Did all the laws end at the cross- Part 2

[expos4ever]

....show why your teachings of lawlessness (without law) is not biblical while only hoping the best for you.

This a manifestly false claim. I have never, repeat never taught lawlessness.

Why you think it is acceptable to make demonstrably false statements is quite a mystery.

 

[Leaf473]

Brother, happy Sabbath! I don't see the need to travel to Jerusalem. Jesus before the incarnation is no longer in the earthly temple copy in Jerusalem to "appear before" Him until Jesus returns.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God’s messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn’t let me. And now, look, your house is abandoned. And you will never see me again until you say, ‘Blessings on the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’” (Luke 13:34-35 NLT)​

Jesus is in the heavenly temple now to "appear before" Him and the earthly temple "is abandoned" until He returns. Now the faithful are spread throughout the world, no longer Jerusalem being the center of their life in the earthly temple, hence the need to correct now the human tradition of the Sabbath, which was not necessary while the temple in Jerusalem was the center of life, with animal sacrifices before Jesus.

“You must celebrate the Festival of Harvest with the first crop of the wheat harvest, and celebrate the Festival of the Final Harvest at the end of the harvest season. Three times each year every man in Israel must appear before the Sovereign, the LORD, the God of Israel. I will drive out the other nations ahead of you and expand your territory, so no one will covet and conquer your land while you appear before the LORD your God three times each year. (Exodus 34:22-24 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

Right, so is it fair to say that we don't keep the law the same way that Jesus did?

 

[expos4ever]

So is avoiding scripture and not answering questions and asking questions and pretending questions have not been answered when they have

Deeply misleading.

You have made a manifestly false claim - that I have denied that Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 refer to the 10 commandments.

I never made any such claim. In fact, the transcript of this thread shows I have done the obvious.

Yes, I have not answered all your questions yet, but that does not justify your misrepresenting me.

When you claim that a question has been answered by you, and yet your answers bobs and weaves around the question without actually answering it, that does not, in any reasonable sense, count as an "answer".

 

[Leaf473]

Well I disagree. It relates your earlier posts because your trying to make the argument about the letter. It not about the letter it is about faith in the letter that leads to the Spirit that we are to walk in *Galatians 5:16 that God writes his laws of love in our heart so that we do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh and enter into Gods new covenant promise to love and love obeys Gods' law from the heart (see 1 John 5:2-4; Romans 13:8-10).

Hope this helps

I thought that you had said in the past that we must obey the letter of certain laws, not for salvation but because not obeying them was sin.

That's why I was talking about the letter of the laws.

When you say

It not about the letter...

are you saying that it is not a sin to disobey the letter?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

How can you not know that "repeating the content of a law verbatim" is not, on its own, evidence indicating that the particular law is still in effect.

This is punishingly obvious: I can say this: "The Law 'thou shalt not steal' embodies wisdom".

I have quoted the law "verbatim". But, obviously, this does not necessarily mean the law is still in effect! After all, if the Holy Spirit has superceded this law, we do not need it any more even though it may well embody wisdom.

Everyone with an open mind will know this, so I think it only hurts you to use such transparently false reasoning.

You also keep repeating another obviously flawed argument when you cite texts like John 14:15, 1 John 5:3. Again, any reader who is not asleep at the wheel will know that neither of texts refer explicitly to the 10 commandments. Since there are indeed commandments from God other than the 10 commandments (Jesus commandment to spread the gospel for example), it is up to you to make an actual case that these 2 texts are referring to the 10.

You are essentially begging the question - assuming the very thing you need to prove.

Again, readers will know this, so I do not see how this does anything but hurt your position.

We will have to agree to disagree and this gets sorted out soon enough. God bless and I wish you well.

 

[Leaf473]

So is avoiding scripture and not answering questions and asking questions and pretending questions have not been answered when they have

That's right! We want to avoid all those things.

Like it says an Ephesians, we want to say Only what is good for building others up as the need may be, that it may give grace to those who hear.

 

[Leaf473]

Who else here is having a problem with their tassels?

“You are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel” (Numbers 15:38).


My garden is so small and yet I can't plant more than one kind of seed. Bummer.

“Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material” (Leviticus 19:19; also found in Deuteronomy 22:11).

I've asked about the tassels before. IIRC, the response was that the tassels law was still in effect, but we weren't to keep it with actual tassels. We kept it by listening to the Holy Spirit. I think that would be going with the principal of the law, not the actual letter. And that's fine with me.

Now the two kinds of material in your clothing, that's an interesting law!

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

the response was that the tassels law was still in effect, but we weren't to keep it with actual tassels. We kept it by listening to the Holy Spirit

Sounds rather slippery slope. How many laws can we do that with?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Now the two kinds of material in your clothing, that's an interesting law!

No blends.

 

[expos4ever]

Actually no I see your post here is only more evasion on your side I am still waiting for you to address my posts and the scripture contexts that disagree with your teachings of lawlessness (without law) that your unwilling to discuss with me.

