Why All Is Not Ordained

[TomL]

Jesus said we are to Live by "Every Word" of God. Not just a few scriptures you can twist and use to promote your religious philosophy "that Jesus' and Paul's Creed was against the Father's Law". I mean, you must do that, you must ignore and Omit much of God's Word in order for your particular religion to stand. But to do so is in direct disobedience to Jesus Himself. Shall a man not point out the wickedness in this teaching to warn others?

So why do you not do it

Clearly many verses notes things regarding the law we are not bound to

e

LOL, "WHAT LAW"? Consider how stupid this is to say; "Tell me, you who desire to Love your neighbor as yourself, do you not listen to the law"? Or this; "Tell me you who desire to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, do you not listen to the Law?

Equivocation

The observance of feast days and ceremonial practices are what have been argued against

We are not obliged to follow feast days and sacrificial law

Galatians 4:9–10 (KJV 1900) — 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

We are under the New covenant. It has laws as well. Moral law we are to obey

ceremonial and cultural laws from the old covenant, however, were not incorporated into it.

You cannot argue for continuance of those aspects of the old covenant law based on a reading of the New Testament.

 

[Studyman]

So why do you not do it

Clearly many verses notes things regarding the law we are not bound to

Yes, there is Law "concerning sacrifices and Burnt offerings for sin" that were Prophesied to change, that God's People are no longer bound to. These were "Prophesied", by God in the Law and Prophets that Jesus and Paul taught from, to change.

Heb. 10: 3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

As it is written;

1 Sam. 15: 22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

It's about what the scriptures say when "Every Word" is considered, as the Christ "of the Bible" instructs.

Equivocation

The observance of feast days and ceremonial practices are what have been argued against

I argue against your corruption of the Scriptures, which is not yours, but corruption you adopted by believing men who "transform themselves" into Apostles of Christ. You preach God's Word, the Holy Scriptures, teaches against His Holy Feasts and Judgments. This is a falsehood promoted by "Many" who come in Christ's Name. There is a difference between God's instruction and man's traditions. Just because you have been convinced there isn't a difference, doesn't negate the perfection of God. Jesus didn't spend His Life walking in worthless Jewish Traditions. And yet, that is the very foundation of the religion you have adopted and are now promoting.

We are not obliged to follow feast days and sacrificial law

Galatians 4:9–10 (KJV 1900) — 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

Only because you "changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man", can you believe this verse defines Abraham, David, Zacharias, Gideon and even Jesus, who you imply were held in bondage to weak and Beggarly Statutes of God. And this because, as Paul explains.

Rom. 1: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

I don't believe the Christ of the Bible was unthankful to God, nor do I believe HE refused to Glorify God. You, on the other hand, clearly have no problem Judging God and much of His Word as "Immoral".

We are under the New covenant. It has laws as well. Moral law we are to obey

And I should trust Kenneth Copeland or you to define What Words of God are Moral, and what Words of God are not?

Surely, even you can see how foolish I would be to trust the very men the Jesus "of the bible" warned against to define God's morality to me.

ceremonial and cultural laws from the old covenant, however, were not incorporated into it.

Again, you are promoting doctrines and traditions of man. Here is what the God of the Bible Prophesies about His New covenant. Since HE is the One who created it, it seems prudent to believe Him as HE defines His Own New covenant.

Heb. 8: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers (ADDED) in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, (Transgression/Golden Calf) and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

But you preach to the world that God destroyed His Law. Made it vanish away.

I know you will not answer my questions, but for those reading along. This is the New Covenant after it changed, yes? So how were God's Laws received before "after those days"? Can I trust the Scriptures to tell me?

Lets continue.

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

So, again, I know you are only here to preserve and promote your agenda, that Jesus and Paul's creed was against God's Law. But for those reading along. This is a Prophesy about a change. So ask the question, "How were sins forgiven before "After those days"?

So even a child can understand after reading this promise of a New Covenant, that there were 2 things Prophesied to change.

#1. How God's Law was received.

#2. How sins are forgiven.

It's right there in your own Bible. So how was God's Law received before "after those days"?

Heb. 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

And how were sins forgiven before "after those days"?

Lev. 4: 31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

So as the Hebrews author understood, it was the Priesthood that changed, as Prophesied. Not God's Ten Commandments, Statutes and Judgments as "many", who call Jesus Lord, Lord, falsely preach.

You cannot argue for continuance of those aspects of the old covenant law based on a reading of the New Testament.

I'm only arguing against the Philosophies of this world's religions which are not founded on the Holy Scriptures, rather, on the doctrines and traditions of this world's religious men, "who come in Christ's name".

 

[TomL]

Yes, there is Law "concerning sacrifices and Burnt offerings for sin" that were Prophesied to change, that God's People are no longer bound to. These were "Prophesied", by God in the Law and Prophets that Jesus and Paul taught from, to change.

Heb. 10: 3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

So sacrificial aspects of the law are no longer relevant. Now the ceremonial law which is in the same boat

Galatians 4:8–10 (NASB 2020) — 8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles, to which you want to be enslaved all over again? 10 You meticulously observe days and months and seasons and years.

In Galatians. 4:10, 11, Paul sets aside the keeping the Jewish Sabbath and all those holy days of the law. "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you." That this refers to the holy days of the old law is proved by his reference to that law, both before and after this text. Thus: "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Galatians. 3:24, 25. That law has ended at the cross as Paul said in Colossians. 2:14-17. Again: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" Galatians. 4:21. "Ye are not under the law." Galatians. 5:18. So, then, he means the holy days of the law and these included the Sabbath as the chief of all. Look at his list: Days, (Sabbath days, weekly), months (new moons), times (yearly feasts), and years (Sabbatical years). This is exactly the list of Jewish holy times. Canwright



https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Hebrews-10-6/

As it is written;

1 Sam. 15: 22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

It's about what the scriptures say when "Every Word" is considered, as the Christ "of the Bible" instructs.



