What Law is in or to be in our hearts?

[Studyman]

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.

But God's Word in the Law and Prophets that I posted, tells us over and over and over that the corrupt Jews promoted Laws/Precepts from the imagination of their own hearts, and "not" out of the mouth of God. Paul knew the Law and Prophets and said himself after his conversion, that he believed all that was written in them. Therefore, he too, after his blindness was removed, would have known about the "precepts of man" the Pharisees taught for doctrines. The Jesus "of the Bible" calls these Precepts "the commandments of men", not Commandments of God. I posted His Words as well, but they didn't have any influence on your adopted religious philosophy.

These men led God's people astray, not by promoting God's "Law" as you and so "many" who "come in Christ's name preach. But because they created their own religion that Paul called "The Jews Religion". I posted this as well, but to no avail. This religion was made up of several differing religious sects, including the religious sect of the Pharisees "Whose damnation is just". Paul had adopted the traditions and doctrines of the religious sect of the Pharisees and was more Zealous of their traditions than many of his brethren. He was learned by Gamaliel before his conversion, he was not "Learned of the Father" like Zacharias, Simeon and Anna, other scriptures you refuse to acknowledge. He is telling the Phillipians that very thing. "as touching the law, a Pharisee;"

Was he made a righteous man by following the "Precepts of man" (Law) that the Pharisees taught for doctrines? Even as a man who was more zealous and perfect in their Law than most? No! Following the "Jews religion", specifically the religious sect of the Pharisees, made him a child of the devil, a monster in disguise. He became a member of a religious sect who "profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." But those who "Yielded themselves" servants to obey God, and not the Law that the Pharisees taught for doctrines, they became a child of God, like Zacharias, Simeon, Anna and the Wise men.

So your insistence that Paul didn't use the word "law" to mean anything other than God's Law is foolishness. To believe you I would have to erase from my mind all of Jesus' Words along with the Scriptures posted because of some man made "Aorist participle" you didn't learn from Scriptures, rather from the religious institutions of this world as they train men how to know God. That is no different than a Pharisee claiming men can't know God unless they grow up at the feet of Gamaliel and walk in the religious doctrines and traditions of the religious sect of the Pharisee. Or that a man can't know God unless they grow up at the feet of the Pope and walk in the religious doctrines and traditions of the religious sect of the Catholic.

"as touching the law, a "Pharisee;", not an "Israelite", not a "Sadducee", not a "Roman", but a "Pharisee" who Jesus Himself, along with Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel and others teach, "Taught for Doctrines" the Commandments of men, not God.

You are trying to convince me and others to abandon these Words inspired by God and adopt this world's religious philosophy that implies the Pharisees were trying to earn salvation by obeying God's Laws. Why would I turn away from God's Word to do that?

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.

He said ""as touching the law, a Pharisee;". He said the same thing to the Galatians. "And profited in the "Jews' religion" above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.". There is nothing said about "writings" here. God knew, the Prophets knew, Jesus knew and Paul, after the scales fell off his eyes, knew that the Pharisees walked in and promoted the Commandments of men. That those who adopted the Pharisees religion were zealous for God, but not after knowledge. Why???? Because they were not "Learned of the Father" like Zacharias, Simeon and Anna were, rather, they were learned of the religious sect of the Pharisees who Jesus Himself said "Taught for doctrines the commandments of men", and again " Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep "your own tradition".

Your "Aorist participle" doesn't make void these undeniable Biblical truths.

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

I'm sure the mainstream preachers of Christ's Time didn't like what the Scriptures exposed about their religion either.

Nevertheless, the Pharisees were not trying to earn salvation by obeying "God's" Laws or walking in "God's" righteousness. Paul didn't have "God's" Laws written on his heart as a Pharisee. The Pharisees were not following "God's Laws" when they murdered innocent people and persecuted the Church of God. To promote that Paul was teaching the Phillipians that he was, is popular in this world's religions, but an insidious lie just the same.

