Hebrews 10:26 really bothers me !!!

[Starkman]

Hey, thanks, analogman!

That just made my day!!!

(Ok, where are the smiley things? I can't find the smiley things? Where are they? Oh...forgot...can't use them on the Quick Reply. Rats!)

Starkman

[Magdalenbrother]

Polynesian girl,

First, let's look at the verse in another version (the KJV will suffice, but I'm going to use the English Standard Version just because I have it online). Second, let's look at the verse in a bit more context than the isolated manner in which you quoted it. This will help.

Heb 10:19-25

19 Therefore, brothers, [3] since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

Note particularly verses 24-25: considering ways to stir up one another to love and good works.

Then the author says,

Heb 10:26-31

26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Now read this carefully, and you'll see that the last thing the author is trying to say is "Well, you know, if you sin willfully, now that you know the truth, there ain't no more sacrifice for your sins. You're doomed. Sorry! So, don't ever sin--ever, ever, ever--again willingly."

The issue of no forgiveness are those who are adversaries (vs 27); those who "set aside" and spurned the Son of God, profaining His blood of the covenant, outraging the Spirit of grace; those who require God's vengence upon them. Is this the Christian who gets tempted and falls into sin? Is it the Christian who gets upset sometimes and sins? Is it the Christian who has been doing something wrong for a while and finally heeds the conviction? No, not at all. Rather, we can see that the author is talking about someting much more drastic in terms of how one is treating God and the work Christ did on the cross for that one's sins.

Finally, if you can, read the Bible in other versions (NASB, ESB, NIV, NRSV, but not the Message or other paraphrases). And let the simplicity of the book of Hebrews speak for itself--here's the deal: the writer is concerned that these Christians will resort to sacrificing as a means of pleasing God when they should know by now the meaninglessness of all that; Christ has come and become our great sacrifice, God's acceptable sacrifice; our rest is in Him. Don't make it anymore complicated than this. It's not a seperate gospel from some other gospel or anything like that. It's a letter from a person's heart who cared enough about these Christians, who were in just as much of the New Covenant as anyone else, to tell them, "Hey, stay in Him, not in Old Testament sacrifices, ok!" Paul had the same heart for the Galatians who were flirting with the idea of having to be circumcised. I mean, just read the letter and see for yourself what the deal is. It doesn't take anything more. It's the same message, same issue: man's heart wandering, or being led astray, in one way or another from the true gospel. Not a complicated issue.

Hope this helps,

Starkman

I strongly but calmly disagree with Starkman's (hey! how are you? we've dueled before!) exegesis of Heb 10:26. It may be that there are lots of scriptures that contradict what I think is the clear message of Hebrews. But that is simply not the point.

Let me make it very clear from the beginning: I'm only concerned with what the author of the epistle thought. Trinitarian methods of exegesis often result in the obfuscation, if not the outright obliteration, of the original thougt of the Biblical writers in the name of the coherence of their own overall vision. This is achieved via the sacrosanct principle that "one ought to read the whole Bible to be able to understand a given passage".

This is a very ingenuous principle indeed. Since the NT was put together by uniting materials which came from different Christian schools and communities(the doctrine underlying the Synoptics is more or less coherent but John is clearly Gnostic in inspiration*) "reading the whole Bible" makes it possible not only to create baffling and unheard of doctrinal monsters (a man who is also God: the Synoptists+John) but also to effectively neutralize at will anything that might be embarrassing. I gave elsewhere the prime example of Jesus' saying to the effect that the Messiah is not David's son. In the name of Paul's statement that the Messiah is "of the seed of David" and other related Biblical passages, trinitarian commentators simply ignore the plain meaning of Jesus' denial. So "reading the whole Bible" in reality means choosing one verse or a group of verses which favor the dominant creed and using them to reduce to eternal silence and oblivion other verses which say something the dominant sect doesn't wat to hear about. RIP. Briefly, there is no "wholeness" in the orthodox interpretation of Scripture at all: it is an (unavowed, strenuousy denied) picking and choosing, which I think is normal and inevitable considering the enormous diversity of the Biblical material.

