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

[JLB]

No, I'm not ignoring it.


Did you just pick that out of the list of Strong's Biblical uses? According to Vine's, the usage of the word 'established' in Romans 3:31 NASB is according to 'stand', not a weight of measure as you're suggesting.

Open this link:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2476&t=KJV

Then click on the Vine's reference that looks like this:

Vine's Expository Dictionary:View Entry

(Note that the word is used the same way in Romans 10:3 NASB, and Hebrews 10:9 NASB as it is in Romans 3:31 NASB.)



Then why does the church teach us that Christ died to set us free from the law that we were never under to begin with? I'm pretty sure even you argue that we have been 'set free' from the law, yet you say we were never under it to begin with.

And if it is true that we were never under the law of Moses to begin with and never had to be, and so by extension, aren't now, why does Paul explain to us that the obedience of faith fulfills the law, and then commands us to do that?

These questions you have never answered. I'm not doing to you like Freegrace does, insisting you didn't answer a question simply because the answer was not satisfactory to me and in line with my own doctrine. I'm pretty sure you have never taken the time to address these questions directly.

The Church teaches this?

That's a pretty broad statement.

The scripture say He was born under the to redeem those who were under the law.

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born[a] of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Galatians 4:4

The reason He had to redeem those sho were under the law, was because they were in bondage.

which things are symbolic. For these are the[d] two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Galatians 4:24-25

the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage,

JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The fact that refuse to answer a simple question such as -

Is eating pork a sin?

Says it all.

You know from what Jesus and Pail said that all foods are acceptable to eat.


JLB.

Good grief, JLB, if you don't know TOG's stance on eating pork you're simply not paying attention, lol.

What's he refusing to do is enter into the unfair confines of how you want him to answer your question. We all know his stance on pork.

Oh, by the way. Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes, or no. That's all, nothing more.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The Church teaches this?

That's a pretty broad statement.

The scripture say He was born under the to redeem those who were under the law.

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born[a] of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Galatians 4:4

The reason He had to redeem those sho were under the law, was because they were in bondage.

which things are symbolic. For these are the[d] two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Galatians 4:24-25

the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage,

JLB

So, are you saying he did not die to set me from the law? Yes, or no?

Let's make sure you have answered all my questions before this is all over. So far.....well....you're not doing so good. Even in this post you are only answering one of the questions in a round-about, non-definitive way.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Why am I, a gentile, set free from the law by Christ at the cross, if I have never been under that law to begin with?

 

[JLB]

Why am I, a gentile, set free from the law by Christ at the cross, if I have never been under that law to begin with?

Read what the scripture says -

4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
Galatians 4:4

God sent His Son to redeem those who were under the law.

I'm not going to talk in circles with you about this anymore.

What I will do is lead you to what the scriptures say, if you will let me.

Do you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that God sent His Son to redeem those who were under the law of Moses?

Yes or No?

Please answer before you give your explanation.


Now here is the big question, the moment of truth for you.


Do you believe that God redeemed those who were under the law, so that you as a gentile would be placed under the law of Moses?


Yes or No?


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Read what the scripture says -

4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
Galatians 4:4

God sent His Son to redeem those who were under the law.

I'm not going to talk in circles with you about this anymore.

Was I under the law so that this scripture is talking to me?

Yes.

Do you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that God sent His Son to redeem those who were under the law of Moses?

Yes or No?

Please answer before you give your explanation.

Yes.

Now here is the big question, the moment of truth for you.


Do you believe that God redeemed those who were under the law, so that you as a gentile would be placed under the law of Moses?

Yes.

I'm 'under' the law of Moses in that faith upholds the law of Moses not nullifies it (Romans 3:31 NASB). And 'under' the law of Moses in that the obedience of faith in Christ--love for others--fulfills the law of Moses, not violates it (Romans 13:8 NASB, Galatians 5:14 NASB, Galatians 5:23 NASB).

What I am no longer 'under' in regard to the law of Moses is the condemnation of the law of Moses (Colossians 2:14 NASB, Deuteronomy 31:26 NASB). The witness of the law that was against me, that is what was taken away at the cross for me. And everyone else who has had their transgressions of the law forgiven at the cross.

 

[Deborah13]

Was I under the law so that this scripture is talking to me?

Yes.

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

So you are both the them and the we, in that scripture?

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

Yes.

