|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/22/2009 4:47:25 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2927
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: micharmony
BT,
quote:
To those free from the law I became like one free from the law (though I am not free from God’s law but under the law of Christ) to gain those free from the law. (1 Cor. 9:21)
I like that you pointed this out, because I think it makes a number of points that I want to be explaining:
1) Paul makes a few distinctions, using different terms for "the law," "God's law," and "Christ's law".
2) Those who are outside "the law" are being won by someone who is allowed to go "outside the law".
3) Paul is able to be "outside the law" without being rid of "God's law" or to be "outside Christ's law".
The only explanation I have seen so far that fulfills all three facts is that way New Covenant Theology puts things (as I understand it right now): the Mosaic Law is no longer necessary; God's eternal law has a new Covenant expression--that of the life and teachings of Christ.
The problem with that take is, in context, Paul is not talking about lifestyle, he is talking about argumentation and debate. That is why he clarifies his point. He is not free from Adonai's law, he follows the law as exemplified and clarified by Yeshua. He becomes like one not having the law by refraining from refering to the law as his main point of argumentation. If he is talking to one who is familiar with the Tanach(OT) then he uses that to make his point.
Now, this does not contradict what I said to GC, if you or he were thinking that. I was just trying to stick to the discussion of his two completely different covenants argument. In this way, I am attempting to be one who focuses on the "new" vs the "old" to one who sees things that way. This, I believe, is what Paul is telling us to do in this passage.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/22/2009 5:01:09 PM
|
|
|
AskSeekKnock
Posts: 35
Joined: 8/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bob97
AskSeekKnock…there would be some evidence that the indwelling of he Spirit was not a permanent thing, seems it depends what your position is, are you a CT or a Dispensationalist. My self I think it permanent for those who trusted in God such as Abraham.
The Old Testament speaks of purification and in the New Testament it is sanctification, it often uses terms related to "purify" or "cleanse," frequently in the context of forgiveness (e.g. Lev. 16:30; Num. 8:21; Ps. 51:2; Jer. 33:8; Ezek. 36:25,33). The New Testament reflects this language in 1 John 1:9: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Did God ever threaten Abraham with something else than righteousness? Did David's sins take away his position with God?
Bob
Bob, I really don't know what I would call myself. I know that seems funny, but I really don't. Just someone trying to learn more about the Word of God. Forgive me if I seem harsh, that is not my intent. This topic has really been a struggle of mine as of late, and I am really wanting to know and understand what I should do.
As to your questions, I'm really not sure how to answer. But I think their sin would distance themselves from God. Did God still love them? Yes, but it did put distance between them.
_____________________________
1 Cor. 4:7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/22/2009 5:01:37 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2927
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AskSeekKnock
I see no conflict in these instructions either. But, was Jesus telling them anyting new?
Deuteronomy 6:5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. (NKJV)
Deuteronomy 10:18-19 He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. (NKJV)
Welcome, You have done well in seeing the great commandments as a clarification of HaTorah. However, a more direct example is Lev 19:16-18 "'Do not go about spreading slander among your people. "'Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life. I am the Lord. "'Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord."
Your passage does fit the touchy feely evangelistic attitudes of some, but it is not a direct quote as is the Lev, passage.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/22/2009 5:07:27 PM
|
|
|
AskSeekKnock
Posts: 35
Joined: 8/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: AskSeekKnock
I see no conflict in these instructions either. But, was Jesus telling them anyting new?
Deuteronomy 6:5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. (NKJV)
Deuteronomy 10:18-19 He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. (NKJV)
Welcome, You have done well in seeing the great commandments as a clarification of HaTorah. However, a more direct example is Lev 19:16-18 "'Do not go about spreading slander among your people. "'Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life. I am the Lord. "'Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord."
Your passage does fit the touchy feely evangelistic attitudes of some, but it is not a direct quote as is the Lev, passage.
Thanks Blue, glad to be here. And thanks for leading me to Lev. 19:16-18.
_____________________________
1 Cor. 4:7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/22/2009 5:11:28 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Again, please, if you are going to "Paul said" then present what Paul actually said. If your going to present your take on what he said, say that. Where does Paul say, "the church was not revealed in the OT."?
"Now this mystery was not discosed to people in former generations as it has now been revealed to his holy prophets by the Spirit, namely, that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus..." (Eph. 3:5-6) The body = church.
"...to enlighten everyone about God's plan-a secret that has been hidden for ages in God...that through the church the multifaceted wisdom of God should now be disclosed to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly realms..." (Eph. 3:9-10)
quote:
Since this was moved, it is difficult to locate the exact post. However, if I recall, I used the words in the passage to explain the passage and it was you who was combineing various passages to make your point.
Well, look them up and clarify your point. Never assume you will not be asked to substantiate what you say. Otherwise, I have to accept that you can't.
quote:
Since this was moved, it is difficult to locate the exact post. However, if I recall, I used the words in the passage to explain the passage and it was you who was combineing various passages to make your point.
Sorry, you lost me.
quote:
quote:
The purpose of the law was to reveal that we are sinners and to direct us to Christ. Dying with Christ, we died to the law. IOW, the law had no effect on us. We are exempted from its penalties.
I know that is your position. However, we are talking about Rom. 7:4-6 here. Now, what is Paul saying here, as you say, using Paul's words.
