A study of Matthew 5:17-20

[Studyman]

It's unfortunate that you misquoted Paul. He wrote, "For sin will have no mastery over you, for you are not under the law, but under grace" (Romans 6:14) That is as clear a statement as one can find about this subject. Let's try again: You are not under the law means ... you are not under the law.

" For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would inherit the world was not fulfilled through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if they become heirs by the law, faith is empty and the promise is nullified. For the law brings wrath, because where there is no law there is no transgression either." Romans 4:13-15

You must accept The Scriptures over the religious philosophies of men. Yes, that means you.

You, are, NOT, under, the, law! If you want to put yourself back under the Law, may God have mercy on your soul.

I understand that in order to understand what the Scriptures say, I must consider them all. You are accepting the Word's of the Bible which promote your religious philosophy, and ignoring the ones I post which bring your religious philosophy into question, refusing to even acknowledge they exist.

Putting myself back under the Law would be rejecting God and HIS Law as I did when I was a child of disobedience. The Mainstream Preachers of Jesus time also omitted much of God's instruction, refusing to even acknowledge them. It didn't work out so well for those men. I think it is a mistake to believe you can do the same and be spared.

Rom. 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

There are also Words from the Bible. Shall we not also believe in them?

Like the Jesus of the Bible says;

"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by Every Word that proceeds from to mouth of God".

 

[pescador]

Romans 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Do you concede that the above verse contrasts the law of God with the law of sin and therefore we should not assume the every time that Paul spoke about the law was referring to the law of God?

I wouldn't concede any such thing. Taking one verse out of context is a very, very poor way to prove your point. I read and understand Scripture in context. Why don't you try reading the Bible to try to understand what God's word is all about instead of nit-picking out-of-context verses to justify your predetermined dogma?

 

[pescador]

I understand that in order to understand what the Scriptures say, I must consider them all. You are accepting the Word's of the Bible which promote your religious philosophy, and ignoring the ones I post which bring your religious philosophy into question, refusing to even acknowledge they exist.

Putting myself back under the Law would be rejecting God and HIS Law as I did when I was a child of disobedience. The Mainstream Preachers of Jesus time also omitted much of God's instruction, refusing to even acknowledge them. It didn't work out so well for those men. I think it is a mistake to believe you can do the same and be spared.

Rom. 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

There are also Words from the Bible. Shall we not also believe in them?

Like the Jesus of the Bible says;

"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by Every Word that proceeds from to mouth of God".

You wrote, "You are accepting the Word's [sic] of the Bible which promote your religious philosophy, and ignoring the ones I post which bring your religious philosophy into question." and "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by Every Word that proceeds from to [sic] mouth of God"

You also said, "For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee." This must be about you. I'm assuming you're not a Jew like I am.

Back at ya' 8^)

 

[Soyeong]

I wouldn't concede any such thing. Taking one verse out of context is a very, very poor way to prove your point. I read and understand Scripture in context. Why don't you try reading the Bible to try to understand what God's word is all about instead of nit-picking out-of-context verses to justify your predetermined dogma?

I do read the Bible to try to understand what God's word is all about and it is not my intention to take anything out of context, so if you think that I've taken done that, then by all means please explain why you think that and how you think that the verse should be correctly understood within its proper context. I have have explain why I think that you have taken the verses that you've quoted out of context, so it is pointless for you to refuse to engage with what I've said while accusing me of taking verses out of context without explaining why you think that is the case. You interpreting the Bible as being against obeying God's word is the opposite of reading the Bible to try to understand what God's word is all about.

 

[pescador]

I do read the Bible to try to understand what God's word is all about and it is not my intention to take anything out of context, so if you think that I've taken done that, then by all means please explain why you think that and how you think that the verse should be correctly understood within its proper context. I have have explain why I think that you have taken the verses that you've quoted out of context, so it is pointless for you to refuse to engage with what I've said while accusing me of taking verses out of context without explaining why you think that is the case. You interpreting the Bible as being against obeying God's word is the opposite of reading the Bible to try to understand what God's word is all about.

I'm not going to repeat what I have already posted.

When you write something like this --"You interpreting the Bible as being against obeying God's word is the opposite of reading the Bible to try to understand what God's word is all about." -- doesn't even deserve an answer.

 

[Soyeong]

I'm not going to repeat what I have already posted.

When you write something like this --"You interpreting the Bible as being against obeying God's word is the opposite of reading the Bible to try to understand what God's word is all about." -- doesn't even deserve an answer.

I want you to engage with what I have written, not ignore what I have written and repeat what you have already posted. God's law is God's word and you are the one speaking against God's word.

 

[pescador]

I want you to engage with what I have written, not ignore what I have written and repeat what you have already posted. God's law is God's word and you are the one speaking against God's word.

I want you to engage with what I have written, not ignore what I have written and repeat what you have already posted.

God's law is God's word? Really, then why does John write "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him [not the law] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him [not the law] was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." John 1:1-5

God's law is the Old Covenant. It has been superseded by the New Covenant, which is based on a living person, not a written manuscript. Living under the law, once one knows about Christ, is blasphemy.

I am praying that the eyes of your heart might be enlightened!