(Moved) The law. Is it done away with? Is it, really?

[ralliann]

Hi; it's interesting that Hebrews7.12 says that the law was changed; and Hebrews 7.19 says that what the believer now has is better than the law.

A better covenant yes.....

 

[ralliann]

We don't.

We teach the irrefutable fact that the New Covenant Jeremiah 31:31-33 is in the Old Testament.

... obviously.

That the prophets are in the scriptures does not equal the old covenant?

 

[ralliann]

Yep, that's what I said.

Translated; I'm using the law to argue against the relevancy of the law, in Christ.


It's still illogical.

No, the law contains the history of several covenants.... Therefore I have used the law to argue the relevancy of a covenant in Christ.

Hear Paul, hear the law......2 covenants, according to an allegory.

Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

 

[ralliann]

No, the law contains the history of several covenants.... Therefore I have used the law to argue the relevancy of a covenant in Christ.

Hear Paul, hear the law......2 covenants, according to an allegory.

Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

 

[faroukfarouk]

No, the law contains the history of several covenants.... Therefore I have used the law to argue the relevancy of a covenant in Christ.

Hear Paul, hear the law......2 covenants, according to an allegory.

Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Remarkable that Sinai is linked to Hagar/bondage!

Being under grace as a New Testament believer is indeed a wonderful privilege!

 

[ralliann]

Remarkable that Sinai is linked to Hagar/bondage!

Being under grace as a New Testament believer is indeed a wonderful privilege!

Yes, it is a wonderful privilege. Paul rightly taught the law brings wrath, curses, etc. He is righteous in all his judgements....Christ bore them for us all.... And....God still desires the salvation and mercy of all.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Yes, it is a wonderful privilege. Paul rightly taught the law brings wrath, curses, etc. He is righteous in all his judgements....Christ bore them for us all.... And....God still desires the salvation and mercy of all.

It brings home Luther's personal realization that law was one thing and Gospel was quite another.

 

[BobRyan]

That the prophets are in the scriptures does not equal the old covenant?

True - the Old Covenant is not "prophets" as if all the prophets in the NT and the OT mean it is all "old covenant".

In the NT you have "first apostles, THEN prophets, then teachers" 1 Cor 12:27 does not mean everything in the NT -- is Old Covenant.

(we may both already agree on that point.)

 

[BobRyan]

We have a new and better covenant, so why do posters feel the need to try to teach us we have to observe the old one? .

We don't (teach you to be under the Old Covenant)

We teach the irrefutable fact that the New Covenant Jeremiah 31:31-33 is in the Old Testament.

... obviously.

Then you teach against Christianity and have no salvation. John 10

Not true...

obviously

 

[ralliann]

True - the Old Covenant is not "prophets" as if all the prophets in the NT and the OT mean it is all "old covenant".

In the NT you have "first apostles, THEN prophets, then teachers" 1 Cor 12:27 does not mean everything in the NT -- is Old Covenant.

(we may both already agree on that point.)

I dunno what agreement you think we may have??? The prophets would not disagree what the law says. The law brings wrath....The new covenant is the salvation from that wrath, as well as salvation from death itself......

 

[bugkiller]

That is what we call a strawman. No one said that the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional on the Mosaic Covenant.

And it is not becoming a Jew either, another strawman.

Keeping the law issued at Sinai is synonymous with being a Jew. You are forbidden to keep it unless you submit to all of it.

That is what we call an admission of guilt.
You say that you do not count 2/3 of the Bible as irrelevant but then try to explain why you do not subscribe to 2/3 of the Bible. Can you see the problem with this?

No because listed told you he believes all of the OT. This includes Jer 31:31-33.

I need not prove your misunderstanding of the scriptures.

You cannot is the real reason.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Look at Psalms 110. It speaks about the priesthood of Melchizedek. Then look at Hebrews 5-7.

I know Hebrews is in the NT but I thought I should include some Scripture from there so that the point wouldn't be discounted out of hand.

It sure does not say anything about the levitical priesthood. Who discounts your selected verse? It just does not do what you claimed about replacement of the levitical priesthood.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

We don't (teach you to be under the Old Covenant)

13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. Deut 4

Is the above written by Moses true?

We teach the irrefutable fact that the New Covenant Jeremiah 31:31-33 is in the Old Testament.

We know that, obviously.

bugkiller

 

[Dig4truth]

Then you're doing nothing more than wasting time here. Few if any posting here are descendants of Abraham. Your evangelism efforts are vain.

Yes, some radical evangelist that quotes Yeshua saying, "If you love Me keep My commandments".

How dangerous.

 

[Dig4truth]

It sure does not say anything about the levitical priesthood. Who discounts your selected verse? It just does not do what you claimed about replacement of the levitical priesthood.

bugkiller

Is Yeshua our High Priest?
Is Yeshua from Levi?

You do the math.

Your agenda is showing.

 

[Dig4truth]

Then you're doing nothing more than wasting time here. Few if any posting here are descendants of Abraham. Your evangelism efforts are vain.

I had really hoped that my repeated comment about salvation not being based on ethnicity would have been understood by now. Guess not.

Here's a question for all of you antinomians, what relationship does the Mosiac Covenant have with the Abrahamic Covenant?

 

[ralliann]

I had really hoped that my repeated comment about salvation not being based on ethnicity would have been understood by now. Guess not.

Here's a question for all of you antinomians, what relationship does the Mosiac Covenant have with the Abrahamic Covenant?

The Sinai covenant serves as an earthly shadow, to the Abrahamic covenant.

 

[listed]

It brings home Luther's personal realization that law was one thing and Gospel was quite another.

That seems to be what is argued here. One side argues for the law and the other side argues for the Gospel.

 

[listed]

Keeping the law issued at Sinai is synonymous with being a Jew. You are forbidden to keep it unless you submit to all of it.No because listed told you he believes all of the OT. This includes Jer 31:31-33.You cannot is the real reason.

bugkiller

Thanks. I do believe all the OT. That doesn't mean I throw out the NT. They represent different covenants.

 

[listed]

Yes, some radical evangelist that quotes Yeshua saying, "If you love Me keep My commandments".

How dangerous.

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.

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

Dangerous indeed.