Paul presents one of the purposes of the law was exposing man's propensity to sin. Being released from the law released us from its power to provoke us to sin. By being released by it also released us from its power.
quote:
If you recall, our "originally scheduled program", before we were redirected to this thread, was how to interpret a passage from the Tanach. Matthew is using the word fulfill to interpret the Tanach in that passage, you say that term is to be translated "paid in full". Now if you will conceed that there can be another way of interpreting that word, fine. Otherwise, this reference to typology is just another attempt at misdirection. You have stumbled upon my exact point. Interpreting fulfilled as "paid in full" is taking Isaiah out of context. Therefore, another hermeneutic is in play here. I contend that hermeneutic is that the term means fully exemplifies.
But that is not all we have to go on.
quote:
quote:
Nope, I wasn't there. Gentiles were "grafted in." If I thought I was should I be concerned about being stoned or or me and my posterity ejected from the land of Israel?
If you did something worthy of that and were found guilty in a properly convened court of law. Much like penalties are meeted out here in the USA. Of course, Adonai's blessings and cursings do not require a human court. He enforces them Himself.
Exactly!
"There is therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus..." (Romans 8:1)
"Who will bring any charge against God's elect? It is God that justifies." (Romans 8:33)
If He says he will not penalize us what do I have to worry about?
quote:
Are you saying that there is only one curse? Also, we are not cursed by the law, we are cursed as a natural result of our actions. HaTorah points this out. Now, if you are going to limit this discussion to only what is in the Apistolic Writings, why were we discussing Jeremiah when we were redirected to this thread?
The Galatians passage only mentions one. If you believe that there are curses of the law to which we are still subject, please present them.
With regard to why we are still using the Jeremiah passage: The NT supercedes the OT. The writer of Hebrews interprets Jeremiah for us. Sabbatarians and others often quote the OT as if all its penalties were still in effect. Since the NT negates so many of those, let the NT tell us if we are still subject to them.
quote:
Oh. You mean so that they would not be stoned or exiled from the land of Israel?
Emphasis Mine
Yes, among other things, as the emphasis portion denotes.
I live in Texas. Contrary to what some Texans might say, Texas is not the promised land. Look, I don't live in the Middle East. So I have no worries about being ejected from Israel. You and I got into a number of discussions about stoning people. Are you now saying that some NT believers are subject to being stoned? Really? Are you serious??? Frankly, you don't believe that or you would have been involved in that already. Sorry, I don't think you believe that for a minute.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/22/2009 7:55:12 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2927
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
If you are going to contend that Paul said, "I command you", you will need to provide some examples so your thesis regarding a different law can be tested.
You're kidding right? Did you think I made that up? I would have thought you would know that already.
1 Cor. 7:6, 7:25 (while he does not command anything, it is obvious from the context that he was accustomed to issueing commands.) 1 Cor. 14:37, 2 Cor 8:8; 2 Thess 3:6 ("we command you brothers"); 2 Thess. 3:10; 1 Tim. 4:11; 1 Tim. 6:14; 1 Tim 6:17: Phil 1:8
Ok, let's start looking at some Scripture passages.
1 Cor. 7:6, 7:25 (while he does not command anything, it is obvious from the context that he was accustomed to issueing commands.)
I Cor. 7:6 "I say this as a concession, not as a command."
7:25 "Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy."
If, you are saying that since he is saying he is not giving a command in these instinces, it can be presumed that the rest are commands. This is not necessarily the case. The converse is not always true.
He also says in verse 10 "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.'" and in verse 17 "This is the rule I lay down in all the churches."
It appears Paul is very carefule when he is playing the prophet and when he is is playing the rabbi. So, as we proceed we should probably keep this in mind. Some things he say are clear interpretations of Scripture, some are general practice and others are his preference. So, with this in mind let's continue.
1 Cor. 14:37 & context, "36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38 If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. 39 Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way."
Ok, this is Adonai's command. I see no new law here. In the Tanach, the prophets were to be allowed to speak at all times. They would be held accountable for what they say, but no one can stop someone from prophecying.
2 Cor 8:8 & context "7 But just as you excel in everything--in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in your love for us--see that you also excel in this grace of giving. 8 I am not commanding you, but I want to test the sincerity of your love by comparing it with the earnestness of others."
Here is a case where Paul is exhorting. As in HaTorah a free will offering is of one's free will. We can ask and even encourage, but we are not to force such offerings. This not only is not new, but agian supports the sacrifices we see in HaTorah.
2 Thess 3:6&10 "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us." "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat.""
Now, here we have a direct command from Adonai. This is clearly in line with HaTorah. The fourth commandment states trhat we have 6 days in which to work and we were told in the garden that we would eat bread by the sweat of our brows.
1 Tim. 4:11& context "1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. 6 If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. 7 Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. 8 For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. 9 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10 (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. 11 Command and teach these things."
Now, this is an interesting passage. I emphasised to points that migh t be considered most significatnt in our discussion. Now he seems to say that those who say we should "abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving" "follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons". That I would not contend. My contention is what Paul would consider "foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving". On might say this is anything using vs 4 "For everything God created is good". However, this can not be the case, because one would not say it includes poisonious plants. So, what foods were being contested. We see this clarified at the Jersualem council, where we see it is food offered to idols.