I'm 'under' the law of Moses in that faith upholds the law of Moses not nullifies it (Romans 3:31 NASB). And 'under' the law of Moses in that the obedience of faith in Christ--love for others--fulfills the law of Moses, not violates it (Romans 13:8 NASB, Galatians 5:14 NASB, Galatians 5:23 NASB).

What I am no longer 'under' in regard to the law of Moses is the condemnation of the law of Moses (Colossians 2:14 NASB, Deuteronomy 31:26 NASB). The witness of the law that was against me, that is what was taken away at the cross for me. And everyone else who has had their transgressions of the law forgiven at the cross.

So the scripture says that Jesus redeemed those under the law, so that they might receive adoption as sons.

Yet you think that He placed you as a gentile under the law of Moses, an obsolete covenant, while redeeming those who actually were...in a covenant, not at all like the New Covenant.


But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
Galatians 4:4


Faith upholds the law the same way a weight of measure of 1 pound, upholds a pound of silver.

Love fulfills the intent of the law, because love does no harm.

Do not murder was Gods law for us long before Moses law was added and long after the law became obsolete.


None of which ever places you a gentile living in America, under the law of Moses, while the scripture clearly teaches us He came to redeem those under the law.


This scripture is for you -

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?

Can you read what Paul is saying, it is written plainly enough.

...the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage,


For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-- Galatians 4:21-25


You have come full circle.

When you got called out on the carpet for explaining away what the scriptures plainly say.


Well you are doing it now. You are denying the clear and plain words, and trying to explain them away with phrases you misunderstand.

There is only one Moses Law, the Literal one. The one that God Himself declared to be Obsolete and has vanished away.


That is why The Apostle made this crystal clear statement in front of everyone in Jerusalem -

• Now therefore, 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?
• Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"--to whom we gave no such commandment-- ... NO SUCH COMMANDMENT!!
  
• For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

God's intent for mankind in the law [Torah], the prophets and the Psalms is Loving God and loving your neighbor.



JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yet you think that He placed you as a gentile under the law of Moses, an obsolete covenant...

No, he did not place me under the old covenant. He gave me his Spirit so that I would fulfill and uphold the righteous requirements of the law of Moses, just as the NT says faith in Christ upholds and fulfills the law of Moses, not nullifies it. I'm not saying anything the Bible does not say. But because you can only think of the law of Moses in terms of it's literal all-or-nothing fulfillment you can't grasp what I'm saying. Therefore you think it's not true. But the truth is you simply can not understand it.

The obligation of the first covenant that faith in Christ does release me from is the literal first covenant system of worship. But faith in Christ does not release me from the righteousness of the law as you are arguing. The author of Hebrews explains that it is the first covenant of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice that got laid aside in favor of Christ and his ministry, not the righteousness of the law of Moses itself. The old way got laid aside simply because we don't need it anymore, not because it got nullified. Remember, Christ said he did not come to do that.

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
Galatians 4:4

The whole world is under the condemnation of the law. Christ's death releases us from that condemnation.

"22 ...the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." (Galatians 3:22 NASB)

Faith upholds the law the same way a weight of measure of 1 pound, upholds a pound of silver.

Did you read the Vine's entry and see that you are applying the wrong usage of the word 'uphold' to Romans 3:31 NASB? If you did read it, it's impossible for you to honestly keep repeating your misuse of the definition of the word.

Love fulfills the intent of the law, because love does no harm.

Do not murder was Gods law for us long before Moses law was added and long after the law became obsolete.

Since you are sure we 'keep' another law, not the law of Moses, you have to explain how keeping a different 'do not murder' is not nullifying and abolishing the 'do not murder' of the law of Moses.

You have to explain this because Jesus said he did not come to nullify and abolish the law of Moses. But your doctrine has the law of Moses nullified in direct contradiction to what Jesus said. Do you have any explanation for how you can nullify the law of Moses when Jesus said he did not come to do that?

None of which ever places you a gentile living in America, under the law of Moses, while the scripture clearly teaches us He came to redeem those under the law.

I explained to you what we are 'under' in regard to the law of Moses. I posted the scriptures where that explanation comes from. You really have to give them some kind of attention if you're going to challenge what I believe. Can you do that, or are you just going to keep rattling off these things that don't address what I'm posting?

This scripture is for you -

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?

No, it's not for me. My desire is not to do what the Galatians were doing in regard to the law. They were keeping the literal first covenant worship schedule and method for the purpose of trying to be justified. I'm neither keeping the literal Mosaic worship covenant, nor trying to be justified that way.

