Confused about the commandment that was "abolished." (2)

[MoreCoffee]

Now if the dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses' face because of its brightness, fading as this was, will not the dispensation of the Spirit be attended with greater splendor? For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor. Indeed, in this case, what once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all, because of the splendor that surpasses it. For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have much more splendor.

Unfortunately this passage does not even mention the ten commandments, let alone who they kill.

What was engraved in stone when Moses came down from the mountain with a face shining? The ten commandments? Yes, the ten commandments. QED.

 

[InSpiritandTruth]

What was engraved in stone when Moses came down from the mountain with a face shining? The ten commandments? Yes, the ten commandments. QED.

Good day to you MoreCoffee. Not trying to get in the middle here.

If we read the verses before this, do we not get a better understanding of what Paul is saying?

Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need, as some others, epistles of commendation to you or letters of commendation from you? You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. The Spirit, Not the Letter
And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

So, Paul is comparing the people of Corinth to the letters written on stone? Not that they are letters written in ink, but an epistle written in the heart, known and read by all men? That the people were better than what they could ever right on paper? So, could the Spirit of the law be better than the letter of the law? They could not see the spirit, because they chose to have it veiled. In doing so, they chose the letter instead of the spirit. The letter kills, but the spirit gives life. The letter says, "Do not kill", but the Spirit says, "Do not hate." The letter says, "Do not commit adultery", but the Spirit says, "Do not lust."

Just a thought. Good day MoreCoffee.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Good day to you MoreCoffee. Not trying to get in the middle here.

If we read the verses before this, do we not get a better understanding of what Paul is saying?

Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need, as some others, epistles of commendation to you or letters of commendation from you? You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. The Spirit, Not the Letter
And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

So, Paul is comparing the people of Corinth to the letters written on stone? Not that they are letters written in ink, but an epistle written in the heart, known and read by all men? That the people were better than what they could ever right on paper? So, could the Spirit of the law be better than the letter of the law? They could not see the spirit, because they chose to have it veiled. In doing so, they chose the letter instead of the spirit. The letter kills, but the spirit gives life. The letter says, "Do not kill", but the Spirit says, "Do not hate." The letter says, "Do not commit adultery", but the Spirit says, "Do not lust."

Just a thought. Good day MoreCoffee.

2 Corinthians 3:1-6 deals with the contrast between the gospel written in the hearts of the faithful by the apostles' ministry and the law written in stone. This gospel is the letter written by the apostles that recommends them as able ministers of the new covenant. The new covenant is contrasted with the old covenant whose epitome is the ten commandments written in stone. The last clause of verse six summarises the symbolism of stone and the letters written by the apostles in the Spirit. The stone letter kills while the Spirit gives life.

2 Corinthians 3:7-11 develops the contrast between the two covenants by pointing out that the covenant whose epitome is the ten commandments engraved in stone is a fading glory. The new covenant written in human hearts by the Spirit of God is an enduring and eternal glory that will never fade. Paul summarises with the statement, "For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." He thus signifies that the old covenant with its ten commandments in stone is done away and a new covenant, in the Spirit, remains after the old is gone.

2 Corinthians 3:12-18 explains why the Jews of Paul's day could read the old covenant and never see the realities to which it pointed. They read with a veil over their faces and could not understand. While the Christian faithful read with unveiled faces and understand the glory to which the old covenant pointed. Paul does comment, however, that when those with the veil turn to the Lord he takes away the veil. Such souls live in liberty because they live in the Spirit.

 

[bugkiller]

Seems pretty straightforward to me...

Yeshua is telling you that the doctrine that He teaches is not His own, but the Father's.

This statement alone completely destroys any argument that "Jesus came to teach His own doctrine" or "Jesus came to do away with God's previous Instructions" "blah blah blah".

Yeshua says nay.

