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

[listed]

First commandment - where?

Why are you just using part of a verse you often quote? And why are you refusing to discuss the context of my passage quote?

 

[BobRyan]

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

I will agree with your answer on this one.

hmmm... interesting

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

those false accusations -- easy enough to make

 

[BobRyan]

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

He was coveting ... and Christ does not tell him "not to take God's name in vain" or "to love God with all his heart" .. He leaves out the first 4 commandments AND the Deut 6:4 great command that is the foundation for them. Christ addresses only the foundation and commandments for "Love your neighbor" Lev 19:18

 

[BobRyan]

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?

Why are you just using part of a verse you often quote? And why are you refusing to discuss the context of my passage quote?

so everyone can see whether or not you will answer a very simple question from the text you quote

 

[listed]

Given this --

Rev 14:12

• "The saints keep the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus

Why are you quoting this passage? I take it as either condemning or gloating. The gloating is your claim to keep the ten commandments. John no where talks about keeping them. Quote a few texts have been quoted to you proving this and have been rejected.

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

Same for the 2 above out of context quotes you mean to mean the ten commandments. I don't understand where you get that idea. Do you have some support for it?

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

Great question from Paul. Why would you post it?

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.

But that isn't what you promote. You require the keeping of the law for salvation. Keeping the law is being under (controlled by) the law.

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

This passage doesn't define sin. It also doesn't leave the idea of obligation. Your idea is sin is only violation of the law. But Paul says: sin was in the world before the law in 5:13. That's Romans in case you want to argue you don't know where. The verse you base your premise on is 1 John 3:4 in which you only quote half ignoring a small word "also" which disallows for your opinion of only. The law came about because of sin (Galatians 3:19). So Romans 5:13 is supported as truth right along with the whole verse of 1 John 3:4.

The church in Galatia is a gentile church - not a Jewish one.

You're trying to say no Jews attended the church of Galatia. How when Paul preached to the Jew first? How when the Jews followed Paul everywhere causing trouble. How when Paul says plainly false brethren sneaked in?

And why is Paul accusing a gentile church of this?
Why does Paul think the gentiles of Galatia want to be "under the Law"?

Unqualified premise as I showed above.

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??

Circumcision, a sin? What a laugh. I read the whole law. What Paul says if you keep any of the law for salvation you must keep all the law for salvation. Jesus also says the same thing to the man asking what must I do in Matthew 19. Jesus shows without doubt no one can. It has to be the reason the man left sorrowfully.

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.

In-other-words keeping the law doesn't matter. Now quote your favorite out of context partial verse from Corinthians.

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

Ah you did. Circumcision is part of the law and as such is required of all Jews. So circumcision does matter if one keeps any of the law for salvation.

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

This is exactly the same reason you want others to keep the sabbath.

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.

You won't quote verse 5.

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

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.

Half truths with a distraction. The allegory indicates the law has nothing to do with salvation and to sever one's self from it.

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.

What is different from what you do? You teach keeping the law is required because unless you do you can't have salvation.

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.

"Jerusalem above isn't the law or Jerusalem in the middle east.

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 egaging in other forms of syncretism

Jews served the law as evidenced in Acts 15:5.

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.

Weak and beggarly elements are the law as Paul demonstrates in more than one of his letters.

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

My previous post stands on this.

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




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.




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??



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

Exactly what the Jews were doing as the council at Jerusalem was about. The demand was fully rejected by the Apostles.

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

And that is...

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?

Paul doesn't say keep the law demonstrated in chapters 5, 6 and 7 as well as Galatians.

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?

No. Paul isn't contrasting the wicked and saints in 8.[/quote]

Free will. He chose not to take Jesus up on His offer "sell all that you have and follow Me"[/QUOTE]Suggest you do what you preach here.

 

[BobRyan]

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

=========================================
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.

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.

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


And the rich young ruler of Mathew 19 turns away in sorrow
Free will. He chose not to take Jesus up on His offer "sell all that you have and follow Me"

Why are you quoting this passage?

Because that is the topic of this thread

I take it as either condemning or gloating.

Are you imagining that it is some sort of prideful statement - that I can stay on topic?

 

[BobRyan]

You require the keeping of the law for salvation

Will you be saying that each time I insist that it is a 'sin' even for Christians to "take God's name in vain" since even in the NT - "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" -- 1 John 3:4

1 John 2:1 "these things I write to you that you sin not"

. Keeping the law is being under (controlled by) the law

Interesting creative writing ... Paul never says it - but you do. Paul gives his own definition for that term in Romans 3:19-20 as we all know by now.

So once again - will you be saying that each time I insist that it is a 'sin' even for Christians to "take God's name in vain" since even in the NT - "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" -- 1 John 3:4

1 John 2:1 "these things I write to you that you sin not"

.This passage doesn't define sin. It also doesn't leave the idea of obligation. Your idea is sin is only violation of the law.

It appears you are not paying enough attention to the detail in the posts.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul doesn't say keep the law demonstrated in chapters 5, 6 and 7 as well as Galatians.

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
Rom 3:31 "do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith - on the contrary we ESTABLISH the LAW of God"

More Bible - less creative writing.

 

[BobRyan]

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?

No. Paul isn't contrasting the wicked and saints in 8.

yes. He is.

More Bible details - less creative writing.

