When did the Law pass or has it passed away?

[Ryan]

Surely going under the knife is and was a big deal. Stephen did though. Like I said, all these commandments are given by God. It's up to us whether we keep them or not and where our heart draws us to. I don't have a mezuzah up yet. But I'm gong to study it and make sure I am doing it for the right reasons and for the right purposes. Some things we have to understand why we're doing them, before we do them. Others, not so much.

ok, ryan. you realize that you wont be differentiated tween jews if you do that.[/QUOTE


I found this paper written on Ezekiel and found it interesting, especially around pg 200 where there is a section title of " Unique Motifs in the Descriptions of Israel’s Restoration". http://www.academia.edu/937517/The_Descriptions_of_the_Restoration_of_Israel_in_Ezekiel

Thanks Deborah. I'll check it out. Subject has become really interesting to me.

 

[eddif]

I agree. but when I mention the torah in the torah, theres grace.

Absolutely. (Cities of refuge is a good example.)

But the measure of grace the law does provide is not sufficient to save.

it saved . but noah.saying that the saints weren't forgiven is really bit much. if you think about it. only those that were in paradise in sheol believed the messiah. when He went to sheol he revealed him self and when he rose he took them to heaven as that wasn't open to the saints then. of course how long they were there is debatable since moses and Elijah were able to leave sheol.

that is another topic.

Where do you want to discuss this other topic?

The gentiles have so many marginal notes it gets hard to discuss anything at times.

Revelation 6:11
11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.


I thought Elijah hitched a ride to heaven? There is some discussion about maybe Enoch and Moses might not have been in sheol either.

As a feller from Mississippi I might have too many marginal notes myself LOL.

eddif

 

[eddif]

The Law: ?
Letter of Law
Spirit of Law
Blessing of Law
Curse of Law (thank you Jesus)
Ceremony of Law
Calendar of Law (plowman overtakes reaper in spirit of law)
Law written on hearts of gentiles
Grace hidden in Law (?)
Weighter things of Law
Law as schoolmaster
Law gives knowledge of sin
others....

eddif

 

[Mitspa]

I agree that we are not under the entire O.T. Law.

That's only half true...
If President Obama says "we will have men with automatic machine guns in every bank, because the Mexican Law says so"; then -- it's a slam dunk that he's putting us under "a" Mexican Law by his very words; and many people would rise up against him and say, We don't obey Mexican Law.

Paul does exactly that "so says the Law" and not one person says anything to him.
My point is that either "the Law" isn't the same as "the Law" in Romans, or else the law is not entirely gone.

Also Paul explains his reasons for the limits he puts upon women. Thses limits are lifted under certain conditions.
To take a random scripture where the law is used as a witness to a point and then attempt to overturn the whole counsel of grace is just great error! This is not an honest attempt to find the truth, but a attempt to confuse the truth.

Your response sounds confused, it's as if you think I am attempting a "random" scripture, and attempting to overturn the counsel of grace????

I repeat "I don't condone a return to the Mosaic Law."

But I don't agree with your apologetic logic, even though I agree with your conclusion:

I disagree because the law Paul applies is not a mere witness from the old testament as you say, it's an actual law people are to OBEY in his church, in the new testament. The length or number of exceptions to the rule is irrelevant. If this rule applies to even one person, at one time, in the New Covenant under Grace -- then the O.T. law had not completely passed away during the time of Romans.

Sorry you just in error! The OLD testament can not be kept in parts! ITS EVERY JOT AND TITTLE! it is cursed are those who continue not IN ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, to do them.
And if a American President tries to put us under mexican law.
You cast him out!
And this is what Paul demands we do to those who are bringing in "parts" of the law. CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON.
i will not be put under mexican law, nor old testament law.
I will not accept those who teach law, in the fellowship of the saints.
And in fact it does appear that you are indeed teaching a return to law. Of course you could never convince anyone of ALL THE LAW, so you have , like many others, attempted to "break" the law into pieces.

 

[Mitspa]

Well my friend, Luke did not share the gospel with Paul! Gal 1:11 Paul was shown Christ through the the Spirit, even he was taken unto the third heaven. Now THE GOSPEL is what Paul taught, without Paul the 4 "gospels" are hidden from those who are under law. Now the essence of the Gospel is this "THE LAW OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE IN CHRIST JESUS HAS SET ME FREE FROM THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH. The law of moses can never make a charge of sin against me.For I am justified freely by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. For a man who does not know this? Is a man who has nothing to teach me or others.

