Christ erased away the condemnation of the laws!

[Source Scripture]

No, my friend, I'm ignoring YOUR intepretation of Paul.

FYI..not all the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms(or the OT as you refer to it) regarding Jesus has been fulfilled. There is still the 2nd coming....the end of time, judgement all of this has yet to pass.

If Jesus had fulfilled it, He would have said "have been fulfilled" instead of "must be fulfilled". Must refers to something that hasn't been done yet, but has to be done hence.

He was simply laying the groundwork for explaining to the disciples why He had to die.



No, not Mosaic Law, God's Law. I think I made this distinction a few pages prior to this one...

Your just saying what I said, but do you thnk he fulfilled the Mosaic law?

Did he not say he fulfilled it?


44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

 

[Source Scripture]

You're correct. The Law helps us identify sin. It also shows how to deal with sin. To deal with sin, we need a sacrifice, and that sacrifice is Jesus. How would you know what sin is, without the Law? You would only have no more need of the Law, if you have stopped sinning. If anyone who has accepted Christ as their Saviour, has stopped sinning since being "born again" then there is no more need for the Law.

All Paul is saying is that we are no longer under the Law, ie it no longer has power over us to kill us, because Jesus died the sacrificial death in our place. We are now under grace, because grace determines our future.

I think you need to understand that when I write "Law" it's not Mosaic Law that I'm refering to, but God's Law. The one that is still in place.

You yourself write that "as far as the Mosaic part" is concerned, it has been abolished. Pray tell, what of the other "part"?

You raised up Romans 3;31, to support your theology, not me, it was a condemning factor, to cause death, then Christians are not under law.

Now, earlier you said, Jesus did not lie. Then did Paul lie, or could it be you are not going by the whole of scripture? Did paul lie? Please tell me what abolished means here.

15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

 

[ai3theanswer]

I believe that most of Paul's writing is inspired, by the Spirit. Some part of it, I'm not so sure, but that part is not the part we are basing our discussion on. Suffice to say, I agree that this passage in Romans and the others you've pointed to are from the Spirit, via Paul.

Wow, what does 2 Timothy 3:16 say.....if you have a hard time believing ALL the bible is from God then you need to start from square one again, forget everything you think you know and go back to the start. If you have a hard time fitting what Paul said into your doctrine then maybe its not Paul that is wrong....

 

[Source Scripture]

I believe that most of Paul's writing is inspired, by the Spirit. Some part of it, I'm not so sure, but that part is not the part we are basing our discussion on. Suffice to say, I agree that this passage in Romans and the others you've pointed to are from the Spirit, via Paul.

Wow, what does 2 Timothy 3:16 say.....if you have a hard time believing ALL the bible is from God then you need to start from square one again, forget everything you think you know and go back to the start. If you have a hard time fitting what Paul said into your doctrine then maybe its not Paul that is wrong....

Yes, he seems to be reduced to pitting Jesus against Paul, forgetting that Jesus chose Paul, to bring the Gospel to all, and that Paul was sent out, by the Holy Spirit in Acts 13. He needs to go by all the scripture as a whole, with the cross as an imperative moment in the salvation plan, and not just try to have a bible, without the Holy Spirit teachings, given to Paul.

 

[from scratch]

No, my friend, I'm more aware of the historical context than you are.

If Jesus was going to abolish the Law, He wouldn't have said unequivocally that He was not here to abolish it. All He fulfilled on the cross was the sacrifice required for sin, to satisfy the justice the Law God instutued required.

He said He wasn't going to abolish it, and that nothing would change in it (not a jot or tittle would pass away). That is not the language one would use, if (as you claim) He was planning to abolish it later.

I believe that He did not abolish it, and Paul is referring to this when He wrote Romans.

I think you missed LK 24:44. Heb 7:12 easily dismisses your interpetation of Mat 5:17-19. To be loyal to your idea you must throw out Scripture. I want you to explain how Heb 7:12 isn't valid. Be careful. Bet ya can't do it.

