Oldmantook
Well-Known Member
Answer: Are you not aware that Jesus is our great high priest?? Are you not aware that Jesus is the lamb of God??
Upvote
0
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.
Answer: Are you not aware that Jesus is our great high priest?? Are you not aware that Jesus is the lamb of God??Now for the matter of forgiveness of sin. Here is what the Law says:
Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a person sins unintentionally in any of the [a]things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them, 3 if the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the Lord a bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed.
....and here is what Jesus says:
And they *came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. 4 Being unable to [a]get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. 5 And Jesus seeing their faith *said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.
Your response?
Hi all. I've had a look at a few threads here which deal with the old law and how it correlates to the new testament. There seems to be a growing number of people today who want to go back to the old law as though the old ways are superior to what Jesus taught. I believe this video does a pretty good job of explaining why we should not keep going back to the law because Jesus is the fulfillment of all the promises to Abraham. I'd like to hear what others think and I look forward to discussing the issues.
Of course not. Your logic is quite illogical. If you had bothered to read carefully, my point was the Pharisees had already ignored the law by not bringing in the man for questioning. Thus Jesus was not bound to follow the law in this "kangaroo court." Comprende?Come on, man. We are not idiots. Here is are these two texts you cite:
If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.
You are trying to argue that unless both are put to death, neither should be put to death. No reasonable person would read these texts that way. Imagine if we had a law that said both the bank robber and the getaway car driver are to go to jail. If the driver gets away, does this mean the robber goes free?
Of course not.
Suit yourself!Nope. You guys continue to argue a point that cannot work. When Jesus says nothing that goes into a man defiles Him, He means what He says - nothing. And food, last time I checked, is something that goes into the mouth.
Law(s) see attached PDF
Your logic is quite illogical. If you had bothered to read carefully, my point was the Pharisees had already ignored the law by not bringing in the man for questioning. Thus Jesus was not bound to follow the law in this "kangaroo court." Comprende?
Your position rests on the weak implicit supposition that since Jesus begins his critique with an attack on Pharasaic add-ons, that focus must be preserved throughout the encounter. But there is indeed a shift in focus in the Mark 7 encounter.Answer: the subject is unwashed hands - not clean/unclean food. Pay attention. The Pharisees taught that one must wash hands before eating. The is no such requirement in the law of Moses. The context indicates that this is a hygienic issue - not a dietary issue. You fail to observe context.
You are speculating - there is nothing in the account that even hints that the Pharisees are trying to "frame" an innocent woman. Does Jesus in any question the truthfulness of their claim? No. In fact, Jesus tells her to "go and sin no more" - pretty compelling evidence that Jesus knows she is guilty Of course, it is possible she is innocent. But then the entire story makes no sense whatsoever - it is clear here that the issue is forgiveness. And a woman innocent of adultery does not require forgiveness.Secondly, the law requires that witnesses must come forward and give their testimony as a thorough investigation is required. If upon examination, the witness is found to have given false testimony then he/she must be purged (Deuteronomy 19:18-19). They knew that if upon cross-examination their testimony were found to be false, they stood to incur the same penalty the accused would have suffered. And that is why they all backed down when Jesus asked them if they were without sin, let them cast the first stone.
Are you serious? What about that "little detail" called the Holy Spirit?This is not rocket science as a pertinent question to ask is how can the law not be in force anymore? Through the law comes knowledge of sin clearly stated in Rom 3:21. If the law has been set aside as you allege, then how would anyone know what to repent of since there is no more law which defines sin for us?
Let's talk about verse 12 first. Here it is in context, with the verb tenses highlighted:As for Rom 7, does the context of the rest of that chapter fit with your interpretation?
v.12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
v.22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law
v.25 So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature d a slave to the law of sin.
Did you catch that? Paul himself states he is still a slave to God's law.
Paul is not a slave to the Law of Moses anymore. You need to read on a little further into Romans 8:This is not rocket science as a pertinent question to ask is how can the law not be in force anymore? Through the law comes knowledge of sin clearly stated in Rom 3:21. If the law has been set aside as you allege, then how would anyone know what to repent of since there is no more law which defines sin for us? That is a practical consideration which your view does not account for.
As for Rom 7, does the context of the rest of that chapter fit with your interpretation?
v.12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
v.22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law
v.25 So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature d a slave to the law of sin.
Did you catch that? Paul himself states he is still a slave to God's law. How can that be if the law is "set aside?"
