The CURSE OF THE LAW

[Mitspa]

Well what they need is to be taken and taught Gods grace. Those who teach law and grace together are the problem in the chruch. Because when you mix law and grace you defeat the power of both. The strength of sin is the law. The power over sin is grace. Rom 6:14 For sin will not have dominion over you, because you are not under law but under grace.

the problem is that where is a wrong faith there can hardly be grace of the true God, just see how the Lord Jesus Christ many times said: "woe unto you, scribes and pharisees"(Matthew 23) i.e. He strongly warned the theologians and the clerics of the human religion, but why He did never say: "woe unto you, gentiles", nor: "woe unto you, publicans", neither: "woe unto you, harlots"?!, but He even said to the clerics of the "earth": "Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you."(Matthew 21:31), and also: "If ye were blind(i.e. if you were poor in spirit), ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see(i.e. we are spiritually competent); therefore your sin remaineth."(John 8:41), because exactly the spiritual/religious iniquity is the very sin

Blessings

yes, this is the very point I was making. The law has been broken into parts and brought down to such a level as to make the religious class "think" they can keep it. What The Lord did was bring it to its highest and true standard. Where even the most religious, could not keep its true standard. The reason the harlot has access unto the Kingdom before the pharisee, is because the harlot has NO DOUBT, but that salvation is by grace alone.
Those who look to written code, and think they keep its standard are blinded to there own sinful flesh. They are cursed (as i have written) blinded in heart and mind. Hypocricy is the fruit of those who look to the written code.
ONLY when one becomes "wretched" and weak, and foolish before God. Has one honored and upheld the true standard of the law.
Only when knows that is ONLY by Gods grace apart from the law, has one "heard" seen and upheld the law.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

2 Cor 3:12-15
[...]
But their MINDS WERE BLINDED, for even until this day the same vail remains at the reading of the OLD testament. WHICH IS DONE AWAY IN CHRIST.
but even unto this day, when (the old covenant of) Moses is read the vail is upon their heart.

Testament...'covenant'.

What is done away in Christ is the old covenant of temple, priest, and sacrifice, letters carved in stone, etc. misunderstood by the Israelites as an effective WAY, with it's holy commands and procedures for worship, for sinful man to be declared righteous before God.

13 When He said, “A new covenant,†He has made the first (covenant) obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old (the first, or old, covenant) is ready to disappear." (Hebrews 8:13 NASB)

Apparently, at the time of this writing, the old system of worship (temple, preist, and sacrifice) is still up and running. Paul is prophesying it's coming end, literally. Which we now know did come in 70 AD.

 

[Mitspa]

2 Cor 3:12-15
[...]
But their MINDS WERE BLINDED, for even until this day the same vail remains at the reading of the OLD testament. WHICH IS DONE AWAY IN CHRIST.
but even unto this day, when (the old covenant of) Moses is read the vail is upon their heart.

Testament...'covenant'.

What is done away in Christ is the old covenant of temple, priest, and sacrifice, letters carved in stone, etc. misunderstood by the Israelites as an effective WAY, with it's holy commands and procedures for worship, for sinful man to be declared righteous before God.

13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first (covenant) obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old (the first, or old, covenant) is ready to disappear." (Hebrews 8:13 NASB)

Apparently, at the time of this writing, the old system of worship (temple, preist, and sacrifice) is still up and running. Paul is prophesying it's coming end, literally. Which we now know did come in 70 AD.

The fact that Paul points expressly to that which is written and engraved on stones! The Ten Commandments!
2 Cor 3:7
Makes no mistake or has littlle doubt about that which he is speaking.
He makes this same point throughout his epistles.

The Old Covenant is every jot and tittle, it is ALL THAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW.

there is no "parts" to the law. Its ALL or nothing.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

(I have a bad cold...that's why I've had lots of time to be in the forum, lol)

Those who look to written code, and think they keep its standard are blinded to there own sinful flesh.

Just so there is no occasion for continued misunderstanding, 'looking to the written code' to me means relying on the ministry of mere written words (knowledge of the requirements of God alone), and various stipulations for worship to be justified and to be pleasing to God. I'm assuming that's what it means to you, too.