True: Moses will not make a charge against you -- but Paul could... but only if you break "his" law or teach another to do it (mistakenly or not) in his jurisdiction.

I think you're sort of fixated on Paul to the point that you're overlooking the obvious (or not telling us about it, at least).

Paul was not an apostle from the start; He was not an apostle immediately after Jesus dies; (and for some time following that!) Paul hadn't even begun killing Christians, let alone being converted to Christ, at the point of Luke's narrative where:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
....
Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Paul's nowhere to be seen, he has not *even* been named Paul yet; and yet CLEARLY the Gospel of Jesus THE Christ is clearly "SEEN" by three thousand JEWS.... WHO WERE UNDER THE LAW. They then were baptized and became Christians!

After the time of Acts 2:41 -- many of the people mentioned, would halve left Jerusalem and never come back before they died of natural causes. (Pregnant women often died in childbirth, without antibiotics many young teenaged children died, theft, war, etc.) But, my point is -- a very large number of them would never have heard Paul's doctrine before death.

So, It's pretty clear -- historically -- that your thinking either mistakenly damns the Hebrew converts who came before Paul, or else you agree that this "seeing" the gospel, as you call it, has nothing to do with actually being saved.

Paul is a judge of anyone who is in his churches.
If you are saved through Paul's teaching -- Amen! Peace to you. I am happy for you.

I'm born from above (Note: John 3:3 has ανωθεν as does John 3:31 again=above ), by the Spirit which Jesus Christ gave me!

And this is the same Spirit by which I say "Jesus Christ is LORD." and "He is Risen as he said"; Halleluia! Amen! I believe this with my whole heart.

(All of which I learned from The Gospel according to Mark, and to John before I ever read Paul epistles for the first time.)

Not sure what point you are trying to make? Because you read John before Paul epistles, what does that mean?

I would suggest that you read and study Pauls epistles, and you may understand the other scriptures as you should.

I am glad that you are born from above, then you must know why Paul wrote this to the Gal. church?
Gal 3:1-3
Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by the hearing of faith.

Are you so foolish, having begun in the Spirit "by faith" you are now made perfect by the flesh "works of law"

Also this is the very warning that Paul makes to all who have been justified by grace through faith? You who seek to be justified by the law, HAVE FALLEN FROM GRACE.

this means at one point they where justified in grace and have now turned to written code.

 

[jasoncran]

eddif that is lengthy search and discussion. one which I would rather actually ponder what sheol was and also not read to win an argument. sometimes opening the word , I would like to just read it for what it says. sorry.

I have many ideas from my jewish readings but this site's posters would rather argue against then try to see if it fits and learn.most that is.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The OLD testament can not be kept in parts! ITS EVERY JOT AND TITTLE! it is cursed are those who continue not IN ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, to do them.

You must keep the entire law if you are trying to be justified by the law. THAT is the law keeping that is cursed. Not the upholding of the law through faith in Christ's blood (Romans 3:31). This upholding of the law by faith is in fact the required evidence that validates the presence of justifying faith.

Sanctification is the process of upholding the law (summarized in 'love your neighbor as yourself') more and more as we mature and grow up into the stature of Christ (because we have been justified in Christ).

Faith in the forgiveness of God that justifies, soliciting a legal declaration of righteousness, all by itself (for forgiveness is the only thing that can remove sin guilt), is the faith that grows up into the ever-increasing fruit of the Spirit:

"8 For if you possess these qualities (of the Spirit--see context) in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. " (2 Peter 1:8 NIV emphasis mine)

The qualities of the Spirit are what uphold the requirements of the moral law and keep us from being unproductive and ineffective concerning what we know about the Christ and the kingdom. Only the person who puts the knowledge of the kingdom to work through the fruit of the Spirit, bringing increase to that knowledge, will inherit the kingdom on the Day of Wrath.

