Is The Law of God Still in Force Today ?/Matthew 5:17,18

[JLB]

Hi JLB. Yes

2 COR. 6 [16] And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for YE ARE THE TEMPLE OF THE LIVING GOD; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [17] Wherefore come out from among them, and BE YE SEPARATE, saith the Lord, AND TOUCH NOT THE UNCLEAN THING; and I will receive you, [18] And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

This NEW TESTAMENT scripture tells us as believers we are not to touch the unclean thing.

ISAIAH 52 [9] Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem: for the Lord hath comforted his people, he hath REDEEMED Jerusalem. [10] The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the SALVATION of our God. [11] Depart ye, depart ye, GO YE OUT from thence, TOUCH NO UNCLEAN THING; GO YE OUT OF THE MIDST OF HER; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord. [12] For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the Lord will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rereward.

Redeemed. Salvation. Words you would find in the new testament concerning Jesus. And as is always the case, you will find whats being said in the new testament has already been said in the old or prophecied.

LEVITICUS 20 [22] Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. [23] And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. [24] But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD, WHICH HAVE SEPARATED YOU from other people. [25] YE SHALL THEREFORE PUT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CLEAN BEASTS AND UNCLEAN, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. [26] And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people, THAT YE SHOULD BE MINE.

Be ye separate.

DEUT. 14 [8] And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

Everywhere theres lots of piggies living piggy lives.......

ISAIAH 66 [15] For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. [16] For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many. [17] They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, EATING SWINE'S FLESH, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord.

The above scripture is speaking of the “Day of the Lord”. Whats prophecied about that day will come to pass as written

Sorry brother.

Eating pork is not a sin....because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" Mark 7:19

Quoting scriptures from the old Testament concerning those who were under the law of Moses, does not pertain to the new Testament.


14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Romans 14:14


I don't consider pork to be unclean.

Eating pork is not a sin.



Do you think physical Circumcision is a commandment from God for the new testament believer?


JLB

 

[JLB]

Hi JLB. Yes

2 COR. 6 [16] And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for YE ARE THE TEMPLE OF THE LIVING GOD; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [17] Wherefore come out from among them, and BE YE SEPARATE, saith the Lord, AND TOUCH NOT THE UNCLEAN THING; and I will receive you, [18] And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

This NEW TESTAMENT scripture tells us as believers we are not to touch the unclean thing.

ISAIAH 52 [9] Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem: for the Lord hath comforted his people, he hath REDEEMED Jerusalem. [10] The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the SALVATION of our God. [11] Depart ye, depart ye, GO YE OUT from thence, TOUCH NO UNCLEAN THING; GO YE OUT OF THE MIDST OF HER; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord. [12] For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the Lord will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rereward.

Redeemed. Salvation. Words you would find in the new testament concerning Jesus. And as is always the case, you will find whats being said in the new testament has already been said in the old or prophecied.

LEVITICUS 20 [22] Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. [23] And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. [24] But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD, WHICH HAVE SEPARATED YOU from other people. [25] YE SHALL THEREFORE PUT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CLEAN BEASTS AND UNCLEAN, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. [26] And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people, THAT YE SHOULD BE MINE.

Be ye separate.

DEUT. 14 [8] And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

Everywhere theres lots of piggies living piggy lives.......

ISAIAH 66 [15] For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. [16] For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many. [17] They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, EATING SWINE'S FLESH, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord.

The above scripture is speaking of the “Day of the Lord”. Whats prophecied about that day will come to pass as written

14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people." 17 Therefore "Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you." 18 "I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-17


The context has nothing to do with food or eating pork.


Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers...

Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever...

And what agreement has the temple of God with idols...

Therefore "Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord.


Clearly Paul is referring to human beings who are unbelievers.


This has nothing to do with food! Nothing.


But, I think you probably already knew that.



JLB

 

[JLB]

If God's commandments had been abolished, he would have told them, but he didn't. The reason he didn't mention it was because nothing had changed.

