When did the Law pass or has it passed away?

[childeye]

I wouldn't say empowers. rather defines it.

Yes I understand why you would say this. But why does Paul say the law empowers sin so as to cause sin to abound? Don't you think that's an important thing to know? As you say, Sheesh.

 

[childeye]

I understand what you say Mitspa. The semantics are unavoidable and as I have said before, your zeal is real. I do not mean to imply that you are wasting your time, nor anyone else here is wasting theirs. I am simply trying to point out the barriers that exist in the human language that prevent people from understanding one another. I'm just saying.

Well I understand your thought that this issue is not as important as some of us make it, but one should see that this very issue of Gods promise and mans efforts are at the very core of all the scriptures. Many of the wars that have been fought in world history and even in modern history are over this very issue. The Reformation itself was started when Luther read and believed that a man is justified by faith alone in Christ.
Paul spends most of the New Testament explaining this issue, it is at the heart of all understanding of New Testament truth.

So I do understand how it can all get confused, do we do good because we are good or because God is good? Does God accept our efforts to do good? The answer is no His does not, and only that which comes from Him and He works through us is accepted before Him.
1 Cor 4:7

I don't know what I have said that would give you the impression that I think this issue is trivial. I think it is a major pillar which supports a vast host of lies. I only wish to guard myself lest I become a crucifier when I thought I was being crucified. Note: If I think I would not have fallen into the same vanity of Satan without Satan, then is this not the vanity of Satan? Do you know what I mean by this?

Well you seem to speak in riddles? I speak in clear terms. I have no doubt in my positions and stand fast in the liberty in which Christ has made me free. Whether you see the importance of this issue or not I cannot tell? But I know that often some attempt to downplay this issue, when too much truth is being revealed. Or when they find themselves in a place where they have no answer to the clear truth of scripture.
Of course this is not your motives, I am sure?

Okay, so you don't get what I said hence it is a riddle to you. I submit that it is not a riddle. If you understand the vanity of Satan then you should be able to comprehend what it means. I have read all of my posts. I don't see anywhere that I have disagreed with anything you have said. On the contrary I have supported everything you have said. Honestly, sometimes I don't think you see when people are agreeing with you. However, I admit I have once attempted to cool down a heated exchange, perhaps this is what you are refering to. So please forgive me if I have cut your legs out from under you. I can understand that you intend to provoke a response and why. I will try to avoid doing it again.

 

[Ryan]

Th way I see it, you all are discussing the difference between Love and the Law. There is no law without Love and there is no law without sin is a futile excercise in semantics.

The law is love.

Matthew 22:36-40 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and [o]foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”


Mitspa would have you believe that after you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, if you go and celebrate Passover as instructed in Exodus, you are now cursed and would lose your salvation. So because me and my family adhered to Passover this week in the best way we could, we are now cursed. The Law is a call to live out your faith because you are saved. Mitspa believes because Jesus obeyed for us, we are no longer bound to obey because Jesus obeyed for us.

So does it make sense because of me observing Passover this week, and teaching my children the deeper meaning of Passover, which is Jesus Christ, I am now cursed? Mitspa would have you believe that is the case.

Firts of all, thanks for the response. Second, I don't see Mitspa saying what you claim he is saying. That is why I have said , that this is a futile excercise in semantics. Things are misunderstood, misrepresented, misspoken. One person hears other than what another person intended. It is like two people approaching the same Truth from opposite directions arguing over which way is true left and which is true right.

