Been told

[from scratch]

"it was added because of transgressions".

this is what i don't understand from the others on this forum.

they say there was no law before sinai, yet gal 3:19 says the law was added because of transgressions.

transgressions are sin and we know what 1jn 3:4 says.

put all that with rom 4:15, last part, and i don't see how the "law haters" get away with using this verse to support what they say.

it defies logic to me! :o

I don't think we have ever said there was no law before Mt Sinai any where. I think the contention is what exactly that law is or was. You use the word commandments to nevermean anything except the 10 commandments. I have shown this is not so in discussing I John 3:23 in this thread. I have shown you more than once in other threads much more proof the definition you hold to is in error. I get no feed back on this point. Not even a question. Thus I firmly believe that your definition is not accurate accross the spectrum of its usage. For instance Deut 5:1-5. Is Moses lying that this covenant and thus laws has indeed been issued before? What do you believe? What is it about those 5 verses you wish to say I don't understand?

How long will this

 

[from scratch]

Deu 5:1 Then — Moshe called to all Isra'el and said to them, "Listen, Isra'el, to the laws and rulings which I am announcing in your hearing today, so that you will learn them and take care to obey them.
Deu 5:2 Adonai our God made a covenant with us at Horev.
Deu 5:3 Adonai did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us — with us, who are all of us here alive today.
Deu 5:4 Adonai spoke with you face to face from the fire on the mountain.
Deu 5:5 At that time I stood between Adonai and you in order to tell you what Adonai was saying; because, on account of the fire, you were afraid and wouldn't go up onto the mountain.

I’m guessing it’s the highlighted words you’re asking about?
That’s actually an easy one. Prior to the 400 years in Egypt, God was dealing with just a small family. There were only 71 people belonging to God that entered Egypt. I have no doubt these 71 people knew about the sacrifices, and many of the laws dealing with people, but they were familial type laws. Other than what the 71 had at entrance, most likely no other laws were given to the Hebrews in Egypt, they could not have been obeyed, they were under subjection in a land not their own.
Again, I have no doubt that what the 71 had at entry, they continued in the best they could. And they must have spread the words (laws) from generation to generation since we have the words that the Hebrew midwives feared God and wouldn’t obey the civil law to kill the infant boys.
All of the workings of God from Abraham to Jacob going into Egypt was a preparation. Egypt was a pruning. They left Egypt on their way to the Promised Land so they received further instruction on how to live. They were supposed to go directly into the Promised Land but they refused. So here we are in Dt. 5:1-5, getting ready to hear some further instructions on how to live in the Land.

Well you're very good at guessing the specific point of contention. Now wherre did you say that Moses contended that it was the same covenant (law)? I missed it again - dumb ole me. I'm really dense. I don't know, can you highlight where it was the same thing? Moses said it wasn't. Something is wrong. Or is this too a copiest error?

Where did you get the idea that those 71 people were made slaves? Did Joseph make them slaves? When did they become slaves in that 430 plus years before the law was issued at Sinai? There is a matter of seperation from the Egyptians for a reason. That is why they were settled in the land of Goshen. Hope I got that correct.

 

[from scratch]

Ok "It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made...." The seed of promise would provide eternal once for all salvation, the parts of the law that had to do with right-standing before God was a place-keeper. The part of the law that is no longer needed are the sacrifices that had to do with fixing and maintaining one's standing before a holy God. That place-keeper has been replaced. The law that was to be obeyed has NOT been replaced, changed, nor abolished.
Let me cover a few of the lesser known "laws." If we see someone in need can we now turn a blind eye and keep on going or must we still offer help?
Can we now use faulty weights and measures in dealings with the public or must we still be honest and fair?
Can we now give false testimony against someone we don't really like or for someone we do like, or must we still tell the truth as we understand it to be?
Can we now be disrespectful of our elders because they are a little slow physically and sometimes slow on the uptake or should we still stand to our feet when an elderly person enters the room?

