Not under the law

sojeru · Aug 30, 2003

You legalists need to, for once in your life, get your heads out of anlytical mode, and submit your understanding to the NT, not submit the NT to your presuppositions.

hi collosians, this is not correct to say at all- I myself grew up by decision in your thinking and belief- that was the only way I at first picked up a bible- i went to church and all.
however, when i read there were many things not sitting right- My pressupostions was exactly the way you thought. I brought questions up to elders and pastors and G-D himself. no adequate answer was foundto believe what the pastors or church elders believed about Torah.
G-D pushed me to believe in His Torah.
He said:
"my word lasts forever- and if it lasts forever- it cannto be abolished- My word is ONE"
when i understood this- He basically said "i am the beginning and the end- no part in between can be done away with- then parts of me would be finite- But I am infinite- and this is seen in my word. from the beginning (genesis) to the end (revelations) so keep All that comes out of the mouth of G-D and seek my council to understand."

DO AWAY WITH NO PART OF THE WORD.

the 10 is in the 2.

of course as humans you will want to- but if it is you that is dead- and Messiah/the Torah that lives in you- not you- then it will be accomplished- because messiah had already done it- and he can do it in you and in me and in all that believes.

It is not us the live- but Messiah.

shalom

sojeru · Aug 30, 2003

One can only break the law if one is under it.

and now you are under the law of christ- and if you break one of these 2 commanments on which all the Torah hangs on- you will be guilty of breaking it all.
so that means if you lied, you are guilty of also murdering- and leading your brothers astray -possibly causing them to fall off the path of HaShem, in which all of the precepts are in the 2.

Achichem · Aug 30, 2003

The interpretation of scripture is itself a part of worship, and is therefore to be performed "in spirit and in truth", not in the fleshly analytical perfectionist research mode of the SDAs, who disregard the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and worship their own spirit of prophecy: Ellen White.

Considering your not debating with a SDA, I am a little taken that you would take it in your power to insult them.

Rameod the III, Third book of Eth-ra-ta (Our story) Self Translation
...He who calls a man good; lives by what makes that man good,...

Rameod the III, Third book of Eth-ra-ta (Our story) Self Translation
...he who loves, is obedient to all truths...

Rameod the III, Third book of Eth-ra-ta (Our story) Self Translation
...What is good never passes away! Only we loose sight of it, but remember always to seek is to find, for the truth never moves closer or farther away from us, only we of it...

Take the wisdom with a grain of salt, but interesting logic non-the less

To hang on to the law is spiritual adultery.

LoL,
OK and you say you got this from the same guy who not only practices all the laws of Moses and even under Pharisee interpretation.

Who respects the law:

Acts 24:14,NKJV:
But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.

Acts 25:8,NKJV:
while he answered for himself, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.

Romans 7:12,NKJV:
Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

Romans 3:31,NKJV:
Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

These are only here to show his respect for the law, I am not trying to use them to explain any other principle!

No one here is saying anything more then salvation comes of faith, but that does not mean that the word of God (laws) has no place.

"Lawless" is used as a type here. Jesus was OT, and spoke using the OT template to describe things.

Jesus is the New Testament covenant! He was talking about his return, and said that many who do things in his name were wrong at that time!

What laws was Jesus appalled by, the laws of Moses?

Mark 7:6-8 NIV: He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men. 'You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

Jesus fulfilled the laws by walking in them, why no you? Remember I am not saying that they are need for salvation, only Jesus gave us that, but the spirit uses the law because Jesus used the law, the spirit uses the law because it is the word of God.

1 John 2:4-6 NKJV:
He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word; truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

1 John 3:24 NKJV:
Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

Note Jesus laws of love for neighbor, love for God are not new but from he laws of Moses, actually both said to be at the foundation.

Deuteronomy 6:5 NKJV:
You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

Leviticus 19:18 NKJV:
You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD

Do not forget the old standard in higher then the old:
[url] Mathew 5:24-46 NKJV

Also do not forget this:

Matthew 5:17-19NKJV:
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 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. 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.

Notice that even some get in to heaven and have taught these things, this would hint if not out right say, that these laws are not required, they are very much meant for great purpose for Christians!

I will stop for now but this is a fragment of the evidence!

"But now that faith is come, ye are no longer under a schoolmaster." Gal 3:25.

note something else that shows up in that very same letter:

Galatians 3:21-22 NKJV:
Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.

This puts the line in context!

Now that we have graduated to marriage to Christ, the schoolmaster is useless. "But ye have become dead to the law that ye should be married to another" Rom 7:4.

But never forget the purpose of the law in the new testament:

Romans 7:7 NKJV:
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."

And then how sin took the purpose away:

Romans 7:8-9 NKJV:
But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

This shows that it cannot bring salvation!

For remember the law is as much Gods word as any bit of prophecy or any other word, it is the greatest of all Gods words! Showing us what is sinful to make us caution, and then through spirit can we surpass the challenge!

Of course in no way are we still under the law!

For sinfulness uses the law, to trick us in to making us call ourselves righteous or right when we walk the path of darkness.

So none were made justify by the covenant of Old,

Old covenant: to seek rightness by obedience to its command, that is the law.

Always and forever has all covenants been, for as we were before the law still subject to the law, so to are we subject to the covenant of faith! For all were saved by faith both of old and of new, saved by the covenant of faith (ie. Abraham, Paul or David)

Yet remember, is it the law that sinfulness used to make us sinful? No, It is the hearing of the law! The doer of the law still was and is justified based on faith!

Salvation is by faith and not law, and in that way you are dead to law!

However he who loves, follows what he you love commands, He is obedient to his words! For as Abraham gained salvation through the new covenant so to shall we, by faith and love in the lord!

For it is faith that cause us to follow the law, for law is the word of God!

I hope that helps,
If you need more quotes from scripture that can be provided, but I figure this might work better,
God bless,
Datsar

sojeru · Aug 30, 2003

hi datsar, you are a tad bit off- but on the right track.
blessings

Achichem · Aug 30, 2003

sojeru said:
hi datsar, you are a tad bit off- but on the right track.
blessings

I would bet you it is just I put somthing down, worng,I should correct it, why do you think I am a bit off?

