What Law is in or to be in our hearts?

[Studyman]

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.

Yes, this is what I am saying. They were ignorant of God's Righteousness. They were not "Blameless" in God's Righteousness as you are preaching to others. The Holy scriptures teach that God's Commandments "Are Righteousness".

Psalms 119: 172 My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness. 173 Let thine hand help me; for I have chosen thy precepts. 174 I have longed for thy salvation, O LORD; and thy law is my delight.

The Pharisees were "Ignorant" of God's Laws and went about to establish their own. As the Jesus "of the bible" teaches for those who believe Him. " 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of "God", that ye may keep your "own tradition".

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Yes, the Catholic religion and her Protestant daughters all preach that Jesus came to "END" God's Law for everyone that believes. But with just a little "seeking God's Truth" we also find the following.

Rom. 4: 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the "end" the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Rom. 6: 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the "end" of those things is death.

End = Strongs Greek 5056 "Telos" "To set out for a definite point", the point aimed at. a limit, the conclusion of an act or state. termination or result.

So Jesus' lifestyle is the result of the Law for Righteousness, for everyone who believes Him. I need to look no further than Christ to see how a man of God is to walk. Just as the Promises of God is the result of Faith. Or the result of the fruit of disobedience is death.

This is confirmed by John.

1 John 3: 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that "doeth righteousness" is righteous, even as he is righteous.

For Christ is the "result" "of the law" for righteousness to every one that believeth.

1 John 2: 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

So the Pharisees were ignorant of God's righteousness, but not Jesus. Just as the Pharisees were ignorant of god's Righteousness, but not Zacharias, and Simeon.

How does any of this prove your religious philosophy that the Pharisees were living in obedience to God's Law?

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;

Yes, as God inspired it to be written.

Duet. 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Duet. 18: 13 Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.

But the Pharisees that you are working to convince anyone who would listen to you were blameless in God's Law, despised the Word. They were "Ignorant" of God's Word. They had God's Word but didn't believe them. They taught for doctrines the word of men, and not God. God gave them HIS Words, but they didn't keep them. They were given the Words of God by the dispensation of angels, but didn't keep them.

The Faithful kept them, but not the Pharisees. Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, Paul, James, Cornelious, the first Church of God under HIS Prophesied Priest kept them. But the Pharisees promoted their own Law. Your unbelief if these truths, do not make them void.

 

[Studyman]

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.

That's the exact point which exposes the part of your OP that I respectfully questioned. Jesus Himself tells His Disciples, and the multitudes to "DO" and "Observe" what Moses said to do and observe, but NOT what the Pharisees do and observe. Because what Moses said to do, and what the Pharisees promoted, are 2 completely different things. They "Read" (Say) Moses on the Sabbath days to the people. But they didn't "DO" what Moses said to do. And Jesus confirms this in the next sentence.

Matt 23:4 For they (Pharisees, not Moses or God) "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.

These heavy burdens were the "Commandments of Men" Jesus said they taught for doctrines. These were "Their" Righteousness they set about to establish, not the Righteousness of God they refused to submit to, as revealed by Moses in the Gospel of Christ wherein it is written "The Just shall live by faith".

You are exposing your own preaching here.

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,

All of which runs contrary to God's Laws, but not contrary to the Commandments of men (Heavy burdens) the Pharisees taught for doctrines.

Look, I know you must defend, preserve and promote your religious philosophy below, here in this public forum as you are a preacher, and have an image to protect in front of other men. I get that.

But regarding your preaching below, this is simply a deception.

Paul said a lot.
Phil 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

His profession here was a bit different and is basically within the same context. He said in respect to the Law he was blameless.

Blameless is without fault, irreproachable. Keep in mind that he also relayed to us the Law was for sinners. So if he was irreproachable in respect to the Law. Then the Law was not for Him because he wasn't sinning.

