Who did away with the law?

[LittleLambofJesus]

Good point - John doesn't show the capacity to differentiate between the law that is the topic of so many new testament passages and various commandments that were given to the patriarchs prior to Sinai.

Out with the Old....in with the New I always say

Gala 4:25 For the Hagar is mount Sinai is in the Arabia, together-elemental yet to the now Jerusalem slaving with the offspring of Her.

Reve 8:8 And the second Messenger trumpets and as-like a great Mountain to fire burning was cast into the Sea and became the third of the Sea blood
[Matthew 21:21/Hebrew 12:18]

The Mountain in Matt 21 question - Christian Forums
The Mountain in Matt 21 question

 

[JohnRabbit]

So another words, at least another 1000yrs

I also found something interesting concerning that richman in Luke 16 and at first I couldn't understand why the person at this site saw the "house of Judah" in that parable.

Then I was reading thru Jeremiah 17 one day and behold! I saw this verse.

What was the sin of Judah


Jeremiah 17:1 Sin of Y@huwdah written with a reed-pen of iron, in nail of corundum, being engrossed on tablet of the heart of them, and to horns of altars of ye,
[2 Thess 2:3,4 Luke 16:24]

http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Lazarus

*snip*

The fact that the rich man has five brothers is a vital clue to his true symbolic identity.

Judah, the progenitor of the Jews, was the son of Jacob through Leah Yeshua wanted those self-righteous Pharisees to know exactly who He was referring to with this parable.
This detail cements the identity of the rich man as the house of Judah, the Jews!

i'll look into that, and see for myself.

thanks for the tidbit.

 

[squint]

Then I can't read or somehow the Bibles I have bought off the shelf are different in content from others. Hmmm! Minie seem to agree with all the online versions of the same translations. Hmmm!

bugkiller

Who is Minie? I quoted the KJV.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

i'll look into that, and see for myself.

thanks for the tidbit.

I am expanding on a study folder I have on that and harmonizing it with Revelation.

For example, wasn't Jesus talking about the OC Judeans in Luke 23:30?

Similar wording is also used in Revelation 6:16. Pretty interesting

Luke 23:30 "Then they shall be beginning to be saying to the mountains 'be falling upon us' and to the hills 'cover us'".
[Hosea 10:8/Reve 6:16]

Reve 6:16 And they are saying to the mountains and to the rocks 'be falling upon us! and hide us! from Face of the One sitting upon the Throne, and from the wrath of the Lambkin
[Hosea 10:8/Luke 23:30]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7164949-3/#post46105783
DO NOT WEEP!!!!! The Great City

 

[squint]

Good point - John doesn't show the capacity to differentiate between the law that is the topic of so many new testament passages and various commandments that were given to the patriarchs prior to Sinai.

The first LAW from God came in the Garden of Eden.

That Law contained A COMMANDMENT and A PENALTY of DEATH...duly violated and penalty duly received into US ALL...

That Law was no different in nature than any COMMAND that came subsequently. It and all others contain A COMMAND and A PENALTY.

The notion that the Law or Commandment in the entirety of the Bible was only for Israel is provably false.

Jesus was clear that MAN shall live by EVERY WORD of God.

Paul also said that the Law was meant to shut up EVERY MOUTH and to make ALL THE WORLD guilty, not JUST THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL.

ALL Commands from Gods Words are a PERMANENT TESTIMONY of and against the workings of LAWLESSNESS in any in whom it is found and ALL mankind carry that working regardless of their state of belief.

The Law is SPIRITUAL and ARE GODS WORDS. These Words work against the power of lawlessness regardless of anyones views of what is going on in attempts at eradication or adherence.

There remains TENSION between Law and lawlessness, The Spirit against the antichrist spirits. No man can BLOCK or ELIMINATE these TENSION matters by their subjective views.

enjoy!

s

 

[VictorC]

ok, since i'm a "logical dummy", show me how one reads scripture.

example:

when one reads:


Matthew 19:16-19 ( NKJV ) 16Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good£ Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
17So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

one should be able to say what after reading these verses?

First of all, this is a discussion forum, and it is natural to expect you to reply to the content in a post addressed to you. That is what conversation is about.

Second, the passage you refer to shows that compliance to the commandments contained in the Sinai covenant were indeed requisite to live, exactly as Moses stated it was in Deuteronomy 30:15-16. Jesus is speaking during the tenure of that first covenant, that continued to retain jurisdiction over the Jews and alienate the Gentiles until the death of the Testator redeemed our transgressions under the first covenant, and initiated the new covenant. Can I trust you to read Hebrews 9:15-16 on your own? Probably not.

In summary, you're arguing for Judaism, and calling it Christianity, because you have no regard for the dispensation a statement is made in. That shows the common appeal to sound-bite theology in deference to the context.

But the word of the LORD was to them, "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little," That they might go and fall backward, and be broken And snared and caught.​

 

[VictorC]

The first LAW from God came in the Garden of Eden.

The topic is the law mediated by Moses, the covenant from Mount Sinai. Please do not distract from the topic anymore.

 

[squint]

The topic is the law mediated by Moses, the covenant from Mount Sinai. Please do not distract from the topic anymore.

The topic is the LAW. The FIRST LAW was delivered in the Garden.

Every COMMANDMENT in the BIBLE is GODS LAW including the first one.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The topic is the law mediated by Moses, the covenant from Mount Sinai. Please do not distract from the topic anymore.

