Been told

[Frogster]

I have a very strong desire to respond to this post in yet another way.
Just comparing your restatement of the quoted verse shows an altering of the sentence and thus the meaning. I checked several Bible versions and none -not a single one came even close to your restatement that you put in quotes. Very deceiving to those not paying attention to detail. Here are some examples:

the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work (NIV 84)

the law aroused these evil desires that produced a harvest of sinful deeds
now, "which were aroused by the law". (NLT 07)

aroused by the law (ESV 01)

were aroused by the Law (NASB 95)

by means of the law, (ISV 08)

Stirred up by Moses' laws (GWT 95)

the motions of sins, which were by the law, (AKJV)

which came into being through the law (BBE)

which were through the law (RSV)

sinful passions-- made sinful by the Law (WNT)

This is from the Jamiesons-Fausset-Brown bible commentary:

5. For when we were in the flesh-in our unregenerate state, as we came into the world. See on [2210]Joh 3:6 and [2211]Ro 8:5-9.
the motions-"passions" (Margin), "affections" (as in Ga 5:24), or "stirrings."
of sins-that is, "prompting to the commission of sins." which were by the law-by occasion of the law, which fretted, irritated our inward corruption by its prohibitions. See on [2212]Ro 7:7-9. Oh could we get into serious trouble here or what? Just to many issues in that statement to touch.Not quite that way. It is the think on the subject being addressed by the law thus the arousal. One is then entertaining thoughts on the subject, thus arousal.Now I can buy that. However there is much more as already indicated above. Technically that is correct. Indirectly that is very incorrect. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James 1:14Romans 14:23 - And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

glad we are on the same side! dang, you should have been a lawyer!

 

[JohnRabbit]

Uh, Mr Rabbit, I don't know you, but there is some grave error here. Sorry
In that first covenant, we all know that sin didn't come but by the law. That is what Paul is plainly stating.

Many things that people did prior to the law wasn't sin until after the law came and made it sin. We all know that. "Law" 101.

To make it simple, here's a question to prove that point;

Would Jesus have been cursed and made sin for us if it wasn't the law itself specifically that cursed him into being made sin for us?

(Gal 3:13) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

So then? What cursed Him and made Him sin for us?

Thanks

(froggy put your hand down, I know you know)

you addressed me so i will answer.

first off, i don't agree with your statement:

"Many things that people did prior to the law wasn't sin until after the law came and made it sin. We all know that. "Law" 101."

i'd just simply refer you to gen 4:7

Genesis 4:7 ( NKJV ) 7If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

again, your statement:

"Many things that people did prior to the law wasn't sin until after the law came and made it sin. We all know that. "Law" 101."

yet, God is talking to cain about sin, interesting. also notice the "doing well" and "not doing well".

how would cain know how to do well? there had to be a standard, something.

God is talking to cain about sin, because he obviously revealed all this to adam and his family.

Romans 4:15 ( NKJV ) 15... for where there is no law there is no transgression. and we know that sin is the transgression of the law 1jn 3:4.

now, i know someone else in this thread posted this as "another" definition of sin:

Romans 14:23 ( NKJV ) 23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

but, "he who does not from faith", even that goes to law, in that, have no faith and you reject God, violating the first commandment. so this not "another" definition of sin. it expounds.

of course, i believe that the law was already in force before sinai.

and to your other question from (gal 3:13):

"So then? What cursed Him and made Him sin for us?"

the law cursed Jesus!

the law had blessings and curses:

Deuteronomy 11:26-28 ( NKJV ) 26“Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse: 27the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you today; 28and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you today, to go after other gods which you have not known.

Joshua 8:34 ( NKJV ) 34And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and the cursings, according to all that is written in the Book of the Law.

there were blessings and curses written in the law and Jesus fulfilled one that was written in deut 21.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 ( NKJV ) 22“If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God.

that's exactly what happened to the Christ, He was hung on a tree. so if you are trying to say that the law is a curse for us.....? not sure what you are saying on that.

the law that defines sin is the ten commandments, it is a spiritual law (rom 7:14).

this is the law that God will write in hearts in the new covenant. the last time He wrote it on stone, but He says:

Jeremiah 31:33 ( NKJV ) 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

compare that to:

Exodus 31:18 ( NKJV ) 18And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

so, to me, there's no doubt as to what law He is going to write in our hearts.

you also said:

"In that first covenant, we all know that sin didn't come but by the law. That is what Paul is plainly stating."

i disagree with you here, paul said:

Romans 7:7 ( NKJV ) 7What 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.”

it's not that sin didn't come but by the law, it's that sin was already present (rom 7:5), and the law made paul aware that the passions, he already possessed, came to light through the law. he says so in rom 7:7!

now take what paul has written in rom 7:7 and compare it to this, the conversation jethro had with moses in exodus 18. jethro said:

Exodus 18:21 ( NKJV ) 21Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

remember, paul said "For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”"

so, how did jethro know about covetousness?

 

[from scratch]

it's an exercise in futility.

Would you mind addressing in detail Jer 31:31-34? That has to do with the dismissal of the first covenant (Mosaic covenant).

You leave me guessing that I'm very correct in my position. You sure won't address the things I bring up at much length, if at all. The things I bring up that you cause you to say I don't understand aren't addressed by you. Your above quoted post isn't much of a defense. It is more like a quiter's statement.

So far in this thread you have made statements and seem to refuse even a first go round discussion. I met you almost word for word on every point. It must be very bullet proof. You're not penetrating at all, even from Moses. You don't seem to be able to handle my objections at all. I think it is because you can't.