That is the OLD way of serving God. It does not work because 1) the perfection of legal justification is not achieved by works, and 2) mere written words, no matter how holy and good and righteous they (surely) are, do not change a person into someone who can do what's right and, thus, uphold the righteous requirements of the law (the one's that still must be upheld in this New Covenant--'love your neighbor as yourself', etc.).

They are cursed (as i have written) blinded in heart and mind. Hypocricy is the fruit of those who look to the written code.

"(L)ook(ing) to the written code" meaning to you what I just wrote above, I hope. Relying on an old system of worship and obedience that is powerless to justify a person, but whose requirements are still to be lived up to through the new WAY of doing that...faith in Jesus Christ via the fruit of the Spirit.

ONLY when one becomes "wretched" and weak, and foolish before God. Has one honored and upheld the true standard of the law.

In regard to justification, absolutely true (Luke 18:13-14 NASB)**.

In regard to righteous living, 'no'. The standard of the law (that is still requried to be fulfilled in this New Covenant) gets fulfilled when we obey the Spirit in regard to being kind, faithful, loving, peaceable, joyful, self-controlled, etc. IOW, we uphold the law in regard to required service to God when we walk in the Spirit. NOT upheld, as so many erroneously believe in the church, simply because we have been justified by the Spirit of God by faith, but don't obey the Spirit within us.

I'd be surprised if you disagreed with that.

Only when knows that is ONLY by Gods grace apart from the law, has one "heard" seen and upheld the law.

It is by the grace of faith that we are justified.

It is also by the grace of faith that we uphold the requirements of the law ('love your neighbor as yourself', etc.) as the justified/ sanctified nation of people living for God.

"6 Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord (by faith via the Spirit, not the effort of law), so walk in Him (by faith via the Spirit, not the futile effort of mere written words of law)..." (Colossians 2:6 NASB)



** (Might be my favorite passage in all of scripture. To this day I usually well up inside when I read it.)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The Old Covenant is every jot and tittle, it is ALL THAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW.

there is no "parts" to the law. Its ALL or nothing.

As the old WAY of being justified, entirely correct. That WAY is what has 'passed away', made obsolete and not needed anymore by the unveiling of the NEW WAY to be justified and serve God--faith in Jesus Christ.

But in regard to our New Covenant service to God, the various stipulations for worship and the time table they are to be performed is what is no longer a binding requirement on the people of God. But 'love your neighbor as yourself' does continue as a continuing debt we owe God and others. Upheld and fulfilled by faith via the fruit of the Spirit at work in us compelling and leading and guiding us toward behavioral sanctification.

Read carefully. I'm confident that we are in agreement.

 

[Mitspa]

(I have a bad cold...that's why I've had lots of time to be in the forum, lol)


Just so there is no occasion for continued misunderstanding, 'looking to the written code' to me means relying on the ministry of mere written words (knowledge of the requirements of God alone), and various stipulations for worship to be justified and to be pleasing to God. I'm assuming that's what it means to you, too.

That is the OLD way of serving God. It does not work because 1) the perfection of legal justification is not achieved by works, and 2) mere written words, no matter how holy and good and righteous they (surely) are, do not change a person into someone who can do what's right and, thus, uphold the righteous requirements of the law (the one's that still must be upheld in this New Covenant--'love your neighbor as yourself', etc.).




"(L)ook(ing) to the written code" meaning to you what I just wrote above, I hope. Relying on an old system of worship and obedience that is powerless to justify a person, but whose requirements are still to be lived up to through the new WAY of doing that...faith in Jesus Christ via the fruit of the Spirit.



In regard to justification, absolutely true (Luke 18:13-14 NASB)**.

In regard to righteous living, 'no'. The standard of the law (that is still requried to be fulfilled in this New Covenant) gets fulfilled when we obey the Spirit in regard to being kind, faithful, loving, peaceable, joyful, self-controlled, etc. IOW, we uphold the law in regard to required service to God when we walk in the Spirit. NOT upheld, as so many erroneously believe in the church, simply because we have been justified by the Spirit of God by faith, but don't obey the Spirit within us.

I'd be surprised if you disagreed with that.

