Not under the law

Status
Not open for further replies.

sojeru

just a Jew
Mar 22, 2003
870
21
41
USA
Visit site
✟1,145.00
Faith
Judaism
hi Tawhano, thankyou for saying

How can someone keep only parts of the law?


because to do away, nullify, transgress, sin against any part of the Torah, even the least according to knowledge is nullifying, sinning against, doing away with a part of Jesus G-D.

and i dont think any of us want that. I know that i do not. I will only eat the fruit of the tree of life who is Messiah.

so no, we CANNOT SIN, according to 1john3
I suggest that you read that YOD.
and then at the end of the book you will come across,
"if we say we have no sin- we are liars and nullify messiah".
**to the general audience**
How is messiah nullified? Didnt messiah come for sinners?
and wasnt to Torah made for sinners?
That only shows that they are the same person- both came for sinners.
and since breaking the least of Torah breaks a piece of Messiah, again, who wants a part of that?
I know that i dont- thats why i study to ACT out my love for him.

and we have sin because of the bad side of the hearts of men.
The side with desire to sin.
With Torah written on both sides of the heart [good and bad]
even the bad side [satan] must submit.
its only the sins that we dont know that are sins that will keep us sinning, however, not accounted for them.
So we are sinners that DO NOT SIN according to what we know is sin.


shalom u'bracha
 
Upvote 0

Colossians

Veteran
Aug 20, 2003
1,175
8
✟2,700.00
Faith
because to do away, nullify, transgress, sin against any part of the Torah, even the least according to knowledge is nullifying, sinning against, doing away with a part of Jesus G-D.
Here again is clear evidence of the fundamental problem of legalists: they know words, but not a Person. The name "Jesus" is to them an alias for "law". They cannot conceptually distinguish between a Person and law, so they take that of the two which they know (law), and personify it to form a counterfeit Christ.

It has nothing to do with the Holy Ghost at all, and therefore nothing to do with the Person who is Christ Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Tawhano

Northland Highwayman
Supporter
Mar 25, 2003
3,109
118
71
North Carolina
Visit site
✟48,938.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.


The old covenant said to love your neighbor but Jesus said to love your enemies too. The old covenant said do not murder but then Jesus said don’t even be unjustly angry with your brother. These things and others that Jesus taught are what I believe are the new covenant laws written in our hearts.

Matthew 5:43-44
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;


Matthew 5:21-22
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.


The old covenant laws were just and good; the new covenant laws are better. No they don’t destroy the old laws but fulfill/establish them and show us a better way. Jesus taught us how to conduct ourselves. Anything we need to know is written in the New Testament. The old covenant laws fulfilled their purpose. They accomplished what God had attended them to do. We are now under a new covenant, that which we are commanded to do in this covenant is what we are to do now, not observe the old covenant ways.
 
Upvote 0

sojeru

just a Jew
Mar 22, 2003
870
21
41
USA
Visit site
✟1,145.00
Faith
Judaism
right, they dont do away at all- However, we do not follow the old covenant- the old covenant was an agreement that was broken by the people to keep it. The new covenant is a promise by G-D to himself to fulfill- so which one is better?
One that G-D can keep without having to worry about the other party keeping or breaking it?
or the one where the covenant is nullified by one side breaking it?
the Torah is only the rules for Both covenants.
And Yes, it is noticed that the SAME TORAH is made far superior in the next covenant.
And who can better interpret the Torah save for G-D himself who is the Torah/Jesus.
Jesus interpreted it with excellency.
He is indeed awesome for he is that same torah(direction).

shalom u'bracha
 
Upvote 0

yod

the wandering goy
Sep 6, 2003
1,521
12
Dallas, TX
Visit site
✟1,749.00
Faith
Messianic
The precepts and intent of the law are eternal and everlasting...
They are not everlasting. Jesus said they would cease when heaven and earth cease. For the believer, this is now, for he is seated in heavenly places.
Let's see if I understand you correctly...

Heaven and earth have ceased because Jesus is seated in heaven and we are on earth?

Sanctification is the result of justification, not an addition to it. Justification is therefore all that matters. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ (justification) which is the power of salvation.
Sanctify has a few meanings. You are correct in that we have been sanctified for salvation yet we are still to "sanctify" ourselves to God

Here are the biblical definitions of Sanctification (agiazw in the Greek)
  1. to render or acknowledge, or to be venerable or hallow; to separate from profane things and dedicate to God
  2. consecrate things to God
  3. dedicate people to God
  4. to purify
  5. to cleanse externally
  6. to purify by expiation: free from the guilt of sin
  7. to purify internally by renewing of the soul
Your definition only fits #6 & #7.

The primary meaning is this:
1. to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally.
Which means to bring into consummation.



I just showed you that "bring into consumation" is the secondary meaning.

"To cause to abound & supply liberally" is not the same thing or it would not be listed as the primary definition.


How do we know what sin is without some standard?
There are no standards in Christianity.


this is utterly ridiculous and not worthy of a reply

Colossians, your logic is so flawed I don't know where to begin so I'm going to leave this discussion for the observer to decide who is right.

I wish you shalom.


 
Upvote 0

Colossians

Veteran
Aug 20, 2003
1,175
8
✟2,700.00
Faith
Yod

The precepts and intent of the law are eternal and everlasting...
They are not everlasting. Jesus said they would cease when heaven and earth cease. For the believer, this is now, for he is seated in heavenly places.

Let's see if I understand you correctly...
Heaven and earth have ceased because Jesus is seated in heaven and we are on earth?