Colossians · Aug 31, 2003

Datsar,

The interpretation of scripture is itself a part of worship, and is therefore to be performed "in spirit and in truth", not in the fleshly analytical perfectionist research mode of the SDAs, who disregard the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and worship their own spirit of prophecy: Ellen White.
Considering your not debating with a SDA, I am a little taken that you would take it in your power to insult them.
The fact that you think those things are an insult, should mean that you agree they shouldn't be doing such things, if they are in fact doing them. The question is then: why are you doing them?

But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.
And what did all the law and the prophets bear witness to? What did Jesus expound to the two on the road to Emaus? What did Paul mean when he said that the law witnesses the righteousness of God which is by faith? What is the lesson in 1 Pet 1:12 where it says concerning those who wrote the law and the prophets: "Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto them, but unto us they did minister the things which were reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel"? Why is it Peter in Acts 2 declares that the prophecy concerning the Throne of David has been fulfilled? Why is it that Acts 15 declares that the rebuilding of the Tabernacle of David has occured?
Hmmm??

Acts 25:8,NKJV:Whihile he answered for himself, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.
Because he later said "to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win them". So now you'll drop this argument from your arsenal, ok?

Romans 7:12,NKJV:Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
Frighteningly good.

Romans 3:31,NKJV:
Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
Yes our having come to Christ through faith establishes the law - validating its utility in having driven us away from itself to Christ. In so doing the law is established - its purpose is ratified. This has nothing to do with keeping the law, which is why "keep" is not in the sentence.

No one here is saying anything more then salvation comes of faith, but that does not mean that the word of God (laws) has no place.
The Word of God is a Person. "In the beginning was the Word..".

Jesus is the New Testament covenant!
"For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." Heb 9:16. When Jesus promoted the law to the Pharisees, he was therefore speaking within an OT framework. Exit another argument.

Jesus fulfilled the laws by walking in them, why no you?
The law can't be fulfilled twice, anymore than a woman can give birth to the same child twice.

but the spirit uses the law
The Spirit declares, "And ye have become dead to the law through the body of Christ". Dead means "dead" doesn't it?

the spirit uses the law because it is the word of God.
Thus you fulfill the criticism of God concerning all legalists: "The Word of God was unto them precept upon precept, line upon line." This is exactly what you have declared of yourself.
The Word of God is not a law. The Word of God is God himself.

1 John 3:24 NKJV:
Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
You should have finished your reading. Further down in the same book it tells you what those commandments are:
"And this is his commandment, that you believe on the name of His son Jesus Christ..."

Also do not forget this:
Matthew 5:17-19NKJV:
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
Yes he fulfilled it. We know this. This is not the problem. The problem is you don't understand the ramifications of his having fulfilled it.

"Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.
You quote this in defence of your position? Talk about gaul.

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."
"The law was not made for a righteous man".
"We have been made the righteousness of Christ in him."
So guess whom the law was not made for? (You only get one guess.)

This shows that it cannot bring salvation!
Is there something else we're supposed to have?

Of course in no way are we still under the law!
So why are you following it? Do you obey the speed limit of Algiers when you are on the road in your own country?

For sinfulness uses the law, to trick us in to making us call ourselves righteous or right when we walk the path of darkness.
So we should listen to one who admits to walking in darkness?

remember, is it the law that sinfulness used to make us sinful? No, It is the hearing of the law! The doer of the law still was and is justified based on faith!
The doer of the law does not exist. Those who use faith use it instead of the law, not alongside it. "The law is not of faith".

Salvation is by faith and not law, and in that way you are dead to law!
You can say that again!

However he who loves, follows what he you love commands
He who loves doesn't command in the first place. "Love does not demand". Do you command your wife?

For it is faith that cause us to follow the law, for law is the word of God!
So faith causes us to follow that which is not of faith. Right!

I hope that helps,
Funny guy.

Achichem · Aug 31, 2003

I am not even going to respond to this none sense,

ie.

Acts 25:8,NKJV:Whihile he answered for himself, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.

Because he later said, "to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win them". So now you'll drop this argument from your arsenal, ok?

I hope you know, that these two things have nothing to do with each other!

I also hope you know that you are "very blinded by words" they are a limitation to true understanding. Of course once again you will just be blinded by these words making no sense of what is so clear.

For languages are extensions not means, by them we communicate, they covey their meaning both literally and metaphorically by context and general meaning. It is a combination of forces and not any one on its own merit.

I would also challenge you to look at your fruits, for I have never said you nor any other here has gone against the lord God (maybe Catholics I said, but that is a different story)

And here you go on, about how I am not in with God (committing spiritual adulatory) because I listen to his words, and believe him never to change!

Is this the fruits of this faith you say I should have?

do you have no responce to this logic:

Rameod the III, Third book of Eth-ra-ta (Our story) Self Translation
...He who calls a man good; lives by what makes that man good,...

As to this!

However he who loves, follows what he you love commands
He who loves doesn't command in the first place. "Love does not demand". Do you command your wife?

I would ask (that is what I ment by command) and she would do to the best of her abilitys.(that is if I had a wife).As i do to our father in heaven!

Of course in no way are we still under the law!
So why are you following it? Do you obey the speed limit of Algiers when you are on the road in your own country?

Because my lord said he wanted it done!If i love him, as i do, why would i say No, or not follow it!

This shows that it cannot bring salvation!
Is there something else we're supposed to have?[/b]
As i was refering to law, yes Faith,love,trust and caring!
ie, Hounor they father and they mother!
ie, Hounor your wife or husban, or would you give them a stone when they ask for bread!

remember, is it the law that sinfulness used to make us sinful? No, It is the hearing of the law! The doer of the law still was and is justified based on faith!

Click to expand...

he who walks in faith, and forgivness shall be forgiven and thus walk in the law!

For some reason I need to try and help you see(not strat follow me,but understand me),

Salvation = 100% faith
The law is not of faith
Law = Word of God
Faith = Follow God
Follow God = Follow Gods Words (Laws)
Can you not follow the Laws and still have faith, of course as long as all you do is out of faith in the pursuit of what is good! Of course, since the laws are good you can also follow the laws and still have faith as long as it is out of faith that you follow the laws!

