UNDER THE LAW!

[Dkh587]

But the requirements of the law are written in the hearts of those Paul mentioned

but clearly, they are not doing what the Torah requires... so your understanding is conflicting with what Paul is teaching, and we can thus know that what you’re suggesting Paul is saying, is not so.

ever seen a Gentile who doesn’t believe in God tell that Yahweh is the only God, and that he delivered the Israelites out of Egypt by Moses, and to keep the Sabbath holy, because God is writing his requirements on their heart?

I didn’t think so...

 

[not under law]

but clearly, they are not doing what the Torah requires... so your understanding is conflicting with what Paul is teaching, and we can thus know that what you’re suggesting Paul is saying, is not so.

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

 

[Dkh587]

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

you can misquote Paul until you’re blue in the face... all you’re doing is exposing your error.

 

[not under law]

you can misquote Paul until you’re blue in the face... all you’re doing is exposing your error.

Oh I haven't misquoted paul, just copy pasted from bible gateway, word for word

 

[not under law]

This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.’

17 Then he adds:

‘Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more Heb10:16&17

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,

 

[Dkh587]

Oh I haven't misquoted paul, just copy pasted from bible gateway, word for word

Why do the Gentiles perish if they are doing what the law requires(obedience to the law)?

i thought Paul said the doers of the law will be justified?

 

[not under law]

You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 2Cor3:3

 

[HARK!]

I have studied both Hebrew and Greek at the graduate level. I rarely say anything I can't back up.

ἔννομος, ον (s. νόμος; Pind., Aeschyl. et al.; ins, pap, Sir prol. ln. 14; Philo, Abr. 242, Poster. Cai. 176; Jos., Ant. 19, 302; SibOr 3, 246; Just., D. 47, 4 ἔ. πολιτείαν; Ath., R. 70, 23 al.) pert. to being in accordance with law, legal, lawful. ἔ. ἐκκλησία Ac 19:39 could, acc. to the context, mean a legally convened assembly in contrast to a mob, but certain features of the word’s usage (Lucian, Deor. Conc. 14; SIG 672, 37 [II B.C.] ἐν τᾷ ἐννόμῳ ἐκκλησίᾳ) suggest the interpr. regular assembly in contrast to one called for a special occasion (s. IBM III/2, p. 141; WRamsay, Pauline and Other Studies3 n.d. [1906] 203–15).—Subject to law, obedient to law (Aelian, VH 2, 22 v.l.): ἔ. Χριστοῦ subject to the jurisdiction of Christ 1 Cor 9:21 as opposed to Mosaic jurisdiction (B-D-F §182, 3; Rob. 504—Proclus on Pla., Crat. p. 93, 5 P., the contrast ἔ. and ἔκνομος). The entire vs. can be rendered: ‘I identified as one outside Mosaic jurisdiction with those outside it; not, of course, being outside God’s jurisdiction, but inside Christ’s’. Fr. a purely linguistic point of view one can also transl. ἔννομος true to the law, upright, in the right (so ἔ. in Aeschyl., Suppl. 404; Pla., Rep. 4, 424e) acc. to the judgment of Christ.—CDodd, Studia Paulina (JdeZwaan Festschr.) ’53, 96–110.—M-M. EDNT. TW.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 337–338). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.​

The word under appears nowhere in what you just posted; so it would appear that this is one of those rare occasions.

Why did you choose a source which might reflect doctrinal bias? Why not an objective secular linguistic source? It would seem that someone with your credentials could find such a source with ease.

 

[not under law]

Why do the Gentiles perish if they are doing what the law requires(obedience to the law)?

i thought Paul said the doers of the law will be justified?

Did Paul say all Gentiles had the law in their hearts? Only those under the new covenant do I thought. Please scroll back, I addressed your other point previously

 

[HARK!]

So pagans know torah for the requirements of the law are written on their hearts?

You were the one who posted the scripture to back it. I've seen the empirical evidence all around me.

 

[not under law]

You were the one who posted the scripture to back it. I've seen the empirical evidence all around me.

Do pagans know torah if they do not have the law for it is written on their hearts?

 

[HARK!]

Did Paul say all Gentiles had the law in their hearts? Only those under the new covenant do I thought. Please scroll back, I addressed your other point previously

Gentiles are the nations. They're Pagans and Atheists. Pagans and Atheists aren't in covenant. Only when the become Hebrews, or they cross over, do they come into covenant. You can't serve two masters.

I haven't done a deep study on this; but that's the way i understand it.

 

[Dkh587]

Did Paul say all Gentiles had the law in their hearts? Only those under the new covenant do I thought. Please scroll back, I addressed your other point previously

A Gentile in the new covenant is no longer a Gentile, they are Israel. The new covenant is only with Israel.

Paul writes about this in his letter to the Ephesians.

Christians in the first century heard and knew the law - they gathered on the Sabbath and heard it. They weren’t lawless - they learned what it said when they went to the synagogues every Sabbath.

Christians are not the “without law” and “Gentiles” being spoken of in Romans 2:14

 

[not under law]

Gentiles are the nations. They're Pagans and Atheists. Pagans and Atheists aren't in covenant. Only when the become Hebrews, or they cross over, do they come into covenant. You can't serve two masters.

I haven't done a deep study on this; but that's the way i understand it.

But Paul states the following do by nature what is required by the law, they show the requirements of the law are in their hearts. So they must be obeying those requirements

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,

 

[not under law]

A Gentile in the new covenant is no longer a Gentile, they are Israel. The new covenant is only with Israel.

Paul writes about this in his letter to the Ephesians.

Christians in the first century heard and knew the law - they gathered on the Sabbath and heard it. They weren’t lawless - they learned what it said when they went to the synagogues every Sabbath.

Christians are not the “without law” and “Gentiles” being spoken of in Romans 2:14

Of course Christians are not without law, it is written in their minds and placed on their hearts. That is one of the two main clauses of the new covenant:
This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.’

17 Then he adds:

‘Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more Heb10:16&17

 

[not under law]

This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.’

17 Then he adds:

‘Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.’

18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

Sacrifices for sin are no longer necessary under the new covenant as they were for those under the old covenant when sin was committed Why not?
‘Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.

 

[HARK!]

Do pagans know torah if they do not have the law for it is written on their hearts?

I'm not quite sure how to answer this question.

Satan know Torah.

You're working on the assumption that YHWH hasn't written his law on the hearts of all. I reject that assumption. Even the heathens back in Genesis knew the law. Unfortunately, I can't find the list I compiled; but one example I remember was that Abimelech knew better than to commit adultery with Sarah.

 

[not under law]

I'm not quite sure how to answer this question.

Satan know Torah.

You're working on the assumption that YHWH hasn't written his law on the hearts of all. I reject that assumption. Even the heathens back in Genesis knew the law. Unfortunately, I can't find the list I compiled; but one example I remember was that Abimelech knew better than to commit adultery with Sarah.

Under the new covenant, the people who have the law in their hearts and minds will have their sins and lawless deeds remembered no more
Satan may have known the law, but would he have met its requirements, would he have done by nature what the law required?

 

[HARK!]

18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

Careful:

(CLV) Hb 10:18
Now where there is a pardon of these, there is not longer an approach present concerned with sin.

Approach present is only one category of sacrifice. This is a very deep study with which I'm still left with many questions.

 

[topher694]

There are no important parts of theology covered by only one writer.
God is smarter than that.

So, what are you saying?