Simple question:

Did you, or did you not, pen these words:

One on your claims in regards to God's 10 commandments not being referred to in Romans 3:20; and Romans 7:7

Answer: you most certainly did.

Now then, where have I ever asserted that the 10 commandments are not being referred to in relation to in either of these texts.

 

[expos4ever]

Repetition already addressed in previous posts you have not been responsive to. Go read them.

Untrue - you have never addressed the particular argument I posted in post 385 (which is what your post, above, responds to).

 

[expos4ever]

Where in the scriptures that have been provided does it say Jesus is repudiating, repealing, abolishing the Sabbath law? - Nowhere!

I want to address this head on since it is one instance of a more general debating tactic that is clearly invalid. The claim here is that there is no direct declaration anywhere in Scripture that Jesus abolishes the Sabbath.

True enough.

However, there is no direct declaration in scripture of the doctrine of the Trinity. Or that Jesus's return to Jerusalem as described in Luke constitutes the promised return of Yahweh to His people. But there are powerful arguments for both these positions nonetheless.

We need to be a little more sophisticated in our thinking. To rule some hypothesis out because there is not "a verse" to support that hypothesis is elementary school thinking.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

This a manifestly false claim. I have never, repeat never taught lawlessness. Why you think it is acceptable to make demonstrably false statements is quite a mystery.

Well I disagree with you here dear friend as lawlessness essentially means without law. Your teaching is that Gods' law or 10 commandments have been abolished. Therefore you teach lawlessness which means without law.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Deeply misleading.

You have made a manifestly false claim - that I have denied that Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 refer to the 10 commandments.

I never made any such claim. In fact, the transcript of this thread shows I have done the obvious.

Yes, I have not answered all your questions yet, but that does not justify your misrepresenting me.

When you claim that a question has been answered by you, and yet your answers bobs and weaves around the question without actually answering it, that does not, in any reasonable sense, count as an "answer".

No my post was not misleading at all. The post you are quoting from was addressed to someone else so please don't pretend it was written to you. Your making strawman arguments no one is arguing about. Go re-read the conversation of what you said in post # 203 with my response to you in post # 208 that your only part quoting me on. My understanding of what you were arguing in your post was....

1. That Gods' 10 commandments have been abolished and done away with in the new covenant (which is not biblical or supported in scriptures and is a teaching of lawlessness (my meaning here is without law) and

2. You were also trying to argue that Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 do not really mean that God's 10 commandments give us a knowledge of what sin is today under the new covenant scriptures and that was for the past. Therefore not referring to God's 10 commandments today.
​

Is that your view or do I have a misunderstanding of what you wrote earlier?

Now think the implications through for both of the above in relation to Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7....

(1a) If you do not believe that God's 10 commandments are for today but only for the past, then your simply re-affirming what I said to you the first time and that is you do not believe that God's 10 commandments apply to us today in Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7.

(2b) If you believe that Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 are talking about God's 10 commandments today then these scriptures disagree with you because these new covenant scriptures that simply state that the purpose of Gods' 10 commandments is to give us a knowledge of what sin is which agrees with James 2:10-11 and what John says in 1 John 3:4 is showing that Gods' 10 commandments are not abolished today which is in disagreement with you.​

So clear it up, which is it 1a or 2b?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I thought that you had said in the past that we must obey the letter of certain laws, not for salvation but because not obeying them was sin.

That's why I was talking about the letter of the laws.

When you say
are you saying that it is not a sin to disobey the letter?

No I have said in the past as I do now, that the purpose of God's law according to the scriptures is to give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken and righteousness when obeyed. According to the new covenant scriptures, Gods' 10 commandments give us the knowledge of good (moral right doing when obeyed) and evil (moral wrong doing when disobeyed); sin (moral wrong doing when disobeyed) and righteousness (moral right doing when obeyed) *see Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4; Psalms 119:172 and if we break anyone of them according to James we stand guilty before God of sin in James 2:10-11. Not obeying God's law is the bibles definition of sin and the wages of sin is death according to Romans 6:23 but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. That is the purpose of Gods' law under the new covenant. Gods' law reveals to us all that we are all sinners and in need of Gods' salvation from sin and leads us to Christ that we might receive Gods' forgiveness through faith *Galatians 3:22-25 and made free to walk in newness of life *Romans 6:1-23 in Gods' Spirit *Galatians 5:16 as we are born again by faith into Gods' new covenant promise to love *see 1 John 3:4-9; Hebrews 8:10-12; Romans 13:8-10; 1 John 5:2-4. It is sin to disobey Gods' law that is how we know that we are all sinners in need of Gods' grace, salvation and forgiveness *see Matthew 9:12-13.

Hope this may clear up any misunderstandings.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

That's right! We want to avoid all those things.
Like it says an Ephesians, we want to say Only what is good for building others up as the need may be, that it may give grace to those who hear.