I must ask myself whose postion is defendable with the Scriptures? How did you defend that the first covenant is at least partially in effect today? Did I pass over it? Where? You haven't even said anything about the definition of sin given in Romans 14:23? Why? Why don't you think it is important when you present I John 3:4 and ignore verse 23? I have yet to see any discussion from your side on this. I would like to see you discuss in deatil John 15:10. I would present it for my side of this discussion to show that there is a difference in commandments, thus covenants. I don't think you can slide by it either. It would run you into problems with the Trinity. Just like Ex 33:20 does. Then we could get into the do as Jesus did bit. Oh what a pleasure that would be for me.

I highly value the truth. I think that is what we're talking about.

What have you shown that I don't understand about the first covenant? Is it that you're trying to convince me to follow some of the law (keep the Sabbath) by some kind of obligation as a Christian? If this isn't so I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Try some questions.

I certianly don't understand what it is about Jer 31:31-34 you don't understand. I have been through that quite a few times in detail.
Maybe it would work if you asked me questions and challenged my answers.

You haven't even shown me an obligation to the law (first covenant) from the Gospels, Acts or Revelation. What is the purpose of the first covenant? Is it a shadow of what is to come? Did it come? I think so. Thus it did its purpose. Yet you might claim that the saints kept the commandments in Revelation. I don't recall you discussing what those commandments are except to claim that they are the 10 commandments with no proof. You will say nothing about any counter point. You simply disappear. I think you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Heavens]

JOHN RABBIT SAID:
You addressed me so i will answer.

first off, i don't agree with your statement:

"Many things that people did prior to the law wasn't sin until after the law came and made it sin. We all know that. "Law" 101."

i'd just simply refer you to gen 4:7

Genesis 4:7 ( NKJV ) 7If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

And as we see, he couldn't do well.
Exactly my point.

again, your statement:

"Many things that people did prior to the law wasn't sin until after the law came and made it sin. We all know that. "Law" 101."

yet, God is talking to cain about sin, interesting. also notice the "doing well" and "not doing well".

how would cain know how to do well? there had to be a standard, something.

Of course, God's word AT THAT TIME.
Again, my point is proven
At first it was just "thou shalt not eat"... Then it expanded, until finally the MARRIAGE "Law" was given at Sinai.
There was only ONE MARRIAGE LAW. That is the "Law" spoken of by Paul as being "abolished" by death of the husband, so that we can be remarried to Christ resurrected in the New Marriage Covenant as promised in Jer 31:31-34.

God is talking to cain about sin, because he obviously revealed all this to adam and his family.

Romans 4:15 ( NKJV ) 15... for where there is no law there is no transgression. and we know that sin is the transgression of the law 1jn 3:4.

now, i know someone else in this thread posted this as "another" definition of sin:

Romans 14:23 ( NKJV ) 23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

but, "he who does not from faith", even that goes to law, in that, have no faith and you reject God, violating the first commandment. so this not "another" definition of sin. it expounds.

of course, i believe that the law was already in force before sinai.

Nope.
Not possible.
It isn't scriptural.
Therefore it isn't so.
Whoever told you that??
The word of God that was spoken and in force prior to His Marriage at Sinai were the Words God spoke prior to Sinai. We can read them.
For the rest, those who had no law were only a law unto themselves, which law also only brought death, even though there was no "sin". (Rom 2:12-14)

and to your other question from (gal 3:13):

"So then? What cursed Him and made Him sin for us?"

the law cursed Jesus!

the law had blessings and curses:

Deuteronomy 11:26-28 ( NKJV ) 26“Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse: 27the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you today; 28and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you today, to go after other gods which you have not known.

Joshua 8:34 ( NKJV ) 34And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and the cursings, according to all that is written in the Book of the Law.

there were blessings and curses written in the law and Jesus fulfilled one that was written in deut 21.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 ( NKJV ) 22“If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God.

that's exactly what happened to the Christ, He was hung on a tree. so if you are trying to say that the law is a curse for us.....? not sure what you are saying on that.

the law that defines sin is the ten commandments, it is a spiritual law (rom 7:14).

I understand totally why you aren't sure.
Not one person was righteous under the law. Law 101 again.
But Jesus was!
yet the Law wrongly condemned the One man who kept the righteousness of the Law. The most pronounced PARADOX in ALL of creation.
As intended, the Law self destructed by condemning a righteous man.

The law wasn't made for a righteous man. Which was Jesus in fact, the only one it could apply to at that time, (prior to His righteousness in us).

(1Ti 1:9) 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,

That righteous man who kept the law, as you acknowledged above, was condemned by that same law!

THE LAW CURSED THE ONLY RIGHTEOUS MAN EVER.

IMAGINE what it would do to the lawless and disobedient! LOL! Thank God we aren't under THAT LAW!

So the Law burned itself out of existence when Christ fulfilled it and then got killed by the very Law He wrote. Kapoot! Gone.
Now we don't have that carnal law written in stone, we have the SPIRITUAL LAW written in our hearts.

(2Co 3:3) Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

this is the law that God will write in hearts in the new covenant. the last time He wrote it on stone, but He says:

Jeremiah 31:33 ( NKJV ) 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

compare that to:

Exodus 31:18 ( NKJV ) 18And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

so, to me, there's no doubt as to what law He is going to write in our hearts.

That has been fulfilled to scratch, frog, myself, and many others who are married to Christ in the New Marriage Covenant in His Blood. Hopefully He is going to write it in your heart too so you can give up looking at that old abolished law that only brings death.

you also said:

"In that first covenant, we all know that sin didn't come but by the law. That is what Paul is plainly stating."

i disagree with you here, paul said:

Romans 7:7 ( NKJV ) 7What 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.”

it's not that sin didn't come but by the law, it's that sin was already present (rom 7:5), and the law made paul aware that the passions, he already possessed, came to light through the law. he says so in rom 7:7!

now take what paul has written in rom 7:7 and compare it to this, the conversation jethro had with moses in exodus 18. jethro said:

Exodus 18:21 ( NKJV ) 21Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

remember, paul said "For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”"

so, how did jethro know about covetousness?