I say all this in order that Poly should remain unimpressed by quotes from other books of the Bible. If her aim is to know, not what the other Biblical authors say about the remission of sins and its scope, but to know what the author of the epistle to the Hebrews thought about it, then she should pay attention to Hebrews 10:26 and it context alone. Was the author of Hebrews right? Ought we to accept his doctrine? That is another question altogether. So, very briefly, what I want to say is:

For God's sake let us recognize diversity of opinion!

Now, if you ask me, poor sinner, what Hebrews 10:26 says, my answer will be simple and short:

It says that after receiving the full knowledge of the truth, Christians who sin deliberately cannot hope that Jesus will save them again. This is not to deny the effectiveness of the sacrifice of Jesus. Not at all. Baptism does delete all past sins in a way the Jewish sacrifices cannot imitate. And it will remain effective for all times (until the imminent Parousia in fact). Any man or woman who receives baptism will have all their sins erased for ever, no matter whether in AD 39 or AD 55 (I'm using the time scale the NT authors had in mind).

Starkman says that the people Hebrews has in view are not the Christians. That this is false is easily demonstrated and easily understood.

Who, but the Christians, have received the full knowledge of the truth?
Did pagan miscreants and Christian infidels receive the full knowledge of the truth?

NO.

So, you see the question is very simple. In one question I have refuted tons of biased, uselessly complicated and grievously ahistorical exegesis. May this example teach you to be always suspicious of complexity! God's truth is much simpler than we think. Jesus knew it who praised the babes and cursed the self-proclaimed wise.

Naturally, this raises the related question of whether one can remain without sin.

To this question, we ought to answer with a thunderous YES!, hoping that our voices will make Luther and Calvin and the whole Protestant crowd turn in their graves and in their hearts. To know this essential point, it is not necessary to read Wesley or his spiritual mentor John Chrysostom, it is enough to open your Bible and read the first epistle of John attentively and without theological blinkers "made in Germany" (or elsewhere, there are many sellers of blinkers in the world).

John says that whoever abides in God doesn't sin. In fact, he candidly tells us that he wrote his epistle so that we may remain free from sin in the first place. Yes sir. So John doesn't simply exhort his readers not to sin, or to try not to sin, he positively declares that a true Christian doesn't sin.

This is mind-boggling, but not incomprehensible if we remember that Christians, particularly the Christians John was talking to, thought they lived in a very special historical moment: the End of Times was near. The nearness of the Kingdom called for what Fredriksen terms "ethical intensification". This line of thinking is patent in Jesus' teachings. In normal times, not to commit adultery is enough, but in the end times even the mere thought of adultery should be avoided altogether. Only the strongest will enter the Kingdom. Many will try to enter but they will fail for lack of strength, warns Jesus in Luke when asked if the saved will be many.

Briefly, I think that the doctrine of the author of Hebrews constitutes a perfect example of the typical Jewish "holy remnant" theology: God will destroy most people because they are sinners, only a few elect wll enter the Kingdom. The message is: try very hard to enter through the (narrow) door! No sins allowed. It is possible. At any rate, one won't have to struggle very long: the Lord is at our doors (John says that the "last hour" has arrived!).

I know that John's epistle opens with the statement that all have sinned and that whoever says that he is free from sin is in darkness, but this is NOT a description of the normal life of Christians. This is a description of people who would have communion with God. John says that communion with God is not possible if one doesn't recognize that one is a sinner. But once the person has been cleansed from their sins through baptism and received the spirit of Jesus, sin is no longer acceptable. If one sins, that means one really belongs to the devil (John says clearly that sin, any sin, is devilish and delivers us into the hands of Satan). Sin literally turns a Christian into Christ's adversary. This is probably one of the reasons why false Christian teachers were termed "antichrists" by their orthodox detractors.

Remember also the very hard, unforgiving words of Jesus to people who mislead "those little ones who believe in me" or commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. How come the bloody sacrifice of the cross cannot remedy such sins?

Therefore, my dear Poly, as you can see for yourself now, Hebrews 10:26 is not exceptional or weird at all. Its message is in perfect harmony with other scriptures that are conveniently ignored by those who would have you believe that sin is indestructible and human nature totally depraved. This may have been Paul's opinion, but it was not shared by other witnesses.

