Who did away with the law?

[bugkiller]

why don't you read what i post?

Is this not your post? http://www.christianforums.com/t7489177-20/#post55481002 I used the quote button and only posted at the end of your entire post. If it isn't the system messed up. I went back and looked. It is the post I quoted with your avatar and name on it.

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

I don't think so my friend.

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.

If you say so. Right now I do not wish to research the issue. For me legalism and obedience are two different things. Complete obedience is not legalism. Partial obedience claiming (full) obedience is legalism. I am not making any accusation here. Just putting out how I see the philosophical issues on the subject.

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.

Where we conflict is the back and forth on the use of the terms the law and the ten commandments. They seem to be interchangable at will for most. I draw a line because of references like Jer 31:31-34. The NC does not include the ten commandments anywhere as a unit and the 4th is not recommanded in the NT anywhere.

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

I am sorry I do not understand what you are saying here. Are you talking about my reply to your post that I quoted or what you quoted of me in your post. It is my opinion that I am responding to your general promotion of the OC. Nothing in the OC is part of the NC. There are some similarities, yes infact seem to be some exact similatities. This does not mean all the other things piggy back into the NC.

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?”

You are implying that it is the ten commandments. Is that not corrrect? How can that be the ten commandments or the rest of the law did not exist then as evidenced by Gal 3:19? Your problem is that sin is only the transgression of the law. How can that be? Transgression (sin) was before the law Romans 5:13

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.

To me either side of the verse says exactly the same thing. You refuse to acknowledge Romans 14:23b for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. And you refuse to acknowledge I John 5:17 All unrigheousness is sin. You are only trying to support obligation to the Torah. You have no real interest in what sin is. You are prooftexting. That is you have an idea that needs support. You have no real interest if your idea holds water, you will make it hold water.

sin is the transgression of the law.

Certainly and sin is not having faith. Sin is all unrighteousness.

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

Your rhetorical question answers itself and it is not the ten commandments or any law of Moses because they have not been given yet. The fact that Joesph recognized adultery as sin is not proof the ten commandments were enforce. Whatever the law is under the OC it is not under the NC. Jer 31;31-34 says so.

better break out your Raid!

You pick the can

bugkiller

 

[YosemiteSam]

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.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex...It takes a touch of genius and courage to move in the opposite direction.

J

 

[VictorC]

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?"

Where do you make up this junk? Sin is not imputed where there is no law, and that is borne by the Biblical record as well - Sin was imputed to Adam by a transgression that isn't contained in the law, and we receive the same penalty he did because we were all in Adam when he transgressed God's commandment to abstain from the forbidden fruit. Moreover, you flatly discarded the plain statement made in Romans 5:13 that "until the law sin was in the world", revealing sin and transgressions to be separate entities you cannot reconcile with your simplified definition of sin refuted by the same author your truncated definition comes from.

Do you remember this part of my post?

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.

We have a consistent testimony from several Biblical authors all attesting to the origin of the law with Moses. Everyone knows who the law was given through - except you. You chose to contradict Scripture on this point, and suggesting that others are in any danger of repeating your mistake is readily dismissed as hyperbole with no substance.

 

[VictorC]

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex...It takes a touch of genius and courage to move in the opposite direction.

J

Arrogance is the enemy of the learning experience and a friend of the "remnant" mentality that divides the Body of Christ, aka "moving in the opposite direction". This is why you haven't perceived the goal that some of us patiently hope to attain in a discussion forum:

Ephesians 4
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.​

 

[YosemiteSam]

Where do you make up this junk? Sin is not imputed where there is no law, and that is borne by the Biblical record as well - Sin was imputed to Adam by a transgression that isn't contained in the law, and we receive the same penalty he did because we were all in Adam when he transgressed God's commandment to abstain from the forbidden fruit. Moreover, you flatly discarded the plain statement made in Romans 5:13 that "until the law sin was in the world", revealing sin and transgressions to be separate entities you cannot reconcile with your simplified definition of sin refuted by the same author your truncated definition comes from.

