The LAW Paul vs. Jesus

[Bible Highlighter]

That is a very interesting perspective. How about this...you give me a passage in God's word and we will separately try to come to an understanding of what it means and then we can compare notes. If I make a mess of it you can try to explain my error for me. If after your attempted explanations, I am still not able to grasp the meaning of the text as you understand it, I will concede your position that an atheist can't understand the Bible. If it turns out that I am capable of arriving at the same understanding that you have, then you can retract your comment.
Looking forward to it

To accept the Bible is to accept Jesus Christ. Seeing you reject Jesus Christ, you are not able to truly understand the depth and meaning of what it is to know Christ and His love personally. The Bible may point you to Christ, but to know His love and a deeper understanding of His Word is just not possible for you. To truly know what God's Word is about you have to walk with God. Knowledge of God's Word is just not possible for those who are not given a new heart spiritually. New hearts are only given to those who repent and accept Jesus as their Savior. Jesus said to the Pharisees in John 8 that they were seeking to kill Him because His Word had no place within them. God's Word was not written upon their hearts and they did not receive the Word of God. Paul says that if any speaks contrary to the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Godliness is proud and they know nothing. Those who reject Jesus Christ over a life of unbelief and or sin are proud people. So again, you cannot truly know the depth of God's Word in what it truly means unless you accept Jesus as your Savior and you dedicate your life to Him. For there is certain types of knowledge or education that can only be gained by experience. For example: I can tell you what it is like to be married to the love of your life, but until you know it firsthand, you are never going to really know until that happens.


...

 

[miknik5]

Ple

My apologies if I misconstrued you, I assure you I was not intending to misrepresent your position. The difficulty I am having is that I am not sure what position you are trying to argue for and what line of evidence you are taking towards making your case. I agree that Jesus said to obey all that he had commanded but I am not sure where that gets un in relation to the topic at issue in the thread. Maybe you could clarify your position, the argument you are making and what premises you are trying to advance as well as the specific supports for them?
Thanks for taking the time to bring to my attention that I had misrepresented your argument

Your initial post referencing Jesus in Matthew telling us to keep the Law

And that isn't what HE said. Which is why I responded to you to ask if you were referring to Matthew 28 and for you to go back and review what JESUS actually said

Which was teach them to keep MY COMMANDS

 

[redleghunter]

sure !

Here's a link to BLB for Matthew 5:

Matthew Chapter 5 (KJV)

If you click on the verse number or the "tool" toggle, it will give a word for word analysis for each verse.

Let me know again which passage you had questions.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I see the point you are making and I think it does have some force that the "Judaizers" do need to confront. My response would be that the need for the new priest out of a different line could be because the levitical line had failed in their mission (as humans are bound to do).

Then Jesus could have been the Levite that succeeded. But He wasn't. He was of Judah and the order of Melchisedec. If the law of Moses had any part in the new covenant, Jesus would've been born of Levi and of the order of Aaron. But He wasn't. Again, that Jesus is not of Levi is cataclysmic to the law of Moses. The two are entirely incompatible. If compatibility were the desire, He would've been born a Levite. Bear in mind that Jesus not being of Levi isn't an interpretation, it is a fact of scripture.

Most debates on law of Moses vs. grace of Christ are founded on interpretation, both having interpretive support. But that Jesus is of Judah and Melchisedec is fact. It is a fact that cannot be denied away as "misinterpretation" and is a fact so cataclysmic to the Judaizer position that it is never willingly brought to light, or even seriously considered. because it destroys the entire position of attempting to extend the law of Moses into the new covenant. By the law of Moses, any Judaizer is involved in a priesthood that is abomination in the law of Moses.

My counter would be that I don't see how you can argue that the law itself was flawed and imperfect. Truly the people failed to live up to it and it thereby brought condemnation but it seems to me that the law of god was by definition perfect. Do you see it differently?