Is it building up or tearing down to let others know that sin will keep all those who knowingly practice it our of God's kingdom? If you answer tearing down then how do you reconcile what Paul and Jesus say in Hebrews 10:26-27; John 8:24; Luke 13:3? Is it love or hate to warn others that if they continue in known unrepentant sin they will not enter into the Kingdom of God?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ Repetition already addressed in previous posts you have not been responsive to. Go read them.

Your response here...

Untrue - you have never addressed the particular argument I posted in post 385 (which is what your post, above, responds to).

It is true dear friend. Why are you claiming I have not addressed post # 385 when it was a post that was never addressed to me and was a conversation you were having with someone else? That is a little misleading in your post here is it not as I am not following all your conversations with other people here and your post was never addressed to me.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ Where in the scriptures that have been provided does it say Jesus is repudiating, repealing, abolishing the Sabbath law? - Nowhere!

Your response here...

I want to address this head on since it is one instance of a more general debating tactic that is clearly invalid. The claim here is that there is no direct declaration anywhere in Scripture that Jesus abolishes the Sabbath.
True enough. However, there is no direct declaration in scripture of the doctrine of the Trinity. Or that Jesus's return to Jerusalem as described in Luke constitutes the promised return of Yahweh to His people. But there are powerful arguments for both these positions nonetheless.
We need to be a little more sophisticated in our thinking. To rule some hypothesis out because there is not "a verse" to support that hypothesis is elementary school thinking.

So in essence you agree with me when I say there is no scripture anywhere in the entire bible
that says Jesus is repudiating, repealing, abolishing the Sabbath law? Then why make claims that are not supported in the scriptures? (see post # 320 for context)

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Simple question: Did you, or did you not, pen these words:

LoveGodsWord said:
One on your claims in regards to God's 10 commandments not being referred to in Romans 3:20; and Romans 7:7

Answer: you most certainly did.
Now then, where have I ever asserted that the 10 commandments are not being referred to in relation to in either of these texts.

Your making strawman arguments no one is arguing about. Go re-read the conversation of what you said in post # 203 with my response to you in post # 208 (provided for transparency) that your only part quoting me on.

My understanding of what of your earlier post was that Gods' 10 commandments have been abolished which is not biblical or supported in scriptures and is a false teaching which is the focus of my discussion with you. As posted earlier, go re-read the conversation of what you said in post # 203 with my response to you in post # 208 that your only part quoting me on.

As posted earlier, my understanding of what you were arguing in your post was....

1. That Gods' 10 commandments have been abolished which is not biblical or supported in scriptures and is a teaching of lawlessness (my meaning here is without law) and

2. You were trying to argue that Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 do not really mean that God's 10 commandments give us a knowledge of what sin is under the new covenant scriptures today that was for the past. Therefore not referring to God's 10 commandments today.​

Is that your view or do I have a misunderstanding of what you wrote?

Now think it through. Even if you believe that Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 are talking about God's 10 commandments today then these scriptures disagree with you because these new covenant scriptures that simply state that the purpose of Gods' 10 commandments is to give us a knowledge of what sin is which agrees with James 2:10-11 and what John says in 1 John 3:4 is showing that Gods' 10 commandments are not abolished today which is in disagreement with you.

Alternatively, if you do not believe that God's 10 commandments are for today then your simply re-affirming what I said to you the first time and that is you do not believe that God's 10 commandments apply to us today in Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7.

So clear it up, which is it?

 

[Leaf473]

No I have said in the post as I do not that the purpose of God's law according to the scriptures is to give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken and righteousness when obeyed. According to the new covenant scriptures, Gods' 10 commandments give us the knowledge of good (moral right doing when obeyed) and evil (moral wrong doing when disobeyed); sin (moral wrong doing when disobeyed) and righteousness (moral right doing when obeyed) *see Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4; Psalms 119:172 and if we break anyone of them according to James we stand guilty before God of sin in James 2:10-11. Not obeying God's law is the bibles definition of sin and the wages of sin is death according to Romans 6:23 but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. That is the purpose of Gods' law under the new covenant. Gods' law reveals to us all that we are all sinners and in need of Gods' salvation from sin and leads us to Christ that we might receive Gods' forgiveness through faith *Galatians 3:22-25 and made free to walk in newness of life *Romans 6:1-23 in Gods' Spirit *Galatians 5:16 as we are born again by faith into Gods' new covenant promise to love *see 1 John 3:4-9; Hebrews 8:10-12; Romans 13:8-10; 1 John 5:2-4. It is sin to disobey Gods' law that is how we know that we are all sinners in need of Gods' grace, salvation and forgiveness *see Matthew 9:12-13.

Hope this may clear up any misunderstandings.

It doesn't quite clear things up yet. When you say:

It is sin to disobey Gods' law...

Are you referring to the ten commandments plus some other laws?
And by "disobey' do you mean disobey the letters or disobey the principles?

Grace and peace to you!