I said. Paul was from Tarsus. Tarsus is just as far away from Ephesus as Tarsus is from Jerusalem. The Gentiles knew the law the Jews had to follow, for Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on ever Sabbath, see Acts 15:21.

This typifies Ephesus:
Acts 19:26-27 Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands: So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.

You think that proves the pagans never heard of the Jews and anything they had to do. You have proven no such thing. Refer back to my above reply.

The Jews in Ephesus were not God's children. You do err not knowing the Scriptures. Here is a picture of the Jews of Ephesus:

You do not know the scriptures. There is an Old Testament and a New Testament. The New Testament is about God cutting off some Jews. The Jews WERE the only people who WERE God’s children. You missed that in the scriptures, and you missed that in my reply.

It is evident that for the most part the Jews were not God's children. They were the children of Satan as Jesus called them in John 8:44.
Those who trusted Christ were called the children of God.

There was a remnant of the Jews who were saved through Jesus, the rest were cut off. If they were CUT OFF that shows they were at one time ON.

In Eph.2:10 we are saved, not of works, any kind of works, especially good works. Your merit can never get you to heaven.

Ephesians 2:10 is about doing good works after being saved. It does not mean we do not have to be sorry for sins we did before we are saved, in fact, that is what we are supposed to do to be saved. Ephesians 2:10 also does not say that if one still was not saved immediately after believing in Jesus, that to obey Jesus is a sin.

Your love for God cannot get you to heaven. Not prayer, love for the Word of God, not baptism, church attendance, or any good work can get you to heaven. No good work can.
The only thing that can get you to heaven is Christ. For by grace are you saved through faith. That is it. Faith in Christ alone. Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
--After one is saved then he is ABLE to love God and God will accept his good works. A Christian is created and ordained to do good works. But he has no ability to do good works before that time. God will not accept them. They are just like filthy rags to Him.

God does not even know you unless you obey.
Jesus says if you want to remain in his love, then you must obey.

 

[The Biblicist]

There is an Old Testament, which means Old Covenant, and there is a New Testament, which means New Covenant.

There are two separate Covenants.

Stop your argument mode and look at what you said! You asserted that both Jew and Gentile were under one common UNDIVIDED Law and then turned around and denied that by claiming the Gentiles were not under ONE PART of that Law but the Jews were.

This is not a distinction between "new" and "old" testament because no flesh, whether Jew or Gentile was EVER justified under "the law" by the "works of the Law" at any time between Genesis to Revelation. The Law condemns "all the world" and shuts "every mouth" so that "NO FLESH" can be justified by the Law regardless if we are talking about the ten commandments or circumcision because "the Law" has but ONE STANDARD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS that it demands from all men EQUALLY - "be ye therefore perfect EVEN AS your Father in heaven is perfect" and that is precisely why "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE" what aspect of "the Law" you are speaking about, or whether you are under the Old or New Testament, "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE for ALL have sinned and COME SHORT" of that very demand. It does not matter if we are speaking about circumcision or "thou shalt not steal" as both EQUALLY demand the very same STANDARD - SINLESS PERFECTION.

Obedience to "the law" does not justify anyone nor does it sanctify anyone as it has not power whatsoever to do anything but CONDEMN and DEMONSTRATE you "come short of the glory of God."

You don't understand even the fundementals or the a,b,c's of salvation or you would not be teaching the absolute nonsense your are teaching. You are rejecting Jesus Christ and stomping the gospel under your self-righteous feet but completely ignorant of what you are doing and saying.

 

[Moriah]

Stop your argument mode and look at what you said!

I do not have an “argument mode.”
In addition, I know what I said, and I know how you twist and add things, either out of misunderstanding, or deliberately.

You asserted that both Jew and Gentile were under one common UNDIVIDED Law and then turned around and denied that by claiming the Gentiles were not under ONE PART of that Law but the Jews were.

Let me try to explain again. I really do not mind.
The Old Covenant had commandments; all together, it was called the law.
In the Old Covenant, God said due not commit adultery, due not steal, etc, and God said you must be circumcised, and other various commands for gift offerings and sin offerings. This Covenant was ONLY with the Jews, not the Gentiles.
In the New Covenant, Jesus said due not commit adultery, due not steal, etc, and did not due away with circumcision until AFTER he was nailed to the cross. This Covenant was not just for Jews, it was for anyone.
This New Covenant is called the perfect law. It is better than the Old Covenant.

This is not a distinction between "new" and "old" testament because no flesh,

It is a distinction.

whether Jew or Gentile was EVER justified under "the law" by the "works of the Law" at any time between Genesis to Revelation.

Why do you bring up Gentiles? Gentiles did not have a Covenant with God in the Old Testament. The Jews had the works of the law. The Jews who lived by faith in God, they ALSO HAD TO BE PHYSICALLY CIRCUMCISED, they also had to offer animals for sacrifices, so how do you say it is not a distinction? The Jews who did not live by faith, they ALSO HAD TO BE CIRCUMCISED.

The Law condemns "all the world" and shuts "every mouth" so that "NO FLESH" can be justified by the Law regardless if we are talking about the ten commandments or circumcision because "the Law" has but ONE STANDARD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS that it demands from all men EQUALLY - "be ye therefore perfect EVEN AS your Father in heaven is perfect" and that is precisely where "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE" what aspect of "the Law" you are speaking about, or whether you are under the Old or New Testament, "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE for ALL have sinned and COME SHORT" of that very demand.

