Does the Sabbath still exist?

[bugkiller]

i'm dissappointed in this response from you. it is filled with you rambling along about how wrong i am and nothing from the bible to back you up.

What is spiritual about, murder? are you serious?

tithing, mentioning something doesn't make it a command?
whatever!

James isn't talking about the ten commandments, in james chapter 2?
mind blowing!

How do you tithe? again, are you serious?

Do you really think it is necessary to list every law?
i think so, remember, you said that they did not list the sabbath command in the nt, so, yes, it is obviously necessary, (according to you, even), to list all of the laws.

like i said, your response is weak at best! and i notice when you don't want to answer something, there's always something wrong with the translation of the bible one is using. (we've had that same history in another thread and you did'nt answer my question and you had the same reason about what translation i quoted from),

nevertheless, answer this,

Romans 7:25 ( NKJV ) 25I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

please explaing what paul is talking about, since you say the law was abolished. hope you don't have a problem with the new king james version.

Sorry I forgot to answer your last question. Because you brought up Rom 7:25 why don't you tell me what you think it means. I think it was part of your defense, not mine.

bugkiller

 

[Frogster]

Sorry I forgot to answer your last question. Because you brought up Rom 7:25 why don't you tell me what you think it means. I think it was part of your defense, not mine.

bugkiller

 

[YosemiteSam]

Sure I did.I put it in it's proper context.I agree with paul.
The law is holy,and good!

Frogster,
I examined your post along with JohnRabbits’, and you’re accusing him of “proof texting,” when, in fact, it appears that you are doing the same. Now, JohnRabbit only set his sights on bringing to attention that Paul continues to serve the “law of God”, for the reason stated the “Law of Moses” and the “Law of God” being the same, furthermore, it has been stated by you, that the law has been abolished. Now, which is it, that Paul still served the “Law of God” or that the law has been abolished?

I think enough has been posted here to understand, if one is willing, that the “Law of Moses” and the “Law of God”, do exist independent of one another, certainly, one superior to the other. If you say that one cannot be more excellent, then why did God not suffer Moses to write the Ten Commandments?

Often you quote, Gal 3:17, in repudiation against those whom differ from “your own” judgment of scripture, and sir, I assure you, it is “your own”. If you will, allow me state here, if one stands, that the “law”, being all of it, came at Mt. Sinai, they then remain steadfast against the scriptures. For if the law, being all of it, came 430 years after, could Cain have sinned?, could Abraham have been counted righteous? By what were they judged?

Did you fail to read, that the law, which came 430 after was added because of transgression?, or might it have also slipped by you that it also cannot disannul the previous?, what say you to this? Do you not read, that it was added till the seed should come? Gal 3:16 “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made…which is Christ. My point is this: the law which arose four hundred and thirty years later does not repeal a will previously ratified by God, so as to cancel the promise.” Does not this point to the law which was added 430 years later? Does it not say that it cannot repeal that which was before it? Do you not know to what and why it was added? Do you still contend that all the law came into existence at Mt. Sinai?

Then let us consider Gen 26:5 “And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” Notice carefully, He said, MY commandments, MY statues, MY laws.” Now what part of this says, “law of Moses”? So you tell me, what law did Abraham follow, that he was counted righteous?

Let us also consider what was added. Some say tithe was of the “law of Moses”, do you not remember that Abraham paid tithe as well. So how say some it was added? Do you add to your increase that which you already have? I trow not. Furthermore, let us not forget that which came 430 years later cannot annul which came first, and which came first was to Abraham and the seed. Should we follow this more closely, and give more thought to the first, we would by these words understand the promise which was of the first covenant was also to the Christ.

Also, should we bring in remembrance, those words of our Savior, “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” Now, if we fail to use reason, we could assume that the law, being all of it, and being nailed to the cross renders this verse void, as if by some strange mis-happening our Lord mis-quoted.

You stated in your post to JohnRabbit, “You agree with Paul that the law is holy, just and good.” This from the one who maintains that it is abolished? Which law is holy and good? Circumcision? or thou shalt not commit adultery? How can you agree, that it is holy, just and good, when unlike Paul, you do not serve it?

I think it more necessary now, that you find that which was in the beginning.

I hope you do consider these things most carefully.

Now on the funny side, your statement just cost you your argument.