The TOG​

Jesus as the Mediator of the New Covenant changed the law of Moses, as He rendered it Obsolete, and nailed it to the cross.

Eating pork is not a sin....because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" Mark 7:19


He is the Mediator of a better Covenant, based on better promises.


So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
Colossians 2:16-17


Feast days and Sabbaths were a shadow... the substance is Christ.


Christ is the reality of what those things in the law of Moses pointed to.



JLB

 

[TOG]

They would have had no way of knowing what Moses Law said.

Yes, they did have a way of knowing.

For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues. (Acts 15:21 ESV)​

Paul and the others give lists of sins that are in Moses Law but never mention, eat kosher, put tzitzits on the 4 corners of your garments, don't sleep in the same bed with your wife or sit on the same seat she sits on for a couple of weeks out of each month, etc.
Why would they point out obvious sin like murder, fornication, even backbiting but not point out these things if they are thou shall / shall not sins too?

There are many sins that aren't mentioned in the New Testament. For example, the Old Testament prohibits rape, but the New Testament doesn't mention it. Does that mean that rape isn't an issue for Gentile Christians? Can we go around raping without it being sinful? Of course not. The same logic could be used to justify a number of other sins. The Sabbath and the dietary rules, while they make up only a small minority of all commandments, were a large part of daily life. If those things had been changed, peoples lifestyle would have changed drastically. Wouldn't it be logical to expect such a big change to be mentioned?

The TOG​

 

[JLB]

Yes, they did have a way of knowing.

For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues. (Acts 15:21 ESV)​

There are many sins that aren't mentioned in the New Testament. For example, the Old Testament prohibits rape, but the New Testament doesn't mention it. Does that mean that rape isn't an issue for Gentile Christians? Can we go around raping without it being sinful? Of course not. The same logic could be used to justify a number of other sins. The Sabbath and the dietary rules, while they make up only a small minority of all commandments, were a large part of daily life. If those things had been changed, peoples lifestyle would have changed drastically. Wouldn't it be logical to expect such a big change to be mentioned?

The TOG​

For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."


Why would anyone think that Gentiles who don't speak or understand Hebrew would go to a synagogue to learn the law of Moses?


The synagogues were for Jews.


The point Peter makes here in verse 21 is; Moses had been preached for many generations and not one person has ever kept the law.

Why should we expect the Gentiles to keep the law...why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?


...which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear...that's the context in which verse 21 is to be understood.


JLB

 

[TOG]

You see v20 as the point Jesus is making.
I see v 17-18 as the point Jesus is making.

You have to look at the entire passage to see the point Jesus was making, not just one or two verses. This passage starts in verse 1.

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” (Matt. 15:1-2 ESV)
​

The accusation the Pharisees made against the disciples didn't have anything to do with pork or shellfish, but with the washing of hands. And here's how Jesus replied:

And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? (Matt. 15:3 ESV)​

Jesus points out that their traditions go against God's commandments. What's the connection? The same incident is related in Mark's Gospel.

Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” (Mark 7:1-5 ESV)​

The hand washing ritual before meals was a "tradition of the elders". It was not a commandment of God. That is what was being discussed. The disciples were accused of transgressing the traditions of the elders, which the Pharisees believed were equal to Scripture (in fact, they put tradition above the Scriptures). Jesus contradicted them and said Scripture has priority over their traditions. Jesus never contradicted, violated or encouraged or justified the violation of a single commandment of the OT law.

The TOG​

 

[JLB]

TOG -

There are many sins that aren't mentioned in the New Testament. For example, the Old Testament prohibits rape, but the New Testament doesn't mention it. Does that mean that rape isn't an issue for Gentile Christians? Can we go around raping without it being sinful? Of course not. The same logic could be used to justify a number of other sins. The Sabbath and the dietary rules, while they make up only a small minority of all commandments, were a large part of daily life. If those things had been changed, peoples lifestyle would have changed drastically. Wouldn't it be logical to expect such a big change to be mentioned?

