I have an idea VictorC...

[VictorC]

Why are you so stuck on Sinai? Don't you think the Laws on stone were sins prior to Sinai? Don't you think the Sabbath was a day set apart by God before Sinai? What makes you think these things have changed just because we are no longer under the conditions of the old covenant?

All you're telling me is that you don't accept Jeremiah's prophecy concerning a new covenant. You're bound to the first covenant that a new covenant made "obsolete".

You might not be stoned for adultery under the new covenant but it's still a sin.

Admission of a sin with no law to provide a transgression is the basis whereby forgiveness is available. To acheive that one must experience redemption from the law, "For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression." (Romans 4:14-15).

And since you acknowledge adultery as a sin, why then do you engage in it?

Romans 7:1-4
Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.

You can be the property of the law or Jesus, but making an appeal to both is adultery.

 

[k4c]

VictorC; All you're telling me is that you don't accept Jeremiah's prophecy concerning a new covenant. You're bound to the first covenant that a new covenant made "obsolete".

Negative...I don't keep the Law to be justified before God.

Admission of a sin with no law to provide a transgression is the basis whereby forgiveness is available. To acheive that one must experience redemption from the law, "For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression." (Romans 4:14-15).

Romans 3:31 Well then, if we are saved by faith, does this mean that we no longer need obey God's laws? Just the opposite! In fact, only when we trust Jesus can we truly obey him.

And since you acknowledge adultery as a sin, why then do you engage in it?

Romans 7:1-4
Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.

Amen...I am married to Jesus so now I'm set free from the curse of the Law. You could say that grace is the wedding gift from God but that does not set me free to break God's Law.

Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!

Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

You can be the property of the law or Jesus, but making an appeal to both is adultery.

I am the property of Jesus, which now changes my relationship to the Law.

Romans 7:22 For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self,

Remember, it's sin that brings the death sentence from the Law, not Law.

Romans 7:13 Has then what is good (the Law) become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.

When I got married to Jesus He took away the sin which released me from the condemning power of the Law but not the principles of the Law.

You need to speak the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth.

 

[VictorC]

Negative...I don't keep the Law to be justified before God.

I suppose that is a concession that you don't accept Jeremiah's prophecy of a new covenant.

Romans 3:31 Well then, if we are saved by faith, does this mean that we no longer need obey God's laws? Just the opposite! In fact, only when we trust Jesus can we truly obey him.

Where did you find this incompetent paraphrase of Romans 3:31? Did you write this yourself?

Here is Romans 3:31 in its context:

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. 1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

The law established is identified by quoting Genesis 15:6 from it. That's the Genesis record, which Paul establishes in order to prove that Abraham's faith apart from works was his source of imputed righteousness. This account happened 430 years before the Sinai covenant existed (Galatians 3:17).

Amen...I am married to Jesus so now I'm set free from the curse of the Law. You could say that grace is the wedding gift from God but that does not set me free to break God's Law.

That just affirms your incompetent rendition that replaced Romans 3:31 above. You're claiming to be married to the law and to Jesus at the same time, and are rendered an adulterer by what Paul wrote in Romans 7:1-4 (which he addressed to those who know the law, which you don't).

Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!

Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

You never have distinguished the difference between transgressions to the law and sin that existed before the law did. I have concluded that you never will, because Romans 4 isn't in your Bible and you have shown no interest in the truth of the Gospel.

I am the property of Jesus, which now changes my relationship to the Law.

This is inconsistent with your incompetent rendition of Romans 3:31, which you approved of when you presented it.

Romans 7:22 For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self,

What's after the comma?
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

It's an admission Paul makes that he doesn't keep the law ordained at Sinai, confirmed in verse 14: "I am carnal, sold under sin".

Remember, it's sin that brings the death sentence from the Law, not Law.

8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

The law is lethal, consistent with how it was dictated in Deuteronomy 30:15-16, with compliance a requisite for life. "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law" (1 Cor 15:56).

When I got married to Jesus He took away the sin which released me from the condemning power of the Law but not the principles of the Law.

That's just another way to say you're so content to remain in adultery that you're going to rationalize it in your own mind.

You need to speak the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth.

From the moment you relied on an incompetent paraphrase to replace Scripture with, you lost what little credibility you hoped to convey any semblence of truth with. You sealed your departure from the truth by rejecting Jeremiah 31 and commiting adultery, along with your admission of violating the sabbath you're so committed to. There is no truth in you.