The Scriptures posted expose all of these popular doctrines being promoted by this world's religions as deceptions, teaching of men and not "Wrought in God".

I have an obligation to question the religious philosophy that promotes these deceptions and bring them to the Light. And that is why I replied to your post. Perhaps instead of spending all your time justifying yourself, you might consider having an honest discussion about the scriptures which bring question to your teaching.

 

[Gary K]

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.

WHAT?
The ceremonial Law is the Law of God.

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

So the ceremonial laws, which were designed to pass away with Jesus first advent, are God's eternal law?

 

[HIM]

So the ceremonial laws, which were designed to pass away with Jesus first advent, are God's eternal law?

I said I was done Gary. Go ask Doug, or one of the evangelist that are of your church. Maybe you will believe them. If they say different then send them here maybe they will hear.
Take care

 

[Qubit]

Ephesians 2:15
"Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,"

Where is the Law? In the flesh.

DNA, Soul, Genome.

Tables of the Heart...

The Stone with Seven Eyes will be re-written to remove sin.

 

[Studyman]

Ephesians 2:15
"Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,"

Where is the Law? In the flesh.

DNA, Soul, Genome.

Tables of the Heart...

View attachment 350540

The Stone with Seven Eyes will be re-written to remove sin.

This is an interesting sentence taken from Paul's teaching. Let's examine what Paul actually said.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should "walk in them".

This would be both Jew and Gentile, Yes?

11 Wherefore remember, that "ye" ( "Created in Christ Jesus unto good works") being in time past Gentiles "in the flesh", ( "Outwardly, but not of the heart) who are called "Uncircumcision" (Who called Gentiles who were created in Christ Jesus unto good works, "Uncircumcision?) by that which is called "the Circumcision" in the flesh made by hands;

So Paul is saying that these Gentiles "in the flesh" or "outwardly" who were created in Christ Jesus unto Good works that God before ordained that all men should walk in them, were called "uncircumcised" by the Scribes and the Pharisees, AKA "The Circumcision".


12 That at that time (According to "The Circumcision") ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

But how can this be from God, given the "Good works" HE before ordained that men should walk in them? Did HE not "ordain" the following?

Lev. 19: 33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you "shall be unto you" as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

So whose Law was it then, that relegated the Gentiles, created in Christ Jesus unto good works God before ordained men should walk in them as "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:"? Was it not "The Circumcision" who Jesus exposed as those who "Taught for Doctrines the commandments of men"?

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Who created the law of commandments contained in ordinances that caused this "wall of partition"? "Many preach it was God who created this wall. But here is what God actually teaches, in addition to His Law already posted.

Is. 56: 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

So it wasn't God's Law that was the enmity, but the "Commandments of men" the "Circumcision" taught for doctrines.


15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; As Paul also teaches. 1 Cor. 7: 19 Circumcision (Jew) is nothing, and uncircumcision (Gentile) is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments "of God"., not the ordinances of the "Circumcision" "made with hands".

ONE NEW Man, who Paul said in Eph. 4 "which after God is created (In Christ Jesus) in righteousness and true holiness. (That God before ordained that we should walk in them)

Paul explains this again in Col. 2: 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Many, who come in Christ's Name preach these "ordinances" that were against us, was God's Law. If this is Paul's teaching, then the following would read like this.

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, "God's Power" he made a shew of them "God" openly, triumphing over them "God's Law" in it.

When a person realizes the truth that it wasn't God who relegated the "Gentiles in the flesh" as "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:", and consider that Paul himself tells us who promoted this teaching, namely "by that which is called "the Circumcision" in the flesh made by hands;, this man understands the law of God that is written on our hearts.

 

[Gary K]

I said I was done Gary. Go ask Doug, or one of the evangelist that are of your church. Maybe you will believe them. If they say different then send them here maybe they will hear.
Take care

Why don't you explain why you think Jesus didn't cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease.