He wasn't sinning according to the Law of the Pharisees. You can reject Jesus' Words I posted, along with the Prophets, and Paul's teaching. But I will not reject or ignore the scriptures you post, rather, I will examine them, ask questions about them and attempt to have an honest truth-seeking discussion about them. Paul himself exposes this popular religious philosophy you have adopted as a falsehood with his own words, even if we rejected the entire Law and Prophets, and Jesus' Words which a person must do you believe your religion here.

Here is what the "blameless" Paul said about his life as a Pharisee.

1 Tim. 1: 12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; 13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

You can continue to promote the clear falsehood that Paul was calling himself "Blameless" according to "God's Law" if you like, and no doubt you will. But it isn't true according to Paul's own words.

 

[Studyman]

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?

There is a religious foundation upon which "many" of this world religions create much of their doctrine and have since the Council of Niciah. And that foundation is that the Jews, or more specifically the religious sect of the Pharisees, were trying to "Earn" God's Favor by obeying His Laws "to the letter". This foundation enables them to promote their religious philosophy that God's Laws to one extent or another, are a Yoke of bondage, Jewish tradition, rudiments of this world, Beggarly Elements, ect., and are no longer to be honored. In fact, those who do believe what is written are persecuted to this day, called "Legalists" and accused of denying the Christ, in the same way Paul was accused of denying Moses.

If the truth about the Pharisees and the Law Jesus said they promoted is believed, then much of their religious philosophy starts to crumble. And the preachers promoting it would have to accept correction in front of others, be humiliated in front of others, and they would be broken, like Paul most certainly was broken. And this is just too much of a cost for prideful man who doesn't really believe much of what is written in the first place, but still wants to live forever.

It's a great study, as all "Seeking God's truth" instead of self-justification is. But it comes with a cost, as Jesus Himself warns.

Good points Gary K.

 

[HIM]

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

The Talmud is not the Law. Nor would Paul write that it was.
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;

 

[HIM]

You said

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

This post shows what Law they were purporting. Jesus was innocent but this is the Law they were speaking of..

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.

Not sure why you posted this quote below nor why you don't understand the above. As for your question of course not. Though some of the ones stoning Stephen might of thought as did some of them in John 19.

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?

 

[HIM]

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

NO ONE SAID "THE PHARISEES WERE OBEDIENT TO GOD"S LAWS"

Paul said in respect to himself that he was blameless in respect to the Law. And that Law is God's Law. That does not mean at that this point Paul never sinned. It means that he had obeyed the Law. So when He did see his sin prior to Christ he offered up the sacrifice that the LORD deemed appropriate in the Law and therefore he was blameless.

Here is what the "blameless" Paul said about his life as a Pharisee.

1 Tim. 1: 12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; 13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

So as Paul speaks of the Law being for sinners you post this in which he said in context to it to accuse him. Okay....

 

[Gary K]

The Talmud is not the Law. Nor would Paul write that it was.
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;

Why not? He was a Pharisee. He spent more time as a Pharisee than as a Christian.

Phillipians 3: 4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 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;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Notice Paul didn't separate persecuting the church and blameless before the law in his life as a Pharisee. How could he do that as a Christian? Does the law of God permit persecuting Christians? How, when the first four commandments are based in love for God?

 

[HIM]

Why not?

Because all through Romans the Law is used in respect to the Book of the Law and the commandments and statutes. Nowhere is it used in respect the extra writings that had been compiled.

 

[Studyman]

You said

This post shows what Law they were purporting. Jesus was innocent but this is the Law they were speaking of..

But Him, if Jesus was innocent according to God's Law, and you agree that HE was, then what LAW of God were they following when they killed Him? Did God say, "I have a Law, and by My Law Jesus should die"? No, because God's LAW didn't condemn Jesus, the "Commandments of men" that Jesus, not me, "JESUS said" the Pharisees taught for doctrines, condemned Jesus to death. Did their Law contain some of God's Words? Of course, just like the serpent in the garden also quoted some of God's Words and professed to know God.