I certianly agree Jesus the Christ did not come to teach His doctrine. I do not agree Jesus the Christ came to annihilate the law. I have never said nor implied such. Jesus the Christ came to fulfil the law and testified He did such. This fulfils the obligation to the covenant. IOW that fulfilled covenant no longer has jurisdicton as numerous passages of Scripture show for the Christian. Simple enough, just throw it out or disregard as heresy. Works for you and does not work for me.

bugkiller

 

[tzadik]

I certianly agree Jesus the Christ did not come to teach His doctrine. I do not agree Jesus the Christ came to annihilate the law. I have never said nor implied such. Jesus the Christ came to fulfil the law and testified He did such. This fulfils the obligation to the covenant. IOW that fulfilled covenant no longer has jurisdicton as numerous passages of Scripture show for the Christian. Simple enough, just throw it out or disregard as heresy. Works for you and does not work for me.

bugkiller

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You believe that Messiah did not come to annihilate (do away, end, destroy, put an end to) the Law of God...
You believe that Messiah did not come to teach any new doctrine (different from God's doctrine)...
---

BUT you also believe that Messiah came to 'do away with the Law of God' ---as in we no longer have to obey any of His commandments, since Messiah came and obeyed "some" of the commandments?

(He didn't/couldn't keep any of the laws given to women, priests, nazarites, marriage, parenting, temple service, etc.)

What was the "obligation" of the covenant?

 

[bugkiller]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You believe that Messiah did not come to annihilate (do away, end, destroy, put an end to) the Law of God...
You believe that Messiah did not come to teach any new doctrine (different from God's doctrine)...
---

BUT you also believe that Messiah came to 'do away with the Law of God' ---as in we no longer have to obey any of His commandments, since Messiah came and obeyed "some" of the commandments?

(He didn't/couldn't keep any of the laws given to women, priests, nazarites, marriage, parenting, temple service, etc.)

What was the "obligation" of the covenant?

It seems to me you have a problem with the word fulfil.

bugkiller

 

[astein]

It seems to me you have a problem with the word fulfil.

bugkiller

Against Gods law is, against God.
In God the law is fulfilled.
By God. Who is against God, claiming to be for God?

If God is the law fulfilled, who is against Gods law? Those that abide in Gods law perfectly(by the grace of God)? or those that reject Gods law?

 

[tzadik]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

1. You believe that Messiah did not come to annihilate (do away, end, destroy, put an end to) the Law of God...
2. You believe that Messiah did not come to teach any new doctrine (different from God's doctrine)...
---

BUT you also believe that 3. Messiah came to 'do away with the Law of God' ---as in we no longer have to obey any of His commandments, since Messiah came and obeyed "some" of the commandments?

(He didn't/couldn't keep any of the laws given to women, priests, nazarites, marriage, parenting, temple service, etc.)

What was the "obligation" of the covenant?

It seems to me you have a problem with the word fulfil.

bugkiller

1, 2, 3 which one is accurate?

 

[WarriorAngel]

8451 is Torah. So it's in whatever translation you put up there as well. There's no getting around it.

Your mistake is not understanding that the Law that you call "the Law of Moses" is actually God's Law.

So you are essentially saying that God in the flesh is rebuking the Law of God the Father. tsk tsk tsk

I checked several translations...
I finally used the King James... since it is Protestant and it is quite old.

Much older than any that inserts Torah for God's laws.

I gave you the passages that clearly show Jesus wasnt hip with them.

Good day bugkiller. Jesus here is not speaking against the law. To do so would be saying, "God says this, but I say this." This can not be! Jesus here is speaking of the true intent of the law, not the letter. He is speaking against the oral tradition of the leaders in that day.

No, no He really is not.

Read the passage where they rebuked Him for His followers not washing their hands... that's their 'traditions' - which came thru Moses when he was concerned with washings. Its not oral.
The oral traditions had to do with leaderships and other things that Christ didnt rebuke - such as the Chair of Moses...


Christ made it quite clear the distinctions and even Heaven rebuked Peter for following the diet concerns - when the Heaven opened up and said 'Call nothing in creation unclean - get up and eat.' Because Peter was abstaining from food because the animals he saw were on the 'forbidden list' of Moses.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You believe that Messiah did not come to annihilate (do away, end, destroy, put an end to) the Law of God...
You believe that Messiah did not come to teach any new doctrine (different from God's doctrine)...
---

BUT you also believe that Messiah came to 'do away with the Law of God' ---as in we no longer have to obey any of His commandments, since Messiah came and obeyed "some" of the commandments?

