Who did away with the law?

[Hentenza]

True, but that doesn't mean it ddn't exist before that.

It did not.

 

[VictorC]

True, but that doesn't mean it ddn't exist before that.

Moses testified in Deuteronomy 5:2-3 that the covenant from Mount Sinai was unknown prior to his own generation.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hey Jack, after 13000 posts haven't you located the "quote" function yet?
is it your intent to add random questions addressed to no one to this thread?

 

[VictorC]

We've come to expect no less from Ducati riders...

 

[JohnRabbit]

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

why don't you read what i post?

i never say any of the stuff you've got written in the quote above. that's you spinning what i've said.

i've never advocated legalism, i've always represented my position as one of keeping the commandments of God, to produce the fruits of the Spirit that is talked about in gal 5:22.

i believe what God wants is to write the law in our hearts, so that, doing the things that please Him is second nature to us.

what you have in your quote that i have above is legalism.

regardless about Potiphar, you won't, wait, let me back up, you refuse to answer what law joseph was talking about in gen 39:

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?”

and since VictorC only wants to talk about the first part of 1jn 3:4, i'll focus on the second part of the verse.

sin is the transgression of the law.

so, what sin is joseph talking about and what law governs such?

better break out your Raid!

 

[JohnRabbit]

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?”

i see.

 

[YosemiteSam]

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.

Woah! Lets start here. I didn't make the same claim as you. Re-read my post. The inference in your post is that the law did not exist up until the time of Moses. I think you used Rom 5:13 to support that claim. Romans 5:13 was not talking about the law which mediated from Moses but a law that existed from Adam to Moses.

So a law, or some guideline for mankind in the form of law, existed from Adam, else sin could not have been imputed, thus the penalty of death.

You had stated "added because of transgressions" simply means that the law was added to define transgressions that would violate it, and the transgression existed already." then you go on to quote Rom 5:13. It definitely leaves the reader with the indication that you think that no law existed prior to Moses.

Please Clarify that is your position. Then I will move to the next point.


Thanks

 

[YosemiteSam]

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.

Abraham didn't pay tithes? Are you off your rocker?

 

[YosemiteSam]

True, but that doesn't mean it ddn't exist before that.

Duet, did Abraham tithe?

 

[JohnRabbit]

All of them.

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—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.

see, this is what i'm talking about.

you said that the "law" died, so i posted to your quote.

now, you come back and you say something totally different. (see what i highlighted and underlined in your post).

i'll keep reading rom 7, still would like for you to tell me what law is going to go forth from zion after the Christ returns.

and, as per the new covenant, what laws will God write in our hearts?

 

[JohnRabbit]

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.

Abraham didn't pay tithes? Are you off your rocker?

yes he is.

 

[YosemiteSam]

yes he is.

 

[VictorC]

Woah! Lets start here. I didn't make the same claim as you. Re-read my post. The inference in your post is that the law did not exist up until the time of Moses. I think you used Rom 5:13 to support that claim. Romans 5:13 was not talking about the law which mediated from Moses but a law that existed from Adam to Moses.

That is false. Romans 5 specifies that sin existed before the law, mentioning Moses in the immediate context:

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all 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 those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.​

The reason Moses is mentioned is because it is with Moses the law that is addressed has its origin.

So a law, or some guideline for mankind in the form of law, existed from Adam, else sin could not have been imputed, thus the penalty of death.

That is false. Adam's transgression is recorded as violating a commandment to abstain from the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge. Nothing else, and that commandment has never been codified in the covenant from Mount Sinai or Horeb, and it has never been applied to anyone else.

You had stated "added because of transgressions" simply means that the law was added to define transgressions that would violate it, and the transgression existed already." then you go on to quote Rom 5:13. It definitely leaves the reader with the indication that you think that no law existed prior to Moses.

It should leave the reader with the conclusion that the law didn't exist prior to Moses. That is precisely what the Biblical record testifies to, and that is exactly what Moses testifies in Deuteronomy 5.

 

[VictorC]

why don't you read what i post?

Why don't you respond to the content that I post to your attention?

 

[JohnRabbit]

Why don't you respond to the content that I post to your attention?

i sent you a post, why don't you answer it?

 

[VictorC]

Can anyone get little lamb of jesus off here...He just eats up space with advertising..never says a damn thing...

LLOJ has precious contributions from time to time. You're just more interested in maligning the character of those who don't accept your opinions than you are listening to what we have to say.

 

[VictorC]

i sent you a post, why don't you answer it?

You presented a response to a post of mine, and in the very first words you asked a question that was answered in the post you quoted - ample demonstration that you didn't read it. You have not answered that or any other post in this thread that I have found.

Would you like me to bump up my post for another crack at it?

 

[YosemiteSam]

LLOJ has precious contributions from time to time. You're just more interested in maligning the character of those who don't accept your opinions than you are listening to what we have to say.

You got it right the first time. From time to time! I don't know what your screen shows but mine nothing but a bunch of advertisement and junk that is irrelevant to the thread. Where you got the rest of it from is beyond comprehension.Thank you

 

[VictorC]

You got it right the first time. From time to time! I don't know what your screen shows but mine nothing but a bunch of advertisement and junk that is irrelevant to the thread. Where you got the rest of it from is beyond comprehension.Thank you

Expand the foundation of your comprehension. It is the responsibility of an author to convey his meaning, but comprehensive skills are the purview of the recipient.

 

[YosemiteSam]

That is false. Romans 5 specifies that sin existed before the law, mentioning Moses in the immediate context:

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all 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 those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.​

The reason Moses is mentioned is because it is with Moses the law that is addressed has its origin.

I thought that was your position, thus it would stand as it appears contradictory to scripture. Read the last part of 13 again. "sin is not imputed when there is no law".

So would you please explain your position further. It is obvious that sin was imputed for "death reigned from Adam to Moses." So sin was imputed to Adam and all that came after him. It could not be imputed if there was no law. As the scripture you stated above.

Be careful here. If you wish to stand on the false premise that the law was not until Moses, then you must answer the question, "How then was sin imputed to Adam?" ; "How then was sin imputed to Adam, when he was dead?"