Quite obviously he learned it apart from the law.

Only the doers of the law are justified;

(Rom 2:13) (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

And yet, the only one "doer" of that law who was righteous, was condemned by it.

Not one person ever has, or ever will, as we can simply see, keep the law.

To make it easy, recognize it for the "marriage" that it was, that old lawful marriage covenant. Then it will be clear.

It has been dissolved. God divorced Israel and widowed Judah. (Isa 50:1, 47:9)

We, divorced/widowed Israel, are redeemed in the New Marriage Covenant, and are married to Christ resurrected in righteousness, bringing forth children of God. Rom 7:3,4)

(The old law sure couldn't produce children of God from a harlot, that is what God wants you to know Rabbit)

God didn't divorce and widow that old marriage covenant harlot, just to keep the harlot and her marriage contract at hand for some morbid reason. What MAN would even do such an abominable thing??

So many scriptures that scratch and frog have displayed showing that the law ushered sin in, I'm not going to reinvent the wheel. But you would be wise to listen to them

Blessings!

 

[Frogster]

you addressed me so i will answer.

first off, i don't agree with your statement:

"Many things that people did prior to the law wasn't sin until after the law came and made it sin. We all know that. "Law" 101."

i'd just simply refer you to gen 4:7

Genesis 4:7 ( NKJV ) 7If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

again, your statement:

"Many things that people did prior to the law wasn't sin until after the law came and made it sin. We all know that. "Law" 101."

yet, God is talking to cain about sin, interesting. also notice the "doing well" and "not doing well".

how would cain know how to do well? there had to be a standard, something.

God is talking to cain about sin, because he obviously revealed all this to adam and his family.

Romans 4:15 ( NKJV ) 15... for where there is no law there is no transgression. and we know that sin is the transgression of the law 1jn 3:4.

now, i know someone else in this thread posted this as "another" definition of sin:

Romans 14:23 ( NKJV ) 23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

but, "he who does not from faith", even that goes to law, in that, have no faith and you reject God, violating the first commandment. so this not "another" definition of sin. it expounds.

of course, i believe that the law was already in force before sinai.

and to your other question from (gal 3:13):

"So then? What cursed Him and made Him sin for us?"

the law cursed Jesus!

the law had blessings and curses:

Deuteronomy 11:26-28 ( NKJV ) 26“Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse: 27the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you today; 28and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you today, to go after other gods which you have not known.

Joshua 8:34 ( NKJV ) 34And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and the cursings, according to all that is written in the Book of the Law.

there were blessings and curses written in the law and Jesus fulfilled one that was written in deut 21.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 ( NKJV ) 22“If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God.

that's exactly what happened to the Christ, He was hung on a tree. so if you are trying to say that the law is a curse for us.....? not sure what you are saying on that.

the law that defines sin is the ten commandments, it is a spiritual law (rom 7:14).

this is the law that God will write in hearts in the new covenant. the last time He wrote it on stone, but He says:

Jeremiah 31:33 ( NKJV ) 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

compare that to:

Exodus 31:18 ( NKJV ) 18And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

so, to me, there's no doubt as to what law He is going to write in our hearts.

you also said:

"In that first covenant, we all know that sin didn't come but by the law. That is what Paul is plainly stating."

i disagree with you here, paul said:

Romans 7:7 ( NKJV ) 7What 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.”

it's not that sin didn't come but by the law, it's that sin was already present (rom 7:5), and the law made paul aware that the passions, he already possessed, came to light through the law. he says so in rom 7:7!

now take what paul has written in rom 7:7 and compare it to this, the conversation jethro had with moses in exodus 18. jethro said:

Exodus 18:21 ( NKJV ) 21Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

remember, paul said "For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”"

so, how did jethro know about covetousness?

If mosaic law was in effetct, pre-sinai, why wasn't cain stoned?

Don't you understand, if what your saying is true, that it was, that would have totaaaaally overthrown paul's argument in galatians?

17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

Paul was stressing that it was not about law, if the law was there prior to abraham, that would defeat the whole purpose!

rokm 4:13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.


DANG!

 

[Frogster]

you addressed me so i will answer.

first off, i don't agree with your statement:

"Many things that people did prior to the law wasn't sin until after the law came and made it sin. We all know that. "Law" 101."

i'd just simply refer you to gen 4:7

Genesis 4:7 ( NKJV ) 7If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

again, your statement:

"Many things that people did prior to the law wasn't sin until after the law came and made it sin. We all know that. "Law" 101."

yet, God is talking to cain about sin, interesting. also notice the "doing well" and "not doing well".

how would cain know how to do well? there had to be a standard, something.

God is talking to cain about sin, because he obviously revealed all this to adam and his family.

Romans 4:15 ( NKJV ) 15... for where there is no law there is no transgression. and we know that sin is the transgression of the law 1jn 3:4.

now, i know someone else in this thread posted this as "another" definition of sin:

Romans 14:23 ( NKJV ) 23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

but, "he who does not from faith", even that goes to law, in that, have no faith and you reject God, violating the first commandment. so this not "another" definition of sin. it expounds.

of course, i believe that the law was already in force before sinai.

and to your other question from (gal 3:13):

"So then? What cursed Him and made Him sin for us?"

the law cursed Jesus!

the law had blessings and curses:

Deuteronomy 11:26-28 ( NKJV ) 26“Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse: 27the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you today; 28and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you today, to go after other gods which you have not known.