You see, the law still holds. It's the death penalty that has been abolished for those who trust in the Lord to have taken our punishment upon Himself. The place-keeper is no longer needed, it has been done away with. Without the Lord there is no place-keeper any longer. Those who are not in the Lord will taste of the wages of sin.

That is intersting first because the Jew sees the law as a single unit and nowhere in the NT do we see it divided. James 2:10 says if you violate one part of the law you violate the whole law. Notice that is not Paul who I will now refer you to, says in Gal 3:10 and 5:4 the same as James and that you can have one or the other and not both.

I want to be pointed to any reference that states or even implies that only a part of the law has been done away with. Paul says in Romans 7 that we're delivered from the law and cites in that very dialogue thou shalt not covet. This is the law that Paul is talking about and not anything about sacrifices being done away with.

Whew are we getting away from the intent of the thread or what? Sorry JohnRabbit. Will you please continue with your presentation in spite of these distractions. I still wish to know what I don't understand about the first covenant.

We're still kinda on topic as we are dealing with the first covenant.

 

[from scratch]

He is either referring to the Oral Traditions or he is calling God a liar. You choose.

Well so much for Acts being the word of God. Luke is misquoting (fraudently representing, also called lying) the Apostles for some unstated reason. Then it can't be inspired. So are you throwing out what we call the Bible? Ya jus can't believe anything. I have a question for you. What makes Moses reliable? You wouldn't even know about the stone tablets if he hadn't said something and it seems you wish to deny Deut 5:1-5 as being correct. So what is left?

 

[from scratch]

I believe that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic. As for some of the other books, there is no reason to believe that if the book was intended primarily for a Jewish audience that it would be written in Greek by a Jew who also speaks Hebrew; if the book was mainly for non-Hebrew speaking audiences then it was most likely penned in Greek. It wouldn't be beyond belief to find that they were penned in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek simultaneously.

Beg your pardon, ma'm. Greek was the language everyone in that region used and the Scriptures OT were in Greek. In fact the Jews were amazed that Paul spoke Hebrew. Just more evidence that Greek was the commonly used language.

If you have proof that Matthew was writen in Hebrew originally I want to see it. A sect of Gnostics called the Waldensens used only the Gospel of Matthew and taught that Paul was a heretic.

 

[yedida]

Well so much for Acts being the word of God. Luke is misquoting (fraudently representing, also called lying) the Apostles for some unstated reason. Then it can't be inspired. So are you throwing out what we call the Bible? Ya jus can't believe anything. I have a question for you. What makes Moses reliable? You wouldn't even know about the stone tablets if he hadn't said something and it seems you wish to deny Deut 5:1-5 as being correct. So what is left?

As you wish.
You figure it out, as you twist everything I say.
Have fun.

 

[Frogster]

Beg your pardon, mam. Greek was the language everyone in that region used and the Scriptures OT were in Greek. In fact the Jews were amazed that Paul spoke Hebrew. Just more evidence that Greek was the commonly used language.

If you have proof that Matthew was writen in Hebrew originally I want to see it. A sect of Gnostics called the Waldensens used only the Gospel of Matthew and taught that Paul was a heretic.

Exactly. Yeshua has become a code word, to show "heightened enlightenment".

 

[Frogster]

He is either referring to the Oral Traditions or he is calling God a liar. You choose.

You please choose to study the context, the meeting was about Mosaic law, not oral.

5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”

Again, if Torah life was this wonderful experience, that you say it is, why did Peter, call it a Yoke? In fact, he saw it as even testing God.


10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

 

[Frogster]

I believe that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic. As for some of the other books, there is no reason to believe that if the book was intended primarily for a Jewish audience that it would be written in Greek by a Jew who also speaks Hebrew; if the book was mainly for non-Hebrew speaking audiences then it was most likely penned in Greek. It wouldn't be beyond belief to find that they were penned in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek simultaneously.

