|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2005 3:53:02 PM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1747
Status: offline
|
quote:
One vital thing that is left out of this is that the Law NEVER required or assumed 100% compliance 100% of the time.
I beg to differ I think you had better read again as it certainly does.......
Amen bzirk....
_____________________________
"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty"---John Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2005 3:58:42 PM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1747
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
you only posted part of a scripture and not the rest of the passage keeping it in context such as Phillipians 3:6b for example. Not even a whole verse but just part of it.
And I only posted part of your response, too; the part I am commenting on here.
For context:
Phill 3. 4 although (H)I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:
5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.
7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
I did not think that Paul's lineage was germain to the discussion, nor his history of persecution. Is there something else in this passage you wish to comment on?
Problem with just posting some scripture however is that you then have to either ignore or dismiss the scripture that rightly interprets the scripture you are posting, IOW context is missing and context is the main ingredient to interpreting as well as using other scripture.
_____________________________
"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty"---John Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2005 4:13:37 PM
|
|
|
bzirk
Posts: 2849
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Where the deer and antelope play
Status: offline
|
Tell you what, for the sake of discussion, let's assume those of you who think the Mosaic law is extant are right. Can you tell me what parts are extant, and how we are to apply it? Chapter and verse if you don't mind. IOW, I'm looking for your systematic theology. So I'm looking for enough scripture reference to help me see the big picture as you see it.
I ask this sincerely.
Thanks.
_____________________________
may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:13
Great quote: I just ain't God and don't know it all. -- SonInMe1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2005 4:20:31 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4161
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bzirk
Dave,
The only problem with your interpretation is that it doesn't square with this in I Cor. 9:
Actually it does.
20To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
21to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.
Here he is saying he follows the Law but is not "under the Law." That is a big difference. He can be relatable to those who are under the law. He can be Mr Torah Observance. He can do that with the best of them. But he is free of legalistic condemnation.
In the next verse he says he can be "Lawless" but not without "the Law of God, but under the Law of Christ." Again he is being relatable to those who know nothing of the Law, while not compromizing his standards of behavior.
His point here says nothing about requirements of following the Law, but about being relatable to those you are reaching out to.
Paul by his actions in Acts 21 states unequivacably that he himself "walked orderly, keeping the Law." To intrepret another passage some other way and then try to say it contradicts does not seem right. This passage can just as easily be intrepteted in the light of Acts 21 as the other way around.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2005 4:22:18 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4161
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bzirk
Tell you what, for the sake of discussion, let's assume those of you who think the Mosaic law is extant are right. Can you tell me what parts are extant, and how we are to apply it? Chapter and verse if you don't mind. IOW, I'm looking for your systematic theology. So I'm looking for enough scripture reference to help me see the big picture as you see it.
I ask this sincerely.
Thanks.
If you are gentile, then really none of it applies to you, not even the 10 commandments.
If you are Jewish on the other hand... that is totally different.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2005 4:26:40 PM
|
|
|
bzirk
Posts: 2849
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Where the deer and antelope play
Status: offline
|
Now Dave, you are confusing me. Seriously, you are. Am I to infer that Gentiles are without law then?
In addition, what happened to Gal. 3?
< Message edited by bzirk -- 7/26/2005 4:29:02 PM >
_____________________________
may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:13
Great quote: I just ain't God and don't know it all. -- SonInMe1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2005 10:23:57 PM
|
|
|
EZ_03
Posts: 77
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
(2) i may not have worded it the same, but i think overall i followed dave's point about paul's Torah-observance and agree (correct me if i'm mis-stating, dave). "being blameless" before the Law doesn't mean he never broke it...one could break it, perform the necessary sacrifice for and still be considered blameless. only one Person kept the Law perfectly. that's the Guy i'm trying to follow.
i didn't really think anyone was calling paul a liar with his statement, but it seems folks call God one by continually trying to say the Torah is too hard to follow...He said it wasn't...i'm going with Him.