Joshua 8:34 ( NKJV ) 34And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and the cursings, according to all that is written in the Book of the Law.

there were blessings and curses written in the law and Jesus fulfilled one that was written in deut 21.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 ( NKJV ) 22“If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God.

that's exactly what happened to the Christ, He was hung on a tree. so if you are trying to say that the law is a curse for us.....? not sure what you are saying on that.

the law that defines sin is the ten commandments, it is a spiritual law (rom 7:14).

this is the law that God will write in hearts in the new covenant. the last time He wrote it on stone, but He says:

Jeremiah 31:33 ( NKJV ) 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

compare that to:

Exodus 31:18 ( NKJV ) 18And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

so, to me, there's no doubt as to what law He is going to write in our hearts.

you also said:

"In that first covenant, we all know that sin didn't come but by the law. That is what Paul is plainly stating."

i disagree with you here, paul said:

Romans 7:7 ( NKJV ) 7What 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.”

it's not that sin didn't come but by the law, it's that sin was already present (rom 7:5), and the law made paul aware that the passions, he already possessed, came to light through the law. he says so in rom 7:7!

now take what paul has written in rom 7:7 and compare it to this, the conversation jethro had with moses in exodus 18. jethro said:

Exodus 18:21 ( NKJV ) 21Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

remember, paul said "For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”"

so, how did jethro know about covetousness?

if moses was pre-sinai, why did paul stress this? before what?

8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

did the promise come by law, or promise, it was not by law, cause it was not there yet!

18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

 

[from scratch]

you addressed me so i will answer.

first off, i don't agree with your statement:

"Many things that people did prior to the law wasn't sin until after the law came and made it sin. We all know that. "Law" 101."

i'd just simply refer you to gen 4:7

Genesis 4:7 ( NKJV ) 7If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

again, your statement:

"Many things that people did prior to the law wasn't sin until after the law came and made it sin. We all know that. "Law" 101."

yet, God is talking to cain about sin, interesting. also notice the "doing well" and "not doing well".

how would cain know how to do well? there had to be a standard, something.

God is talking to cain about sin, because he obviously revealed all this to adam and his family.

Romans 4:15 ( NKJV ) 15... for where there is no law there is no transgression. and we know that sin is the transgression of the law 1jn 3:4.

now, i know someone else in this thread posted this as "another" definition of sin:

Romans 14:23 ( NKJV ) 23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

but, "he who does not from faith", even that goes to law, in that, have no faith and you reject God, violating the first commandment. so this not "another" definition of sin. it expounds.

of course, i believe that the law was already in force before sinai.

and to your other question from (gal 3:13):

"So then? What cursed Him and made Him sin for us?"

the law cursed Jesus!

the law had blessings and curses:

Deuteronomy 11:26-28 ( NKJV ) 26“Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse: 27the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you today; 28and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you today, to go after other gods which you have not known.

I think that you are the fisrt to address these verses in the thread. Would please tell me who the 'you' is? I think it applies only to those that were subject to that covenant. But the pronoun 'you' is used. So who is 'you?' How can you tie the 'you' to the Christian?[/quote]

Joshua 8:34 ( NKJV ) 34And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and the cursings, according to all that is written in the Book of the Law.

there were blessings and curses written in the law and Jesus fulfilled one that was written in deut 21.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 ( NKJV ) 22“If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God.

that's exactly what happened to the Christ, He was hung on a tree. so if you are trying to say that the law is a curse for us.....? not sure what you are saying on that.

the law that defines sin is the ten commandments, it is a spiritual law (rom 7:14).

this is the law that God will write in hearts in the new covenant. the last time He wrote it on stone, but He says:

Jeremiah 31:33 ( NKJV ) 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

compare that to:

Exodus 31:18 ( NKJV ) 18And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

so, to me, there's no doubt as to what law He is going to write in our hearts.[/quote] Yes, but what about the qualifiers in verses 31 and 32? How can you only use v33 the last third of the sentence to establish anything? Yes I see your underlined emphasis. What exactly does that mean to you? I understand the write part which you bolded. What is the law God is going to write on their heart? I do notice it doesn't say your heart.

you also said:

"In that first covenant, we all know that sin didn't come but by the law. That is what Paul is plainly stating."

i disagree with you here, paul said:

Romans 7:7 ( NKJV ) 7What 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.”

it's not that sin didn't come but by the law, it's that sin was already present (rom 7:5), and the law made paul aware that the passions, he already possessed, came to light through the law. he says so in rom 7:7!

Are you sure about this statement. It seems to me that you argue that it is impossible to sin without the law ...sin is the transgression of the law. I John 3:4 and no law, no transgression Romans 4:15.

now take what paul has written in rom 7:7 and compare it to this, the conversation jethro had with moses in exodus 18. jethro said:

Exodus 18:21 ( NKJV ) 21Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

remember, paul said "For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”"

So is Paul talking about the 10 commndments in the narrative? He clearly says the law in the narrative, even the verse as you quoted it.

so, how did jethro know about covetousness?

 

[JohnRabbit]

JOHN RABBIT SAID:
You addressed me so i will answer.

first off, i don't agree with your statement:

"Many things that people did prior to the law wasn't sin until after the law came and made it sin. We all know that. "Law" 101."

i'd just simply refer you to gen 4:7

Genesis 4:7 ( NKJV ) 7If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

And as we see, he couldn't do well.
Exactly my point.

again, your statement:

"Many things that people did prior to the law wasn't sin until after the law came and made it sin. We all know that. "Law" 101."

yet, God is talking to cain about sin, interesting. also notice the "doing well" and "not doing well".

how would cain know how to do well? there had to be a standard, something.