There is a difference in the Old Testament and the New Testament. There is no difference in the New Testament. There was a difference in the Old Testament.

You don't understand even the fundementals or the a,b,c's of salvation or you would not be teaching the absolute nonsense your are teaching. You are rejecting Jesus Christ and stomping the gospel under your self-righteous feet but completely ignorant of what you are doing and saying.

Very accurate description of you.

 

[DHK]

Never said Ephesians were Jews. You should be more careful when you debate; you have not corrected me when you act as if you did.

Good. Then it doesn't matter if they were Jews or not, and that is the truth of the matter. Case closed.

I never said they were or were not Jew or Gentile. Again, be more careful how you debate, you have not corrected me when you act as if you did.

Again, debate is over. It does not matter if they were Jew or Gentile. I am glad to see that these facts do not matter to you, especially as we get down to Eph.2:8,9, for they do not.

In the Old Testament, only the Jews were called children of God. I am not under the Old Covenant of the Old Testament. I am in the Covenant with God in the New Covenant.

Though what you say has truth in it, it really doesn't matter. I am not a covenant theologian. Are you? I am a dispensationalist. The covenants are not that important to me, especially in this chapter.

There is an Old Testament, which means Old Covenant, which the Gentiles were not part of, for God did not make a Covenant with the Gentiles.

non sequitor.

There is a New Testament, which means New Covenant, which the Gentiles can be a part.

And so??

You say no, but it is true what I said. Paul was from Tarsus. Tarsus is just as far away from Ephesus as Tarsus is from Jerusalem. The Gentiles knew the law the Jews had to follow, for Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on ever Sabbath, see Acts 15:21.

This is not true.
Look at Paul's own testimony:
Romans 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:
--Paul was a pioneer missionary. He went where no one else had gone, where the gospel had never been preached before, where "Christ was not named."

You think that proves the pagans never heard of the Jews and anything they had to do. You have proven no such thing. Refer back to my above reply.

You said they weren't under the Old Covenant, correct? They had nothing to do with it, and the Jews had nothing to do with the Gentiles, ever!! They were like dirty dogs to the Jews. There was never any association between Jews and Gentiles. Go and read the story of the Good Samaritan again. Remember also the statement of the woman at the well: "The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans." Remember how God had to persuade Peter to go to the house of Cornelius. The Jews would not have anything to do with the Gentiles for they hated them. What would make you think that the Jews would be teaching the Gentiles???????????????????????

You do not know the scriptures. There is an Old Testament and a New Testament. The New Testament is about God cutting off some Jews. The Jews WERE the only people who WERE God’s children. You missed that in the scriptures, and you missed that in my reply.

I have given you plenty of Scripture that you have not replied to.
The children of God is a term that is applied to those that believe in Christ, not to the Jews. What happened here?

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
--Jesus came to his own nation--the Jews.
The Jews rejected him. They did not receive him. They are not his children.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
--But those that believe on his name those are the children of God; those that receive him as Savior. The Jew isn't even in the picture here.

There was a remnant of the Jews who were saved through Jesus, the rest were cut off. If they were CUT OFF that shows they were at one time ON.

Then they are not a remnant of Jews. One is not a Jew and a Christian at the same time. They are either a Jew or a believer in Christ, not both. In order to be a Christian they gave up their Jewish "religion" but not heritage, to become a Christian. That is what Paul did. He gave it all up. He no longer went back and worshiped in the Temple or in the synagogues. he gave that all up. He was now a Christian. He couldn't be both.

Ephesians 2:10 is about doing good works after being saved. It does not mean we do not have to be sorry for sins we did before we are saved, in fact, that is what we are supposed to do to be saved. Ephesians 2:10 also does not say that if one still was not saved immediately after believing in Jesus, that to obey Jesus is a sin.

Eph. 2:10 is about doing good works after salvation.
However before that: being sorry for your sins will not save you.

God does not even know you unless you obey.
Jesus says if you want to remain in his love, then you must obey.

Again what does the Bible say:

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

These ones will not enter into the kingdom of heaven, but rather into the lake of fire. They will have done many good works: Prophesied, cast out demons, many miraculous works, and all in the name of Jesus. But Jesus will cast them all into the Lake of Fire!! Why?

Because, he said, I never knew you!
It is not the works that count; it is whether Christ knows you or not.

 

[Moriah]

Good. Then it doesn't matter if they were Jews or not, and that is the truth of the matter. Case closed.

That does not make sense, and does not change anything about what I said.

Again, debate is over. It does not matter if they were Jew or Gentile. I am glad to see that these facts do not matter to you, especially as we get down to Eph.2:8,9, for they do not.

Your argument was that Paul could not be talking of the Old Testament because he was talking to Gentiles. You have not proven that. I have used scripture to show that Paul WOULD and COULD and DID explain to the Gentiles and Jews why Gentiles who did not have a Covenant with God could now in the New Testament.

Though what you say has truth in it, it really doesn't matter. I am not a covenant theologian. Are you? I am a dispensationalist. The covenants are not that important to me, especially in this chapter.

Are you saying you do not believe in a Covenant with God?

This is not true.
Look at Paul's own testimony:
Romans 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:
--Paul was a pioneer missionary. He went where no one else had gone, where the gospel had never been preached before, where "Christ was not named."