Yet you keep on saying it is impossible for law to come from faith? Just because the law is not of faith! That is because it is not the laws that we are following but God!

Tawhano · Aug 31, 2003

sojeru Said:
hi Tawhano,
this is the answer to the statement you made about the 2 commandments.
go to http://www.christianforums.com/show...208&postcount=8
it was already answered, though you didnt ask question- what you commented on.

Thank you sojeru but that doesnt address the point I was making in post# 31 at all.

Perhaps you understand me as much as I do you?

The point I was making is that the Apostles discussed this very issue we are now; whether or not the Gentiles should be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.

Acts 15:5
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.

You, like those Pharisees, are suggesting that we should keep the laws. Peter answered them:

Acts 15:10
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
The Apostles then decided by the aid of the Holy Spirit not to command the Gentiles to keep the laws.

Acts 15:28-29
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

This passage tells me quite clearly that as a gentile I am not commanded to keep the laws of Moses. Anyone who suggest otherwise seek to do so not by the Word of God but by their own understanding.

Galatians 6:13
For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

Tawhano · Aug 31, 2003

sojeru Said:
if you break shabbat (sabbath) you do not love G-D - every sin and transgression marked there is the noted the same way.

I beg to differ but Jesus and his disciples most certainly broke the law of Moses in regards to the keeping of the Sabbath and I have no doubt about their love for God.

Matthew 12:1
At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

They broke two laws concerning the Sabbath.

Exodus 16:29
See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

They were wandering around when they should have been observing the Sabbath.

Numbers 15:32-36
And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

They did not prepare their meal beforehand and therefore were in the field preparing corn to eat (working).

I agree Jesus had every right to do as he did as he said the Sabbath was made for man not the man for the Sabbath. Regardless of whether he had a good excuse or not the fact is he broke the law as did his disciples.

sojeru · Aug 31, 2003

Hi Datsar- I will email you or Pm you with what I see- and we can build and grow.
good?

hi Tawhano

Acts 15:5
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.

Click to expand...

You, like those Pharisees, are suggesting that we should keep the laws. Peter answered them:

no, i understood you, im trying to show you something- but no matter- I am not teaching that ALL MUST FOLLOW THE TORAH GIVEN TO MOSHE.
But I am trying to show you that the Torah is to be followed.
There are two sets of Torah and both are called ONE.
WHo wrote Genesis to Deusteronomy, Moses by G-D, correct?
So all that is written there in is of Moses by G-D.
Now, there is a Torah set before ALL MEN, and then there is a Torah set before the native born of Israel.
Now, Joshua had the right- I dont understand how as of yet, to circumcise ALL that were in Israel which included the foreigner and the native born.

The foreigner does not have to be circumcised to be considered Israel- this is were the pharisees were wrong.
And i challenge you to find where gentiles (FOREIGNERS that live with and in Israel and are considered Israel) HAD TO BE CIRCUMCISED?
you wont find it anywhere.
By not getting circumcised-the foreigner COULD NOT complete the ENTIRE Torah- because He was not allowed to do it since he was not circumcised.
However, if he were circumcised- then He would be Having to follow every precept in it.
So, thats it- Foreigners DO NOT and ARE NOT TO COMPLETE the ENTIRE TORAH- now- it is to find out what parts they are to do and which ones they are not.
I NEVER SAID that ALL MEN MUST FOLLOW THE COMPLETE TORAH - However, I did say that we are to follow it.
Israelis/Jews are to fulfill ALL- Foreigners Live by every word that comes out of the mouth of G-D.
If G-D says to the foreigner- you are allowed to do this but not this. then obey- same with the native citizens.

understand?

I beg to differ but Jesus and his disciples most certainly broke the law of Moses in regards to the keeping of the Sabbath and I have no doubt about their love for God.

Matthew 12:1
At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

They broke two laws concerning the Sabbath.

Exodus 16:29
See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

They were wandering around when they should have been observing the Sabbath.

Numbers 15:32-36
And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

They did not prepare their meal beforehand and therefore were in the field preparing corn to eat (working).

wow, this is a funny one- I do thank that you are searching the tanach for answers and using it to fight- this is good.
But you are wrong.
In torah it says that a man should not harvest on the shabbat.
in Torah it also says that when a man enters the feild of another- they are allowed to pick the grains to eat of it.

now you say:

Regardless of whether he had a good excuse or not the fact is he broke the law as did his disciples.

In the above i have already shopwn that by TORAH they did not break it- and I will make sure to find the number marks in scripture so that you will be able to find it easier. However, now you say that Messiah broke the sabbath- this DOES GO AGAINST ANY GOOD CHRISTIAN LOGIC.
Think about it,
If Jesus BROKE THE SABBATH (good reason or not) He did not fullfill the Torah- correct?
Why? He broke ONE of the commandments and to break even one is to break it all.
So I ask you to revise that scripture and meditate and reflect in the Torah what Messiah actually did.
Messiah also uses refrences in the Torah that would show a "profaning" by the terms of the pharisees (the way the pharisees view the breaking of sabbath) But- Messiah showed them the preists and David (whom in the eyes of the ordinances of the pharisees they would have deserved death) that in the eyes of Torah and G-D they are innocent.
David and his band of men were CLEAN- the priests were not allowed to give the bread to men who were unclean-"do not give any of this food to the people of israel for they may be unclean."
David proved by his word that they were Clean and thus worthy for the bread.
and He told the pharisees about the preists continually doing work in the temple- and by the pharisees view are worthy of death- yet the TORAH allows them to perform duties all year round- so they are innocent in the eyes of Torah and in the eyes of G-D but NOT in the torah of the pharisees.

I hope you understand

shalom u'bracha tawhano

Lev 25:6 And the sabbath of the land shall be meat for you; for thee, and for thy servant, and for thy maid, and for thy hired servant, and for thy stranger

Colossians · Sep 1, 2003

Datsar

The statement that Paul gave no offense to the Jews was in line with the emphasis of his life: all things to all men. So "to the Jews I became as a Jew" has everything to do with it.

Concerning you lack of response to my other rebuttals, this indicates you have no response: you are defeated point by point.