So now your saying? That Adam transgressed God's law?

 

[VictorC]

Where do you make up this junk? Sin is not imputed where there is no law, and that is borne by the Biblical record as well - Sin was imputed to Adam by a transgression that isn't contained in the law, and we receive the same penalty he did because we were all in Adam when he transgressed God's commandment to abstain from the forbidden fruit. Moreover, you flatly discarded the plain statement made in Romans 5:13 that "until the law sin was in the world", revealing sin and transgressions to be separate entities you cannot reconcile with your simplified definition of sin refuted by the same author your truncated definition comes from.

So now your saying? That Adam transgressed God's law?

Does the brilliant red help overcome your poor comprehensive skills?

 

[YosemiteSam]

Arrogance is the enemy of the learning experience and a friend of the "remnant" mentality that divides the Body of Christ, aka "moving in the opposite direction". This is why you haven't perceived the goal that some of us patiently hope to attain in a discussion forum:

Ephesians 4
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.​

If what you posted above you hold to be true, then turn off your fountain of arrogance and lets discuss the thread.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Does the brilliant red help overcome your poor comprehensive skills?

Yes, and please quit contradicting scripture. Sin cannot be imputed when there is no law. Later part of v.13 you are using. So in order that Adam sinned, he clearly violated a law. Correct?

 

[VictorC]

Yes, and please quit contradicting scripture. Sin cannot be imputed when there is no law. Later part of v.13 you are using. So in order that Adam sinned, he clearly violated a law. Correct?

Please quit acting as if you can't read:
Sin was imputed to Adam by a transgression that isn't contained in the law.
If you want to trample Scripture as your sole defense, it is incumbent on you to quote the commandment to abstain from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge in the covenant law mediated by Moses. This has been your premise from inception on this thread.

 

[JohnRabbit]

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

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's the word according to VictorC and i don't agree with it.

the law that was added was the mosaic law and like the scripture says, it was added becauses of transgressions.

so, God gave them laws that would keep them in the habit of obedience, the works of law. it took physical labor to accomplish.


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


the old covenant was a marriage relationship, not the ten commandments.

Jeremiah 31:32 ( NKJV ) 32not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.


Deuteronomy 4:13 ( NKJV ) 13So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.


just like a wife agrees to certain tenants , the COI agreed to keep God's laws and God promised to bless them and protect them.


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


sin is the transgression of the law, so what you have written i can't agree with.


adam and eve were married, and paul said in rom 7:


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.


but you say that the law did not exist until moses.


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 can't agree with this statement.


Genesis 6:13 ( NKJV ) 13And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


must have been some serious sinning going on. end of all flesh, you know?


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.


"under the law" can mean different things given its context. in the context of salvation, "under the law" means under the penalty of the law which is death.


now take the verses you quoted gal 4:4-5

in verse 4 "under the law" is speaking to obligation, and in the very next verse it refers to the penalty of the law, the word redeem is a big clue.

verse 7 says "you are no longer a slave". but a slave to what, the law, no, not to the law, but to sin. it is sin that brings death.


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:


here i have to disagree with you again, because God wrote the spiritual law and moses wrote the physical works of law.

galatians 4 shows how the covenants differ, in that, one was based on material promises and one is based on spiritual promises, see verses 24 and 25. one is in bondage and one is free. but not like you think.

one is in bondage and one is free, but not from the law, rather, from its penalty of the law. this talking about salvation and role that the covenants played.


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 says VictorC, the law was indivisible, uh, ok.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Please quit acting as if you can't read:
Sin was imputed to Adam by a transgression that isn't contained in the law.
If you want to trample Scripture as your sole defense, it is incumbent on you to quote the commandment to abstain from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge in the covenant law mediated by Moses. This has been your premise from inception on this thread.

"Sin cannot be imputed when there is no law!" Rom 5:13
Quit ignoring the verse!!! Sin was imputed to Adam, there must have been a law for sin to be imputed. Sin is the transgression of the law (1 Jn 3:4), you know that. Quit ignoring it. The transgression had to be that of a law. What law?