 

[Duckybill]

You stated in your post to JohnRabbit, “You agree with Paul that the law is holy, just and good.” This from the one who maintains that it is abolished? Which law is holy and good? Circumcision? or thou shalt not commit adultery? How can you agree, that it is holy, just and good, when unlike Paul, you do not serve it?

How do you figure that Paul served the Law of Moses when he called 'dietary restrictions' "doctrines of demons"??? And let us not forget Paul also said "as many are of the works of the law are under the curse".

 

[YosemiteSam]

How do you figure that Paul served the Law of Moses when he called 'dietary restrictions' "doctrines of demons"??? And let us not forget Paul also said "as many are of the works of the law are under the curse".

Duckbill go read several post prior.

 

[bugkiller]

Sure I did.I put it in it's proper context.I agree with paul.
The law is holy,and good!

Frogster,
I examined your post along with JohnRabbits’, and you’re accusing him of “proof texting,” when, in fact, it appears that you are doing the same. Now, JohnRabbit only set his sights on bringing to attention that Paul continues to serve the “law of God”, for the reason stated the “Law of Moses” and the “Law of God” being the same, furthermore, it has been stated by you, that the law has been abolished. Now, which is it, that Paul still served the “Law of God” or that the law has been abolished?

I think enough has been posted here to understand, if one is willing, that the “Law of Moses” and the “Law of God”, do exist independent of one another, certainly, one superior to the other. If you say that one cannot be more excellent, then why did God not suffer Moses to write the Ten Commandments?

Do my eyes deceive me? Are these your words or someone elses? Paul continues to serve the “law of God”, for the reason stated the “Law of Moses” and the “Law of God” being the same. And this too: that the “Law of Moses” and the “Law of God”, do exist independent of one another. I think that is what we have been saying all along by the quoting of James 2:10, Gal 3:10, 5:3.

Often you quote, Gal 3:17, in repudiation against those whom differ from “your own” judgment of scripture, and sir, I assure you, it is “your own”. If you will, allow me state here, if one stands, that the “law”, being all of it, came at Mt. Sinai, they then remain steadfast against the scriptures. For if the law, being all of it, came 430 years after, could Cain have sinned?, could Abraham have been counted righteous? By what were they judged?

Did you fail to read, that the law, which came 430 after was added because of transgression?, or might it have also slipped by you that it also cannot disannul the previous?, what say you to this? Do you not read, that it was added till the seed should come? Gal 3:16 “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made…which is Christ. My point is this: the law which arose four hundred and thirty years later does not repeal a will previously ratified by God, so as to cancel the promise.” Does not this point to the law which was added 430 years later? Does it not say that it cannot repeal that which was before it? Do you not know to what and why it was added? Do you still contend that all the law came into existence at Mt. Sinai?

Disanunul what previous? Law or promises? I read the scripture to say promises. Gal 3:17, 18 and 21. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.18For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added (annexed) because of transgressions, till (shows limit of jurisdiction to the law) the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
If the underlined is true then you don't need a redeemer and certianly would have no need to be redeemed from the law. This was promised in Jer 31:31-34 and Jesus testified to it being in effect in Mat 26:28 as current. Here is the verse: 28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

My question remains: How can one be responsible for some that is not in existence? There has to be a different meaning or connotation to the words found in your prooftext of Gen 26:5. It is a prooftext because the law of Moses or the ten commandments had not been issued yet and you use this to say that Abraham obeyed those laws. If this were the case, how can Abraham lie and get blessed? I am referring to Abrahamlying about his wife in Genesis 12 and being rewarded by Pharoah. Why doesn't the law work that way for me?

Then let us consider Gen 26:5 “And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” Notice carefully, He said, MY commandments, MY statues, MY laws.” Now what part of this says, “law of Moses”? So you tell me, what law did Abraham follow, that he was counted righteous?

I think I did above.

Let us also consider what was added. Some say tithe was of the “law of Moses”, do you not remember that Abraham paid tithe as well. So how say some it was added? Do you add to your increase that which you already have? I trow not. Furthermore, let us not forget that which came 430 years later cannot annul which came first, and which came first was to Abraham and the seed. Should we follow this more closely, and give more thought to the first, we would by these words understand the promise which was of the first covenant was also to the Christ.