I've read Mitspa's post#336 wherein he says that the Christ is what is forming in our hearts and not the law. I agree with this. From the other side I see Sparrowhawke describing the law being written in our hearts, which is alluding to the same thing, so I agree again. Yet elsewhere sparrowhawke has rightly said that there are no unclean words given to us except for the Name of Jesus. Again I agree and Mitspa concurs. Now you teach the deeper meaning of Passover to your children at an appointed time of remembrance. I see nothing wrong with this. Again I believe it is the same thing being approached in a different way. Does that mean I am wrong if I celebrate Passover everyday and every moment? No it does not, because I am seeking to eat unleavened bread all the time. Christ is the fulfillment of the law. Christ is the law. Christ is greater than the law. All of these say one thing that everyone is looking at, from different distances, different directions, all unique, and perfectly right according to the pure of heart, the cross of the Christ Jesus. And the rest of our words because of their inadequacy to describe what we see, are unclean and always left wanting.

I appreciate your efforts to bring us together. Mitspa and I know clear well where we each stand. Our only agreement is that nobody can be justified outside of believing in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. Where we differ tremendously is what does one do after the fact of being born again? Mitspa sees no use for the Torah, and if one starts to try and follow it, one is now cursed and has fallen from grace. So something like Passover, i would now be cursed for following it. That is why he never responded and said that is not true. He honestly believes that. He cannot accept I follow it because its an instruction from God and those who love God, will obey his commandments. (1 John 5:2, 1 John 5:3, Revelation 14:12) I'm not seeking justification because I already am, I'm just seeking the blessings that come through obedience as he promised in Deuteronomy 28:2.

Mitspa believes the only reason one would follow the Torah, is to earn their salvation. Paul strongly taught against seeking salvation though works. He said it was impossible. But he never said after accepting Jesus Christ as their Saviour, one did not have to follow the law then. Everything Paul said and did, was in agreement with the law. He never taught against the law, he taught it.

So in reality, we are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum. I'm playing checkers, he's playing mahjong. Thanks for looking deeper into this, when I became a believer, I was exposed to the same teachings Mitspa preaches. But it never resonated with me, and I sought the truth through prayer and studying. When one looks at Paul being a Torah observant Jew, and being in complete agreement with the law and never teaching against believers not learning the ways of the law, the scriptures are so much clearer, precise, and true. Contradictions are resolved and the Bible, especially Paul is so much easier to understand. I do not hold the keys to all knowledge, nor profess to. I have an infinite amount of more things to learn. But I hold as truth the law in what can be observed today, is just as practical for today's believer, as it was for the believer 2000 years ago.

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the Lord, “Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’

Obedience to God has always been a difficult message to preach. Jesus knew this and spoke of it.

Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

What is the Word of God?

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Word is Jesus. And when this was written, the only word was the OT. But when we pull away what we do and do not want to follow, or what is only relevant to today's believer to follow, we remove bits and pieces of the very character that God revealed to us through his son, Jesus. He gave us his laws out of mercy and love to a redeemed people to live out their lives so it will go well with them. And when we don't obey, it doesn't really go all that smooth for us now does it? I will stop here and let you digest this.

Psalm 119:146
I cried to You; save me
And I shall keep Your testimonies.

Psalm 119:142
Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness,
And Your law is truth.

If the law has passed, Psalm 119 is a complete sham and should be removed from everyone's bible.

 

[Sparkey]

There are many statements that cause me to raise my eyebrow as I read them within this thread (and others). The statements are close to the edge and I'm left dangling as I ponder the various "at the man" vs. "at the subject" intentions of these many posts. Many statements just skirt the edge and challenge my skill as a boundary marker.

Do make the effort in this and other known controversies. I've not thrown a flag (like I was a line umpire or line coach or something) but I do notice that the rough and tumble sport of Apologetics & Theology should remain open for all players: those blessed with teh skilz and them that ain't so much. One of the skills is to be able to know not to cliff-walk even if you are able --because there might be kids watching who could try to follow example and fail in the attempt and then I would have to throw that flag.

Those with experience know that as they post, they are read and known for the flavor of what they say, as well as the fine-lined content.

Cordially,
Sparrowhawke

 

[Ryan]

I wouldn't say empowers. rather defines it.

Yes I understand why you would say this. But why does Paul say the law empowers sin so as to cause sin to abound? Don't you think that's an important thing to know? As you say, Sheesh.