Therefore, I believe when Paul says food, he is refering to things generally considered food according to HaTorah. Otherwise one would have to say that those who follow the Scriptures follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons and godless myths and old wives' tales. If one were talking about having to do these things for salvation, there mighjt be and arguement. However, to say that about simply following Adonai's word would be a clear insult and subject to accusations of blasphemy. However, Paul tells us in Phil 3:6 that he is, "touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." So, he must be speaking of rabbinics.
1 Tim. 6:14-17 "That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;"
The context of this is about being obsessed with money. There are several commandments in this regard in HaTorah.
Phil 1:8 "God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus."
I'm not sure how this applies. However, with the possible exception of 1 Tim. 4:11& context, which I am sure you will wish to discuss further, there is no reputation of HaTorah. In fact, I thank you for providing me the opportunity to show how Paul affirmed HaTorah.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/22/2009 8:34:33 PM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 2252
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
quote:
As to your questions, I'm really not sure how to answer. But I think their sin would distance themselves from God. Did God still love them? Yes, but it did put distance between them.
AskSeekKnock...our sins, unless repented always place a barrier between ourselves and God but that does not imply that God withdraws, it is us that is lacking in the relationship.
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/23/2009 12:38:56 AM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 2252
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
Michael...I was going to ask regarding your understanding of the New Covenant; are you looking for a new dispensation as it applies to the New Covenant? That the law of Christ is 'not' the same as the law of Moses? That Christ did not represent the commandments and moral laws outlined by God and that He is dealing with this dispensation in a different way?
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/25/2009 5:17:51 PM
|
|
|
micharmony
Posts: 30
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bob97
Michael...I was going to ask regarding your understanding of the New Covenant; are you looking for a new dispensation as it applies to the New Covenant? That the law of Christ is 'not' the same as the law of Moses? That Christ did not represent the commandments and moral laws outlined by God and that He is dealing with this dispensation in a different way?
Bob
Hey Bob!
Sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner; I've been away for a few days for family stuffs.
I am not really looking for a new dispensation; I believe that the New Covenant is revelation of the Love of God. I believe that such a Love fulfills all other law because it is bigger, more complete, and the source of all other law. I do not believe that Love is opposed to Law. I believe that Love fulfills the Law, therefore Love is what we are to do, not settle for doing the Law in its worded formulations. Christ fulfilled the Law because He is Love. He is not the incarnation of Law, but the incarnation of Love, which naturally fulfills Law.
Does that make sense? :)
_____________________________
Grace,
Michael
Ezk. 34:31
I have a feeling God thinks it rather cute that we all think we understand him completely.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/25/2009 10:25:23 PM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 2252
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
Hi Michael...yes that makes sense and I would say we are very close in our understanding. If we love as we should then we will keep the commandments of God...not so much because we focus on the laws themselves but because of our consideration for others.
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2009 4:02:26 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
Ok, let's start looking at some Scripture passages.
...It appears Paul is very carefule when he is playing the prophet and when he is is playing the rabbi. So, as we proceed we should probably keep this in mind. Some things he say are clear interpretations of Scripture, some are general practice and others are his preference. So, with this in mind let's continue.
...Ok, this is Adonai's command. I see no new law here. In the Tanach, the prophets were to be allowed to speak at all times. They would be held accountable for what they say, but no one can stop someone from prophecying.
....
Here is a case where Paul is exhorting. As in HaTorah a free will offering is of one's free will. We can ask and even encourage, but we are not to force such offerings. This not only is not new, but agian supports the sacrifices we see in HaTorah.
..... This is clearly in line with HaTorah. The fourth commandment states trhat we have 6 days in which to work and we were told in the garden that we would eat bread by the sweat of our brows.
Sorry for the absence.
With regard to your comments, I am puzzled by a few things.
1) I never said there was "new law."
2) The new covenant as embodied by the NT scriptures represents some radical changes over the old covenant. Even a child could see that.(That statement is hyperbole, so don't nit pick.) It seems difficult to say specifically exactly what God could have been in that statement. I didn't want to do eisegesis. But it is clear from the outcome that the NT is very different from the old. We have the church, apostles, animal sacrifices are done away with, levitic priesthood and Aaronic priesthood is done away with. Permission to eat foods like pork and shell fish. Ceremonial feast days are no longer observed--even if you think Saturday/Sabbath is not.
3) Your statements seem very unclear to me. I am uncertain about what you are trying to prove except that you are bent on interpreting "my law" in Jeremiah 31 as the Mosaic law. It doesn't really matter what I prove. Your mind is clearly made up.
4) Frankly, your signature line ""Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)"---you don't buy it for a minute.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2009 11:49:00 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2927
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
Ok, let's start looking at some Scripture passages.
...It appears Paul is very carefule when he is playing the prophet and when he is is playing the rabbi. So, as we proceed we should probably keep this in mind. Some things he say are clear interpretations of Scripture, some are general practice and others are his preference. So, with this in mind let's continue.
...Ok, this is Adonai's command. I see no new law here. In the Tanach, the prophets were to be allowed to speak at all times. They would be held accountable for what they say, but no one can stop someone from prophecying.
....
Here is a case where Paul is exhorting. As in HaTorah a free will offering is of one's free will. We can ask and even encourage, but we are not to force such offerings. This not only is not new, but agian supports the sacrifices we see in HaTorah.
..... This is clearly in line with HaTorah. The fourth commandment states trhat we have 6 days in which to work and we were told in the garden that we would eat bread by the sweat of our brows.