I argue against your corruption of the Scriptures, which is not yours, but corruption you adopted by believing men who "transform themselves" into Apostles of Christ. You preach God's Word, the Holy Scriptures, teaches against His Holy Feasts and Judgments. This is a falsehood promoted by "Many" who come in Christ's Name. There is a difference between God's instruction and man's traditions. Just because you have been convinced there isn't a difference, doesn't negate the perfection of God. Jesus didn't spend His Life walking in worthless Jewish Traditions. And yet, that is the very foundation of the religion you have adopted and are now promoting.

Um The apostle Paul did not transform himself into an apostle. christ called him

The rest including your fascination with Kenneth Copeland who you often seem to wiggle into the discussion is ignored with just one exception

But you preach to the world that God destroyed His Law. Made it vanish away.

I know you will not answer my questions, but for those reading along. This is the New Covenant after it changed, yes? So how were God's Laws received before "after those days"? Can I trust the Scriptures to tell me?

The sacrificial law and the ceremonial law, certainly as scripture shows. Some of which you even agreed with

The moral law was given its full meaning by Jesus thusly

Matthew 22:36–40 (KJV 1900) — 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

BTW let that serve as a answer to the question you rashly imagined I would not answer

Maybe you should forget the faslse guilt by association tactics and posting regarding what you imagine others will do

 

[Studyman]

So sacrificial aspects of the law are no longer relevant. Now the ceremonial law which is in the same boat

The term "ceremonial law" doesn't exist in the Holy Scriptures. There are God's Feasts, and His Sabbaths that men have despised, polluted and rejected since God created them for man. And there are traditions of men who know not God, who do service to them that are not gods.

My issue with you and Copeland and the Pope, is that you guys promote a religion and religious philosophies which are founded on the imagination and traditions of men, and not the Word of God. It is your religious philosophy that God's Sabbaths that "HE made for man", is the same as killing an innocent life to cover for your own sins.

This is another easily proven false teaching, just like your insistence that Jesus and Paul's "creed was against God's Law".

But I am tasked with proving this world's many differing religious doctrines to see if they are wrought in God or not. I do this by bringing them to the Light. You could do this too, but it takes belief in the Light.

Galatians 4:8–10 (NASB 2020) — 8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles, to which you want to be enslaved all over again? 10 You meticulously observe days and months and seasons and years.

But not "God's" Feasts and "God's" Sabbaths. This is why I stay on this topic, to point out to you undeniable Biblical Truths that you are willfully ignoring, as prophesied. YOU preach the Pharisees were walking in and promoting God's Sabbaths and God's Feasts, as God instructed. This religious philosophy is the foundation of your religion.

But here is the inspired Word of God that you profess to know, teaching me the truth about the Pharisees.

Ez. 20: 18 But I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols: 19 I am the LORD your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them; 20 And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God.

Now can you not see how stupid, and utterly foolish it is for you to come on this form and accuse God of rejecting the Jews because they were following HIS very instruction? That God told Abraham's Children to walk in His Ways which you Judge as "Rudiments of this world", Beggarly Elements, and a Yoke of Bondage, and when they did, according to you, HE rejected them? And yet, that is what you are here promoting openly without even a little shame.

But what did the One True God say the Jews did?

21 Notwithstanding the children rebelled against me: they walked not in my statutes, neither kept my judgments to do them, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; they polluted my sabbaths: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the wilderness.

But God knew you were coming Tom, and HE knew you would say, "Well this is the Old Testament, and we believe in the Pope or Clark or Copeland who teaches the OT is become old and has vanished away." So God sent His Son, the Jesus "of the Bible", to show me "AGAIN", what happened with the Jews.

Mark 7: 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (touch not, taste not, handle not)

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well "ye reject" the commandment of God, that ye may keep "your own tradition".

So Tom, here is my dilemma. I have your preaching, and your religion which preaches to the world that the Pharisees were obeying God's Statutes (Feasts), Sabbaths and Laws, and it was Jesus and Paul, whose creed was Against God's Law.

But when I actually read what is written, it is clear that it was the Pharisees "whose Creed was against God's Law", not Jesus' and Not Paul's?

So truly they "observe days and months and seasons and years", but as God, Jesus and Paul all teach, they were not of God, but traditions of men who "Professed to know God".

You are free to reject these undeniable Biblical Truths and create or adopt your own religion, Jesus said "Many" would. All I'm saying is what the Scriptures say, that men should obey God rather than men.

 

[TomL]

The term "ceremonial law" doesn't exist in the Holy Scriptures. There are God's Feasts, and His Sabbaths that men have despised, polluted and rejected since God created them for man. And there are traditions of men who know not God, who do service to them that are not gods.

My issue with you and Copeland and the Pope, is that you guys promote a religion and religious philosophies which are founded on the imagination and traditions of men, and not the Word of God. It is your religious philosophy that God's Sabbaths that "HE made for man", is the same as killing an innocent life to cover for your own sins.

This is another easily proven false teaching, just like your insistence that Jesus and Paul's "creed was against God's Law".

But I am tasked with proving this world's many differing religious doctrines to see if they are wrought in God or not. I do this by bringing them to the Light. You could do this too, but it takes belief in the Light.



But not "God's" Feasts and "God's" Sabbaths. This is why I stay on this topic, to point out to you undeniable Biblical Truths that you are willfully ignoring, as prophesied. YOU preach the Pharisees were walking in and promoting God's Sabbaths and God's Feasts, as God instructed. This religious philosophy is the foundation of your religion.

But here is the inspired Word of God that you profess to know, teaching me the truth about the Pharisees.

Ez. 20: 18 But I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols: 19 I am the LORD your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them; 20 And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God.

Now can you not see how stupid, and utterly foolish it is for you to come on this form and accuse God of rejecting the Jews because they were following HIS very instruction? That God told Abraham's Children to walk in His Ways which you Judge as "Rudiments of this world", Beggarly Elements, and a Yoke of Bondage, and when they did, according to you, HE rejected them? And yet, that is what you are here promoting openly without even a little shame.

But what did the One True God say the Jews did?

21 Notwithstanding the children rebelled against me: they walked not in my statutes, neither kept my judgments to do them, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; they polluted my sabbaths: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the wilderness.

But God knew you were coming Tom, and HE knew you would say, "Well this is the Old Testament, and we believe in the Pope or Clark or Copeland who teaches the OT is become old and has vanished away." So God sent His Son, the Jesus "of the Bible", to show me "AGAIN", what happened with the Jews.