I've also pointed out a definitions problem. So could you do some defining what you mean with some sources, pretty please.

 

[from scratch]

Sounds to me like you're saying that Paul's teachings is greater than Jesus's ...

Maybe, if you could reconcile for me what Jesus said, with what Paul said, , it would "unfreeze" my theology...

Sounds like to me you're trying to discredit Paul as a false teacher and prophet.

 

[NaLuvena]

Wow, what does 2 Timothy 3:16 say.....if you have a hard time believing ALL the bible is from God then you need to start from square one again, forget everything you think you know and go back to the start. If you have a hard time fitting what Paul said into your doctrine then maybe its not Paul that is wrong....

My friends, you're speaking from the mistaken assumption that what Paul called scripture is the same as what we call scripture. It's not. Even amongst the maintream Christian denominations, there are different versions of what constitutes scripture. The Catholics have 72 books in their Bible, we Protestants have 66. Even Martin Luther, who started the move to make the Bible available to the common man, had a different version of the Bible.

When Paul wrote that, the Scripture he was referring to was the OT. Paul was just writing a letter to Timothy. It's the "church fathers" who came later who said Paul's letter to Timothy was to be included in the Bible.

What Paul, and Jesus referred to as scripture is very different to what we call scripture today. The Bible did not exist then.

Even Paul has made commands that he said came from him and not from God.

Unless you accept this, then you won't see where I'm coming from.

I do not pit Jesus against Paul. I have no difficulty fitting what Paul said into my theology. I think what I understand Paul to be saying is different from what you understand him to say. I have explained how what Jesus and Paul say regarding the Law fit together perfectly in my view.

You're both just throwing Paul at me, and ignoring what Jesus said. That, my friends is proof-texting. You can't choose to accept Paul's explanation and ignore what Jesus had to say on the matter. They have to agree, or there is discord in scripture. And that is impossible.

 

[NaLuvena]

I think you missed LK 24:44. Heb 7:12 easily dismisses your interpetation of Mat 5:17-19. To be loyal to your idea you must throw out Scripture. I want you to explain how Heb 7:12 isn't valid. Be careful. Bet ya can't do it.

I've also pointed out a definitions problem. So could you do some defining what you mean with some sources, pretty please.

Hebrews 7:12

For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.

I agree totally. If the priesthood changes, so does the Law. The Law does not disappear, it CHANGES!

What is the change? The same change that the priesthood underwent. the priesthood moved from physical (Levitical) to spiritical (Jesus). So did the Law, it went from physical (written on stone) to spiritual (written on our hearts). It DID NOT DISAPPEAR!

By the way, the priestly order Jesus is a member of (Melchizedek) is eternal. That would imply that the Law is eternal. Can't have one without the other... Psalm 119:160 points this out...

 

[NaLuvena]

Sounds like to me you're trying to discredit Paul as a false teacher and prophet.

No my friend, that is not my intention. Paul was indeed an apostle, and wrote most of his letters under the inspiration of the Spirit, and most importantly, acknowledged when whatever he wrote was from him alone, and not from God.

I'm saying that all of you who are arguing for the abolishment of the Law are referring to Paul alone. You don't consider what Jesus had to say on the matter. Jesus said the Law would not be abolished, until the OT was fulfilled, both the Law and the prophecies. The prophecies have not been completey fulfilled, therefore nothing has been abolished.

If Paul said the law has been abolished, then what Law is he referring to here?

Romans 13:8

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.

What Law are we fulfilling if we love, if the Law has been abolished?

 

[Source Scripture]

My friends, you're speaking from the mistaken assumption that what Paul called scripture is the same as what we call scripture. It's not. Even amongst the maintream Christian denominations, there are different versions of what constitutes scripture. The Catholics have 72 books in their Bible, we Protestants have 66. Even Martin Luther, who started the move to make the Bible available to the common man, had a different version of the Bible.