_____________________________
Open my eyes that I may behold wonderful things from Your Torah. (Psalms 119:18)
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. (Romans 3:31)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2005 10:25:02 PM
|
|
|
EZ_03
Posts: 77
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
(3) i think related to this topic is the point needing to be made again that the Torah was given to a redeemed people in order to set them apart as God's covenant partner, and it was not given for salvation. salvation was, is and will always be by grace thru faith alone. once one is "in," one's legitimate response to being set free from sin and death, will be obedience to your new master. i hope no one needs "proof texts" for this point. 
this seems to be where paul's thinking changed after going away and studying the Tanakh in arabia, away from man's influence for a couple years. the pharisaic position of the time was that one was in thru avraham...by blood. if you're a jew, you're in. if you're not, you must become one to be in. paul changed positions to realize that one is indeed in thru avraham...as in thru a faith/faithfulness like avraham's, that would then be credited to you as righteousness. he makes clear that the Torah does not do away with this fact - avraham was saved by faith, we're all saved by faith, even after the Torah was given. paul's beef with the Law is often when it is being misapplied and being given a salvific role that it was never intended to have.
_____________________________
Open my eyes that I may behold wonderful things from Your Torah. (Psalms 119:18)
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. (Romans 3:31)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2005 10:26:07 PM
|
|
|
EZ_03
Posts: 77
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
(4) matt - your issue with Deuteronomy 30 somehow being explained away by 31, i still do not follow. God commands His children not to think the Torah is out of reach (in ch. 30). it was given to obey. many today teach it was given only to frustrate His children for 1500 years before Messiah set us free from it. this is wrong. it was, in fact, given to obey (and yes, i know it has other purposes, i.e., tutor - or rather pedagogue -see post 42 , to reveal sin, etc.). yes, it would be disobeyed at some point, and in fact many points, in time (in ch. 31). we discussed this back in the first couple of pages of this thread - if just because it is possible to break a command and someone at sometime has broken a command, then one decides to not even try...this is kind of like "but mom, everyone is doing it", no? (posts 35, 40)
(5) for clarification, i do hold a different position on the Law than dave does. we agree on much (Torah good), but as he stated and we've discussed before, he holds that only jews get the Torah (or are burdened with it if you hold the gentile christian view), i am of the belief that it is for all of God's children - adopted early (jews) or adopted late (non-jews).
bzirk, i'll try to give another shot to the ones you asked for...
< Message edited by EZ_03 -- 7/26/2005 10:28:10 PM >
_____________________________
Open my eyes that I may behold wonderful things from Your Torah. (Psalms 119:18)
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. (Romans 3:31)
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2005 11:27:40 PM
|
|
|
EZ_03
Posts: 77
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bzirk
Tell you what, for the sake of discussion, let's assume those of you who think the Mosaic law is extant are right. Can you tell me what parts are extant, and how we are to apply it? Chapter and verse if you don't mind.
NOT "for the sake of discussion" - in reality, the burden of proof is on you 
JESUS is the one that says not the smallest letter or mark from the Torah will or has passed...do you still see the heavens and the earth? i do (even got to see them on TV today). JESUS is the one that says anyone who doesn't follow the Torah and then teaches others to do the same thing will be called least in the kingdom. note, He doesn't say they won't be in the kingdom - this is by grace thru faith - but He, for one, thinks there is some upside to obedience. i do not feel overly compelled to "prove" His point. i am interested, though, to hear why the church feels He was mistaken, here (Matthew 5:17, 18, 19, 20, are the "chapter and verse," btw).
i know there are all sorts of clever ways to explain away "fulfill" in v. 17, "until all is accomplished" in v. 18, and one could play more word games and perhaps get away with altering the meaning of v. 20 and talk about "imputed righteousness" or something, but the rest of 18 and all of 19 say what they say, no way around it. or do you have a way around them?
as to your other question, it's all extant. again, He said not a jot or tittle. as far as how to apply it, i suggest looking first to Yeshua, as our perfect example of obedience. "WWJD", right? it may also be prudent to look to our Jewish brothers, as they've been doing it for 3500 years. it would be more prudent still to be led by the Spirit in leaving behind the parts of their Torah-observance that are excessively bogged down by traditions of man (as Paul and Yeshua taught), but it would indeed be arrogant to think we can just make it all up on our own, and interpret their Scriptures for them. paul warns against this attitude in Romans 11, and says our attitude should be one of reverence/fear, not arrogance.