So choose the theology you prefer! Do you believe in modern versions of Luther's man-debasing, easy-going doctrine or do you prefer John's own version of the Reaganesque "You can!"? Like the Apostolic fathers and Pelagius, I prefer the theology set forth by the author of Hebrews and by John, which I think goes back to Jesus himself.

That was my two sub-Christian cents.

Peace

Magdalenbrother

*The gospel of John was not accepted easily by all Christians. Many saw it as a piece of Gnostic literature, but since without it the Chuch could never have managed to prove the divinity of Jesus, they eventually accepted it, despite the obvious fact that its theology is very different from that of the Synoptics, to say nothing of its historical content.

[Starkman]

Hey Mag,

Sorry, but I simply disagree with your analysis. Poly will now have to decide for herself.

Thanks,

Starkman

[Xmansmommy]

Starkman, that WAS an awesome post. Thank you for your insight.

[Starkman]

Starkman, that WAS an awesome post. Thank you for your insight.

Thanks mucho, Xmansmommy!!!

Starkman

[Magdalenbrother]

Hi Starkman,

I'm somewhat disappointed that you don't try to rebut my arguments, but I guess that the rebuttal is contained in your previous posts and that there is nothing more to add. Thank you for refraining from acrimonious or venomous remarks, I hope I didn't offend you with my anti-Protestant rhetoric and other "barbs". I tried to be as polite as possible, but I couldn't avoid one or two pointed remarks.

To round off my case, I would like to point out something, which I think is very important. If you had asked Moshe (I'm giving an imaginary name to the unknown author of Hebrews) what he thought about the eventful relationship between David, this great and incorrigible sinner, and his God, I think he would have said that there was between David and the least among the Christians the same difference as between JTB and the "least in the Kingdom of God". In the old, primitive Covenant, people were shown more mercy and generosity because they weren't End Time citizens of Israel. Besides, the covenant was one that had been concluded by Moses, who was only a great prophet, for people with a "stiff neck" and with the blood of animals. Therefore, if these spiritually uncouth people sinned, it wasn't that serious.

But the New Covenant is different: this is a covenant handed down by the glorious image of the Father, the co-creator of the universe, Jesus the Messiah, in the "last time" and for the "holy remnant". Consequently, anyone who breaks that unique, sacrosanct covenant made in the sinless blood of the Messiah commits a grievous fault, one that cannot be forgiven. In fact, one of the aims of Jesus' mission is precisely to unmask the sons of this world, the wolves disguising as sheep. So if someone falls, it shows that he or she didn't belong to the predestinated flock in the first place: good riddance!

I think the end of chapter 10 in Hebrews makes the above doctrinal considerations crystal-clear. Of course, modern Christians think differently. They have put Moshe's theology on its head: for them the New Covenant means infinite, limitless mercy. Not more severity but less. In that respect, Moshe would probably consider that we have reverted to the first covenant or even to something inferior to the Mosaic law since our spiritual life is subject to almost no rules and quite lax.

Finally let me do a bit of creative thinking on this topic. What happens to the people who sin after baptism? Do they really have to expect a worse punishment than the one God inflicted to the rebellious Jews in the desert as Moshe suggests?

I don't think so. What will happen to these weak Christians is that they will have to expiate their sins "to the uttermost farthing" (KJV). In this perspective, Mat 5:25ff becomes the ideal parable of God's limited mercy. If you can reconcile yourself with God "in the way", which means baptism and conversion, everything will be fine: Jesus will take care of your past sins and make your soul "whiter than snow". But if you wait or if you relapse, you will be delivered to the judge, who will deliver you to the officer, who will cast you into prison, until you have paid the "uttermost farthing".

Purgatory? Why not?


Magdalenbrother

[barryrob]

Hebrews 10, 26 says "for if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no sacrifice for sins" and Hebrews 10,17 also says "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin".

I hope you people will not object to my frequent use of the KJV translation, I know its English sounds odd and I've heard that some of its translations are sometimes not quite correct (is it the case here?), but this is the only English translation I've got here...