Only when knows that is ONLY by Gods grace apart from the law, has one "heard" seen and upheld the law.

It is by the grace of faith that we are justified.

It is also by the grace of faith that we uphold the requirements of the law ('love your neighbor as yourself', etc.) as the justified/ sanctified nation of people living for God.

"6 Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord (by faith via the Spirit, not the effort of law), so walk in Him (by faith via the Spirit, not the futile effort of mere written words of law)..." (Colossians 2:6 NASB)



** (Might be my favorite passage in all of scripture. To this day I usually well up inside when I read it.)

Not sure what you are asking from me? I have made my points in clear terms and stand by every point I have made. As far as agreeing with you? I cannot, because you refuse to hold a constant standard that one could judge and agree with.

Jam 1:8

 

[francisdesales]

A brave new generation of text twisters... Anything that doesn't suit their theology is explained away or ignored. Have you noticed that I have cited Luke 1:5-6 a half dozen times, but STILL, people seem to think that "no one is righteous, no one can keep the Law"...

Would it make a difference if a person quoted the above after citing Rom 3:10;8:7-8 two dozen times and STILL, you believing that one could be righteous and obedient to the law?

There is man in the flesh and there is man in the spirit - Rom 3:10 etc. applies to man in the flesh - Luke 1:5-6 etc. applies to man in the spirit - I am unable to see a contradiction here that needs to be ignored by the text-twisters. How a man is created anew in the spirit from one who was in the flesh - whether by works or by faith - can be discussed further upon. But as concerning obedience and righteousness - we in the flesh, who are neither obedient nor righteous as per Rom 3:10 are indeed regenerated - for the very purpose of living a life unto God in righteousness and obedience as per Luke 1:5-6. To presume that any man in the flesh can be righteous and obedient is to deny Rom 3:10 and its associated theology.

I didn't say that ANYONE could gain righteousness on their own abilities. I am saying that the SCRIPTURES note that some were able to obey the Law. Now, if the Scriptures says we cannot be righteous on our own, doesn't it follow that God is granting grace to people, even in OT times, for them to be considered "blameless before the Law"? Scriptures clearly note that some people were righteous and blameless before the Law.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I have come to the conclusion that there were and possibly are, those you can follow the Law (every jot and tittle) as the scripture you post and as well we see in Job. Yes, Job was before the written Law but that is not here or there as certainly there was already sacrifices, caring for the poor, etc.

When the Jews of OT times saw someone as righteous, they did not mean that they were absolutely sinless. The idea of perfection, to the Jew, is not the same that we or the Greeks have. The Jews' idea is one of wholeness and completeness, a unity of sorts with the era in the Garden. Thus, when Scriptures state that DAVID was "sinless", we know, literally, he was not. We are all familiar with the Bathseba incident and Psalm 51. But this merely proves the point - Jews did not have the same idea about perfection towards the Law that we think they do 2000 plus years later.

So I am providing a caveat - maybe you'll think I am paritally tearing down my own posts. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle. Clearly, the Old Covenant never expected ANYONE to be utterly sinless. God knows man and would never command such perfection. Nor would Moses say "it is not too difficult to obey the Law" if it were not - based on the JEWISH idea of obeying the Law (not utter perfection).

Months ago I felt the need to read Job again with hopefully more spiritual eyes than previously and the Holy Spirit did show me some things I had not seen before but until this morning I don't think I had a full revelation of what the verse He had shown me meant. I tied the verse to Job doing works by his own hand, which is clearly a part of it but now I think there is more. Sometimes I am very dense.
Job 40:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.

Job was found to be righteous and upright just as those in your Luke scripture. So why did God say this to him. In my blindness I saw this as Job doing these things by this own will and declaring himself righteous but that cannot be the only problem here. God in chapters 38-41 at least is pointing out to Job all the things that He, God, can and does do as the Creator compared to Job as the created . It is in this context that He makes the above statement to Job. If Job can do what the Creator does then God will admit to Job that he can save himself by being righteous as a man can be righteous. God says that he cannot be saved this way even though God Himself found him to be in complete obedience in every way.

Yes, we are always learning something, but we have to have an open mind to "clarifying" our idea of God. You certainly are open-minded and are seeking God.

