IF THE LAW OF MOSES WAS SET ASIDE , WHY ROM 13:9?

[Leaf473]

Yes, one possible meaning, which I am sure is why LGW always tries to make clear which meaning is intended when using lawless or lawlessness.

Do you mean the meaning that not following all of Torah is lawlessness?

 

[Leaf473]

That isn't quite how it works: the authors of scripture are taking words from whatever language is being used and using them according to the meanings already defined in the scripture, (especially the apostolic writings which quote heavily from the LXX).

This may indeed sometimes be a problem even with scholars and their lexicons in cases where they rely too heavily on ancient Greek writings such as the classics, (a different form of Greek). For example, there are at least four or five Greek words for seeing, to see, and the way in which they are employed in the Gospel accounts is not the same way they are used in the classics or even common Greek: they have their own meanings defined in the scripture by the Testimony of the Messiah, and especially in the Gospel of John.

I agree that the New Testament writers were influenced by the lxx, much the same way theologians for centuries were influenced by the King James.

But if you're saying that all the words in the New Testament are defined by the lxx, I think that would be going too far.

 

[daq]

And what about words that were not already defined in Scripture before the NT; e.g., regeneration, foreknowledge, propitiation, forerunner, etc., where were those definitions going to come from other than the Greek language?

Those are English translations of well known Greek words and-or compound words.

regeneration: παλιγγενεσια, παλιν+γενεσις (manifold LXX examples).

foreknowledge: προ+γνωσις (manifold LXX examples).

propitiation: ιλαστηριον, (Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5), Exo 25:17-22 (7 times), Exo 31:17, Exo 35:12, Exo 37:6-9 (3 times), Lev 16:2-15 (7 times), Num 7:89, Ezek 43:14-20 (5 times), Amos 9:1.

propitiation: ιλασμος, (1 John 2:2, 4:10), Lev 25:9, Num 5:8, Exo 30:10 (εξιλασμος, εκ+ιλασμος), Lev 23:27-28 (εξιλασμος, εκ+ιλασμος), and mixed forms at least ten more places in the LXX beyond the Torah.

forerunner: προδρομος, Num 13:20 LXX, Isa 28:4 LXX.

And whichever one in the Greek which the NT writer used is the meaning of "seeing" in that NT text.

As I have said, the context informs me of such things, and especially in the Testimony of the Messiah, so I will give one example containing two of the words for seeing and allow you to do the appropriate the research for yourself.

John 16:16-17 KJV
16 A little while, and ye shall not see [θεωρεω] me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see [οπτανομαι] me, because I go to the Father.
17 Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see [θεωρεω] me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see [οπτανομαι] me: and, Because I go to the Father?

 

[Clare73]

Those are English translations of well known Greek words and-or compound words.

My point exactly. . .

There were no Scriptural words in the OT for the examples I gave.
So did they pick those Greek words in order to create the teaching,
or did they pick those Greek words because they expressed the teaching received from Jesus?

And having picked those words, we are not at liberty to redefine them away from their definitions in the Greek.
They picked those specific words based on their definitions in the Greek because those definitions meant what they were conveying.

And if "see" has five definitions, whichever ones they used in a sentence are its Greek meanings as used in the sentence.

 

[daq]

My point exactly. . .

There were no Scriptural words in the OT for the examples I gave.
So did they pick those Greek words in order to create the teaching,
or did they pick those Greek words because they expressed the teaching received from Jesus?

And having picked those words, we are not at liberty to redefine them away from their definitions in the Greek.
They picked those specific words based on their definitions in the Greek because those definitions meant what they were conveying.

And if "see" has five definitions, whichever ones they used in a sentence are its Greek meanings as used in the sentence.

John 14:19-24 KJV
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Revelation 1:7 KJV
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, [οπτανομαι] and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Therefore, if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and cast it from you: for it does not say all eyes, no, but every eye, singular, as in Matthew 6:22-23.

Logos (scripture reasoning) is required.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Yes, your definitions of "Law" and "lawlessness" are different from mine. I believe your definitions were also different from the definitions other people were using, as well.

No our conversations and discussions are different. Your talking about something I am not even talking about trying to make the discussion about something I am not discussing because you have either not understood what has been written to you or your trying to change the topic and subject matter. I can understand why but which is it?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

It is against the law in North Korea to insult the leader.If you insult the leader of North Korea, are you necessarily lawless?

Nothing do to with the discussion in context to those who believe and teach the false teachings that God's 10 commandments being abolished under the new covenant which is a teaching of lawlessness (without law or no law).