Concerning the few responses you have made (eg the one where I asked you whether you obeyed the speed limit in Algiers on your own roads), you have displayed what I have found all legalists display: a lack of ability to constrain your answer according to the terms of a philosophical concept so that it is both consistent with that concept, AND in harmony with the word. Instead, you simply repeat your dogma.
The point being made was that if you are not under the law, then obeying it would be tantamount to obeying the speed limit of a country whose law you were not under in the human realm.
Rather than reconcile your belief with this apparent inconsistency, you simply repeated your dogma "because my Lord said He wanted it done",
thus denying the basis of the challenge: that he said he didn't want it done by virtue of his telling us we are not under the law. All you have done therefore is to say "yes we are". This is no argument.

Legalists do not have the ability to delimit their arguments along philosphical lines. They merely simplistically quote scripture.
Paul often lays down his teaching based on logic/philospohy. Eg, "was Abraham considered righteous after circumcision or before?" thus arguing within the confines of the concept of "precedent". If your dogma is not consistent with the philosophical and logical 'universals' of the secular realm (the shadow realm ) it is wrong.

Colossians · Sep 1, 2003

Datsar,

Salvation = 100% faith
The law is not of faith
Law = Word of God
So you agree the law is not of faith, and then you assert that the Law = the Word of God. This should put you on notice that your doctrine is wrong, for in so asserting you declare the Word of God to be not of faith.

What you don't see is that the Word of God is not laws, but a person. Laws did not become flesh and dwell among men: the Word did. Because the word "Word" is used, you misappropriate it in that you fuse the linguistic representation "w o r d" with the notion of "words of scripture". But the Word is not the words of scripture; it is the Person of Christ. The words of scripture are not the Word, for they are not a PERSON: they are what is called "the letter". Thus Jesus said to the Pharisees that they thought they could find eternal life in the scripture, but they couldn't: it was in HIM (His person).
Christ = Word of God = God, which is of faith.

Faith = Follow God
Follow God = Follow Gods Words (Laws)
No, Follow God is to follow God. God is not his laws. God is His person.
Thus it says "as many as are led by the Spirit (the Person of the Spirit as he speaks directly to you, not via laws), they shall be the Sons of God".
A wife can follow her husband just by holding his hand and letting him lead. He doesn't have to tell her "turn left, increase your speed by 0.3 miles an hour, slow down..., and if you don't, I'm divorcing you". He just holds her hand. This is what it means to be led by the Spirit. We have entered a MARRIAGE, not a playpen for children, and not a schoolroom.

Can you not follow the Laws and still have faith,
No, because it does not take faith to follow laws. What do you think the whole NT was brought in for? Because "THE LAW IS NOT OF FAITH" (meaning "IT DOES NOT TAKE FAITH TO KEEP THE LAW")
You cannot join new cloth to old. One will tear the other.
The law schoolmastered us to marriage to Christ. Christ then does not lead us back to school. If you are looking at laws, then you are not looking at Christ. You cannot look at 2 things at the same time.

Of course, since the laws are good you can also follow the laws and still have faith as long as it is out of faith that you follow the laws!
"THE LAW IS NOT OF FAITH". (Meaning: "IT DOES NOT TAKE FAITH TO KEEP THE LAW"). This means that faith replaces the law, not that it assists us to keep it. We do not have faith to follow that which has none of itself. Faith is not faith to keep the law; it is faith to ignore the law, and trust Christ alone.

Yet you keep on saying it is impossible for law to come from faith?
No. God does: "(keeping) the law is not of faith Gal 3:12".
Just because the law is not of faith!
That's what the ramification of the law not being of faith is!

That is because it is not the laws that we are following but God!
You contradict yourself once again. Here you say you follow not the laws, but God, and yet up above you say "Follow God = Follow Gods .. (Laws)".

Datsar, you have been tricked by virtue of the grammatical property of the verb "to be", which does not take an object, but a complement.
If we say "God is love", we mean "love is what God is". But it is easy to misrender it and think it to mean "God is what love is", for "is " is like "=".
So too with God and the law.
It is true that God is the law (ie it is the PERSON of God himself which is the law), but it is not true that the law is God. You keep confusing the two, and this is what the SDA church does.

God is NOT his law, God is God.

Tawhano · Sep 1, 2003

sojeru said:
But I am trying to show you that the Torah is to be followed. Now, there is a Torah set before ALL MEN, and then there is a Torah set before the native born of Israel.

I sure wish you would provide some scripture for your reason of coming to those conclusions. You hardly ever quote scripture in the extent where I can look it up and see for myself what you are talking about.

sojeru said:
By not getting circumcised-the foreigner COULD NOT complete the ENTIRE Torah- because He was not allowed to do it since he was not circumcised.

By the same reasoning if you keep part of the law then you must need to keep all of the law; as it is written, if you break a small part you break all of the law. This is why nobody was able to keep the law. Im sure there were people who managed to keep all of the Ten Commandments but failed to keep one small part of the law and therefore were found guilty of breaking all the law. This is what Jesus came to free us from. Jesus didnt destroy the law he fulfilled it so that we could be free from the law and its condemnation.

sojeru Said:
wow, this is a funny one- I do thank that you are searching the tanach for answers and using it to fight- this is good.
But you are wrong.
In torah it says that a man should not harvest on the shabbat.
in Torah it also says that when a man enters the feild of another- they are allowed to pick the grains to eat of it.

Strawman. I said nothing about harvesting or stealing grains. I clearly said that Jesus and his disciples were wandering around when they should have been observing the Sabbath and they did not prepare their meal beforehand and therefore were in the field preparing corn to eat (working). I did not repeat any of the Pharisees interpretation of the law but quoted from the OT. I know why Jesus was blameless in not observing the Sabbath but that was not my point. You said we are to observe the Sabbath if we love the Lord and I showed you by scriptures why I didnt believe that to be true. I cannot find one scripture in the NT showing me that I need to observe the Sabbath.

Achichem · Sep 1, 2003

It is true that God is the law (ie it is the PERSON of God himself which is the law), but it is not true that the law is God. You keep confusing the two, and this is what the SDA church does.

The SDA church is irrelevant to the conversation! I am not part of the SDA church!

