• 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.

Gal 4 and Gal 5 and "under Law" explained without deleting God's Commandments

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,342
11,900
Georgia
✟1,092,355.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
And this still happens as demonstrated with your statements. You're clearly evangelizing Christians against the TOS. .

Making stuff up. ... creative writing... false accusations... again?

As it turns out - TOS does not prohibit having a different opinion from you - or showing the Bible texts that support that opinion.

reality... what a concept
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,342
11,900
Georgia
✟1,092,355.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Bob, once again.

Are these two commandments below, the first and the second commandments in the law?

Matthew 22:36-39
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

Jesus said they are the greatest commandments in the law.

David - once again, (as you continue to ignore every detail in the posts)

Both of them from the LAW of Moses -- Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18

And only one of them mentioned by Christ in Matthew 19 when after Jesus said "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "which ones" - answers with a list from the TEN Commandments (that does not include (do not take God's name in vain) - and end with the second commandment in your quote - completely omitting the first.

Just as Jesus points to SIX of the TEN commandments in Matthew 19.

The point remains

And as Paul reminds us -- the fifth commandment is the first commandment with a promise
In that unit of "TEN" - Eph 6:2

Yet - Not mentioned at all in Matthew 22.

(hopefully you will ask for these Bible details to be repeated a few more times - by insisting on ignoring them)

Sometimes I experience difficulty in following your posts.

We agree Bob,

Well I am glad the easy and obvious part is not too difficult for our discussion.

You definitely have a method of interpretation that is altering what Jesus emphasized.

Not in real life.

Both of them from the LAW of Moses -- Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18

And only one of them mentioned by Christ in Matthew 19 when after Jesus said "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "which ones" - answers with a list from the TEN Commandments (that does not include (do not take God's name in vain) - and end with the second commandment in your quote - completely omitting the first.

Just as Jesus points to SIX of the TEN commandments in Matthew 19.

A very muddled paragraph, you are seeing something that I do not see?

So then - what part of the statement I just made - is not incredibly obvious to all - on both sides of the debate?
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
How about you explain this overloaded paragraph referring to Matthew 19.
And only one of them mentioned by Christ in Matthew 19 when after Jesus said "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "which ones" - answers with a list from the TEN Commandments (that does not include (do not take God's name in vain) - and end with the second commandment in your quote - completely omitting the first.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,342
11,900
Georgia
✟1,092,355.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You definitely have a method of interpretation that is altering what Jesus emphasized.

Not in real life.

Both of them from the LAW of Moses -- Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18

And only one of them mentioned by Christ in Matthew 19 when after Jesus said "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "which ones" - answers with a list from the TEN Commandments (that does not include (do not take God's name in vain) - and end with the second commandment in your quote - completely omitting the first.

Just as Jesus points to SIX of the TEN commandments in Matthew 19.

A very muddled paragraph, you are seeing something that I do not see?

So then - what part of the statement I just made - is not incredibly obvious to all - on both sides of the debate?

How about you explain this overloaded paragraph referring to Matthew 19.

How about you give the readers of this thread some clue as to what part of that statement is not incredibly obvious to you??

========================

For example in a normal conversation someone posts a short paragraph and then a response of the form (when you say A -- do you mean capital "A" or lower-case "a"? ).

you point to nothing at all that is difficult or not explained so far.

Are you reading the post?
 
Upvote 0

listed

are you?
May 14, 2011
9,126
1,817
✟53,797.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Making stuff up. ... creative writing... false accusations... again?

As it turns out - TOS does not prohibit having a different opinion from you - or showing the Bible texts that support that opinion.

reality... what a concept
No I'm not making stuff up or offering my opinion. I addressed only your last paragraph.