We know that it is only by God's grace that we can be saved but what of righteousness unto justification?
Could it be that God's righteous is above the laws that He has given to man? Could it be that only the righteousness of God Himself is enough to save thee?
Could it be that only the Gift of Righteousness (the righteousness of Christ) can save thee? Which is bigger than the Law?

So in conclusion I would agree with your deduction that man can obey the Law, however he would still not be righteous enough for salvation.

I agree with your conclusion. No one can earn salvation, even by being seen as righteous before the Law - as Elizabeth and Zechariah were. Being righteous would IMPLY that they DID have faith in God and His mercy and would NOT push their abilities as evidence that they deserve salvation. The Psalms are full of such attitudes. Being righteous before God is not a matter of earning His Love, but faithfully following Him to the best of our ability, relying totally on Him to give us the grace to do His will.

Regards

 

[Mitspa]

Gal 3:10-13
For as many as are under the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT CONTINUE IN ALL THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO DO THEM"

This is the main subject of the book of Galatians. That those who had been freely justified by the grace of God, and given the free gift of righteousness. Had now turned back into the written code, and to attempts to justify themselves by parts of the law.
Pauls point was that if you try to keep any part of the written code, you are subject to keep it all. And in this effort to earn, what God only gives by faith, a man has turned from the blessing of Abraham unto the curse of the law.
Take notice that it is ALL THAT IS WRITTEN- EVERY JOT AND TITTLE!
So this is Pauls point from the begining of this epistle. If any man preach another gospel other than His Gospel, they are ANATHEMA
Those who teach the law and legalism are in fact "anathema" They are the "cursed" children of 2 Pet 2:14

2 Cor 3:12-15 Seeing we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech. And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not behold the end of that which is ABOLISHED.
But their MINDS WERE BLINDED, for even until this day the same vail remains at the reading of the OLD testament. WHICH IS DONE AWAY IN CHRIST.
but even unto this day, when Moses is read the vail is upon their heart.

Deu 28:28-29 THE LORD SHALL SMITE THEE WITH MADNESS, AND BLINDNESS AND ASTONISHMENT OF HEART: AND THOU SHALT GROPE IN THE NOONDAY, AS THE BLIND GROPETH IN DARKNESS.

We see that those who cannot see that Christ is the end of the law, for righteousness. Are indeed cursed, and blind of mind and heart. Altough many claim to be children of the Day, they have no understanding of Gods righteousness and go about to establish their own righteousness, by the written code of the law.

We see this same pattern in those who attempt to promote the written code of the law? That none teach that ALL THAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, which is the true standard of the law.

So that some where accepted by the written code before the Cross has little meaning in respect to the gospel.
FOR THEY KEPT ALL THE LAW, EVEN UNTO THE SACRIFICES FOR THEIR SIN.

Now none of those who are attempting to bring others into the bondage of the written code, would dare to attempt to bring the true standard of ALL THE LAW, into their doctrines. Because this would expose the ingnorance and error of these doctrines. No what they do is "BREAK" the law into parts. And attempt to teach parts of the law as being needed to justifiy a believers walk of faith.

Paul warned us of theses people.
1 Tim 1:6-7

 

[Deborah13]

Being righteous before God is not a matter of earning His Love, but faithfully following Him to the best of our ability, relying totally on Him to give us the grace to do His will.

A blessed Resurrection Day to you, my brother in Christ. Holy is our Lord and Savior. In Him is our peace.

 

[farouk]

A brave new generation of text twisters... Anything that doesn't suit their theology is explained away or ignored. Have you noticed that I have cited Luke 1:5-6 a half dozen times, but STILL, people seem to think that "no one is righteous, no one can keep the Law"...

Would it make a difference if a person quoted the above after citing Rom 3:10;8:7-8 two dozen times and STILL, you believing that one could be righteous and obedient to the law?

There is man in the flesh and there is man in the spirit - Rom 3:10 etc. applies to man in the flesh - Luke 1:5-6 etc. applies to man in the spirit - I am unable to see a contradiction here that needs to be ignored by the text-twisters. How a man is created anew in the spirit from one who was in the flesh - whether by works or by faith - can be discussed further upon. But as concerning obedience and righteousness - we in the flesh, who are neither obedient nor righteous as per Rom 3:10 are indeed regenerated - for the very purpose of living a life unto God in righteousness and obedience as per Luke 1:5-6. To presume that any man in the flesh can be righteous and obedient is to deny Rom 3:10 and its associated theology.