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I trust you realize that these dictionary definitions make no reference to the 10 commandments.

Sure they do. Their application are to law. Any type of law, all law. The context of our discussion is to your claims that God's 10 commandments are abolished which is a teaching of lawlessness (without law or no law).

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You are correct that the two quotes of mine that you post are different. The particular Greek word for "law" does not appear in the passage, but the passage could apply to many different laws.

Even if (and it's a big if)
Romans says that breaking the ten commandments is sin, it doesn't mean that the writer of 1 John was using the word anomia the same way.

In addition to that, the word "law" doesn't refer to the same set of laws everywhere in the scriptures.

Nothing to do with the discussion but I can understand why your trying to change the topic.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I suspected someone would say something like this.

The obvious rejoinder is that the authors of scripture used human languages made up of words with meanings that were defined before scripture was even penned.

Not relevant to the scriptures that are being discussed and shared with you that are in disagreement with your teachings of lawlessness (no law) that God's 10 commandments have been abolished in the new covenant that your unwilling to discuss with me.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I give up. . .who?

I am not sure, you are the one that wrote it that is why I was asking you but when I read posts like the one you wrote it makes me think of Romans 2:1

 

[Leaf473]

No our conversations and discussions are different. Your talking about something I am not even talking about trying to make the discussion about something I am not discussing because you have either not understood what has been written to you or your trying to change the topic and subject matter. I can understand why but which is it?

It appeared to me that there were different definitions of "Law" and "lawlessness" being used on the thread. So I made that observation. Does that answer your question?

 

[Leaf473]

Nothing do to with the discussion in context to those who believe and teach the false teachings that God's 10 commandments being abolished under the new covenant which is a teaching of lawlessness (without law or no law).

I believe it has a great deal to do with the common understanding of "lawlessness".

 

[Leaf473]

Nothing to do with the discussion but I can understand why your trying to change the topic.

I believe it relates to the Greek word "anomía" which is used in 1 John 3:4.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

It appeared to me that there were different definitions of "Law" and "lawlessness" being used on the thread. So I made that observation. Does that answer your question?

Nope your trying to change the discussion into something I have never been talking about. I have defined my use of lawlessness (without law) in application to those who teach that Gods' 10 commandments have been abolished in application to God's 10 commandments being abolished from the beginning of my posts all through my discussions. You are trying to change the discussion into something no one is talking about. Like I said earlier I can understand why.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I believe it relates to the Greek word "anomía" which is used in 1 John 3:4.

No it doesn't. I am talking and used the English definition not in regards to scripture but in regards to an English application of the teaching of lawlessness and the claims that Gods' 10 commandments have been abolished. You post here has nothing to do whatsoever in context the application of my discussion with those who believe God's 10 commandments are abolished in the new covenant which is a teaching of lawlessness.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I believe it relates to the Greek word "anomía" which is used in 1 John 3:4.

Nothing to do with my application of the English word application to lawlessness in those talking in English making claims that Gods' 10 commandments have been abolished. Your trying to change the discussion topic and I can understand why because you believe God's 10 commandments have been abolished which is a teaching of lawlessness

 

[Clare73]

Logos (scripture reasoning) is required.

It means "word"--not speech, thought, will, etc.--in both Scripture and in Greek.
If it has more than one meaning, context makes clear which one is intended, just as with all Greek words in Scripture.

 

[expos4ever]

Sure they do. Their application are to law. Any type of law, all law.

You do not realize it, but you just undercut your own argument.

Since lawlessness can be in relation to any law, I can be "lawless" even if the 10 commandments never existed. Or more to the point, I can be lawless even if the 10 are retired.

I am not teaching lawlessness, despite your repeated misrepresentations.

This should end this ridiculous tangent, but I am sure it will not.

The context of our discussion is to your claims that God's 10 commandments are abolished which is a teaching of lawlessness (without law or no law).

Repeating a false statement many times makes it no more true.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You do not realize it, but you just undercut your own argument.

Since lawlessness can be in relation to any law, I can be "lawless" even if the 10 commandments never existed. Or more to the point, I can be lawless even if the 10 are retired.

I am not teaching lawlessness, despite your repeated misrepresentations.

This should end this ridiculous tangent, but I am sure it will not.

Repeating a false statement many times makes it no more true.

No dear friend I didn't you are simply trying to make the argument about something I am not talking about. I can understand why. The context of our discussion is to your claims that God's 10 commandments are abolished which is a teaching of lawlessness (without law or no law).