You said the people in Ephesus did not know about the works of the law the Jews had to do. You mentioned where Ephesus is and that it is a pagan city. I have proven that you are wrong. I showed you scripture that tells us Moses was preached in every city. I also explained that Ephesus was just as far from Tarsus as Tarsus was from Jerusalem.

What does Paul preaching where Christ had not been preached before have to do with it? The Old Testament is not the same as the New Testament. If they were the same, there would be no need for a new one.

You said they weren't under the Old Covenant, correct? They had nothing to do with it, and the Jews had nothing to do with the Gentiles, ever!! They were like dirty dogs to the Jews. There was never any association between Jews and Gentiles. Go and read the story of the Good Samaritan again. Remember also the statement of the woman at the well: "The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans."

Stop acting as if you are correcting me here. I have been telling you the Jews had nothing to do with the Gentiles.

Remember how God had to persuade Peter to go to the house of Cornelius. The Jews would not have anything to do with the Gentiles for they hated them. What would make you think that the Jews would be teaching the Gentiles???????????????????????

This is from the written Word of God in the New Testament:

For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. See Acts 15:21.

This is in reference to the GENTILES. This is about how the Gentiles knew something about the Old Testament, the Old Testament that is STILL USEFUL for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, even though it is the Old Covenant, see 2 Timothy 3:16, even though it is the OLD Covenant.

I have given you plenty of Scripture that you have not replied to.
The children of God is a term that is applied to those that believe in Christ, not to the Jews. What happened here?

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
--Jesus came to his own nation--the Jews.
The Jews rejected him. They did not receive him. They are not his children.

The scripture said Jesus came unto his own---the children of God---but they would not receive him; however of course some Jews did, there was a remnant, and you know the apostles were Jews.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
--But those that believe on his name those are the children of God; those that receive him as Savior. The Jew isn't even in the picture here.

That is for the NEW COVENANT. Again, a remnant of Jews were saved.

Then they are not a remnant of Jews. One is not a Jew and a Christian at the same time.

A remnant of Jews WAS saved by faith in Jesus. Whom do you think Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, Thaddeus, Judas brother of James, and Peter was? They were Jews, and not the only Jews saved by faith.

They are either a Jew or a believer in Christ, not both. In order to be a Christian they gave up their Jewish "religion" but not heritage, to become a Christian.

A Jew does not have to give up their heritage to become a Christian. A Jew can still be circumcised if he wants, they can still observe special days, etc, but they cannot DEPEND on THOSE TYPE OF THINGS AS THEY ONCE DID.

That is what Paul did. He gave it all up. He no longer went back and worshiped in the Temple or in the synagogues. he gave that all up. He was now a Christian. He couldn't be both.

Paul said he was a Jew to win over Jews. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law, 1 Corinthians 9:20.

Paul even had to prove to Jews that he followed the customs of the Jews, see Acts 21:21-25.

Eph. 2:10 is about doing good works after salvation.
However before that: being sorry for your sins will not save you.

God who knows the heart gives the Holy Spirit to those He accepts. If you are not sorry for your sins, then why in the world would you come to Christ, and why would God give you His Spirit?

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

These ones will not enter into the kingdom of heaven, but rather into the lake of fire. They will have done many good works: Prophesied, cast out demons, many miraculous works, and all in the name of Jesus. But Jesus will cast them all into the Lake of Fire!! Why?

Because, he said, I never knew you!
It is not the works that count; it is whether Christ knows you or not.

God knows those who love Him. We love God when we obey God. God does not even know you if you do not obey. Therefore, how did God save you if He did not know you yet?

 

[The Biblicist]

Let me try to explain again. I really do not mind.
The Old Covenant had commandments; all together, it was called the law.
In the Old Covenant, God said due not commit adultery, due not steal, etc, and God said you must be circumcised, and other various commands for gift offerings and sin offerings. This Covenant was ONLY with the Jews, not the Gentiles.
In the New Covenant, Jesus said due not commit adultery, due not steal, etc, and did not due away with circumcision until AFTER he was nailed to the cross. This Covenant was not just for Jews, it was for anyone.
This New Covenant is called the perfect law. It is better than the Old Covenant.

Please read this entire post and think about it BEFORE you attempt to respond.

Let me point something out something for you to think about.

The ten commandments were included in the Old Covenant for the Jew - correct?

The same ten commandments were included in the New Covenant for both Jew and Gentile - correct?

Now read what I am going to say next carefully because here is precisely what you do not understand.

Although the same moral law is found in BOTH covenants it does not justify anyone under EITHER covenant. It could not justify anyone under the old covenant and it cannot justify anyone under the New Covenant.

Under the Old Covenant it could not give life nor can it under the New Covenant.

There was NONE, NO, NOT ONE that could be justified by keeping the law under the Old Covenant and there is NONE, NO, NOT ONE that can be justified by keeping the law under the New Covenant.

Why? Because God never gave the law , regardless of what covenant it is found in, to justify ANYONE at ANYTIME!

So keeping the law under the Old Covenant was IMPOSSIBLE because NONE, NO, NOT ONE, ever did keep it.

So keeping the law under the New Coveant is IMPOSSIBLE because NONE, NO, NOT ONE, ever can.

Why? Because the Law was never given by God under ANY COVENANT to obtain eternal life or to be justifed.

