Who did away with the law?

[VictorC]

i read what VictorC wrote in responece to this post, and his response, to me, was weak at best!

If you would like an example of weakness, consider how you responded to evidence presented to you:

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.

You have continued to deny Scripture's testimony, including two proofs I provided in direct Biblical quotes refuting your premise that the ten commandments existed before it did or that it continues to have jurisdiction over those God redeemed as His own and delivered from the law. You have also not addressed the sin of adultery you admit you engage in.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I won't comment on your post. As I expected you would try to pencil whip your way through the law.

When the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

The law is your ditch!

 

[Frogster]

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.

Why does it say..INCREASE..INCREASE...?

RTom 5:20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more

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.

 

[VictorC]

I won't comment on your post. As I expected you would try to pencil whip your way through the law.

When the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

The law is your ditch!

I don't think your comment is necessary. You're unable to support your eisegetical nonsense, and the law has never driven you to repentence as it has many others who see our abject poverty before a Holy God.

 

[JohnRabbit]

What law? Chapter and verse please.

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.

you told me to keep reading rom 7 and i did exactly that.

now, i know, of course, that you don't know what that law is. but like you said, "keep reading rom 7", right?

next verse:

Romans 7:3 ( NKJV ) 3So 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.

mmm...

now, i know you law haters don't like reading stuff like this but it is plainly stated in the bible.

she will be called an adulteress, breaking the one of the ten commandments.

so you see, it is one of the ten commandments that binds a marriage.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I don't think your comment is necessary. You're unable to support your eisegetical nonsense, and the law has never driven you to repentence as it has many others who see our abject poverty before a Holy God.

Dude, I not sure what you said, but it sure sounds good!

Let us remember, Romans 7:7 "...I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet..."

 

[Frogster]

Those who have ears, let him hear! Mt 11:15

Okay, let me spell it out more clearly. Even our readers will understand. I am not going to state your position for space is needed for the truth.

Lets start at Romans 5:13 "For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed where there is no law."

Lets us some logic here. Sin was in the world! Also given, sin is not imputed (charged) where there is no law. We know that sin entered through Adam (verse 12, same chapter), being imputed (charged) to Adam. This sin, which was a transgression of the law (1 jn 3:4) brought about death. If sin is not imputed were there is no law and the law (all of it) came at Mt. Sinai, then it should be clear from this logic that Adam did not sin. However, we know that not to be true!, for sin, a transgression of the law, entered by this man.

Paul continues in verse 14: "Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses. Why did death reign? Because of sin!,(it being charged), and could have only come from a transgression of some law that existed, prior to Moses. This also gives us a clue to what law Paul is speaking of, that which was given at the time of Moses. So, "for until the law", Paul is referencing the law that was given to the children of Israel at Sinai.

(Interjection of thought) Paul does not use verse 13 as to mean that there was no law prior to Mt. Sinai, in fact, the latter part of the same verse and the first part of v14 prove otherwise. "But sin is not imputed (charged) when there is not law. Nevertheless, death (the penalty of sin) reigned from Adam to Moses." He does not say, "until the law there was no law" he states "until the law (speaking of a specific law at a specific time, the one given at Sinai), sin (the transgression of the law) was in the world." The latter part, "sin was in the world" should immediately tell the reader that sin was imputed or charged! If there is sin a law must exist to identify it!!! Read and consider carefully.

Paul also speaks of this law (Rom 5:13) at Mt. Sinai, in Gal 3:17 "...the law, which was four hundred thirty years after...added because of transgressions." They were already transgressing something, and that had to be of a law! So a law already existed that the prior to Moses and man was breaking or transgressing it!You can not violate or transgress something that does not exist!

Now notice that it was added but when? It came four hundred and thirty years after who? Abraham, that's right! This law, being spoken of here in 3:17 and Rom 5:13, was added four hundred and thirty years after Abraham. It was added to laws that already existed! Had it been meant from the beginning it would have been added after Adam, yet Adam sinned! How did Adam sin, he broke the law! a law that existed in his time.