Sorry for the absence.
With regard to your comments, I am puzzled by a few things.
1) I never said there was "new law."
So,what do you call these "commands" you contend that Paul gives in place of those in HaTorah?
quote:
2) The new covenant as embodied by the NT scriptures represents some radical changes over the old covenant. Even a child could see that.(That statement is hyperbole, so don't nit pick.)
If you do not want me to nit pick, don't bias the discussion by being condescending.
quote:
It seems difficult to say specifically exactly what God could have been in that statement. I didn't want to do eisegesis. But it is clear from the outcome that the NT is very different from the old. We have the church, apostles, animal sacrifices are done away with, levitic priesthood and Aaronic priesthood is done away with. Permission to eat foods like pork and shell fish. Ceremonial feast days are no longer observed--even if you think Saturday/Sabbath is not.
I have responded to all of your examples of "Paul's commands", yet you choose to expand your allegations rather than respond to my explanations. Therefore, if you wish to conceed these points, that is fine. Now, we need to investigate these new contentions. I am not going to conceed them just because you choose to insinuate that one who does not is less than a child.
quote:
3) Your statements seem very unclear to me. I am uncertain about what you are trying to prove except that you are bent on interpreting "my law" in Jeremiah 31 as the Mosaic law. It doesn't really matter what I prove. Your mind is clearly made up.
Once again, you misdirect and make an ad hominum attack. Just because I see a consistant correlation between what Jeremiah is talking about and HaTorah, does not mean I am not willing to entertain the ascertions of others. If having a personal stance on an issue precludes objectivity and therefore renders one a prisoner to bias, what exempts you from this principle?
quote:
4) Frankly, your signature line ""Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)"---you don't buy it for a minute.
Once agian, misdirection and ad hominum attack. I have admitted error in these forums before and conceeded points. That said, even if I am a totally damnable hypocrite, how does that prove your point or make the intepretations of the Scripture that I have presented invalid. Why not, ignore the messanger and focus on the message as Yeshua did when He was tempted by the deceiver in the wilderness?
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/27/2009 4:27:54 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
So,what do you call these "commands" you contend that Paul gives in place of those in HaTorah?
"In place of the law?"But since you asked, they are commands. For example, does Paul command circumcision? That is a dramatic change. It was so dramatic that the church had a council over it. While it is true that he does not forbid it, it is clear that he does not consider it necessary.
quote:
If you do not want me to nit pick, don't bias the discussion by being condescending.
I deny being condesending. Are you sure it isn't just you being defensive?
quote:
I have responded to all of your examples of "Paul's commands", yet you choose to expand your allegations rather than respond to my explanations. Therefore, if you wish to conceed these points, that is fine. Now, we need to investigate these new contentions. I am not going to conceed them just because you choose to insinuate that one who does not is less than a child.
Frankly, it is hard to respond when you are so unclear. I mean that sincerely. Your explanations seem real fuzzy to me.
quote:
Once again, you misdirect and make an ad hominum attack.
I deny that it is an ad hominem attack. You seem to want to make my comments into something they are not. This series of "misdirection" comments is getting old. Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about except that it is evidence of what I have seen in your interpretive skills before: seeing things that aren't there. I should know if I am attempting misdirection and ad hominem. I deny both.
quote:
Just because I see a consistant correlation between what Jeremiah is talking about and HaTorah, does not mean I am not willing to entertain the ascertions of others.
Frankly, you are downright hostile. It seems like yesterday (probably a year ago is more the truth), some people in the pro-law camp were denying that the new covenant was in effect yet and they were using the same "my law" argument still in use today. Hence, Bob's new thread that the moderator's closed. Is this position that we are in the new covenant a new concession? Or is it simply a modification of an old one?
quote:
If having a personal stance on an issue precludes objectivity and therefore renders one a prisoner to bias, what exempts you from this principle?
I am not exempt. When did I say I was exempt? That is apparently your tendency to read something into my statements that I made. Everyone is biased to some degree, even me.
On a couple of scriptures, we have discussed them before. You are not bringing up the same arguments you used to. Even I could see that you were reaching, stretching for ideas completely out of the range of the context. It seemed to me that the motive was simply to deny the validity of arguments that I was making. In the thread that was closed, for example, you claimed that Paul's use of the phrase "not under law" meant that he was referring to the law as presented by the rabbis. Paul never makes such a statement, hint or indication, ever. OK, so the thread was closed. I would like to see you support that. All you have given since then was "I responded."
Are you running from the explanation? Your failure to support that, does that mean you have decided you were wrong? Do you still believe that? Have you changed your mind? How in the world am I supposed to know? I cannot read minds.
quote:
Once agian, misdirection and ad hominum attack. I have admitted error in these forums before and conceeded points. That said, even if I am a totally damnable hypocrite, how does that prove your point or make the intepretations of the Scripture that I have presented invalid. Why not, ignore the messanger and focus on the message as Yeshua did when He was tempted by the deceiver in the wilderness?
Conceded? Exactly where? I have never seen the words: "I think I made a mistake in an earlier view" or "I concede that you were right." The only way I could tell is if you tell me. Instead you go on and on and on about my "misdirection." I have no idea how I am supposed to do this.