(He didn't/couldn't keep any of the laws given to women, priests, nazarites, marriage, parenting, temple service, etc.)

What was the "obligation" of the covenant?

He didnt destroy God's law - but the laws of man are not God's laws.

For the Apostles say the law is not to be followed - meaning the law of Moses - for they are not salvific.
God's laws are - the distinction is the 10 Commandments - which are moral - vs - the cleanliness and diet issue which is Moses law. [mans law]

Jesus rebuked Moses on the divorce thing...

That law passed it isnt God's law.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Would Jesus rebuke His own law?
No.

But He did rebuke Moses law.

Context.

 

[WarriorAngel]

One more thing - God's laws - moral 10 commandments were summed up as love.
That's God's law - love.

The Lord allowed Moses to be a pre-cursor in matters of blood, flesh and water to be the fulfillment of Christ - His Blood is life [which is why they abstained from it because it is about life] except Christ's Blood is to be drank - the fact they ate animals after the 'oblation' is His Flesh for He is the only oblation for sin - and the water is used in Baptism to cleanse the soul of sin.

In following these things - graces are dispensed - which keep us from failing the 10 commandments.

The literal law of Moses is done now - for Christ fulfilled their symbolic meanings. And Moses laws were imperfect - for Christ stated s much when he declared the law of Moses was not so in the beginning.

 

[tzadik]

It seems to me you have a problem with the word fulfil.

No not at all actually...I just define it accurately instead of the way I "want it to be defined".

Fulfilled = perform, do, just like it's used here "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law."

That's the only way you can take it when you look at Yeshua's phrasing;
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

It's the same phrasing used in verse 19: "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."


1. don't do/destroy/annul/abolish
2. do/ perform/ fulfill

Yeshua came to do what He was instructing us to do in verse 19; namely DOING and TEACHING God's Instructions!

 

[tzadik]

Would Jesus rebuke His own law?
No.

But He did rebuke Moses law.

Context.

Is the Law of Moses the Law of God, or did Moses "create" it?

 

[bugkiller]

No not at all actually...I just define it accurately instead of the way I "want it to be defined".

Fulfilled = perform, do, just like it's used here "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law."

That's the only way you can take it when you look at Yeshua's phrasing;
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

It's the same phrasing used in verse 19: "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."


1. don't do/destroy/annul/abolish
2. do/ perform/ fulfill

Yeshua came to do what He was instructing us to do in verse 19; namely DOING and TEACHING God's Instructions!

What happens when a contract is fulfilled?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Is the Law of Moses the Law of God, or did Moses "create" it?

I have also asked that question. I have also supported an answer with Scripture to prove it was not man made law of Moses only to be disrgarded and trampled like trash at the land fill.

bugkiller

 

[tzadik]

What happens when a contract is fulfilled

If a contract or agreement is fulfilled it is finished! (unless of course a new one is started)

but...is a contract fulfilled by one party or both parties?
and does even a 'fulfilled' contract put an end on rules that existed before the contract?
---


All of these questions are actually not even necessary, because Yeshua is talking about the Law of God in Matthew 5:17-19 and NOT any contracts

Yeshua came to correctly do and teach God's commandments!

 

[tzadik]

I have also asked that question. I have also supported an answer with Scripture to prove it was not man made law of Moses only to be disrgarded and trampled like trash at the land fill.

Well yet another point we agree on.

I say we restart our CF friendship and try to reason together with Scripture.
I think it's possible no matter our differences.

--I will drop the sarcasm and cynicism I know I'm guilty of at times and will really try to discuss this out.
Waddayasay?

 

[MoreCoffee]

1,439 posts ... as long as a Protestant bible with apocrypha! Got a solution yet?

 

[tzadik]

1,439 posts ... as long as a Protestant bible with apocrypha! Got a solution yet?

Do you believe that all of God's Word, from Genesis through Revelation is profitable for our training and instruction in righteousness?

Not even talking about any OBLIGATION...simply profitable and good for training and instruction in righteous living...