Christ did not come to downsize diminish abolish or destroy the LAW of God

[listed]

Jeremiah may differ with you on that point as would Paul in Romans 7.

How does Jeremiah differ with bugkiller on that point? Are you sure it is not you that does not agree with Jeremiah? You offer no analysis of the text like bugkiller has in the past. Essentially you offer nothing more than opinion to promote an agenda. So let us see your parsing the text. I am looking for definitions of words.

 

[listed]

If no jots or titles can pass from the law, how is Heb 7:12 true? Or is it that the Scripture is false in that verse?

 

[listed]

The word "establish" in Rom 3:31 in no way implies obligation to keep the law. If it did you do not have salvation because you do not keep the law. Besides 7:6 states we are delivered from the law. Paul can not say both unless he is reduced to nothing more than a babbling idiot. If that is the case the whole religious thing is nothing more than vanity and a complete waste of time and value.

 

[listed]

If Jeremiah differs with Romans 7, which one is true?

 

[listed]

But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him, If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.

Is this pitting Jesus and or Paul against the prophets saying we should not listen to Jesus and Paul? Or could this be used to say we should believe and take upon ourselves the dead covenant we are not obligated to and reject the New Covenant and its promises? I for 1 am not persuaded by such a ploy to get me to forsake grace for the law. One can not have exception to the law they imply they are obligated to.

 

[muddleglum]

Isn't that the very point Jesus refutes in Matt 5?

Nope.
Look at it this way. I abide in Christ. I therefore have the mind of Christ. Christ is God. God is Love. Therefore I can love like God loves. If I love from my heart, I no longer have to worry about a list of rules. I don't murder, not because it is against the rules, but because I have the mind--and therefore the love--of Christ.

This emerges from the promise to Abraham 430 years before the Law was given. The Law was merely to show how sinful sin is. It has its place, but not in the life of a Christian.

You can write a book describing what a man is, but the reality is so much beyond that description. What if the man has red hair and that wasn't in the book? So it is with someone "In Christ" and someone follow a set of rules.

I'm curious. Do you shave or trim your beard? Why or why not?

 

[listed]

Romans 8 does not address the pagan. It addresses the dual natures of men. The discussion in 8 is a continuance of 7. It is not a change of subject.

 

[listed]

you are quoting at chapter that tells us that the LAW lasts until heaven and earth passes away and that same chapter ends by telling us that if we ignore Moses we will not accept the real teaching of Christ.

Is this supposed to contradict Christ's teaching in Matt 5 where he condemns anyone that dares to downsize even the least of the commandments "and so teach others"??

If so it does not seem like much of a contradiction.

Christ points out that the Law and the prophets are predicting His coming and now starting with John - the message is that He HAS come. But even in that - the Law remains until heaven and earth pass away.

That sort of helps us see how it is that "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66:23 in regard to the "Sabbath made for mankind and not mankind made for the Sabbath" Mark 2:27 - subject.

This is why I referenced those texts after the cross showing the continued ongoing keeping of the Commandments of God by gentile Christians -- all Christians -- just as even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and D.L. Moody also affirmed. This is a recognized detail that even the majority of pro-sunday scholarship freely accepts.

in Christ,

Bob

No. Muddleglum's post shows without doubt the law is history. This is being denied voiding the Scripture.

 

[listed]

To say

IF you LOVE Me KEEP My commandments John 14:15

Love Me and KEEP My Commandments Ex 20

is talking about the same commandments is nothing but sophistry. This is nothing more than using the same word order in both places. It is taking texts out of context to promote a clear lie.

10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. JN 15

This passage uses the same phrase and shows without doubt Jesus is not talking about the Ten Commandments in either 14:15 or 15:10.

To say Jesus' Father's commandments and the commandments Jesus gave us are the same violates the doctrine of the trinity. It would then also state Jesus did not keep the law. this can not be. Jesus is a Jew and obligated to the law. Yet 15:10 says for us to keep the commandments of Jesus which are different from the commandments of His Father. Jesus did not say He kept His commandments. He enjoined us to do that. I John 3:23 backs this up.

And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

 

[BobRyan]

To say

IF you LOVE Me KEEP My commandments John 14:15

Love Me and KEEP My Commandments Ex 20

is talking about the same commandments is nothing but sophistry.

Until you notice that in John 14 Jesus is speaking before the cross - at a time when HE affirms the Law of God in Matt 5. And He is God - the same God who says in Ex 20 to "Love Me and KEEP My Commandments"

And of course - Heb 8 says it is JESUS that gave us the TEN Commandments.

The point Remains.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If Jeremiah differs with Romans 7, which one is true?

They agree - the TEN Commandments are in fact part of that moralLAW of God written on the heart.

As affirms the "Baptist Confession of Faith" ... the "Westminster Confession of Faith" - even the RCC.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[muddleglum]

From the making of the moral laws a matter of the heart as opposed to a matter of the flesh, (Matt 5) to the magnification of what comes out of the body rather than what goes in to it as the source of uncleanness, (Mark 7) to the great glory of the call to be unified to Him in faith into the Rest of God, wrought from the foundation of the world. (Heb 3-4) What you call a lessening, has never been thought of as a weakening or abolishment, but a grandising, a lifting of the veil, to the true wonders and Glory of Him whom the Law pointed to.

That's a pretty good sum up. Thank you.

 

[BobRyan]

The word "establish" in Rom 3:31 in no way implies obligation to keep the law. .

I find your logic "illusive" just then.

Certainly the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and D.L. Moody would not argue in favor of rebellion against God's Ten Commandments.

It is more correct to say that Christ and Paul are in complete agreement.