The law was given to DEFINE SIN and direct sinners to come to Jesus Christ as "THE END OF THE LAW" for justification!

The law still DEFINES righteousness and what it means to COME SHORT of that righeousness or sin but NO HUMAN BEING except for Jesus Christ has ever kept the Law according to what God defines as KEEPING IT - "be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect"!

You didn't measure up to when you were lost and you don't measure up to it when you are saved. Thank God Jesus did measure up to it and it is HIS OBEDIENCE that justifies you and you receive HIS OBEDIENCE is IMPUTED to you by faith and faith alone.

The Old Covenant was an EXTERNAL administration of the Law within Israel. The New Covenant is an INTERNAL administration of every moral principle found in the ten commandments, ceremonial and civil law. The new covenant writes it upon the heart of every child of God giving them a delight and desire to strive after perfection even though they can never acheive it ONLY OUT OF LOVE for God and NEVER to be justified before God by observing commandments.

The New Covenant writes this Law upon the heart of the Christian giving an internal desire to strive after it, and the regenerate heart delights in the law and we strive to keep his commandments because we love him but we NEVER keep those commandments


The Old Covenant with the Jews did not provide justification for keeping it any more t

 

[Moriah]

Please read this entire post and think about it BEFORE you attempt to respond.

Let me point something out something for you to think about.

The ten commandments were included in the Old Covenant for the Jew - correct?

The same ten commandments were included in the New Covenant for both Jew and Gentile - correct?

Now read what I am going to say next carefully because here is precisely what you do not understand.

Although the same moral law is found in BOTH covenants it does not justify anyone under EITHER covenant. It could not justify anyone under the old covenant and it cannot justify anyone under the New Covenant.

Under the Old Covenant it could not give life nor can it under the New Covenant.

There was NONE, NO, NOT ONE that could be justified by keeping the law under the Old Covenant and there is NONE, NO, NOT ONE that can be justified by keeping the law under the New Covenant.

Why? Because God never gave the law , regardless of what covenant it is found in, to justify ANYONE at ANYTIME!

So keeping the law under the Old Covenant was IMPOSSIBLE because NONE, NO, NOT ONE, ever did keep it.

So keeping the law under the New Coveant is IMPOSSIBLE because NONE, NO, NOT ONE, ever can.

Why? Because the Law was never given by God under ANY COVENANT to obtain eternal life or to be justifed.

The law was given to DEFINE SIN and direct sinners to come to Jesus Christ as "THE END OF THE LAW" for justification!

The law still DEFINES righteousness and what it means to COME SHORT of that righeousness or sin but NO HUMAN BEING except for Jesus Christ has ever kept the Law according to what God defines as KEEPING IT - "be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect"!

You didn't measure up to when you were lost and you don't measure up to it when you are saved. Thank God Jesus did measure up to it and it is HIS OBEDIENCE that justifies you and you receive HIS OBEDIENCE is IMPUTED to you by faith and faith alone.

The Old Covenant was an EXTERNAL administration of the Law within Israel. The New Covenant is an INTERNAL administration of every moral principle found in the ten commandments, ceremonial and civil law. The new covenant writes it upon the heart of every child of God giving them a delight and desire to strive after perfection even though they can never acheive it ONLY OUT OF LOVE for God and NEVER to be justified before God by observing commandments.

The New Covenant writes this Law upon the heart of the Christian giving an internal desire to strive after it, and the regenerate heart delights in the law and we strive to keep his commandments because we love him but we NEVER keep those commandments


The Old Covenant with the Jews did not provide justification for keeping it any more t

Now, what do you think you have explained to me? Where do you think you have corrected me?

The faith which is in Jesus Christ had not come until Jesus had come to the earth.

As I said before, the Old Covenant was a law God had with the Jews, and in this, they were called the children of God. The Gentiles were not in this Covenant.

In the New Testament, it is a Covenant for all through faith, it is for Jews, Gentiles, Greeks, anyone. I remember you used to argue against me about that. I am glad to see you are no longer saying that.

 

[The Biblicist]

The faith which is in Jesus Christ had not come until Jesus had come to the earth.

Peter does not agree with you:

"To him GIVE ALL THE PROPHETS WITNESS that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH UPON HIS NAME shall receive remission of sins" - Acts 10:43

The writer of Hebrews does not agree with you:

"For unto us was the gospel preached AS WELL AS UNTO THEM...." - Heb. 4:2


Paul does not agree with you:

"EVEN AS Abraham believed" - Gal. 3:6-8; Rom. 4:12-13.

As I said before, the Old Covenant was a law

No, you never said it was "a" law you said it was "THE law"! Go back and read your own posts.

God had with the Jews, and in this, they were called the children of God.

False! Both Jesus, Peter and Paul explicitly speaking to THE JEWS said that no Jew under the Old Covenant was EVER JUSTIFIED by keeping it:

Ac 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses
.

Joh 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

Rom. 3:19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Therefore, NO JEW or GENTILE could be justified under the Old Covenant Law. If they cannot be justified under it then they cannot be TRUE children of God or go to heaven or have their sins remitted.

In the New Testament, it is a Covenant for all through faith, it is for Jews, Gentiles, Greeks, anyone.

The New Covenant is the "EVERLASTING covenant" - Heb. 13:20 and the ONLY WAY to be saved by anyone at anytime between Genesis to Revelation because as previously proved NO FLESH was ever saved, justified under the OLD COVENANT because the Old Covenant was NEVER GIVEN TO SAVE ANYONE (Gal. 3:21).

