Who did away with the law?

[LittleLambofJesus]

yes, you are correct!

it's about a relationship with our Creator, but our Creator has expressed His ways in the law, see isaiah 2:3.

you can't have a relationship with God if you don't know His way of living.

remember, love fullfils the law and God is love.

And Christ fulfills the Law and is also love

http://www.christianforums.com/t7484171/#post55480872

 

[Hentenza]

how did it serve its purpose?

the tutor you speak of was the mosaic law, but what law is this:

Romans 3:20 ( NKJV ) 20Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

if the law let's us know what sin is, then why do away with it and if the law is done away, you tell me what sin is?

and what about the kingdom to come?

Isaiah 9:6-7 ( NKJV ) 6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

a kingdom or government needs laws, right? you may not think so, but the bible does:

Isaiah 2:3 ( NKJV ) 3 Many people shall come and say,
“Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

of course we know that this is speaking of a time that is yet future and God is still talking about law.

he will teach us His ways...
and we shall walk in His paths...

the law is not merely a bunch of do's and don'ts or necessarily rules to follow by, but represents God's way which is different than man's way.

God already reconciled the believer with saving faith to Himself through Christ. Notice how our trespasses are no longer imputed to our "account".

2 Cor. 5
18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

The law was designed to bring us to a savior. Savior arrived and died for us. The HS has been given to teach us on all things. The law has fulfilled its design, consequently, it has been fulfilled.

 

[Frogster]

yes, you are correct!

it's about a relationship with our Creator, but our Creator has expressed His ways in the law, see isaiah 2:3.

you can't have a relationship with God if you don't know His way of living.

remember, love fullfils the law and God is love.

Dude..

You do realize how absurd this all is historically dontcha?

The.."gentile dogs"..the.."foolish"..the.."uncircumcised"..the.."gentile sinners".

Never ever obeyed the food laws, or Sabbath.

Why oh why, would they become Christians and then start observing Jewish law?

I highly recommend an in depth study of Galatians.

Teacher Frogster.

 

[JohnRabbit]

The meaning of "added because of transgressions" simply means that the law was added to define transgressions that would violate it, and those transgressions existed already.

That is inconsistent, as the ten commandments was the covenant that was given through Moses, at the same time Moses received God's instructions that he later codified in the book of the law. The content of each have the same origin of time, as Moses testified in Deuteronomy 4:

11 "Then you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire to the midst of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.
12 "And the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; you only heard a voice.
13 "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
14 "And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess.
​

That comes from rendering "added because of transgressions or sin" from an incomplete definition of sin equating the two. If you're going to use Romans as a guide, you should also include Romans 5:13:

For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
​

Sin existed before the law did, showing that sin and transgressions to a codified law are separate entities.

That simply means that there was no transgression of law prior to the Mosaic covenant, since there was no law mediated through Moses before Moses came onto the historical scene.

You were doing fine until you decided to ask "why". Being kept under the law for a period of time you acknowledge was temporal also acknowledges that once faith in our Redeemer came, that ownership conveyed by "kept under the law" came to an end once the ownership of the purchased possession (us) was transferred via redemption. Galatians 4 addresses that as the reason Jesus Christ came:

4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
​

Redemption places being under the law in the past tense, and that is the reason that we are no longer under the tutelage of the law.

I am among the minority who agrees that the crucifixion was on a Wednesday, followed by the High Sabbath on Thursday, Mary buying embalming spices on Friday, and the second sabbath of the week happening on Saturday. However, Daniel 9:27 refers to the midst of a shabuwa, dividing the heptad of "seven" we commonly regard as "years", and it isn't a reference to a literal week. I don't think Daniel 9:27 is germane, and you're making a point from this verse that it doesn't really support.

Here you do nothing short of displaying an open prejudice against the Mosaic covenant. The ten commandments was every bit as much Mosaic law as the book of the law was. The tables of stone was the covenant handed to Moses on Mount Sinai, and the book of the law was the same covenant Moses wrote at Horeb, from orally dictated instructions directly from God. Galatians addresses the ten commandments itself in Galatians 4:

21 ¶ Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,
24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar----
25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children----
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband."
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."
​

Here we have Paul's instruction to cast off the bondwoman, which he defines as the covenant from Mount Sinai: "the one from Mount Sinai". There was only one covenant that had Mount Sinai as its origin. Scroll back up in this post and review the testimony Moses gave us from Deuteronomy 4 for the proper noun naming the covenant from Mount Sinai - the Ten Commandments, written on tables of stone.