Interesting stuff. I have argued elsewhere (perhaps not in this thread) that the "passing of heaven and earth" is metaphorical language grounded in Jewish tradition. In short, in both the Old Testament and in other Jewish writings, such cosmological language is used as a symbol for profound socio-political change. It appears that you have found a similar connection to Hebrews. Let me dig down a bit. Here is part of that Hebrews passage:Here's where it gets sticky....
Jesus says that UNTIL the eschatological time of the passing of "heaven and earth,"....(Matt 5:20).
But The Bible does a great Job of Un sticking....
Hebrews 12:18-28 tells precisely the extent of things. God's establishment of the Mosaic World was a "shaking of the earth," and his establishment of the New Covenant Kingdom was a "shaking earth and heaven."
He also hinted that Moses was wrong for allowing people to divorce.
This is an excellent example of how the spirit surpasses the law; the pharisees were technically correct about the punishment for adultery, but Jesus could see that they weren't really concerned about moral authority or righteousness. They were using the woman (and her sin) as a tool against him. All their pride and technical nitpicking of the law had blinded them to the spirit.
Interesting posts.There are plenty of reasons to believe the Law of Moses has come to an end. One biggie is that the Law of Moses marked out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile. But Paul argues at length that there should no longer be any such distinction - there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ Jesus. In fact, in Ephesians 2, Paul (or whoever wrote Ephesians 2) declares the abolition of the "Law of commandments contained in ordnances". And that has to be the Law of Moses he is talking about.
Christians just need to come to the understanding that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is God in the Flesh and it is His law to do what He wills including the blocking of a woman who, by the law, was to be stoned to death.Hi all. I've had a look at a few threads here which deal with the old law and how it correlates to the new testament. There seems to be a growing number of people today who want to go back to the old law as though the old ways are superior to what Jesus taught. I believe this video does a pretty good job of explaining why we should not keep going back to the law because Jesus is the fulfillment of all the promises to Abraham. I'd like to hear what others think and I look forward to discussing the issues.
Christians just need to come to the understanding that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is God in the Flesh and it is His law to do what He wills including blocking of a woman who, by the law, was to be stoned to death.
He showed us a better way.
I agree, but I think there is more to it than this. The Law of Moses was what marked out the Jew from the rest of world. I suspect you will agree that the nation of Israel had a central role in God's overall plan of redemption. And if you believe that plan was essentially completed on the cross, the case can be made, and I am convinced Paul believes this, that Israel has completed its role in the redemption narrative.That's why it's so important to understand that Jesus did not destroy the law; rather, as you've said, he showed a better was of acting on the law, something humans should have been learning all along (i.e. a right interpretation of how to apply the law justly).
God's will is recorded in His word... we don't get to make up His will. And when Yeshua walked the Earth, there was no NT. The recorded Word, the "bible" of the day, is the work you are dismissing.From the hardened, old-bottle, religious hypocrite perspective he broke the sabbath. The religious leaders of his day, those people who made the biggest fuss about the need to keep the law were the ones most vehemently accusing him.
Nah, Jesus himself made the point that he had not come to destroy the law (or do away with it), but to fulfill it. Jesus brought a new understanding; a new way which he referred to as the Kingdom of Heaven. Paul boasted about all of his amazing devotion and religious adherence to the law, and then said it was all dung compared to what Jesus brought.
The cross is a part of his ministry. What he said about money, material possessions, the grievance system, keeping our praying, fasting, and charity giving secret, not using special titles of flattery, and going in to all the world to preach the gospel are also part of the values which make up his fulfillment of the old law.
Nah. Sin includes anything contrary to what is good or consistent with God's will. Eating ice cream can be sinful if it's done with a wrong motivation. That's one of the problems with the old law; people exploit it on the basis of the letter, believing themselves to be righteousness because of a technicality.
Why would He declare an end to "if a man lays with a man as he would a woman, it is an abomination." Is that what he declared an end to? Because that is the Law of Moses (which is an idiom by the way, for "law of God").I don't think so - what it shows, instead, is that, as God incarnate, Jesus has the authority to declare the end of the Law of Moses.
Jesus "breaks" the Law of Moses other times as well, for example when He declares He has the authority to forgive sin. If you know your Old Testament, the Law indicated you had to go to the Temple for forgiveness.
Remember when Jesus stopped the stoning of the woman caught in adultery? There, too, He defied the Law of Moses which calls for this woman to be stoned to death.
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?