The statement that Paul gave no offense to the Jews was in line with the emphasis of his life: all things to all men. So "to the Jews I became as a Jew" has everything to do with it.

Concerning you lack of response to my other rebuttals, this indicates you have no response: you are defeated point by point.

No I was not joking these things have nothing to do with each other, why?and No I did not indicate anything other then my feelings of the matter. If you would like I will go over each one of your statements one by one, but I rather not consistering you never address my point on any of your rebuttals.
As for my example,
Your statement refers to why he kept doing Jewish traditions!
The statement I used had to do with respect for the law!
Hence comes the problem with your statements, I will quote my self on the purpose, now I want you to think really hard, does anything you put relate to what I said!

datsar said:
These are only here to show his respect for the law, I am not trying to use them to explain any other principle!

Now really do you think you are refuting his respect for the law or another principle?
See why I said what I did yet (in this regard)?

Concerning the few responses you have made (eg the one where I asked you whether you obeyed the speed limit in Algiers on your own roads), you have displayed what I have found all legalists display: a lack of ability to constrain your answer according to the terms of a philosophical concept so that it is both consistent with that concept, AND in harmony with the word. Instead, you simply repeat your dogma.
The point being made was that if you are not under the law, then obeying it would be tantamount to obeying the speed limit of a country whose law you were not under in the human realm.
Rather than reconcile your belief with this apparent inconsistency, you simply repeated your dogma "because my Lord said He wanted it done",
thus denying the basis of the challenge: that he said he didn't want it done by virtue of his telling us we are not under the law. All you have done therefore is to say "yes we are". This is no argument.

I am very sorry you feel that why, but just to tell you it sounds more like you then me? I offered many philosophical arguments and examples, most of which you never responded to at all, or took piece by piece and thus missing the context and thus the philosophy!

However, I do respect your misunderstanding on the answer I gave to where you asked me whether you obeyed the speed limit in Algiers on your own roads, because of your way of thinking I see how this could have become a problem.

Allow me to explain further:

The flaw with this analogy is it misrepresents God! For in regard to speed limit it is made in a legal setting taking on the form presented of God by the many of the wrongful Pharisee teachings of Jesus time!

God is not a just a lawgiver, he is much more including a life giver, we only have one word for this in are simplistic not defiant language, this being Father! A father does not impose this type of rule system on to his son! You see instead a father, out of love, makes rules to protect his children, this rules made out of love are the same as God laws, accept of course being that these law are as you say too Good!

So you see since the laws are not as the laws of a state but as the laws of a father we can understand where and how the Pharisee of the time went wrong! And you and your analogy went wrong. A better analogy would be one involving a father figure:

So For this I assume you have the best possible dad, I do not know how true this is but you understand that god is that, I hope!

Suppose you father tells you do not go play in traffic, he tells you this many time and thus it is made a law of his house, and if you go on to a road to play, he will stop you will all the force necessary which may even include punishment (but still all these laws come of love, and thus they are not like a speed limit law)! We also know that the natural punishment for sin is death, as it is with the traffic. But what happened, through Jesus Christ we grow up, we saw what we should be, in flesh, we were given the spirit (wisdom of God), and we where release of the law of the house. Yet would you go play in traffic even if you were freed of the punishment of the father? The spirit teaches us the same thing as the law, if they are different, then that spirit is not of God.

Of course I bet you right now, your going to say, "Law is not of faith', but you need to start understanding that they both teach the same thing, except one gives salvation,and one does not make the other void, nor makes it sinful! that which is in the law is good, but cannot bring salvation (which is like growing up and being like your father! Do not get me wrong I am not saying you are equal or greater then the father, just like), that which is in faith can bring salvation but can more easy be counterfeited, and can only give wisdom not instruction?

Do you see yet, how love and faith would bring you to do what is in the law? Not that we are under the law, or that if we do against the law we are condemned! For remember most of what is good fruits is in the law (word), and faith can not survive without good fruits!

Legalists do not have the ability to delimit their arguments along philosphical lines. They merely simplistically quote scripture.
Paul often lays down his teaching based on logic/philospohy. Eg, "was Abraham considered righteous after circumcision or before?" thus arguing within the confines of the concept of "precedent". If your dogma is not consistent with the philosophical and logical 'universals' of the secular realm (the shadow realm ) it is wrong.

I think you re confused who is using what; it is you who is skipping over my logic/philosophy arguments/questions, and concentrated your time ripping apart my ideas which are not one liners, then making them one liners and then responding to something out of context!

I will do my part to try and stop this, if I am doing it, by I would need you to do the same!

So you agree the law is not of faith, and then you assert that the Law = the Word of God. This should put you on notice that your doctrine is wrong, for in so asserting you declare the Word of God to be not of faith.

Who said it was faith that writes the laws? I never said that.
I said it was God who writes the laws, hence Gods word
In-less you are saying that God is faith, which of course is a lie, for our faith is in God, not God is faith! So by saying ?law is not faith? he is not saying, ?law is not God? thus there is nothing wrong with my logic but your understanding and nitpicking!

What you don't see is that the Word of God is not laws, but a person

What you do not see is the bible, if you think this, where does the law come from then hell? That is your logic.

If all you are saying is that the law was only made for Jesus to prove Jesus, which is what I believe your point is! I say unto you three things:

You call a man good you do that by which you call that man good!
What about the laws for Adam, he got commanded by law, and how did that turn out for him
If filling means to make void then how come Paul say the opposite

Christ = Word of God = God, which is of faith.

I believe that Jesus is the word of God, so why is it me who walks in his footsteps and you in another?

I have yet to understand your argument in this regard, if not the word of God (Christ/God) is not who you are listing to then who exactly are you listening to, that little voice in your head, or a wisdom that tells you that anyone who keeps the law can not have faith?

No, Follow God is to follow God. God is not his laws. God is His person.

First you clam Christ to be God, then God to be the word of God,

Yet, you think his laws came out of nowhere, very interesting, but very unfounded!
For if his laws did not come in his words then where did they come from?

Thus it says "as many as are led by the Spirit (the Person of the Spirit as he speaks directly to you, not via laws), they shall be the Sons of God".