Of course, God's word AT THAT TIME.
Again, my point is proven
At first it was just "thou shalt not eat"... Then it expanded, until finally the MARRIAGE "Law" was given at Sinai.
There was only ONE MARRIAGE LAW. That is the "Law" spoken of by Paul as being "abolished" by death of the husband, so that we can be remarried to Christ resurrected in the New Marriage Covenant as promised in Jer 31:31-34.

God is talking to cain about sin, because he obviously revealed all this to adam and his family.

Romans 4:15 ( NKJV ) 15... for where there is no law there is no transgression. and we know that sin is the transgression of the law 1jn 3:4.

now, i know someone else in this thread posted this as "another" definition of sin:

Romans 14:23 ( NKJV ) 23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

but, "he who does not from faith", even that goes to law, in that, have no faith and you reject God, violating the first commandment. so this not "another" definition of sin. it expounds.

of course, i believe that the law was already in force before sinai.

Nope.
Not possible.
It isn't scriptural.
Therefore it isn't so.
Whoever told you that??
The word of God that was spoken and in force prior to His Marriage at Sinai were the Words God spoke prior to Sinai. We can read them.
For the rest, those who had no law were only a law unto themselves, which law also only brought death, even though there was no "sin". (Rom 2:12-14)

and to your other question from (gal 3:13):

"So then? What cursed Him and made Him sin for us?"

the law cursed Jesus!

the law had blessings and curses:

Deuteronomy 11:26-28 ( NKJV ) 26“Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse: 27the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you today; 28and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you today, to go after other gods which you have not known.

Joshua 8:34 ( NKJV ) 34And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and the cursings, according to all that is written in the Book of the Law.

there were blessings and curses written in the law and Jesus fulfilled one that was written in deut 21.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 ( NKJV ) 22“If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God.

that's exactly what happened to the Christ, He was hung on a tree. so if you are trying to say that the law is a curse for us.....? not sure what you are saying on that.

the law that defines sin is the ten commandments, it is a spiritual law (rom 7:14).

I understand totally why you aren't sure.
Not one person was righteous under the law. Law 101 again.
But Jesus was!
yet the Law wrongly condemned the One man who kept the righteousness of the Law. The most pronounced PARADOX in ALL of creation.
As intended, the Law self destructed by condemning a righteous man.

The law wasn't made for a righteous man. Which was Jesus in fact, the only one it could apply to at that time, (prior to His righteousness in us).

(1Ti 1:9) 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,

That righteous man who kept the law, as you acknowledged above, was condemned by that same law!

THE LAW CURSED THE ONLY RIGHTEOUS MAN EVER.

IMAGINE what it would do to the lawless and disobedient! LOL! Thank God we aren't under THAT LAW!

So the Law burned itself out of existence when Christ fulfilled it and then got killed by the very Law He wrote. Kapoot! Gone.
Now we don't have that carnal law written in stone, we have the SPIRITUAL LAW written in our hearts.

(2Co 3:3) Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

this is the law that God will write in hearts in the new covenant. the last time He wrote it on stone, but He says:

Jeremiah 31:33 ( NKJV ) 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

compare that to:

Exodus 31:18 ( NKJV ) 18And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

so, to me, there's no doubt as to what law He is going to write in our hearts.

That has been fulfilled to scratch, frog, myself, and many others who are married to Christ in the New Marriage Covenant in His Blood. Hopefully He is going to write it in your heart too so you can give up looking at that old abolished law that only brings death.

you also said:

"In that first covenant, we all know that sin didn't come but by the law. That is what Paul is plainly stating."

i disagree with you here, paul said:

Romans 7:7 ( NKJV ) 7What 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.”

it's not that sin didn't come but by the law, it's that sin was already present (rom 7:5), and the law made paul aware that the passions, he already possessed, came to light through the law. he says so in rom 7:7!

now take what paul has written in rom 7:7 and compare it to this, the conversation jethro had with moses in exodus 18. jethro said:

Exodus 18:21 ( NKJV ) 21Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

remember, paul said "For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”"

so, how did jethro know about covetousness?

Quite obviously he learned it apart from the law.

Only the doers of the law are justified;

(Rom 2:13) (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

And yet, the only one "doer" of that law who was righteous, was condemned by it.

Not one person ever has, or ever will, as we can simply see, keep the law.

To make it easy, recognize it for the "marriage" that it was, that old lawful marriage covenant. Then it will be clear.

It has been dissolved. God divorced Israel and widowed Judah. (Isa 50:1, 47:9)

We, divorced/widowed Israel, are redeemed in the New Marriage Covenant, and are married to Christ resurrected in righteousness, bringing forth children of God. Rom 7:3,4)

(The old law sure couldn't produce children of God from a harlot, that is what God wants you to know Rabbit)

God didn't divorce and widow that old marriage covenant harlot, just to keep the harlot and her marriage contract at hand for some morbid reason. What MAN would even do such an abominable thing??

So many scriptures that scratch and frog have displayed showing that the law ushered sin in, I'm not going to reinvent the wheel. But you would be wise to listen to them

Blessings!

thanks for the info.

maybe i'll get it right one day.

 

[JohnRabbit]

if moses was pre-sinai, why did paul stress this? before what?

8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

did the promise come by law, or promise, it was not by law, cause it was not there yet!

18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

i can't get anywhere with you, so i won't even try.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Would you mind addressing in detail Jer 31:31-34? That has to do with the dismissal of the first covenant (Mosaic covenant).

You leave me guessing that I'm very correct in my position. You sure won't address the things I bring up at much length, if at all. The things I bring up that you cause you to say I don't understand aren't addressed by you. Your above quoted post isn't much of a defense. It is more like a quiter's statement.

So far in this thread you have made statements and seem to refuse even a first go round discussion. I met you almost word for word on every point. It must be very bullet proof. You're not penetrating at all, even from Moses. You don't seem to be able to handle my objections at all. I think it is because you can't.