If you have children, have you ever told them a new rule, only for them the next second later to be doing the same thing you told them not to do? That is what that passage is referring to in simplicity. It is human nature to be rebellious, and to do that which we are told not to do. Now that we know what sin is, there is a realization of the truth and an internal struggle to deal with it. Romans 7 is a difficult chapter. But think of when you may have been given a rule, and that rule invoked in you a response to break it when that opportunity came. Whatever rule that may have been. Or, you were told to not ride your bike on the street when all along that is what you were doing. Now you were told you can't ride your bike on the street, but you want to do it because that is what you did before. My understanding anyways.

 

[childeye]

I see a candlestick with seven candles, and the shape of the candlestick itself suggests that all flames on both sides will go out while the middle candle remains burning. Could it be that the candles on either side of the middle candle use up the same oil that the other candle directly opposite of itself also needs to stay lit? We must love our enemies because they may only appear to be enemies.

 

[childeye]

I wouldn't say empowers. rather defines it.

Yes I understand why you would say this. But why does Paul say the law empowers sin so as to cause sin to abound? Don't you think that's an important thing to know? As you say, Sheesh.

If you have children, have you ever told them a new rule, only for them the next second later to be doing the same thing you told them not to do? That is what that passage is referring to in simplicity. It is human nature to be rebellious, and to do that which we are told not to do. Now that we know what sin is, there is a realization of the truth and an internal struggle to deal with it. Romans 7 is a difficult chapter. But think of when you may have been given a rule, and that rule invoked in you a response to break it when that opportunity came. Whatever rule that may have been. Or, you were told to not ride your bike on the street when all along that is what you were doing. Now you were told you can't ride your bike on the street, but you want to do it because that is what you did before. My understanding anyways.

Yes of course this happens and I agree with this. Deeper still is the question of why does one tend to rebel in the defense of their intense desire to be their own boss rather than submit and trust in a loving guidance? It is because we feel we must prove ourselves. My view of why the law empowers sin is because we are prideful flesh and sold to sin after this manner of vanity. Any attempt to do good out of that flesh is based upon an ignorance that God is our goodness and that there is nothing good in us that is not God's to begin with.

Consequently, if I endeavour to give charity for the sake of my personal stature with God or my peers, it is not out of the pure love of empathy. If I endeavour to even love God with all my heart mind and soul so that I strain with all my might to keep that commandment by my own volition, I have already failed. But when He reveals Himself to me wherein I cannot help but adore Him for Who He is, I cannot fail to keep that commandment. I therefore don't seek to keep the law anymore. But by the Love that I know is Him inside me, for which I am truly thankful, with all purity and confidence, and with all humility, I trust I will do what He intended in the law. I think you know this from the things you write. In summary, the law empowers sin because when I try to prove I am good, I prove I am bad.

See here the problem with semantics:

Romans 2:13

New International Version (NIV)

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
Romans 3:20

New International Version (NIV)

20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

 

[Ryan]

I wouldn't say empowers. rather defines it.

Yes I understand why you would say this. But why does Paul say the law empowers sin so as to cause sin to abound? Don't you think that's an important thing to know? As you say, Sheesh.

If you have children, have you ever told them a new rule, only for them the next second later to be doing the same thing you told them not to do? That is what that passage is referring to in simplicity. It is human nature to be rebellious, and to do that which we are told not to do. Now that we know what sin is, there is a realization of the truth and an internal struggle to deal with it. Romans 7 is a difficult chapter. But think of when you may have been given a rule, and that rule invoked in you a response to break it when that opportunity came. Whatever rule that may have been. Or, you were told to not ride your bike on the street when all along that is what you were doing. Now you were told you can't ride your bike on the street, but you want to do it because that is what you did before. My understanding anyways.