That doesn't mean they are justified (made righteous) by that work. Rather that work shows them to have the faith that justifies all by itself. Work is the evidence of God's justification, not the procurer of it. And it is upon that evidence that God will judge mankind as to whether they have justifying faith in the blood of Christ. Utimateley, if you can't show your faith in what you do, specifically in 'love your neighbor as yourself', the summation of the law of Moses, you have a 'faith' that can not save you on the Day of Wrath.

 

[About the Son of God]

Not sure what point you are trying to make? Because you read John before Paul epistles, what does that mean?

Mitspa, I don't think you're missing the point. I think you are ignoring it.
Salvation does not require Paul. Christians were saved before Paul, and without his doctrines.

My point is clear: Christians are saved without knowing Paul's doctrines;

Now let's talk about what my point means in *practice* once we move from salvation issues into Paul's theology (and Jethro has done it from his quite respectable perspective as well.)

Jesus said, if you love me -- "keep my commandments"
Jesus also said to the apostles -- "He who hears you, hears me"

If you choose to insist that obeying any of the law requires you to obey all, (and I mean Paul's LAW) and that OBEDIENCE to part of the law makes a person cursed; then you automatically imply that Paul created a curse the *very* moment he wrote the women's law; also that this new curse is by the Holy Spirit, requiring a husband to silence his wife in church.

1Cori 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Cori 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1) Obeying Paul's directive, means obeying a "law"
2) Not silencing women, means disobeying Paul's authority -- and incurring Paul's condemnation.

That's why I need a clear explanation of the LAW given above; and nothing else;

As long as you say Paul MEANT (your interpretation of Paul) that obeying any part of the law puts that person under a curse; You are saying Paul puts every married man under a curse.
(And many a husband will agree!!!!!)

For this reason, I can't accept that you understand Paul -- NOR do you understand Jesus Christ for as long as you are unable to interpret him consistently;

Regarding the fire and brimstone type polemics you are voicing:
If you attempt to Judge me by Paul; then let Paul be your judge.
For Jesus said:

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

I don't judge your salvation based on Paul.

OTOH: If you ignore Paul's law (on women), and teach others to do so, then you have denied that Paul is really a judge -- he's just a "suggestion".
If that's the case, I think we can walk away from the conversation just fine.
Paul's judgment is irrelevant.

But I think the *real* problem is that you don't know how to identify correctly which Law Paul is talking about; for he uses the same word "law" to mean different things in different places; That's Ignorance which Peter identifies as dangerous when reading Paul.

Final note: The law on women in Church was NOT invented by Moses (alone); Claiming it was given by Moses is demonstrable ignorance.

 

[Drew]

The subject title says it all. I have had different answers to this question from people I know. What does this forum think?

First, people need to understand that the Law of Moses was given to Jews and Jews alone. If one is going to argue that non-Jews of our day are to follow the Law of Moses, one would need to make that case. I think that would be hard to do - although Paul does sometimes talk of the Church as the true Israel, he is otherwise quite clear that the Law of Moses was "retired" at the cross (strictly speaking, shortly after the cross).

I believe that no one - neither Jew nor Gentile - is supposed to follow the Law of Moses.

Let me deal with a huge conceptual problem that many stumble over: Yes, the 10 commandments are part of the Law of Moses. But it is simply not correct logic to argue that if the Law of Moses has been set aside, that this would mean its ok to commit murder, commit adultery, etc.

Let me explain by analogy. Suppose you live a country with a "law" that says "don't kick puppies". Suppose, that for some technical reason, that law is set aside. Does that mean its morally acceptable to kick puppies?

Of course not.

The point is this: No one is under the Law of Moses in the sense that it is not the source, or grounds, for our actions. But that does not mean we are free to do as we please.

Paul explains that we have been given the Holy Spirit to replace the Law as the basis for how we live.

Please do not fall for the mistake of presuming that laws - written codes of conduct - are the only basis for moral behaviour. This is clearly not the case. In fact, no one ever told me that its illegal to kick puppies. And maybe it is not illegal. But that's hardly the point - I do not need a written code to tell me its morally wrong to kick puppies.

 

[JLB]

The Laws of Gods Kingdom were here from the beginning.

They were even seen in His punishment of the angels that sinned in the days of Noah.

Gods kingdom laws are [partially] seen in the Law of Moses.