In your post to defend keeping the law you mentioned the physical circumcision of Timothy as proof. Are ceremonially physically circumcised? you also mentioned again Matthew 19 about Jesus answering the man's question about what must I do to have eternal life. Your claim is that one must only keep the ten commandments. My Bible says no one has ever been able to do this in both testaments (Psalms and Romans). The Jews admitted trying to submit to the law was a curse (Nehemiah 10:29). Romans 11:32 says God did this on purpose (issued a law that was impossible for rebellious man to keep) so He could show mercy. But according to the OT you have Jesus teaching against it making Him a false teacher with your presentation of Matthew 19. That also is contrary to John 10 where Jesus says plainly you must enter through Him. Jesus also says anyone trying to get in some other way is a thief and all who came before Him are thieves and robbers in the same chapter. The sheep do not hear them. This includes Moses.

Back to your Matthew 19 stuff. Please explain why the man left sorrowfully. After all Jesus didn't condemn him. You have no post discussing the full incident. So why aren't you willing to discuss the full incident? I think the reason is if you do, your argument goes down in flames. You also need to reconcile this with John 10.
 
Upvote 0

listed

are you?
May 14, 2011
9,126
1,817
✟53,797.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Jesus said they are the greatest commandments in the law.

David - once again, (as you continue to ignore every detail in the posts)

Both of them from the LAW of Moses -- Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18

And only one of them mentioned by Christ in Matthew 19 when after Jesus said "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "which ones" - answers with a list from the TEN Commandments (that does not include (do not take God's name in vain) - and end with the second commandment in your quote - completely omitting the first.

Just as Jesus points to SIX of the TEN commandments in Matthew 19.

The point remains

And as Paul reminds us -- the fifth commandment is the first commandment with a promise
In that unit of "TEN" - Eph 6:2
You continue to keep cherry picking and divorcing this verse from the context or general discussion Paul presents. Here is the whole deal:

6 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.

2 Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;

3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;

You never say anything about verse 4 which has caused me many problems and not because of being a father (I'm not). What is Paul trying to do here? Is he indeed trying to enforce the law like you? How can this bee when Paul also says we're delivered from the law in Romans? Aren't you using Paul against himself making him a babbling fool?
 
Upvote 0

listed

are you?
May 14, 2011
9,126
1,817
✟53,797.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Not in real life.

Both of them from the LAW of Moses -- Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18

And only one of them mentioned by Christ in Matthew 19 when after Jesus said "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "which ones" - answers with a list from the TEN Commandments (that does not include (do not take God's name in vain) - and end with the second commandment in your quote - completely omitting the first.

Just as Jesus points to SIX of the TEN commandments in Matthew 19.



So then - what part of the statement I just made - is not incredibly obvious to all - on both sides of the debate?



How about you give the readers of this thread some clue as to what part of that statement is not incredibly obvious to you??
It is and has always been incredibly obvious you never discuss the full account of your partial presentation of the story. Why? Will it defeat and deflate your argument?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,342
11,900
Georgia
✟1,092,355.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
It is and has always been incredibly obvious you never discuss the full account of your partial presentation of the story. Why? Will it defeat and deflate your argument?

I find your logic "illusive" just then..
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,342
11,900
Georgia
✟1,092,355.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You continue to keep cherry picking and divorcing this verse from the context or general discussion Paul presents. Here is the whole deal:

6 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.

2 Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;

First commandment - where?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,342
11,900
Georgia
✟1,092,355.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Funny fellow, so what do you mean by this statement in that paragraph. "completely omitting the first"
It means it was omitted from the list - Jesus did not include it... "omitted".

next.

It means He singled out "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18 and included with it the last 6 Commandments dealing with that command. All of it - from the Law of Moses and Ten Commandments.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,342
11,900
Georgia
✟1,092,355.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Given this --

Rev 14:12
  • "The saints keep the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus

1 John 5:2-3
  • "2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and a]">[a]observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome."

Matthew 19
  • Christ said "Keep the commandments" and is asked "which ones" -- then Christ gives the same list we see Paul giving in Romans 13 -- quoting from the TEN Commandments

===============================================
Let's Read Galatians 4:
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?