But the undeniable Biblical Truth is that neither the serpent, nor the Pharisees, the children of the serpent, promoted or walked in God's Laws. God's Law didn't condemn Jesus, not even One of them. The "Commandment of men" the Pharisees taught for doctrines did condemn Jesus., along with Stephen, and the Prophets before them. Paul doesn't contradict these truths to the Philippians or the Galatians when he defines for them the religious sect he had adopted and promoted before his conversion.


I'm not sure why you refuse to consider these Biblical Truths.

Not sure why you posted this quote below nor why you don't understand the above.

God's Law didn't condemn Jesus and didn't direct the Pharisees to kill Stephen. I posted it because Stephen tells both you and I why the Pharisees, with consent of Paul, killed Jesus. Because they, including Paul, "received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

This is in stark contrast to your preaching.

"His profession here was a bit different and is basically within the same context. He said in respect to the Law he was blameless. Blameless is without fault, irreproachable. Keep in mind that he also relayed to us the Law was for sinners. So if he was irreproachable in respect to the Law. Then the Law was not for Him because he wasn't sinning."

Paul never called his old self as a Pharisee, "blameless in God's Law". You and "many" who come in Christ's Name preach this. But not Paul,

1 Tim. 1: 12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; 13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

He was "Ignorant" of God's Law, but "profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers." A tradition of receiving God's LAW by the dispensation of angels but not keeping it.

Zacharias, Simeon and Anna though, they were blameless in God's Law. As a result, they knew the Christ when HE came. You can read about them in Luke 1&2. Surely you can see the difference between Paul as a Pharisee and Zacharias.

As for your question of course not. Though some of the ones stoning Stephen might of thought as did some of them in John 19.

Yes, "of course not". Paul was not telling the Philippians that he was "Blameless" in God's Law, holding the coats of them who murdered Stephen.

 

[Studyman]

NO ONE SAID "THE PHARISEES WERE OBEDIENT TO GOD"S LAWS"

Certainly not Paul to the Philippians. But this world's religions promote that same falsehood every day. And I was responding to your teaching, in which this same thing is implied.

"His profession here was a bit different and is basically within the same context. He said in respect to the Law he was blameless. Blameless is without fault, irreproachable. Keep in mind that he also relayed to us the Law was for sinners. So if he was irreproachable in respect to the Law. Then the Law was not for Him because he wasn't sinning."

Paul did not tell the Phillipians he was blameless "in God's Law" as a Pharisee. You preach that he did, I posted your own words. But when all of Paul's words are taken into account, he taught others that he was a zealous Pharisee, and walked perfectly in their religious traditions. Traditions that he and the Lord's Christ Himself, along with the Prophets teach "Transgress God's commandments".

Paul said in respect to himself that he was blameless in respect to the Law. And that Law is God's Law.

According to the religious philosophy of the Pope and her Protestant daughters, this may be true. But I have posted volumes of Scriptures, and shown without a doubt the Biblical Truth, which is that Paul never taught anyone he was "Blameless in God's Law" as a Pharisee. He was "Blameless" in the Commandments of men the Pharisees taught for doctrines. Blameless in the religious traditions of his fathers. But not God's Law. As I have posted and you have quite frankly ignored, there were men who walked in the Commandments and Statutes of God, "blameless". You can read about them in Luke 1&2. But there is nowhere in the Bible where it is taught by God or those inspired by Him, that the religious sect of the Pharisees were "Blameless" in God's Laws. And most certainly not Paul who said of himself as a Pharisee, that he "was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

The reason why I am spending so much time on this, is because this whole doctrine "The Pharisees were trying to earn salvation by obeying God's Law" is one of the most insidious, infectious and dangerous lies promoted by this world's religions "who come in Christ's Name". And it is worth the debate and discussion to discern what the Scriptures really teach on this matter, to expose this horrible teaching that is the foundation of so many falsehoods.