The bible no where says that sin was imputed to Adam for a transgression that was outside the law.

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Rom 6:16

No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other;..." Luke 16:13

Now, who did Adam obey, God or Satan?

 

[JohnRabbit]

Is this not your post? http://www.christianforums.com/t7489177-20/#post55481002 I used the quote button and only posted at the end of your entire post. If it isn't the system messed up. I went back and looked. It is the post I quoted with your avatar and name on it. I don't think so my friend.If you say so. Right now I do not wish to research the issue. For me legalism and obedience are two different things. Complete obedience is not legalism. Partial obedience claiming (full) obedience is legalism. I am not making any accusation here. Just putting out how I see the philosophical issues on the subject.Where we conflict is the back and forth on the use of the terms the law and the ten commandments. They seem to be interchangable at will for most. I draw a line because of references like Jer 31:31-34. The NC does not include the ten commandments anywhere as a unit and the 4th is not recommanded in the NT anywhere. I am sorry I do not understand what you are saying here. Are you talking about my reply to your post that I quoted or what you quoted of me in your post. It is my opinion that I am responding to your general promotion of the OC. Nothing in the OC is part of the NC. There are some similarities, yes infact seem to be some exact similatities. This does not mean all the other things piggy back into the NC. You are implying that it is the ten commandments. Is that not corrrect? How can that be the ten commandments or the rest of the law did not exist then as evidenced by Gal 3:19? Your problem is that sin is only the transgression of the law. How can that be? Transgression (sin) was before the law Romans 5:13To me either side of the verse says exactly the same thing. You refuse to acknowledge Romans 14:23b for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. And you refuse to acknowledge I John 5:17 All unrigheousness is sin. You are only trying to support obligation to the Torah. You have no real interest in what sin is. You are prooftexting. That is you have an idea that needs support. You have no real interest if your idea holds water, you will make it hold water.Certainly and sin is not having faith. Sin is all unrighteousness.Your rhetorical question answers itself and it is not the ten commandments or any law of Moses because they have not been given yet. The fact that Joesph recognized adultery as sin is not proof the ten commandments were enforce. Whatever the law is under the OC it is not under the NC. Jer 31;31-34 says so.You pick the can

bugkiller

rather than answer what you have here, i'll just take the blue can!

 

[VictorC]

"Sin cannot be imputed when there is no law!" Rom 5:13
Quit ignoring the verse!!! Sin was imputed to Adam, there must have been a law for sin to be imputed. Sin is the transgression of the law (1 Jn 3:4), you know that. Quit ignoring it. The transgression had to be that of a law. What law?

The only one who seems to be ignoring this verse is you, in spite of quoting it for yourself. It has become incumbent on you to document this law that you alone allege existed before Moses, that contained the commandment that Adam transgressed. Where, oh where is that law? Are you having trouble finding support for your own thesis?

Also, you have reverted to the truncated definition of sin that the Biblical author you borrowed it from refuted, and this was shown to you:

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.

That truncated definition of yours -not John's- is the basis of the preclusion you impose on the Biblical narrative to form a premise of the law existing before Moses, John, Paul, and even Jesus claimed it was. Yet you can't locate it, and it remains your burden of proof to show that Moses, John, Paul, and Jesus are all liars and your premise has something concrete to rely on.

Where's that non-existent law?
Find it.
Your credibility relies on your ability to document it.

It is well known that you and JohnRabbit have some kind of partnership on this forum. JohnRabbit has at least one post in this thread that posits that Adam had the ten commandments, and it didn't take much effort to silence him. With the two of you operating from a common thesis you can't find support for, it isn't hard to see that your preclusion is that the ten commandments has an origin and a disposition completely contrary to Scripture. It doesn't matter what you have to twist in order to arrive at the preclusion you believe is superior to the Bible. You have your own religion you want to start up, and if you were to publish your own form of "scripture", I'm certain there are those with itching ears eager for false teachings who will buy it.