What bothers me terribly in these two verses (specially the first, I may have misconstrued the meaning of the second one) is that they seem to imply that there is a limit to God's forgiveness. I've read somewhere that Constantine, the famous emperor who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, refused to be baptized until his last moments on earth. Apparently, he felt that being an emperor he would have to commit some grievous sins. So he waited till the last minute to put on the immaculate robe of the baptized Christian! But he believed in Christ. In fact, he saw Christ before crushing his rivals!

I don't understand why he didn't ask for God's forgiveness the way Christians do it today. We sin ad then we repent and God forgives us till the last minute because his beloved Son died for all our sins on Calvary.

Was Constantine impressed by Hebrews 10:26 or what ? And does such an attitude reflect a common concern in the early Church ?

The Vahinee

NWT Hebrews 10:26 For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left.

The Key is "practice sin wilfully" or we couls say: continually doing or believing that which we KNOW to be wrong we would show no Repentance, thus NO forgiveness = EVERLASTING DEATH!

Constantine The Great was never a Christian in any way shape or form, he was a Pagan through and through. He only use the so-called Christianity he founded for political purposes and self glorification, in other words he was a servant of the Devil.

Barryrob

[bar Jonah]

Barry, that sounds real nice.

But that isn't what it says. It says nothing about continuing to sin over a period of time. Jeremy (Acts9) correctly pointed out the direct and obvious parallel to the passage in Numbers, which shows a ONE TIME sin resulting in a person being completely cut off, having only a promise of death, with his guilt upon him, condemned.

The man picked up sticks on the Sabbath, Barry. That hardly fits what you're saying, by any stretch of the imagination.

[Ron Macy]

RightIdea,

But that isn't what it says. It says nothing about continuing to sin over a period of time. Jeremy (Acts9) correctly pointed out the direct and obvious parallel to the passage in Numbers, which shows a ONE TIME sin resulting in a person being completely cut off, having only a promise of death, with his guilt upon him, condemned.

The man picked up sticks on the Sabbath, Barry. That hardly fits what you're saying, by any stretch of the imagination.

I am sorry for interupting, but Hebrews 10:26 communicates exactly what barryrob said.
The NASB says, “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,”
The NIV says, “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,”


It speaks of continuous action. It is habitual sin. It is not a single, one time sin.

Ron

[bar Jonah]

RightIdea,

I am sorry for interupting, but Hebrews 10:26 communicates exactly what barryrob said.
The NASB says, “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,”
The NIV says, “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,”


It speaks of continuous action. It is habitual sin. It is not a single, one time sin.

Ron

The NIV and NASB are just plain wrong. Let's look at an ultra-literal translation of this passage, literally in the word order with Strong's numbers beside them. Nowhere do you see any indication of any language referring to doing this in perpetuity. There is no "going on" or "keeping on" here. It only refers to doing this after receiving the knowledge of the truth.

Hebrews 10:26

|1596| willfully
|1063| For
|0264| sinning
|2257| us
|3326| after
|2983| receiving
|3588| the
|1922| full knowledge
|3588| of the
|0225| truth,
|3765| no more
|4012| concerning
|0266| sins
|0620| remains
|2378| a sacrifice,

What does a more readable but still very literal translation give us?

Hebrews 10:26 -- Young's Literal

For we -- willfully sinning after the receiving the full knowledge of the truth -- no more for sins doth there remain a sacrifice,

There's nothing here about continuing anything. If you do X after receiving the full knowledge of the truth... That's it.

Once again, God's word triumphs over presupposition.

[Ron Macy]

RightIdea,

The NIV and NASB are just plain wrong.

You are definitely entitled to your opinion.

I have the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible edited by Spiros Zodhiates. It shows the tenses of the word in superscripts. In Hebrews 10:26 the notes tell me the tense of the word, sinning, is a present participle. The definition given for a present participle is:

• The Present Participle expresses continuous or repeated action. It does not in inself indicate the time of the action, but when its relationship to the main verb is temporal, it usually signifies action contemporary with that of the main verb. Example: “While they were eating (present participle)…he broke (the bread)” Mk. 14:22.