The Law of Moses was added to the Abrahamic covenant Temporarily, as it is written -

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made... Galatians 3:19

You will not find a clearer answer in scripture concerning the OP, with the exception of - ... He takes away the first that He may establish the second.

Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.Hebrews 10:8-9

and possibly -

In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13

However what remains is Gods Kingdom Laws that are Eternal.

The Law of Moses was added until the Seed came.


JLB

 

[childeye]

pushed the wrong button.

 

[childeye]

Faith in the forgiveness of God that justifies, soliciting a legal declaration of righteousness, all by itself (for forgiveness is the only thing that can remove sin guilt), is the faith that grows up into the ever-increasing fruit of the Spirit

This statement is interesting. I don't mean to be picky, but I don't think forgiveness actually removes guilt by itself. One must understand the source of the guilt, therefore it depends on the reason for forgiveness. Hence I would agree that God's forgiveness justifies because of the reason He forgives. Note that the merciful receive mercy and by what measure we judge others so are we judged. What I believe most people don't see, is that what is being threshed out here is the revealing of one's self as to how much we believe the original lie, that god is a liar and not trustworthy. Or in other words how sure we are of His Holiness. Or, how developed is our faith, how diminished is our doubt. Hence Jesus forgave those who did the worst atrocities unto him, because he knows that God is trustworthy; Wherein he cries My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me? If god were a liar, he would not have need asked.

 

[Mitspa]

The Laws of Gods Kingdom were here from the beginning.

They were even seen in His punishment of the angels that sinned in the days of Noah.

Gods kingdom laws are [partially] seen in the Law of Moses.

The Law of Moses was added to the Abrahamic covenant Temporarily, as it is written -

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made... Galatians 3:19

You will not find a clearer answer in scripture concerning the OP, with the exception of - ... He takes away the first that He may establish the second.

Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.Hebrews 10:8-9

and possibly -

In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13

However what remains is Gods Kingdom Laws that are Eternal.

The Law of Moses was added until the Seed came.


JLB

This very well may be the most clear and evident truth of scripture, that the law has passed away. It is said in so many ways and in so many places "including the Old Testament itself" that I can not understand how so many seem to be unable to accept what is written in such clear terms? I can only look to the scriptures themselves for the answer to this blindness.
2 Cor 3 Says that even until this day, at the reading of the Old Testament and moses, a veil is upon the heart and mind of those who look to the written code. That they can not see the end of that which is passing away.

 

[jasoncran]

lovely a debate on women speaking and or teaching in church..

the orthodox jews don't allow women to learn about the torah as much as men do.that and they sit on opposite sides.

 

[Mitspa]

Not sure what point you are trying to make? Because you read John before Paul epistles, what does that mean?

Mitspa, I don't think you're missing the point. I think you are ignoring it.
Salvation does not require Paul. Christians were saved before Paul, and without his doctrines.

My point is clear: Christians are saved without knowing Paul's doctrines;

Now let's talk about what my point means in *practice* once we move from salvation issues into Paul's theology (and Jethro has done it from his quite respectable perspective as well.)

Jesus said, if you love me -- "keep my commandments"
Jesus also said to the apostles -- "He who hears you, hears me"

If you choose to insist that obeying any of the law requires you to obey all, (and I mean Paul's LAW) and that OBEDIENCE to part of the law makes a person cursed; then you automatically imply that Paul created a curse the *very* moment he wrote the women's law; also that this new curse is by the Holy Spirit, requiring a husband to silence his wife in church.

1Cori 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Cori 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1) Obeying Paul's directive, means obeying a "law"
2) Not silencing women, means disobeying Paul's authority -- and incurring Paul's condemnation.

That's why I need a clear explanation of the LAW given above; and nothing else;

As long as you say Paul MEANT (your interpretation of Paul) that obeying any part of the law puts that person under a curse; You are saying Paul puts every married man under a curse.
(And many a husband will agree!!!!!)

For this reason, I can't accept that you understand Paul -- NOR do you understand Jesus Christ for as long as you are unable to interpret him consistently;

Regarding the fire and brimstone type polemics you are voicing:
If you attempt to Judge me by Paul; then let Paul be your judge.
For Jesus said:

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

I don't judge your salvation based on Paul.