That is what Galatians is addressing with the same impact as the book of the law. The law was indivisible, and we are redeemed from the law as a unit that includes the covenant from Mount Sinai, the Ten Commandments.

so, what laws were abolished?

the marriage law was in effect during the time of adam and eve:

Genesis 3:6 ( NKJV ) 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

boom! they were married and we know God gave a law to keep that marriage bound.

Romans 7:2 ( NKJV ) 2For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.

now, it's no secret as to what law that is, right?

abraham paid tithes to the priest of the most high God.

there is a law that covers that.

and what about joseph and the pharoah's wife:

Genesis 39:9 ( NKJV ) 9There is no one greater in this house than I, nor has he kept back anything from me but you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?”

what sin is he talking about?

if the law is indivisible, are these laws gone too.

and how are we to know what sin is?

Romans 3:20 ( NKJV ) 20Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dude..

You do realize how absurd this all is historically dontcha?

The.."gentile dogs"..the.."foolish"..the.."uncircumcised"..the.."gentile sinners".

Never ever obeyed the food laws, or Sabbath.

Why oh why, would they become Christians and then start observing Jewish law?

I highly reccomend an in depth study of Galatians.

Teacher Frogster.

The book of Revelation would also be a good study, both from a Jewish and Gentile view me thinks

Philip 3:2 Beware of the dogs!/kunaV <2965> beware of-the evil workers! beware of-the circumcision!
[Psalm 22:16/Isaiah 56:11]

Reve 22:15 Outside the dogs/kuneV <2965> and the sorcerers and the prostituters and the muderers and the idolaters and every one being fond of and doing falseness.
[Philipp 3:2]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7397815/
Should Revelations be studied?

 

[JohnRabbit]

Dude..

You do realize how absurd this all is historically dontcha?

The.."gentile dogs"..the.."foolish"..the.."uncircumcised"..the.."gentile sinners".

Never ever obeyed the food laws, or Sabbath.

Why oh why, would they become Christians and then start observing Jewish law?

I highly recommend an in depth study of Galatians.

Teacher Frogster.

obviously i write stuff and you just overlook stuff.

show me anywhere in this forum that i have advocated the keeping of the mosaic law. you won't find it anywhere.

God's laws express His ways, but you see the law of God as " a bunch of do's and don'ts", maybe you should reread the book of Galatians.

for one,the laws were not "jewish", they were laws that came from God, He even wrote part of the law Himself.

He gave the law to israel of whom the jews were a part. so, maybe you will use correct terminology when speak on a subject, again, go reread.

it may be absurd to you, btw, the bible says:

1 Corinthians 2:14 ( NKJV ) 14But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Frogster]

obviously i write stuff and you just overlook stuff.

show me anywhere in this forum that i have advocated the keeping of the mosaic law. you won't find it anywhere.

the laws were not "jewish", they were laws that came from God, He even wrote part of the law Himself.

it may be absurd to you, btw, the bible says:

1 Corinthians 2:14 ( NKJV ) 14But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Oh my..they were Jewish laws, Paul did not want them under them.

Look here.

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

 

[VictorC]

The meaning of "added because of transgressions" simply means that the law was added to define transgressions that would violate it, and those transgressions existed already.

Reading over your post to JohnRabbit. Interesting; however, lacks credibility and logic. It says "added because of transgressions". Transgression to what? Would you have us believe "transgressions to a future law" that does not exist yet? How can one break a law that does not exist? Interesting, but not logical at all.

You make the very same point that I do, all the while claiming it lacks credibility and logic. It isn't possible to transgress a law that doesn't exist, and the Biblical record specifies when the law mediated by Moses began. Galatians 3:19 is very plain when it states the law "was added because of transgressions", consistent with the addition of the law that defined transgressions to it, and not some other legal entity that didn't exist. That is perfectly logical and Biblical.

Abraham kept the statues, commandments and laws of God in Gen 26:5 Abraham obeyed God.

Other than circumcision, Abraham didn't receive anything that was later given through Moses.