Generally, it seems to me that you ignore the explanations I gave and go on to make up new ones. Suppose you stop the hostility and state outright where you have decided you were wrong and state outright the areas that you are still trying to make up your mind.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 7/27/2009 7:11:59 AM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/27/2009 9:48:20 AM
|
|
|
AskSeekKnock
Posts: 35
Joined: 8/9/2005
Status: offline
|
Just a question I wanted to throw out there. Sorry if it has been asked and answered. What was the purpose of the new stone tablets that Moses took back up to Sinai? What would it matter if the original (for lack of a better word) Commandments that were broken were in the Ark? Sorry, I guess that's two questions.
_____________________________
1 Cor. 4:7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/28/2009 3:58:09 AM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2927
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
So,what do you call these "commands" you contend that Paul gives in place of those in HaTorah?
"In place of the law?"But since you asked, they are commands.
Then if they are commands, why do you say, "I never said there was "new law.""
quote:
For example, does Paul command circumcision? That is a dramatic change. It was so dramatic that the church had a council over it. While it is true that he does not forbid it, it is clear that he does not consider it necessary.
This is not a command, but the absence of one. We already have five other passages that I have addressed without your comment. Which ones do you really wish to discuss? Please, pick one so we can follow it to it's conclusion.
quote:
quote:
If you do not want me to nit pick, don't bias the discussion by being condescending.
I deny being condesending. Are you sure it isn't just you being defensive?
It is not condescending to say that "The new covenant as embodied by the NT scriptures represents some radical changes over the old covenant. Even a child could see that.", when you have yet, in this present discussion, to define what you mean by "the new covenant" or provide support for that definition. You seem to refer to a completely different covenant, then you appear to denigh that position. It is a bit confusing.
quote:
quote:
I have responded to all of your examples of "Paul's commands", yet you choose to expand your allegations rather than respond to my explanations. Therefore, if you wish to conceed these points, that is fine. Now, we need to investigate these new contentions. I am not going to conceed them just because you choose to insinuate that one who does not is less than a child.
Frankly, it is hard to respond when you are so unclear. I mean that sincerely. Your explanations seem real fuzzy to me.
What is it specifically that is unclear or fuzzy?
quote:
quote:
Once again, you misdirect and make an ad hominum attack.
I deny that it is an ad hominem attack. You seem to want to make my comments into something they are not. This series of "misdirection" comments is getting old. Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about except that it is evidence of what I have seen in your interpretive skills before: seeing things that aren't there. I should know if I am attempting misdirection and ad hominem. I deny both.
Yes, I too grow weary of having to point it out. In point #3 of post#4961, you do not address any specifics in what I said, yet conclude, "It doesn't really matter what I prove. Your mind is clearly made up." This is not directing your inquiry to the points you appear not to understand, but to what appears to be your belief that I am not willing to entertain a reasonable argument. This is the definition of directing the focus of the discussion from the points at hand to the person speaking.
quote:
quote:
Just because I see a consistant correlation between what Jeremiah is talking about and HaTorah, does not mean I am not willing to entertain the ascertions of others.
Frankly, you are downright hostile.
Example please.
quote:
It seems like yesterday (probably a year ago is more the truth), some people in the pro-law camp were denying that the new covenant was in effect yet and they were using the same "my law" argument still in use today. Hence, Bob's new thread that the moderator's closed. Is this position that we are in the new covenant a new concession? Or is it simply a modification of an old one?
I am not sure what you are refering to. I have always held that the covenant is being written on our hearts, but has yet to be completed. I am not prepared to defend another man's argument. So, shall we confine ourselves to the points brought up in this discussion for the moment?
quote:
quote:
If having a personal stance on an issue precludes objectivity and therefore renders one a prisoner to bias, what exempts you from this principle?
I am not exempt. When did I say I was exempt? That is apparently your tendency to read something into my statements that I made. Everyone is biased to some degree, even me.
Good now that we agree we both come to this discussion with a bias, shall we proceed to look at the justifications for our positions and not presume the other one should know and accept our views without their supporting evidence having to be presented?
quote:
On a couple of scriptures, we have discussed them before. You are not bringing up the same arguments you used to. Even I could see that you were reaching, stretching for ideas completely out of the range of the context. It seemed to me that the motive was simply to deny the validity of arguments that I was making. In the thread that was closed, for example, you claimed that Paul's use of the phrase "not under law" meant that he was referring to the law as presented by the rabbis. Paul never makes such a statement, hint or indication, ever. OK, so the thread was closed. I would like to see you support that. All you have given since then was "I responded."
I am more than willing to look at this, but it did not appear to be one you were following. Now, first I need to be reassured that we are going to follow this discussion to it's conclusion. Also, I need to be reminded of which passage we were discussing at the time. I say this because I of course believe that (Ga 3:11) "Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."" So, context is very important.
quote:
Are you running from the explanation? Your failure to support that, does that mean you have decided you were wrong? Do you still believe that? Have you changed your mind? How in the world am I supposed to know? I cannot read minds.
I do not see this brought up in your previous two posts, so I do not see how I am running away. As I eluded to above, I probably did say something like that in the context of a particular Scripture, but I do not recall that particular Scripture at this time.
quote:
quote:
Once agian, misdirection and ad hominum attack. I have admitted error in these forums before and conceeded points. That said, even if I am a totally damnable hypocrite, how does that prove your point or make the intepretations of the Scripture that I have presented invalid. Why not, ignore the messanger and focus on the message as Yeshua did when He was tempted by the deceiver in the wilderness
Conceded? Exactly where? I have never seen the words: "I think I made a mistake in an earlier view" or "I concede that you were right." The only way I could tell is if you tell me. Instead you go on and on and on about my "misdirection." I have no idea how I am supposed to do this.
