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

listed said:

And this still happens as demonstrated with your statements. You're clearly evangelizing Christians against the TOS. .

Click to expand...

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

klutedavid said:

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.’

Click to expand...

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)

klutedavid said:

Sometimes I experience difficulty in following your posts.

We agree Bob,

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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

klutedavid said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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

klutedavid said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

listed said:

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?

Click to expand...

I find your logic "illusive" just then..

listed said:

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;

Click to expand...

First commandment - where?

klutedavid said:

Funny fellow, so what do you mean by this statement in that paragraph. "completely omitting the first"

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

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

listed said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

listed said:

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

Click to expand...

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??

listed said:

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.

Click to expand...

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)

listed said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

klutedavid said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

klutedavid said:

Funny fellow, so what do you mean by this statement in that paragraph -- "completely omitting the first".

Click to expand...

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.

klutedavid said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

klutedavid said:

I counted five commandments from the ten commandments, not six. Loving your neighbor, is not a commandment listed in the ten commandments.

Click to expand...

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