Here is a prophecy of Jesus from Daniel.

Daniel 5: 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

[HIM]

Why don't you explain why you think Jesus didn't cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease.

Here is a prophecy of Jesus from Daniel.

Daniel 5: 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

See now you are adding things which were not said.

For the last time Gary I am done with you in respect to this. Go argue with your Pastor, Doug or some other evangelist your church recognizes. If they agree with you in regard to what is shared here, then I will discuss it with them. There is something wrong with you and I will not respond to you any more about this. Please drop it. Thank you.

 

[Gary K]

See now you are adding things which were not said.

For the last time Gary I am done with you in respect to this. Go argue with your Pastor, Doug or some other evangelist your church recognizes. If they agree with you in regard to what is shared here, then I will discuss it with them. There is something wrong with you and I will not respond to you any more about this. Please drop it. Thank you.

So as far as you're concerned the sacrificial system is still in in place?

 

[HIM]

So as far as you're concerned the sacrificial system is still in in place?

By Gary

 

[Studyman]

In the OP, it is written;

"Prov 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

Isaiah through God speaks of a covenant to which God's Spirit is upon us, and He has put His Word in our mouths and it shall not depart. But because of most departing from which has already been revealed His Word is no longer there, "their own words are"."

This thread is a great discussion and the author correctly describes the Problem with the Scribes and the Pharisees of Jesus and Paul's Time. God's Word, which are Spiritual Words, were not in the Pharisees. Now they were in Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, and others who knew the Christ even before HE became a man. And God's Spirit was upon them as it is written in Luke 1&2. But the mainstream preachers of Jerusalem who "Professed to know God", namely the religious sect of the Pharisees, didn't have God's Word inside them, at least according to the Jesus "of the Bible".

John 5: 37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. 38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

This would most certainly include Paul when he walked in the Commandmnents of men the Pharisees taught for doctrines, persecuting the Church of God.

He had religious traditions, he lived by a law, he was Zealous for this law. But it wasn't God's Word. Jesus Himself, along with the Prophets, make this abundantly clear.

But we have been taught since our youth, by the mainstream preachers of our time, "Who profess to know God", that the Pharisees had God's Words in them. That they were trying to earn salvation "by obeying God's Law". This is of course, impossible for a religious sect that didn't have God's Word abiding in them. Nevertheless, men are influenced by this false teaching, as leaven influences bread. With this lie firmly planted in their mind, it infects every scripture they read, it influences their understanding of Scriptures and because they choose to believe the mainstream teaching, over the Words of God or those who God Sent to us, including the Lord's Christ Himself, these men become like the Pharisees, and their foolish heart is darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools.

How can a man know "what laws of God are to be on our hearts", if they choose to reject His Words, or the Words of those HE sends?

Paul was a perfect Pharisee, blameless in their law which Jesus Himself said was the "Commandments of men", and they promoted "their own words" because Jesus Himself said God's Word was not in them.

Paul wasn't teaching against the Words of the Christ, or against the Words of His Father to the Philippians or Galatians. Those who imply in their teaching that he was, have been influenced by "another voice", not the Words of God.

Though I am a nobody, I say these things out of God's Love for the brethren. And I hope you might remember that God showed His Truth through an Ass once. So it wouldn't be the first time.

 

[HIM]

He said ""as touching the law, a Pharisee;".

Understanding Sentence structure and syntax are important when one goes to understand and share God's word.
Let's take a look at that shall we?
First off It does not say, "as touching the Law a Pharisee" in the Greek. But even if it did it would not matter. Because what you are implying is that it says, as touching the Law of a pharisee. Which would mean the Pharisaical traditions which you are implying the text states. The only way for that to be, the noun pharisee would have to be in the Genitive case like in Hebrews 7:16 and 9:19. Where the clause you are interpreting "as touching the Law" is also but with genitive case noun. This why it is translated "according to the law of fleshly command and according to the law by Moses" respectively below.