Brother, what are you talking about?

Rape isn't mentioned in the New Testament as sin?

Are you kidding?

But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
Revelation 21:8


Rape which falls under the category of both sexual immorality and or fornication and adultery is warned against extensively throughout the New Testament.


Is this the logic you want to use to convince people to keep the law of Moses?



JLB

 

[TOG]

Jesus as the Mediator of the New Covenant changed the law of Moses, as He rendered it Obsolete, and nailed it to the cross.

Sin is violating the law.

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (I John 3:4 KJV)​

The law says not to add to or take anything away from the law.

You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you. (Deut. 4:2 ESV)
​

If Jesus invalidated or abolished a single commandment, then he transgressed the law. If he transgressed the law, then Jesus was a sinner. But the Bible says Jesus didn't sin. If Jesus never sinned, then he could not have added anything to or taken anything away from the law, because doing so is a sin.

The TOG​

 

[Deborah13]

Yes, they did have a way of knowing.

For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues. (Acts 15:21 ESV)​

There are many sins that aren't mentioned in the New Testament. For example, the Old Testament prohibits rape, but the New Testament doesn't mention it. Does that mean that rape isn't an issue for Gentile Christians? Can we go around raping without it being sinful? Of course not. The same logic could be used to justify a number of other sins. The Sabbath and the dietary rules, while they make up only a small minority of all commandments, were a large part of daily life. If those things had been changed, peoples lifestyle would have changed drastically. Wouldn't it be logical to expect such a big change to be mentioned?

The TOG​

Wouldn't rape be under fornication? For that matter would rape be loving others as yourself?

It would be a big change for Jews but not for Gentiles. Gentiles never lived that life style. Gentiles didn't go to the synagogue in every city to hear the Law of Moses.

Paul never told the Jews they had to stop eating kosher or wearing tzitzits or sleeping in separate beds. By the same token he didn't tell gentiles they had to start doing the things either.
Paul was very clear that we are not to judge each other about these things. I don't judge someone who does them or think they are sinning by doing them, to me that would be a sin.

 

[TOG]

For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."


Why would anyone think that Gentiles who don't speak or understand Hebrew would go to a synagogue to learn the law of Moses?

First of all, not all Jews spoke Hebrew or Aramaic. On the day of Pentecost, Jews from all over the known world were gathered in Jerusalem, and it says that they spoke many different languages and that everybody heard the apostles speak in their language. That wouldn't make sense if they all spoke one language. It is logical to assume that the language of each place was spoken in the synagogues. The Scriptures were in Hebrew, but they had been translated into Greek (the Septuagint) and that would have been used in those places where most people didn't understand Hebrew.

Secondly, where else would they have gone but to the synagogues? Christian churches didn't exist until much later.

The synagogues were for Jews.

The Christians were Jews. The split between Christians and Jews didn't happen until in the second century. Gentiles who believed in Christ weren't converting to a new religion, but to what we today would call Messianic Judaism.

The point Peter makes here in verse 21 is; Moses had been preached for many generations and not one person has ever kept the law.

It doesn't say that. You are adding to Scripture your pre-conceived doctrines.

Why should we expect the Gentiles to keep the law...why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?


...which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear...that's the context in which verse 21 is to be understood.

I have explained this before. I don't remember whether it was in this thread or the other one about the law, so I'll explain again. The words "yoke" and "burden" were idioms for a specific rabbis interpretation of the law, not a reference to the law itself. However a rabbi interpreted the commandments, that is what he expected his disciples to do. It was the yoke or burden he placed on them. Jesus also had a yoke, which he placed on his disciples. He said that his yoke was easy and his burden light. The yoke of the Pharisees, on the other hand, was very heavy and impossible to bear. Their interpretation of the law was so complicated, that there was no chance anyone could hope to fulfill it.