Yes of course this happens and I agree with this. Deeper still is the question of why does one tend to rebel in the defense of their intense desire to be their own boss rather than submit and trust in a loving guidance? It is because we feel we must prove ourselves. My view of why the law empowers sin is because we are prideful flesh and sold to sin after this manner of vanity. Any attempt to do good out of that flesh is based upon an ignorance that God is our goodness and that there is nothing good in us that is not God's to begin with.

Consequently, if I endeavour to give charity for the sake of my personal stature with God or my peers, it is not out of the pure love of empathy. If I endeavour to even love God with all my heart mind and soul so that I strain with all my might to keep that commandment by my own volition, I have already failed. But when He reveals Himself to me wherein I cannot help but adore Him for Who He is, I cannot fail to keep that commandment. I therefore don't seek to keep the law anymore. But by the Love that I know is Him inside me, for which I am truly thankful, with all purity and confidence, and with all humility, I trust I will do what He intended in the law. I think you know this from the things you write. In summary, the law empowers sin because when I try to prove I am good, I prove I am bad.

See here the problem with semantics:

Romans 2:13

New International Version (NIV)

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
Romans 3:20

New International Version (NIV)

20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

I agree. Helping a brother, sister, neighbour, friend, enemy should come from a desire and inclination to love one another. If one is doing it solely to earn brownie points with God, and begrudgingly assist someone else out of obligation instead of empathy as you said, they need to look at their heart. So yes, I believe we are on the same wave length.

 

[About the Son of God]

A mind spinning post. It's a wonder you don't blow a gasket.

The only reason I don't blow one, is God saw fit not to give me one; I thank him for that, although -- if I'd died earlier, it would have meant being with him sooner -- I should hope.

Your definition of law is almost all inclusive with numerous classifications, reason of order and or timing and purpose. I don't pretend to know a lot about what you obviously have spent some time studying. But I think I follow what you are saying. It sounds like you get great joy from delving into the depths of the texts that are inspired and decoding the treasures therein that God has given to find. I particularly like what you say about the marriage vow being inscribed in our very being.

I feel very driven to understand; for it is eternity that we speak of after our life here ends ; and many seem to chant the slogan "ignore works, for all is grace -- be lazy." Yet, Ryan is correct in principlet: Although there is no earning of salvation, there is -- none the less -- a blessing in accordance with our works once we die.

For, if it pleases God that we seek after him to find him; Hebrews 11:6, then it also follows that those who seek him more fully, please him more.
Matthew 6:33 ; and although I have already said so before, notice that passage leads immediately into the passage on Judgment: Matthew 7:1-5 ; and warnings against hypocrisy.

Man is a piece of God, like woman is a piece of Adam,

I agree with the sentiment; though I would say "man is the impression of God" because I don't think a knife works on the immortal... You might like this passage: Acts 17:26-28, where Paul spoke approvingly of a poetic work of some of the Ancient Greeks;

"And [God] has made of one blood all nations of men ... that they should seek the LORD, and perhaps touch him and find him although he is not far from each of us; because in him we live, and move, and have our being; ... for we are his offspring."

but of course this happened before there was ever any law according to my knowledge of the term. I enjoy reading what you write because you enjoy writing what you write.

I'm not sure what to make of the last statement; but considering I talked of parables and "dark sayings", and I see other's reacting as if I infected you with a "riddle" virus.... Perhaps I ought to make a concrete point;


If love is the basis of Law, (and it is), then what we have before us in the courts in the U.S.A regarding homosexual unions being on par with marriage is a strike at love and conscience itself; Yet it is on the very grounds of the emotive value "love" which the opponents of traditional marriage will stake their claim on; eg: in publicity stunt after publicity stunt;
For the slogans taken from the bible can be turned on their ear: "I love my same sex partner, so it can't be wrong for love does no wrong."