That?s very interesting, you think he speak directly to you, and tells you do against the law? Very interesting, and this voice you say its Gods? Who ever told you the spirit speaks, the spirit gives you Godly wisdom which is much different then speaking, much more like understanding? Understanding what, I will give you a hint you called it Christ!

So lets see so far you proved that you hear a voice in your head that?s not your own, you should really get that look at!

A wife can follow her husband just by holding his hand and letting him lead.

Your right! but sadly the grooms away in heaven, and he has yet to come back to take his bride!

Can you not follow the Laws and still have faith,
No, because it does not take faith to follow laws. What do you think the whole NT was brought in for? Because "THE LAW IS NOT OF FAITH" (meaning "IT DOES NOT TAKE FAITH TO KEEP THE LAW")
You cannot join new cloth to old. One will tear the other.
The law schoolmastered us to marriage to Christ. Christ then does not lead us back to school. If you are looking at laws, then you are not looking at Christ. You cannot look at 2 things at the same time.

I realize you made a mistake, but did you know you just said your wrong! Sorry I left out an alternative questions, however for your answer, that very nice that you assume that you have Christ being the head of your church, I am very happy of you, so how did you guys take the revelations vision on Christ receiving his bride, that must work out very well for you, wait Christ can not take a new bride in till the old ones dead, lol? JK. That is very nice you think that, but I do not get why you go against what Jesus did which was the law, then you say your married to yet you do not do what is written of him!

Of course, since the laws are good you can also follow the laws and still have faith as long as it is out of faith that you follow the laws!
"THE LAW IS NOT OF FAITH". (Meaning: "IT DOES NOT TAKE FAITH TO KEEP THE LAW"). This means that faith replaces the law, not that it assists us to keep it. We do not have faith to follow that which has none of itself.

See no, everyone one got salvation from faith, and many kept the law (David, Job)!Of course you say they all are getting the second death, because they could not have had faith because they also followed the law. So you saying that no one but a god believing pagan could be saved!

I find it funny how you condemn me, and I only say your wrong, I never said your so wrong you will loss your salvation, you see I said one can have faith and no law (as long all he does is out of faith, of course since Christ is the word, I would see no reason why one would not complete most of the law anyways and not even know it,)

I am just saying that if you do faith and law (which has be proven possible) that you are improving your odds of being acceptable, so I am not saying you are condemn as you said to me, only be careful for this idea leads you away from trust!

Yet you keep on saying it is impossible for law to come from faith?
No. God does: "(keeping) the law is not of faith Gal 3:12".

Would it be better for you if I said doing the law, J
So I guess Job/David was either magically saved, for they kept the law out of faith.

Of course they were part of and old covenant, right?
One that allowed for the keeping of the law?
Or was it that they were saved because of law?
Or did the spirit never give man wisdom back then?
Or did Christ death not justify them as much as us?

The answer of course in no to all of those, because the old covenant was a way of thinking, the next step in the puzzle,

The law does not bring salvation that was Paul point! I am sorry that in his wisdom he confused you of such? I thought James explains it best ?faith can not survive without good acts? the same way ?law cannot be done with out faith?, as to your theory that ?law can never be done in faith, now? it would mean God changed the Game plan, and that sir is ridiculous!

Paul point in short: justified before the law so to they are justified after the law.

You would understand that he could not just say this because at the time there was many judizer who never accepted this principle. Who nitpick in order to make points!

Do not discredited the other prophets to accept Paul they are all inspired in the same spirit in the same wisdom, one building upon the other!

You where baptized in the name of the father son and Holy Spirit not Paul, know that! One can not contradict the other, each has a part to tell or do or be an example of!

Just because the law is not of faith!
That's what the ramification of the law not being of faith is!

What if God was in between the two!

Law/word comes from God
Faith comes form God
Each has its purpose

You contradict yourself once again. Here you say you follow not the laws, but God, and yet up above you say "Follow God = Follow Gods .. (Laws)".

Hardly,
"Laws are not of faith?
this explains this
Laws with out faith = empty

"Laws are not of faith"
Does not explain this
We follow God who tells us to follow the laws
Law are not of faith

You keep on thinking that then anything to do with the law can not come of faith, but in order to believe that you would have to ignore all the lives of every single bible writer and you would have to ignore most of the rest of Pauls letters, and certainly not statements!

Remember: Pauls gift was wisdom not speech he says it himself

... grammatical property of the verb "to be", which does not take an object, but a complement.
If we say "God is love", we mean "love is what God is". But it is easy to misrender it and think it to mean "God is what love is", for "is " is like "=".
So too with God and the law.

Of course God is love, I have not misreadered it;

What you seem to miss, is I am not saying Law is need for salvation, no matter how many times I say it?

The point of the law: the wisdom on how to live a life in God, or as he would live it!

That is how law cannot be law but still a commandment!

Thank you,
God Bless,
Datsar

Achichem · Sep 1, 2003

Of course Colossians, my post is very long, and I get the impression you are not much of a reader. and as you can tell even though I love writing I not that skilled at the style.

So let me make my point simple:

My beliefs

Faith is all that is needed for salvation (yet one needs to feed faith in order to keep it)
Faith cannot survive without good acts
The laws are are the footsteps or fruits of Christ
The laws can not be interpreted, if one is confused on there meaning look for an example in lives
Someone who does all their acts for Christ, who actions are good, has faith,even if they never knew the law.
The truth is judged by its fruits
Faith is not of law, but that does not mean that the law is not of God
The laws are loving instructions for our safety
In till Jesus returns we still need to see what is good and what is bad, this is gotten from the word of God, which includes but in not limited to the law, we get this in light of the wisdom of the spirit.
God never changes and neither has any rule for salvation since the beginning of time.
Who ever you call good;you do all that made you call that man good, so that you may hounor the man you called good.

or better yet:

who would you listen to?