OTOH: If you ignore Paul's law (on women), and teach others to do so, then you have denied that Paul is really a judge -- he's just a "suggestion".
If that's the case, I think we can walk away from the conversation just fine.
Paul's judgment is irrelevant.

But I think the *real* problem is that you don't know how to identify correctly which Law Paul is talking about; for he uses the same word "law" to mean different things in different places; That's Ignorance which Peter identifies as dangerous when reading Paul.

Final note: The law on women in Church was NOT invented by Moses (alone); Claiming it was given by Moses is demonstrable ignorance.

Im am not sure you understand the point? ALL MEN WILL BE JUDGED BY PAULS GOSPEL, IF ANY MAN PREACH ANOTHER GOSPEL, THEY ARE CURSED!
Now the fact that some came to Christ before Paul, has little to do with the doctrins of grace that God delivered through Paul.
And Paul did not add a law that woman could not speak in church! He explained his reasons for this restriction, and also how this restriction could be lifted.
Also the commandment of Christ is "to love one another as I have loved you" As Paul explained, love fulfills all the law.
So again without Paul, no man can understand the gospel.

Paul makes the law in which he speaks very clear! ITS ALL THAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW.
Jesus makes it very clear ITS EVERY JOT AND TITTLE.

now, I have given you a chance to prove that you are willing to be honest in the Word of God. To this point I see no eveidence that you desire an honest conversation?
According to the rules of the forum I cannot minister to you the stern biblical correction that you need. So therefore from this point forward I will be ignoring your post.

 

[About the Son of God]

First, people need to understand that the Law of Moses was given to Jews and Jews alone. If one is going to argue that non-Jews of our day are to follow the Law of Moses, one would need to make that case. I think that would be hard to do - although Paul does sometimes talk of the Church as the true Israel, he is otherwise quite clear that the Law of Moses was "retired" at the cross (strictly speaking, shortly after the cross).

Very well said.
You have a refreshing opinion!

I believe that no one - neither Jew nor Gentile - is supposed to follow the Law of Moses.

I respect your belief; I my self am unsure of whether Jews' are intended to follow them or not.
The Jews no longer have a high priest and will never get one again, so that the Mosaic high priest laws will never be followed again. Therefore: the law of the high priest is retired; and only the Gentiles have a high priest anymore..

However, I don't think that's the only consideration here...
The change of law was not because of the sacrifices themselves, rather it was because of the faithlessness of the sacrifices. The sequence recorded in prophecy (from many places) is summed up:

1) "faithless sacrifices" not desired;
2) but you opened my ear (cleansed my heart)
3) After that, sacrifices are not required (but it no longer says they are not desired )

All three are found in Psalm 40:6 in that order.

Therefore; I think it possible God desires the sacrifice once we "listen" but he won't demand it anymore. (not a burden).

It is in this light, and only after step #3 is true; then verse 40:7-8 to apply; and that also applies specially to the high priest, Jesus:

Psalm 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,
Psalm 40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

But when it comes to the non-high priests....
I found another Psalm; It also speaks the same idea, but for the low priesthood.

Psalm 51:16 shows again God's disgust with faithless sacrifice (sinful).
Then comes the line of surprise:
Psalm 51:19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.

This last line, I think, is something Jews could legitimately do with animals; for even though it's arguable that many Jews convert to Christianity, those Jews are referred to as Christians; and are no longer a separate thing from Gentiles but are mixed;

With that in mind, Paul is talking something special -- that I can't help but think applies to people who have not gone the normal path to Christianity as we know it. romans 11:23-26

Side note:
Psalm 51 is unique in one other way, it is the only psalm that applies to the sinful nature of at least some children from birth: psalm 51:5-6; AKA romans 5:12.

Let me deal with a huge conceptual problem that many stumble over: Yes, the 10 commandments are part of the Law of Moses. But it is simply not correct logic to argue that if the Law of Moses has been set aside, that this would mean its ok to commit murder, commit adultery, etc.

Yes ... murder was condemned from the time of Cain, as was adultery, and throughout Genesis we can see God approving this, condemning that. But even without these proofs -- you are correct.

Please do not fall for the mistake of presuming that laws - written codes of conduct - are the only basis for moral behaviour. This is clearly not the case. In fact, no one ever told me that its illegal to kick puppies. And maybe it is not illegal. But that's hardly the point - I do not need a written code to tell me its morally wrong to kick puppies.