 

[k4c]

I suppose that is a concession that you don't accept Jeremiah's prophecy of a new covenant.

Where did you find this incompetent paraphrase of Romans 3:31? Did you write this yourself?

Here is Romans 3:31 in its context:

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. 1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

The law established is identified by quoting Genesis 15:6 from it. That's the Genesis record, which Paul establishes in order to prove that Abraham's faith apart from works was his source of imputed righteousness. This account happened 430 years before the Sinai covenant existed (Galatians 3:17).

That just affirms your incompetent rendition that replaced Romans 3:31 above. You're claiming to be married to the law and to Jesus at the same time, and are rendered an adulterer by what Paul wrote in Romans 7:1-4 (which he addressed to those who know the law, which you don't).

You never have distinguished the difference between transgressions to the law and sin that existed before the law did. I have concluded that you never will, because Romans 4 isn't in your Bible and you have shown no interest in the truth of the Gospel.

This is inconsistent with your incompetent rendition of Romans 3:31, which you approved of when you presented it.

What's after the comma?
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

It's an admission Paul makes that he doesn't keep the law ordained at Sinai, confirmed in verse 14: "I am carnal, sold under sin".

8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

The law is lethal, consistent with how it was dictated in Deuteronomy 30:15-16, with compliance a requisite for life. "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law" (1 Cor 15:56).

That's just another way to say you're so content to remain in adultery that you're going to rationalize it in your own mind.

From the moment you relied on an incompetent paraphrase to replace Scripture with, you lost what little credibility you hoped to convey any semblence of truth with. You sealed your departure from the truth by rejecting Jeremiah 31 and commiting adultery, along with your admission of violating the sabbath you're so committed to. There is no truth in you.

If you continue on you will see that your story of Abraham has to do with the law of circumcision.

Romans 4:9-13 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised. For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

But even in this story we only have half the truth for Abraham was justified by faith the moment he believed but his faith was also a continued obedience to God throughout his life.

James 2:20-24 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.'' And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

By the way, Paul's struggle was not a good thing. His desire was to obey God and so is mine, even though both Paul and I struggle with sin. Praise God for His grace and mercy found in 1 John 1:9.

I guess it's back to the drawing board for you...

 

[VictorC]

If you continue on you will see that your story of Abraham has to do with the law of circumcision.

Romans 4:9-13 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised. For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

But even in this story we only have half the truth for Abraham was justified by faith the moment he believed but his faith was also a continued obedience to God throughout his life.

James 2:20-24 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.'' And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

By the way, Paul's struggle was not a good thing. His desire was to obey God and so is mine, even though both Paul and I struggle with sin. Praise God for His grace and mercy found in 1 John 1:9.

I guess it's back to the drawing board for you...

The mention of Abraham's circumcision was the state he was in when his faith was accounted to him as righteousness. As Romans 4:10 states, "How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised". Abraham was imputed righteous before God without compliance with any article of any law.

You have done nothing to account for fabricating evidence with the fallacious rendition you hoped to pass off as a quote of Romans 3:31. You have done nothing to dispell the rejection you inferred of Jeremiah's prophecy of a new covenant. Nor have you done anything to correct the adultery you continue in, and in this post you rationalize it as being obedient - which is impossible to reconcile with your disobedience and the disobedience God has committed everyone to as a condition of extending His mercy (Romans 11:32).

There is no truth in you.

 

[k4c]

The mention of Abraham's circumcision was the state he was in when his faith was accounted to him as righteousness. As Romans 4:10 states, "How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised". Abraham was imputed righteous before God without compliance with any article of any law.

You have done nothing to account for fabricating evidence with the fallacious rendition you hoped to pass off as a quote of Romans 3:31. You have done nothing to dispell the rejection you inferred of Jeremiah's prophecy of a new covenant. Nor have you done anything to correct the adultery you continue in, and in this post you rationalize it as being obedient - which is impossible to reconcile with your disobedience and the disobedience God has committed everyone to as a condition of extending His mercy (Romans 11:31).

There is no truth in you.

The issue was the law of circumcision...

We will have to continue another day because I have to go to bed.

Have a good night...

 

[VictorC]

The issue was the law of circumcision...

Okay, we can add really poor reading comprehension to your growing list of infractions including fabrication of evidence, rationalization of adultery, and rejection of the new covenant. When you return, I would appreciate your response to the content provided for you, as it isn't hard to tell your posting habits are comprised of hitting the "reply" before reading anything.