If you do not wish to defend your views of the ten Scriptures you presented, what am I supposed conclude? What are you supposed to do? Comment on my take on the ten passages you presented. That is how discussion works. One of us presents an ascertion and provides substantiation. The other comments on that ascertion and the proposed substantiation. Then the first clarifies their position to either correct it or make it more clear and so it goes.
quote:
Generally, it seems to me that you ignore the explanations I gave and go on to make up new ones. I am not ignoring your explanations. In fact you yourself just said you believe, that my "motive was simply to deny the validity of arguments that (you were) making." If I am ignoring them, how can I successfully deny the validity?
quote:
Suppose you stop the hostility and state outright where you have decided you were wrong and state outright the areas that you are still trying to make up your mind.
Please, provide examples of what you consider hostility. Also, it is of little use for me to comb through all of the threads to find the times I have been in error. However, I will state outright the areas that I am still trying to make up in my own mind. All of them. Just because I hold a view now does not mean I will not see it as incorrect in the future. Therefore, even though I am rather firm in many of my beliefs, none of them are above question. In fact, my willingness to allow my views to be questioned reinforces the strength of those which are valid. As Socrates said in his defense, you should thank me for testing the validity of your statements, for in doing so I improve your character. Please, return the favor by testing my comments on the points you have presented recently.
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 7/28/2009 4:11:23 AM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/29/2009 3:00:55 AM
|
|
|
cornergas
Posts: 233
Joined: 7/28/2009
Status: offline
|
God wrote the Ten Commandments with his finger on tablets of stone, as a sign of permanency. The fourth commandment he said - Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy..using the word remember to point back to Creation when he first introduced the Sabbath day of rest on the seventh day of Creation week. The ten commandments are known as God's Law. He also gave Moses ordinances verbally, for Moses to write down and present to the people.. This is known as the Law of Moses..and included sacrificial, ceremonial, food, and feast laws. Included in this were sabbaths..ie annual sabbath at the beginning of the feast of unleavened bread, following the passover. The early Jewish Christians were still wanting to keep aspects of the Law of Moses, and Paul had to remind them they were no longer under the sacrificial system, and circumcision etc. Many of the Gentile Christians had been pagan followers before, and were being ridiculed by their former associates for following the new Christianity, so Paul had to keep them strong in the faith as well, and remind them let no man judge you etc. The law of Moses contained some 632 ordinances and laws as mentioned above, many of which were left at the cross. However, Gods law, the ten commandments continue on into eternity. As Jesus said to enter into eternal life keep the Commandments..(referring to God's law the Ten commandments)Matthew 19 (16) ..God bless us all!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/29/2009 3:53:16 AM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2927
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cornergas
God wrote the Ten Commandments with his finger on tablets of stone, as a sign of permanency. The fourth commandment he said - Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy..using the word remember to point back to Creation when he first introduced the Sabbath day of rest on the seventh day of Creation week. The ten commandments are known as God's Law. He also gave Moses ordinances verbally, for Moses to write down and present to the people.. This is known as the Law of Moses..and included sacrificial, ceremonial, food, and feast laws. Included in this were sabbaths..ie annual sabbath at the beginning of the feast of unleavened bread, following the passover. The early Jewish Christians were still wanting to keep aspects of the Law of Moses, and Paul had to remind them they were no longer under the sacrificial system, and circumcision etc. Many of the Gentile Christians had been pagan followers before, and were being ridiculed by their former associates for following the new Christianity, so Paul had to keep them strong in the faith as well, and remind them let no man judge you etc. The law of Moses contained some 632 ordinances and laws as mentioned above, many of which were left at the cross. However, Gods law, the ten commandments continue on into eternity. As Jesus said to enter into eternal life keep the Commandments..(referring to God's law the Ten commandments)Matthew 19 (16) ..God bless us all!
Seventh day advantist docrine has been presented before. This thread generally centers around looking at the various commands in an attempt to determine on a case by case basis what does and does not apply. Just stating one's doctrine rarely holds water. That said, if only the ten apply, on what basis does one condemn cannibalism and sibling incest, just to mention two generally accepted no-nos not directly mentioned in the ten or in Paul's letters.
Even more important. Do you believe Yeshua said to enter into eternal life keep the Commandments? This sounds like salvation by works. It is the questioner who says "eternal life", Yeshua just says life. I agree that as one keeps the commandments one becomes more alive, but if keeping the commandments is necessary for salvation,one must reject Paul's assertion, (Eph. 2:8-9) "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/31/2009 1:51:18 PM
|
|
|
cornergas
Posts: 233
Joined: 7/28/2009
Status: offline
|
Faith without works is dead James 2. Romans 3 (31) Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! We establish the law." Apostle John says sin is transgression of the law. and he who says I know him and does not keep his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him. and we know "the wages of sin is death" Romans 6 (23). Shall we sin more so grace abound God forbid...Paul Romans 6(15). The foregoing leaves no doubt, about what God expects, in regards to our following His ten commandments..and as the Apostle John says the commandments are not grievous.