I though one tithed from their increase, not the goods of others. There is no reference to Abraham tithing his increase anywhere in scripture. The tithe being spoken about was from the reclaimed property of the king of Sodom. After giving 10% (a thithe) to Melchizedek Abraham returned the rest of the property to the King of Sodom. Abraham did not tithe! Moses gave the law concerning the tithe which was from God, not Moses' idea.

Was the promise to the Christ or was not Christ and the effects of Christ the promise?

Also, should we bring in remembrance, those words of our Savior, “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” Now, if we fail to use reason, we could assume that the law, being all of it, and being nailed to the cross renders this verse void, as if by some strange mis-happening our Lord mis-quoted.

I don't think Jesus is being misquoted at all. I do think you are refusing to consider Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

I think Mat 5:17, 18 was stated the way it was to keep the truth hidden for a purpose. When I say this I am talking about the vail that was over their eyes and the sense that Jesus used parables. It was so they could hear the truth and not understand.

You stated in your post to JohnRabbit, “You agree with Paul that the law is holy, just and good.” This from the one who maintains that it is abolished? Which law is holy and good? Circumcision? or thou shalt not commit adultery? How can you agree, that it is holy, just and good, when unlike Paul, you do not serve it?

Is the Lord's Supper (communion) holy? Do you serve it? Yes I understand the difference in the meaning of serve in both our uses. You no doubt would point this out because it is in your favor. I use it in the sense that you used serve. My statement is for illustrative purposes only as we are not bound to, under,or required to observe the Lord's Supper. I believe the words are as oft as ye do.

I think it more necessary now, that you find that which was in the beginning.

I hope you do consider these things most carefully.

I hope you do the same with the words I posted.

bugkiller

 

[Frogster]

Sure I did.I put it in it's proper context.I agree with paul.
The law is holy,and good!

Frogster,
I examined your post along with JohnRabbits’, and you’re accusing him of “proof texting,” when, in fact, it appears that you are doing the same. Now, JohnRabbit only set his sights on bringing to attention that Paul continues to serve the “law of God”, for the reason stated the “Law of Moses” and the “Law of God” being the same, furthermore, it has been stated by you, that the law has been abolished. Now, which is it, that Paul still served the “Law of God” or that the law has been abolished?

Your question is sematical, and in it's very nature is prroftexting. Did he not just get done showing how he could not serve the law of God?

Did he not say...OH WHAT A WRETCHED MAN I AM!?

Did he not hope to be dlivered from the very body of sin, where SINFUL PASSIONS WERE AROUSED BY THE LAW?

Who doesn't want to serve the holness in their mind?

But who can?

Wasn't this verse the one that was the original thought, that the rest was written from? As you well know, that is how Paul writes, he will go back and forth alot.In fact 6 and 7, are parenthetical chapters,where 8 continues from 5.

14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

I think enough has been posted here to understand, if one is willing, that the “Law of Moses” and the “Law of God”, do exist independent of one another, certainly, one superior to the other. If you say that one cannot be more excellent, then why did God not suffer Moses to write the Ten Commandments?

Moses wrote all down, the book of the law. Jewish people saw the law as one.Paul said same in Gal 5:3,and Gal 3:10, cursed who does not DO ALL,.Think about how silly it would be to be under a curse,without the moral law too, Jesu stook the full curse of the law.not just some.Gal 3;13.

Often you quote, Gal 3:17, in repudiation against those whom differ from “your own” judgment of scripture, and sir, I assure you, it is “your own”. If you will, allow me state here, if one stands, that the “law”, being all of it, came at Mt. Sinai, they then remain steadfast against the scriptures. For if the law, being all of it, came 430 years after, could Cain have sinned?, could Abraham have been counted righteous? By what were they judged?

Paul says sin was there from Adam to moses in rom 5. The law was added to increase the tresspass. God judged sodom,and the flood people as he wished,but then the era of law came.That is how He did it,what can I tell you?

Did you fail to read, that the law, which came 430 after was added because of transgression?, or might it have also slipped by you that it also cannot disannul the previous?, what say you to this? Do you not read, that it was added till the seed should come? Gal 3:16 “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made…which is Christ. My point is this: the law which arose four hundred and thirty years later does not repeal a will previously ratified by God, so as to cancel the promise.” Does not this point to the law which was added 430 years later? Does it not say that it cannot repeal that which was before it? Do you not know to what and why it was added? Do you still contend that all the law came into existence at Mt. Sinai?