Mark 7: 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (touch not, taste not, handle not)

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well "ye reject" the commandment of God, that ye may keep "your own tradition".

So Tom, here is my dilemma. I have your preaching, and your religion which preaches to the world that the Pharisees were obeying God's Statutes (Feasts), Sabbaths and Laws, and it was Jesus and Paul, whose creed was Against God's Law.

But when I actually read what is written, it is clear that it was the Pharisees "whose Creed was against God's Law", not Jesus' and Not Paul's?

So truly they "observe days and months and seasons and years", but as God, Jesus and Paul all teach, they were not of God, but traditions of men who "Professed to know God".

You are free to reject these undeniable Biblical Truths and create or adopt your own religion, Jesus said "Many" would. All I'm saying is what the Scriptures say, that men should obey God rather than men.

I have nothing to do with Copeland or the Pope. Why do you write such trash. Do you set out to deliberately engage in the ad hominem of guilt by association., Present biblical arguments instead of such deception

Those feasts and sabbaths were set aside by Paul in the New testament.

In Galatians. 4:10, 11, Paul sets aside the keeping the Jewish Sabbath and all those holy days of the law. "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you." That this refers to the holy days of the old law is proved by his reference to that law, both before and after this text.

Thus: "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Galatians. 3:24, 25.

That law has ended at the cross as Paul said in Colossians. 2:14-17. Again: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" Galatians. 4:21.

Galatians 4:21–30 (NASB 2020) — 21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the Law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is speaking allegorically, for these women are two covenants: one coming from Mount Sinai giving birth to children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is enslaved with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written: “REJOICE, INFERTILE ONE, YOU WHO DO NOT GIVE BIRTH; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR; FOR THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE ONE ARE MORE NUMEROUS THAN THOSE OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND.” 28 And you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time the son who was born according to the flesh persecuted the one who was born according to the Spirit, so it is even now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “DRIVE OUT THE SLAVE WOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE SLAVE WOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN.”

"Ye are not under the law." Galatians. 5:18.

So, then, he means the holy days of the law and these included the Sabbath as the chief of all. Look at his list: Days, (Sabbath days, weekly), months (new moons), times (yearly feasts), and years (Sabbatical years). This is exactly the list of Jewish holy times.
Days, months, times and years compare

1Chronicles 23:31; 2Chronicles 2:4; 8:12,13; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; 46:1-7; Hosea 2:11

 

[Studyman]

In Galatians. 4:10, 11, Paul sets aside the keeping the Jewish Sabbath and all those holy days of the law.

Yes, Paul rejects, exposes and sets aside the "Jewish Sabbath", but never God's Sabbath. It was Paul's custom to honor God in His Sabbaths. Jesus Said God's Sabbath was made for man. He also said the Pharisees were promoting their own traditions, not God's commandments. Where is it written by the One True God that a man can't take a walk in fellowship with his brethren on God's Sabbath, and pick a raspberry or ear of corn to eat along the way? It isn't written anywhere in the holy scriptures, because it isn't against God's Sabbath to do. And yet, in the Pharisees/Jewish Sabbath it was forbidden.

Just this one undeniable Biblical Truth should make you stop in your tracks and reconsider your religious stance. At least you should discuss it and consider the truth it exposes. But you won't, because you have been snared to promote the falsehood, "Paul's creed was against God's Law". This is why Jesus instructed me not to be like this world's religious men "who come in His Name". And I want to make you acknowledge just this one undeniable Biblical Truth. But I can't. You have to accept this Gods Word from your heart.

"Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you." That this refers to the holy days of the old law is proved by his reference to that law, both before and after this text.

Again, According to God, Jesus, Paul and Peter, and all the Prophets, The rebellious Jews had God's Laws and Sabbaths, but did not keep them.

Thus: "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

As opposed to what? You see Tom, you are not allowed by your masters to even have an honest discussion where two men seeking truth ask and answer each other's questions. I have asked, "How were sins forgiven in the Old Priesthood"? After the Golden calf, when Moses went up to secure "another covenant" because the one they had was broken and gone "because of transgressions", how were men's sins forgiven? But you can't answer the question, because to do so, would show you what LAW was "ADDED" because of Transgressions, Till the seed should come.

Just one simple question and answer that will allow you to hear what GOD said was the "ADDED" Law which was to lead men to the True Lamb of God.

But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Galatians. 3:24, 25. That law has ended at the cross as Paul said in Colossians. 2:14-17. Again: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" Galatians. 4:21. "Ye are not under the law." Galatians. 5:18. So, then, he means the holy days of the law and these included the Sabbath as the chief of all. Look at his list: Days, (Sabbath days, weekly), months (new moons), times (yearly feasts), and years (Sabbatical years). This is exactly the list of Jewish holy times. Canwright

Canwright is not my God or my Saviour. Perhaps this person has "transformed himself" into an Apostle of God as Paul warns. But the Pharisees were not promoting God's Holy Days and Sabbaths. I have proven this beyond any reasonable doubt. I suggest you listen to God, and the Jesus of the Bible, and Paul, and not Canwright, or the Pope, or Kenneth Copeland. This is why we disagree, because you honor the words of Canwright and Clark, while I honor the Words of God and His Son, the Jesus "of the bible". Does it matter? Paul seemed to think so.

Rom. 2: 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

 

[TomL]

Yes, Paul rejects, exposes and sets aside the "Jewish Sabbath", but never God's Sabbath. It was Paul's custom to honor God in His Sabbaths. Jesus Said God's Sabbath was made for man. He also said the Pharisees were promoting their own traditions, not God's commandments. Where is it written by the One True God that a man can't take a walk in fellowship with his brethren on God's Sabbath, and pick a raspberry or ear of corn to eat along the way? It isn't written anywhere in the holy scriptures, because it isn't against God's Sabbath to do. And yet, in the Pharisees/Jewish Sabbath it was forbidden.

Just this one undeniable Biblical Truth should make you stop in your tracks and reconsider your religious stance. At least you should discuss it and consider the truth it exposes. But you won't, because you have been snared to promote the falsehood, "Paul's creed was against God's Law". This is why Jesus instructed me not to be like this world's religious men "who come in His Name". And I want to make you acknowledge just this one undeniable Biblical Truth. But I can't. You have to accept this Gods Word from your heart.