I do not believe that I have to keep the literal Mosaic worship schedule and method and for the purpose of justification. Paul's argument to them is completely inapplicable and of a different context to what I'm arguing about the law of Moses. I'm simply arguing what he plainly said about the law of Moses, that faith in Christ upholds and fulfills the law of Moses NOT NULLIFIES IT as you are saying faith in Christ does.

Can you read what Paul is saying, it is written plainly enough.

...the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage,

When I start keeping the literal first covenant worship schedule and for the purpose of justification that is when I will be 'one from Mount Sinai' and in bondage as a slave.

When you got called out on the carpet for explaining away what the scriptures plainly say.

Well you are doing it now. You are denying the clear and plain words, and trying to explain them away with phrases you misunderstand.

Actually, it is you that are doing that. You're blowing off everything I explain to you and not answering my questions.

There is only one Moses Law, the Literal one. The one that God Himself declared to be Obsolete and has vanished away.

Did you forget? Jesus said he did not come to destroy the law of Moses so that it goes unfulfilled. But you have every single word of it replaced and unkept in favor of a different law that gets fulfilled and kept by faith in Christ. And you can't explain this obvious contradiction your doctrine has with Jesus' own words when you are confronted with it.

That is why The Apostle made this crystal clear statement in front of everyone in Jerusalem -

• Now therefore, 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?

The yoke of trying to be justified by law keeping? So what? Who's trying to do that these days?

You're committing the great blunder of the Protestant Church. You think that the Bible prohibits any and all law observance for any and all reasons. What the Bible prohibits is trying to be justified by the law of Moses. Nobody is defending that argument here.

Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"--to whom we gave no such commandment-- ... NO SUCH COMMANDMENT!!

You're not reading careful enough. But I understand. You have been taught by the church that what is being said is that law keeping for any and all reasons is what can't be bore. Here's what it actually says:

"10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." " (Acts 15:10-11 NASB)

See, the yoke that can't be bore is keeping the law in order to be saved by the law. He did not say any and all law keeping is a yoke that no one can bear. I'm guessing this is going to go in one ear and out the other for you even though I showed you what the text actually says.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't know what's going on with the quotes, and I'm too tired to fuss with it anymore, but you can get what I'm posting.

Edit:
Ah, maybe it's fixed (for the most part).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

So you are both the them and the we, in that scripture?

Why do you think 'them' and 'we' have to be different, grammatically, in that sentence?

But anyway, are you also breaking ranks with the church and now saying that Christ did not die on the cross to set you free from the law?

"14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." (Colossians 2:14 NASB)

.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Deborah,

I really resent that our discussion got interrupted earlier, but I'm going to dig it up again and ask you to answer a question I asked in that discussion. Stay tuned....

 

[Deborah13]

Why do you think 'them' and 'we' have to be different, grammatically, in that sentence?

But anyway, are you also breaking ranks with the church and now saying that Christ did not die on the cross to set you free from the law?

"14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." (Colossians 2:14 NASB)

.

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
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;

There are two possibilities that I can see in these verses.
v13 is referring to the gentiles in the church, Paul says you and your.
v14 was to the jewish in the church, Paul says us
or
If one were to become a citizen of Israel they had to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses.
Paul says that we are no longer strangers but full citizens of the commonwealth of Israel. If the handwriting of ordinances hadn't been taken out of the way and nailed to the cross we would have had to fulfill them just as those under the Law did or we couldn't be citizens of the commonwealth.
This is the one that I think is correct.

 

[Deborah13]

Deborah,

I really resent that our discussion got interrupted earlier, but I'm going to dig it up again and ask you to answer a question I asked in that discussion. Stay tuned....

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yeah, almost as exciting as Raking Leaves.

(Raking Leaves........sounds British)

 

[JLB]

No, he did not place me under the old covenant. He gave me his Spirit so that I would fulfill and uphold the righteous requirements of the law of Moses, just as the NT says faith in Christ upholds and fulfills the law of Moses, not nullifies it. I'm not saying anything the Bible does not say. But because you can only think of the law of Moses in terms of it's literal all-or-nothing fulfillment you can't grasp what I'm saying. Therefore you think it's not true. But the truth is you simply can not understand it.

The obligation of the first covenant that faith in Christ does release me from is the literal first covenant system of worship. But faith in Christ does not release me from the righteousness of the law as you are arguing. The author of Hebrews explains that it is the first covenant of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice that got laid aside in favor of Christ and his ministry, not the righteousness of the law of Moses itself. The old way got laid aside simply because we don't need it anymore, not because it got nullified. Remember, Christ said he did not come to do that.