Phillipians is not with the genitive case it is with the nominative, It would be better translated "according to the Law a pharisee. Since the word translated touching means according and is a preposition. And Law being a noun is in the accusative case. Hence the translation, according to the Law a pharisee. Since the action of the preposition must fall on the Accusative case.


Heb 7:16 who has become, not according to the law of fleshly command, but according to the power of an endless life,


Heb 9:19 [4 having been spoken 1 For 2 every 3 commandment] according to the law by Moses to all the people, having taken the blood of the calves and he-goats with water and [2 wool 1 scarlet] and hyssop, both itself the scroll and all the people he sprinkled,

He said the same thing to the Galatians. "And profited in the "Jews' religion" above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.".

Traditions of my fathers is not Law. Paul is clear when He speaks of the Law and the works of the Law in Galatians. He is speaking of the things written in the Book of the Law.

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Your "Aorist participle" doesn't make void these undeniable Biblical truths.

Saying so doesn't prove anything and as you can see your argument is falling short again.

I'm sure the mainstream preachers of Christ's Time didn't like what the Scriptures exposed about their religion either.

Scripture is not the issue. It is your use of the pronoun you in reference to me. Just address the points of the post and leave out the comments about the person one is speaking to would help in this. Pretty sure that is a rule here which we agreed to when we joined.

 

[Gary K]

By Gary

So because I am trying to understand your beliefs there us something wrong with me? Very strange indeed. But if that's the way you want it, that's your choice. To think that you would think I should send a man as busy as Doug Batchelor is to argue with you is a very odd, very egotistical, request.

 

[Qubit]

Thanks @Studyman for the info.

This would be both Jew and Gentile, Yes?

for to make in himself of twain one new man

Enmity = Conception (two become one). It started in the Garden of Eden...

Genesis 3:15
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Male Seed vs. Female Seed. The crucifixion of Jesus reversed that original corruption that took place, while replacing it with something better.

Zechariah describes two Chromatids joining during Ovum fertilization...

Two Sticks joined. That is the repair that is required.

The Blood of Jesus is more than just a metaphor.

 

[Studyman]

That is an interesting religious philosophy. Let's examine what is actually written.

Gen. 3: 14 And the LORD God "said unto the serpent", Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between "thee" (satan) and the woman, and between thy (Satan's) seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

I know there are many religious philosophies promoted by this world's religions "who come in Christ's Name", and we are warned to "beware" of them. I would be careful of a teaching that says God is reconciling satan and the woman to become one body by the blood of Jesus.

Please examine what Eph 2 is actually saying.

Eph. 2: 11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye (Gentiles, not satan, in the flesh) were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off (Gentiles, not satan in the Flesh) are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both (Jew and Gentile, not satan and the woman) one, and hath broken down "the middle wall" of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile "both" (Jew and Gentile) unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

This is the foundation of much of Paul's Teaching.

1 Cor. 7: 19 Circumcision (Jew) is nothing, and uncircumcision (Gentile) is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Rom. 2: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Rom. 2: 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

I appreciate the reply, and goodness knows I understand how many differing religious philosophies are taught by this world's many "who transform themselves into Apostles of Christ".

But I see no evidence that Paul is saying here that the Blood of Christ reconciles satan and the woman unto God here. He is speaking to the man-made division between the Homeborn and the Stranger, AKA, the Jews and the Gentiles, between the "Circumcision", and the "uncircumcision". Not satan and women.

I hope you might take heed of such a teaching.

 

[HIM]

Happy Sabbath Studyman!
Whether you understand and agree or address these facts below matters in regard to the big picture. It is unresolved in the Eyes of Him that has our do. So out of concern we will repost this. As it is a salvation issue in respect to what one believes and teaches.

What you do is up to you. But unless you address the points made within the context of the passages cited we might as well let this be. Because we will not entertain it any further either. Since the facts stand.