The TOG​

 

[TOG]

Brother, what are you talking about?

Rape isn't mentioned in the New Testament as sin?

Are you kidding?

But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
Revelation 21:8


Rape which falls under the category of both sexual immorality and or fornication and adultery is warned against extensively throughout the New Testament.


Is this the logic you want to use to convince people to keep the law of Moses?



JLB

Rape isn't about sex, it's about force. The rapist doesn't rape to get sexual satisfaction, but make himself feel more powerful by forcing someone to submit to his will. Any good psychiatrist will tell you that. Rape is not sexual immorality. Sexual immorality includes adultery, homosexuality, fornication and a few other things, but not rape.

The TOG​

 

[Deborah13]

Sin is violating the law.

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (I John 3:4 KJV)
​

The law says not to add to or take anything away from the law.

You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you. (Deut. 4:2 ESV)
​

If Jesus invalidated or abolished a single commandment, then he transgressed the law. If he transgressed the law, then Jesus was a sinner. But the Bible says Jesus didn't sin. If Jesus never sinned, then he could not have added anything to or taken anything away from the law, because doing so is a sin.

The TOG​

In 1 John 3:4, the phrase is 'transgression of the law' and is one word in the Greek meaning illegal or lawlessness, unrighteous. One word takes in the whole phrase. Here is Young's Translation.
1Jn 3:4 Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness,
I know, it sounds like Yoda speak. But it is still clear.
Are believers who do not eat kosher, etc. lawless people? Are believers who do eat kosher, etc. lawless people?
My answer to both those questions is, no.

Jesus did not abolish the law, He fulfilled it perfectly. He was the only one who could.

 

[JLB]

Sin is violating the law.

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (I John 3:4 KJV)​

The law says not to add to or take anything away from the law.

You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you. (Deut. 4:2 ESV)
​

If Jesus invalidated or abolished a single commandment, then he transgressed the law. If he transgressed the law, then Jesus was a sinner. But the Bible says Jesus didn't sin. If Jesus never sinned, then he could not have added anything to or taken anything away from the law, because doing so is a sin.

The TOG​

Okay so if you want to be under the law of Moses then you need to obey this commandment, as well as all the others, and continue to do all of them or be cursed.

Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15



JLB

 

[JLB]

Rape isn't about sex, it's about force. The rapist doesn't rape to get sexual satisfaction, but make himself feel more powerful by forcing someone to submit to his will. Any good psychiatrist will tell you that. Rape is not sexual immorality. Sexual immorality includes adultery, homosexuality, fornication and a few other things, but not rape.

The TOG​

Oh I see, so according to you, rape does not involve sex.

I always thought that if a man has sex with a woman without her consent, then he has committed a crime call rape.

Rape is sexual immorality that involves fornication, or if the man is married it's also adultery.

If a man rapes a woman does he have sex with her, against her will?

Yes or No?


JLB

 

[TOG]

Okay so if you want to be under the law of Moses then you need to obey this commandment, as well as all the others, and continue to do all of them or be cursed.

Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15



JLB

You obviously don't know the law very well. I have pointed out previously that some laws only apply to certain groups. People who were not members of those groups were never required to follow them. That verse you quoted, which seems to be the only commandment you know, because it's the one you quote again and again, was meant for judges. When a person committed a crime, he was to be taken before a court and sentenced. Commandments detailing punishments were for the courts to follow, not just the average man on the street. We have laws today that detail punishment for the crime they are about. In some countries, some crimes carry the death penalty, but if you see such a crime being committed, you don't have the right to kill that person. It has to be decided by a court. I am not a judge on a Torah court. Therefore, I don't sentence anyone to death.

If you're going to discuss this, at least try to know what you're talking about.

The TOG​

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I always thought that if a man has sex with a woman without her consent, then he has committed a crime call rape.