The bold emphasis is mine. This is what little I know about Greek. Plainly, the NIV and NASB are not wrong.

Once again, God's word triumphs over presupposition.

I agree.

Ron

[Act9_12Out]

Sorry I've been gone... Didn't notice that this thread picked up again...

Ron rightly identifies the Present Active Participle [greek]amartanontwn[/greek]. What's important here is not that they "keep on sinning," but rather, that they "keep on sinning intentionally."

As RI rightly noted, the author of Hebrews numbers himself with his audience. If the focus of this passage is "they keep on sinning," I must ask, when do they cross the line? Ron noted Mark 14:22, where they were "present tense eating," but we can be sure that they did not keep on eating and eating...

In fact, 1 John 1:9 gives us another Present Active idea:

Scripture Verse:

1 John 1:9
If we (keep on confessing) our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

This shows that they needed to "keep on confessing" in order to be forgiven, What if they don't "keep on confessing?" He is no longer faithful and just to forgive them their sins and to cleanse them from all unrighteousness. This idea stands in direct opposition to what has been presented here.

The idea has been put forth that if they "keep on sinning" they lose their salvation. However, John says if they "keep on confessing" they are forgiven. These two ideas do not mesh.

That's why it's important to note that the author of Hebrews is addressing a specific type of sin. Hebrews 10:26 is speaking specifically of willful sin against God. [greek]amartanontwn[/greek] is equal to [greek]peripesein[/greek] (Hebrews 6:6 - fall away) and [greek]aposthnai apo Qeou[/greek] (Hebrews 3:12 - depart from God). The sin meant is that of apostasy; unfaithfulness to God, and His manifestation in Christ, being the ground and foundation of all other sin.

Verse 26 tell us "there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin" because the priest could sacrifice only for sins of ignorance, on unwillful sins, as shown in Hebrews 9:7.

Scripture Verse:

Hebrews 9:7
But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance;

Here is a condition of their sanctification. Again, this sin is apostasy. There is no longer a sacrifice for sin because the sacrifice has already been made, and they have rejected Him.

The word "willfully" [greek]ekousiwV[/greek] is the key to understanding the nature of the unpardonable sin. The LXX of Numbers 15 (Numbers 15 referenced on page 1) uses forms of this word repeatedly. However, in Numbers 15:24-29 it is used with the alpha privative which changes the meaning to "unintentional." Willful, presumptous sin has dire consequences in both Numbers and Hebrews. That's why the author of Hebrews issues such dreadful warnings.

Following the statement in Numbers 15:30, 31, an incident is related which illustrates the severity of an intentional offense. Numbers 15:32-36 shows death as the result of this kind of sin. "His guilt is upon him." He was lost. The Hebrews, to whom this epistle is written, were well aware of the Numbers passage. Now they too had this extremely severe warning. They heard, "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!" (Hebrews 10:31). What did they have to look forward to if they sinned willfully? Nothing but "a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries" (Hebrew 10:27).

Notice again the allusion to the Numbers 15:32-36 incident in Hebrews 10:28.

Scripture Verse:

Hebrews 10:28
Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

But here, the punishment is more severe because their knowledge is so complete. Compare Hebrews 10:16 with 1 John 2:20, 27:

Scripture Verse:

Hebrews 10:16
“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,”

1 John 2:20,27
20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.
27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

The knowledge aspects of the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 are in place for them here.

Scripture Verse:

Jeremiah 31:33,34
33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 “No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Here, Hebrews 10:29 tells us they were sanctified ([greek]hgiasqh[/greek] - aorist passive) by the blood of Christ. If they sinned willfully, their punishment would be much worse than the man who was cut off in his guilt.

God Bless, --Jeremy

[barryrob]

Barry, that sounds real nice.

But that isn't what it says. It says nothing about continuing to sin over a period of time. Jeremy (Acts9) correctly pointed out the direct and obvious parallel to the passage in Numbers, which shows a ONE TIME sin resulting in a person being completely cut off, having only a promise of death, with his guilt upon him, condemned.

