OLD COVENANT SHADOWS POINTING TO THE NEW

bugkiller · May 26, 2018

LoveGodsWord said:
Because FAITH establishes God's LAW in the BELIEVER. This is the NEW COVENANT.

No. Paul can not say we are delivered from the law and it is our rule of faith we are obligated to. So Rom 3:31 must be saying something else. I suggest Paul is saying we acknowledge the law is. Here is a definition of establish - achieve permanent recognition for.

Now be nice and accuse me of not reading the rest of your post.

bugkiller

listed · May 30, 2018

bugkiller said:
I know this. However the rules of English grammar are different and require punctuation. The KJV is not a literal word for word rendition. It is fairly accurate even today. Word meanings and how they are used does change.Rules of English. You have to prove a change of subject even if you use the Greek. You can not do this.Greek for above English text. It does not make your point either.You just said there is no punctuation in Greek. So where are you getting this from? Please pay attention to the blue above in your quote. Thanks.No because it is the law that passes the sentence of death.This is addressed especially to and for the benefit of Jewish believers. Gentiles could care less about matters of the law.NOPE!!!!There is no such passage to be found saying bound only by violation.NOPE!!!!9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

I also quoted this verse to show the other thing it says. So please note the emphasis I made in your quote. Who do you think the Christian is in the verse? Is it the righteous or is it the wicked unregenerate? And no I did not change the meaning of the verse in either case.No because -

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; I Tim 1

You are not using the law lawfully.If you say I am not righteous (sin) because I do not observe the sabbath, you effectively say righteousness is by the law. Make up your mind.IOW one is not righteous. You prove my point without my input.If I have not told you to explain what I think the OC is, please do so now. I will quote Moses for you again.Your intention here is to call me a liar with Scripture by misuse. Here is the proof -

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. I Jn 3Here you make further accusations against through the Scripture.

You ignore the word also

You claim I do not know Jesus or God

You claim I am of the devil

I would ask why these things are not true about you

You transgress the law you demand I keep

You sin so by your quoted emphasis You do not know God or Jesus

You claim to be of the devil because you sin

What are the commandments of God (hint - I Jn 3:23) and what is the testimony of Jesus Christ? (hint - it is not the law)Ditto the above with the exception of what is the faith of Jesus? IOW what did Jesus believe He came to do and did He accomplish this?You are gloating about being able to do something you say I can not. You are misusing and assigning the pronoun and word "commandments." You add to the text to mean the 10 Cs. This is not what the text says. See I Jn 3:23.Yes and Amen here. Notice it says obedience to the faith. It does not say obedience to the law.

23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Rom 14Your claim here is I continue in (practice) sin. The problem is I am not subject to the law issued at Sinai to Israel. I have a new and better covenant based on better promises instead of law.This does not mean we are to follow the law.

18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Gal 5

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Rom 7

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. Gal 4

3 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Gal

The rest of your post appears in my next post.

bugkiller

Ouch!

ralliann · May 31, 2018

bugkiller said:
No. Paul can not say we are delivered from the law and it is our rule of faith we are obligated to. So Rom 3:31 must be saying something else. I suggest Paul is saying we acknowledge the law is. Here is a definition of establish - achieve permanent recognition for.

Now be nice and accuse me of not reading the rest of your post.

bugkiller

Hi bug killer. Looking at that text you will note it goes right to Abraham. See what Paul says here. He speaks of it as hearing the law.
Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
The law is not only Levitical law/Jewish law. The law is also the covenant promises made To Abraham. Do we establish that in Christ?
Ga 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Sure we do.
But we do not establish the Sinai covenant. Some might confuse the two?

bugkiller · May 31, 2018

ralliann said:
Hi bug killer. Looking at that text you will note it goes right to Abraham. See what Paul says here. He speaks of it as hearing the law.
Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
The law is not only Levitical law/Jewish law. The law is also the covenant promises made To Abraham. Do we establish that in Christ?
Ga 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Sure we do.
But we do not establish the Sinai covenant. Some might confuse the two?

I am very sorry if you think I was avoiding the passage you quote. The purpose of the allegory was to sever the law from Christians (specifically Jewish Christians). That is why I only mentioned v 30.

The law is not given to Abraham.

3 The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. Deut 5

We do not establish the law as a rule of governance as Christians. That would be pitting Paul against himself.

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Rom 3

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Rom 7

Responding more to your complete post, I quote -

13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, Rom 4

bugkiller

ralliann · Jun 1, 2018

bugkiller said:
I am very sorry if you think I was avoiding the passage you quote. The purpose of the allegory was to sever the law from Christians (specifically Jewish Christians). That is why I only mentioned v 30.

The law is not given to Abraham.

3 The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. Deut 5

We do not establish the law as a rule of governance as Christians. That would be pitting Paul against himself.

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Rom 3

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Rom 7

Responding more to your complete post, I quote -

13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, Rom 4

bugkiller

Yep, that is why I brought it up. Simply put, Paul was referring to the text as the law period. He was obviously not speaking about Moses law for all the reasons you pointed out.

listed · Jun 1, 2018

ralliann said:
Yep, that is why I brought it up. Simply put, Paul was referring to the text as the law period. He was obviously not speaking about Moses law for all the reasons you pointed out.

The law and Moses' law are the same.

ralliann · Jun 1, 2018

listed said:
The law and Moses' law are the same.

