What Law is in or to be in our hearts?

[Studyman]

Paul was speaking in the aorist tense and used a participle when he said "according to righteousness; the (righteousness) in Law; being blameless"

In other words, He still was blameless in respect to the righteousness of the Law, that which is of the Book of the Law. Because the Aorist participle should be understood as having become or being. I would promote being. As still is.

And yet Paul himself said the religious Jews of his time were "Ignorant of God's righteousness," and had "gone about to establish "their own righteousness", refusing to submit to the Righteousness of God. And is it just a coincidence that Jesus Himself said the exact same thing?

Matt. 5: 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness "of the scribes and Pharisees", ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I hope you can see the stark contradiction here. To believe the popular religious philosophy you are promoting, I would have to believe Paul is teaching against his own, and the Christ's Teaching. On the other hand, if I understand that Paul was a really, really zealous "Pharisee", "being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers." The same fathers spoken of by Stephen.

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

Surely you can see why a man seeking Biblical Truth would question the religious philosophy that Paul said as a Pharisee he was
"Blameless" according to the Laws "of God".

But all this he counted as nothing and he gladly gave it all up. For he seen it as worthless in relation to the excellency of the knowledge which is of Christ. He whom was His goal. That is to be found IN Christ. Not having his own righteousness which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith OF Christ. The Pharisee's traditions and rules never made anyone righteous.

Yes, the Pharisees Laws and Traditions never made anyone righteous. But what does the bible say about men who walked in God's Laws, and not the commandments of men the Pharisees taught for doctrines? What do the Scriptures say about Zacharias and Elizebeth?

For those who might be reading along, please read Is. chapter 1. This Chapter describes the Pharisees who were a people laden with sins, rejecting God's Judgments and Laws, and yet every week they would take the blood of an innocent being and offer it to God for their sins, as prescribed by "the Law". This is what Paul is speaking to when he says "his own righteousness" which is of the Law. But it isn't really God's Law because the Blood of an innocent being was NEVER prescribed for willful sin.

Hear what God tells them.

Is. 1: 4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law "of our God", ye people of Gomorrah. 11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

These men "Who professed to know God" rejected God's Laws, but then would show up and offer the Blood of an innocent being, "according to their Law" to justify their willful sins.

12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?

What does God require?

16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. 18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. 19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

A man can't live by their own judgments, their own righteousness, their own high days, their own images of God, and then show up once a week and offer the blameless Blood of an innocent being as remission for their sins, "according to the Law". That is not God's Law, that is "man's law". There is no flesh justified by these "works of the Law".

1 Tim. 1: 7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. 8 But we know that the law is good, "if a man use it lawfully;"

I am guessing your issue is you don't think that Paul meant the Book of the Law when He said Law?

I posted Paul's words throughout the Testimony in which he explains that the religious sect of the Pharisees had God's Law but didn't believe it. I posted the words of the Pharisees in which they said "We have a Law", which was certainly not God's Law. I posted Paul's words where he admits that they were ignorant of God's Law and went about establishing their own, refusing to submit to God's Law. I also posted the Words of the Lord's Christ in which HE "ALSO" pointed out what Paul was most certainly aware of, and that is that the religious sect of the Pharisees had a Law, they taught a law, but it wasn't God's Law. This is confirmed over and over and over and over again in the Law and Prophets which describe the fathers of the Pharisees, who promoted a vision of their own mind, and not from the mouth of God.

I understand that modern "Christianity" has taught since my youth, that the Pharisees were trying to please God by obeying His Law. They preach many things that cannot be supported by Scripture, as you well know given your posts that I have read over the years. One such falsehood that has no doubt influenced both you and I, is the teaching that the religious sect of the Pharisees, were trying to earn salvation by being obedient to God's Law like Zacharias, Caleb, Simeon, Anna and other men of faith.

There are volumes of scriptures which separate those obedient servants of God from those who, as Paul says "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." I argue that the religious sect of the Pharisees, were of the latter group, not the former.

For me, I have no reason to turn away from all this evidence I posted, not to mention the volumes of scriptures I didn't post which say the same exact thing, because of one sentence from Paul to the Philippians in which he tells us what Law he lived by. Not God's Law! Not the Law of Moses"! But "as touching the law, a Pharisee".

If this is the case Please show with in the context of the passage. Or an example anywhere where it can be plainly seen that Paul used the word Law to mean any thing other than the Book of the Law or some Law from it.

"Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; "as touching the law", a Pharisee; "

What is the difference if Paul had said, "Baptized at 2 weeks old, a Christian of Christians, as touching the Law, a Catholic" or "a Mormon" or a "Jehovah's Witness"? They too, have a Law, and those zealous for the traditions of their fathers, walk in them.