All you're telling me is that you don't accept Jeremiah's prophecy concerning a new covenant. You're bound to the first covenant that a new covenant made "obsolete".

Negative...I don't keep the Law to be justified before God.

I suppose that is a concession that you don't accept Jeremiah's prophecy of a new covenant.

Romans 3:31 Well then, if we are saved by faith, does this mean that we no longer need obey God's laws? Just the opposite! In fact, only when we trust Jesus can we truly obey him.

Where did you find this incompetent paraphrase of Romans 3:31? Did you write this yourself?

Here is Romans 3:31 in its context:

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. 1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

The law established is identified by quoting Genesis 15:6 from it. That's the Genesis record, which Paul establishes in order to prove that Abraham's faith apart from works was his source of imputed righteousness. This account happened 430 years before the Sinai covenant existed (Galatians 3:17).

Amen...I am married to Jesus so now I'm set free from the curse of the Law. You could say that grace is the wedding gift from God but that does not set me free to break God's Law.

That just affirms your incompetent rendition that replaced Romans 3:31 above. You're claiming to be married to the law and to Jesus at the same time, and are rendered an adulterer by what Paul wrote in Romans 7:1-4 (which he addressed to those who know the law, which you don't).

Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!

Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

You never have distinguished the difference between transgressions to the law and sin that existed before the law did. I have concluded that you never will, because Romans 4 isn't in your Bible and you have shown no interest in the truth of the Gospel.

I am the property of Jesus, which now changes my relationship to the Law.

This is inconsistent with your incompetent rendition of Romans 3:31, which you approved of when you presented it.

Romans 7:22 For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self,

What's after the comma?
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

It's an admission Paul makes that he doesn't keep the law ordained at Sinai, confirmed in verse 14: "I am carnal, sold under sin".

Remember, it's sin that brings the death sentence from the Law, not Law.

8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

The law is lethal, consistent with how it was dictated in Deuteronomy 30:15-16, with compliance a requisite for life. "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law" (1 Cor 15:56).

When I got married to Jesus He took away the sin which released me from the condemning power of the Law but not the principles of the Law.

That's just another way to say you're so content to remain in adultery that you're going to rationalize it in your own mind.

You need to speak the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth.

From the moment you relied on an incompetent paraphrase to replace Scripture with, you lost what little credibility you hoped to convey any semblence of truth with. You sealed your departure from the truth by rejecting Jeremiah 31 and commiting adultery, along with your admission of violating the sabbath you're so committed to. There is no truth in you.

 

[k4c]

Okay, we can add really poor reading comprehension to your growing list of infractions including fabrication of evidence, rationalization of adultery, and rejection of the new covenant. When you return, I would appreciate your response to the content provided for you, as it isn't hard to tell your posting habits are comprised of hitting the "reply" before reading anything.


I suppose that is a concession that you don't accept Jeremiah's prophecy of a new covenant.

Where did you find this incompetent paraphrase of Romans 3:31? Did you write this yourself?

Here is Romans 3:31 in its context:

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. 1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

The law established is identified by quoting Genesis 15:6 from it. That's the Genesis record, which Paul establishes in order to prove that Abraham's faith apart from works was his source of imputed righteousness. This account happened 430 years before the Sinai covenant existed (Galatians 3:17).

That just affirms your incompetent rendition that replaced Romans 3:31 above. You're claiming to be married to the law and to Jesus at the same time, and are rendered an adulterer by what Paul wrote in Romans 7:1-4 (which he addressed to those who know the law, which you don't).

You never have distinguished the difference between transgressions to the law and sin that existed before the law did. I have concluded that you never will, because Romans 4 isn't in your Bible and you have shown no interest in the truth of the Gospel.

This is inconsistent with your incompetent rendition of Romans 3:31, which you approved of when you presented it.

What's after the comma?
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

It's an admission Paul makes that he doesn't keep the law ordained at Sinai, confirmed in verse 14: "I am carnal, sold under sin".

8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

The law is lethal, consistent with how it was dictated in Deuteronomy 30:15-16, with compliance a requisite for life. "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law" (1 Cor 15:56).

That's just another way to say you're so content to remain in adultery that you're going to rationalize it in your own mind.

From the moment you relied on an incompetent paraphrase to replace Scripture with, you lost what little credibility you hoped to convey any semblence of truth with. You sealed your departure from the truth by rejecting Jeremiah 31 and commiting adultery, along with your admission of violating the sabbath you're so committed to. There is no truth in you.