I must ask myself whose postion is defendable with the Scriptures? How did you defend that the first covenant is at least partially in effect today? Did I pass over it? Where? You haven't even said anything about the definition of sin given in Romans 14:23? Why? Why don't you think it is important when you present I John 3:4 and ignore verse 23? I have yet to see any discussion from your side on this. I would like to see you discuss in deatil John 15:10. I would present it for my side of this discussion to show that there is a difference in commandments, thus covenants. I don't think you can slide by it either. It would run you into problems with the Trinity. Just like Ex 33:20 does. Then we could get into the do as Jesus did bit. Oh what a pleasure that would be for me.

I highly value the truth. I think that is what we're talking about.

What have you shown that I don't understand about the first covenant? Is it that you're trying to convince me to follow some of the law (keep the Sabbath) by some kind of obligation as a Christian? If this isn't so I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Try some questions.

I certianly don't understand what it is about Jer 31:31-34 you don't understand. I have been through that quite a few times in detail.
Maybe it would work if you asked me questions and challenged my answers.

You haven't even shown me an obligation to the law (first covenant) from the Gospels, Acts or Revelation. What is the purpose of the first covenant? Is it a shadow of what is to come? Did it come? I think so. Thus it did its purpose. Yet you might claim that the saints kept the commandments in Revelation. I don't recall you discussing what those commandments are except to claim that they are the 10 commandments with no proof. You will say nothing about any counter point. You simply disappear. I think you don't have a leg to stand on.

in that case, i'll get back to you.

 

[JohnRabbit]

I think that you are the fisrt to address these verses in the thread. Would please tell me who the 'you' is? I think it applies only to those that were subject to that covenant. But the pronoun 'you' is used. So who is 'you?' How can you tie the 'you' to the Christian?

Joshua 8:34 ( NKJV ) 34And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and the cursings, according to all that is written in the Book of the Law.

there were blessings and curses written in the law and Jesus fulfilled one that was written in deut 21.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 ( NKJV ) 22“If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God.

that's exactly what happened to the Christ, He was hung on a tree. so if you are trying to say that the law is a curse for us.....? not sure what you are saying on that.

the law that defines sin is the ten commandments, it is a spiritual law (rom 7:14).

this is the law that God will write in hearts in the new covenant. the last time He wrote it on stone, but He says:

Jeremiah 31:33 ( NKJV ) 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

compare that to:

Exodus 31:18 ( NKJV ) 18And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

so, to me, there's no doubt as to what law He is going to write in our hearts.[/quote] Yes, but what about the qualifiers in verses 31 and 32? How can you only use v33 the last third of the sentence to establish anything? Yes I see your underlined emphasis. What exactly does that mean to you? I understand the write part which you bolded. What is the law God is going to write on their heart? I do notice it doesn't say your heart.Are you sure about this statement. It seems to me that you argue that it is impossible to sin without the law ...sin is the transgression of the law. I John 3:4 and no law, no transgression Romans 4:15. [/COLOR]So is Paul talking about the 10 commndments in the narrative? He clearly says the law in the narrative, even the verse as you quoted it.[/QUOTE]

see, scratch? this is what i'm talking about.

you said:

"you argue that it is impossible to sin without the law"

is that what i said? reread the post, that' not what i'm arguing!

this is what i said:

"it's not that sin didn't come but by the law, it's that sin was already present (rom 7:5), and the law made paul aware that the passions, he already possessed, came to light through the law. he says so in rom 7:7!"

please tell me how you got "that it is impossible to sin without the law" from that.

i say one thing and you guys hear something else, why do you think i keep telling frogster not to spin my posts?

 

[Frogster]

i can't get anywhere with you, so i won't even try.

Sure you can.
If mosaic law was pre-abe, that would totally overthrow pauls argument, that shows that the promise can't come by law, which means the law was not around before abe..in the garden. Then that would mean the promise could have come by law, which 3;18, and rom 4;15, says it did not.

Now, what is so hard about that? Paul's whole argument was that the law came later, and the promise was before law, so the law was onviously not in the garden. No? Why did Paul use abe, to juxtaposition the two covenants?

17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

 

[Frogster]

i can't get anywhere with you, so i won't even try.

You're actually taking the same side of the argument of the judaizers, if you disagree wth my point.

 

[from scratch]

Joshua 8:34 ( NKJV ) 34And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and the cursings, according to all that is written in the Book of the Law.

there were blessings and curses written in the law and Jesus fulfilled one that was written in deut 21.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 ( NKJV ) 22“If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God.

that's exactly what happened to the Christ, He was hung on a tree. so if you are trying to say that the law is a curse for us.....? not sure what you are saying on that.

I have no problem with the above.

the law that defines sin is the ten commandments, it is a spiritual law (rom 7:14).

OK I accept that with reservation. You absolutely have a vaild point.

this is the law that God will write in hearts in the new covenant. the last time He wrote it on stone, but He says:

Jeremiah 31:33 ( NKJV ) 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

I guess that you are using the NKJV for a reason. Could that be my presentation that v 33 from the KJV is the last third of a sentence and the NKJV makes it a sentence all by itself? Just wondering. Even so it certianly seems that you refuse to comment on the previous 2 verses which clearly define the My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts. It says specificaly that God will make a new (freshly cut) covenant. This covenant will not be like the one God made with their Fathers that He (God) made with them at Sinai. Doesn't the But this is the covenant say after reading the prior 2 verses that it is different? It does to me. Yet you say it is the covenant already made? What then is this new covenant? What new covenant isJesus talking about in Mat 26:28, MK 14:24 and LK 22:20? Are there 2 new covenants?

compare that to:

Exodus 31:18 ( NKJV ) 18And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

So both are written. Does that make or require them them talking about the samething especially considering Jer 31:31, 32 and 33 for full context the intended meaning? I just don't see at all how they can be the same. Jeremiah would have not said new cut if he meant refurbish or move.

so, to me, there's no doubt as to what law He is going to write in our hearts.