Proof? Abraham is given as the example of ALL TRUE BELIEVERS who were justified "BY FAITH" in Christ (Gal. 3:6-8; Rom. 4:1-25).

Moriah, when did Abraham live? Before the cross? Before the Law of Moses? Before their was a Jew! Abraham was a GENTILE.

Deal with the evidence because it proves you are wrong!

 

[DHK]

That does not make sense, and does not change anything about what I said.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
That is Biblical truth. It does not matter whether the person calling is Jew or Gentile.

Your argument was that Paul could not be talking of the Old Testament because he was talking to Gentiles.

No, Paul was saved, a believer in Christ. He preached Christ, and Christ crucified to those to whom he went to, whether Jew or Gentile.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

You have not proven that. I have used scripture to show that Paul WOULD and COULD and DID explain to the Gentiles and Jews why Gentiles who did not have a Covenant with God could now in the New Testament.

Paul did not preach covenants. He preached the gospel. He preached Christ, and Christ crucified to whomever would hear it.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Are you saying you do not believe in a Covenant with God?

No need to confuse matters. Believing in Christ is what saves a person, not a covenant.

You said the people in Ephesus did not know about the works of the law the Jews had to do. You mentioned where Ephesus is and that it is a pagan city. I have proven that you are wrong. I showed you scripture that tells us Moses was preached in every city. I also explained that Ephesus was just as far from Tarsus as Tarsus was from Jerusalem.

You have not proven me wrong. Paul went where Christ was never preached. And you have misinterpreted Scripture, for Moses was not preached in every city as you think that Scripture teaches.

This is a conclusion at the Council at Jerusalem as stated by James:
Acts 15:19-21 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

What the last verse means is the law of Moses prohibiting these things was read in all the synagogues that Paul and Barnabas were going to. It is an odd construction, but that is the meaning. Look at the context. They are instructions being given for the Gentiles to obey. These instructions would be read where believing Gentiles would gather. Paul was an apostle to Gentiles. Barnabas often traveled with them, and they were to take this message to the believing Gentiles everywhere they went. You are misinterpreting the Scriptures here.

Moses was not preached in every city!!
That is an absurd conclusion to come to. How was that accomplished when the Jews never had that purpose in mind. They hated the Gentiles.

What does Paul preaching where Christ had not been preached before have to do with it? The Old Testament is not the same as the New Testament. If they were the same, there would be no need for a new one.

Paul didn't preach the OT. Like Philip, he began from the Scriptures and preached Jesus. I gave you Scripture. He preached Christ, and Christ crucified. He went to places where Christ had not been preached, where there was no gospel. The gospel is in the OT as well. That is how the Ethiopian Eunuch got saved.

Stop acting as if you are correcting me here. I have been telling you the Jews had nothing to do with the Gentiles.

Saved Jews and saved Gentiles had everything in common. That is what the church was made up of.

This is from the written Word of God in the New Testament:

For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. See Acts 15:21.

This is in reference to the GENTILES. This is about how the Gentiles knew something about the Old Testament, the Old Testament that is STILL USEFUL for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, even though it is the Old Covenant, see 2 Timothy 3:16, even though it is the OLD Covenant.

You don't have a clue what that verse means do you?
Those were instructions from James given to the church at Jerusalem and to the Apostles that the decision according to the law of Moses, should be preached in every synagogue where ever they were to go.
Think! Synagogues only came into existence in the inter-testamental period, after the OT canon was completed. Moses was not preached in synagogues in every generation (when synagogues didn't even exist), did they? In the OT there was first the tabernacle, then the Temple, and then the reconstruction of the Temple. There never was a synagogue. Thus your interpretation doesn't make sense.

The verse is about believing Gentiles. In general Jews had an intense hatred for the Gentiles. If you remember every time Paul mentioned the Gentiles in a sermon it caused an uproar to the extent that he was thrown in jail, stoned, beaten, etc. It offended the Jews.

The scripture said Jesus came unto his own---the children of God---but they would not receive him; however of course some Jews did, there was a remnant, and you know the apostles were Jews.

The apostles were believers in Christ. They had given up their Jewish religion. They were no longer Jews. They were persecuted by the Jews, as they were persecuted by Saul before he was saved. The Jews were called the children of Satan by Jesus, not the children of God. The Jews are not called the children of God in the NT, at least not after the cross.

That is for the NEW COVENANT. Again, a remnant of Jews were saved.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. That is for ALL today, even the Jew. Then the Jew is a Christian not a Jew, nor is he part of a remnant.

A remnant of Jews WAS saved by faith in Jesus. Whom do you think Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddeus, Judas brother of James, and Peter was? They were Jews, and not the only Jews saved by faith.

No, they were believers in Christ, not Jews. They died as Christians, not Jews. No Jew, for example, would consider Mary as a Jew. She is a Christian who bore the Messiah into this world.

A Jew does not have to give up their heritage to become a Christian. A Jew can still be circumcised if he wants, they can still observe special days, etc, but they cannot DEPEND on THOSE TYPE OF THINGS AS THEY ONCE DID.

No, a Jew must give up his religion just as a Muslim must give up his.
You are saying that a Muslim can be a Christian and a Muslim at the same time??
Neither can one be a Jew and a Christian at the same time. Impossible!