Again, According to God, Jesus, Paul and Peter, and all the Prophets, The rebellious Jews had God's Laws and Sabbaths, but did not keep them.




As opposed to what? You see Tom, you are not allowed by your masters to even have an honest discussion where two men seeking truth ask and answer each other's questions. I have asked, "How were sins forgiven in the Old Priesthood"? After the Golden calf, when Moses went up to secure "another covenant" because the one they had was broken and gone "because of transgressions", how were men's sins forgiven? But you can't answer the question, because to do so, would show you what LAW was "ADDED" because of Transgressions, Till the seed should come.

Just one simple question and answer that will allow you to hear what GOD said was the "ADDED" Law which was to lead men to the True Lamb of God.



Canwright is not my God or my Saviour. Perhaps this person has "transformed himself" into an Apostle of God as Paul warns. But the Pharisees were not promoting God's Holy Days and Sabbaths. I have proven this beyond any reasonable doubt. I suggest you listen to God, and the Jesus of the Bible, and Paul, and not Canwright, or the Pope, or Kenneth Copeland. This is why we disagree, because you honor the words of Canwright and Clark, while I honor the Words of God and His Son, the Jesus "of the bible". Does it matter? Paul seemed to think so.

Rom. 2: 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

In Context of romans no one is justified by keeping the law

Romans 3:20 (ESV) — 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

and paul is not speaking of jewish law or a jewish Sabbath

Those feasts and sabbaths were set aside by Paul in the New testament.

In Galatians. 4:10, 11, Paul sets aside the keeping the Jewish Sabbath and all those holy days of the law. "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you." That this refers to the holy days of the old law is proved by his reference to that law, both before and after this text.

Thus: "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Galatians. 3:24, 25.

That law has ended at the cross as Paul said in Colossians. 2:14-17. Again: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" Galatians. 4:21.

Galatians 4:21–30 (NASB 2020) — 21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the Law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is speaking allegorically, for these women are two covenants: one coming from Mount Sinai giving birth to children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is enslaved with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written: “REJOICE, INFERTILE ONE, YOU WHO DO NOT GIVE BIRTH; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR; FOR THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE ONE ARE MORE NUMEROUS THAN THOSE OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND.” 28 And you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time the son who was born according to the flesh persecuted the one who was born according to the Spirit, so it is even now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “DRIVE OUT THE SLAVE WOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE SLAVE WOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN.”

"Ye are not under the law." Galatians. 5:18.


using the same identification of days, months, years seen throughout the old covenant

Yearly, monthly, weekly pattern proves it is the weekly sabbath



Yearly monthly weekly

1 Chronicles 23:31

fixed festivals

new moons

Sabbaths

2 Chronicles 2:4

appointed feasts

new moons

Sabbaths

2 Chronicles 8:13

annual feasts

new moons

Sabbaths

2 Chronicles 31:3

fixed festivals

new moons

Sabbaths

Nehemiah 10:33

appointed times

new moon

Sabbaths

Isa 1:13-14

Appointed feasts

New moon

Sabbath

Ezekiel 45:17

appointed feasts

new moons

Sabbaths

Ezek 46:1-11

appointed feasts

new moons

Sabbath

Hosea 2:11

festal assemblies

new moons

Sabbaths

Galatians 4:10

years

months

days

Colossians 2:16

festival

new moon

Sabbath day

 

[Studyman]

Um The apostle Paul did not transform himself into an apostle. christ called him

Yes, why then do you cherry pick his words, some you believe, some you twist while others you reject?

The rest including your fascination with Kenneth Copeland who you often seem to wiggle into the discussion is ignored with just one exception

Copeland, Clark, Valentinus, Canwright, Calvin, they are all the same, Not Paul, not Jesus, Not God, Not the Prophets. I read your posts, and marvel how they reject so much of the Holy Scriptures. Then you quote these religious men who "come in Christ's name" and it shows who you have "Yielded yourselves" a servant to obey. I am advocating that a man consider what is written, and to, as Paul teaches, "Keep the commandments of God", not the traditions or men.

The sacrificial law and the ceremonial law, certainly as scripture shows. Some of which you even agreed with

There is no "Ceremonial Law". Only the Feasts of the Lord which foreshadow things which have yet to be fulfilled. As for the "ADDED" sacrificial Law, if the Lamb has come and shed HIS Blood once and for all, why would a man continue in them given they were temporary from their very beginning? And yet, the Jews continued in them.

The moral law was given its full meaning by Jesus thusly

Matthew 22:36–40 (KJV 1900) — 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

So you, and "Many" who "Profess to know God" call His Feasts and HIS Sabbaths "worthless Jewish traditions", Beggarly Elements, a Yoke of Bondage, Vain deceit and Rudiments of the world. This is how you Love God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind?

No thanks Tom. I see that the mainstream preachers of Jesus and Paul's time treated God in the same Unglorified way as you do. It didn't work out so well with them. Am I better than they? That I would be so filled with hubris and pride that I can treat God in the same way as them, and be accepted by God? Truly the Jesus "of the Bible" is a living example of how a man honors and Loves the One True God. You are free to reject His example if you want. But not me. Jesus said God's Sabbaths were "made for man", who am I to imply that HE is a liar.

38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

And how would I love my neighbor as myself? Trying to convert them to one of this world's "many" religions who call Jesus Lord, Lord? Teaching others that Jesus and Paul's Creed was "Against God's Law"?

No thanks Tom. You have your love no doubt. But I'm sticking to the Love of God Jesus walked in.

BTW let that serve as a answer to the question you rashly imagined I would not answer

Maybe you should forget the faslse guilt by association tactics and posting regarding what you imagine others will do

And yet, you still refuse to answer the question I asked.

 

[Studyman]

In Context of romans no one is justified by keeping the law

And yet Paul says that not the hearers, but the doers of God's Law are justified.

Romans 3:20 (ESV) — 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

So then you completely reject Paul's words which don't align with your adopted religious philosophy, and twist Paul's other words so that it does align with your adopted religious philosophy, that being "Paul's creed was against God's Law". Can't you see how Paul's words in Romans 2 must be rejected, in order for your philosophy to stand?