We Pray that you have a restful Sabbath.

He said ""as touching the law, a Pharisee;".

Understanding Sentence structure and syntax are important when one goes to understand and share God's word.
Let's take a look at that shall we?
First off It does not say, "as touching the Law a Pharisee" in the Greek. But even if it did it would not matter. Because what you are implying is that it says, as touching the Law of a pharisee. Which would mean the Pharisaical traditions which you are implying the text states. The only way for that to be, the noun pharisee would have to be in the Genitive case like in Hebrews 7:16 and 9:19. Where the clause you are interpreting "as touching the Law" is also but with genitive case noun. This why it is translated "according to the law of fleshly command and according to the law by Moses" respectively below.

Phillipians is not with the genitive case it is with the nominative, It would be better translated "according to the Law a pharisee. Since the word translated touching means according and is a preposition. And Law being a noun is in the accusative case. Hence the translation, according to the Law a pharisee. Since the action of the preposition must fall on the Accusative case.


Heb 7:16 who has become, not according to the law of fleshly command, but according to the power of an endless life,


Heb 9:19 [4 having been spoken 1 For 2 every 3 commandment] according to the law by Moses to all the people, having taken the blood of the calves and he-goats with water and [2 wool 1 scarlet] and hyssop, both itself the scroll and all the people he sprinkled,

He said the same thing to the Galatians. "And profited in the "Jews' religion" above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.".

Traditions of my fathers is not Law. Paul is clear when He speaks of the Law and the works of the Law in Galatians. He is speaking of the things written in the Book of the Law.

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Your "Aorist participle" doesn't make void these undeniable Biblical truths.

Saying so doesn't prove anything and as you can see your argument is falling short again.

 

[Studyman]

Understanding Sentence structure and syntax are important when one goes to understand and share God's word.
Let's take a look at that shall we?
First off It does not say, "as touching the Law a Pharisee" in the Greek. But even if it did it would not matter. Because what you are implying is that it says, as touching the Law of a pharisee. Which would mean the Pharisaical traditions which you are implying the text states. The only way for that to be, the noun pharisee would have to be in the Genitive case like in Hebrews 7:16 and 9:19. Where the clause you are interpreting "as touching the Law" is also but with genitive case noun.

Phillipians is not with the genitive case it is with the nominative, It would be better translated "according to the Law a pharisee. Since the word translated touching means according and is a preposition. And Law being a noun is in the accusative case. Hence the translation, according to the Law a pharisee. Since the action of the preposition must fall on the Accusative case.

I have had discussions with men who have adopted this same study method of yours before. The religious sect of the MJ's and the sect of the Hebrew roots also have been convinced that before a man can know or understand Gods Word, he must first be trained by this world's wise men and learn a different language, including how to take every word apart, and dissect it in Greek and Hebrew. This tradition began, in my view, as a lot of this world's religious traditions began, with the Pharisees. They were also convinced that a man can't "Learn" about God, unless they are trained by forces outside of Scriptures. In Jesus' time this would be being learned of a prominent leader of the religious sect of the Pharisees, namely Gamaliel. If a man didn't learn from this source, according to their religious tradition, he couldn't understand God. This was one aspect of the Christ that baffled them.

In this case, you are preaching, based on this outside knowledge you have been convinced to seek, that if a man takes this one sentence from Paul, and separates it from all other scriptures, and then breaks down the sentence word by word, and then apply the knowledge he acquired from outside the Bible, including the "Aorist participle", they will find that Paul is teaching the Philippians that he, as a Pharisee, was blameless in "God's Law", and the commandments of men Jesus said they taught for doctrines.

I disagree with your religious philosophy here, not because of some language art study or Greek sentence structure, but because I studied the Holy scriptures, especially concerning the "LAWS of men" that the Holy Scripture teaches me the Pharisees and their fathers taught for doctrines.