The 430 is debated, could have ben longer,but it was Moses being spoken of. And it was added to increase, as per rom 5:20. Most scholars all agree that it is the same meaning as 3:19. Yes,until is used 3 times in Gal,the law was temporary. Why did paul say he did not want to rebuild that system?

look..

Gal 2:18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor

Then let us consider Gen 26:5 “And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” Notice carefully, He said, MY commandments, MY statues, MY laws.” Now what part of this says, “law of Moses”? So you tell me, what law did Abraham follow, that he was counted righteous?

Paul covered that in Rom 4, it was by faith, and we are his children by faith,as per Gal 3"7 and 9.

Dude..that was too easy.

Let us also consider what was added. Some say tithe was of the “law of Moses”, do you not remember that Abraham paid tithe as well. So how say some it was added? Do you add to your increase that which you already have? I trow not. Furthermore, let us not forget that which came 430 years later cannot annul which came first, and which came first was to Abraham and the seed. Should we follow this more closely, and give more thought to the first, we would by these words understand the promise which was of the first covenant was also to the Christ.

Sure, the judaizers were tring to get them in the Mosaic cov. Paul did not want that, so he showed how it was about Abraham that allNATIONS WILL BE BLESSED.

How could gentiles be blessed under law?

rom 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.

Again,how could gentiles receive the blessing,via the law? Are there 2 God's?

Rom 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

Also, should we bring in remembrance, those words of our Savior, “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” Now, if we fail to use reason, we could assume that the law, being all of it, and being nailed to the cross renders this verse void, as if by some strange mis-happening our Lord mis-quoted.

Law there also means the whole of scripture. So fine, we do not have to throw out the psalms, or any other things.However the mosaic part was fulfilled..

BEHOLD!

44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

You stated in your post to JohnRabbit, “You agree with Paul that the law is holy, just and good.” This from the one who maintains that it is abolished? Which law is holy and good? Circumcision? or thou shalt not commit adultery? How can you agree, that it is holy, just and good, when unlike Paul, you do not serve it?

I think it more necessary now, that you find that which was in the beginning.

I hope you do consider these things most carefully.

Now on the funny side, your statement just cost you your argument.

No one ever said the law was not good, your arguing from an abstract!

Until you can answer this imperative,you are arguing from an indacative position.

Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

And 6:14 of romans too.

 

[Frogster]

Duckbill go read several post prior.

Duck is correct. Moses said cursed is he who... Deut 27:26

Paul confrimed the doctrine of demons elsewhere. he called the judaizers angels of light in 2 cor 11.

Paul also said the Galatians were "bewitched".

False gospel is a curse as per gal 1. That sure seems like it would be a doctrine of demons, if it is cursed.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Sorry I forgot to answer your last question. Because you brought up Rom 7:25 why don't you tell me what you think it means. I think it was part of your defense, not mine.

bugkiller

i already answered, remember? you and frogster tore me a new one about it.
i broke down the whole chapter of rom 7.

you know i think that paul was talking about the ten commandments when he says "with the mind I myself serve the law of God".

now, i would like to hear what you say.

also, this that you wrote:

My question remains: How can one be responsible for some that is not in existence? There has to be a different meaning or connotation to the words found in your prooftext of Gen 26:5. It is a prooftext because the law of Moses or the ten commandments had not been issued yet and you use this to say that Abraham obeyed those laws. If this were the case, how can Abraham lie and get blessed? I am referring to Abrahamlying about his wife in Genesis 12 and being rewarded by Pharoah. Why doesn't the law work that way for me?

what about joseph and the pharoah's wife? she wanted to have sex with him although she was married.

notice what joseph said to her:

Genesis 39:9 ( NKJV ) 9There is no one greater in this house than I, nor has he kept back anything from me but you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?”

and paul said:

Romans 4:15 ( NKJV ) 15because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.

the law brings about wrath only if you break it. but you know that.

and the bible's definition of sin:

1 John 3:4 ( NKJV ) 4Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

law·less (from dictionary.com)
–adjective
1. contrary to or without regard for the law: lawless violence.
2. being without law; uncontrolled by a law; unbridled; unruly; unrestrained: lawless passion.
3. illegal: bootleggers' lawless activity.

so what sin was joseph talking about, and what law would have goverened his actions?

and, btw, abraham did not get away with the lie he told. remember he died.