What is the context here? This is why I asked the questions you are not allowed by your master to answer. Like, "before the Christ came, how were sins forgiven"? What "works of the Law" were required for the forgiveness of sins, before the SEED came?

But you can't answer this question even though you know the answer, because if you do, your entire religious philosophy comes crashing down. You would learn, "of the Father", the difference between "Keeping God's Statutes, Laws and Judgments", (Being a Doer of God's Law, like Jesus and EVERY Example of FAITHFUL man in the Bible did) and engaging in Priesthood "Works of the Law" for forgiveness "ADDED" because of Transgression. You would understand what Paul meant by "Works of the Law" for remission of sins that the Pharisees, who didn't believe Jesus was the Prophesied Lamb of God, were still requiring their version of, for salvation.

Answer the questions. Believe in the Jesus "of the bible" and consider ALL that is written.

1 Sam. 15: 22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

If you can't even accept these simple truths, and answer these simple questions, then nothing I can do or show you will matter. I'm sure you will want the last word in your mission to convince as many as you can that Jesus and Paul's Creed was against God's Law". So you can have it. I am done here.

 

[TomL]

And yet Paul says that not the hearers, but the doers of God's Law are justified.

The point being they were not justified by having the law

again

Romans 3:20 (ESV) — 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

So then you completely reject Paul's words which don't align with your adopted religious philosophy, and twist Paul's other words so that it does align with your adopted religious philosophy, that being "Paul's creed was against God's Law". Can't you see how Paul's words in Romans 2 must be rejected, in order for your philosophy to stand?

Sorry you ripped Pauls words from their context and then you deny his point

v

What is the context here? This is why I asked the questions you are not allowed by your master to answer. Like, "before the Christ came, how were sins forgiven"? What "works of the Law" were required for the forgiveness of sins, before the SEED came?

Get a grip on yourself

If you are not indulging in ad hominem by engaging in guilt by association you are implying I cannot think for myself

That is not argumentation

Romans 3:21–26 (ESV) — 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

men were always justified by faith

But you can't answer this question even though you know the answer, because if you do, your entire religious philosophy comes crashing down.

You clearly are given to hyperbole and falsehoods. My theology has not come crashing down as you falsely imagine

 

[Studyman]

The point being they were not justified by having the law

again

Romans 3:20 (ESV) — 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Sorry you ripped Pauls words from their context and then you deny his point

What were the "works of the Law" Moses required before sins could be forgiven, "Before the Seed came"? You know, but you won't answer, just as the Pharisees knew the answer to Jesus' questions, but they wouldn't answer Him either.

Get a grip on yourself

If you are not indulging in ad hominem by engaging in guilt by association you are implying I cannot think for myself

You have proven by your own posts that you can't think for yourself. You refuse to answer my questions. You quote random preachers off the internet. And you refuse to engage in any honest discussion about what the "works of the Law" was for forgiveness before Jesus came. And you refuse to even acknowledge most of the Scriptures which bring question to your stated religious philosophy that "Paul's Creed was against God's Law". There is nothing "ad hominem" about it.

That is not argumentation

Romans 3:21–26 (ESV) — 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law,

Apart from what Law? Jesus was Righteous "BECAUSE" He walked in God's Law. Even you must admit this truth. I broke God's Law, and therefore am not righteous. How do I attain righteousness? By bringing a goat to the Levite Priest, which was the "work of the Law" required by God that Abraham didn't have, because it wasn't ADDED until 430 years after He obeyed God's Laws, statutes and commandments? No!

Is righteousness then continuing in disobedience to God because we were forgiven our sins "apart" from the Law concerning sacrifices and burnt offerings for sin?? NO again. What does Paul say?

Rom. 6: 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. That means No! Tom.

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

So I'll ask again, "apart from what Law"? The Law "Concerning sacrifices and burnt offering for sin? Or the Statutes, commandments, Judgments of God that define God's Righteousness?

although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

But you don't believe the Jesus "of the Bible", because HE teaches that God's Sabbath was made for men. If you believed in the Christ of the Bible you wouldn't be preaching to everyone who will listen that God's Sabbaths are Beggarly Elements and Traditions of mortal men.

For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

men were always justified by faith

This is true, Nevertheless, God did "ADD" temporary sacrificial "Works of the Law" for forgiveness, "Till the Seed should come", "because of Transgression" (Golden calf). Works the Pharisees were still promoting, even though the Christ had come. To deny this undeniable Biblical Truth is to Deny God's Word. Also, Abraham didn't have these "Works of the Law" for forgiveness, because they were not ADDED until 430 years after Abraham obeyed God's Statutes, Laws and Commandments. He was justified "Apart" for this Law. I have posted, not the philosophies of religious men who call Jesus Lord, Lord. But I have posted God's Word, which you refuse to acknowledge.

You clearly are given to hyperbole and falsehoods. My theology has not come crashing down as you falsely imagine

You have not answered my questions either. "What are the "works of the Law" required by God before "After those days", AKA, before the Seed had come?

You know the answer, why do you play the Pharisees games?

 

[TomL]

What were the "works of the Law" Moses required before sins could be forgiven, "Before the Seed came"? You know, but you won't answer, just as the Pharisees knew the answer to Jesus' questions, but they wouldn't answer Him either.

Um there are no works of the law that forgive sin

The point being no one is justified by law

again

Romans 3:20 (ESV) — 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

You ripped Pauls words from their context and then you deny his point

You have proven by your own posts that you can't think for yourself. You refuse to answer my questions. You quote random preachers off the internet. And you refuse to engage in any honest discussion about what the "works of the Law" was for forgiveness before Jesus came. And you refuse to even acknowledge most of the Scriptures which bring question to your stated religious philosophy that "Paul's Creed was against God's Law". There is nothing "ad hominem" about it.

Actually Half of your post is ad hominem - Copeland, the pope, masters that is not biblical argumentation

and read above your question was answered

hello

you are bearing false witness

Apart from what Law? Jesus was Righteous "BECAUSE" He walked in God's Law. Even you must admit this truth. I broke God's Law, and therefore am not righteous. How do I attain righteousness? By bringing a goat to the Levite Priest, which was the "work of the Law" required by God that Abraham didn't have, because it wasn't ADDED until 430 years after He obeyed God's Laws, statutes and commandments? No!