Belief in God must always come before obedience. Abraham believed God and it showed by him leaving his country to a place he didn't even know.

Hebrews 11:8-11 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would afterward receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

The circumcision issue also came up to show that Abraham was justified prior to being circumcision, which circumcision was a requirement impossed by the religious Jews to be accepted by God. It was a huge issue in the new testament church even among the followers of Jesus. Read Galatians when you get a chance.

I know you like to use only half truth to support your lawlessness but it would be nice if you would comment on the rest of my post in that Abraham's obedience through faith was not a one shot deal but a life style of hearing and obeying.

James 2:20-24 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.'' And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

 

[VictorC]

The circumcision issue also came up to show that Abraham was justified prior to being circumcision, which circumcision was a requirement impossed by the religious Jews to be accepted by God.

On top of fabricating evidence, you have added a false statement borne of ignorance of the law. And, you apparently have nothing to offer as a response to me.

 

[k4c]

VictorC; A thread just for me? To answer a question that I have already answered at least a dozen times?

Why not accept Scripture's summary of the Gospel?

Do you believe the Gospel is the New Covenant?

 

[VictorC]

Do you believe the Gospel is the New Covenant?

Absolutely.
Look at the historical record of the event on the first Shavout after Christ's resurrection. "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). This was the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy, and it has eluded you throughout the 91 posts that appear on this thread.

It was pointed out in the post you started to respond to, but you never got past the second line.

 

[k4c]

Absolutely.
Look at the historical record of the event on the first Shavout after Christ's resurrection. "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). This was the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy, and it has eluded you throughout the 91 posts that appear on this thread.

It was pointed out in the post you started to respond to, but you never got past the second line.

There is nothing about Acts 2:4 that says it was a fuliment of Jeremiah. But I can see how it would be a fulfillment of Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 36:27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

The filling of the Holy Spirit empowers us to keep the commandments of God.

Do you know the Gospel was preached to Abraham way before the Sinai?

 

[VictorC]

There is nothing about Acts 2:4 that says it was a fuliment of Jeremiah. But I can see how it would be a fulfillment of Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 36:27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

The filling of the Holy Spirit empowers us to keep the commandments of God.

Do you know the Gospel was preached to Abraham way before the Sinai?

This is old history. You already know that Ezekiel 36:27 refers to God's spoken choq and mishpat, and has no relation to the former covenant's torah God delivered us from. You haven't yet determined what God's "My law" of His new covenant refers to, you already proved to yourself that Sinai wasn't the new covenant, and you haven't found any reason to fault the explanation I offered you.

 

[k4c]

This is old history. You already know that Ezekiel 36:27 refers to God's spoken choq and mishpat, and has no relation to the former covenant's torah God delivered us from. You haven't yet determined what God's "My law" of His new covenant refers to, you already proved to yourself that Sinai wasn't the new covenant, and you haven't found any reason to fault the explanation I offered you.

God's word reveals God's character and nature even before Sinai. God's character and nature is eternal even before Siani. God is love. We are made in God's image. God's Law reveals God's eternal word and chracter. God's Law written on the heart will manifest God's will in our lives.

I can teach, using only half Scriptures, that Jesus is only a man.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

I can keep using the same verses over and over again that say Jesus is a man while ignoring all the other verses that say Jesus is also God. This is what you guys do when trying to prove we don't have to obey the Ten Commandments. You continue to use the same verses that say we are not under the Law while rejecting the verses that say, "Though we are not under the Law we are not to break the Law". Until you work these verses into your faith and understand what it means to be not be under the Law in light of the new testament as a whole you will only have half truth and we all know how Satan loves half truths.

The Law on stone under the old covenant dealt with the outward actions of man. As long as these principles remain on stone they will always bring death because the outward man must die and die daily. But under the new covenant the principles portrayed on stone will be written in the heart and will bring joy and wholeness and will manifest outwardly in of lives as love for God and love for mankind. Those who have been born again will hunger and thirst for the principles of God's Law as a newborn baby.

2 Corinthians 3:3 You are manifestly an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.

Ezekiel 36:26-27 "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

Hebrews 8:10 "For this is the new covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days,'' says the Lord, "I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

 

[VictorC]

God's Law written on the heart will manifest God's will in our lives.