I didn't say that ANYONE could gain righteousness on their own abilities. I am saying that the SCRIPTURES note that some were able to obey the Law. Now, if the Scriptures says we cannot be righteous on our own, doesn't it follow that God is granting grace to people, even in OT times, for them to be considered "blameless before the Law"? Scriptures clearly note that some people were righteous and blameless before the Law.

Regards

Romans 3.23 would have a comment on this.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Romans 3.23 would have a comment on this.

'Blameless'.

It's not the same as 'guilty'.

All men have sinned. Some have been found blameless in that sin.

Read his posts carefully. He in no way ruled out the grace of God in the OT to enable someone to be blameless before the Lord.

Stumbled across this yesterday:
"13 You must be blameless before the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 18:13 NIV)

Some succeded in doing that, as the Bible tells us.

Abraham was commanded to be blameless:

"...the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless." (Genesis 17:1 NIV)

Blameless does NOT mean sinless perfection. Only Christ ever did that. That's why he's the Messiah.

 

[farouk]

Romans 3.23 would have a comment on this.

'Blameless'.

It's not the same as 'guilty'.

All men have sinned. Some have been found blameless in that sin.

Read his posts carefully. He in no way ruled out the grace of God in the OT to enable someone to be blameless before the Lord.

Stumbled across this yesterday:
"13 You must be blameless before the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 18:13 NIV)

Some succeded in doing that, as the Bible tells us.

Abraham was commanded to be blameless:

"...the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty[a]; walk before me faithfully and be blameless." (Genesis 17:1 NIV)

Blameless does NOT mean sinless perfection. Only Christ ever did that. That's why he's the Messiah.

We need grace (Ephesians 2.8-9; John 1.17)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

We need grace (Ephesians 2.8-9; John 1.17)

No question. And Francis would not disagree with you. But it's evident that grace was available in the time of the old covenant. Christ is the complete unveiling of the grace of God. Though the 'New' Covenant is called new, it's really just the uncovering of the complete plan of God's grace and mercy that has existed from the very beginning, but now able to be plainly seen by all men everywhere.

 

[ivdavid]

Now I not sure if you are seeking truth or just looking for an occasion to debate small issue, until the truth is hidden behind endless debate.

Please don't do this, Mitspa - kindly refrain from this suggesting in very tactful terms that the sum of my intent could be to only debate small issues until truth is hidden. I have never resorted to implicative character-assassination, neither have I considered any of these threads as debates - I always refer to them as discussions where each holding a different belief is trying to understand why the other believes that way while giving explanations of their own reasons for their beliefs. To me, benefit of doubt always goes towards this alone being the other person's intent. I only wish I'm granted this same courtesy.

I have made very clear statements and used clear biblical terms in their proper context.

Trace the sequence of events so far -
1. I state that this entire topic could be reconciled IF all are willing to rightly interpret the various ways of using the term LAW in the Bible.
2. You state that it is unbiblical of me to state that there are various ways of using the term LAW.
3. I then ask you to give a single way(as opposed to my various ways) of using the term LAW and to then apply it in the 3 scenarios I put forth.
4. You oblige to define.
5a. I ask you to clarify or redefine your previous reply - since a contradiction seemed to arise from within your statements.
5b. I also elaborate further on how there are various ways of using the term LAW.
6a. You begin contemplating on my intents and ask me what my main point is - when my above point 1 to reconcile the differences here has always been my initial and subsequent agenda.
6b. You further assert that your references have always been clear and in biblical context while ignoring the above point 5a that seeks to uphold just this assertion of yours. You make a further (unwarranted?)observation of how an 'honest' heart is required to seek the 'truth' and that a 'clear and evident' post such as yours requires 'clear' questions for it to be replied to - which a common mind such as mine would only interpret you to be implying - that I do not seek the truth with an honest heart and that I ask vague unclear questions to your otherwise evident replies and hence the consequent absence of a reply to my points such as the above 5a. Where in all of this 6a and 6b have you actually addressed the issues I've raised - issues on the points of the topic alone and not on those who are discussing the topic?