I'm not at all saying the law was flawed and imperfect; but that we are, and so the perfect law is ineffectual means of giving life to imperfect people. Thus again Hebrews 7:11. Perfection is not by the law, but comes only by grace. By way of analogue, the way to perfection is through a round hole. We're all square pegs. The law says "only round pegs can enter into perfection" and that is a perfect law of truth. Unfortunately that law does nothing for the square pegs. A square peg cannot form itself into a round peg. The perfect law is useless for the square peg. All it does is tell the square peg they aren't able to enter through the round hole. It takes the grace of the former to whittle the square pegs into round pegs so they can enter the round hole. A Judaizer is someone who torments the square pegs with the perfect law of roundness.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

You don't know me so fair enough, but my backstory is that I was an adult convert to Christian belief, called myself a born again and followed pretty conservative doctrine for several years.

Okay.

To your post the main sticking point is that in Matthew, Jesus's says to his audience (Jews mostly although possibly some gentiles in the crowd - we don't know.) that he wants them to follow every single item of the law until heaven and earth pass away.

You don't exactly identify the passage, but Matthew 5:17-20 seems to fit.

In verse 18, Jesus says "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place."

I see a great significant in the final phrase "...until everything takes place."
In John 17:4 Jesus is praying and says to God the Father, "I glorified you on earth by completing the work you gave me to do."

Just prior to dying on the cross, Jesus said, "It is finished" or "It is completed" depending on the translation.

Of note, Jesus never speaks again of 'the Law'. Nor do any other of the apostle-evengelists command anyone to follow the Law. In my mind that seems to settle the issue. The Law (of Moses) has now been cancelled by Jesus' death, the ultimate sacrifice.

It would also seem from reading the historical and doctrinal sections of the New Testament a good number of originally Jewish - now Christian individuals still followed the regulations of the Law either from habit or a desire not to alienate their family and old friends.

I don't think eating pork (for example) has ever been considered required to prove one is an official Christian.

AND, I know there are a number of people who don't agree with this. They read the passage in Matthew 5 with emphasis on the '...heaven and earth shall pass away ..." as the more important clause.

As you say, it is not a salvation issue. (I'm not sure if the one or two who disagree with me think it is or not. I do not.)

He says it is not a salvation issue, you can still get into heaven, but he also makes it clear that he expects his audience to obey those OT laws.

Does this apply to you? Why or why not?

Absolutely not. I do not think it applies to anyone. Part two, see above.

 

[Athée]

To accept the Bible is to accept Jesus Christ. Seeing you reject Jesus Christ, you are not able to truly understand the depth and meaning of what it is to know Christ and His love personally. The Bible may point you to Christ, but to know His love and a deeper understanding of His Word is just not possible for you. To truly know what God's Word is about you have to walk with God. Knowledge of God's Word is just not possible for those who are not given a new heart spiritually. New hearts are only given to those who repent and accept Jesus as their Savior. Jesus said to the Pharisees in John 8 that they were seeking to kill Him because His Word had no place within them. God's Word was not written upon their hearts and they did not receive the Word of God. Paul says that if any speaks contrary to the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Godliness is proud and they know nothing. Those who reject Jesus Christ over a life of unbelief and or sin are proud people. So again, you cannot truly know the depth of God's Word in what it truly means unless you accept Jesus as your Savior and you dedicate your life to Him. For there is certain types of knowledge or education that can only be gained by experience. For example: I can tell you what it is like to be married to the love of your life, but until you know it firsthand, you are never going to really know until that happens.


...

So in response to being asked to support your assertion you seem to have doubled down by adding a bunch of new assertions and added some equivocation about the word understand on the side.
I recognize that your perspective is well supported by the Bible, I also think it is telling that rather than prove your bible to be correct on this count you chose instead to decline. How you witness your faith is up to you but know that from my side of things your inability or unwillingness to prove your assertions true makes it difficult to respect your position.

 

[miknik5]

Athens, you said: Follow the law in the absence of the temple?