Someone stated to the effect that Abraham only had the law of circumcision. Blessings were bestowed and promises made because "Abraham obeyed my voice, kept my charge, my commandments, my statues and my laws." Gen 26:5 Notice that commandments, statues and laws are plural, Abraham had a set of commandments, statues and laws in which he had to live by. Whom did they belong to? The Lord! He says, they are my commandments, my statues and my laws.

Joseph said, "How can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" Gen 39v9 Joseph, apparently knows, that he can sin (sin is not imputed where there is no law Rom 5:13) against God, in this account hundreds of years before Sinai. If there be no law, how can Joseph sin against God? Logic tells us he can't! But Joseph tells us here, he CAN sin against God! This can only be true if law exist. It is the same set of commandments, statues and laws which his grandfather, Abraham kept!, which God lays claim too! Gen 26:5

What laws would Joseph had broken? Thou shalt not commit adultery! The very laws which God lays claim too in Gen 26:5, even by writing it with his own hand at Mt. Sinai on tablets of stone. The Ten Commandments!

What about the warning in the account of Cain? Gen 4:6 "And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If you do well, shalt you not be accepted? and if you doest not well, sin (a transgression of law) lies at the door?" Cain did sin, he committed murder and a mark was set upon his head. He sinned, breaking the commandments of God, "Thou shalt not kill."

So what sin or transgression of the law was Adam charged? Adam failed in that he followed after Satan, "thou shall have no other gods before Me'. Adam failed in that he did not honor his father, "thou shalt honor your father and mother." By this "sin entered into the world and death by sin" Romans 5:12 Was sin imputed to Adam after he had sinned? Most definitely! "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die." Gen 2.17 The day Adam ate of the tree, sin entered into the world, and the penalty of death was incurred on all of man.

Make no mistake! God clearly instructed man from the beginning, who He was, and His way of life! But he allowed man to make a choice for himself, Would he follow God? or Would he follow Satan? From there we know the rest of the story.

I hope you consider carefully and think on what was said here. I hope you think on it so hard and long and even lose sleep over it. I don't want a reply per this post. It is here for others, that it might help, to read and meditate and to use sound logic and of course, the scriptures.

Thank you

[/QUOTE]

wow..Hi YO!

Aren't you overdoing all this a bit?

Ok...Adam was given a rule. He broke it, sin entered, and death too..ok..

Now if you admit that sin is not imputed where there is no law, than that clearly indicated that there were no 10, until they were known, 430 years after Abe.

So this fusion does seem to be a stretch.

Was there a sacrificial system set up for Adam?

Look here..it says the law was based off the priesthood...Ummmm..that came a long time later.


heb 7;11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?

In closing....the law "which came"...was a whole other dispensation.

 

[VictorC]

Dude, I not sure what you said, but it sure sounds good!

Let us remember, Romans 7:7 "...I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet..."

I have presented that verse in its context a number of times, because the quote provided from Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21 identifies the law we have been delivered from.

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.”​

Each instance of "the law" refers to the same legal entity, and that quote is found nowhere else than in the covenant from Mount Sinai, the ten commandments.

 

[Frogster]

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.

you told me to keep reading rom 7 and i did exactly that.

now, i know, of course, that you don't know what that law is. but like you said, "keep reading rom 7", right?

next verse:

Romans 7:3 ( NKJV ) 3So 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.

mmm...

now, i know you law haters don't like reading stuff like this but it is plainly stated in the bible.

she will be called an adulteress, breaking the one of the ten commandments.

so you see, it is one of the ten commandments that binds a marriage.

How elemental..ok..fine..a killer is called a killer..ok..there..

However the whole point of the illustration is to show that Paul died to the law.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Small additional note to remember: Romans 7:7 "...I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet..."