A man who say that to know what to do in life is to follow the voice in your head,of course this man clams that this voice is God voice, even when he refuses to accept the principles that have been layed down and proven before him!claming those who came before followed the old way and had a diffrent standerd or deal.

or

do you believe the man who does his best to follow in the foot steps of his god, and clams that much of his wisdom comes of the spirit which is a documented to give wisdom. he who trusts and tries to do as the lord God tells him, in stautes and holy days in which God calls his?

he who condemns
or
he who warns

Colossians · Sep 2, 2003

datsar

It is true that God is the law (ie it is the PERSON of God himself which is the law), but it is not true that the law is God. You keep confusing the two, and this is what the SDA church does.
The SDA church is irrelevant to the conversation! I am not part of the SDA church!
Whether it is the SDA church behind what you think is not the central issue. The issue is, it might as well be behind what you think, for you believe the law is God.

The flaw with this analogy is it misrepresents God! For in regard to speed limit it is made in a legal setting taking on the form presented of God by the many of the wrongful Pharisee teachings of Jesus time!
A father does not impose this type of rule system on to his son!
There was a Father who 2000 yrs ago imposed this type of rule on his son.

So you see since the laws are not as the laws of a state but as the laws of a father
The laws of the OT carried the penatly of death for transgression. You cannot revamp them to hold less penalty. They are the law, and cannot be softened with grace. You may not separate the notions of the law, from the full fabric of the law, and call it "the law". An inseparable component of the law is penalty. Either it is law, or it is not. There is no such thing as notional law.

Suppose you father tells you do not go play in traffic,
Again as a legalist, you keep using the father-child analogy. The primary analogy in the NT is not father-child, but Husband-Wife. It is written, "when I became a man, I put way childish things". Time for you to put them away also, and be a wife to your Saviour.

through Jesus Christ we grow up, we saw what we should be, in flesh, we were given the spirit (wisdom of God), and we where release of the law of the house. Yet would you go play in traffic even if you were freed of the punishment of the father?
You contradict yourself. You tell us you have grown up, then tell us you still have a desire to go and play. If we have grown up, we have no need of laws which tell us we shouldn't play.

they (law and faith) both teach the same thing,
"The law is not of faith" Gal 3:12.

except one gives salvation,
Just a minor difference.

Do you see yet, how love and faith would bring you to do what is in the law?
If it does, so what? We don't need it - faith is sufficient. We don't put our hand to the plough, and look back. "Now that faith is come, ye are no longer under a schoolmaster".

In-less you are saying that God is faith, which of course is a lie, for our faith is in God, not God is faith!
This is where you do not understand the Spirit. Has not the scripture told us that He is all things to us? Is not faith part of all things? Is not faith the substance of things hoped for? Is not this very substance Christ himself?

So by saying ?law is not faith? he is not saying, ?law is not God?
He is indeed saying the law is not God.

What you don't see is that the Word of God is not laws, but a person
What you do not see is the bible, if you think this, where does the law come from then hell?
The law was given for a temporary measure. It was to lead us to the real law, who is not "line upon line, precept upon precept", but God Himself. But you overextend its 'use by' date.

You call a man good you do that by which you call that man good!
"There is none good but God".

If filling means to make void then how come Paul say the opposite
The law is not made void in that it has proven its utility in driving us to Christ.

I believe that Jesus is the word of God, so why is it me who walks in his footsteps and you in another?
The Spirit of Christ makes no footsteps. He lives inside you. One need not follow Him from a distancelike you are doing.

I have yet to understand your argument in this regard, if not the word of God (Christ/God) is not who you are listing to then who exactly are you listening to,
If you are listening to Christ, then why are you listening to law?

First you clam Christ to be God, then God to be the word of God,
Yet, you think his laws came out of nowhere, very interesting, but very unfounded!
Just because they were written by Him does not mean they get a permanent title: "His laws". They were simply written for a temporary measure, to show man could not fulfill them, and that only Jesus could. Once they are fulfilled, that is the end of them for those who reside within Him. What you don't see is that we are INTERNAL to Christ, not EXTERNAL. Because we are INTERNAL to Christ, we have ALREADY fulfilled all the law along with Him.

you think he speak directly to you, and tells you do against the law?
He tells me I'm not under it. So it is inapplicable. I can forget about it, and concentrate on Him instead.

A wife can follow her husband just by holding his hand and letting him lead.
Your right! but sadly the grooms away in heaven,
I think you need to check your address. "He hath seated us in heavenly places" Eph 2. He left, but I went with Him! We're still together! Which is why Jesus said "Behold I stand at the door and knock. If any man hear my voice, an open the door, I will come in , and supp with him". Guess with whom I'm dining with tonight?

See no, everyone one got salvation from faith, and many kept the law (David, Job)!
Have you not read in the law that "a Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the Lord"? Did not David proceed from a Moabite in Ruth? Thus the household of David, leading to Christ, was in permanent transgresion of the law for ever. This symbolised to us the eternal severing of the household of law from the household of faith.

(as long all he does is out of faith, of course since Christ is the word, I would see no reason why one would not complete most of the law anyways and not even know it,)
Then he doesn't need to know it.

I am just saying that if you do faith and law (which has be proven possible)
When you are doing law, you are not having faith. When you are having faith, you are not doing law.

Would it be better for you if I said doing the law, J
So I guess Job/David was either magically saved, for they kept the law out of faith.
They couldn't have, for "the law is not of faith".
The statement of Faith is: "I trust you Lord based upon your promise to me that I can ignore the law and accept you instead".

Of course they were part of and old covenant, right?
One that allowed for the keeping of the law?
Or was it that they were saved because of law?
They were saved by grace. If then by grace, what need is there for law? To be doubly saved or something? You need to read Romans 10.

The law does not bring salvation that was Paul point!
Do we need something else?

James explains it best ?faith can not survive without good acts?
Faith does not need to refer to law to bring forth Christ in our lives, any more than a woman needs to refer to an insruction manual when giving birth.

Do not discredited the other prophets to accept Paul they are all inspired in the same spirit in the same wisdom, one building upon the other!
"God will judge the secrets of men by my gospel" (Paul)

Just because the law is not of faith!
What if God was in between the two!
Forget about "what if". Worry about reality.

Law/word comes from God
Faith comes form God
Each has its purpose
The purpose of the law is to taxi us to faith. It does not hang around after it has let us out of the cab. It goes back to pick up another customer.