Yes, but what about the qualifiers in verses 31 and 32? How can you only use v33 the last third of the sentence to establish anything? Yes I see your underlined emphasis. What exactly does that mean to you? I understand the write part which you bolded. What is the law God is going to write on their heart? I do notice it doesn't say your heart. Are you sure about this statement. It seems to me that you argue that it is impossible to sin without the law ...sin is the transgression of the law. I John 3:4 and no law, no transgression Romans 4:15. [/color]So is Paul talking about the 10 commndments in the narrative? He clearly says the law in the narrative, even the verse as you quoted it.

see, scratch? this is what i'm talking about.

you said:

"you argue that it is impossible to sin without the law"

is that what i said? reread the post, that' not what i'm arguing!

this is what i said:

"it's not that sin didn't come but by the law, it's that sin was already present (rom 7:5), and the law made paul aware that the passions, he already possessed, came to light through the law. he says so in rom 7:7!"

please tell me how you got "that it is impossible to sin without the law" from that.

Because you requested: Don't you often use I John 3:4 to define sin? Are yoiu changing horses mid stream to prove your point? Is not your above statement what I have always said with Gal 3:17, 19? Is this not the point Paul makes in Romans 5:13?

i say one thing and you guys hear something else, why do you think i keep telling frogster not to spin my posts?

I hope I have shown the problem with my above comments.

Where in the post above do you even comment on my question of who the word 'you' refers to? I read your post 3 times and didn't find it. Why won't you answer my questions? Did you simply over look it? That's OK you make demands of us and refuse or are very sloppy in answering ours. It was the first thing I addressed in my post. do you need something like this to see a question: Who is the 'us' in Deut 11:26 - 28?

 

[Heavens]

Why would anybody even suggest that Christ keeps that old divorced/widowed exwife harlot around after putting her away and remarrying His Betrothed Beautiful virgin Bride Heavenly Jerusalem above?
You see Rabbit, we ARE that Heavenly Jerusalem. And we won't tolerate His x-wife harlot getting close to Jesus our Husband in the New Covenant, unless she repents and dies to that old lawful marriage. So we rebuke her messengers of their Jewish "keep the old marriage law" fables.

Excellent scriptures and proofs scratch and frog. Yep, the law that came 430 years after... how is that hard to grasp??
Blessings

 

[Shimshon]

Why would anybody even suggest that Christ keeps that old divorced/widowed exwife harlot around after putting her away and remarrying His Betrothed Beautiful virgin Bride Heavenly Jerusalem above?

The problem with this is you are saying God threw away the harlot all together and then replaced her with a whole new bride.

But, God said his word will not become void, and will bring about what is to be. God never 'replaced' his bride, he redeemed her from the enemy. So his words will stand true. Yisrael, his betrothed, and the nations are blessed through this marriage.

You have God throwing away the baby with the bath water for a whole new one. You can't find this at all in the Scriptures. He will never forsake Yisrael wholesale. And you are not part of her if you reject the covenant he made with her. Yisrael is God's chosen bride. Redeemed Yisrael. Not any other. All else are outside his camp and his will. All but the redeemed of God.

He has not replaced anyone, he has redeemed his people. You are all welcome to be part of us, through faith in Yeshua.

We will never see him again, TILL we welcome him back. But, he is coming back for us. He returns to the house, the vineyard, and destroys the whoring children, as he gathers the faithful. Then he glorifies himself through Yisrael for all the world to see and come to be blessed.

Or have you forgotten the Scriptures? They love and redeem those with faith. The righteous will live by faith. And if one of you falls, you are not destroyed, you are offered a chance to be redeemed. Jews, and the nations. Here on earth, as it is in heaven.

 

[from scratch]

The problem with this is you are saying God threw away the harlot all together and then replaced her with a whole new bride.

But, God said his word will not become void, and will bring about what is to be. God never 'replaced' his bride, he redeemed her from the enemy. So his words will stand true. Yisrael, his betrothed, and the nations are blessed through this marriage.

You have God throwing away the baby with the bath water for a whole new one. You can't find this at all in the Scriptures. He will never forsake Yisrael wholesale. And you are not part of her if you reject the covenant he made with her. Yisrael is God's chosen bride. Redeemed Yisrael. Not any other. All else are outside his camp and his will. All but the redeemed of God.

He has not replaced anyone, he has redeemed his people. You are all welcome to be part of us, through faith in Yeshua.

We will never see him again, TILL we welcome him back. But, he is coming back for us. He returns to the house, the vineyard, and destroys the whoring children, as he gathers the faithful. Then he glorifies himself through Yisrael for all the world to see and come to be blessed.

Or have you forgotten the Scriptures? They love and redeem those with faith. The righteous will live by faith. And if one of you falls, you are not destroyed, you are offered a chance to be redeemed. Jews, and the nations. Here on earth, as it is in heaven.

Welcome to the thread.

First of all I don't believe in replacement theology as in Israel has been cut out and replaced. I don't think that is the scope of Jer 31:31-34. Romans deals with this idea pretty well in chapter 11. I certianly would like you to give your explaination of Jer 31:31-34 in detail. I don't understand how to get around it. It seems to me that you have a two fold opposing idea communicated in your post.

 

[Heavens]

The problem with this is you are saying God threw away the harlot all together and then replaced her with a whole new bride.