Many assume because a person follows the Sabbath they have to automatically belong to a denomination such as Seventh day adventists (God bless them). That is a restricted mentality of categorizing everyone into denominations. Many of us are following the Christian walk to salvation by following God's word of the Bible without the need for the squabbling and diversions of denominational politics.
KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!
GOD BLESS US ALL!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/31/2009 10:30:08 PM
|
|
|
AskSeekKnock
Posts: 35
Joined: 8/9/2005
Status: offline
|
Good post cornergas
Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. (NKJV)
_____________________________
1 Cor. 4:7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/1/2009 7:49:14 AM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2927
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cornergas
Faith without works is dead James 2. Romans 3 (31) Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! We establish the law." Apostle John says sin is transgression of the law. and he who says I know him and does not keep his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him. and we know "the wages of sin is death" Romans 6 (23). Shall we sin more so grace abound God forbid...Paul Romans 6(15). The foregoing leaves no doubt, about what God expects, in regards to our following His ten commandments..and as the Apostle John says the commandments are not grievous.
Many assume because a person follows the Sabbath they have to automatically belong to a denomination such as Seventh day adventists (God bless them). That is a restricted mentality of categorizing everyone into denominations. Many of us are following the Christian walk to salvation by following God's word of the Bible without the need for the squabbling and diversions of denominational politics.
KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!
GOD BLESS US ALL!
It is true that faith without works is dead. However, as the Scriptures say, (Ga 2:16) "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
The commandments give direction on how we should live, not how we should be saved. If we could keep all the commandments all of the time,there would be no need of salvation.
I did not say you were Seventh day adventists nor do I find their doctrine entirely in error. I am just pointing out that presenting a doctinal statement, be it SDA, baptist, lutheran, or whatever, is not going to convince many here. One needs to present Scripture based arguments to support those doctrines.
Also, you never responded to my inquiry. If all we need be concerned about are the ten, what are we to do with those things that are not part of the ten or mentioned in the Apistolic Writings, but are considered almost without exception to be wrong?
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep the Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/3/2009 10:51:40 PM
|
|
|
absolute123
Posts: 3
Joined: 8/3/2009
Status: offline
|
I think many, many, Christians completely miss the purpose of the OT
I was once steeped in legalism and it came from complete misunderstanding of the OT.
The first thing you must understand is it mirrors many of the man made religions. Christians who dont know better fight this fact to unbelievers--thinking if the Old Covenant was like other religions is couldnt be from God.
The OT was given by God--but it based on Mans idea of religion. Its as if God took mans bankrupt ideas of earning his favor(gifts on the alter, fancy dress, ritualistic items, overbearing legal code, special days, outward acts of false humility) and served it to them on an unbearable platter. Paul describes it as slavery and a burden. All these things were already part of pagan religion. And just as God gave those in the wilderness the meat they lustfully craved till there stomachs got sick to death---he fed them the religion they so desired.
Almost ZERO Christians I talk with understand this.
Yes, God also wrote in the law some things he desired--but most he did not desire(he desired mercy not festivals). He also cloaked into the tedious rituals and strange codes the shadow of Christ and Prophecy(which is really what gave the OT its Glory). But people, the Old Covenant was to teach man the futility and absurdity of mans ideas in earning his favor. It mimics other religions for a reason. Nothing in that code stands--NOTHING.
It contained many tedious rituals and Holy days. A Temple was to be built and sacrifices were to be made.
Again we go back to the theme. Why would God set up such a system? If you read what was required of these people you should be astonished. It goes back to the way that all primitive cultures would worship God. God knew this is how man would want to approach him. I'm sure you've seen those shows of how tribes were found in Africa, devoid of any other human contact, setting up similar forms of ritualistic worship. This is not something that is taught--it is in humans inherently. God uses this in his plan to teach humanity.
Your now thinking "does God need this kind worship?". Absolutely not, as the Bible shows. "I detest your festivals"
Passover was commanded by God when the Hebrews were still slaves in Egypt. They were to sacrifice a Lamb on a certain day and put it on their door.
Exodus 12
13 The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt. ....the animal must be a year old Male with no *defects.
Of course God could have saved them in any manner he wanted, but He chose a concept they inherently understood. Sacrifice existed and still exists in cultures that think up ways to please God. Of course God uses this idea in cosmic significance in its absolute purest, and selfless form--NOT as humans practiced. The people performing the ritual had no clue what God really desired. It symbolized the death of the sinless Messiah.
But like everything else in the law it was a shadow, a stand in, for Christ. Its like a thousand year dress rehearsal. A stunt man for Christ. Well, the real actor has stepped on to the stage---yet some people still wanna play house.
Everything in the dress rehearsal is obsolete once the real show has been preformed. It is finished, obsolete. Man's ideas are bankrupt. They are slavery. If one single line of that code remains--then Christ died for nothing and you've missed the entire point of the code in the first place. Some men will continue to try and follow THEIR Own ideas and formulate their own Covenant but thats just the Christ + 1 syndrome--Christs works + my religion.
There are plenty of things to obey if you want to earn your salvation. The Law of Christ is spelled out in beautiful from in the NT. But these attributes are just Christs attributes working through you. They earn You Nothing. I truly believe that some people just dont trust that God will save them. They cant believe the offer--its just too good. But people..isnt faith that he will save us because of Him only... what saves us in the first place? Searching for laws to add to Christ, IMO, is doing exactly what the Hebrews did in the wilderness--it wasnt a matter of believng who God was(they knew for a fact he was there)--it was about trusting He would save them.