i suppose another "chapter and verse" would be paul in Galatians 3:15ff, stating that a new covenant doesn't do away with an older covenant. the context is sinai's covenant of blessing and curses for obedience and disobedience not doing away with the abrahamic covenant of salvation by faith, but why then does christianity hold that the "new covenant" of Jesus nonetheless does away with the sinai covenant? especially, that it does away with the sinai covenant ONLY? not the davidic, which came after sinai...not the abrahamic which came before, not the noahic, not the edenic? why such discrimination against poor moses?
quote:
IOW, I'm looking for your systematic theology. So I'm looking for enough scripture reference to help me see the big picture as you see it.
and you can keep looking for my systematic theology, too  ...paul didn't have one, Jesus didn't have one, i don't want one...this was a trap that was nice to lay aside while moving out of our hellenistic way of viewing our faith and embracing a hebraic one.
rather, the hermeneutic i'd offer would be using the Torah to interpret the "NT" rather than vice versa. a while back i mentioned this to you and you responded with something to the effect of me "using an incomplete revelation to interpret the complete one."
i will hold that Yeshua's and paul's audiences managed to make do. the "new" was never written to be a replacement Scripture, a new-and-improved version 2.0, but rather assumed a knowledge of Moses and the Prophets and that they would lay the proper foundation for interpreting the letters being circulated to local churches around the Mediterranean.
by no means a "proof text" but i like Acts 17:11. i've mentioned it before, but had paul's teachings not lined up with "Scripture" (here, referring to the Tanakh, not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, etc.), then he would have been booted out of town as the Torah requires. funny, but they didn't boot him out of town - they must have felt what he was teaching, in fact, did agree with the Tanakh/OT. why wouldn't today's church desire to use the same standard of truth as the "noble bereans"?
after all we know that the Tanakh (no Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc., in view in 2 Timothy 3:15-17) is useful for making us wise for salvation and for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training us in righteousness, to equip us for "good works"... we know that the Tanakh (no Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc., in view in Hebrews 4:12) is sharper than a two-edged sword and it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow and that it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
again, i'll hold it works just fine as an interpreter of the new (which before anyone asks...again...i do view as inspired, inerrant, infallible, too).
quote:
I ask this sincerely.
Thanks.
recognized and appreciated,
kevin
_____________________________
Open my eyes that I may behold wonderful things from Your Torah. (Psalms 119:18)
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. (Romans 3:31)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2005 11:28:58 PM
|
|
|
ces
Posts: 18
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
24 The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith. 25 But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
Does anyone not agree with what Paul says here?
26 for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Does anyone not understand that this is in reference to our new spiritual life?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2005 11:45:27 PM
|
|
|
EZ_03
Posts: 77
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ces
24 The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith. 25 But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
Does anyone not agree with what Paul says here?
i 'd simply offer that we agree with paul that we are no longer indebted to the Torah in this capacity. clearly one cannot think paul is saying we no longer need the Torah at all. this would be completely at odds with 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Romans 3:31, Romans 7:12,14, 1 Timothy 1:8 to name but a few...
do you really think he's saying we don't need it at all or that we don't need it to lead us to Messiah?
quote:
26 for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Does anyone not understand that this is in reference to our new spiritual life?
you keep quoting this verse, but i'm not sure what your point is...yes, we're all united - in Messiah - despite our differences..."does anyone not understand" there are still differences? and to say there is neither jew nor greek, does not mean abandon all things jewish and embrace all things gentile, any more than the subsequent phrase would mean to abandon all things male to embrace all things female, but rather corresponds to the "one new man" of Ephesians 2.
shalom,
kevin
_____________________________
Open my eyes that I may behold wonderful things from Your Torah. (Psalms 119:18)
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. (Romans 3:31)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/27/2005 12:00:04 AM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1747
Status: offline
|
quote:
(1) choice of bible translations/versions indeed does matter and makes a difference whether you like it or not. even temporarily laying aside the fact that english just plain misses the boat on many occasions, the differences among the english versions themselves can be huge sometimes as well. ces was using the NLT and i'm sure folks know that translation can't be taken too seriously...a quick and easy read to be sure, but not intended for a study text (a step above "the message" of course)...