Not always. Moses law sometimes speaks of the entire first five books. Sometimes it refers to law spoken by the mouth of Moses or Levitical law. Paul in that passage was referring to Abraham, which Levitical law was not until 430 years later.
Law from the beginning...
Ro 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Levitical law....
Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

bugkiller · Jun 1, 2018

ralliann said:
Not always. Moses law sometimes speaks of the entire first five books. Sometimes it refers to law spoken by the mouth of Moses or Levitical law. Paul in that passage was referring to Abraham, which Levitical law was not until 430 years later.
Law from the beginning...
Ro 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Levitical law....
Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

So if a part of the law is referenced is it not still the same law as the collective?

bugkiller

klutedavid · Jun 6, 2018

ralliann said:
Not always. Moses law sometimes speaks of the entire first five books. Sometimes it refers to law spoken by the mouth of Moses or Levitical law. Paul in that passage was referring to Abraham, which Levitical law was not until 430 years later.
Law from the beginning...
Ro 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Levitical law....
Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Hello ralliann.

Paul is referring to the written law, there is no other way to read that verse. The word, 'law', is not found in the book of Genesis.

ralliann · Jun 6, 2018

klutedavid said:
Hello ralliann.

Paul is referring to the written law, there is no other way to read that verse. The word, 'law', is not found in the book of Genesis.

Hi there klutedavid

What is it here...…
Gen 25:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Laws here is Heb #08451
The Greek is νομιμα (nomima)

ralliann · Jun 6, 2018

bugkiller said:
So if a part of the law is referenced is it not still the same law as the collective?

bugkiller

Part of the law? I believe law which was before Sinai, was not abolished at Sinai. I
see them (or it) as retained. Or even Levitical law as additional law.
God warns Israel concerning the nations which were in the land before them. Speaking of how they defiled themselves and the land. God warns in no uncertain terms, he will spew them out also if they do as those did.

klutedavid · Jun 6, 2018

One occurrence and a very dubious occurrence.

That literal pattern, 'commandments, statutes and laws', is from the literal pattern displayed in the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The author of that Genesis text was from a much later era.

Abraham did not have the commandments, statutes and the law.
Unless you think that Abraham had the entire written law before Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy?

bugkiller · Jun 6, 2018

klutedavid said:
One occurrence and a very dubious occurrence.

That literal pattern, 'commandments, statutes and laws', is from the literal pattern displayed in the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The author of that Genesis text was from a much later era.

Abraham did not have the commandments, statutes and the law.
Unless you think that Abraham had the entire written law before Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy?

At any rate what Abraham had was not given to Israel. Maybe better stated is what was given to Israel was not given to Abraham.

bugkiller

klutedavid · Jun 6, 2018

bugkiller said:
At any rate what Abraham had was not given to Israel. Maybe better stated is what was given to Israel was not given to Abraham.

bugkiller

At any rate? You don't take every line of the scripture as handwritten by God Himself?

What Abraham had, i.e., the commandment to circumcise, Israel certainly had the very same commandment. Israel received the written law and Abraham did not have that written law.

Abraham did not have the temple.
Abraham did not have the priesthood either.
Abraham did not have Exodus, Deuteronomy or Leviticus.

Regardless of what anyone might imagine, the written law came much later at Mt Sinai.

bugkiller · Jun 6, 2018

klutedavid said:
At any rate? You don't take every line of the scripture as handwritten by God Himself?

What Abraham had, i.e., the commandment to circumcise, Israel certainly had the very same commandment. Israel received the written law and Abraham did not have that written law.

Abraham did not have the temple.
Abraham did not have the priesthood either.
Abraham did not have Exodus, Deuteronomy or Leviticus.

Regardless of what anyone might imagine, the written law came much later at Mt Sinai.

Right the Bible authors were not taking dictation.

bugkiller

ralliann · Jun 6, 2018

klutedavid said:
One occurrence and a very dubious occurrence.

That literal pattern, 'commandments, statutes and laws', is from the literal pattern displayed in the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The author of that Genesis text was from a much later era.

Abraham did not have the commandments, statutes and the law.
Unless you think that Abraham had the entire written law before Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy?

No he did not have Moses law, I thought my original post was clear on that.

klutedavid · Jun 7, 2018

What original post?

Save me the time and print it here.

If you want to say that Abraham had some commandments before the law at Mt Sinai. Then just print the versus from Genesis that specify these commandments.

klutedavid · Jun 7, 2018

bugkiller said:
Right the Bible authors were not taking dictation.

bugkiller

Not all the time and that's a fact.

ralliann · Jun 7, 2018

klutedavid said:
Not all the time and that's a fact.

I already did that....Gen 26:5
Which law I gave as that which was spoken of by Paul here...
I Ro 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Which law I said Noah also kept.....
There is a contrast between two laws here. One of works, one of faith.
Which I believe is spoken of here....This portion of Hebrews has been coined the Faith hall of fame
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Said of Abraham...
Ge 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

ralliann · Jun 7, 2018

bugkiller said:
Right the Bible authors were not taking dictation.

bugkiller

They were written by inspiration

OLD COVENANT SHADOWS POINTING TO THE NEW

Well-Known Member

are you?

christian

Well-Known Member

christian

are you?

christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

christian

christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

christian

christian

Similar threads