Eph 2:6 "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." It is for you to understand the ramifications of this.


Sanctification is the result of justification, not an addition to it. Justification is therefore all that matters. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ (justification) which is the power of salvation.
Sanctify has a few meanings. You are correct in that we have been sanctified for salvation yet we are still to "sanctify" ourselves to God.
And we do this by virtue of the knowledge of a justification which is the result of an irresistable grace, which in turn is exclusive of the voluntary humility required to cognisantly follow law, which "voluntary humility" is warned against in Col 1:18.


The primary meaning is this:
1. to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally.

Which means to bring into consummation.

I just showed you that "bring into consumation" is the secondary meaning.
1. There is no "bring into consummation" listed specifically against this Greek word: it is the primary meaning of the word in English.
2. The meaning of "fulfill" in the Greek is similar: "To make replete". Replete: "filled, stuffed, fully imbued".
Imbue: "saturate"
3. along with "make replete", the Greek also means "satisfy", as does the English.

The point which you continually evade, is that the use of the word "fulfill" in Jesus' words is jointly applied to the law AND the Prophets. Thus its meaning is necessarly "to bring into consummation", which meaning is inclusive of the derived or dependant semantic of "satisfy" or "make replete". For to make replete or satisfy is what occurs when something is brought into consummation.

Your approach is all wrong: you try to understand a biblical semantic utilising the information in the particular word in question only.
The making of law is presumptive of future transgression of it, for "the law was not made for a righteous man". In order then for the law to be satisified (fulfilled), its utility must be fully invoked.
Christ fulfilled the law not in keeping it, but in taking upon him the sins of the world so that the law might be exercised/enacted exhaustively, once and for all. The law was fulfilled/made replete/satisified only after it had been given full and exhaustive opportunity to operate in 'rightfully' condemning Him to death who had become sin for us.

And the law in the wider sense, being life in the absence of the full revelation of Christ, to which wider category Genesis belongs, is, by virtue of him who wrote it, prophecy, for Moses is himself declared a prophet. The law is itself therefore prophecy.

Thus we see the proper and comprehensive meaning of Christ's fulfilling of the law.



How do we know what sin is without some standard?
There are no standards in Christianity.

this is utterly ridiculous and not worthy of a reply
Your impatience is common amongst legalists, who are not willing to be taught outside of the methodology of their dogma. And evidence of a lack of scriptural knowledge outside of that which is selected by your doctrinal body with the express intent of supporting that which forms their legalistic basis.
Scripture declares "to him who knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" thus evidencing that 'standards' are not a part of Christianity, but rather, sin is 'believer-specific'. Hence Paul's encouragement for each believer to walk according to the liberty given him in matters of conscience.
Above all, it is "as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Sons of God".
If then we are led by a Person, a standard is not necessary.
Our 'standard' is not a law. Nor is it that evidenced by Jesus Christ as he walked this earth. Our 'standard' is Jesus Christ Himself, revealed through the Holy Ghost.
"For he is before all things, and in him all things consist"
 
Upvote 0

yod

the wandering goy
Sep 6, 2003
1,521
12
Dallas, TX
Visit site
✟1,749.00
Faith
Messianic
And it is standard operating procedure for the weak to start calling names when they have been proven wrong.

Besides "fulfill" you obviously don't understand the definition of "legalist" either. I have not even ONCE stated that you should obey any law, ordinances, or rules against your conscience. I have, in fact, stated otherwise.

But you get the last word. I will not argue with someone who won't be intellectually honest.

Bless you.
 
Upvote 0

Colossians

Veteran
Aug 20, 2003
1,175
8
✟2,700.00
Faith
Yod

Your disregarding of my previous post is yet another of your evasive answers.
Like all legalists I have met to date, you have blinkers on your eyes. You refuse to be taught anything which would draw you away from the security blanket of the law.
And your statement that you have not once said we should obey any rules against our conscience is noted for its impurity, chiefly the sudden appearance of "against our conscience", as though this had somewhere earlier been debated with me.
Once again evasive, and subtle. Like all good legalists.

TO ALL NON-LEGALISTS
The legalists think they have greater light than us, and that they will receive greater reward for obeying that greater light. They patronise the Body of Christ in implying that that Body may still be saved, but with less reward, for although acting in good conscience, it is deemed to be nevetheless with lesser understanding. This is what Yod is hinting at with his sudden appendage of "against your conscience", meaning "against the (lesser-than-we-legalists-have) light that you have."

The fact is, if Paul had wanted to tell us we were not under law in the way we understand it to mean, he could not have said it any more concisely than "ye are not under the law".

"Ye are not under the law".
 
Upvote 0

yod

the wandering goy
Sep 6, 2003
1,521
12
Dallas, TX
Visit site
✟1,749.00
Faith
Messianic
I believe it is against the rules of this forum to get personal as you have done by calling me a "legalist" even though you don't know the meaning of that word either.

Anyone who has bothered to actually read my posts will know that is not, and never was, my position.

But I'm through trying to have a conversation with someone who constantly misrepresents what I've said.

You are too busy trying to make yourself look wise to listen and therefore a dialogue is impossible.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

yod

the wandering goy
Sep 6, 2003
1,521
12
Dallas, TX
Visit site
✟1,749.00
Faith
Messianic
Colossians said:
Yod

You have yet to provide scriptural proof that we are under the law.

Your recent posts have simply been created as 'spacers' used to push further back out of view my earlier posts which comprehensively refute your posts. A smoke screen.

Oh, why do I even try? this is another great example of how you simply don't listen....

I never said that we were "under the law".
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.