Nice herring, but no dice. No matter what translation one reads it in, it's going to come out the same and you can't get past Galatians 3 no matter what translation you choose to use. The NLT is just as valid a translation as any other. I take it seriously, in fact I take any version of the Bible seriously.
_____________________________
"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty"---John Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/27/2005 12:02:45 AM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1747
Status: offline
|
quote:
and to say there is neither jew nor greek, does not mean abandon all things jewish and embrace all things gentile,
It is embracing the fact that the law is no longer valid and was never meant to be salvic, it does embrace there is only one way to heaven and it is not through the law, but through Jesus Christ. We are not one if we are not all Christians and working our way through the law does not make us one. It does mean to abandon all things Jewish, this is why Paul made this statement.
_____________________________
"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty"---John Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/27/2005 12:09:33 AM
|
|
|
Mattumanu
Posts: 160
Joined: 2/28/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
Secondly, perfect observance of the Law (even in Jesus' case) never made anyone rightous.
Then how did Jesus "fulfill all righteousness" if his observance of the law wasn't what did it?
_____________________________
Radical Grace Radio
Tear Down the High Places
I'm a converted pagan operating amongst a nation of apostate puritans ~ C. S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/27/2005 12:17:06 AM
|
|
|
Mattumanu
Posts: 160
Joined: 2/28/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
The commandment ISN'T too difficult... but they broke it anyway.
Agreed. That does not negate the statement that the command was not too difficult or out of reach. The fact that on Interstates with 55 mph speed limits and everyone drives 80, the 55 mph limit IS possible. It is choice whether to follow it or not.
By saying that the command isn't too difficult, you are agreeing with me.
Sure, I'm agreeing with you. But also hold in mind that this particular imperative is "to love the Lord your God" and not go off to other Gods. God correctly predicted that his chosen people would break his covenant. It's fact that they broke the covenant. Does that make sense to you? It's a FACT!
So, in order to interpret this correctly, we either do one of two things; Say that the command is actually harder to follow OR say that humans are much worse at keeping the law then even Moses understood. I believe the correct interpretation is the latter. Moses speaks to the people and tells them that the command is easy and not out of thier reach, and God essentially tells him he was wrong. That's why it's important to remember that Deuteronomy is, first and formost, a NARRATIVE, and not a book of laws.
Keep in mind also, that Moses was BARRED from entering the promised land... this fact needs to be included in the interpretation as well.
_____________________________
Radical Grace Radio
Tear Down the High Places
I'm a converted pagan operating amongst a nation of apostate puritans ~ C. S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/27/2005 12:52:32 AM
|
|
|
Mattumanu
Posts: 160
Joined: 2/28/2005
Status: offline
|
Now, let's look at what Paul REALLY says about his keeping the law.
RO 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.”
But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
So here Paul seems to imply that the Law that he followed so legalistically actually produced in him every covetous desire. This would be prior to his coversion. Of the distinction between before and after, Paul writes.
Phil 3:1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.
Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I have far more:
Circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.
But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,
He says, "beware of the false circumcision". Why did he write that? He goes on to describe himself, before his conversion, as having a righteous WHICH IS IN THE LAW, FOUND BLAMELESS. That is the righteousness that comes from the law, but not the righteousness this is FROM GOD.
Then he goes on to talk about afterwards, and counting ALL OF THAT as a loss that he may be found in Christ. In fact, he counts them as skubala... His righteousness BEFORE his conversion is (4 letters, starts with 's')... He considers his righteousness to be THAT... Worse than the rubbish, worse than dung.
Which is as it should be.
< Message edited by Mattumanu -- 7/27/2005 12:55:08 AM >
_____________________________
Radical Grace Radio
Tear Down the High Places
I'm a converted pagan operating amongst a nation of apostate puritans ~ C. S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/27/2005 1:31:45 AM
|
|
|
EZ_03
Posts: 77
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bygraceiamsaved
quote:
(1) choice of bible translations/versions indeed does matter and makes a difference whether you like it or not.