The language of love by feeling, is very subjective. Without Mosaic law, which is statutory, then Paul's judgments are going to be seen every bit as arbitrary as the laws forbidding women to speak in church. For: If women aren't silent, why must that be the case with same sex union couples? ( Is there not a reason, excuse, that someone will find? )

Mere horror or shock at the contradictions in certain verses of Paul will not stop this kind of thinking; for people accept Paul here, reject him there, and Paul himself looks the hypocrite in any event when it comes to "being all things to all people'; for that's impossible.

I do believe that probing Paul's sayings, in terms of Christ's parables, and the laws which came before Moses by way of dark parable, are very vital to understanding Jesus himself.

For, it really is as sparrowhawke said early on in the thread (paraphrase) "I need the law, for I am stupid."

The coming of Jesus Christ gave us the Paraclete, but at the same time -- he did not give us omniscience. One of the sins that animals were butchered over was "sins committed in ignorance."; Just so, it is still possible to put a car into reverse and kill a child whom one didn't know was there --- or to move money from one place to another, precipitating an unintended financial collapse of someone's livelihood. There is still an absolutely necessary place for statutory law, even for Christians for many laws deal with subtle points that aren't obvious to even the honest person.

So:
Do we obey St. Paul's rules on long hair, short hair, women speaking; and if not, then why anything else?
For if any of Paul's rules which come from the law of Moses can be ejected, then many will object that the homosexual laws, TOO, are Mosaic in nature.

Each rule of Paul has to be explained and justified; for people BELIEVE things are loving, which other's believe are NOT loving.
And therefore Paul's own words will be used against him, for everyone wants to excuse their sin on account of "grace".

But the fact remains that although we are no longer "under the law" -- John the Apostle warned us that sin is "lawlessness'.
http://biblos.com/1_john/3-4.htm

And I am appealing to the EXACT meaning of the Greek when I say this:
Law is "nomia", therefore lack of law is "anomia".


The very strongest roots of law can be seen in how God made us; and by applying human reason to what God has made though revelation; It's worth looking at carefully because of the environment we now live in.

 

[eddif]

I wouldn't say empowers. rather defines it.

Yes I understand why you would say this. But why does Paul say the law empowers sin so as to cause sin to abound? Don't you think that's an important thing to know? As you say, Sheesh.

Boy this is really going to take a little imput from you. Empowers is not a King James word. I totally understand you are using an often discussed statement, but my little narrow knowledge leaves me a little lost. Kind of like prevenient grace discussions (lots is said about a made up phrase).

I will go here, but I understand we will ultimately have to work through empowered.
Romans 3:20
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

To know sin you need the Law. Law defines sin, shows sin, gives knowledge of sin (I used a word or two myself that are not KJ).



Romans 5:14
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

In Mississippi talk: Sin was around from Adam to Moses, but folks did not know how to really talk about it. There was no way to have theological discussions about all the legal and spiritual aspects of this stuff called sin. In the Law came the discussion of sin.


With the Law came an avalanche of information about sin (not a KJ word either). We can discuss the Law, but we really need to discuss our background words and margin notes we were raised with (sometimes we need to chunk our former thoughts and see what the Word says about a subject). I have some things that I was told that are just not in alignment with the Word of God. When called to examine another thought we tend to go in shock. Our buddies will revoltl and consider us to have lost the faith (our groups version of faith).

I realize I talk in riddles when some here me discuss body parts in understanding God, but those body parts were made by God to teach (another subject).

We need common ground to discuss empowers. Not a ten page source of a teaching on the history of empowers as presented in the past, but look at the scriptures that the original thought came from, and try and work with those words and thoughts.

Imputed was used in one of my quotes. We seldom use imputed today, but I have no problem trying to find modern words to parallel the meaning. It really gets rough in trying to find a set of thoughts that work.

eddif

 

[eddif]

It is going to take a time of Grace to get parallelism / lateral thinking going. I Corinthians 15 has a lot of animal symbolism. There is a good chance that a wasp (?) and its venom (sting) will be an accepted way to see throught the sting of death (and thus the power issue). Romans 1:19-20 always gives me hope in unwinding what is going on.

eddif

 

[jasoncran]

I wouldn't say empowers. rather defines it.