Ezekiel 18:4 ( NKJV ) 4 “Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.

 

[Frogster]

i already answered, remember? you and frogster tore me a new one about it.
i broke down the whole chapter of rom 7.

you know i think that paul was talking about the ten commandments when he says "with the mind I myself serve the law of God".

now, i would like to hear what you say.

We know it is the 10th command, but your omiiting..AGAIN that the command could not be kept, and actually aroused coveting.

also, this that you wrote:

My question remains: How can one be responsible for some that is not in existence? There has to be a different meaning or connotation to the words found in your prooftext of Gen 26:5. It is a prooftext because the law of Moses or the ten commandments had not been issued yet and you use this to say that Abraham obeyed those laws. If this were the case, how can Abraham lie and get blessed? I am referring to Abrahamlying about his wife in Genesis 12 and being rewarded by Pharoah. Why doesn't the law work that way for me?

what about joseph and the pharoah's wife? she wanted to have sex with him although she was married.

notice what joseph said to her:

Genesis 39:9 ( NKJV ) 9There is no one greater in this house than I, nor has he kept back anything from me but you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?”

and paul said:

Romans 4:15 ( NKJV ) 15because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.

the law brings about wrath only if you break it. but you know that.

and the bible's definition of sin:

1 John 3:4 ( NKJV ) 4Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

law·less (from dictionary.com)
–adjective
1. contrary to or without regard for the law: lawless violence.
2. being without law; uncontrolled by a law; unbridled; unruly; unrestrained: lawless passion.
3. illegal: bootleggers' lawless activity.

so what sin was joseph talking about, and what law would have goverened his actions?

Ohhhh rabbit...sin was in the world from Adam..but the law came in to increase the tresspass, to show sin, then we die to law and sin. All your doing is just proving what all know. Sin entered in Adam.

Why didn't paul want Moses for the Galatians?

You have to go by salvation history.

and, btw, abraham did not get away with the lie he told. remember he died.

Ezekiel 18:4 ( NKJV ) 4 “Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.

Why did Paul say this..about institiuting the Mosaic law again?

Gal 2:18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor.

Answer that, and you get rabbit stew for dinner, with frog legs as an apetizer.

 

[JohnRabbit]

[/i] You are using this verse as a prooftext according to your very own definitions. You are clearly seperating this verse from the context. I think you intend that we understand the reference to man as us. Who died later in the narrative? Is it not the law that Paul is calling the husband? The Christian is the Bride of Christ, thus a female. Who are we married to? Christ or the law. To be in a relationship with the law is to commit two sins: Adultery and necrophilia. To teach obligation to the law is to teach commandments of men. The law is dead and has no jurisdiction. We have a new covenant as prophecied by Jeremiah in 31:31-34 and testified to by Jesus (God the Son Himself) in Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. We don't need Paul's testimony, we have God's testimony.[/i]Here you are saying that Paul is discussing and teaching the law. No this is clearly being used as an illustration about the effect of the law because Paul says we are dead to the law or that the law is dead. What do we do with a dead spouce?

bugkiller

yea, i know. we've covered all of that.

we don't agree on it.

but you haven't answered rom 7:25 nor the incident with joseph.

i would like to know what you have to say about that.

 

[JohnRabbit]

frogster,

let's look at what you wrote:

Ohhhh rabbit...sin was in the world from Adam..but the law came in to increase the tresspass, to show sin, then we die to law and sin. All your doing is just proving what all know. Sin entered in Adam.

if the bible definition of sin is:

1 John 3:4 ( NKJV ) 4Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

and paul said:

Romans 4:15 ( NKJV ) ... for where there is no law there is no transgression.

how then, by your contention, could adam sin?

and you just said that "sin entered in adam"!

 

[Frogster]

frogster,

let's look at what you wrote:

Ohhhh rabbit...sin was in the world from Adam..but the law came in to increase the tresspass, to show sin, then we die to law and sin. All your doing is just proving what all know. Sin entered in Adam.

if the bible definition of sin is:

1 John 3:4 ( NKJV ) 4Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

and paul said:

Romans 4:15 ( NKJV ) ... for where there is no law there is no transgression.

how then, by your contention, could adam sin?

and you just said that "sin entered in adam"!

Dude,,it says transgession for Adam..that means violation of a known law.

Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

See here, it says sins AND transgressions.

Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins

Now high time the rabbit answers me!