Well you could always push ahead and remind your bible study group of the letter to the Hebrews

You could also remind them of Acts 17:30

Or even continue on in your study of the letter to the Romans to understand that Paul clearly did understand that ALL were in need of a Savior and was not contradicting THE MESSAGE of THE CROSS

Paul understood clearly that "one died therefore ALL were dead"

Just as he understood "GOD has turned the whole world over to disobedience"

And that "GOD will be just when HE judges and the justifier of ALL whose faith is in THE SON"
And that "what The law was powerless to do because it was weakened by sinful flesh ( there is not one who does right and never sins) GOD did by sending HIS SON"

Paul did not contradict THE TRUTH that ALL were in need of a savior

It's just that whoever is leading your bible study misinterpreted what was said by Roman 3

There isn't two Olive trees but one (reference romans 11)

 

[Winken]

Matthew 5: 17-20

.....and He taught WHO? Who was His audience?

 

[Winken]

So in response to being asked to support your assertion you seem to have doubled down by adding a bunch of new assertions and added some equivocation about the word understand on the side.
I recognize that your perspective is well supported by the Bible, I also think it is telling that rather than prove your bible to be correct on this count you chose instead to decline. How you witness your faith is up to you but know that from my side of things your inability or unwillingness to prove your assertions true makes it difficult to respect your position.

How is an authentic Christian to respect the position of a Humanist? I think close to the beginning of this thread you identified yourself as a "former" Christian. If that is true, then you will remain in your inability to understand scripture, but you are not "lost." You are still one of us.

 

[Athée]

Here's a link to BLB for Matthew 5:

Matthew Chapter 5 (KJV)

If you click on the verse number or the "tool" toggle, it will give a word for word analysis for each verse.

Let me know again which passage you had questions.

Thanks for the link. Your argument that the law had been fulfilled and was therefore finished was predicated on the use of same word "fufilled" in the kjv in Matthew 5 17-18. But the blue letter link you provided shows that they have quite different meanings and so your reading doesnt hold.

 

[miknik5]

Athee , please suggest how the law will be obeyed in the presence of the rebuilt temple

and please let us know if you think if this will be to the benefit of those who are ignorant to THE TRUTH of THE GOSPEL (but follow the law of Moses) or a detriment to them.

It's a detriment to them
And an abomination

But they won't know
Yet they will enter into the HOLY PRESENCE of GOD without the RIGHT GARMENT and covering?

What do you make of CHRIST's WORDS in John 15:22-25

And who was HE saying this to?

 

[Athée]

Then Jesus could have been the Levite that succeeded. But He wasn't. He was of Judah and the order of Melchisedec. If the law of Moses had any part in the new covenant, Jesus would've been born of Levi and of the order of Aaron. But He wasn't. Again, that Jesus is not of Levi is cataclysmic to the law of Moses. The two are entirely incompatible. If compatibility were the desire, He would've been born a Levite. Bear in mind that Jesus not being of Levi isn't an interpretation, it is a fact of scripture.

Most debates on law of Moses vs. grace of Christ are founded on interpretation, both having interpretive support. But that Jesus is of Judah and Melchisedec is fact. It is a fact that cannot be denied away as "misinterpretation" and is a fact so cataclysmic to the Judaizer position that it is never willingly brought to light, or even seriously considered. because it destroys the entire position of attempting to extend the law of Moses into the new covenant. By the law of Moses, any Judaizer is involved in a priesthood that is abomination in the law of Moses.



I'm not at all saying the law was flawed and imperfect; but that we are, and so the perfect law is ineffectual means of giving life to imperfect people. Thus again Hebrews 7:11. Perfection is not by the law, but comes only by grace. By way of analogue, the way to perfection is through a round hole. We're all square pegs. The law says "only round pegs can enter into perfection" and that is a perfect law of truth. Unfortunately that law does nothing for the square pegs. A square peg cannot form itself into a round peg. The perfect law is useless for the square peg. All it does is tell the square peg they aren't able to enter through the round hole. It takes the grace of the former to whittle the square pegs into round pegs so they can enter the round hole. A Judaizer is someone who torments the square pegs with the perfect law of roundness.

OK so given that you agree that the law was absolutely perfect and it described how God wanted life to be lived, don't you think you should continue to do your best to follow it out of reverence for God even though it does not bring salvation?
Also could you explain clearly for me why the fact of him being of Melchizadec is so significant as to be devastating to the idea that Christians should continue to follow the law. I feel like there is something that is obvious to you about it that I am just not aware of.
Thanks

 

[Athée]

.....and He taught WHO? Who was His audience?