Yes I understand why you would say this. But why does Paul say the law empowers sin so as to cause sin to abound? Don't you think that's an important thing to know? As you say, Sheesh.

with what translation does the word say empower? the WAY YOU VIEW the law is like a legal code. it has that too it. but tell me. why did God in the law(remember any command of moses is a law!) to leave the edges of the fields for the poor? is that not a though shall love thy poor?

 

[jasoncran]

because they are a people separate unto him. the torah was rules that they had to live by. the torah is also whom jesus is. he quoted few prophets. Moses a lot.
v
when he rebuked the devil. he quoted moses twice. the torah is a shadow yes. but that doesn't mean it doesn't show us jesus. if you read the law right you will see the reflection.if you dont know the foundation of why jesus came then you wont really understand the nt at all.

so when jesus said love to the jews. they didn't know it? they had to wait for him to show them love?remember the nt is mostly epistles to the churches dealing with local church issues. few verses are there that really show love. the gospel has it but really its also found in the torah.

jesus said

"love thy enemy"

but moses also commanded.

" if thou finds thine enemies ass astray THOU SHALL NOT FAIL TO RETURN IT TO HIM OR IN a pit.."

I understand that the law says all this, but the Christ in me does it without having to be read it. Moreover, for me to now study the law as a means of knowing righteousness would be a denial of what God has given me by grace, would it not? Please answer that question because that is where this issue is resolved.

so why do we even have the tanach then.?
[MENTION=91415]Ryan[/MENTION], this statement is classic from the church that taught jews were evil and were Christ killers etc.
[MENTION=90220]JLB[/MENTION]. so we don't have to forgive our enemies. only Christ did that.? Christ didn't say we are to love thy enemies. it teaches love in that when we fall short we go to whom can install the love.otherwise. rip out 1 Corinthians 13. of which I was convicted in church for being selfish at times.

 

[Mitspa]

I see a candlestick with seven candles, and the shape of the candlestick itself suggests that all flames on both sides will go out while the middle candle remains burning. Could it be that the candles on either side of the middle candle use up the same oil that the other candle directly opposite of itself also needs to stay lit? We must love our enemies because they may only appear to be enemies.

Ahh childeye! the more I know you and read your thoughts, the more I like you. I read your other post and accept your words as you presented them.

(not directed toward you)
Also I would like to say that Paul did not say that the strength of sin is the law, and then preach the law. He suffered at the hands of the jews for this truth. This is the gospel that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ has set me free from the law of sin and death.

TO BE SET FREE FROM THE LAW, IS THE GOSPEL!

 

[JLB]

because they are a people separate unto him. the torah was rules that they had to live by. the torah is also whom jesus is. he quoted few prophets. Moses a lot.
v
when he rebuked the devil. he quoted moses twice. the torah is a shadow yes. but that doesn't mean it doesn't show us jesus. if you read the law right you will see the reflection.if you dont know the foundation of why jesus came then you wont really understand the nt at all.

so when jesus said love to the jews. they didn't know it? they had to wait for him to show them love?remember the nt is mostly epistles to the churches dealing with local church issues. few verses are there that really show love. the gospel has it but really its also found in the torah.

jesus said

"love thy enemy"

but moses also commanded.

" if thou finds thine enemies ass astray THOU SHALL NOT FAIL TO RETURN IT TO HIM OR IN a pit.."

I understand that the law says all this, but the Christ in me does it without having to be read it. Moreover, for me to now study the law as a means of knowing righteousness would be a denial of what God has given me by grace, would it not? Please answer that question because that is where this issue is resolved.

so why do we even have the tanach then.?
[MENTION=91415]Ryan[/MENTION], this statement is classic from the church that taught jews were evil and were Christ killers etc.
[MENTION=90220]JLB[/MENTION]. so we don't have to forgive our enemies. only Christ did that.? Christ didn't say we are to love thy enemies. it teaches love in that when we fall short we go to whom can install the love.otherwise. rip out 1 Corinthians 13. of which I was convicted in church for being selfish at times.