Love ya
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep the Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/4/2009 4:33:00 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2927
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: absolute123
I think many, many, Christians completely miss the purpose of the OT
I was once steeped in legalism and it came from complete misunderstanding of the OT.
The first thing you must understand is it mirrors many of the man made religions. Christians who dont know better fight this fact to unbelievers--thinking if the Old Covenant was like other religions is couldnt be from God.
The OT was given by God--but it based on Mans idea of religion.
Could it possibly be the other way around? Could it be that man, knowing Adonai's ways, passed down from the the evening walks in the garden, made slight changes as time went on. This could have been by purposeful rebellion or just inattentiveness. However, maybe the purpose of the Tanach(OT), as with all of the Scriptures, is to renew the original relationship we had with Adonai before the fall.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep the Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/4/2009 7:46:33 PM
|
|
|
cornergas
Posts: 233
Joined: 7/28/2009
Status: offline
|
It appears to me the question of keeping the law, and how grace fits into all this in the Bible the following example seems to fit: If I have a speeding ticket or two, and go before the Judge, and I say Judge if you will let me off with these ticket, I promise I will not speed again..I will obey all the laws of the road. Judge says okay you seem like an honest chap..okay I cancelled the tickets.."but if you are back here again charged with infractions then you will be punished, the next time. Now we can see the Judge, by his grace, let me go with the tickets, seeing I promised to obey the law (repentance), but warns me to obey the law in future!..Seem reasonable? In the Bible are the ten commandents, God's law written by God on tablets of stone, and we can see the Mosaic law or law of Moses written by Moses in a book with its many sacrificial, ceremonial, and feast laws pointed to the cross and was left there when Jesus died on the Cross. Paul makes numerous mentions of these in his writings..like when we were under the curse of the law, and the law written in the book, etc these are all in reference to law of Moses, as it was a system of curses, and sacrifices. Only by our acceptance of Jesus, by his atoning blood, we are reconciled with God, and by His grace we are forgiven..do we lead a lawless life after..of course not..as Paul said "we establish the law" Paul also said "should we sin more so grace abound..God forbid" and Apostle John..says sin is transgression of the law. Those who say they know him and keep not His commandments, are liars and the truth is not in them for a couple of examples! The commandments and law referred to as remaining is God's law, the ten commandments.
Know the truth and the truth will set you free
Remember the Sabbath to keep it Holy
God bless us all!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep the Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/5/2009 1:46:27 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2927
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cornergas
It appears to me the question of keeping the law, and how grace fits into all this in the Bible the following example seems to fit: If I have a speeding ticket or two, and go before the Judge, and I say Judge if you will let me off with these ticket, I promise I will not speed again..I will obey all the laws of the road. Judge says okay you seem like an honest chap..okay I cancelled the tickets.."but if you are back here again charged with infractions then you will be punished, the next time. Now we can see the Judge, by his grace, let me go with the tickets, seeing I promised to obey the law (repentance), but warns me to obey the law in future!..Seem reasonable? In the Bible are the ten commandents, God's law written by God on tablets of stone, and we can see the Mosaic law or law of Moses written by Moses in a book with its many sacrificial, ceremonial, and feast laws pointed to the cross and was left there when Jesus died on the Cross. Paul makes numerous mentions of these in his writings..like when we were under the curse of the law, and the law written in the book, etc these are all in reference to law of Moses, as it was a system of curses, and sacrifices. Only by our acceptance of Jesus, by his atoning blood, we are reconciled with God, and by His grace we are forgiven..do we lead a lawless life after..of course not..as Paul said "we establish the law" Paul also said "should we sin more so grace abound..God forbid" and Apostle John..says sin is transgression of the law. Those who say they know him and keep not His commandments, are liars and the truth is not in them for a couple of examples! The commandments and law referred to as remaining is God's law, the ten commandments.
Know the truth and the truth will set you free
Remember the Sabbath to keep it Holy
God bless us all!
Again, you state doctrine without substantiation and expect acceptance. On what basis do you say that the commandments only refer to the ten commandments? Yeshua tells us, (Matthew 5:17-19) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Now, both of these words "Law" are the same term in greek. Therefore, I would presume they refer to the same thing. Now if "the Law" refers to HaTorah, then it includes what you call "the Mosaic law", which Yeshua calls commandments. If on the other hand, this refers to only the ten, we will need to apply this meaning to the term translated "the Law" here wherever it appears in the Apistolic Writings, unless we can find a contextual reason for applying a different interpretation.
If you agree with this we can move on to look at those passages where this term is used. Otherwise, please explain how Matthew 5:17-19 is to be interpreted.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep the Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/5/2009 2:21:19 PM
|
|
|
cornergas
Posts: 233
Joined: 7/28/2009
Status: offline
|
Bluethread...Why are you reading something into Matthew 5:17 what is not there? When Jesus said "if you love me keep the commandments". Was He referring to the Mosaic law..no..He was referring to the ten commandments, which He describes in many passages as the Law to which He was referring. I suggest you pray to have God open your mind and heart to His holy word, so you will better understand what is written then you will truly learn the truth!
God bless us all
know the truth and the truth will set you free
Remember the Sabbath to keep it Holy.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