Rom 8
He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

The two groups clearly contrasted

9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

 

[listed]

I find your logic "illusive" just then..

My posted Scripture also must be illusive because you don't want to discuss it either.

 

[listed]

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
Rom 3:31 "do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith - on the contrary we ESTABLISH the LAW of God"

More Bible - less creative writing.

This isn't creative writing:

Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

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.

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.


Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

I could post many more that you'll only ignore.

 

[listed]

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?

A dead man can do nothing.

Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

8 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God

You demand we be lead by the law. Let the Scripture speak for itself and God.

yes. He is.

More Bible details - less creative writing.

My above quotes aren't creative writing.

Rom 8
He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Verse 4 doesn't indicate we are to fulfill (keep) the law.

The two groups clearly contrasted

9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

Please note the pronouns in my quotes. They indicate Paul is talking about the same people all the way through.

 

[listed]

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



hmmm... interesting



those false accusations -- easy enough to make

The real point Jesus makes without saying is you don't (rather he didn't) keep the law. Jesus made this point without condemning.

 

[listed]

Because that is the topic of this thread



Are you imagining that it is some sort of prideful statement - that I can stay on topic?

Please show otherwise with discussion and exegetical and parsed backing.

 

[listed]

Will you be saying that each time I insist that it is a 'sin' even for Christians to "take God's name in vain" since even in the NT - "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" -- 1 John 3:4

You continue to try and sneak in the guarded back door with your partial quotes changing the truth into a lie.

1 John 2:1 "these things I write to you that you sin not"

Doesn't work even for you, does it?

Interesting creative writing ... Paul never says it - but you do. Paul gives his own definition for that term in Romans 3:19-20 as we all know by now.

So once again - will you be saying that each time I insist that it is a 'sin' even for Christians to "take God's name in vain" since even in the NT - "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" -- 1 John 3:4

1 John 2:1 "these things I write to you that you sin not"



It appears you are not paying enough attention to the detail in the posts.

Paying attention to the details in your post is what gets you into trouble with the Scripture. You continue to try and prove we obey at least part of the law whether we want to or not. As has been demonstrated to you this is false. There's no such thing as obedience by incidence.

 

[listed]

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
Rom 3:31 "do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith - on the contrary we ESTABLISH the LAW of God"

More Bible - less creative writing.

Yes according to you we can get into heaven bypassing Jesus by keeping the law. The quoted words of Jesus found in the Gospel of John disagrees with you.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes according to you we can get into heaven bypassing Jesus

Creative writing not your strong suit -- and not a substitute for quoting someone instead of just falsely accusing them by merely "quoting you" ... as we all know.

 

[BobRyan]

You require the keeping of the law for salvation

Will you be saying that each time I insist that it is a 'sin' even for Christians to "take God's name in vain" since even in the NT - "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" -- 1 John 3:4

1 John 2:1 "these things I write to you that you sin not"

. Keeping the law is being under (controlled by) the law

Interesting creative writing ... Paul never says it - but you do. Paul gives his own definition for that term in Romans 3:19-20 as we all know by now.

So once again - will you be saying that each time I insist that it is a 'sin' even for Christians to "take God's name in vain" since even in the NT - "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" -- 1 John 3:4

1 John 2:1 "these things I write to you that you sin not"

.This passage doesn't define sin. It also doesn't leave the idea of obligation. Your idea is sin is only violation of the law.

It appears you are not paying enough attention to the detail in the posts.

You continue to try and sneak in the guarded back door

Not in real life. In real life my posts do not require falsely accusing anyone of anything.

Paying attention to the details in your post is what gets you into trouble with the Scripture.

I find your logic "illusive" just then since it is the details in scripture that I keep reminding you of in my posts.

As stated before ... it is still a "sin" even for Christians "to take God's name in vain" Exodus 20:7 and we all know it.

The point remains.

 

[BobRyan]

In Matthew 22 - Christ says all of scripture "all the law and the prophets" rests on the firm bedrock of two of the Commandments in the Law of Moses --

Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart"
Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself"

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.

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.


Matthew 19
if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder;
You shall not commit adultery;
You shall not steal;
You shall not bear false witness;
19 Honor your father and mother; and
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

(all from Ten Commandments and from Lev 19:18 showing that Lev 19:18 does not delete the commandments founded upon it)

20 The young man *said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving

Notice that Paul says we must fulfill all that same list.

Notice Paul's focus on "fulfilling the law"

Romans 13
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this,
Thou shalt not commit adultery,
Thou shalt not kill,
Thou shalt not steal,
Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Thou shalt not covet;
and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Same list - pre-cross and post-cross

The real point Jesus makes without saying is you don't (rather he didn't) keep the law. Jesus made this point without condemning.

Notice how in Romans 13 Paul does not say "don't worry about fulfilling the law" when using the "same list" Christ used?

That because born-again saved Christians have the LAW written on the heart under the NEW Covenant -- the SAME law.

 

[listed]

Creative writing not your strong suit -- and not a substitute for quoting someone instead of just falsely accusing them by merely "quoting you" ... as we all know.

Debating and discussing Scripture isn't your strong suit. All I've seen from you is promotion of your churches teaching ignoring much Scripture. Your claim is I ignore the Scripture you post. The truth is you ignore even Moses and the words of Jesus.

I quoted Scripture for you with no response to any of those passages. You're the one who repeatedly says give me Scripture. I did and you don't believe.