As I have stated countless times. The Law of Moses was temporary, God's Law, which was from the beginning is Eternal.

To put it another way - Do you think the idea of Love originated with the Law of Moses.

God is Love. His Laws portray Love. This has been so before there ever was an Earth.


JLB

 

[jasoncran]

no but it was given from God.

sheesh why read the bible if we only need jesus?

so god repealed the ten commandments.?

killing is ok?lying is ok?lust is ok?
moses codified merely what was orally passed on a lot of these laws.

those before him also were told not do to them either.

 

[Ryan]

because they are a people separate unto him. the torah was rules that they had to live by. the torah is also whom jesus is. he quoted few prophets. Moses a lot.
v
when he rebuked the devil. he quoted moses twice. the torah is a shadow yes. but that doesn't mean it doesn't show us jesus. if you read the law right you will see the reflection.if you dont know the foundation of why jesus came then you wont really understand the nt at all.

so when jesus said love to the jews. they didn't know it? they had to wait for him to show them love?remember the nt is mostly epistles to the churches dealing with local church issues. few verses are there that really show love. the gospel has it but really its also found in the torah.

jesus said

"love thy enemy"

but moses also commanded.

" if thou finds thine enemies ass astray THOU SHALL NOT FAIL TO RETURN IT TO HIM OR IN a pit.."

I understand that the law says all this, but the Christ in me does it without having to be read it. Moreover, for me to now study the law as a means of knowing righteousness would be a denial of what God has given me by grace, would it not? Please answer that question because that is where this issue is resolved.

so why do we even have the tanach then.?
[MENTION=91415]Ryan[/MENTION], this statement is classic from the church that taught jews were evil and were Christ killers etc.
[MENTION=90220]JLB[/MENTION]. so we don't have to forgive our enemies. only Christ did that.? Christ didn't say we are to love thy enemies. it teaches love in that when we fall short we go to whom can install the love.otherwise. rip out 1 Corinthians 13. of which I was convicted in church for being selfish at times.

Why do we have the Tanakh then? It's the foundation of which every other book, chapter, verse, word, jot and tittle rest upon. It teaches love, justice, equality, mercy, compassion, etc, etc. Not sure what you are getting at with the classic church position about he Jews?:dunno

 

[jasoncran]

since the time of Constantine, whom slew Christians jews and removed most of jewish thinking from the church.. the reformers also didn't change or correct that. im not for making a kosher church but at least study the tanach from the right perspective.many churches teach that ot is done away with and don't read it and also study only the nt.

 

[Mitspa]

Now you who are "born-again" do you not have Gods love in your heart? Is this love not enough to be your law?

How can a man who loves others, even think about stealing from them, of killing them, or taking their wife Etc..

If you do not have this love? you are not a "son of God"
If you will not walk in the law upon your heart, do not deceive yourself, you will not walk by the written code either.

 

[JLB]

no but it was given from God.

sheesh why read the bible if we only need jesus?

so god repealed the ten commandments.?

killing is ok?lying is ok?lust is ok?
moses codified merely what was orally passed on a lot of these laws.

those before him also were told not do to them either.

The ten commandments were around before the Law of Moses.

Abraham learned and walked in these Laws because he learned them from God directly. He learned them through relationship.

This principle is seen in the garden when the Lord gave instructions not to learn "good from evil" apart from Him.

He restated this principle for us in John -

39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. John 5:39-40

Today we are guilty of trying to "learn" how to be "good' apart from relationship with Him.

as it is written -

Walk before Me and be blameless.

as it is said today -

Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

and again -

Apart from Me you can do nothing.

The heart-cry of the Lord from the beginning is Love. To be loved and obeyed by His Eternal Soul-Mate.

for it is written -

It is not good for Man to be alone...

JLB