This is why I advocate that a man read Isaiah 1, because this describes Paul before his conversion, and what he means when he speaks to justification "by the works of the law". Paul knew and believed this teaching, and so do I. I'm hoping that you might also consider and "be renewed in the spirit of your mind;".

That does not mean at that this point Paul never sinned. It means that he had obeyed the Law. So when He did see his sin prior to Christ he offered up the sacrifice that the LORD deemed appropriate in the Law and therefore he was blameless.

Read Isaiah 1 Him. The Law the Pharisees walked in was not God's Law. And you are contradicting yourself here. You just said "So if he was irreproachable in respect to the Law. Then the Law was not for Him because he wasn't sinning."

Now you say he saw his sin as a Pharisee, and the Law was for him, because he was sinning?

So just take a breath, swallow some pride, and "hear" Paul's own words.

Eph. 2: 1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh "in the children of disobedience":

3 Among whom "also we all" had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature "the children of wrath", even as others.

So as Paul speaks of the Law being for sinners you post this in which he said in context to it to accuse him. Okay....

I posted Paul's own confession as a Pharisee. He accused himself in his words that I posted. He wasn't "Blameless" in God's Law as a Pharisee. He was "Ignorant" of God's Law. Didn't "Believe" God's Law. He hadn't "Yielded himself" a servant to obey God's Laws, he didn't "Serve the Law of God with his mind" as a Pharisee.

If he had been "Blameless" in "God's LAW", he would have known the Christ when He came, as Zacharias, the Wise men, Anna and Simeon did.

 

[Gary K]

Because all through Romans the Law is used in respect to the Book of the Law and the commandments and statutes. Nowhere is it used in respect the extra writings that had been compiled.

So being an accomplice to murder isn't a sin?

 

[HIM]

If he had been "Blameless" in "God's LAW", he would have known the Christ when He came, as Zacharias, the Wise men, Anna and Simeon did.

It was not that he had been blameless. It was that he was still blameless as in BEING blameless. As in the time that he wrote Philippians. That is what the aorist participle brings out. Had been blameless would be past tense which would be the Perfect in the Greek.

I posted Paul's own confession as a Pharisee. He accused himself in his words that I posted. He wasn't "Blameless" in God's Law as a Pharisee. He was "Ignorant" of God's Law. Didn't "Believe" God's Law. He hadn't "Yielded himself" a servant to obey God's Laws, he didn't "Serve the Law of God with his mind" as a Pharisee.

No He said what he did was done ignorantly in unbelief. He thought he was doing God's will. And was caught up with zeal in the doing. He wasn't ignorant of God's Law. God's Law said to persecute the blasphemer. And that is what he thought he was doing.

And at the point that he wrote Philippians he was blameless in respect to the Law. He received mercy.



And incidentally you still have not shown where Paul used the word Law to mean anything other than the Book of the Law or a commandment or Statute from it.

Read Isaiah 1 Him. The Law the Pharisees walked in was not God's Law. And you are contradicting yourself here. You just said "So if he was irreproachable in respect to the Law. Then the Law was not for Him because he wasn't sinning."

Now you say he saw his sin as a Pharisee, and the Law was for him, because he was sinning?

Wasn't sinning and never sinned are two different statements.

In regard to Isaiah. God's Call was not to sin, but live through Him from the beginning of time through Moses to now. But because of our stiff necks and hard hearts He implemented the sacrificial and Judicial system THROUGH Moses. NONE of which was HIS DESIRE. Because none of it was the cure. They became excellent butchers but never became God's people living through His Spirit.

The reason why I am spending so much time on this, is because this whole doctrine "The Pharisees were trying to earn salvation by obeying God's Law" is one of the most insidious, infectious and dangerous lies promoted by this world's religions "who come in Christ's Name". And it is worth the debate and discussion to discern what the Scriptures really teach on this matter, to expose this horrible teaching that is the foundation of so many falsehoods.

The motions of doing the Law without faith is what ONE of the issues is and was. For Without faith it is impossible to please God. If we are willfully sinning we are living in unbelief.