Four hundred and thirty years later, the Hebrews were being led out of captivity. During thier time in captivity, they had lost their knowledge of God.

Do you have any Biblical support for this assertion that they forgot who God was? I don't believe the point has a lot of merit, as the snake miracle was presented to Moses in Exodus 4:5 for a reason: "that they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you". It is reasonable to assume the children of Israel knew who their fathers were, and Who their fathers served.

God was working with them, showing them His ways. They kept the Passover (a Sabbath) and the Days of Unleavened Bread (also a Sabbath) while exiting Egypt.

The exodus from Egyptian bondage was the origin of the passover; that is common knowledge even by those who only watch movies. Remember too that the exodus was by a circumcised people, and in the law the passover sabbath is permitted to be observed only by those who are circumcised (see Exodus 12:43-48). Keeping the sabbaths of Israel demands circumcision, the fundamental entrance into a relationship in the first covenant.

They were shown the 7th day of the week by the raining down of manna. Here we can clearly see the keeping of the Sabbath before the Mt. Sinai event. The Sabbath being one of the ten commandments as well. See Exodus

See Exodus 16:4. Is that how you intended to finish your sentence? The sabbath was coincident with the manna experience, which was about one month prior to the covenant from Mount Sinai, and it was for a reason: "Then the LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you. And the people shall go out and gather a certain quota every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in My law or not"." The sabbath, along with the manna, originated as a test of Israel's readiness for the covenant that was about to be dictated to them.

Interestingly enough you pulled Romans 5:13 to substantiate the argument that before Mt. Sinai there was no law. This argument too is made void by the facts. A closer look at Rom 5:12-14:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law) 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam transgression..."

The above clearly shows that sin - the transgression of the law - entered in through Adam. Second, scripture states that "sin is not imputed when there is no law", then why do we see sin imputed from the beginning? If there had been no law, then there could be no penalty of the sin. The scriptures are explicit and must not be rejected. God told Adam "in the day that thou shall eat you shall surely die." He would die, he would see death, and that is because he choose to sin, and sin brings death but only by the transgression of an existing law. So how is it that death reigned from Adam to Moses, without a law?

Paul explains that death passed on to all of Adam's posterity, "even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam". The transgression that brought the universal death sentence was Adam's transgression of eating the forbidden fruit. Where is that contained in the law mediated by Moses? When the Biblical authors mention the origin of the law, are you able to determine which law they are addressing? It seems that all law is the same entity to you, which is impossible to reconcile with the documented origin of the law given through Moses.

We see the Sabbath being kept before Mt. Sinai and being one of the 10. Do you suppose that Adam broke another of the 10?

The correct count of the laws contained in the full covenant relationship Israel agreed to abide by (Exodus 24:7) was 613 mitzvot, and not just ten. You dismissed over 98% of the law, a legal covenant that says nothing about forbidden fruit of a certain tree Adam's transgression was of. Adam did not transgress anything in the Sinai covenant, nor was a transgression possible because Adam died thousands of years before the Sinai covenant was given.

In Gen 4 we see "sin" lying at the door of Cain, whom took his brothers life. Was the sin imputed? You might read the account of it.

And there was no transgression of the law mediated by Moses, which contains no penalty describing a curse of the ground for murder. That penalty was related to the 7-year sabbaths for the land and the bounty promised the 6th year (Leviticus 25:20-21).

For if "sin is the transgression of the law" 1 Jn 3:4; howbeit then was sin in the world before Adam? I ask you this.

Look at 1 John 3:4, which states "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness", or transgression of the law. Even in this verse sin and transgression are treated as separate entities: "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness". Sinning also violates the law, and a violation of the law is sin. Sin isn't imputed (charged) when there isn't a transgression to any law, but sin exists none the less, because "All unrighteousness is sin", quoting from 1 John 5:17, the same epistle written by the same author. His rendering is consistent with Paul's appeal to the historical record stating "until the law sin was in the world" in Romans 5:13, because "the law" is referring specifically to the covenant law mediated by Moses. That law didn't exist until it was given to Moses, and sin existed long before Moses came onto the historical scene. Paul specifies by what transgression sin had its origin by, and Paul renders the origin of the law as faithfully as Moses does. Even John shows the same consistency when he wrote "the law was given through Moses" in John 1:17, and he quotes Jesus stating "Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law?" in John 7:19.