In Romans 3:19-21 Paul already defined his use of the phrase "Under the Law"
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Paul makes the case that the Law is still binding
And it defines what sin is.
And it condemns all mankind - showing that all need salvation... need the Gospel for "All have sinned" Rom 3:23

The church in Galatia is a gentile church - not a Jewish one.
And why is Paul accusing a gentile church of this?
Why does Paul think the gentiles of Galatia want to be "under the Law"?

Here Paul is expanding on what He thinks of certain Gentiles in Galatia

Gal 5
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Back to Romans 3
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Why does Paul think the gentiles in Galatia are guilty of this?

ANSWER:
Gal 5
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

Ah-hah -- is that the great sin of the gentiles in Galatia??

Nope. Paul requires that Timothy be circumcised

Acts 16
a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.


Gal 5 - whether you are circumcised or not - does not matter.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping of the commandments of God.

Repeatedly Paul teaches that while it is true that it does not matter if one is circumcised or not - yet when the gentiles in Galatia do it -- they are "fallen from grace" and "severed from Christ". Gal 5:4

Why?

Because they are doing it as a "sign" that they wish to be "justified by law" Gal 5:4

Where did the GENTILES in Galatia get that idea if not from Paul?

Answer: a certain small contingent of Christian Jews from Judea
Acts 15:1
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”​

They simply made that idea up -- no OT or NT scripture required it. The Christian gentiles in Galatia were giving in to Jewish practice of "making stuff up" and setting their own tradition = the Bible.

Gal 4
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic.

  • Paul now tells the reader he is switching over from real-life-literal to "symbolic".
  • In real life it is the children of Isaac son of Sarah that gather at Sinai - not the children Ishmael son of Hagar.

So this is not Paul claiming that Moses and Elijah who stand "with Christ" in Matthew 17 - in glory-- are standing in opposition to Christ, opposition to Grace, opposition to the Gospel.

Gal 4
For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—

Paul argues that in rejecting the Messiah -- The non-Christian Jews (as well as Christian Jews that choose to "make stuff up" place tradition above the Bible) -- and by symbol - Jerusalem as their capital - stand in opposition to the Gospel - as a counterfeit to it - just as Hagar and Ishmael represented a counterfeit to the promise - that was to come through Sarah's son Isaac.


Gal 4
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Jerusalem above "is mother of us all" - of both Christian gentiles and Christian Jews. Our "heritage" our "national and family identity" is united in the "Jerusalem above" which was in heaven at the time of Sinai and still is to this very day.

Paul is taking away the "heritage problem" that he brings up in Gal 4

8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods.

That was the gentile pagan "heritage" and that is apparently what the Christian Jews promoting circumcision of gentiles were selling them - a "deal" for getting rid of their pagan heritage by identifying with literal Jews or by engaging in other forms of syncretism

9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.


Gal 4
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now

Indeed - Christians were being persecuted by non-Christian Jews from Judea

=========================================


No I'm not making stuff up or offering my opinion. I addressed only your last paragraph.

Which said that Christians were being persecuted by non-Christian Jews. An irrefutable fact of history as we see in the NT. In theory - we both agree to it.


In your post to defend keeping the law you mentioned the physical circumcision of Timothy as proof. Are ceremonially physically circumcised?

As proof that Paul was not condemning the fact that Jews were being circumcised -- and in Acts 21 he specifically denies that he is telling Jews not to circumcise their children when they convert to Christianity.

And your point on this is??

you also mentioned again Matthew 19 about Jesus answering the man's question about what must I do to have eternal life. Your claim is that one must only keep the ten commandments.

My claim is that the text says Jesus said "Keep the Commandments" and when asked "Which ones" Jesus proceeded to quote from the TEN

And your point on this is?? (I am pretty sure you are not about to blame me for what Jesus said)

My Bible says no one has ever been able to do this in both testaments (Psalms and Romans).