The man picked up sticks on the Sabbath, Barry. That hardly fits what you're saying, by any stretch of the imagination.

We now live under Jesus Christ NOT the Law of Moses:-

Matthew 18:21-22
Then Peter came up and said to him: "Lord, how many times is my brother to sin against me and am I to forgive him? Up to seven times?" 22 Jesus said to him: "I say to you, not, Up to seven times, but, Up to seventy-seven times.

Mark 11:25

And when YOU stand praying, forgive whatever YOU have against anyone; in order that YOUR Father who is in the heavens may also forgive YOU YOUR trespasses."

Luke 17:4

Even if he sins seven times a day against you and he comes back to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him."

Ephesians 4:32

But become kind to one another, tenderly compassionate, freely forgiving one another just as God also by Christ freely forgave YOU.

Colossians 3:13

Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely if anyone has a cause for complaint against another. Even as Jehovah freely forgave YOU, so do YOU also.

If God rejected every one today for ONE sin Christianity would be a waist of time, thankfully that is not the case.

I think you will agree the God will not forgive persons who do not want it?

Barryob

[bar Jonah]

We now live under Jesus Christ NOT the Law of Moses:-

Matthew 18:21-22
Then Peter came up and said to him: "Lord, how many times is my brother to sin against me and am I to forgive him? Up to seven times?" 22 Jesus said to him: "I say to you, not, Up to seven times, but, Up to seventy-seven times.

Mark 11:25

And when YOU stand praying, forgive whatever YOU have against anyone; in order that YOUR Father who is in the heavens may also forgive YOU YOUR trespasses."

Luke 17:4

Even if he sins seven times a day against you and he comes back to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him."

Ephesians 4:32

But become kind to one another, tenderly compassionate, freely forgiving one another just as God also by Christ freely forgave YOU.

Colossians 3:13

Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely if anyone has a cause for complaint against another. Even as Jehovah freely forgave YOU, so do YOU also.

If God rejected every one today for ONE sin Christianity would be a waist of time, thankfully that is not the case.

I think you will agree the God will not forgive persons who do not want it?

Barryob

Barry, don't you even appreciate the irony of what you just said? We don't live under the Law.... but you must do X or else you will not be saved.

You're right, we're not under the Law. So, why are you putting commandments on people? Jesus preached faith plus works of the Law, to Israel. Paul, on the other hand -- the apostle to the Gentiles -- preached it the other way around. Because God forgave you, so you should forgive others.

If A, then B.

If B, then A.

Which is it? Paul says to follow him, because he follows Christ. I follow Paul, and so should you.

[barryrob]

Barry, don't you even appreciate the irony of what you just said? We don't live under the Law.... but you must do X or else you will not be saved.

You're right, we're not under the Law. So, why are you putting commandments on people? Jesus preached faith plus works of the Law, to Israel. Paul, on the other hand -- the apostle to the Gentiles -- preached it the other way around. Because God forgave you, so you should forgive others.

If A, then B.

If B, then A.

Which is it? Paul says to follow him, because he follows Christ. I follow Paul, and so should you.

Even under God's King Jesus there are still certian commandmants for us otherwise why would Peter and the others Apostels have said:-

Acts 5:29 "We must obey God as ruler rather than men.

In this instance it was in conection with Preaching, they would not stop doing it, why because they considered it one of God's Commands to the followers of His Son Jesus:-

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU. And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things."

So when Jesus says there is somthing Christians should be doing it is a command from God's King for us to obey. If we chose not to obey it when we know it to be from Him and right then it is a sin for us of which we need to repent and change or corse otherwise we show lack of repentance for which there is no forgivness:-

Hebrews 10:28-31 Any man that has disregarded the law of Moses dies without compassion, upon the testimony of two or three. 29 Of how much more severe a punishment, do YOU think, will the man be counted worthy who has trampled upon the Son of God and who has esteemed as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt? 30 For we know him that said: "Vengeance is mine; I will recompense"; and again: "Jehovah will judge his people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of [the] living God.


As it is this:-

Matthew 12:31 blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven.

The above text is to be applied within the Christian Congregations as it is addressed to them, God judges outsiders.

Barryrob