When Paul wrote that, the Scripture he was referring to was the OT. Paul was just writing a letter to Timothy. It's the "church fathers" who came later who said Paul's letter to Timothy was to be included in the Bible.

What Paul, and Jesus referred to as scripture is very different to what we call scripture today. The Bible did not exist then.

Even Paul has made commands that he said came from him and not from God.

Unless you accept this, then you won't see where I'm coming from.

I do not pit Jesus against Paul. I have no difficulty fitting what Paul said into my theology. I think what I understand Paul to be saying is different from what you understand him to say. I have explained how what Jesus and Paul say regarding the Law fit together perfectly in my view.

You're both just throwing Paul at me, and ignoring what Jesus said. That, my friends is proof-texting. You can't choose to accept Paul's explanation and ignore what Jesus had to say on the matter. They have to agree, or there is discord in scripture. And that is impossible.

However, Peter called Paul's writings scripture.

2 Peter 3:15-16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Lets not forget also, that he had apostolic authority, granted by the Lord, so even though sometimes he said, something was not a direct command, that does not mean that it was not inspired text. And indeed, his words were authoritative.

Lets not be like the carnal Corinthians, who demanded proof, that Christ spoke through Paul.

2nd Corinthians 13:3 since you seek proof that Christ is speaking in me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you. 4 For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God.


Again, remember the authority from the Lord.

13:10 For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.

 

[NaLuvena]

However, Peter called Paul's writings scripture.

2 Peter 3:15-16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Lets not forget also, that he had apostolic authority, granted by the Lord, so even though sometimes he said, something was not a direct command, that does not mean that it was not inspired text. And indeed, his words were authoritative.

Lets not be like the carnal Corinthians, who demanded proof, that Christ spoke through Paul.

2nd Corinthians 13:3 since you seek proof that Christ is speaking in me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you. 4 For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God.


Again, remember the authority from the Lord.

13:10 For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.

Again, my friend, you miss my point

I'm not calling into doubt Paul's authority. I agree that Paul was an apostle. All I was pointing out that Paul himself admitted at least once in his own writings that one command he gave was from him and not from God.

If it wasn't from God (and this is according to Paul himself) then it cannot have been inspired by God.

We are digressing also. to get back to the topic, can you explain how when Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law, He actually did?

 

[zaksmummy]

Whe Paul speaks of the law you need to understand that he uses the same word for many different types of law - the Torah (the law of Moses), the law of sin and death, from which we are set free; legalism, Roman law.

If you want to get which one he is talking about ay I suggest getting "The power New Tesament" by William J Moreford, he distinguishs them for you so you actually get the context of what he is speaking about. I often use it for this purpose.

The other thing to remember is that Paul was a Torah observant Jew, that is he knew that the Torah was not done away with, he lived it out every day, this can be seem by his going to the teple to pray, his going to fulfil his Nazarite vow in the Temple, and his repeatedly saying that he "is" (present tense) a Pharisee. You need to consider all these facts when you read his stuff.

Before you bring up the Book of Galatians, yes I have read it and it is speaking to gentiles only, not to Jews, we gentiles were not given the Torah in the first place, it was given to the Israelites, BUT we can have access to the covanents of promise through our faith in Jesus the Messiah, Eph 2v12-13.

 

[Source Scripture]

Again, my friend, you miss my point

I'm not calling into doubt Paul's authority. I agree that Paul was an apostle. All I was pointing out that Paul himself admitted at least once in his own writings that one command he gave was from him and not from God.

If it wasn't from God (and this is according to Paul himself) then it cannot have been inspired by God.

We are digressing also. to get back to the topic, can you explain how when Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law, He actually did?

Sorry, but you began pitting, implying one is a liar. Peter called his writings scripture, so clealry his apostolic authority was a part of his writings. Is all scripture is inspired for the OT, do you pluck out parts of that, that do not suit your theolgy? So then are all the things said, that were not presented, as a direct command, uninspired? besides, show me important doctrinal truths about all this?