By faith

You can bring all the goats you want, but you will not obtain righteousness without faith

How is it you were unable to see this as previously posted

Abraham was justified by faith. The just shall live by faith

It was true from before the giving of the law to the new covenant

Hebrews 10:4 (ESV) — 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Is righteousness then continuing in disobedience to God because we were forgiven our sins "apart" from the Law concerning sacrifices and burnt offerings for sin?? NO again. What does Paul say?

What makes you ask such an absurd question. If the sacrificial and ceremonial laws are set aside where is the disobedience?

Jesus told us how one fulfils the laws

Matthew 22:37–40 (ESV) — 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Rom. 6: 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. That means No! Tom.

Perhaps you can point out where I claimed we can sin freely

If you can't then perhaps you should not say it because it does not express my beliefs and continuing to say it marks you as a false witness

 

[Studyman]

Um there are no works of the law that forgive sin

True, the Blood of goats and calves could not take away sin.

Tell me then, in your adopted religion, are you denying that there were instructions from God "concerning Sacrifices and burnt offerings" for sin, "Till the SEED should come?

So you preach to the world that God didn't instruct the following until the Christ came?

Lev. 4: 27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;

28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, "for his sin which he hath sinned".

29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

30 And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar.

31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

So you preach to the world that these temporary sacrificial "works of the Law" never existed, and Paul was teaching that the Pharisees were trying to get the New Converts keep God's Sabbaths in order for the Levite Priest to provide for their sins to be forgiven.

 

[TomL]

True, the Blood of goats and calves could not take away sin.

Tell me then, in your adopted religion, are you denying that there were instructions from God "concerning Sacrifices and burnt offerings" for sin, "Till the SEED should come?

No I do not deny that

And I affirm such are no longer in effect

So you preach to the world that God didn't instruct the following until the Christ came?

Lev. 4: 27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;\

No i have never preached that

28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, "for his sin which he hath sinned".

No I have not preached that either. I do preach such commands have been set aside by the sacrifice of Christ.

Are you denying that?.

29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

30 And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar.

31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

So you preach to the world that these temporary sacrificial "works of the Law" never existed, and Paul was teaching that the Pharisees were trying to get the New Converts keep God's Sabbaths in order for the Levite Priest to provide for their sins to be forgiven.

Nope never stated any such thing

I do with the author of Hebrews note

Hebrews 10:4–9 (ESV) — 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; 6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. 7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’ ” 8 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second.
Are you going to argue for the first
Hebrews 7:11–19 (ESV) — 11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. 13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” 18 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

 

[Studyman]

No I do not deny that

It is true, however, whether you deny it or not, or whether Clark denies it or not. Or whether Canwright denies it or not. There was LAW which existed "Before the SEED came", that required "Works" (by LAW) to be performed by the "sinner" before forgiveness could be provided for the sinner. I posted this LAW, and you say you don't deny it. There was no command by God for the individual, "concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices" for sin when God brought them out of Egypt.

Jer. 7: 22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: 23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

These Levitical Priesthood "Works of the Law" for forgiveness were not "ADDED", until after Israel broke the Covenant they made with God, AKA, "Transgressed" with the Golden calf incident. (See Ex. 32) These "works of the Law" didn't exist in Abraham's Time as Levi wasn't even born yet. Abraham was forgiven/justified "Apart" from this LAW. But Abraham was Justified. Why? How? Paul also tells you the answer to this.

Rom. 2: 3 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Did Abraham "Believe" in God? Was Abraham a "Doer" of God's Law, not a hearer only? What does God's inspired Word say?

Gen. 26: 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Was he justified by the Levitical Priesthood "Works of the Law" that were ADDED 430 years after him? Of course not. He was Justified by Faith. He believed God when God told him to "DO" something, and that was accounted to him as righteousness.


The Pharisees had corrupted the Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi. (Mal. 2:8) They had created an entire religion and religious business founded on their corrupted version of this Priesthood. Jesus whipped them with a scourge and drove them out of the temple that they were selling sacrifices and promoting for doctrines the "commandments of men" in.

So these same Pharisees, who had been given the Oracles of God but didn't believe them, were accusing Paul and God's Church of promoting lies about God. (Rom. 3:8) They were still requiring their corrupted version of the Levitical Priesthood for remission of sins. (Rom. 1:19-23, Acts 15:5, Gal. 3:5,6)

Paul explains in his letters, and the Hebrews author as well, that this LAW "concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices" for sin was Prophesied to change in the Law and Prophets. I posted some of the Prophesies, but you refuse to even acknowledge them. This Law was to be in force and affect, "Till the Seed should come". This LAW was a shadow of the sacrifices the Christ, the Son of God would make for mortal men, and would lead those men who believed God to this same Christ, once their heart turned to Him, as it did Caleb, Joshua, David, Zacharias, Simeon and Anna, all who had Faith in the Christ their Redeemer, even before HE became a man.

The "works of the Law" Paul is speaking to here is not God's Sabbaths, or feast days or ten commandments, or God's Judgments regarding what is Holy, Clean, Good, Just etc. God never said through Moses, "If a man sins, he shall keep the 10 commandments and the Priest shall provide atonement for him". God never said "If a man sins, he shall keep the Sabbath, or count the days from the new moon to Pentecost, and the Priest shall provide atonement for him.

No Tom, God explains in great detail what these Temporary "ADDED" "Works of the Law" were, that were required for the remission of sins, "Before the Seed came". That led Zacharias and Simeon and Anna to the Faith of Jesus before HE was even born.

All these things are undeniable Biblical Truths. They are found in your own Bible, all you need is belief. What I am advocating for, is that a man places their trust in the Word of God which became Flesh "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness", and not this world's religious voices who come in His Name, like Clark, Calvin, Hinn, Canwright, Copeland, the Pope, they are "MANY", as the Jesus of the bible himself also teaches.

 

[Behold]

Psalm 95:7-11

For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand. Today, if you would hear His voice, do not harden your hearts,​

You could not "harden YOUR Heart" unless you have FREE WILL.