When a man considers the Christ's Own Words, along with those Prophets His Father sent, this is what he learns.

The Pharisees did not "Yield themselves" servants to obey Gods Laws, but Zacharias and Simeon did. The Pharisees were " teaching for doctrines the commandments "of men" not God as you and the Pope teach. Jesus said "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep "your own tradition"." Paul said "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." Jeremiah said of them "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.

Jer. 14: 14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit "of their" heart.

And Stephen confirms this when speaking to Paul himself, when he was a Pharisee.

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.

I could go on and on defining for you the "Big Picture" as it pertains to the religious sect of the Pharisees, and their relationship to "God's Laws".

But here you come, talking one sentence from Paul, separating it from all of Christ's Words and those inspired by His Father, applying the wisdom of this world someone convinced you to seek, and using it to promote the religious philosophy that implies all of the Christ's Words and the Prophets describing the Pharisees relationship with God and His Law mean nothing. No different than the Pharisees rejecting the words of Moses and the Prophets Jesus spoke to them, as nothing.

This whole promotion of the insidious lie that the religious sect of the Pharisees were trying to earn Gods favor, or earn salvation, by obeying "God's Law" needs to be exposed. It's a deception Sir, going outside the Bible to know what is in the Bible, is a mistake and a practice that is not sanctioned anywhere in the Holy scriptures.

Did the Pharisees have a Law? No doubt they did. But according to Jesus, Paul, God and the Prophets He sent, many of whose Words I posted, the Law they walked in was not God's Law.

Your "Aorist participle" notwithstanding.

 

[HIM]

ore. The religious sect of the MJ's and the sect of the Hebrew roots also have been convinced that before a man can know or understand Gods Word,

Never said or thought it. As a matter of fact the written word is secondary and would not be necessary if we were as a whole, were what we should be.
Be that as it may the points stand as it is written.
Take care

 

[Studyman]

This why it is translated "according to the law of fleshly command and according to the law by Moses" respectively below.

Heb 7:16 who has become, not according to the law of fleshly command, but according to the power of an endless life,

The clear difference is that God Commanded Levites to appoint other Levites to the Priesthood, until the Prophesied "Priest of God, after the Order of Melchizedek" should come.

Heb. 28: 28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

This was not the "Commandments of Men" Jesus said the Pharisees taught for doctrines. Or the imaginations of the rebellious fathers of Paul's heart, that they taught for doctrines. This is an actual Law of God.

Whereas God didn't Command men to teach for doctrines the Commandments of men, like the Pharisees did, nor did HE command men to transgress God's Commandments by their own religious traditions, like the Pharisees did, nor did He instruct men to persecute members of the Church of God, like the Pharisees did, all of which undeniably describes the traditions and commandments walked in and promoted by the religious sect of the Pharisees. The Greek sentence structure of one sentence from Paul doesn't make these truths disappear.

I don't need to be "ordained" by one of this world's "Greek Study courses" in order to understand Paul when he said "as touching the law, a Pharisee;" or according to "the law, a Pharisee;" The Torah (LAW) explains perfectly what Law the rebellious Jews walked in and promoted to others. Jesus explains, perfectly aligned with the Law and Prophets, so that even a child can know what Law the Pharisees walked in and promoted.

If you want to read of an example of men who were blameless in God's Law, read about Zacharias, Simeon, Anna. If you want to read about examples of men who rejected God's Laws and taught for doctrines the commandments of men, read about the Pharisees.

Heb 9:19 [4 having been spoken 1 For 2 every 3 commandment] according to the law by Moses to all the people, having taken the blood of the calves and he-goats with water and [2 wool 1 scarlet] and hyssop, both itself the scroll and all the people he sprinkled,

Yes, this too was a Law of God, not the commandments of men the Pharisees taught for doctrines.

Traditions of my fathers is not Law.

It was for the Pharisees, as Jesus tells us if you could only believe Him.