One of the other issues is living without God. We can only live through God and His Spirit through Christ. Because all Have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. So all must through faith partake of His death and resurrection to Live. For in Him we or are to live, move and have our being. For it is He that works in us both to Will and DO His good pleasure. This requires Faith also

 

[HIM]

So being an accomplice to murder isn't a sin?

Wasn't sinning is not hadn't sinned. At the time that Paul wrote Philippians He was blameless in respect to the Law. That is what He said. Anything that he done in the past was past. He either said it because he received forgiveness and mercy through the Law through the sacrificial system or received it through Christ's death through faith.

In retrospect it would have been through Christ regardless because He had faith that the sacrificial system pointed to Christ.

And BTW your question does not answer that which you quoted.

Because all through Romans the Law is used in respect to the Book of the Law and the commandments and statutes. Nowhere is it used in respect the extra writings that had been compiled.

 

[Gary K]

Wasn't sinning is not hadn't sinned. At the time that Paul wrote Philippians He was blameless in respect to the Law. That is what He said. Anything that he done in the past was past. He either said it because he received forgiveness and mercy through the Law through the sacrificial system or received it through Christ's death through faith.

In retrospect it would have been through Christ regardless because He had faith that the sacrificial system pointed to Christ.

And BTW your question does not answer that which you quoted.

So Paul, in Phillipians, is saying, as a Pharisee, he was blameless before the law of God when he did the following?

Acts 9: 1 AND Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

Acts 7; 58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.
59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Acts 8; 1 AND Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judæa and Samaria, except the apostles.
2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

These actions are in accord with the law of God? This kind of hatred dwells in those who love God enough to keep his law?

 

[Studyman]

It was not that he had been blameless. It was that he was still blameless as in BEING blameless. As in the time that he wrote Philippians. That is what the aorist participle brings out. Had been blameless would be past tense which would be the Perfect in the Greek.

I get that you are learned at the feet of Shirley Rollinson, just as Paul had learned at the feet of Gamaliel. I see the influence of her schooling in most all of your posts. Just as Paul's teaching, before he was converted, showed the influence of Gamaliel. And as Paul said, we are servants to whomever we "Yield ourselves" servants to obey. I am simply trying to point out what the Scriptures, not the wise men or educational institutions of this world, but what God, and His Son and Paul taught about the religious sect of the Pharisees.

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;

Paul didn't say "Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Sadducee; Why not? Because the religious sect of the Sadducees yielded themselves servants to obey a different Law than the religious sect of the Pharisee. Just as the Baptist "yields themselves" servants to obey a different Law than the SDA. Just as the Catholic "yields themselves" servants to obey as different Law than the Baptist. And so on.

Acts 22: 3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the "law of the fathers", and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Who was Gamaliel?

Acts 5: 34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;

Paul wasn't schooled by a Sadducee or Moses, rather, by the religious sect of the Pharisees.

Scriptures do not support the implication of your religion that a man can't understand God unless they are trained by Dr. Rollinson concerning the "aorist participle". Just as we can know that the Scriptures don't teach that a man couldn't know God unless they were brought up at the feet of the Gamaliel, a Teacher of the religious sect "of the Pharisees".

Inject Jesus' Name in the sentence. "Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Judah, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

As touching the law, was Jesus a Pharisee? Even you must know that HE wasn't. Why not Him? He gives you the answer you must ignore in order to preserve and defend your adopted teaching.

Mark 15: 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments "of men", not God as you are others preach.

No He said what he did was done ignorantly in unbelief. He thought he was doing God's will.

But killing innocent people for obeying God is not God's will for men is it? Surely even you must know this. For me, it is simple to understand why because I believe what is written in Scriptures, what Paul himself teaches.

Rom. 1: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

In your religion, were the teachers of the religious sect of the Pharisees "fools"? Was this because they were blameless according to "God's Law"? Or because they promoted the "Commandments of men"?