But I'm not buying it. It is bogus.

 

[VictorC]

that's the word according to VictorC and i don't agree with it.

That's common knowledge. You can't seem to form a reason to support your disagreement, however.

the old covenant was a marriage relationship, not the ten commandments.[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

False, and your disgreement is with Moses and his testimony given in Deuteronomy 4:11-13.

just like a wife agrees to certain tenants , the COI agreed to keep God's laws and God promised to bless them and protect them.

False, and again you contradict Moses, who explained the nature of the covenant demanding compliance, that was requisite to live and possess the promised land, as Moses reminded the people entering that land in Deuteronomy 30:

15 ¶ "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil,
16 "in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess.​

Failure to comply with the covenant offended the Sovereign and called for the death penalty.

sin is the transgression of the law, so what you have written i can't agree with.

You're using the same truncated definition that John refuted in the same epistle you borrowed it from, and reliance on an incomplete definition is the reason you consider the Biblical narrative to be a fable you're free to disagree with.

adam and eve were married, and paul said in rom 7:


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.

Paul is referring to the law mediated by Moses, and you should have read the context this comes from:

Romans 7
1 ¶ Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?
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.
7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."​

The legal prohibition against adultery is found in the covenant mediated by Moses, and you should know where that prohibition is located. That example is showing that you can be married to the law that held us in the past tense, or you can die to it so that you can be married to another, Who is Jesus Christ. Claiming a joint relationship with both the law and Jesus Christ is adultery. This is the very sin you're engaged in, defined by the law mediated by Moses.

And, this same passage shows that we have been delivered from the law. "The law" refers to the same consistent legal entity throughout this narrative, and quotes "You shall not covet" from Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21 to show that we have been delivered from the covenant from Mount Sinai, the ten commandments.

Hentenza showed you virtually the same thing, and you repeated the same thing to me after it was exposed as an out-of-context fabrication..

but you say that the law did not exist until moses.

See my reply to Yosemite Sam - you're calling Moses, John, Paul, and Jesus liars who have all provided an unreliable testimony.

i can't agree with this statement.

But you never support your disagreement.

"under the law" can mean different things given its context. in

[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR] the context of salvation, "under the law" means under the penalty of the law which is death.

I see the basic legal concept of jurisdiction is foreign to you. "Under the law" means that the law has jurisdiction over you.

I need to shorten this response, in order to arrive at the basic area of contention.

here i have to disagree with you again, because God wrote the spiritual law and moses wrote the physical works of law.
...
the old covenant was a marriage relationship, not the ten commandments.

Review what I had presented to you again.

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.​

Now, so that you don't have to search what Moses defined the old covenant as, I will provide the quote from him that I referred to.

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.​

The old, or first covenant was the ten commandments. That was the only covenant from Mount Sinai, as I mentioned before.

so says VictorC, the law was indivisible, uh, ok.

You're free to disregard Exodus 12:49 and Numbers 15:15-16 as you wish, where the law was called "one law". It doesn't matter anymore. There are two proofs in this post showing that we are not bound to the ten commandments, and you can contend with the book of the law, with all its burnt offerings and sacrifices, as another issue. You need about 75 lambs every month to comply with the typical monthly cycle, by the way. You also need to be circumsized. Revive the Levitical priesthood authorized to make all those sacrifices to replace the priesthood Jesus Christ officiates under.... Shall I go on?

 

[JohnRabbit]

That's common knowledge. You can't seem to form a reason to support your disagreement, however.

False, and your disgreement is with Moses and his testimony given in Deuteronomy 4:11-13.

False, and again you contradict Moses, who explained the nature of the covenant demanding compliance, that was requisite to live and possess the promised land, as Moses reminded the people entering that land in Deuteronomy 30:

15 ¶ "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil,
16 "in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess.
​

Failure to comply with the covenant offended the Sovereign and called for the death penalty.

You're using the same truncated definition that John refuted in the same epistle you borrowed it from, and reliance on an incomplete definition is the reason you consider the Biblical narrative to be a fable you're free to disagree with.