 

[TomL]

It is true, however, whether you deny it or not, or whether Clark denies it or not. Or whether Canwright denies it or not. There was LAW which existed "Before the SEED came", that required "Works" (by LAW) to be performed by the "sinner" before forgiveness could be provided for the sinner. I posted this LAW, and you say you don't deny it. There was no command by God for the individual, "concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices" for sin when God brought them out of Egypt.

And that has nothing at all to do with what is today does it?

Jer. 7: 22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: 23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

These Levitical Priesthood "Works of the Law" for forgiveness were not "ADDED", until after Israel broke the Covenant they made with God, AKA, "Transgressed" with the Golden calf incident. (See Ex. 32) These "works of the Law" didn't exist in Abraham's Time as Levi wasn't even born yet. Abraham was forgiven/justified "Apart" from this LAW. But Abraham was Justified. Why? How? Paul also tells you the answer to this.

Again irrelevant to what exists today

we are under a new covenant

Rom. 2: 3 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Which is why no one was justified by the law

Romans 3:20 (ESV) — 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Did Abraham "Believe" in God? Was Abraham a "Doer" of God's Law, not a hearer only? What does God's inspired Word say?

Gen. 26: 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Was he justified by the Levitical Priesthood "Works of the Law" that were ADDED 430 years after him? Of course not. He was Justified by Faith. He believed God when God told him to "DO" something, and that was accounted to him as righteousness.

Exactly justified by his faith not law

The "works of the Law" Paul is speaking to here is not God's Sabbaths, or feast days or ten commandments, or God's Judgments regarding what is Holy, Clean, Good, Just etc. God never said through Moses, "If a man sins, he shall keep the 10 commandments and the Priest shall provide atonement for him". God never said "If a man sins, he shall keep the Sabbath, or count the days from the new moon to Pentecost, and the Priest shall provide atonement for him.

Those were a part of the old covenant we are no longer under

Colossians 2:16–17 (KJV 1900) — 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


One of the most stunning and irrefutable proofs that Col 2:16 must be the weekly Sabbath day, is the common "Year, Month, Week" pattern used in Col 2:16.




When God wanted to refer to the whole system of Jewish holy days, rather than name them all, He would refer to the yearly, monthly and weekly as representing the whole system. Sabbatarians argue that the Sabbath Day of Col 2:16 is the years Sabbaths. But yearly Sabbaths were already referred to in Col 2:16 as "festivals". The "Year, Month, Week" pattern is so well established in the Old Testament, that Col 2:16 must refer to the weekly Sabbath. Notice, even Gal 4:10, following this pattern, states the weekly Sabbath is abolished!


Yearly, monthly, weekly pattern proves it is the weekly sabbath





1 Chronicles 23:31 fixed festivals new moons Sabbaths


2 Chronicles 2:4 appointed feasts new moons Sabbaths


2 Chronicles 8:13 annual feasts new moons Sabbaths


2 Chronicles 31:3 fixed festivals new moons Sabbaths


Nehemiah 10:33 appointed times new moon Sabbaths


Isa 1:13-14 Appointed feasts New moon Sabbaths


Ezekiel 45:17 appointed feasts new moons Sabbaths


Ezek 46:1-11 appointed feasts new moons Sabbaths


Hosea 2:11 festal assemblies new moons Sabbaths


Galatians 4:10 years months days


Colossians 2:16 festival new moon Sabbath day


Several times Paul says directly that Christians are “not under the law.


Rom. 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Rom. 6:15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

Gal. 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

Gal. 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.”

No Tom, God explains in great detail what these Temporary "ADDED" "Works of the Law" were, that were required for the remission of sins, "Before the Seed came". That led Zacharias and Simeon and Anna to the Faith of Jesus before HE was even born.

All these things are undeniable Biblical Truths. They are found in your own Bible, all you need is belief. What I am advocating for, is that a man places their trust in the Word of God which became Flesh "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness", and not this world's religious voices who come in His Name, like Clark, Calvin, Hinn, Canwright, Copeland, the Pope, they are "MANY", as the Jesus of the bible himself also teaches.

Sorry no.

multiple times we are told we are not under the law

Rom. 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Rom. 6:15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

Gal. 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

Gal. 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.”

In Galatians. 4:10, 11, Paul sets aside the keeping the Jewish Sabbath and all those holy days of the law. "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you." That this refers to the holy days of the old law is proved by his reference to that law, both before and after this text. Thus: "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Galatians. 3:24, 25 and Gal 4:21ff

It is not just the sacrificial law

 

[Studyman]

No I have not preached that either. I do preach such commands have been set aside by the sacrifice of Christ.

Are you denying that?.

Am I denying that the LAW, "concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices" for sin has become old and has passed away because the SEED, who the sacrifices foreshadowed, has come? Absolutely not. They were Prophesied to change. God never desired Sacrifice. As it is written.

1 Sam. 15: 22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

Nope never stated any such thing

I do with the author of Hebrews note

Hebrews 10:4–9 (ESV) — 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; 6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. 7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’ ” 8 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second.
Are you going to argue for the first

Of course not. The First Priesthood, that Abraham wasn't under, with its sacrificial "works of the Law" has become old and has passed away with the coming of God's Prophesied Priest, not after the old order of Aaron, but after the Order of Melchizedek, who was here from the very beginning.

You are making my point. He does away with the old priesthood, in order to establish a New Priesthood. Just as God promised in His New Covenant. What changed in the Priesthood was 2 things.

#1. The manner in which God's Law is received.

#2. The manner in which Sins are forgiven.

Read it for yourself.

Hebrews 7:11–19 (ESV) — 11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

Exactly as I have been saying. The Priesthood changed. Not God's Law defining how to Love Him and Love others. And what "Change" in the Law was necessary with the Change in the Priesthood? Even your new age, progressive translation if forced to speak this truth.

13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, ( Not LEVI, as the LAW required) and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, (Based on DNA) but by the power of an indestructible life. (Faith) 17 For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” 18 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness ( A Priesthood based on DNA of humans could not endure) 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, (An incorruptible Priest) through which we "draw near to God".