And was caught up with zeal in the doing. He wasn't ignorant of God's Law. God's Law said to persecute the blasphemer. And that is what he thought he was doing.

LOL, but he himself said that as a Pharisee "HE WAS the Blasphemer". Does God's Law not also pertain to him? Or did the Law of the Pharisee permit such hypocrisy?

And at the point that he wrote Philippians he was blameless in respect to the Law. He received mercy.

And incidentally you still have not shown where Paul used the word Law to mean anything other than the Book of the Law or a commandment or Statute from it.

I posted volumes of Scriptures which teach what the "Traditions" of the Pharisees fathers were that Paul zealously walked in, according to his own words. I posted Jesus' Words in which he defines for us what Law the Pharisees "Laid on the shoulders of men" and taught for doctrines. I posted where Paul teaches that the Pharisees were ignorant of God's Law/Righteousness, and had gone about establishing their own, confirming the Prophets and the Jesus "of the Bibles" Words about them, teaching for doctrines "commandments of men", I posted where Paul defines the man he was, being blameless in the Pharisees Law. I pointed out Scriptures that actually speak about men who walked in God's Law contrary to the religious sect of the Pharisees.

You must discard them all, not because they are not true or relevant in this discussion, but because they bring question to your popular adopted religious philosophy that the religious sect of the Pharisees were trying to earn salvation by obeying "God's Law". When the Scriptures are more than clear that they had a law, it just wasn't from the mouth of God.

Jer. 23: 16 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision "of their own heart", and not out of the mouth of the LORD.

Why would I reject all these inspired Words of the God of my Salvation?

We have been here before. And I am posting to give others a perspective of someone who wasn't learned by this world's popular religious teachers. I see that you didn't reply to the post before this, and how can you. In closing I will post it again, for others reading along.

But Him, if Jesus was innocent according to God's Law, and you agree that HE was, then what LAW of God were they following when they killed Him? Did God say, "I have a Law, and by My Law Jesus should die"? No, because God's LAW didn't condemn Jesus, the "Commandments of men" that Jesus, not me, "JESUS said" the Pharisees taught for doctrines, condemned Jesus to death. Did their Law contain some of God's Words? Of course, just like the serpent in the garden also quoted some of God's Words and professed to know God.

But the undeniable Biblical Truth is that neither the serpent, nor the Pharisees, the children of the serpent, promoted or walked in God's Laws. God's Law didn't condemn Jesus, not even One of them. The "Commandment of men" the Pharisees taught for doctrines did condemn Jesus., along with Stephen, and the Prophets before them. Paul doesn't contradict these truths to the Philippians or the Galatians when he defines for them the religious sect he had adopted and promoted before his conversion.

I hope that in the private moments of your life, when you don't have to justify your religion in front of others, that you might consider what all these Inspired Words of God mean regarding the religious sect of the Pharisees.

 

[HIM]

So Paul, in Phillipians, is saying, as a Pharisee, he was blameless before the law of God when he did the following?

Happy Sabbath Gary!

No, Paul is saying at the time he wrote Philippians he was blameless in respect to the law. There are 38 instances of the 2nd Aorist participle γενόμενος·, Having Become in the New Testament. Three of which are in Philippians. Here they are below. The first instance relays to us that Jesus' having taken the form of a bondman, In the likeness of men having become. Having become is Not in the past, as in was. But something that was and is still in respect to context.

Then in this likeness of men which He had become. He humbled Himself, having become obedient unto death.

Then in the verse in question Paul states that he having become blameless. If he was having become blameless, he was blameless according to the righteousness in the Law at the time he wrote Phillipians.

In his having become, he was still in this state.