What about Mt Zion?

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Rotherham) Hebrews 12:22 But ye have approached--unto Zion's mountain, and unto the city of a Living God, a heavenly Jerusalem,--and unto myriads of messengers,

http://www.christianforums.com/t7463574-14/#post54613209
The Law

 

[VictorC]

The topic is the LAW.

No, the topic is THE law.

 

[squint]

No, the topic is THE law.

The first LAW from God came in the Garden of Eden.

That Law contained A COMMANDMENT and A PENALTY of DEATH...duly violated and penalty duly received into US ALL...death.

That Law was no different in nature than any COMMAND that came subsequently. It and all others contain A COMMAND and A PENALTY.

The notion that the Law or Commandment in the entirety of the Bible was only for Israel is provably false.

Jesus was clear that MAN shall live by EVERY WORD of God.

Paul also said that the Law was meant to shut up EVERY MOUTH and to make ALL THE WORLD guilty, not JUST THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL.

ALL Commands from Gods Words are a PERMANENT TESTIMONY of and against the workings of LAWLESSNESS in any in whom it is found and ALL mankind carry that working regardless of their state of belief.

The Law is SPIRITUAL and ARE GODS WORDS. These Words work against the power of lawlessness regardless of anyones views of what is going on in attempts at eradication or adherence.

There remains TENSION between Law and lawlessness, The Spirit against the antichrist spirits. No man can BLOCK or ELIMINATE these TENSION matters by their subjective views.

enjoy!

s

 

[JohnRabbit]

First of all, this is a discussion forum, and it is natural to expect you to reply to the content in a post addressed to you. That is what conversation is about.

Second, the passage you refer to shows that compliance to the commandments contained in the Sinai covenant were indeed requisite to live, exactly as Moses stated it was in Deuteronomy 30:15-16. Jesus is speaking during the tenure of that first covenant, that continued to retain jurisdiction over the Jews and alienate the Gentiles until the death of the Testator redeemed our transgressions under the first covenant, and initiated the new covenant. Can I trust you to read Hebrews 9:15-16 on your own? Probably not.

In summary, you're arguing for Judaism, and calling it Christianity, because you have no regard for the dispensation a statement is made in. That shows the common appeal to sound-bite theology in deference to the context.

But the word of the LORD was to them, "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little," That they might go and fall backward, and be broken And snared and caught.
​

so, you're saying that keeping the commandments before the death of Jesus was part of the path to salvation?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

How embarassing to see Protestants disagreeing with each other in front of the Roman Catholics on this thread
Btw, where are the RCs at

http://www.christianforums.com/t7492808/#post55552677

 

[VictorC]

so, you're saying that keeping the commandments before the death of Jesus was part of the path to salvation?

Salvation? What salvation? Salvation is a solution to the problem of universal condemnation, that rendered everyone "guilty before God", as Romans 3:19 concludes for those under the tenure of the law. Eternal life was not given as a gift, but rather earned under the dictates of the law. That failed method appealed to by the Pharisees (see Matthew 5:20) will not grant anyone eternal life. In contrast, Romans 4 shows that it was not the means righteousness was attained before God:

2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin."​

Indeed, Galatians 4:30 shows that those remaining unredeemed from the first covenant have no valid claim to eternal life with the Heir:

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."​

Remember that the bondwoman was defined as the covenant from Mount Sinai in verse 24 preceeding this conclusion. Moses stated that was the ten commandments in Deuteronomy 4:13.

 

[bugkiller]

so, you're saying that keeping the commandments before the death of Jesus was part of the path to salvation?

Why would that matter? Are you implying that doing so now is a requirement or part of salvation?

bugkiller

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Indeed, Galatians 4:30 shows that those remaining unredeemed from the first covenant have no valid claim to eternal life with the Heir:

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."

Remember that the bondwoman was defined as the covenant from Mount Sinai in verse 24 preceeding this conclusion. Moses stated that was the ten commandments in Deuteronomy 4:13.

What is your take on Revelation 8:8

http://www.christianforums.com/t7489177-2/#post55553270

 

[squint]

Remember that the bondwoman was defined as the covenant from Mount Sinai in verse 24 preceeding this conclusion. Moses stated that was the ten commandments in Deuteronomy 4:13.

and long before the actual arrival of that event.

The bondwoman is an allegory of that covenant, not the covenant itself.

 

[bugkiller]

and please, while you're noting, note that VictorC reads the bible and throws logic out of the window.

Based on what? Disagreement? The Bible is not a book of logic.

bugkiller

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

and long before the actual arrival of that event.

The bondwoman is an allegory of that covenant, not the covenant itself.

Then why does Paul also mention "Jerusalem"

Galatian 4:24 which-any/s is an allegory. For these are the two Covenants, one indeed from mount Sinai into servitude generating who-any is Hagar
25 For the yet Hagar is mount Sinai in the Arabia, together-elemental yet to the now Jerusalem for she is slaving with the children/offspring of her.
[Reve 17:4?]

Reve 19:3 And a second-time they have declared "allelouia and the Smoke of Her is ascending into the Ages of the Ages".

 

[VictorC]

and long before the actual arrival of that event.

The bondwoman is an allegory of that covenant, not the covenant itself.

The author disagrees.

...which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar...​

There was only one covenant from Mount Sinai.