Passover For Christians

[HARK!]

Why didn't you just say so?

I did. I've been saying that in absence of the law that there is no need for grace on this site for quite some time. I've raised the same question at my church and on the streets for over a decade now.

No law, no transgression of the law. No transgression of the law, no sin. No sin, no curse. No curse, no need for salvation. No need for salvation, no need for faith.

I won't take this to its' logical conclusion. I love my Father too much for that.

The common narrative falls dead on its' face before YHWH.

 

[Der Alte]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.
How does the Pharisee Encyclopedia refute anything that I said?

Pronouncing the Hebrew name ישׁוע as Yahshua is philologically incorrect. Yeh and Yo only are used at the beginning of names. Yah is used at the ending of names. Some kind of grammar thing.
Unless you have other credible, verifiable, historical etc. sources which shows the Jewish Encyclopedia to be incorrect and your unsupported, as yet, opinion to be correct?

 

[Clare73]

I did. I've been saying that in absence of the law that there is no need for grace on this site for quite some time. I've raised the same question at my church and on the streets for over a decade now.

News to me. . .

No law, no transgression of the law. No transgression of the law, no sin. No sin, no curse. No curse, no need for salvation. No need for salvation, no need for faith.
I won't take this to its' logical conclusion. I love my Father to much for that.
The common narrative falls dead on its' face before YHWH.

Hardly. . .

We were born condemned by the sin of Adam (Romans 5:18).

We don't need the law to be condemned.

 

[HARK!]

Pronouncing the Hebrew name ישׁוע as Yahshua is philologically incorrect. Yeh and Yo only are used at the beginning of names. Yah is used at the ending of names. Some kind of grammar thing.
Unless you have other credible, verifiable, historical etc. sources which shows the Jewish Encyclopedia to be incorrect and your unsupported, as yet, opinion to be correct?

You are subscribing to rules of Modern Hebrew, an evolving language of many dialects. I don't. I study Ancient Hebrew.

 

[Der Alte]

You are subscribing to rules of Modern Hebrew, an evolving language of many dialects. I don't. I study Ancient Hebrew.

Wrong again. What is your "source" for "ancient Hebrew"? Read the article and note the sources the JE authors consulted. Personal unsupported opinion does not carry much weight with me.

 

[HARK!]

News to me. . .

News to me. . .

We were born condemned by the sin of Adam (Romans 5:18).

We don't need the law to be condemned.

Did not Adam have the law, when he sinned?

(CLV) 1Jn 3:4
Everyone who is doing sin is doing lawlessness also, and sin is lawlessness.

Are you rejecting the teaching of John?

 

[HARK!]

Wrong again. What is your "source" for "ancient Hebrew"? Read the article and note the sources the JE authors consulted. Personal unsupported opinion does not carry much weight with me.

I have many sources.

Here is a good place to get started: The Ancient Hebrew Research Center

Again, I don't follow the Pharisees; and I don't plan to. You go your way. I'll go mine.

 

[Der Alte]

I have many sources.
Here is a good place to get started: The Ancient Hebrew Research Center
Again, I don't follow the Pharisees; and I don't plan to. You go your way. I'll go mine.

You haven't demonstrated that anything I quoted is Pharisaical. That burden is on you.

 

[Clare73]

We are born condemned by the sin of Adam (Romans 5:18).

We don't need the law to be condemned.

Did not Adam have the law, when he sinned?

Your point?

 

[HARK!]

You haven't demonstrated that anything I quoted is Pharisaical. That burden is on you.

This thread isn't the place to provide you with a dissertation on Rabbinic Judaism and its' roots in Phariseeism.

If I should so wish to start a thread on that subject, I'll try to remember to keep you in mind.

 

[HARK!]

Your point?

It's a simple question. If the answer would undermine your doctrine; I can understand why you might be reluctant to answer.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I give up. . .what?

Don't give up! I have faith in you! If sin is the transgression of the law, then if there is no law, there is no sin and no need for grace...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Agreed. . .again.

Havin' fun yet?

Glad YOU agree...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

As well as mine, that the Gentiles were not under the Mosaic law.

Glad we are in agreement.

Then WHY were they judged for sin...it is not about Sinai...there were Adamic laws, Abrahamic laws, Noahide laws, etc...you just do not understand how Torah works. instead of acting like you do, you should listen and learn.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

My point exactly, the Gentiles were judged by a different law, as explained in Romans 2:14-15, because they were not under the law of Moses, which different law condemned them.

Agreement at last. . .

It was still torah

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

News to me. . .

Hardly. . .

We were born condemned by the sin of Adam (Romans 5:18).

We don't need the law to be condemned.

And that was an Adamic law...sin is the transgression of the law...

 

[Der Alte]

This thread isn't the place to provide you with a dissertation on Rabbinic Judaism and its' roots in Phariseeism.
If I should so wish to start a thread on that subject, I'll try to remember to keep you in mind.

Then link me to a credible source if you know of any. Dismissing something because you claim it is Phariseeism sounds like a cop-out to me.

 

[HARK!]

Then link me to a credible source if you know of any. Dismissing something because you claim it is Phariseeism sounds like a cop-out to me.

I already did; but what does any of this have to do with the topic of discussion, namely the OP?

 

[Der Alte]

Those who are under the curses of the law; are those who transgress the law.
One law for all.
(CLV) Ro 2:11
For there is not partiality with God,
(CLV) Ro 2:12
for whoever sinned without law, without law also shall perish, and whoever sinned in law, through law will be judged.

Romans 4:15
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 2:14-15
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another​

 

[HARK!]

Romans 4:15
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 2:14-15
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Do you have a point to make; or are you just posting random scripture?