Phil 2:7 ἀλλ' But ἑαυτὸν Himself ἐκένωσεν Emptied, μορφὴν Form δούλου A Bondman's λαβών Having Taken, ἐν In 'The' ὁμοιώματι Likeness ἀνθρώπων Of Men γενόμενος· Having Become;


Phil 2:8 καί And σχήματι In Figure εὑρεθείς Having Been Found ὥς As ἄνθρωπος A Man, ἐταπείνωσεν He Humbled ἑαυτὸν Himself, γενόμενος Having Become ὑπήκοος Obedient μέχρι Unto θανάτου Death, θανάτου δὲ Even Death σταυροῦ Of 'The' Cross.


Phil 3:6 κατὰ According To ζῆλον Zeal, διώκων Persecuting τὴν The ἐκκλησίαν Assembly; κατὰ According To δικαιοσύνην Righteousness τὴν THE ἐν In νόμῳ Law, γενόμενος Having Become ἄμεμπτος Blameless;

 

[HIM]

I get that you are learned at the feet of Shirley Rollinson

No you don't, because I barely know who they are.

As was said nowhere does Paul use the word Law to mean anything other than the Book of the Law or a commandment or statute from it. To say that He was referring to the writings that the Pharisees had compiled is a grievous error that is not substantiated in Phillipians or anywhere in the Holy Writ.

Incidentally you should spend more time addressing the post rather than making comments about yourself and those to whom you are writing to.

Take care

 

[HIM]

Yes, was accused once of not keeping the Sabbath when never once was asked how I keep the Sabbath - so if strangers know what I do or don't do (or a whole denomination) without knowing them or even bother to ask, it would make one god and there is only God, the only God we are all accountable for come Judgement Day.

Happy Sabbath friend.

Happy Sabbath to you also SabbathBlessings! As we praise You Father God today, may Your Son Jesus Christ through Your Spirit continue to guide us in You that all the world may see and believe. Amen

 

[Gary K]

Happy Sabbath Gary!

No, Paul is saying at the time he wrote Philippians he was blameless in respect to the law. There are 38 instances of the 2nd Aorist participle γενόμενος·, Having Become in the New Testament. Three of which are in Philippians. Here they are below. The first instance relays to us that Jesus' having taken the form of a bondman, In the likeness of men having become. Having become is Not in the past, as in was. But something that was and is still in respect to context.

Then in this likeness of men which He had become. He humbled Himself, having become obedient unto death.

Then in the verse in question Paul states that he having become blameless. If he was having become blameless, he was blameless according to the righteousness in the Law at the time he wrote Phillipians.

In his having become, he was still in this state.


Phil 2:7 ἀλλ' But ἑαυτὸν Himself ἐκένωσεν Emptied, μορφὴν Form δούλου A Bondman's λαβών Having Taken, ἐν In 'The' ὁμοιώματι Likeness ἀνθρώπων Of Men γενόμενος· Having Become;


Phil 2:8 καί And σχήματι In Figure εὑρεθείς Having Been Found ὥς As ἄνθρωπος A Man, ἐταπείνωσεν He Humbled ἑαυτὸν Himself, γενόμενος Having Become ὑπήκοος Obedient μέχρι Unto θανάτου Death, θανάτου δὲ Even Death σταυροῦ Of 'The' Cross.


Phil 3:6 κατὰ According To ζῆλον Zeal, διώκων Persecuting τὴν The ἐκκλησίαν Assembly; κατὰ According To δικαιοσύνην Righteousness τὴν THE ἐν In νόμῳ Law, γενόμενος Having Become ἄμεμπτος Blameless;

Your explanation doesn't fit the grammar of the verse. To say Paul never speaks of the law in any way but the law of God just isn't true. He speaks to ceremonial law as law when he talks about sabbaths.

 

[HIM]

Your explanation doesn't fit the grammar of the verse.

I would ask for you to explain but I think there is other things going on so I don't see a point in it.

To say Paul never speaks of the law in any way but the law of God just isn't true. He speaks to ceremonial law as law when he talks about sabbaths.

WHAT?
The ceremonial Law is the Law of God.

Clearly there is something wrong, so I am ending this. Have a nice Sabbath.