Nice herring, but no dice. No matter what translation one reads it in, it's going to come out the same and you can't get past Galatians 3 no matter what translation you choose to use. The NLT is just as valid a translation as any other. I take it seriously, in fact I take any version of the Bible seriously.
no herring at all. the only point of this post was simply that, as others have said, translations are different from one another. i'm not sure why you're disputing this point so much.
in post 186, a simple question was asked as to which translation was being used, because it read differently than the NASB/NIV/greek and i think was prompted more by the previous Ephesians 2 quotes than the Galatians 3 quote. no one is trying to "get past Galatians 3"  . it was a simple question. relax a little bit. breathe.
and so you don't hyperventilate tonight or anything, we all agree that Galatians 3 says no one is justified by the Law, presumably in any translation even. we all agree that paul is right. we all say the same thing. no one is speaking of justification in this thread. we are speaking of sanctification and how one goes about being "holy because (He) is holy." i vote we use God's standards, not man's or the church's. i vote we use God's written Word, not some warm fuzzy inside. i'm not sure how Galatians 3 relates to the conversation we were having about sanctification. the justification conversation has never actually happened here...the Messianics keep saying that it's by grace thru faith, but the anti-Messianics keep arguing with invisible Galatian judaizers...
by the way, i'm curous what Galatians 3 says in the New World translation, since you take all versions so seriously? 
< Message edited by EZ_03 -- 7/27/2005 7:10:56 AM >
_____________________________
Open my eyes that I may behold wonderful things from Your Torah. (Psalms 119:18)
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. (Romans 3:31)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/27/2005 1:45:46 AM
|
|
|
EZ_03
Posts: 77
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bygraceiamsaved
quote:
and to say there is neither jew nor greek, does not mean abandon all things jewish and embrace all things gentile,
It is embracing the fact that the law is no longer valid
God's laws no longer valid? someone should tell Jesus, quick! He was operating under the mistaken assumption that He DIDN'T come to abolish the Law...must have missed a memo or something...
quote:
and was never meant to be salvic, it does embrace there is only one way to heaven and it is not through the law, but through Jesus Christ.
We are not one if we are not all Christians and working our way through the law does not make us one.
amein, no comments to the contrary here...ever.
quote:
It does mean to abandon all things Jewish, this is why Paul made this statement.
ahh, i didn't realize that's what he meant...so using your "logic" of rejecting all things jewish in favor of all things greek, are we then to abandon all things male or abandon all things female? all things free or all things slave? i didn't realize we had to pick all things greek...i must have the wrong version again...maybe that's in the book of mormon version that you "take so seriously"?
< Message edited by EZ_03 -- 7/27/2005 1:50:44 AM >
_____________________________
Open my eyes that I may behold wonderful things from Your Torah. (Psalms 119:18)
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. (Romans 3:31)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/27/2005 8:41:46 AM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1747
Status: offline
|
quote:
God's laws no longer valid?
As far as us obtaining righteousness through them no, read Mattamanu's post. It's through Christ's righteousness not our own.
As far as translations, yes it is a red herring. That is the number one question when shown through scritpure doctrinal error. And it's more than just saying it's "written differently", it is asked to say that the translation is wrong...
_____________________________
"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty"---John Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/27/2005 8:43:09 AM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1747
Status: offline
|
quote:
ahh, i didn't realize that's what he meant...so using your "logic" of rejecting all things jewish in favor of all things greek, are we then to abandon all things male or abandon all things female? all things free or all things slave? i didn't realize we had to pick all things greek...i must have the wrong version again...maybe that's in the book of mormon version that you "take so seriously"?
No, it's abandoning all things Jewish in favor of Christ.
_____________________________
"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty"---John Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/27/2005 8:44:33 AM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1747
Status: offline
|
quote:
God's laws no longer valid? someone should tell Jesus, quick! He was operating under the mistaken assumption that He DIDN'T come to abolish the Law
Right. Now finish the passage. He came to fulfill them.
_____________________________
"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty"---John Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 7/27/2005 8:45:41 AM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1747
Status: offline
|
EZ: Did you read any of Mattamanu's posts?
_____________________________
"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty"---John Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
and should give you a chance to read/respond if you want... 