[FONT=&quot]Matt 5
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


"do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW" Rom 3:31[/FONT]

 

[BobRyan]

And proving that the agreement in the post above - between Paul and Christ is not "merely academic" we have the test case - the lab experiment -- the application in real life where Christ SHOWS us just exactly how He views the Commandments of God -- vs the odd traditions of man that try to set aside those Commandments.

[FONT=&quot]Matt 5
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


"do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW" Rom 3:31[/FONT]


Notice how Christ and Paul appear to agree rather than contradict each other?

Christ even appears to agree with some of what we find in Proverbs 28

Prov 28

4Those who forsake the law praise the wicked,
But those who keep the law strive with them.
..
9 He who turns away his ear from listening to the law,
Even his prayer is an abomination.


Just as we would all expect - before the cross. Yet this is the "scripture" being read by NT saints in all NT texts "scripture" is a reference to the OT.

As for teaching of Christ, the Words of Christ - not throwing Moses under a bus

Luke 16
17 ... it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.
31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”


As for not throwing Moses under a bus by setting aside one of the TEN Commandments - Christ makes that point in Mark 7.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Notice that it is identified as "Moses said" and as "The Word of God"

AND as the "Commandment of God"??

How then does Christ's "Affirming" the LAW of God - the Commandments of God get bent into claims that Christ was at war with ... attempted to downsize...tried to diminish.. the Law of God?

Give me the Bible AND the Words IN the Bible.

Give me Jesus - AND the Words that Jesus actually spoke.

 

[muddleglum]

Jesus repeatedly condemned the Jews for "making stuff up" as we see in Mark 7:6-13. It is a common theme in the Gospels and in some of the NT letters.

So, what were the Jews making up here?

I said,

"Although the Law was holy, it had limits"​

I then gave the Scripture:

Matthew 19:7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way."​

Your reply doesn't seem to fit.

Civil laws cannot be inclusive of the high standard of personal laws such as turning the other cheek when struck. If you assign jail time to victims because they fail to turn the other cheek you actually have an unjust civil law even though it is a great Law at the individual level.

I'll ask again

How much of the Law was permissive because of the hardness of their heart?​

Considering what else Jesus said about the Law in the Sermon on the Mount (you have heard, but I say) Isn't it all permissive?

 

[BobRyan]

...

Jesus repeatedly condemned the Jews for "making stuff up" as we see in Mark 7:6-13. It is a common theme in the Gospels and in some of the NT letters.

Although the Law was holy, it had limits.
Matthew 19:7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way."
How much of the Law was permissive because of the hardness of their heart?

Civil laws cannot be inclusive of the high standard of personal laws such as turning the other cheek when struck. If you assign jail time to victims because they fail to turn the other cheek you actually have an unjust civil law even though it is a great Law at the individual level.

Christ always "magnifies" the Law - when we are talking about the real Law in the real Bible.

Later, in the passage at 22:35 when Jesus was nearing the end of his course, He again brought out what the Law was pointing to:
35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
Jesus replied with the Shema, which was repeated every morning by every man and includes loving God as well as loving your neighbor as yourself. He went on to say,
(Matthew 22:40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Indeed Jesus points to Mosaic Law as the two greatest commandments.

Deut 6:5 - "Love God with all your heart"

Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself"

He was all about uphold the Law of the actual Bible.
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] [/FONT][/FONT]

I'll ask again

How much of the Law was permissive because of the hardness of their heart?​

Considering what else Jesus said about the Law in the Sermon on the Mount (you have heard, but I say) Isn't it all permissive?

Christ argues for more restrictions at the personal level than would be just at the civil level.

So in the example above -- you cannot level punishments against victims who failed to "turn the other cheek" when struck.

This was already pointed out in the prior post - but you are not responding to the point. The civil laws were far more lenient than the same application of the moral law at the individual level -- as already stated.

The Ten Commandments remain fully in place if all that is being done is to 'magnify them' at the personal/individual level.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Pharisees use of the word is rooted in public display and could be translated as proper. There is some interaction here that I don't understand. But I do know that Jesus held a different conception of what the Law was about.

Jesus repeatedly condemned the Jews for "making stuff up" as we see in Mark 7:6-13. It is a common theme in the Gospels and in some of the NT letters.[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] [/FONT][/FONT]

So, what were the Jews making up here?

In Mark 7 they are making up a great deal

As for not throwing Moses under a bus by setting aside one of the TEN Commandments - Christ makes that point in Mark 7.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Notice that it is identified as "Moses said" and as "The Word of God"

AND as the "Commandment of God"??

How then does Christ's "Affirming" the LAW of God - the Commandments of God get bent into claims that Christ was at war with ... attempted to downsize...tried to diminish.. the Law of God?

Give me the Bible AND the Words IN the Bible.

Give me Jesus - AND the Words that Jesus actually spoke.

As we see the text above -

Mark 7

Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

The Baptismo here is not thoroughly washed but is ceremonially dipped.

Christ condemns them for making stuff up but first goes to the larger "make stuff up" issue then back down to the smaller "make stuff up" problem.

The larger one Christ switches to is the totally-made-up CORBAN custom/tradition that dares to set aside one of the actual Commandments of God. Christ hammers them for that.

Then he gets to the smaller issue of "making stuff up" about hands being "defiled" ceremonially defiled with sin by not ceremonially baptizing them.

4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

Christ later in that same chapter points out that sin is not on the fingers that touch food which getting on the food then defiles the man - makes him a sinner because the fingers were "defiled' and they "touched the wheat".

The Bible never says wheat is defiled.

So - yeah all the usual 'make stuff up' ideas for that church magisterium.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[bugkiller]

The moral law of God isn't the covenant Jeremiah says they broke.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

What in Rom 3:31 implies obligation to the law in light of Rom 7:6 and 10:4?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Exactly what is the charge that proves we're breaking the commandments the Christian is obligated to?

bugkiller