The presence of God's "My law" does more than reveal God's will. It gives us a personal knowledge of Him. I believe this eludes you because of your appeal to sound bites instead of context whenever you read Scripture.

I can teach, using only half Scriptures, that Jesus is only a man....

Until you work these verses into your faith and understand what it means to be not be under the Law in light of the new testament as a whole you will only have half truth and we all know how Satan loves half truths.

This is a curious point. Let's see where this goes.

The Law on stone under the old covenant dealt with the outward actions of man. As long as these principles remain on stone they will always bring death because the outward man must die and die daily. But under the new covenant the principles portrayed on stone will be written in the heart and will bring joy and wholeness and will manifest outwardly in of lives as love for God and love for mankind. Those who have been born again will hunger and thirst for the principles of God's Law as a newborn baby.

Hebrews 8:10 "For this is the new covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days,'' says the Lord, "I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Your continuous appeal has been to Hebrews 8:10 and/or Jeremiah 31:33. Yet you violate the context when these passages specify that God's "My law" given to us in the new covenant isn't according to Sinai.

Hebrews 8
6 ¶ But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says 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 did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD.
10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

• God promised a better covenant, v.6.
• The first covenant was considered faulty, the reason for a new covenant, v.7.
• The reason the first covenant was faulty was that it was violated by the recipients, and God determined to replace it, v.8.
• The new covenant would not be according to the one given at Mount Sinai, v.9.
• God promised to write His "My law" into us, v.10 - and remember it isn't according to Sinai.
• The presence of God's "My law" is a personal knowledge of Him, that is, we know the Creator, and not the created law, v.11.
• God promised to forget our sins and transgressions, v.12.
• The new covenant makes the first covenant obsolete, v.13.

The moment you claimed that the "principles" on tables of stone were transferred into your heart, you violated this passage where it specifies God's "My law" wasn't from those tables of stone handed to Moses at Mount Sinai. Furthermore, you ignored the result of God's "My law" giving us a personal knowledge of the Creator of the created law, indicating that God's "My law" isn't a written set of ordinances at all. When God refers to "My law" with a possessive pronoun, it draws attention to the Entity that God is subject to: Himself.

And, the King is not subject to the law He created. This is what Jesus taught Peter in Matthew 17:24-26.

When God made a new covenant, the first covenant written on tables of stone was made obsolete. It was not transferred, but rather taken away: "He takes away the first that He may establish the second" (Hebrews 10:9).

Commandments are always external, and never internalized where they appear in Scripture. The entire reason you keep referring to the ten commandments is because you need to draw attention to an external code of conduct which was given in the tenor of comply or die, and it isn't written inside anyone. We know God. Not the former law He took away in order to establish the new covenant unlike the first covenant from Mount Sinai.

Until you work these verses into your faith and understand what it means to be not be under the Law in light of the new testament as a whole you will only have half truth and we all know how Satan loves half truths.

You have been caught teaching a half-truth because you ignored the context a pet verse was extracted from, which doesn't convey the meaning you imposed on it in the first place. And, we know how satan loves half-truths according to your own claim. This implies your inspiration comes from satan, and is somewhat telling when you claim that the ten commandments were written into your heart, only to have God rip them out when He took them away to establish the new covenant. This has left you with an empty heart searching for half-truths to fill it.

Matthew 12:37 "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

 

[k4c]

VictorC; Your continuous appeal has been to Hebrews 8:10 and/or Jeremiah 31:33. Yet you violate the context when these passages specify that God's "My law" given to us in the new covenant isn't according to Sinai.

Hebrews 8
6 ¶ But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says 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 did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD.
10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

not according to the covenant that I made with their fathersnot according to the covenant that I made with their fathers

Not according to the (COVENANT)...has to do with the terms and not the content because the content ie: the Ten Commandments are still quoted and used by Jesus and the Apostles all throughout the New Testament.

The old covenant dealt with the outward man where God had to take them by the hand.

"not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand

The new covenant God directs from the heart.

 

[Kira Light]

Not according to the (COVENANT)...has to do with the terms and not the content because the content ie: the Ten Commandments are still quoted and used by Jesus and the Apostles all throughout the New Testament.

The old covenant dealt with the outward man where God had to take them by the hand.The new covenant God directs from the heart.

k4c, any thoughts on why God did such a terrible job of communicating this message? You like to toss out a few verses with your own interpretations and talk about how simple it all is, but the reality is that 99% of Christians see it the other way. Why did all-knowing God create a message that would hopelessly confuse 99% of those who seek Him?