Paul is referring to the law mediated by Moses, and you should have read the context this comes from:

Romans 7
1 ¶ Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?
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.
7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."
​

The legal prohibition against adultery is found in the covenant mediated by Moses, and you should know where that prohibition is located. That example is showing that you can be married to the law that held us in the past tense, or you can die to it so that you can be married to another, Who is Jesus Christ. Claiming a joint relationship with both the law and Jesus Christ is adultery. This is the very sin you're engaged in, defined by the law mediated by Moses.

And, this same passage shows that we have been delivered from the law. "The law" refers to the same consistent legal entity throughout this narrative, and quotes "You shall not covet" from Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21 to show that we have been delivered from the covenant from Mount Sinai, the ten commandments.

Hentenza showed you virtually the same thing, and you repeated the same thing to me after it was exposed as an out-of-context fabrication..

See my reply to Yosemite Sam - you're calling Moses, John, Paul, and Jesus liars who have all provided an unreliable testimony.

But you never support your disagreement.

I see the basic legal concept of jurisdiction is foreign to you. "Under the law" means that the law has jurisdiction over you.

I need to shorten this response, in order to arrive at the basic area of contention.

Review what I had presented to you again.

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.
​

Now, so that you don't have to search what Moses defined the old covenant as, I will provide the quote from him that I referred to.

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.
​

The old, or first covenant was the ten commandments. That was the only covenant from Mount Sinai, as I mentioned before.

You're free to disregard Exodus 12:49 and Numbers 15:15-16 as you wish, where the law was called "one law". It doesn't matter anymore. There are two proofs in this post showing that we are not bound to the ten commandments, and you can contend with the book of the law, with all its burnt offerings and sacrifices, as another issue. You need about 75 lambs every month to comply with the typical monthly cycle, by the way. You also need to be circumsized. Revive the Levitical priesthood authorized to make all those sacrifices to replace the priesthood Jesus Christ officiates under.... Shall I go on?

again, the word according to VictorC.

bottom line is that adam and eve were married and there was a law that bound them together.

you know it and i know it and anyone who can read can see it for themselves!

so you can continue to spin the scriptures any way you want.

but, i'd like for you to say that there wasn't a law that bound them together, in fact, say it and be proud.

 

[Hentenza]

"Sin cannot be imputed when there is no law!" Rom 5:13
Quit ignoring the verse!!! Sin was imputed to Adam, there must have been a law for sin to be imputed. Sin is the transgression of the law (1 Jn 3:4), you know that. Quit ignoring it. The transgression had to be that of a law. What law?

The bible no where says that sin was imputed to Adam for a transgression that was outside the law.

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Rom 6:16

No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other;..." Luke 16:13

Now, who did Adam obey, God or Satan?

Adam was given a simple command:

Gen. 2
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Adam and Eve ate off the forbidden tree. They sinned against God's command. The did not sin according to the Mosaic law because it had not yet been given. Their sin was imputed to all mankind. You are twisting the meaning of a verse that does not help you anyway.

 

[Hentenza]

bottom line is that adam and eve were married and there was a law that bound them together.

What law? Chapter and verse please.

 

[VictorC]

again, the word according to VictorC.

Direct quotes were furnished in many cases that show:

• The ten commandments was the covenant from Mount Sinai.
• We are not bound to that covenant that we have been delivered from and instructed to cast away.

bottom line is that adam and eve were married and there was a law that bound them together.

you know it and i know it and anyone who can read can see it for themselves!

Provide evidence for this alleged law, chapter and verse. Your misuse of Romans 7 addresses the law mediated by Moses, and it was used by the original author to show that a claim of belonging to both the law and to Jesus Christ is adultery.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.

Gen 2:24

They became One Flesh. Husband and wife.

 

[Hentenza]

Gen 2:24

They became One Flesh. Husband and wife.

Is that a commandment or a result? If one "marries' but they still live with his parents, are they braking a commandment and consequently, sinning?