Everyone seems to know the origin of the covenant law Israel was bound to, and everyone knows sin existed before that law did. That's true of the Biblical authors, anyway - and they're inspired and trustworthy. You aren't compliant with the Biblical record, because you're using a limited definition of sin that also transgressed the law and imputed sin to the offender during its tenure. Romans 4 14-15 addresses that relationship:

14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect,
15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.​

This is consistent with Galatians 4:30, instructing to cast off the covenant from Mount Sinai, "for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman". Those retained by the law don't have a claim to eternal life; their transgressions impute sin to them, and the law they belong to demands atonement by blood to reconcile those transgressions. Since they trampled down the only spotless Lamb God has offered (Hebrews 10:29), their only recourse is to satisfy the law's demand for blood, and the law truely does bring about wrath.

 

[VictorC]

so, what laws were abolished?

the marriage law was in effect during the time of adam and eve:

My goodness, you simply didn't read anything I posted, did you? Why are you asking a question that has already been answered? Why are you appealing to marriage that has an origin long before Moses?

Please, read my post and respond to the content that is presented in it:

anywho,it is clear that paul is talking about the mosaic law in gal 3. note the references to "works of the law" (from the greek ergon nomos) and his reference to the "book of the law" (you know, the part of the law that moses wrote, hence, mosaic law. ex 24:5,7)

now, let's back up from gal 3:24 to gal 3:19,

Galatians 3:19 ( NKJV ) 19What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.

what purpose did the law serve? he actually answers this question in verse 24, but notice that the law was added because of transgressions. but what law or laws were being transgressed?

The meaning of "added because of transgressions" simply means that the law was added to define transgressions that would violate it, and those transgressions existed already.

(but of course it couldn't have been the ten comandments)

That is inconsistent, as the ten commandments was the covenant that was given through Moses, at the same time Moses received God's instructions that he later codified in the book of the law. The content of each have the same origin of time, as Moses testified in Deuteronomy 4:

11 "Then you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire to the midst of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.
12 "And the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; you only heard a voice.
13 "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
14 "And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess.​

remember?

Romans 4:15 ( NKJV ) 15because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.

since the law was added because of transgressions or sin, there had to be a law that existed so that "the law" could be addded!

That comes from rendering "added because of transgressions or sin" from an incomplete definition of sin equating the two. If you're going to use Romans as a guide, you should also include Romans 5:13:

For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.​

Sin existed before the law did, showing that sin and transgressions to a codified law are separate entities.

just too bad that we don't know what law or laws that was being transgressed, a pure shame.

well, we do know it wasn't the mosaic law.

That simply means that there was no transgression of law prior to the Mosaic covenant, since there was no law mediated through Moses before Moses came onto the historical scene.

also notice that "the law" was added until! until what?
...till the Seed should come!

so, this tells us that the law was to be added but that it would have a definite duration!

that's where:

Galatians 3:23-25 ( NKJV ) 23But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

comes into play.

the mosaic law fullfiled it purpose, came 430 years after abraham and taught the COI the habit of obedience.
but verse 25 says that we are no longer under a tutor, why?

You were doing fine until you decided to ask "why". Being kept under the law for a period of time you acknowledge was temporal also acknowledges that once faith in our Redeemer came, that ownership conveyed by "kept under the law" came to an end once the ownership of the purchased possession (us) was transferred via redemption. Galatians 4 addresses that as the reason Jesus Christ came:

4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.​

Redemption places being under the law in the past tense, and that is the reason that we are no longer under the tutelage of the law.

because:

Daniel 9:27 ( NKJV ) 27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week (and Christ literaly died on wednesday)
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

I am among the minority who agrees that the crucifixion was on a Wednesday, followed by the High Sabbath on Thursday, Mary buying embalming spices on Friday, and the second sabbath of the week happening on Saturday. However, Daniel 9:27 refers to the midst of a shabuwa, dividing the heptad of "seven" we commonly regard as "years", and it isn't a reference to a literal week. I don't think Daniel 9:27 is germane, and you're making a point from this verse that it doesn't really support.

mosaic law, and not the ten commandments, was added because of gal 3:19, and served its purpose per gal 3:24!