All this is speaking about a Priesthood that was "ADDED" by God in Mercy to a rebellious and disobedient people. Tom, they broke God's Covenant, (Transgressed) and God was going to wipe them all out. There was no longer a Covenant. It was all over for them according to the Examples God had written for our admonition.

Ex. 32: 9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: 10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

There is no Covenant here. But Moses interceded for them with his own life and God relented destroying them. So Moses went up again, to secure another Covenant to replace the one they had broken.

30 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.

God gave them again, His Commandments, Statutes, Judgments and Laws, but this time HE "ADDED " the LAW "Concerning sacrifices and offerings" for the individual's sin. It was this Priesthood that changed, according to the Scriptures. Not God's Laws defining righteousness and Judgments. These are to be written on the hearts of God's People.

Heb. 8: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

The deceiver, as it did to Eve, would have men believe God's Word is not trustworthy. That God's is no better or different than some mythical pagan god. That God's Laws and Statutes are no better or different than some pagan high day or judgment.

This is how you promote God's Sabbaths and Judgments. And you do so by believing there is no difference between God's Laws defining righteousness, and God's Temporary Law of Forgiveness which was "ADDED" till the Seed should come. Just as the Pharisees believed, if the Priesthood is gone, then "ALL" of God's Laws are gone which of course, even an idiot knows this cannot be true. This is why they accused Paul of teaching against the Law of Moses. When HE was simply teaching the Law of Moses, which has always prophesied of the Coming Change in the Priesthood. A New Ministry, based on better promises.

 

[TomL]

Am I denying that the LAW, "concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices" for sin has become old and has passed away because the SEED, who the sacrifices foreshadowed, has come? Absolutely not. They were Prophesied to change. God never desired Sacrifice. As it is written.

1 Sam. 15: 22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.




Of course not. The First Priesthood, that Abraham wasn't under, with its sacrificial "works of the Law" has become old and has passed away with the coming of God's Prophesied Priest, not after the old order of Aaron, but after the Order of Melchizedek, who was here from the very beginning.

You are making my point. He does away with the old priesthood, in order to establish a New Priesthood. Just as God promised in His New Covenant. What changed in the Priesthood was 2 things.

#1. The manner in which God's Law is received.

#2. The manner in which Sins are forgiven.

Read it for yourself.




Exactly as I have been saying. The Priesthood changed. Not God's Law defining how to Love Him and Love others. And what "Change" in the Law was necessary with the Change in the Priesthood? Even your new age, progressive translation if forced to speak this truth.


All this is speaking about a Priesthood that was "ADDED" by God in Mercy to a rebellious and disobedient people. Tom, they broke God's Covenant, (Transgressed) and God was going to wipe them all out. There was no longer a Covenant. It was all over for them according to the Examples God had written for our admonition.

Ex. 32: 9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: 10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

There is no Covenant here. But Moses interceded for them with his own life and God relented destroying them. So Moses went up again, to secure another Covenant to replace the one they had broken.

30 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.

God gave them again, His Commandments, Statutes, Judgments and Laws, but this time HE "ADDED " the LAW "Concerning sacrifices and offerings" for the individual's sin. It was this Priesthood that changed, according to the Scriptures. Not God's Laws defining righteousness and Judgments. These are to be written on the hearts of God's People.

Heb. 8: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

The deceiver, as it did to Eve, would have men believe God's Word is not trustworthy. That God's is no better or different than some mythical pagan god. That God's Laws and Statutes are no better or different than some pagan high day or judgment.

This is how you promote God's Sabbaths and Judgments. And you do so by believing there is no difference between God's Laws defining righteousness, and God's Temporary Law of Forgiveness which was "ADDED" till the Seed should come. Just as the Pharisees believed, if the Priesthood is gone, then "ALL" of God's Laws are gone which of course, even an idiot knows this cannot be true. This is why they accused Paul of teaching against the Law of Moses. When HE was simply teaching the Law of Moses, which has always prophesied of the Coming Change in the Priesthood. A New Ministry, based on better promises.

How does anyone deny we are not obligated to observe feast days

This concerns only feast days

Colossians 2:16–17 (KJV 1900) — 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

One of the most stunning and irrefutable proofs that Col 2:16 must be the weekly Sabbath day, is the common "Year, Month, Week" pattern used in Col 2:16.


When God wanted to refer to the whole system of Jewish holy days, rather than name them all, He would refer to the yearly, monthly and weekly as representing the whole system. Sabbatarians argue that the Sabbath Day of Col 2:16 is the years Sabbaths. But yearly Sabbaths were already referred to in Col 2:16 as "festivals". The "Year, Month, Week" pattern is so well established in the Old Testament, that Col 2:16 must refer to the weekly Sabbath. Notice, even Gal 4:10, following this pattern, states the weekly Sabbath is abolished!

Yearly, monthly, weekly pattern proves it is the weekly sabbath

1 Chronicles 23:31 fixed festivals new moons Sabbaths

2 Chronicles 2:4 appointed feasts new moons Sabbaths

2 Chronicles 8:13 annual feasts new moons Sabbaths

2 Chronicles 31:3 fixed festivals new moons Sabbaths

Nehemiah 10:33 appointed times new moon Sabbaths

Isa 1:13-14 Appointed feasts New moon Sabbaths


Ezekiel 45:17 appointed feasts new moons Sabbaths

Ezek 46:1-11 appointed feasts new moons Sabbaths


Hosea 2:11 festal assemblies new moons Sabbaths

Galatians 4:10 years months days


Colossians 2:16 festival new moon Sabbath day

To the Romans Paul taught the same doctrine: the observance of the Jewish holy days was not to be regarded. "One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Romans. 14:5.

End pt1

 

[Studyman]

And that has nothing at all to do with what is today does it?

Clearly the Truth of Scriptures means nothing to you. But it does to me. Just as it did to Paul.


1 Cor. 10: 1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

Not your examples Tom. These examples clearly have nothing to do with you.

11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Not your admonition Tom, you have found Clark and other internet preachers, you don't need God's Word.

You are free to continue promoting the insidious lie that Jesus and Paul 's Creed was against God's Law, it's clear this is your mission and as you have pointed out, the Biblical Truth means nothing to you.

Time to shake the dust.