 

[Source Scripture]

Whe Paul speaks of the law you need to understand that he uses the same word for many different types of law - the Torah (the law of Moses), the law of sin and death, from which we are set free; legalism, Roman law.

If you want to get which one he is talking about ay I suggest getting "The power New Tesament" by William J Moreford, he distinguishs them for you so you actually get the context of what he is speaking about. I often use it for this purpose.

The other thing to remember is that Paul was a Torah observant Jew, that is he knew that the Torah was not done away with, he lived it out every day, this can be seem by his going to the teple to pray, his going to fulfil his Nazarite vow in the Temple, and his repeatedly saying that he "is" (present tense) a Pharisee. You need to consider all these facts when you read his stuff.

Before you bring up the Book of Galatians, yes I have read it and it is speaking to gentiles only, not to Jews, we gentiles were not given the Torah in the first place, it was given to the Israelites, BUT we can have access to the covanents of promise through our faith in Jesus the Messiah, Eph 2v12-13.

It just so happens that Peter, Barnabas, Paul, and the rest of the Jews, were living as Gentiles, in Antioch, not under the Torah.

Barnabas was no lightweight, look how he apposed the Torah, coming to the churches.

15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

 

[cyberlizard]

would that be the 'custom' of Moses in the rabbinic sense of conversion to Judaism, or the commandment of Moses which would be continuation of the Abrahamic covenant.

there is nothing in this verse about Torah observance at all, the argument was about whether ritual conversion to Judaism (in effect becoming Jewish) was required before a person could be 'saved'.



Steve

 

[Frogster]

If matthew was inspired, why isn't pauls writing inspired?

 

[Frogster]

Hi Steve, glad to see you. Abe was not of moses, that cov came 430 later, and 3;15 says no one adds to it, clearly showing the add on was about the Mosaic cov, not as an add on. The law is not promise, otherwise the gentiles would not be sons of abe, nor the jews for that matter, you can't fuse the cov's or you overthrow a vast amount of scripture, ad abe, in the NT.

This verse show it came later.

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

If there was not a known trespass, then the law was not involved. Clearly indicating an point of entry, into history.


13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

 

[Frogster]

would that be the 'custom' of Moses in the rabbinic sense of conversion to Judaism, or the commandment of Moses which would be continuation of the Abrahamic covenant.

there is nothing in this verse about Torah observance at all, the argument was about whether ritual conversion to Judaism (in effect becoming Jewish) was required before a person could be 'saved'.



Steve

5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”

That is why they went to jerusalem, circumcision, and law following, the whole text of gal supports it, don't worry that it says custom, everyon knew, it was Moses, who was no custom.

 

[Frogster]

It just so happens that Peter, Barnabas, Paul, and the rest of the Jews, were living as Gentiles, in Antioch, not under the Torah.

Barnabas was no lightweight, look how he apposed the Torah, coming to the churches.

15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

yea, it even says peter was living as a gentile.

 

[NaLuvena]

Sorry, but you began pitting, implying one is a liar. Peter called his writings scripture, so clealry his apostolic authority was a part of his writings. Is all scripture is inspired for the OT, do you pluck out parts of that, that do not suit your theolgy? So then are all the things said, that were not presented, as a direct command, uninspired? besides, show me important doctrinal truths about all this?

Well, that's the conclusion I get from YOUR thoelogy, that Paul and Jesus disagree. You're saying that Paul taught that the Law was abolished, yet Jesus said it wasn't.

Now, unless you care to explain how what Jesus said (no abolishment of the Law) and according to you, what Paul taught (the Law is abolished), then I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion with you, as you're avoiding this question.

Since we started discussing this, I have been answering all your questions and you have answered none of mine. That shows, to me, that you are only interested in having your say. I'm not, I want to learn more.

This is one example where Paul says that the teaching he is espousing is not from God.

1 Corinthians 7:12

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

That is why I believe that not all of Pauls writings were inspired by the Spirit. Most of it was, but not this one teaching.