Everyone who was there to hear him. If you know exactly who the crowd comprised I would be interested in knowing that

 

[Athée]

How is an authentic Christian to respect the position of a Humanist? I think close to the beginning of this thread you identified yourself as a "former" Christian. If that is true, then you will remain in your inability to understand scripture, but you are not "lost." You are still one of us.

I appreciate you believe this to be true, I have offered you the opportunity to test that belief but you seem to prefer to hold it in the absence of evidence. If this is how you approach belief that is certainly your purview. I try to find either support or dispositive evidence so as to rationally justify my belief, but to each their own I guess.
Peace,
A.

 

[Athée]

Athee , please suggest how the law will be obeyed in the presence of the rebuilt temple

and please let us know if you think if this will be to the benefit of those who are ignorant to THE TRUTH of THE GOSPEL (but follow the law of Moses) or a detriment to them.

It's a detriment to them
And an abomination

But they won't know
Yet they will enter into the HOLY PRESENCE of GOD without the RIGHT GARMENT and covering?

What do you make of CHRIST's WORDS in John 15:22-25

And who was HE saying this to?

On the first question which item of the law are you asking about specifically?
As to the second I imagine that the effect would be different for different people. Some would see their failure to live to the standard and seek God, some would be proud and try to lean on their own strength and turn away from God while thinking they were obeying him...in other words pretty much what the law was reported to have done earlier.

 

[redleghunter]

Thanks for the link. Your argument that the law had been fulfilled and was therefore finished was predicated on the use of same word "fufilled" in the kjv in Matthew 5 17-18. But the blue letter link you provided shows that they have quite different meanings and so your reading doesnt hold.

Right here:

Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

Come to pass. In the time and space Jesus is speaking, He had yet to fulfill His death and Resurrection.

I would add to your Bible study which part of the Law Jesus taught in the Gospels. It was always moral law.

Look at Matthew 5. It addresses all laws which deal with God and mankind, and mankind with neighbor.

There were no discourses on shellfish, clothing (other than clothing the naked) and where the women folk should go during their monthly cycle.

The Law Jesus preached was the moral law. That's the part of the law which has consequences if broken.

If someone was unclean due to dietary or purity laws, they washed outside the camp and were admitted back in after sunset. Do you think Jesus was addressing this in Matthew 5 or any other part of the 4 Gospels? No He was always within the context of the moral law...the laws which directly affected God-mankind relations and mankind-mankind relations.

The shorthand being the moral law and most importantly the Decalogue.

Why was Jesus doing this? As the Teacher, He knew people had to be dragged up Mt Sinai to expose their sins, so that when He went to Mt. Zion people would know the purpose of His Atoning work.

Wow, can I come to your Bible study?

I've done all the work.

 

[miknik5]

On the first question which item of the law are you asking about specifically?
As to the second I imagine that the effect would be different for different people. Some would see their failure to live to the standard and seek God, some would be proud and try to lean on their own strength and turn away from God while thinking they were obeying him...in other words pretty much what the law was reported to have done earlier.

I'm asking about the rituals in the temple according to the design and law of Moses

That is what I am asking about

For the law made us conscious of sin and when the temple is restored those who do not feel they need a savior will reinstate the sacrifices in the temple which will clearly confirm
That those under the law are conscious of sin yet will not come to THE LORD

 

[miknik5]

Christ came to make ONE out of the two:

To bring the Jew (who had the law and promises of GOD) and the gentile ( who did not have the mad and promises of GOD) together in ONE HOUSE

 

[miknik5]

Here's another declaration given to those under THE LAW:


Haggai 2


So if all were declared unclean, who can come up into the HOLY PRESENCE of GOD?

ALL....ALL....ALL
Need the RIGHT GARMENT

 

[miknik5]

The law could never make anyone perfect

But not a jot or a tittle of the Law will pass

Until ALL has been accomplished