Paul said he was a Jew to win over Jews. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law, 1 Corinthians 9:20.

And to the Muslim he would convert to Islam, right?
Hinduism is older than Christianity. Do you think Paul became a Hindu when encountering Hindus?
Why didn't he become a pagan preaching on Mars Hill in order to identify with them.
Your interpretation is all wrong. He wasn't speaking of religion; he was speaking of culture.

Paul even had to prove to Jews that he followed the customs of the Jews, see Acts 21:21-25.

He didn't have to take that vow. It was his choice. Others advised him not to. Many believe that it was a bad choice in the end.

God who knows the heart gives the Holy Spirit to those He accepts.

You are speaking like a hyper-Calvinist now. Are they also pre-determined and fore-ordained before the foundation of the earth, given faith to believe without any choice of their own to make any decision of their own, so totally depraved that only God can enlighten their hearts by the faith that he grants to them. It is these few chosen ones, the elect that you are speaking of that God gives the Holy Spirit to that God accepts, and he sends the rest to hell. You really are a hyper-Calvinist. I would never have pegged you that way.

If you are not sorry for your sins, then why in the world would you come to Christ, and why would God give you His Spirit?

Being sorry for one's sins doesn't save them.
If you believe only the elect come to Jesus why would they have to repent?

God knows those who love Him. We love God when we obey God. God does not even know you if you do not obey. Therefore, how did God save you if He did not know you yet?

You mean to say God knows them that love him and them that hate him.
He accepts the one and dooms the other.
The one is elect; the other is non-elect.
The one is destined to heaven; the other is destined to hell.
Neither party has any choice in the matter.
This is what you have explained to me.

Which group are you in, and how would you know?

 

[Moriah]

Peter does not agree with you:

"To him GIVE ALL THE PROPHETS WITNESS that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH UPON HIS NAME shall receive remission of sins" - Acts 10:43

The faith which is in Jesus Christ had not come until Jesus had come to the earth. Acts is in the New Testament. The Old Testament looked for the promise, the promise that had NOT yet come. The promise did not come until Jesus came to the earth.

The writer of Hebrews does not agree with you:

"For unto us was the gospel preached AS WELL AS UNTO THEM...." - Heb. 4:2

Hebrews 4:2 is speaking of the gospel of BELIEVING AND OBEYING God. That is Christ. However, FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST WAS NOT PREACHED UNTIL JESUS” MINISTRY ON EARTH. Read Galatians 3:23, BEFORE THIS FAITH CAME…

Paul does not agree with you:

EVEN AS Abraham believed" - Gal. 3:6-8; Rom. 4:12-13.

You are the one who does not agree.
Again, the faith spoken of is on BELIEVING AND OBEYING. However, faith in Jesus Christ was a faith that had not come until Jesus’ ministry on earth.
Read what Galatians 3 says about faith in Jesus Christ. 23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up UNTIL FAITH SHOULD BE REVEALED.

Faith was not yet revealed.

24 So the law was put in charge to lead us till Christ came that we might be justified by faith.

You see, they were not yet justified by faith in Jesus Christ. Faith in Jesus Christ had not yet come.

25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

No, you never said it was "a" law you said it was "THE law"! Go back and read your own posts.

Circumcision was a law, and it was the law. You have not corrected me.

False! Both Jesus, Peter and Paul explicitly speaking to THE JEWS said that no Jew under the Old Covenant was EVER JUSTIFIED by keeping it:

You just said false to my saying the Jews were called the children of God. The Jews were the children of God.

The New Covenant is the "EVERLASTING covenant" - Heb. 13:20 and the ONLY WAY to be saved by anyone at anytime between Genesis to Revelation because as previously proved NO FLESH was ever saved, justified under the OLD COVENANT because the Old Covenant was NEVER GIVEN TO SAVE ANYONE (Gal. 3:21).

The Jews were God’s children by faith in God AND obeying God’s commands, even the command to circumcise and give sin offerings. Jews who believed in God also obeyed and were circumcised. The Gentiles were not under the God’s covenant.

Proof? Abraham is given as the example of ALL TRUE BELIEVERS who were justified "BY FAITH" in Christ (Gal. 3:6-8; Rom. 4:1-25).

Again, Abraham STILL HAD TO BE CIRCUMCISED. MOSES STILL HAD TO BE CIRCUMCISED. Remember that God was going to kill Moses for not circumcising his son?

Moriah, when did Abraham live? Before the cross? Before the Law of Moses? Before their was a Jew! Abraham was a GENTILE.

Please stop with the Abraham was a Gentile argument. Abraham is the blood relative to Noah, and to Jacob. Stop with the useless argument.

As for Abraham, he believed in God and obeyed, he even still had to be circumcised. Do we have to be circumcised in the flesh now? No.

Deal with the evidence because it proves you are wrong!

I am so glad you did not resort to the awful name-calling. You did a little, but nothing like before. It was a lot more enjoyable to explain things.

 

[Moriah]

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
That is Biblical truth. It does not matter whether the person calling is Jew or Gentile.

That is in the New Testament.

No, Paul was saved, a believer in Christ. He preached Christ, and Christ crucified to those to whom he went to, whether Jew or Gentile.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

You are just quoting scripture here and pretending you are correcting me.
You said Paul would not tell the Gentiles about the law the Jews had to do because they were not Jews and probably did not even now about Jews. I showed you from scripture that pagans even knew about Jews, and I even gave scripture saying that. Even if the Gentiles and pagans did not know about the Jews and the law, Paul would still explain how they were separate from the Covenant.