Where would you want to head from here? I am not too keen on second guessing your intents and your thoughts - I discuss only the points and premises laid out in text. If that is under suspicious scrutiny, then it's best we leave this discussion here. But if you do want to reach a resolution, then let's simply stick to discussing points of topic impersonally.

well I have no issue with how the term "law" is defined in your post. But it has little to do with the honest reading of the post I have made in regard to the "law of moses" or "written code"

Considering I elaborated only on how the term "law" is used in Gal 3:12 and Rom 3:27 in my post - are you saying that you have no issue with my interpretation? And why does it have little to do with the 'honest' reading of your post? Aren't we discussing if the Law of Moses is still valid or not - and unto that end, shouldn't we precisely concur on what we mean by that LAW - and for that, shouldn't we analyze whether there could be multiple ways of using the term LAW - which is exactly what I did and which is what you have no issues with as such, except perhaps that it goes against your belief that there can be no multiple ways of using the term LAW - which is what I've asked you to clarify and reconcile in Rom 3:27. Is this connection large enough to do with the reading of your post?

If I am satirical in this post, it is because this seems to be the way to let down on my frustration at being implicated unfairly - when I see no provocation from my end. This discussion has taken quite an ugly turn on personal grounds - and it would take an enormous truth-seeking desire on your part to get this discussion back on topic. As for me, I'd like to give way until any personal scrutiny is avoided and mere discussion of premises is undertaken.

 

[Mitspa]

Now I not sure if you are seeking truth or just looking for an occasion to debate small issue, until the truth is hidden behind endless debate.

Please don't do this, Mitspa - kindly refrain from this suggesting in very tactful terms that the sum of my intent could be to only debate small issues until truth is hidden. I have never resorted to implicative character-assassination, neither have I considered any of these threads as debates - I always refer to them as discussions where each holding a different belief is trying to understand why the other believes that way while giving explanations of their own reasons for their beliefs. To me, benefit of doubt always goes towards this alone being the other person's intent. I only wish I'm granted this same courtesy.

I have made very clear statements and used clear biblical terms in their proper context.

Trace the sequence of events so far -
1. I state that this entire topic could be reconciled IF all are willing to rightly interpret the various ways of using the term LAW in the Bible.
2. You state that it is unbiblical of me to state that there are various ways of using the term LAW.
3. I then ask you to give a single way(as opposed to my various ways) of using the term LAW and to then apply it in the 3 scenarios I put forth.
4. You oblige to define.
5a. I ask you to clarify or redefine your previous reply - since a contradiction seemed to arise from within your statements.
5b. I also elaborate further on how there are various ways of using the term LAW.
6a. You begin contemplating on my intents and ask me what my main point is - when my above point 1 to reconcile the differences here has always been my initial and subsequent agenda.
6b. You further assert that your references have always been clear and in biblical context while ignoring the above point 5a that seeks to uphold just this assertion of yours. You make a further (unwarranted?)observation of how an 'honest' heart is required to seek the 'truth' and that a 'clear and evident' post such as yours requires 'clear' questions for it to be replied to - which a common mind such as mine would only interpret you to be implying - that I do not seek the truth with an honest heart and that I ask vague unclear questions to your otherwise evident replies and hence the consequent absence of a reply to my points such as the above 5a. Where in all of this 6a and 6b have you actually addressed the issues I've raised - issues on the points of the topic alone and not on those who are discussing the topic?

Where would you want to head from here? I am not too keen on second guessing your intents and your thoughts - I discuss only the points and premises laid out in text. If that is under suspicious scrutiny, then it's best we leave this discussion here. But if you do want to reach a resolution, then let's simply stick to discussing points of topic impersonally.

well I have no issue with how the term "law" is defined in your post. But it has little to do with the honest reading of the post I have made in regard to the "law of moses" or "written code"

Considering I elaborated only on how the term "law" is used in Gal 3:12 and Rom 3:27 in my post - are you saying that you have no issue with my interpretation? And why does it have little to do with the 'honest' reading of your post? Aren't we discussing if the Law of Moses is still valid or not - and unto that end, shouldn't we precisely concur on what we mean by that LAW - and for that, shouldn't we analyze whether there could be multiple ways of using the term LAW - which is exactly what I did and which is what you have no issues with as such, except perhaps that it goes against your belief that there can be no multiple ways of using the term LAW - which is what I've asked you to clarify and reconcile in Rom 3:27. Is this connection large enough to do with the reading of your post?