WHY..WHY..this?

Rom 6;14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Gal 5;18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Why did Paul not want the old system rebuilt? WHY?


Gal 2:18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor.


WHY????

 

[bugkiller]

frogster,

let's look at what you wrote:

Ohhhh rabbit...sin was in the world from Adam..but the law came in to increase the tresspass, to show sin, then we die to law and sin. All your doing is just proving what all know. Sin entered in Adam.

if the bible definition of sin is:

1 John 3:4 ( NKJV ) 4Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

and paul said:

Romans 4:15 ( NKJV ) ... for where there is no law there is no transgression.

how then, by your contention, could adam sin?

and you just said that "sin entered in adam"!

Are you saying that the ten commandments existed prior to Ex 20? If not then what laws? Abraham lied about his wife and got blessed.

Why don't the commandments work that way for me?

I have asked this question of both you and Yosemitesam. Ya got an answer for me.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

i already answered, remember? you and frogster tore me a new one about it.
i broke down the whole chapter of rom 7.

you know i think that paul was talking about the ten commandments when he says "with the mind I myself serve the law of God".

now, i would like to hear what you say.

also, this that you wrote:

My question remains: How can one be responsible for some that is not in existence? There has to be a different meaning or connotation to the words found in your prooftext of Gen 26:5. It is a prooftext because the law of Moses or the ten commandments had not been issued yet and you use this to say that Abraham obeyed those laws. If this were the case, how can Abraham lie and get blessed? I am referring to Abrahamlying about his wife in Genesis 12 and being rewarded by Pharoah. Why doesn't the law work that way for me?

what about joseph and the pharoah's wife? she wanted to have sex with him although she was married.

notice what joseph said to her:

Genesis 39:9 ( NKJV ) 9There is no one greater in this house than I, nor has he kept back anything from me but you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?”

and paul said:

Romans 4:15 ( NKJV ) 15because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.

the law brings about wrath only if you break it. but you know that.

and the bible's definition of sin:

1 John 3:4 ( NKJV ) 4Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

OK what about this : And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Romans 14:23. I am not trying to change the subject. Faith is not part of the law and yet if you don't have have and use it, it is sin.

Yes you are trying to say that I am anomos. And I say hogwash! Romans 8:1, 2 - There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

If that does not do it for you and you want to focus on behavior I give you Gal 5:16-21 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

That even covers more than the ten commandments.

law·less (from dictionary.com)
–adjective
1. contrary to or without regard for the law: lawless violence.
2. being without law; uncontrolled by a law; unbridled; unruly; unrestrained: lawless passion.
3. illegal: bootleggers' lawless activity.

so what sin was joseph talking about, and what law would have goverened his actions?

and, btw, abraham did not get away with the lie he told. remember he died.

Ezekiel 18:4 ( NKJV ) 4 “Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.

So almost every one died a physical death in the history of the planet. How does that prove your point. Where is Abraham now?

bugkiller

 

[JohnRabbit]

Dude,,it says transgession for Adam..that means violation of a known law.

Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

See here, it says sins AND transgressions.

Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins

Now high time the rabbit answers me!

WHY..WHY..this?







Rom 6;14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Gal 5;18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Why did Paul not want the old system rebuilt? WHY?


Gal 2:18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor.


WHY????

you still have'nt answered me:

Dude,,it says transgession for Adam..that means violation of a known law.

what law?

 

[JohnRabbit]

Are you saying that the ten commandments existed prior to Ex 20? If not then what laws? Abraham lied about his wife and got blessed.

Why don't the commandments work that way for me?

I have asked this question of both you and Yosemitesam. Ya got an answer for me.

bugkiller

again, no answer from you!

 

[Frogster]

you still have'nt answered me:

Dude,,it says transgession for Adam..that means violation of a known law.

what law?

#1
you forgot this..

Now high time the rabbit answers me!

WHY..WHY..this?

Rom 6;14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Gal 5;18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Why did Paul not want the old system rebuilt? WHY?


Gal 2:18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor.

WHY????

#2
You fail to realize Rom 7;25 is what is called by scholars an indacative, where 6;14 is an imperative.

#3
Your trying to stray off on the Adam transgession thing. I was showing a simple turth, that trasngression just meana the violation of a known command.

BUT..BUT..brfore I let you divert, it is your turn to answer the verses I posted here. Thanks..


rabbit stew for you