The whole world is under the condemnation of the law. Christ's death releases us from that condemnation.

"22 ...the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." (Galatians 3:22 NASB)



Did you read the Vine's entry and see that you are applying the wrong usage of the word 'uphold' to Romans 3:31 NASB? If you did read it, it's impossible for you to honestly keep repeating your misuse of the definition of the word.



Since you are sure we 'keep' another law, not the law of Moses, you have to explain how keeping a different 'do not murder' is not nullifying and abolishing the 'do not murder' of the law of Moses.

You have to explain this because Jesus said he did not come to nullify and abolish the law of Moses. But your doctrine has the law of Moses nullified in direct contradiction to what Jesus said. Do you have any explanation for how you can nullify the law of Moses when Jesus said he did not come to do that?



I explained to you what we are 'under' in regard to the law of Moses. I posted the scriptures where that explanation comes from. You really have to give them some kind of attention if you're going to challenge what I believe. Can you do that, or are you just going to keep rattling off these things that don't address what I'm posting?


No, it's not for me. My desire is not to do what the Galatians were doing in regard to the law. They were keeping the literal first covenant worship schedule and method for the purpose of trying to be justified. I'm neither keeping the literal Mosaic worship covenant, nor trying to be justified that way.

I do not believe that I have to keep the literal Mosaic worship schedule and method and for the purpose of justification. Paul's argument to them is completely inapplicable and of a different context to what I'm arguing about the law of Moses. I'm simply arguing what he plainly said about the law of Moses, that faith in Christ upholds and fulfills the law of Moses NOT NULLIFIES IT as you are saying faith in Christ does.



When I start keeping the literal first covenant worship schedule and for the purpose of justification that is when I will be 'one from Mount Sinai' and in bondage as a slave.


Actually, it is you that are doing that. You're blowing off everything I explain to you and not answering my questions.


Did you forget? Jesus said he did not come to destroy the law of Moses so that it goes unfulfilled. But you have every single word of it replaced and unkept in favor of a different law that gets fulfilled and kept by faith in Christ. And you can't explain this obvious contradiction your doctrine has with Jesus' own words when you are confronted with it.



The yoke of trying to be justified by law keeping? So what? Who's trying to do that these days?

You're committing the great blunder of the Protestant Church. You think that the Bible prohibits any and all law observance for any and all reasons. What the Bible prohibits is trying to be justified by the law of Moses. Nobody is defending that argument here.



You're not reading careful enough. But I understand. You have been taught by the church that what is being said is that law keeping for any and all reasons is what can't be bore. Here's what it actually says:

"10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." " (Acts 15:10-11 NASB)

See, the yoke that can't be bore is keeping the law in order to be saved by the law. He did not say any and all law keeping is a yoke that no one can bear. I'm guessing this is going to go in one ear and out the other for you even though I showed you what the text actually says.

You have been taught by the church that what is being said is that law keeping for any and all reasons is what can't be bore.

This is one of the reasons you can't see what the scripture actually says, because you like those who in the religion of Judaism, stand in judgment of the Church.

You broadstroke every single person in the Church , by your judgmental statement, presumptuously assuming that every person in the Church all have the same idea about the law and the Covenants.


There is only one law of Moses. The Literal one that must be kept in it's entirety, and continue to be kept.


If a person has been taught that eating pork is a sin, just like do not commit adultery, then they don't eat pork to be justified in the sight of God and are right with God.


If a person has been taught that physical circumcision is a commandment from God just like do not murder, then they get circumcised to be justified in the sight of God and righteous.


If a person has been taught that keeping the Sabbath like the law of Moses requires is a commandment from God just like do not lie, so that they don't kindle a fire of the Sabbath, then they are doing this to be right with God and justified in His sight.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

[...]
or
If one were to become a citizen of Israel they had to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses.
Paul says that we are no longer strangers but full citizens of the commonwealth of Israel. If the handwriting of ordinances hadn't been taken out of the way and nailed to the cross we would have had to fulfill them just as those under the Law did or we couldn't be citizens of the commonwealth.
This is the one that I think is correct.

Good explanation. We can see, then, the sense in how the gentiles also were 'under' the law. They were under the condemnation of the law for various violations of the law, just as the Jews were.