In contrast, if Paul would have been a "doer of "God's Law", and not a hearer only, like Caleb and Anna, he wouldn't have been a member of the religious sect of the Pharisees. If he would have "Yielded himself" a servant to obey "God's Law", and not the "Commandments of men" the religious sect of the Pharisees taught for doctrine. He would have known Jesus when HE came, as Zacharias and Simeon knew Him. If he would have "with his mind, served the Law "of God" and not the Law of the Pharisees. He wouldn't have persecuted the Church of God. If they had not been ignorant of God's Law, and didn't go about to establish their own, but had submitted themselves to "God's" Righteousness, they wouldn't be a Pharisee, they would be like Zacharias and Elizebeth, and would have known Jesus when HE came.

I realize I am a nobody and therefore considered unqualified to question the religious philosophy of a person with your pedigree. I get how this works, and I know I'm bucking popular ancient religious philosophy dating back to the Council of Nicaea.

In my view, This all feeds into the popular philosophy that God's Laws are "Jewish Traditions" or "beggarly Elements" or "Rudiments of this world" or the "Yoke of Bondage" God placed in the necks of people who trust Him in the Law and Prophets. I don't believe the Scriptures as written, promote this philosophy.

What I hope you might consider is, what if Paul was a zealous member of the religious sect of the Pharisees, a religious sect that " profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.", a religious sect that were "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" and not God. A religious sect "Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.". A religious sect that "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition". A religious sect that was "ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

I just don't believe one sentence from Paul to the Philippians made void all these truths about the Pharisees.

Surely you can see the point.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

In other words, you don't actually believe Paul or Peter.

1Peter 1: 3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

It seems you don't believe even the divine nature can overcome sin,

I don't believe any person but Jesus was sinless. You are welcome to claim otherwise

 

[Gary K]

I don't believe any person but Jesus was sinless. You are welcome to claim otherwise

So you don't believe Paul's nor Peter's writings are inspired? Does that mean they shouldn't be in the Bible?

 

[Studyman]

I don't believe any person but Jesus was sinless. You are welcome to claim otherwise

No one is saying that or even implying that.

Some men are simply interested in what is actually written in Scripture. Jesus told men He healed to “go and sin no more”. You are free to preach to others that Jesus doesn’t know what He is talking about or that those who believe Him are fools. You certainly wouldn’t be the first.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

So you don't believe Paul's nor Peter's writings are inspired? Does that mean they shouldn't be in the Bible?

Pointless conclusion of your own imagination

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

No one is saying that or even implying that.

Are you taking Gary's place in the conversation?

You merely neglect the role of the devil in sins and temptations

 

[Gary K]

Pointless conclusion of your own imagination

1Corinthians 10: 13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.

What does scripture say? We will not be tempted above and beyond what we will be able to stand, and God will make a way of escape for us so we can bear them.

If we take scripture as it is written we know sinning is not necessary..

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

We will not be tempted

Thanks for conceding the point that we're tempted

When did the tempter become legally obedient?

 

[Gary K]

Thanks for conceding the point that we're tempted

When did the tempter become legally obedient?

Why do you ignore the entire passage?

BTW, I've never denied being tempted. If being tempted is sin then Jesus sinned,

Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

BTW, I've never denied being tempted. If being tempted is sin then Jesus sinned,

Satan had nothing in him

Same can't be said for the rest of us

 

[Gary K]

Satan had nothing in him

Same can't be said for the rest of us

Scripture tells us we are partakers of Jesus' divine nature and that we will not be tempted above that which we will be able to bear and God will make us a way of escape. But you know this already. Why keep on denying the truth?

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

will not be tempted above that which we will be able to bear

Will observe the obvious again. Where is your accounting for the other party?

Temptations transpire within and are of the tempter

Evil does come from within

We do have an adversary

Where is your accounting? This isn't just about you as an individual because that's not the case by your own admissions

 

[Gary K]

Will observe the obvious again. Where is your accounting for the other party?

Temptations transpire within and are of the tempter

Evil does come from within

We do have an adversary

Where is your accounting? This isn't just about you as an individual because that's not the case by your own admissions

You don't think God has taken that into account in stating the promise? He's too short sighted to think of the devil?

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

You don't think God has taken that into account in stating the promise? He's too short sighted to think of the devil?

God does work against our enemy in case you missed it

The tempter will never be legally obedient

It was never a question of just and only you

It's also a question of simple and basic honesty, which some believers lose sight of, because of our adversary

 

[HIM]

I posted the words of the Pharisees in which they said "We have a Law", which was certainly not God's Law.

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

Deut 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

 

[HIM]

And yet Paul himself said the religious Jews of his time were "Ignorant of God's righteousness," and had "gone about to establish "their own righteousness", refusing to submit to the Righteousness of God. And is it just a coincidence that Jesus Himself said the exact same thing?