Mark 7: 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the "commandments of men".

8 For laying aside "the commandment of God", ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep "your own tradition".

Paul wasn't zealous for the Law of God as a Pharisee, he himself said "being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

You are free to promote the falsehood that the Pharisees traditions were the Laws of God if you want. I can't stop you. But I am bound to show you the Word of God in the hope that you might consider what HE says about the Pharisees relationship with God's Laws.

I do this out of Love, with the hope that instead of constantly defending and justifying your religion, you might engage in an honest discussion about what is written, and answer and ask questions for the edification of us and others reading along.

Paul is clear when He speaks of the Law and the works of the Law in Galatians. He is speaking of the things written in the Book of the Law.

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

As Isaiah pointed out, and I tried to show you, it is not God's Law for men to live in iniquity and rebellion to God and His Law, and then show up once a week to bring the Blood of an innocent being, as prescribed by the Law, to justify their Lawlessness.

This was the traditions of men, that the Pharisees taught as Law, not Gods Law as HE clearly points out in Is. 1.

Saying so doesn't prove anything and as you can see your argument is falling short again.

Perhaps. Nevertheless, I am warned about listening to men who transform themselves into Apostles of Christ, who "come in Christ's Name". But never warned about listening to and believing the Inspired Words of God and His Son as they spoke in the Holy Scriptures. I don't know anything other than what God and His Son tells me. Are you right in that their Words are not enough for a man to know God? That I must seek the wisdom of this world, and learn a different language, and their sentence structure before God will reveal His Truth to me?

I love much of what you share and can see it aligns with scripture. But regarding the Pharisees relationship with God's Laws, and the implied ancient and popular religious philosophy that the Pharisees were trying to earn salvation by obeying Gods Law, you are deceived. I am trying to get you to consider all that is written on this subject, but it seems your religious tradition is more important than Scriptures regarding this topic.

In this case, I wish you would apply this excellent advice to yourself, which is much more difficult than applying it to others.

We can never learn if we think we are learnt. The greatest thing we can know is we don't know anything. At that point we can learn.

Nevertheless, these discussions are good to have in my view, contentious as they can sometimes be.

This topic was discussed in our Sabbath Gathering yesterday and inspired a great discussion about the difference between God's Law, and the Law the Pharisees lived by.

I do appreciate the discussions,

And I Thank you for them Him.

In God's Love,

SM.

 

[HIM]

Mark 7: 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the "commandments of men".

8 For laying aside "the commandment of God", ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep "your own tradition".

No mention of a law of Pharisees' there. We do have commandments of men, which is actually

G1778 ἔνταλμα entalma (en'-tal-ma) n.
an injunction, i.e. religious precept.
[from G1781]

Being contrasted to commandments of God. Which is

G1785 ἐντολή entole (en-to-lee') n.
injunction, i.e. an authoritative prescription.
[from G1781]

The difference being the commandments of men are a religious prescription and the commandments of God are an authoritative prescription. Sorry, The word Law being used in respect to the Pharisaical teaching is not there. And it is the whole premise of your argument.

Incidentally the word ἔνταλμα which is being used as religious precept of men is used nowhere in respect to the commandments of God and His Law. Each instance, which are three it is used in relation the religious precepts from man. Here they are.

Matt 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?

 

[Studyman]

No mention of a law of Pharisees' there. We do have commandments of men, which is actually

G1778 ἔνταλμα entalma (en'-tal-ma) n.
an injunction, i.e. religious precept.
[from G1781]

Being contrasted to commandments of God. Which is

G1785 ἐντολή entole (en-to-lee') n.
injunction, i.e. an authoritative prescription.
[from G1781]

There are religious precepts and authoritative prescription of man, and there are religious precepts and authoritative prescription of God. In this case Paul is claiming he was a Pharisee "According to the Law". Even the Hebrew for "LAW" means "Precept or Statute". According to the Law, the Pharisees fathers were disobedient, rebellious, stubborn blasphemers who persecuted the Church of God and killed the Prophets, and rejected God's Laws in favor of their own "Precepts".