They have the manuscripts, no aramaic..that is why greek scholars, debate the greek, in all scholarly commentaries.

I have read alot of commentaries, by the best of the best, and have never seen aramaic mentioned once, in any of them, while in NT study.

 

[from scratch]

As you wish.
You figure it out, as you twist everything I say.
Have fun.

Please explain how I twisted anything.

 

[from scratch]

You please choose to study the context, the meeting was about Mosaic law, not oral.

5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”

Again, if Torah life was this wonderful experience, that you say it is, why did Peter, call it a Yoke? In fact, he saw it as even testing God.


10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

I thought that is what I read, too.

 

[yedida]

You please choose to study the context, the meeting was about Mosaic law, not oral.

5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”

Again, if Torah life was this wonderful experience, that you say it is, why did Peter, call it a Yoke? In fact, he saw it as even testing God.


10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

This will be my last post in here. I do not take kindly to my words being twisted.
Just one last word: the Oral Torah is understood to have been given to Moses at the same time as the written Torah. That is what had become so bogged down with rules and regulations by men throughout the centuries that it had become a yoke - a yoke that the teachers would expect the lay people to burden but they themselves would not carry.
If you would prefer to believe that God's people would call God's Torah anything but holy and good, that's your perogative, I'll not be a part of it.
I bid you farewell. Be blessed.

 

[Frogster]

This will be my last post in here. I do not take kindly to my words being twisted.
Just one last word: the Oral Torah is understood to have been given to Moses at the same time as the written Torah. That is what had become so bogged down with rules and regulations by men throughout the centuries that it had become a yoke - a yoke that the teachers would expect the lay people to burden but they themselves would not carry.
If you would prefer to believe that God's people would call God's Torah anything but holy and good, that's your perogative, I'll not be a part of it.
I bid you farewell. Be blessed.

I gave you the context, there is no indication in the text, tha oral law came then. No "twisting", you said it was oral, I disproved that belief, that floats around Messianic judaism, where they try to put the "fence" everwhere, to derend torah life.

Not only that, james did not want to burden others, and while we are at it, the Holy Spirit, spoke of law life, as bondage 4 times, in the little teeny tiny book of galatians.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Because you have had it explained to you. read Rom 5. Sin was in the world, before the law, it entered through Adam, we all know that, adams One sin, spread, and so did the condemnation. THEN the law cames to INCREASE the trespass....

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

But that does not mean they had the mosaic law, that gal 3:17 says came 430 years later. It is called federal headship, just like if the president messed up, and that meant that the whole country went with him.

Actually, with obam, that might happen!

as usual, you don't know what you are talking about!

 

[JohnRabbit]

This will be my last post in here. I do not take kindly to my words being twisted.
Just one last word: the Oral Torah is understood to have been given to Moses at the same time as the written Torah. That is what had become so bogged down with rules and regulations by men throughout the centuries that it had become a yoke - a yoke that the teachers would expect the lay people to burden but they themselves would not carry.
If you would prefer to believe that God's people would call God's Torah anything but holy and good, that's your perogative, I'll not be a part of it.
I bid you farewell. Be blessed.

that's all he does is twist and spin your words and he won't answer questions that are put to him.

he's just here for distraction, asking questions like "how do you push law without arousing sin"?

questions that don't even make sense!

 

[Frogster]

as usual, you don't know what you are talking about!

that's all he does is twist and spin your words and he won't answer questions that are put to him.

he's just here for distraction, asking questions like "how do you push law without arousing sin"?

questions that don't even make sense!

Naaa. It is just that you got cornered, when you admitted the power of sin is the law, then I asked you about this verse, then came a whoooolottaaaa long diversionary posts, on the other thread.

Now, what does arouse mean?

5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.


What did sin use? Whe is sin dead?

8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.