Paul did not preach covenants. He preached the gospel. He preached Christ, and Christ crucified to whomever would hear it.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Did you not just say, “Paul did not preach covenants”? Then you quote a scripture that says Christ is a stumbling block to the Jews.

No need to confuse matters. Believing in Christ is what saves a person, not a covenant.

Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Moses was not preached in every city!!
That is an absurd conclusion to come to. How was that accomplished when the Jews never had that purpose in mind. They hated the Gentiles.

What is absurd is you thinking the Gentiles had no idea about the Jews and the law.

I quoted scripture about Moses being preached in every city.

Paul didn't preach the OT. Like Philip, he began from the Scriptures and preached Jesus. I gave you Scripture. He preached Christ, and Christ crucified. He went to places where Christ had not been preached, where there was no gospel. The gospel is in the OT as well. That is how the Ethiopian Eunuch got saved.

The Ethiopian was READING the book of Isaiah, and ASKED Philip who Isaiah was speaking about, and Philip explained to him the good news about Jesus.

Faith in Jesus Christ was not REVEALED until Jesus came.

Saved Jews and saved Gentiles had everything in common. That is what the church was made up of.

That was in the New Testament, not the Old Testament.

You don't have a clue what that verse means do you?
Those were instructions from James given to the church at Jerusalem and to the Apostles that the decision according to the law of Moses, should be preached in every synagogue where ever they were to go.
Think! Synagogues only came into existence in the inter-testamental period, after the OT canon was completed.

Moses was not preached in synagogues in every generation (when synagogues didn't even exist), did they? In the OT there was first the tabernacle, then the Temple, and then the reconstruction of the Temple. There never was a synagogue. Thus your interpretation doesn't make sense.

The Lord said that they were things that had been known for ages, see Acts 15:17-18. You have no argument.

The apostles were believers in Christ. They had given up their Jewish religion.

A Jew can still practice the Jewish customs. I gave you scripture telling you this.

They were no longer Jews. They were persecuted by the Jews, as they were persecuted by Saul before he was saved. The Jews were called the children of Satan by Jesus, not the children of God. The Jews are not called the children of God in the NT, at least not after the cross.

The Jews who did not believe in Jesus were cut off.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. That is for ALL today, even the Jew. Then the Jew is a Christian not a Jew, nor is he part of a remnant.

The Word of God says there is a remnant of Jews that would be saved.

Romans 11:5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.

No, they were believers in Christ, not Jews. They died as Christians, not Jews. No Jew, for example, would consider Mary as a Jew. She is a Christian who bore the Messiah into this world.

You deny the Jews. Paul calls himself an Israelite even after he is saved.

Romans 11:1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.

No, a Jew must give up his religion just as a Muslim must give up his.
You are saying that a Muslim can be a Christian and a Muslim at the same time??
Neither can one be a Jew and a Christian at the same time. Impossible!

Why would you bring up Muslims? That is no argument for you.

A Jew does not have to give up their customs.

And to the Muslim he would convert to Islam, right?

Why are you adding to what Paul said? Paul said, “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law,” 1 Corinthians 9:20.

Again, why would you say Paul said he became like a Muslim and converted to Islam?

Hinduism is older than Christianity. Do you think Paul became a Hindu when encountering Hindus?
Why didn't he become a pagan preaching on Mars Hill in order to identify with them.
Your interpretation is all wrong. He wasn't speaking of religion; he was speaking of culture.

You have no grounds for an argument. What you speak here has nothing to do with the truth.

He didn't have to take that vow. It was his choice. Others advised him not to. Many believe that it was a bad choice in the end.

What does that have to do with what the scripture said about Paul?

Paul says circumcision and uncircumcision means nothing. A person can follow the Jewish customs.

Paul even says that if the Jews do not persist in unbelief they can be grafted back in, and EASIER.

Romans 11:24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

You are speaking like a hyper-Calvinist now. Are they also pre-determined and fore-ordained before the foundation of the earth, given faith to believe without any choice of their own to make any decision of their own, so totally depraved that only God can enlighten their hearts by the faith that he grants to them. It is these few chosen ones, the elect that you are speaking of that God gives the Holy Spirit to that God accepts, and he sends the rest to hell. You really are a hyper-Calvinist. I would never have pegged you that way.

No way am I speaking like a hyper Calvinist. You say such things to draw suspicion on me. Do not say things you hear me go against all the time. That is not a good debate tactic.

Being sorry for one's sins doesn't save them.
If you believe only the elect come to Jesus why would they have to repent?

Stop with trying to pretend I sound like a Calvinist. Do not go that route with this debate when you were doing so much better than your usual name-calling etc. Why do you not answer my questions? I will ask it again: If you are not sorry for your sins, then why in the world would you come to Christ, and why would God give you His Spirit?

You mean to say God knows them that love him and them that hate him.
He accepts the one and dooms the other.
The one is elect; the other is non-elect.
The one is destined to heaven; the other is destined to hell.
Neither party has any choice in the matter.

We do have a choice in the matter.

This is what you have explained to me.

No, I have not explained that to you. If you do not understand what I said I will gladly explain more.

Which group are you in, and how would you know?

