If Gods Law is Perfect, why is it called a curse if you cant keep it perfeclty?

[Hank77]

Better question is, what did it mean to Paul?

So what do you think that meant to Paul?

 

[Steeno7]

So what do you think that meant to Paul?

What did he say it meant to him?

 

[Hank77]

What did he say it meant to him?

Ok. I have already stated my understanding. You don't appear to be willing to state yours'.

 

[Steeno7]

Ok. I have already stated my understanding. You don't appear to be willing to state yours'.

I didn't ask for your understanding, I asked for Pauls. He tells us in the same passage exactly what it meant to him.

 

[Hank77]

I didn't ask for your understanding, I asked for Pauls. He tells us in the same passage exactly what it meant to him.

I'm not sure quite how to explain this to you but I'm not in the habit of making stuff up. When I say it is my understanding, that means it is my understanding of what Paul was saying. Which would be my interpretation of Paul's message, which would be Paul's understanding.
I'm not in the habit of just declaring, This is what a scripture is saying.
I am always open to the idea that I may not be correct and that I could just learn something from someone else.

 

[Truthfrees]

Yes, he did.
Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Php 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Php 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
Php 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Paul learned the same thing that Job learned. God said that Job was upright, righteous, because he did everything that God commanded him to do. That is why Job stood firm in his innocence. But Job had to learn that it was not by his own righteous doings that he would see his Redeemer, but by the grace of God whom he had put his faith in.
God said to Job, when you can do all the things I can do, then I will admit to you, that your own right hand [righteous works] can save you.
However, neither Job or Paul claimed to be sinless, only that they obeyed the commandments and were blameless under the laws that God had given to them.
imo....
God did not give a law, any commandments, that man was incapable of doing, the problem was man being weak in the flesh, in most cases, did not do it. And in other cases even when they did do it, they were arrogant in thinking that by doing it they would be saved. When in reality it was only by God's grace through faith that they would/could be saved.
How did Jesus do the Law perfectly? He obeyed every jot and tittle that pertained to Him, giving all the glory to His Father in heaven. We know that He was sinless, so never would have been required to make atonement for sin, as Job and Paul would have been required to do.

Well said Hank.

 

[Truthfrees]

The post posits that in order for a teaching to be valid it must be stated directly in the Bible. Non sequitur, does not necessarily follow.

Many scriptural teachings are arrived at by using syllogistic reasoning, indirect reasoning. Like the doctrine of the Trinity.

http://gospelway.com/bible/necessary_inference.php

Quote
Examples of the Use of Scriptural Reasoning

Consider some instances in which men of God reasoned to conclusions that necessarily follow Scripture, but are not directly stated there. In each case the students were expected to understand the reasoning, reach the same conclusion that the teacher reached, and then accept the conclusion as being the will of God.
Note that Jesus and other Bible teachers used "necessary inferences," exactly as we seek to use them. Note the use of words such as "reason," "therefore," "so then," "evidently," and other such expressions that show a conclusion is being reached.

Fulfilled Prophecy

Acts 17:1-4
Paul "reasoned from the Scriptures" to prove that Christ must die and rise again, and that Jesus is Christ. The "Scriptures" used here were the Old Testament (cf. Acts 28:23).
But what Old Testament passage directly states that Christ must rise from the dead (without reasoning to conclusions)? What passage directly stated that Jesus of Nazareth would be Christ?
Old Testament prophecy definitely shows that Jesus is the Christ, but this requires taking passages and "adding them up" to reason to the necessary conclusion that Jesus would rise from the dead and is the Christ.
Note that this was the method Paul "customarily" used to "persuade" people - Acts 17:2.
Acts 2:27-32,36
Peter quoted David's prophecy that "you will not leave my soul in Hades nor allow your Holy One to see corruption" (v27). He reasoned: (1) David said "my" soul, but he could not have meant himself since he did die (v29). "Therefore" (conclusion), the reference must have been to the Christ, David's descendant (v30). (2) And if he did not see corruption, then he must arise from the dead (v31).
Note that Paul and Peter expected people to reach the same inference they reached. They viewed the conclusion as "binding": they believed people who did not accept the conclusion would be wrong. In fact, their souls' salvation depended on it!
Arguing from fulfilled prophecy is worthless unless we draw necessary conclusions.

Great point. This is a valid form of scriptural interpretation as well. I accept what you're saying. It's unarguably reasonable.

But even this kind of scriptural interpretation starts with scripture and then moves into reasoning.

 

[Hank77]

No, he didn't.

Who is he? And what didn't he do?