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above)
Rom 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

Matt. 5: 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness "of the scribes and Pharisees", ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matt 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Matt 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Matt 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
Matt 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

 

[Gary K]

God does work against our enemy in case you missed it

The tempter will never be legally obedient

It was never a question of just and only you

It's also a question of simple and basic honesty, which some believers lose sight of, because of our adversary

That's the first true thing you've said. Scripture is inspired by God and I trust it

2Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Perfect =
[*StrongsGreek*]
00739
ἄρτιος ártios, ar'-tee-os
from 737;
fresh, i.e. (by implication) complete:--perfect.

thoroughly furnished =
[*StrongsGreek*]
01822
ἐξαρτίζω exartízō, ex-ar-tid'-zo
from 1537 and a derivative of 739;
to finish out (time); figuratively, to equip fully (a teacher):--accomplish, thoroughly furnish.

good =
[*StrongsGreek*]
00018
ἀγαθός agathós, ag-ath-os'
a primary word;
"good" (in any sense, often as noun):--benefit, good(-s, things), well.
Compare 2570.

works =
[*StrongsGreek*]
02041
E)/RGON ἔργον érgon er'-gon from a primary (but obsolete) ἔργω érgō, (to work);
toil (as an effort or occupation); by implication, an act:--deed, doing, labour, work.

 

[Gary K]

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above)
Rom 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;




Matt 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Matt 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Matt 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
Matt 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

That's because the Pharisees "Bible" was, and still is, the Talmud.

Acts 9: 1 AND Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

Do you really think "breathing out threatenings and slaughter" is in harmony with the 10 commandments?

 

[Studyman]

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

Deut 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

Perhaps we are better served if we post more of God's Inspired Words here regarding your insistence that the Pharisees were obedient to God's Laws, even in their killing of the Prophets and the Lord's Christ.

Deut 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

So in your religion, this Law of God condemned Jesus and the Prophets that the Pharisees and their fathers killed, to death, and the Pharisees were simply obeying God's Law when they murdered Jesus.

So then when Stephen said;

Acts 7: 51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

You preach that Stephen was filled with a lying spirit? That the Jews who killed Jesus and the Prophets were "Keeping the Law" they received by the disposition of angels, not rejecting it as Jesus, Stephen and the entire Bible teaches? That they were simply obeying God's Laws, and that killing Jesus was in fulfillment of their obedience to God's Law, and not their own? So when they said "We have a Law and by OUR Law Jesus should die", you are preaching to others that "Their Law" was God's Law, and therefore it was God's LAW that condemned Jesus to death.

I can see you are zealous for this teaching, but I don't believe the Scriptures support your religious philosophy here Him.

I would argue that if the Pharisees were truly "Keeping the Law" as you are insisting, like Zacharias and Simeon did, including the instruction above that you posted to justify your teaching, they would not have killed the Lord's Christ or the Prophets.

I understand how popular this world religious philosophy "The Pharisees were trying to earn salvation by obedience to God" is, and how so much of its religion is founded on it.

I was just hoping you might consider "ALL" that is written regarding the commandments and judgements the Pharisees were living by and promoting.

 

[Studyman]

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

I agree with all of Paul's words. Just not the way you use them to try and justify a religion which teaches that the Pharisees were obedient to God's Laws, when it is clear that they were not. I have asked that men read Is. 1 so they can understand the Pharisees and Paul as he describes them. They rejected God's Laws. To preach otherwise in is direct contradiction to the Jesus "of the Bible's" own Words. They were an evil people who "professed to know God", but by their works denied him. They didn't believe God, which is the founding tenant for "ALL Living Faith". Surely even you understand that without belief, there is no faith. So Is. 1 describes the Pharisees who, as Jesus said, "Full well reject the commandments of God". But every week they would come to Him with the Blood of innocent beings to justify their sins, "as per their Law". As I posted and many ignored, "12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Certainly Not God as HE explains in the following verses.

And how does God define "Faith" in Is. 1? 19 "If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land": Was this Paul before his conversion, or after?

I get that men can't accept, discuss or otherwise examine these Words because to do so would publicly expose their error in their religious philosophy that the Pharisees were obedient to God's Laws. And what is faith in God, if not Belief in God enough to be a "Doer" of His Sayings, and not a hearer only? And who was it that God was not well pleased with? Those who obeyed Him as your religious philosophy implies. Or those who didn't?

Heb. 3: 17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with "them that had sinned", whose carcases fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? 19 So we see that they could not enter in "because of unbelief".

Heb. 4: 1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us (Jews and Gentiles) was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: (Jews who fell in the wilderness) but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith (Obedience/Belief) in them that heard it. 3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

"Many" who come in Christ's name, desperately try to defend, preserve and promote a religious philosophy that the Pharisees were obeying God's Laws, or were trying to earn Salvation by obeying God's Laws. But the Christ "of the bible" Himself tells us, both before HE became a man, and after HE became a man, that the Jews rejected God's commandments, despised His Judgments and Polluted His Sabbaths.

These men who promote this philosophy you have adopted, have stumbled at the same stumbling stone the Pharisees stumbled at. Jesus tells us about the Pharisees, and you don't believe Him. I do believe Him, and I am not ashamed to post His Words and discuss them.

What "works of the Law" did those Jews in Isaiah 1 rely on for justification of their life "laden with iniquity"? And who told them to promote and live by such a religion? It wasn't God Him! Just as God's Law you posted, didn't condemn Jesus and the Prophets to death.

How wonderful it would be if 2 men would answer each other's questions, and discuss what is written, in search of Truth, as opposed to seeking justification of a philosophy.