Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
James did not say commandment (as in 10) … it says Law (as in the 613 mitzvah of the Law of Moses).James says you break one commandment you break them all James 2:10-12
James quotes directly from the Ten.James did not say commandment (as in 10) … it says Law (as in the 613 mitzvah of the Law of Moses).
I have already explained this: you have to explain why it is specifically the ceremonial law that is abolished because of its "dividing" function when all the law was given to Jews only. You need to actually make a case - the 10 commandments were only given the Jews so they are just as much a dividing line as the ceremonial law was. So why are they not abolished as well?
The person who knows Paul's teaching on the law, salvation, justification, righteousness, faith, works and sanctification would say exactly that, with which it appears you are also not familiar.But you have bigger problems - you are forced to say that even though Paul in Romans 7 says we no longer serve according to the Law (and here in Romans 7 we know he is talking about "moral" law since he cites "thou shalt not steal" as a example of the law we no longer serve), he really means we are no longer condemned by it.
No person who knows what words mean would do that - say we no longer serve according to a law when they really mean we are no longer subject to the law's condemnation.
In the context of Paul's teaching, nothing is being redefined.If you are going to redefine words in this manner, you can make scripture say almost anything.
Do you believe that Paul is such a careless writer that he would write that we no longer serve according to the letter when he, in fact, means something entirely different - that we are no longer under condemnation from the law?In the context of Paul's teaching, nothing is being redefined.
Matthew 28:20 makes no mention of the Law of Moses. As for Matt 5:19, I have addressed this in some detail in post 320 in the other thread about this here: It's Sad That So Many Christians Consider Themselves "New Testament" Christians
I don't think the necessary Scriptural bases are in place for us to have this discussion.Do you believe that Paul is such a careless writer that he would write that we no longer serve according to the letter when he, in fact, means something entirely different - that we are no longer under condemnation from the law?
I think Jesus means exactly what He says. Just like I believe Paul means exactly what he says. So, for example, when Paul says we no longer serve (greek word means "obey" or "be subject to") the written Law, I believe he means what he says. I am not willing to redefine the word "serve" so that it means "be subject to the condemnation of".When Jesus said everything in Matthew 28:20, if you are any of the 11 who is hearing him, would you think everything means EVERYTHING or something?
Where in post 172 do you present an actual substantive defence for your claim that what is abolished is the ceremonial component of the Law of Moses.I don't think the necessary Scriptural bases are in place for us to have this discussion.
See post #172.
I think Jesus means exactly what He says. Just like I believe Paul means exactly what he says. So, for example, when Paul says we no longer serve (greek word means "obey" or "be subject to") the written Law, I believe he means what he says. I am not willing to redefine the word "serve" so that it means "be subject to the condemnation of".
So what does Jesus actually say in Matt 28:20?
teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.
Did Jesus command people to obey the Law of Moses? I believe the answer is "no" - at many points, Jesus actually undermines the Law of Moses, not least the kosher food laws. Or when He violated the law to stone an adulterous woman.
What about Matt 5:18-19, ye may ask? Well, I have presented my argument in detail - please feel free to critique it.
Well, then, perhaps you can educate me. For starters, please show me where scripture ever breaks the Law of Moses into a "Levitical" part and a "moral" part?You seem Biblically unfamiliar with the Levitical laws in relation to the moral laws.
Where in post 172 do you present an actual substantive defence for your claim that what is abolished is the ceremonial component of the Law of Moses.
These are the facts:
- Paul never specifies that it is specifically the ceremonial component that is abolished.
- The entire Law of Moses - not simply the "ceremonial" elements was given to the Jews and not to the Gentiles. So, arguably, no one "part" of the Law is any more of a "divider" than any other part.
So what is your actual case - why, exactly, should we believe that it is the ceremonial law, to the exclusion of other parts, that is abolished per Ephesians 2:15?
I don't think the necessary Scriptural bases are in place for us to have this discussion.Well, then, perhaps you can educate me. For starters, please show me where scripture ever breaks the Law of Moses into a "Levitical" part and a "moral" part?
I have made a detailed argument about Matt 5:17-19. If we are to have a proper discussion about this, you need to actually engage that argument. Obviously, you are free to find weaknesses in the argument and shoot it down, but you should actually engage it in its details.If Jesus throughout the Book of Matthew continue to emphasize the Law of Moses, in places like Matthew 5:17-19,
I have made a detailed argument about Matt 5:17-19. If we are to have a proper discussion about this, you need to actually engage that argument. Obviously, you are free to find weaknesses in the argument and shoot it down, but you should actually engage it in its details.
Since you are so knowledgeable about such matters, please explain why all the Law was not fulfilled per Matthew 5:17-18.You seem Biblically unfamiliar with the ceremonial laws as types, patterns, shadows of the things that were to come in Christ, which then were fulfilled in Christ, and are now set aside, inoperative, as Jesus said they would be when they were accomplished (Matthew 5:17-18.
I don't think the necessary Scriptural bases are in place for us to have this discussion.Since you are so knowledgeable about such matters, please explain why all the Law was not fulfilled per Matthew 5:17-18.
Do you really want to go there - to assert that Jesus never used metaphor? I think that is a road you do not wish to go down. It is a road which takes you to a place where you have Jesus teaching us about matters of agriculture in the parable of the sower - which is what you have to buy into if you argue Jesus always speaks literally.You need to make a detailed argument because you are not willing to accept what Jesus is literally saying there.
Do you really want to go there - to assert that Jesus never used metaphor? I think that is a road you do not wish to go down. It is a road which takes you to a place where you have Jesus teaching us about matters of agriculture in the parable of the sower - which is what you have to buy into if you argue Jesus always speaks literally.
Please actually address the argument I made.
That is, of course, a clear principle to apply. But how do you know if it is the correct principle? What do you mean by "makes sense"? That seems somewhat fuzzy.No, I am saying, if the literal meaning of the words make sense, seek no other interpretation.
I believe that scripture is an evolving narrative and that the Law came to an end at the cross. When Jesus spoke these words in Matthew 23:2-3, the cross still lay before HimI have provided other references in Matthew where Jesus instructed them to obey the Law of Moses, such as Matthew 23:2-3.
Jewish writers often used metaphor - I believe this is well established by historians.Instead of trying so hard to explain away what Jesus really meant, why not just take his literal instructions there?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?