Those who have ears, let him hear! Mt 11:15

Okay, let me spell it out more clearly. Even our readers will understand. I am not going to state your position for space is needed for the truth.

Lets start at Romans 5:13 "For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed where there is no law."

Lets us some logic here. Sin was in the world! Also given, sin is not imputed (charged) where there is no law. We know that sin entered through Adam (verse 12, same chapter), being imputed (charged) to Adam. This sin, which was a transgression of the law (1 jn 3:4) brought about death. If sin is not imputed were there is no law and the law (all of it) came at Mt. Sinai, then it should be clear from this logic that Adam did not sin. However, we know that not to be true!, for sin, a transgression of the law, entered by this man.

Paul continues in verse 14: "Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses. Why did death reign? Because of sin!,(it being charged), and could have only come from a transgression of some law that existed, prior to Moses. This also gives us a clue to what law Paul is speaking of, that which was given at the time of Moses. So, "for until the law", Paul is referencing the law that was given to the children of Israel at Sinai.

(Interjection of thought) Paul does not use verse 13 as to mean that there was no law prior to Mt. Sinai, in fact, the latter part of the same verse and the first part of v14 prove otherwise. "But sin is not imputed (charged) when there is not law. Nevertheless, death (the penalty of sin) reigned from Adam to Moses." He does not say, "until the law there was no law" he states "until the law (speaking of a specific law at a specific time, the one given at Sinai), sin (the transgression of the law) was in the world." The latter part, "sin was in the world" should immediately tell the reader that sin was imputed or charged! If there is sin a law must exist to identify it!!! Read and consider carefully.

Paul also speaks of this law (Rom 5:13) at Mt. Sinai, in Gal 3:17 "...the law, which was four hundred thirty years after...added because of transgressions." They were already transgressing something, and that had to be of a law! So a law already existed that the prior to Moses and man was breaking or transgressing it!You can not violate or transgress something that does not exist!

Now notice that it was added but when? It came four hundred and thirty years after who? Abraham, that's right! This law, being spoken of here in 3:17 and Rom 5:13, was added four hundred and thirty years after Abraham. It was added to laws that already existed! Had it been meant from the beginning it would have been added after Adam, yet Adam sinned! How did Adam sin, he broke the law! a law that existed in his time.

Someone stated to the effect that Abraham only had the law of circumcision. Blessings were bestowed and promises made because "Abraham obeyed my voice, kept my charge, my commandments, my statues and my laws." Gen 26:5 Notice that commandments, statues and laws are plural, Abraham had a set of commandments, statues and laws in which he had to live by. Whom did they belong to? The Lord! He says, they are my commandments, my statues and my laws.

Joseph said, "How can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" Gen 39v9 Joseph, apparently knows, that he can sin (sin is not imputed where there is no law Rom 5:13) against God, in this account hundreds of years before Sinai. If there be no law, how can Joseph sin against God? Logic tells us he can't! But Joseph tells us here, he CAN sin against God! This can only be true if law exist. It is the same set of commandments, statues and laws which his grandfather, Abraham kept!, which God lays claim too! Gen 26:5

What laws would Joseph had broken? Thou shalt not commit adultery! The very laws which God lays claim too in Gen 26:5, even by writing it with his own hand at Mt. Sinai on tablets of stone. The Ten Commandments!

What about the warning in the account of Cain? Gen 4:6 "And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If you do well, shalt you not be accepted? and if you doest not well, sin (a transgression of law) lies at the door?" Cain did sin, he committed murder and a mark was set upon his head. He sinned, breaking the commandments of God, "Thou shalt not kill."

So what sin or transgression of the law was Adam charged? Adam failed in that he followed after Satan, "thou shall have no other gods before Me'. Adam failed in that he did not honor his father, "thou shalt honor your father and mother." By this "sin entered into the world and death by sin" Romans 5:12 Was sin imputed to Adam after he had sinned? Most definitely! "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die." Gen 2.17 The day Adam ate of the tree, sin entered into the world, and the penalty of death was incurred on all of man.