Note also that the requirement for circumcision, for example, did not get abolished and nullified at the cross, but rather fulfilled at the cross in the way of the cutting away and death of the sin nature--the law of Moses being fulfilled, not nullified in this matter. The confusion for many coming in the fact that it is the literal WAY that circumcision is performed is what got set aside as obsolete and unneeded now, not the righteous requirement for circumcision itself. Faith in Christ upholding and fulfilling that righteous requirement of the law.

The literal can be laid aside because it is not necessary for a person brought near to God through the circumcision of Christ to be brought near to God through the circumcision of Moses. Christ didn't nullify that literal requirement. He made it so it's simply not needed anymore. The circumcision by Christ being recognized by God as the required circumcision to be in covenant with Him and his people.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This is one of the reasons you can't see what the scripture actually says, because you like those who in the religion of Judaism, stand in judgment of the Church.

You broadstroke every single person in the Church , by your judgmental statement, presumptuously assuming that every person in the Church all have the same idea about the law and the Covenants.

No, I generalize the church that way. How can I judge the doctrine of every single person in the church that way since there really are others who understand this matter of the law in this New Covenant. There just aren't very many of them, therefore, I generalize the church as being profoundly ignorant and misguided in this matter of the law of Moses. I blame the leadership of the church that brought this misunderstanding into the church and who then have propagated it generation to generation until the truth of the matter had been virtually lost.

There is only one law of Moses. The Literal one that must be kept in it's entirety, and continue to be kept.

It is if, and only if, you have not applied Christ's work on the cross to your account that God recognizes as the complete and total satisfaction of those various literal commands--that is when you must keep all the various literal first covenant rules and laws for worship, not just some of them. That is when a person is 'under' the law in the way Paul condemns.

If a person has been taught that eating pork is a sin, just like do not commit adultery, then they don't eat pork to be justified in the sight of God and are right with God.


If a person has been taught that physical circumcision is a commandment from God just like do not murder, then they get circumcised to be justified in the sight of God and righteous.


If a person has been taught that keeping the Sabbath like the law of Moses requires is a commandment from God just like do not lie, so that they don't kindle a fire of the Sabbath, then they are doing this to be right with God and justified in His sight.


JLB

James did say obedience is what justifies a man. The problem you're going to have with that is you don't understand that justification by the law means doing the law to show that you are righteous in and of yourself. You of all people will surely understand that it is in fact obedience to the commandments of God that justifies a person insofar as showing that person to have the righteousness of Christ in them. You just disagree that the commands that we are obedient to which show we have the righteousness of Christ in us are the laws of Moses, but rather are other laws.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Deborah,

I really resent that our discussion got interrupted earlier, but I'm going to dig it up again and ask you to answer a question I asked in that discussion. Stay tuned....

Hmm. Let's see. It may not be necessary for me to ask that question after all.

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

Did you forget? Jesus said he did not come to destroy the law of Moses so that it goes unfulfilled.

Jesus did not say these words, those are your words that you added to the scripture.

Then out of the other side of your mouth you have the nerve to say, "I say what the bible says".


You added ....so that it goes unfulfilled.

...till all is fulfilled.


17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Jesus said He came to fulfill the law. He fulfilled the law.

He fulfilled the law and nailed it to the cross, having taken it out of the way.

The law of Moses that was added, He has made obsolete and it has vanished away, having nailed it to the cross and taken it out of the way.



Part of the flaw in you doctrine comes from you misunderstanding the law of Moses and the law of sin and death.


For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:2


For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. Romans 7:22-23


The law of sin and death is what spread to all mankind, not the law of Moses.

The law was added 430 years after the Abrahamic Covenant.


Another misunderstanding you have is when Paul says the law in some places, he is referring to the 10 commandments specifically.

These righteous requirements were part of the law, but were also before the law.



Another misunderstanding you have is who the Husband is in Romans 7.


1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another--to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. Romans 7:1-4


The husband is a reference to the Lord before He was crucified and Raised from the dead.


31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:31-33


Do you see the analogy and the context Paul uses in reference to the New Covenant.

The Husband is the Lord, not your flesh.

Your flesh has not been raised from the dead.

As long as you don't get these three area's in you doctrine in order, then those whom you are trying to bring this message to will reject your doctrine.


The Church needs to hear the Message God has given you, although you still have some ares in it that need work.


You actually said it in a previous post, that I really agreed with. You said it in a way that really couldn't be refuted.

However I still see the underlying flaws this doctrine still has.


I wish I was better at expressing things more.... better. Mo better!


JLB