Here you do nothing short of displaying an open prejudice against the Mosaic covenant. The ten commandments was every bit as much Mosaic law as the book of the law was. The tables of stone was the covenant handed to Moses on Mount Sinai, and the book of the law was the same covenant Moses wrote at Horeb, from orally dictated instructions directly from God. Galatians addresses the ten commandments itself in Galatians 4:

21 ¶ Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,
24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar----
25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children----
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband."
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."​

Here we have Paul's instruction to cast off the bondwoman, which he defines as the covenant from Mount Sinai: "the one from Mount Sinai". There was only one covenant that had Mount Sinai as its origin. Scroll back up in this post and review the testimony Moses gave us from Deuteronomy 4 for the proper noun naming the covenant from Mount Sinai - the Ten Commandments, written on tables of stone.

That is what Galatians is addressing with the same impact as the book of the law. The law was indivisible, and we are redeemed from the law as a unit that includes the covenant from Mount Sinai, the Ten Commandments.

 

[Hentenza]

so, what laws were abolished?

All of them.

the marriage law was in effect during the time of adam and eve:

Genesis 3:6 ( NKJV ) 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

boom! they were married and we know God gave a law to keep that marriage bound.

Romans 7:2 ( NKJV ) 2For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.

Keep reading Rom. 7.

2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another&#8212;to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

We have to become dead to the law so that we can "marry" another. The "another" is Jesus Christ. If you are still married to the law then you will be judged by the law, all of it.

 

[bugkiller]

so, what laws were abolished?

the marriage law was in effect during the time of adam and eve:

Genesis 3:6 ( NKJV ) 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

boom! they were married and we know God gave a law to keep that marriage bound.

Romans 7:2 ( NKJV ) 2For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.

now, it's no secret as to what law that is, right?

abraham paid tithes to the priest of the most high God.

there is a law that covers that.

and what about joseph and the pharoah's wife:

Genesis 39:9 ( NKJV ) 9There is no one greater in this house than I, nor has he kept back anything from me but you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?”

what sin is he talking about?

if the law is indivisible, are these laws gone too.

and how are we to know what sin is?

Romans 3:20 ( NKJV ) 20Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

I think you need to study more about tithe. Abraham did not give or pay a tithe from his possessions. Abraham returned the property of the King of Sodom to him minus the tithes from the spoils of war given to the local king according to custom. Tithes according to the law are paid from personal increas only.

The citing of Joseph and Potiphar's wife is not proof that the ten commandments were in existance. You need to be a little more careful and at least get the facts correct if you wish to expect one to believe your position. Potiphar was an officer of Pharoah. Gen 39:1.

Since one can not be justified by the law, why do you push it? This is about being able to be in God's presence (righteousness). Without this righteousness you can not have fellowship with God and are lost. It must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees. Do you sin? How then is your righteousness better than theirs? Is not the failure to obey the law (ten commandments) unrighteousness? If you don't keep the sabbath as required by the ten commandments, can you be saved? I have not touched the other things about keeping the sabbath regulations found elsewhere in the Torah. Obedience is not legalism.

bugkiller

 

[JacktheCatholic]

That simply means that there was no transgression of law prior to the Mosaic covenant, since there was no law mediated through Moses before Moses came onto the historical scene.

I thought Adam and Eve broke the Law?

Then I think Cane broke the Law...

This was before Moses too.

St Paul:
"By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."

 

[bugkiller]

The Law was made for Man and not Man for the Law.

NO! Who was the law given to? Who was the sabbath given to? Who was Jesus speaking to? Every single answer is the Israelite (Jew). Context is my friend here. Isn't it cruel of God to wait what 4 or 5,000 years to announce such a fact? Why did God say the sabbath would cease (terminate in the Tanak) in Hosea 2:11 if it was given to man?

bugkiller

 

[JacktheCatholic]

"I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel. . . . I will put my laws into their hands, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."

"Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; this is the law and the prophets."

 

[JacktheCatholic]

"Let charity be genuine. . . . Love one another with brotherly affection. . . . Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints, practice hospitality."

 

[JacktheCatholic]

NO! Who was the law given to? Who was the sabbath given to? Who was Jesus speaking to? Every single answer is the Israelite (Jew). Context is my friend here. Isn't it cruel of God to wait what 4 or 5,000 years to announce such a fact? Why did God say the sabbath would cease (terminate in the Tanak) in Hosea 2:11 if it was given to man?

bugkiller

Jesus...