Make no mistake! God clearly instructed man from the beginning, who He was, and His way of life! But he allowed man to make a choice for himself, Would he follow God? or Would he follow Satan? From there we know the rest of the story.

I hope you consider carefully and think on what was said here. I hope you think on it so hard and long and even lose sleep over it. I don't want a reply per this post. It is here for others, that it might help, to read and meditate and to use sound logic and of course, the scriptures.

Thank you[/quote]

 

[JohnRabbit]

Why does it say..INCREASE..INCREASE...?

RTom 5:20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more

you tell me.

 

[JohnRabbit]

How elemental..ok..fine..a killer is called a killer..ok..there..

However the whole point of the illustration is to show that Paul died to the law.

yes you are right Frogster, but he is talking about baptism.

 

[YosemiteSam]

So, I have used it here. Don't worry about it. Nice talking to ya, even though we don't agree.

txs

 

[Hentenza]

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.

you told me to keep reading rom 7 and i did exactly that.

now, i know, of course, that you don't know what that law is. but like you said, "keep reading rom 7", right?

next verse:

Romans 7:3 ( NKJV ) 3So 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.

mmm...

now, i know you law haters don't like reading stuff like this but it is plainly stated in the bible.

she will be called an adulteress, breaking the one of the ten commandments.

so you see, it is one of the ten commandments that binds a marriage.

Don't ignore what the verses are about. Here are the first 6 verses of Romans 7 for context.

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.

Here Paul is making an analogy of the marriage law. A woman was only able to remarry if the husband died. In verses 4-6 explicitly teaches that through Christ death (husband) the wife (us) is free to marry another (Christ). Verse 6 teaches that 'we have been delivered from the law" (no longer obligated by it) so that we can serve in Spirit not in the oldness of the letter. The opposite is also true, those that serve in the oldness of the letter can not serve in Spirit and are consequently still under the law not under grace and will be judged by the whole law.

I know you bondage lovers don't like hearing this stuff but is plainly stated in the bible.

 

[VictorC]

yes you are right Frogster, but he is talking about baptism.

Marriage is baptism?!?!?!?
Sure, why not - it makes as much sense as your other contributions lately (not).

 

[Frogster]

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

Speaking of courage, Paul had his back opened up 5 times by the synagoge boys, who thought as you, and were offended at the cross, because it abolished the law.

Gal 5:11 But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.

 

[VictorC]

So, I have used it here. Don't worry about it. Nice talking to ya, even though we don't agree.

txs

May the LORD grant you the wisdom to perceive the message contained in His Word. Bye now.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Don't ignore what the verses are about. Here are the first 6 verses of Romans 7 for context.

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.

Here Paul is making an analogy of the marriage law. A woman was only able to remarry if the husband died. In verses 4-6 explicitly teaches that through Christ death (husband) the wife (us) is free to marry another (Christ). Verse 6 teaches that 'we have been delivered from the law" (no longer obligated by it) so that we can serve in Spirit not in the oldness of the letter. The opposite is also true, those that serve in the oldness of the letter can not serve in Spirit and are consequently still under the law not under grace and will be judged by the whole law.

I know you bondage lovers don't like hearing this stuff but is plainly stated in the bible.

you don't know, but what i highlighted in your response makes my point!

and for some reason you don't want to talk about the law paul said that binds them verse 3.

study on what you said and i'm sure you will see it.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Speaking of courage, Paul had his back opened up 5 times by the synagoge boys, who thought as you, and were offended at the cross, because it abolished the law.

You might as well get on out of the conversation, Froggy. You already admitted that the law still existed as I shown earlier in this thread.

LOL -- ROTFLMBO

y

 

[JohnRabbit]

Marriage is baptism?!?!?!?
Sure, why not - it makes as much sense as your other contributions lately (not).

i know you don't see it that's why we are going back and forth.

and i'm not talking about marriage being baptism.