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.
Are you saying we are judged based on us following secular law? No, so what "law" is being spoken of? God's law... Moses wrote down the words of GOD. Anomia in this context is without God's law, not without secular law.Here is the 1 John 3:4 per Young's Literal Translation:
Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness,
The greek work anomia is "lawlessness", not "the Law of Moses" - I do not see the justification for taking a general term like lawlessness and reducing it to specific focus on the Law of Moses. After all, one can be lawless by speeding - that is hardly a violation of the Law of Moses.
It appears you don't understand the requirements of the law as it pertains to the subject of adultery. You may want to inform yourself accordingly. Do you not realize this was a trap set by the Pharisees to trick Jesus into violating the law? In order to have a lawful hearing for one accused of adultery, BOTH PARTIES MUST BE PRESENT. This was obviously not the case since ONLY the woman was present. Therefore they should not have been any convening for judgment as to whether this woman was guilty or not IN THE FIRST PLACE - since the adulterous man was not present. Thus given this false set-up, Jesus was under no obligation to render his opinion. Thus Jesus didn't violate the law since they were not following the law in the first place in terms of the correct protocols for bringing an accused person forward. It's not a matter of whether the woman was guilty or not. The fact that they violated the law in bringing an accusation of adultery against her doomed their case from the beginning.So, you're saying if they had also brought the man Jesus would have been like, "Huh, I guess you guys are right, stone them!"?
David... what Jesus was accused of breaking is not in the bible, not in the Torah (the law). What he was accused of breaking was the MAN MADE ADDITIONS to the law. Is there a commandment that says one can't pick a piece of fruit of vegetable on the Sabbath and eat it? No, there is not. There is a command to not pick and SELL on the Sabbath... or not pick and store to sell later (both are work)... but picking and eating isn't prohibited in God's law. It was prohibited by rabbinic law.Jesus was accused of breaking the sabbath and claiming equality with God. Jesus was guilty on both counts.
The judgments (and punishments) were added by God for when Israel was a sovereign nation. But when Jesus walked the earth, Judea was under Roman rule and God's law wasn't being used as Israel's civil law. The do's and don'ts were followed, but they had no authority to exact punishment. They still did from time to time (i.e. Stephen) but in general they yielded to their occupier hence them asking Rome to kill Christ.The message of Jesus and him paying the price for our sins fulfilled or displaced the law. every jot and tittle. His message was forgiveness of all sins, every jot and tittle. His payment for all crimes of humanity was his death.
The old covenant included death for many crimes. Jesus paid for all those crimes and ever other crime. With His forgiveness, all sins are not counted against those who wish to be with the Father.
The fact that the Law of Moses has been retired does not mean that is ok to "lay with a man as with a woman". Does a Christian with the indwelling Holy Spirit need a written code to tell them that?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").
In any event, you are not looking for answers, you have an agenda. So... I am out. Be blessed.
And when Yeshua walked the Earth, there was no NT. The recorded Word, the "bible" of the day, is the work you are dismissing.
You are not perfected, the spirit given was given as a down payment (2 Cor 1:22 and 2 Cor 5:5) not as an end all. Since you seem to think one can simply exist and please God only with the spirit, throw your bible out and don't study to show yourself approved. You can be approved without study, right?The fact that the Law of Moses has been retired does not mean that is ok to "lay with a man as with a woman". Does a Christian with the indwelling Holy Spirit need a written code to tell them that?
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.
No, go back to my original post John. I shared some thoughts and then said if you wanted some evidence, wanted to hear more, I would share. And if you were pushing an agenda, then I didn't have the time. You are pushing an agenda, you aren't willing to hear anything outside your own paradigm so I won't bother you. OK? That is firing off potshots and running, it is being frugal with my time which is extremely limited.This is what, in internet parlance, is called a pot shot. Fire off some shots about how I'm making stuff up and then announce that you don't want anything to do with the convo. *eye roll*
I am simply saying that sin is lawlessness in general - violating "moral law". You seem to think that the Law of Moses is the only possible source for moral law. What about the prompting of the spirit? Remember what Paul says in Romans 1:Are you saying we are judged based on us following secular law? No, so what "law" is being spoken of? God's law... Moses wrote down the words of GOD. Anomia in this context is without God's law, not without secular law.