Jesus said the Priest sit in the seat of Moses and do as they teach.

They taught the 10 commandments.

Jesus said he did not come to do away with the Law. He brought Grace and Truth to it.

Jesus told us that all the Commandments could be wrapped up with loving God with your heart mind and soul and loving your neighbor as yourself.

Because the Law is for Man.

 

[bugkiller]

obviously i write stuff and you just overlook stuff.

show me anywhere in this forum that i have advocated the keeping of the mosaic law. you won't find it anywhere.

God's laws express His ways, but you see the law of God as " a bunch of do's and don'ts", maybe you should reread the book of Galatians.

for one,the laws were not "jewish", they were laws that came from God, He even wrote part of the law Himself.

He gave the law to israel of whom the jews were a part. so, maybe you will use correct terminology when speak on a subject, again, go reread.

it may be absurd to you, btw, the bible says:

1 Corinthians 2:14 ( NKJV ) 14But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I could be mistaken but aren't you pro sabbath?

bugkiller

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4

The Old Law prophecies what is to come.

1964 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. "The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy of things to come."17 It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, "types," and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the Kingdom of heaven.
There were . . . under the regimen of the Old Covenant, people who possessed the charity and grace of the Holy Spirit and longed above all for the spiritual and eternal promises by which they were associated with the New Law. Conversely, there exist carnal men under the New Covenant still distanced from the perfection of the New Law: the fear of punishment and certain temporal promises have been necessary, even under the New Covenant, to incite them to virtuous works. In any case, even though the Old Law prescribed charity, it did not give the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's charity has been poured into our hearts."18

The New Law makes perfect what was before:

1971 To the Lord's Sermon on the Mount it is fitting to add the moral catechesis of the apostolic teachings, such as Romans 12-15, 1 Corinthians 12-13, Colossians 3-4, Ephesians 4-5, etc. This doctrine hands on the Lord's teaching with the authority of the apostles, particularly in the presentation of the virtues that flow from faith in Christ and are animated by charity, the principal gift of the Holy Spirit. "Let charity be genuine. . . . Love one another with brotherly affection. . . . Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints, practice hospitality."29 This catechesis also teaches us to deal with cases of conscience in the light of our relationship to Christ and to the Church.30 1972 The New Law is called a law of love because it makes us act out of the love infused by the Holy Spirit, rather than from fear; a law of grace, because it confers the strength of grace to act, by means of faith and the sacraments; a law of freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law, inclines us to act spontaneously by the prompting of charity and, finally, lets us pass from the condition of a servant who "does not know what his master is doing" to that of a friend of Christ - "For all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you" - or even to the status of son and heir.31

 

[bugkiller]

Jesus...

Jesus said the Priest sit in the seat of Moses and do as they teach.

They taught the 10 commandments.

Jesus said he did not come to do away with the Law. He brought Grace and Truth to it.

Jesus told us that all the Commandments could be wrapped up with loving God with your heart mind and soul and loving your neighbor as yourself.

Because the Law is for Man.

You are very correct that Jesus did not come to do away with the law. I do not say that Jesus did either. In I Tim 1:9, 10 we see who the law is still in effect for. It is not the Christian. We as Christians are under the new covenant which is not like the one made at Sinai (Jer 31:31, 32) and identified as the 10 commandments written in stone in Deut 4:13. Jesus testified that the new covenant is in existence in Mat 26:28 with these words: This is My blood of the new testament.

Jesus did not come to modify or amplify the law either as some contend.

bugkiller

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Who was the law given to?

Mankind

Who was the sabbath given to?

The Children of God

Who was Jesus speaking to?

Everyone

Every single answer is the Israelite (Jew). Context is my friend here. Isn't it cruel of God to wait what 4 or 5,000 years to announce such a fact?

As far as I know Adam and Eve had it all and "blew it"

Why did God say the sabbath would cease (terminate in the Tanak) in Hosea 2:11 if it was given to man?

This?:

Therefore, I will hedge in her way with thorns and erect a wall against her, so that she cannot find her paths.

The New American Bible - IntraText


Not sure I follow you???