Paul says to do the same thing that Jesus said to do in Matthew 19 when writing Romans 13 -- exact same list - that Paul says "We" are to "fulfill". You new that right?

In Romans 8:4-10 Paul says that the wicked who are not born-again are in contrast to the saints - in that wicked "do not submit to the law of God neither indeed CAN they" -- we have seen this a few dozen times as well - right?


Back to your Matthew 19 stuff. Please explain why the man left sorrowfully.

Free will. He chose not to take Jesus up on His offer "sell all that you have and follow Me"
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,342
11,900
Georgia
✟1,092,355.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Jesus said they are the greatest commandments in the law.

Both of them from the LAW of Moses -- Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18

And only one of them mentioned by Christ in Matthew 19 when after Jesus said "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "which ones" - answers with a list from the TEN Commandments (that does not include "do not take God's name in vain") - and end with the second commandment in your quote - which means completely omitting the first commandment in your list.

Just as Jesus points to SIX of the TEN commandments in Matthew 19.

The point remains

How about you explain this overloaded paragraph referring to Matthew 19 "completely omitting the first"

How about you tell us what part you are struggling with

Both of the Commandments in Matthew 22 come from the LAW of Moses -- Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18

And only one of them mentioned by Christ in Matthew 19 when after Jesus said "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "which ones" - answers with a list from the TEN Commandments (that does not include "do not take God's name in vain") - and end with the second commandment in your quote - which means completely omitting the first commandment in your list.

Funny fellow, so what do you mean by this statement in that paragraph -- "completely omitting the first".
It means it was omitted from the list - Jesus did not include it... "omitted".

It means He singled out "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18 and included with it the last 6 Commandments dealing with that command. All of it - from the Law of Moses and Ten Commandments.

And as Paul reminds us -- the fifth commandment is the first commandment with a promise In that unit of "TEN" - Eph 6:2

Yet - Not mentioned at all in Matthew 22.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,342
11,900
Georgia
✟1,092,355.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
What do you mean by saying, 'the law of Moses'?

You definitely have a method of interpretation that is altering what Jesus emphasized.

A very muddled paragraph, you are seeing something that I do not see?

Answer to first question: The text of scripture written by Moses
Answer to second: We see the same thing but you have a question and an accusation yet to be explained
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
We have a problem Houston.

You said.
Just as Jesus points to SIX of the TEN commandments in Matthew 19.
I counted five commandments from the ten commandments, not six. Loving your neighbor, is not a commandment listed in the ten commandments.

The parallel verse in Luke 18 (Matthew 19), lists only five of the ten commandments and omits, loving your neighbor.

So Bob, why did you say Jesus points to six of the ten commandments?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,342
11,900
Georgia
✟1,092,355.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I counted five commandments from the ten commandments, not six. Loving your neighbor, is not a commandment listed in the ten commandments.

He left out "do not covet" but then covered it in his command "sell all that you have - give it to the poor and come follow me".

In any case Paul provides that same list in Romans 13.

It it shows that under the Lev 19:18 command "Love your neighbor" He is upholding and affirming the six Commandments that come under that umbrella - not deleting them
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,636
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,349.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
He left out "do not covet" but then covered it in his command "sell all that you have - give it to the poor and come follow me".

In any case Paul provides that same list in Romans 13.

It it shows that under the Lev 19:18 command "Love your neighbor" He is upholding and affirming the six Commandments that come under that umbrella - not deleting them

Indeed as well the rich young ruler was putting his riches before God also breaking the first.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
He left out "do not covet" but then covered it in his command "sell all that you have - give it to the poor and come follow me".

In any case Paul provides that same list in Romans 13.

It it shows that under the Lev 19:18 command "Love your neighbor" He is upholding and affirming the six Commandments that come under that umbrella - not deleting them
I will agree with your answer on this one.

Though I struggle deeply with your loose interpretation, and your absolute disregard of the law.
 
Upvote 0