If I am satirical in this post, it is because this seems to be the way to let down on my frustration at being implicated unfairly - when I see no provocation from my end. This discussion has taken quite an ugly turn on personal grounds - and it would take an enormous truth-seeking desire on your part to get this discussion back on topic. As for me, I'd like to give way until any personal scrutiny is avoided and mere discussion of premises is undertaken.

So what is your point?
My point is that the term "law" as I have used it in my post are well understood in the context of the scriptures in which I quoted.

Now I do not accept your understanding of how we have come to our current postions.Nor do wish to debate that issue.
At what point in my post have I used the term "law" in a way that is not clear in its context? And in what way have I failed to represent the evident truth of scripture?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...what they do is "BREAK" the law into parts. And attempt to teach parts of the law as being needed to justifiy a believers walk of faith.

Right, you have to keep ALL of the old covenant law to be justified by that law.

But, I need to ask you, is Paul saying we uphold ALL of the law through our faith, or just parts of it?

"28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:28,31 NIV)

 

[Mitspa]

...what they do is "BREAK" the law into parts. And attempt to teach parts of the law as being needed to justifiy a believers walk of faith.

Right, you have to keep ALL of the old covenant law to be justified by that law.

But, I need to ask you, is Paul saying we uphold ALL of the law through our faith, or just parts of it?

"28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:28,31 NIV)

Yes we who preach the true gospel uphold the law to its true standard and its purpose as Paul descibes in THAT VERY CHAPTER! Rom 3:10-20
THAT THE WHOLE WORLD MIGHT BECOME GUILTY BEFORE GOD. as Paul teaches in Gal 3:19-24

That the purpose of the law was to bring us to Christ.

Now what some who teach the law have done, is bring to law down to a standard they "think" they can keep. This is a great sin! and is not upholding the law!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...what they do is "BREAK" the law into parts. And attempt to teach parts of the law as being needed to justifiy a believers walk of faith.

Right, you have to keep ALL of the old covenant law to be justified by that law.

But, I need to ask you, is Paul saying we uphold ALL of the law through our faith, or just parts of it?

"28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:28,31 NIV)

Yes we who preach the true gospel uphold the law to its true standard and its purpose as Paul descibes in THAT VERY CHAPTER! Rom 3:10-20
THAT THE WHOLE WORLD MIGHT BECOME GUILTY BEFORE GOD. as Paul teaches in Gal 3:19-24

That the purpose of the law was to bring us to Christ.

Now what some who teach the law have done, is bring to law down to a standard they "think" they can keep. This is a great sin! and is not upholding the law!

Does the 'true standard of the law' include all or just part of the law of Moses?

 

[Mitspa]

...what they do is "BREAK" the law into parts. And attempt to teach parts of the law as being needed to justifiy a believers walk of faith.

Right, you have to keep ALL of the old covenant law to be justified by that law.

But, I need to ask you, is Paul saying we uphold ALL of the law through our faith, or just parts of it?

"28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:28,31 NIV)

Yes we who preach the true gospel uphold the law to its true standard and its purpose as Paul descibes in THAT VERY CHAPTER! Rom 3:10-20
THAT THE WHOLE WORLD MIGHT BECOME GUILTY BEFORE GOD. as Paul teaches in Gal 3:19-24

That the purpose of the law was to bring us to Christ.

Now what some who teach the law have done, is bring to law down to a standard they "think" they can keep. This is a great sin! and is not upholding the law!

Does the 'true standard of the law' include all or just part of the law of Moses?

That dont even make sense in the context of the point I made??
The standard of the law is every "jot and tittle" ALL THAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW.
If a man attempts to keep any part of the written code, he must keep it all!