Ok Soyeong. Thanks for that. Would you mind taking what you believe to be the strongest argument from your previous post and reposting it here? You made a lot of points and I feel trying to respond to all of them will only get us bogged down.
Totally false! Jesus never brought up the subject as it WAS INITIATED by the scribes and Pharisees. Are you not able to read the text?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.
Paul quotes the OT 37% of the time he writes in the NT, that is a fact! The OT, the Torah in particular, gives us God's will, His desire, His differentiation between sin and righteousness... by the letter. In the Prophets, and even more so in the NT, we see the spirit behind the letter. There is no new commandments in the NT.... nor has there been anything added. What we have is the depth behind the letter revealed in his words (and the words of the NT authors) and in his actions.I am simply saying that sin is lawlessness in general - violating "moral law". You seem to think that the Law of Moses is the only possible source for moral law. What about the prompting of the spirit? Remember what Paul says in Romans 1:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
This text is clear: we do not need the Law of Moses for moral guidance; Paul says that from the beginning of time - long before the Law of Moses - people have an inner moral compass.
Are you serious? Does the Holy Spirit violate the commands of God? Yes or no?Are you serious? What about that "little detail" called the Holy Spirit?
Of course Paul is free from the law of sin and death. He had saving faith which freed him from the penalty of sin and death. However that does not mean the law no longer exists. Are you free to lust upon another person with your eyes? Obviously not as Jesus' instruction exceeded the law. However since the law no longer applies according to you, you would now be free to commit physical adultery.Paul is not a slave to the Law of Moses anymore. You need to read on a little further into Romans 8:
find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life [a]in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
What do we see in verse 22 and 23: A man (Paul) explaining that while he delights in the Law of Moses, he is still a prisoner to sin. And, again, in verse 25 he talks about serving the Law of God and yet, again, still imprisoned by sin. But verse 2 in chapter 8 declares that something has changed - Paul is no longer engaged in this struggle! He has been set free!
Why is this relevant? It shows that Romans 8:2 is where Paul is now, whereas the stuff at the end of Romans 7 is about where he was in the past. This, of course, does not prove the Law of Moses is retired. But, at the very least it shows that you cannot use statement about "delighting in the Law" from Romans 7 as evidence that the Law is still in force - that stuff is in the past: the Law might still be in force when we arrive at Romans 8.
But then again, it might not.
It's not what I believe Ken, it's what the scripture states.David... what Jesus was accused of breaking is not in the bible, not in the Torah (the law). What he was accused of breaking was the MAN MADE ADDITIONS to the law. Is there a commandment that says one can't pick a piece of fruit of vegetable on the Sabbath and eat it? No, there is not. There is a command to not pick and SELL on the Sabbath... or not pick and store to sell later (both are work)... but picking and eating isn't prohibited in God's law. It was prohibited by rabbinic law.
Whatever you end up believing fine, it's between you and God, not me and you. But calling our Messiah is law breaker is, in my view, kind of dangerous especially when what you think he broke isn't in the law.
Blessings.
Ken
Perhaps we could focus on what it means to fulfill the Law and to that extent whether Jesus taught obedience to it.
Are you kidding? Are you not even aware that in the verses you cited, Paul is referring to his life before he was saved? And that is exactly why he was talking in the past. However in Rom 7:25 he is now talking in present tense terms of now being saved. "So then with my mind I myself serve (present tense) the law of God...." Thus as a saved person, Paul still served the law of God.Let's talk about verse 12 first. Here it is in context, with the verb tenses highlighted:
7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
Paul is clearly talking about the past (even though he says the Law "is" holy"; I will explain in my next post).
John 13:34Paul quotes the OT 37% of the time he writes in the NT, that is a fact! The OT, the Torah in particular, gives us God's will, His desire, His differentiation between sin and righteousness... by the letter. In the Prophets, and even more so in the NT, we see the spirit behind the letter. There is no new commandments in the NT.... nor has there been anything added. What we have is the depth behind the letter revealed in his words (and the words of the NT authors) and in his actions.
You may need to read the text.There is no new commandments in the NT
You cannot half quote a text.Are you kidding? Are you not even aware that in the verses you cited, Paul is referring to his life before he was saved? And that is exactly why he was talking in the past. However in Rom 7:25 he is now talking in present tense terms of now being saved. "So then with my mind I myself serve (present tense) the law of God...." Thus as a saved person, Paul still served the law of God.
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?