Jesus and Paul and the Prophets all say that the Pharisees and their fathers, rejected God's "religious precept"/"authoritative prescription", in order to walk in and promote their own "religious precept" /"authoritative prescription". This is simply undeniable Biblical Fact.

So the Pharisee had and promoted "Precepts" and "authoritative prescriptions". But these "Precepts" and authoritative prescriptions, were not Gods authoritative prescriptions. I posted both Jesus' Words and Isaiah's, and Jeremiahs, along with Paul's own words, which confirm these undeniable Biblical Truths.

The difference being the commandments of men are a religious prescription and the commandments of God are an authoritative prescription. Sorry, The word Law being used in respect to the Pharisaical teaching is not there. And it is the whole premise of your argument.

The foundation of my argument is founded on the Law and the Prophets, Jesus' Words, and Paul's letters as they define for me what religious and authoritative prescription, including the Precepts and the Jewish traditionary Law that Paul, as a Pharisee, walked in and promoted.

You are simply wrong in trying to convince folks that Paul was teaching the Phillipians that he, as a Pharisee, was walking in God's Law. It is important to understand this, to escape the insidious lie that the Pharisees were trying to earn favor from God, or "Earn Salvation" from God by obeying His Law. They were not. Even Eve rejected the religious and authoritative prescription of God, in favor of her own religious and authoritative prescription.

Incidentally the word ἔνταλμα which is being used as religious precept of men is used nowhere in respect to the commandments of God and His Law. Each instance, which are three it is used in relation the religious precepts from man. Here they are.

Matt 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?

The Scriptures that I have posted, clearly show that Paul, Isaiah, Jeremiah and all the Prophets, and Jesus, knew the Pharisees and their fathers had laws/commandments/precepts/traditions they walked in and promoted. Laws that Paul followed before his conversion, but it was not God's laws/commandments/precepts/traditions. This is undeniable Biblical Truth. Did they receive God's Laws Yes they did, but Jesus said they didn't keep them. I would be a fool to take your preaching over the teaching of the Lord's Christ.

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.

Is. 29: 13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept "of men": (NOT God, as you are trying to convince folks Paul is teaching the Phillipians.)

Matt 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?

These all teach the exact same thing.

"Precept", פִּקּוּד piqqûwd, pik-kood'; or פִּקֻּד piqqud; from H6485; properly, appointed, i.e. a mandate (of God; plural only, collectively, for the Law):—commandment, precept, statute.

Paul, as a Pharisee profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers..

Traditions, παράδοσις parádosis, par-ad'-os-is; from G3860; transmission, i.e. (concretely) a precept; specially, the Jewish traditionary law:—ordinance, tradition.

Commandment, ἐντολή entolḗ, en-tol-ay'; from G1781; injunction, i.e. an authoritative prescription:—commandment, precept.

You are preaching that Jesus didn't mean the same thing Isaiah meant, when HE quoted him. That somehow, by applying your learned greek study practices, Jesus changed, twisted, or altered Isaiah's words, to mean that the Pharisees walked in God's Precepts, and not men's.

Whereas David teaches;

Ps. 119: 1 ALEPH. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law "of the LORD". 2 Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart. 3 They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways. 4 Thou hast commanded us to keep "thy precepts" diligently. Not the precepts of man that the Pharisees walked in, but those commanded by God, that the Faithful walked in, like Zacharias and Simeon.

The arguments I make are founded on "EVERY Word" God and those who HE inspired spoke. While your argument is founded on taking one sentence from the bible, separating it from the rest of Scriptures, applying study tactics not learned anywhere in scriptures, and then creating doctrines based injecting your own context centered around your own teaching.

Paul doesn't do that.