No. That means the woman has committed the sin of lying.
Don't you know anything about the law?
Now give me some of those Jello pudding pops!

No, not that one. That's for the young lady over there.

 

[TOG]

In 1 John 3:4, the phrase is 'transgression of the law' and is one word in the Greek meaning illegal or lawlessness, unrighteous. One word takes in the whole phrase. Here is Young's Translation.
1Jn 3:4 Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness,
I know, it sounds like Yoda speak. But it is still clear.

I am bilingual. I speak Icelandic and English, both of which are Germanic languages. Even though the two languages are related, I can guarantee you that a literal word for word translation from one to the other is never the best or clearest translation. For example, how clear is this sentence?

I am to go in noon food.​

I hear that sentence spoken every day at work, and worded that exact way in Icelandic, it makes perfect sense and is crystal clear. It's normal speech. But when translated literally word for word into English, things change. If you think about it for a while, you would probably figure out that it means "I'm going to lunch", but you could hardly say it's clear. Here's another one that you can try your hand at. Tell me if you figure out what it means.

Want you go on back?​

Are believers who do not eat kosher, etc. lawless people? Are believers who do eat kosher, etc. lawless people?
My answer to both those questions is, no.

Both questions are the same. You probably meant for one of them to be about the Sabbath. Assuming that that's what you meant, the answer to both questions is yes. Lawless people are those who consistently violate the law and who reject its validity. The New Testament tells us that he who violates one commandment is guilty against all. The context of that indicates that it's not talking about making a mistake now and then. It's talking about the very thing we're discussing - people who consistently violate a certain part of the law, while keeping others. People who reject the Sabbath or the dietary laws have rejected the whole law, and are by definition lawless.

Jesus did not abolish the law, He fulfilled it perfectly. He was the only one who could.

The word "fulfill" in this context means he did all that the law required. Jesus is our example. If he followed the law, so should we.

The TOG​

 

[TOG]

Wouldn't rape be under fornication? For that matter would rape be loving others as yourself?

It would be a big change for Jews but not for Gentiles. Gentiles never lived that life style. Gentiles didn't go to the synagogue in every city to hear the Law of Moses.

Paul never told the Jews they had to stop eating kosher or wearing tzitzits or sleeping in separate beds. By the same token he didn't tell gentiles they had to start doing the things either.
Paul was very clear that we are not to judge each other about these things. I don't judge someone who does them or think they are sinning by doing them, to me that would be a sin.

I said rape wasn't mentioned, not that it couldn't be read into or that it wasn't implied by other things. I was replying to the reasoning that says that since the dietary rules aren't specifically mentioned as being still valid in the New Testmanet, they are no longer valid. Using that same logic, the commandment against rape isn't valid either, since rape isn't specifially mentioned. But now you and JLB say that it's enough that rape is implied for the commandment to still be valid. Then why isn't it enough that the dietary rules are also implied for them to be still valid? Three out of four of the commandments mentioned in Acts 15 were dietary rules, thereby implying that the dietary rules are still in effect. James says that whoever violates one commandment is guilty of violating the whole law. Wouldn't the "whole law" include the dietary rules?

If you demand a specific mention of a law, then do so consistently. If you do, you will find that there is nothing wrong with rape according to the New Testament. If you say that the implication of a law is enough, then do that consistently. If you do, you will find that the dietary rules are still valid. If you sometimes demand a specific mention of something and other times say that the implication is enough, then you are selectively picking and choosing which commandments you want to follow.

The TOG​

 

[smaller]

I said [-] you are selectively picking and choosing which commandments you want to follow.

The TOG​

The logical fallacy that every theological 'legally obedient' person engages in is that they falsely think there is such a theological animal as a legally obedient sinner.

 

[smaller]

No. That means the woman has committed the sin of lying.
Don't you know anything about the law?
Now give me some of those Jello pudding pops!

No, not that one. That's for the young lady over there.

A great example of appearing 'good' on the outside.