 

[VictorC]

Not according to the (COVENANT)...has to do with the terms and not the content because the content ie: the Ten Commandments are still quoted and used by Jesus and the Apostles all throughout the New Testament.

The terms of the covenant was compliance requisite to live and enter into the promised land. The covenant was the content itself, and Moses spelled out exactly what the covenant from Mount Sinai was to deflect any question that remains in anyone's mind:

Deuteronomy 4
10 "especially concerning the day you stood before the LORD your God in Horeb, when the LORD said to me, `Gather the people to Me, and I will let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children.'
11 "Then you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire to the midst of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.
12 "And the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; you only heard a voice.
13 "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
14 "And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess.

This is what is referred to in Hebrews as the first covenant made obsolete and taken away by God's own hand.
This is the covenant from Mount Sinai (Galatians 4:24) that you are commanded to cast off (Galatians 4:30), because "the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman".

All of the passages presented to you convey the same message: the covenant from Mount Sinai, the ten commandments, is not a part of the new covenant. Those unredeemed from the first covenant remain guilty before God with their transgressions imputing sin to them that has remained unforgiven.

The old covenant dealt with the outward man where God had to take them by the hand. The new covenant God directs from the heart.

And the history of this thread has revealed what remains in your heart. You violate Scripture, admit you don't keep the sabbath holy, fabricate evidence, and practically claim your inspiration comes from satan. You have no idea what the new covenant is, and have made no effort to respond to Scripture describing it. This has been a revealing thread that has shown your devotion to error.

 

[k4c]

The terms of the covenant was compliance requisite to live and enter into the promised land. The covenant was the content itself, and Moses spelled out exactly what the covenant from Mount Sinai was to deflect any question that remains in anyone's mind:

Deuteronomy 4
10 "especially concerning the day you stood before the LORD your God in Horeb, when the LORD said to me, `Gather the people to Me, and I will let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children.'
11 "Then you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire to the midst of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.
12 "And the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; you only heard a voice.
13 "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
14 "And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess.

This is what is referred to in Hebrews as the first covenant made obsolete and taken away by God's own hand.
This is the covenant from Mount Sinai (Galatians 4:24) that you are commanded to cast off (Galatians 4:30), because "the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman".

All of the passages presented to you convey the same message: the covenant from Mount Sinai, the ten commandments, is not a part of the new covenant. Those unredeemed from the first covenant remain guilty before God with their transgressions imputing sin to them that has remained unforgiven.

And the history of this thread has revealed what remains in your heart. You violate Scripture, admit you don't keep the sabbath holy, fabricate evidence, and practically claim your inspiration comes from satan. You have no idea what the new covenant is, and have made no effort to respond to Scripture describing it. This has been a revealing thread that has shown your devotion to error.

The key to understanding the terms of the old covenant is found in the words "His covenant which He commanded you to perform" The content are the "Ten Commandments".

Under the new covenant we are not told to perform we are told to believe. The perform will be the result.

Again, you can't ignor all the verses in the New Testament that confirm the Ten Commandments as being alive and well but that won't make them go away.

I guess the best thing we can do it to let each other believe what we believe. You can believe we can disobey the Ten Commandments beause they no longer exist and I can believe we obey the Ten Commandments because God puts His Spirit in us which makes His commadments a joy and not a burden.

 

[VictorC]

I guess the best thing we can do it to let each other believe what we believe.

I have a pretty good idea what you believe already. The problem is that when a passage of Scripture doesn't support that belief, you abandon it and fetch unrelated verses from anywhere that you use to "disprove" the first passage. Abandoning passages as you do leaves huge holes in your comprehension of the Gospel you have nothing to fill with.

You can believe we can disobey the Ten Commandments beause they no longer exist and I can believe we obey the Ten Commandments because God puts His Spirit in us which makes His commadments a joy and not a burden.

Both of us believe we can disobey the ten commandments, and you have already shown your "obedience" to be no more compliant than mine. The disparity is the fascinating gymnastics you go through in order to rationalize this away, and I have no need to appeal to delusionary tactics. God has "committed them all to disobedience" as a condition to extend His mercy, and "all" doesn't exclude anyone. The qualification of "because" falls outside your purview, but you would rather speculate rather than accept God's final conclusion. You have not come to realize that God didn't give you an option to contest His final determination of disobedience to the first covenant you're committed to promoting.