But, God said his word will not become void, and will bring about what is to be. God never 'replaced' his bride, he redeemed her from the enemy. So his words will stand true. Yisrael, his betrothed, and the nations are blessed through this marriage.

You have God throwing away the baby with the bath water for a whole new one. You can't find this at all in the Scriptures. He will never forsake Yisrael wholesale. And you are not part of her if you reject the covenant he made with her. Yisrael is God's chosen bride. Redeemed Yisrael. Not any other. All else are outside his camp and his will. All but the redeemed of God.

He has not replaced anyone, he has redeemed his people. You are all welcome to be part of us, through faith in Yeshua.

We will never see him again, TILL we welcome him back. But, he is coming back for us. He returns to the house, the vineyard, and destroys the whoring children, as he gathers the faithful. Then he glorifies himself through Yisrael for all the world to see and come to be blessed.

Or have you forgotten the Scriptures? They love and redeem those with faith. The righteous will live by faith. And if one of you falls, you are not destroyed, you are offered a chance to be redeemed. Jews, and the nations. Here on earth, as it is in heaven.

Dear Shim,

No I haven't forgotten scripture. But I do understand scripture.

I am of Israel redeemed. I would invite you to dwell in Mt Sion with us.

I, speaking from within the Betrothed Heavenly Jerusalem Bride of Christ, have said and continually do say,
"BLESSED IS HE THAT COMETH IN THE NAME OF THE LORD".
For He has most certainly COME to me and I behold His face shining in the Glory.

(2Co 4:6) For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

What are YOU waiting for??

Excellent, I’m glad you responded brother. As a Jew, this means a lot to me of course. The redemption of my brethren.

Hosea is one of the many books that illustrates exactly how God calls His Israel Bride back from her whoredoms.
It is in the New Covenant. Which was, of course, fulfilled in Christ;

(Heb 12:22) But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
(Heb 12:23) To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
(Heb 12:24) And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Now what about before? When Israel was divorced for her whoredoms?

God puts her away, saying “she is not my wife”:

(Hos 2:2) Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts;

But He promises He will remarry her in the new covenant with the “beasts of the field, fowls of heaven and creeping things of the ground”.

(Hos 2:18) And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely.

(Hos 2:19) And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.

(Hos 2:20) I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD. (Jesus)

This is fulfilled in the New Covenant in Christ. Peter’s vision is directly the word for word passages God gives us Israelites to know this;

(Act 10:11) And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

(Act 10:12) Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

(Act 10:13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

(Act 10:14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

(Act 10:15) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Israel cleansed)

(Act 10:16) This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

Why was this done?
Because the unclean Israelites were now cleansed and no longer unclean and now are called out of the Nations where they had been scattered. The word fulfilled to Israel;

(Act 10:34) Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

(Act 10:35) But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

(Act 10:36) The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all

Aha! As promised to scattered Israel in the diaspora, God called Israel back! In the gospel call. To those in the Nations! (gentiles)

Hosea fulfilled! Nice and simple exegesis releases the greatest mystery. I would, as Paul, that no man is ignorant of this mystery;

(Rom 11:25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Gentiles converting to Jesus, the King of Israel, become the “fullness out of the Gentiles come in”. aka "Israel saved". In righteousness.

The Mystery revealed, of the joining of the two houses of Israel and Judah rejoining back together as One House in Christ;

(Col 1:27) To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

(Eph 2:14) For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Christ fulfilled our National Hope in redeeming Israel! That is the Gospel

(Luk 1:54) He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;

Jer 31:31-34 fulfilled!

(Heb 8:7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
(Heb 8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
(Heb 8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
(Heb 8:10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(Heb 8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
(Heb 8:12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Blessings in the New Covenant Marriage of Israel/Heavenly Jerusalem to Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Shimshon]

I certianly would like you to give your explaination of Jer 31:31-34 in detail. I don't understand how to get around it. It seems to me that you have a two fold opposing idea communicated in your post.

Thank you for your welcome.

If you would please briefly identify the two opposing points you see, I will then be able to properly give my explaination of Jer 31. In reference to the opposing ideas you see.

Thank you again.

 

[Frogster]

The problem with this is you are saying God threw away the harlot all together and then replaced her with a whole new bride.

But, God said his word will not become void, and will bring about what is to be. God never 'replaced' his bride, he redeemed her from the enemy. So his words will stand true. Yisrael, his betrothed, and the nations are blessed through this marriage.

You have God throwing away the baby with the bath water for a whole new one. You can't find this at all in the Scriptures. He will never forsake Yisrael wholesale. And you are not part of her if you reject the covenant he made with her.

hi, the only thing is, the "her" was not israel, it was with Abe, before circumcision, read gal 3:8, and romans 4:11-12, all walk by the faith of abe before cutting, so really it ia about the cov made with gentile abe, while he was a gentile. Gentile faith.

Yisrael is God's chosen bride. Redeemed Yisrael. Not any other. All else are outside his camp and his will. All but the redeemed of God.

He has not replaced anyone, he has redeemed his people. You are all welcome to be part of us, through faith in Yeshua.

Again in the "us", there is no jew or greek, as per agl 3;28, and col 3:11. And natural Israel must remember Rom 11:23..IF they do not contiue in unbelief. And Jer 18:9-10, that if a nation does evil, God is not obligated. Time to get past nationalsim.

We will never see him again, TILL we welcome him back. But, he is coming back for us. He returns to the house, the vineyard, and destroys the whoring children, as he gathers the faithful. Then he glorifies himself through Yisrael for all the world to see and come to be blessed.

Or have you forgotten the Scriptures? They love and redeem those with faith. The righteous will live by faith. And if one of you falls, you are not destroyed, you are offered a chance to be redeemed. Jews, and the nations. Here on earth, as it is in heaven.