You..you..just don't understand Romans 5, not me. Paul was proving headship, and sin came by adam, and he used 5:13, to show that sin and death reigned, before law, to show that it was about adam, not the person, whom was not under imputed sin, under the transgressional system of moses, or the sin of adam.

 

[from scratch]

Naaa. It is just that you got cornered, when you admitted the power of sin is the law, then I asked you about this verse, then came a whoooolottaaaa long diversionary posts, on the other thread.

Now, what does arouse mean?

5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.


What did sin use? Whe is sin dead?

8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.

You..you..just don't understand Romans 5, not me. Paul was proving headship, and sin came by adam, and he used 5:13, to show that sin and death reigned, before law, to show that it was about adam, not the person, whom was not under imputed sin, under the transgressional system of moses, or the sin of adam.

I'm really interested in what or how you twisted something in the post. JohnRabbit or Yedida please kindly tell me/us. Is it statements like this that make you think we/I don't understand the first covenant? JohnRabbit what is your explaination of those Scriptures cited above? Just saying that Frogster twisted something with no explaination goes nowhere except to fustration.

 

[from scratch]

that's all he does is twist and spin your words and he won't answer questions that are put to him.

he's just here for distraction, asking questions like "how do you push law without arousing sin"?

questions that don't even make sense!

What did you accomplish in the above post? Why don't you show us how the words were twisted. It does no good to make such a statement without an explaination of how they were twisted. What is your version? Both Frogster and I take it that you have no explaination, answer or rebuttal. You certianly provide none. You said we don't understand but you aren't or won't explain what it is we don't understand. You leave us to accept your answers without question. Why? you just deny or ignore our statements. They are as real in our mind as your ideas are in yours. It seems that the contents of the first covenant isn't what we really don't understand. I think it is about the administration of the first covenant that is the sticking issue.

So really is all you're looking for a statement that you're right and we have been worng all along and join your camp? Just wondering. It seems to me that yourefuse to engage our points with anything except you're wrong. I provide Scriptures, definitions and sometimes other source material to get no comment. I do provide discussion on your points most of the time point by point. You? Where is the discussion of our point? Usually - you're wrong and provide something esle. You don't show what is wrong with our idea.

So help us out. Show us what is wrong with our idea and why it is wrong. Discuss our Scripture even if all you can say is I don't understand your point or Scripture. This is how I see your Scripture. Be in context of the verse, author and the rest of the Bible. Tell us our verse conflicts with so and so verse and why it does.

I really want to know why I don't understand Scriptures such as Deut 5:1-5; Gen 2:2, 3, Deut 4:13; Romans 6:14, 15, 10:4; John 15:10; I John 3:23; Hosea 2:11; LK 22:20, 24:44; MK 2:27, 14:24; Gal 3:19, 5:4, 3:28 and loads more. Educate me please! I beg you. If this means I accept with out comment or examining what you have to say don't bother.

 

[from scratch]

as usual, you don't know what you are talking about!

What value is this post? I guess that you got some blessings added to you meter. All I see is that you're empty and have no defense except to attack your opponent. In politics this is called mud slinging or dirty politics. Here it is against the rules and is called belittling and goading. In legal terms it is called slander and punishable by law. In terms of the law it is called false witness which violates the 10 commandments you wish to defend. You do want us to take you seriously, don't you? You make respect very difficult and your decorum is despicable as a debator and especially as a Christian.

 

[from scratch]

This will be my last post in here. I do not take kindly to my words being twisted.
Just one last word: the Oral Torah is understood to have been given to Moses at the same time as the written Torah. That is what had become so bogged down with rules and regulations by men throughout the centuries that it had become a yoke - a yoke that the teachers would expect the lay people to burden but they themselves would not carry.
If you would prefer to believe that God's people would call God's Torah anything but holy and good, that's your perogative, I'll not be a part of it.
I bid you farewell. Be blessed.

No objection. Please take your marbles and go play else where. I just think it is a shame. And while I really would like to expand on this I will choose to stay out of trouble.