You keep on thinking that then anything to do with the law can not come of faith,
How stubborn are you? "The law is not (never) of faith" Gal 3:12

What you seem to miss, is I am not saying Law is need for salvation, no matter how many times I say it?
What you miss is that if it is not needed for salvation, then it is not needed.

The point of the law: the wisdom on how to live a life in God, or as he would live it!
The NT tells us Jesus Christ is the "Wisdom and ..Power of God". If we have Jesus Christ, what further need have we of the law? Do we need two wisdoms?

sojeru · Sep 2, 2003

hi tawhano
I know- i hardly ever post scripture right.
And I know that i do sometimes
But that is besides the fact that I would have to give you scripture so that you can easily find it.

well, again- I will leave you with this fact.
If Jesus Messiah broke any of the laws, by what you claim, sabbath- that means he was exactly the same as us- did not conquer, sin because he sinned- and therefore not the messiah in the christian view.
He must fulfill(do) ALL as the same he requires of all that listened to him Mat5:17-20
that simple.
I will get down to the nitty gritty with you once i have had time to write a little article.

shalom u'bracha

4sightsounds · Sep 2, 2003

Colossians said:
4sights,

Actually, the word sin appears in the greek text in the present infinitive case, which does mean to sin continuously...so in a sense, they're interpretation is correct.
An infinitive does not imply continuity. It is undefined.
If I say "I shall go home", the word "go" is in the infinitive mood. (It is not governed by the pronoun "I".) And it implies no continuity.

The bible never speaks in terms of degrees. For how would one define "pratice sinning"? It speaks in terms of state.
The content of 1 John 3:9 tells us that the reason one cannot sin is because Christ's seed remaineth in him. It also tells us it is because he is born of God.
It is evident that the "he" who is born of God, and the one who cannot sin, are the same person. Now in order for the modern versions to be rendered correct, the "he" would have to refer to the whole human, in whom dwells both the old and new man.
But he that is born of God cannot be the whole human, for "flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God". He that is born of God can only be He who proceeds from God. And support for this is found in Rom 7:14-25, in which it is expounded that the one who sins, and the one who does not sin, being both conceptually in the one human, are mutually exlusive.

Upon the basis of the exhaustive exlusivity of "whosoever is born of God", (he cannot be intermingled/adulterated with a whosoever who is not born of God), any sin whatsoever in the "whosoever" is precluded.

You're absolutely right. I'm starting to see your point. This has been a most interesting thread.

Tawhano · Sep 2, 2003

sojeru Said:
If Jesus Messiah broke any of the laws, by what you claim...

By what I claim? Did I not post scriptures that showed the letter of the law that Jesus broke? Did not the Jews leaders want to kill Jesus because he broke the law?

John 5:18
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

If I have taken the scriptures out of context then please feel free to correct me. I read those verses in the OT about the law of keeping the Sabbath and saw that Jesus did not observe them. If he did not observe them then he broke the law.

sojeru Said:
If Jesus Messiah broke any of the laws, by what you claim, sabbath- that means he was exactly the same as us- did not conquer, sin because he sinned- and therefore not the messiah in the christian view.
He must fulfill(do) ALL as the same he requires of all that listened to him Mat5:17-20 that simple.

Therein is the problem isnt it? Jesus did not sin; he knew no sin; yet he broke the Sabbath. So how can that be? This is what I am trying to get you to explain to me. You explained the part about David and the priest, which I understand but that didnt explain to me why they were blameless if they broke the letter of the law, which I believe they did. You said it was because they were clean that made them blameless but I find no scripture that indicates that someone being clean is able to ignore the letter of the law. Indeed, it was the letter of the law they followed that made them clean. So please explain to me why they were blameless when they broke the law.

Achichem · Sep 2, 2003

Ok, before I properly address your points I wish you to first answer some questions so that I may have a clearer understanding of your position and thus address the underling points with more accuracy.

this is because in my eyes you have yet to answer any of my question, or for that matter address any logic I have presented, or presented an argument based on any other scriptures then the few you used from Paul, which are taken out of context, but that is not the point at hand!So please answer these so that I can adress you as you want, and we can have a more productive debate.

How do you view the trinity relationship, which theory to you attain?
God lives in you, fine, but how do you get his knowledge, how does his fruits come out?
Do you think God is a doer of all the laws he gave to Moses?
Do you think a Christian who learns and lives by the laws is condemned?
Do you think all it takes to get faith is baptism?
Do you believe in all the principles behind the laws?
Jesus said you shall know them by their fruits, what are the fruits he was referring?
Do you think one can loss their faith, if so how?

Second, I would please ask you to rephrase your answers for these questions, as you clearly do not understand their purpose:

datsar said:
So by saying law is not faith he is not saying, law is not God

datsar said:
He is indeed saying the law is not God.

In-less you are saying that God is faith, which of course is a lie, for our faith is in God, not God is faith

This is where you do not understand the Spirit. Has not the scripture told us that He is all things to us? Is not faith part of all things? Is not faith the substance of things hoped for? Is not this very substance Christ himself?

My answers:
Yes, no, don not understand, but I think no, no

So please clarify, thanks

Do not discredited the other prophets to accept Paul they are all inspired in the same spirit in the same wisdom, one building upon the other!

"God will judge the secrets of men by my gospel" (Paul)

If Paul said that the way you put it into context, he would have been a false teacher!

James explains it best ?faith can not survive without good acts?

Click to expand...

Faith does not need to refer to law to bring forth Christ in our lives, any more than a woman needs to refer to an instruction manual when giving birth.

Then the good acts are defined as how?

I have yet to understand your argument in this regard, if not the word of God (Christ/God) is not who you are listing to then who exactly are you listening to,

If you are listening to Christ, then why are you listening to law?

Simple it was Christ (one mind with the father) who gave us the laws!

You call a man good you do that by which you call that man good!
"There is none good but God".

Which man do you think I was referring?
You call God good! You do that by which you call good in him!

God Bless,
Datsar

Not under the law

just a Jew

just a Jew

Faithful

just a Jew

Faithful

Veteran

Faithful

Northland Highwayman

Northland Highwayman

just a Jew

Veteran

Veteran

Northland Highwayman

Faithful

Faithful

Veteran

just a Jew

Not playing games...

Northland Highwayman

Faithful

Similar threads