I know how I know for me personally, but not everyone has had the kind of experience that I have had. The scriptures tell us to examine ourselves. I would tell them to ask themselves if they still doubt God and Jesus exist. I would tell them to examine themselves to see if they have given up any sins. I would ask if they feel different towards sin in their mind and heart. Other things I would tell them to ask themselves.

 

[The Biblicist]

Q

The faith which is in Jesus Christ had not come until Jesus had come to the earth. Acts is in the New Testament. The Old Testament looked for the promise, the promise that had NOT yet come. The promise did not come until Jesus came to the earth.

I gave you scripture - Acts 10:43! WHO ASKED FOR YOUR WORTHLESS PERSONAL OPINION? Acts 10:43 directly contradicts your WORTHLESS PERSONAL OPINION.

1. Who is "he" according to the biblical context of Acts 10:43 not ACCORDING TO YOUR WORTHLESS PERSONAL OPINION.

2. Who are the prophets giving witness to in Acts 10:43 not your WORTHLESS PERSONAL OPINION!

3. Whose name are the believing upon in Acts 10:43 not YOUR WORTHLES PERSONAL OPINION!

4. What are they receving by faith in Him in Acts 10:43 not YOUR WORTHLESS PERSONAL OPINION!

You are a total hypocrit! You demand from everyone else Scritpure but then when you are given scripture you IGNORE IT and then give your WORTHLESS PERSONAL OPINION that directly contradicts the very scripture given you! Show from Acts 10:43 your view rather than contradicting it by your own worthless personal opinions.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hebrews 4:2 is speaking of the gospel of BELIEVING AND OBEYING God. That is Christ. However, FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST WAS NOT PREACHED UNTIL JESUS” MINISTRY ON EARTH. Read Galatians 3:23, BEFORE THIS FAITH CAME…

Don't give me your TALIKING POINTS and WORTHLESS PERSONAL OPINION. I gave you hebrews 4:2 which contradicts YOUR PERSONAL WORTHLESS OPINION!

QUESTIONS:

1. Is it is "THE GOSPEL" that was preached unto them, or those described in the wilderness under Moses in Hebrews 3 or is the writer of Hebrews lying in Hebrews 4;2 when he sayd "the gospel was preached as well as UNTO THEM"???

I don't want your theological talking points or your personal worthless opinion but what does that text actually state??


2. Was it their failure to mix "faith" with it in their heart as the only reason
for their condemnation? What does the text state?

I don't want your theological talking points or your personal worthless opinion but what does the text actually say?

It says THE VERY SAME GOSPEL which was preached after Pentecost was preached before Pentecost and required the very same "FAITH." Does the gospel preached after Pentecost require faith in Christ? Then according to this text it required faith in Christ before Pentecost just as Acts 10:43 says.

I don't give two cents for your theological talking points or your worthless personal opinion when it directly contradicts what Acts 10:43 and Hebrews 4:2 clearly and explictly says to the contrary!

Be honest with these Biblical texts instead of contradicting what they say!

 

[Moriah]

Don't give me your TALIKING POINTS and WORTHLESS PERSONAL OPINION. I gave you hebrews 4:2 which contradicts YOUR PERSONAL WORTHLESS OPINION!

QUESTIONS:

1. Is it is "THE GOSPEL" that was preached unto them, or those described in the wilderness under Moses in Hebrews 3 or is the writer of Hebrews lying in Hebrews 4;2 when he sayd "the gospel was preached as well as UNTO THEM"???

I don't want your theological talking points or your personal worthless opinion but what does that text actually state??


2. Was it their failure to mix "faith" with it in their heart as the only reason
for their condemnation? What does the text state?

I don't want your theological talking points or your personal worthless opinion but what does the text actually say?

It says THE VERY SAME GOSPEL which was preached after Pentecost was preached before Pentecost and required the very same "FAITH." Does the gospel preached after Pentecost require faith in Christ? Then according to this text it required faith in Christ before Pentecost just as Acts 10:43 says.

I don't give two cents for your theological talking points or your worthless personal opinion when it directly contradicts what Acts 10:43 and Hebrews 4:2 clearly and explictly says to the contrary!

Be honest with these Biblical texts instead of contradicting what they say!

Read Galatians 3:23, BEFORE THIS FAITH CAME…

 

[Moriah]

I gave you scripture - Acts 10:43! WHO ASKED FOR YOUR WORTHLESS PERSONAL OPINION? Acts 10:43 directly contradicts your WORTHLESS PERSONAL OPINION.

1. Who is "he" according to the biblical context of Acts 10:43 not ACCORDING TO YOUR WORTHLESS PERSONAL OPINION.

2. Who are the prophets giving witness to in Acts 10:43 not your WORTHLESS PERSONAL OPINION!

3. Whose name are the believing upon in Acts 10:43 not YOUR WORTHLES PERSONAL OPINION!

4. What are they receving by faith in Him in Acts 10:43 not YOUR WORTHLESS PERSONAL OPINION!

You are a total hypocrit! You demand from everyone else Scritpure but then when you are given scripture you IGNORE IT and then give your WORTHLESS PERSONAL OPINION that directly contradicts the very scripture given you! Show from Acts 10:43 your view rather than contradicting it by your own worthless personal opinions.

The Old Testament looked for the promise, the promise that had NOT yet come. The promise did not come until Jesus came to the earth.