Absolutely.
What you say is so true.

 

[Mitspa]

The OLD testament can not be kept in parts! ITS EVERY JOT AND TITTLE! it is cursed are those who continue not IN ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, to do them.

You must keep the entire law if you are trying to be justified by the law. THAT is the law keeping that is cursed. Not the upholding of the law through faith in Christ's blood (Romans 3:31). This upholding of the law by faith is in fact the required evidence that validates the presence of justifying faith.

Sanctification is the process of upholding the law (summarized in 'love your neighbor as yourself') more and more as we mature and grow up into the stature of Christ (because we have been justified in Christ).

Faith in the forgiveness of God that justifies, soliciting a legal declaration of righteousness, all by itself (for forgiveness is the only thing that can remove sin guilt), is the faith that grows up into the ever-increasing fruit of the Spirit:

"8 For if you possess these qualities (of the Spirit--see context) in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. " (2 Peter 1:8 NIV emphasis mine)

The qualities of the Spirit are what uphold the requirements of the moral law and keep us from being unproductive and ineffective concerning what we know about the Christ and the kingdom. Only the person who puts the knowledge of the kingdom to work through the fruit of the Spirit, bringing increase to that knowledge, will inherit the kingdom on the Day of Wrath.

That doesn't mean they are justified (made righteous) by that work. Rather that work shows them to have the faith that justifies all by itself. Work is the evidence of God's justification, not the procurer of it. And it is upon that evidence that God will judge mankind as to whether they have justifying faith in the blood of Christ. Utimateley, if you can't show your faith in what you do, specifically in 'love your neighbor as yourself', the summation of the law of Moses, you have a 'faith' that can not save you on the Day of Wrath.

What you have written does not change one point I made!
If you use the written code to judge you must use it all, not just this and that. If you one looks to written code to justify themselves in any way, they have fallen from grace and must keep all that is written in the book of the law.
Now the law stands as a witness to Christ, and cannot make a charge of sin nor can it justify a "believer" in any way.

Any doctrine that moves away from being justified FREELY BY HIS GRACE, is false doctrine and is cursed doctrine.
Now I accept that some have not been renewed to the truth of the gospel, and some are yet more subject to the flesh than the spirit. But that does not change the truth.

I would also add that those who judge others by the written code and do not keep it themself are in danger of Gods righteous judgment against those like the pharisee, who are being held unto Gods wrath.

 

[About the Son of God]

This post is mostly for other people, to complete the argument (in self defense); I don't expect or need a response for mitspa.

And Paul did not add a law that woman could not speak in church! He explained his reasons for this restriction, and also how this restriction could be lifted.

I take this to mean Mitspa admits the restriction exists under certain circumstances; therefore my point remains UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

To void my point, it must be shown Paul's law NEVER applies EVER to any christain at any time; or else, it is admitted that Paul made at least some Christians obey a law.

Also the commandment of Christ is "to love one another as I have loved you" As Paul explained, love fulfills all the law. So again without Paul, no man can understand the gospel.

And I do love even Mitspa, who is being my enemy; and I hope he loves me.

But: I knew "to love one another" as Jesus did even without reading Paul.

Paul makes the law in which he speaks very clear! ITS ALL THAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW. Jesus makes it very clear ITS EVERY JOT AND TITTLE. now, I have given you a chance to prove that you are willing to be honest in the Word of God. To this point I see no eveidence that you desire an honest conversation?

Then, I think Mitspa is showing evidence of being blind toward me ?? (Perhaps we are both wrong?)

According to the rules of the forum I cannot minister to you the stern biblical correction that you need. So therefore from this point forward I will be ignoring your post.

That's fine. Peace to you.
The forum's laws are to keep peace.
I did enjoy the conversation, for what it's worth. and I'll now let you alone.

 

[About the Son of God]

pushed the wrong button.

That's OK. It seems I've pushed everyone's wrong button... ;)

 

[childeye]

pushed the wrong button.

That's OK. It seems I've pushed everyone's wrong button... ;)

That's funny and oh so appropo. I've read much of the back and forth. I could be mistaken, but I think it's all misunderstanding. It's not anyone's fault.