When did the Law pass or has it passed away?

[jasoncran]

of course.

I will say it in a jewish way. the curse of the ground and the creation was an example of Gods love for adam and all men.for without it we wouldn't know that there is a God in heaven whom cares about us and sent the redeemer.

 

[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.

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

You said really good things in your post. I was intrigued about How God is showing you truth with body parts. Sounds like some solid wisdom. It causes me to wonder what your job will be in the body of Christ and the Kingdom of God. I hope you have read post #388 regarding what I was refering to when I asked the question regarding the law and sin. Of course you are right, the scriptures don't actually say the law empowers sin. But I did expound upon what I meant by empower when I said "so as to cause sin to abound". That is what I take from the implications when I read these scriptures:

Romans 5:20

King James Version (KJV)

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Romans 6:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

 

[childeye]

of course.

I will say it in a jewish way. the curse of the ground and the creation was an example of Gods love for adam and all men.for without it we wouldn't know that there is a God in heaven whom cares about us and sent the redeemer.

Okay, but not okay. I need to hear you say what I asked you to say. I need to see if you can say it and believe it Jasoncran. It is important to me. Can you say it just like I said it, and mean it? Because if you can't mean it, don't even say it.

 

[jasoncran]

of course. I do thank him for the cross. I do come from a bad background. that is why I emphasized the reading of the word so that one can know what proper love is. my dad wasn't bad to me but neither did he really show love to my mom. thus I must also struggle with that.

jesus set the example of love. but where in the gospels does it show how man should love his wife? paul mentions it in Ephesians.

jesus demonstrated his love for us yet while we who were his enemies died for us. I thank him for that act.

 

[childeye]

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.

Once again, I see us dealing with semantics here. I would submit that there is a difference between what I would call works of faith and works of the law. While the ends may be the same, the reasons or intents may not. As I understand the law, there is a reason for it seen through the eyes of the one who ordains it. But I also see that with any good motive for law, Love must be both the cause and purpose of the law. So as to say, that the law was meant to be beneficial when followed and is a blessing in it's self to all of society, not just the doer of it. For I surmise that in this world it is possible that there is even a punishment for doing what is right sometimes according to the law, in which case the servant of Love would break the law because he must follow the law of Christ. Moreover, I would do the law of Christ not for the sake of being blessed by God nor in avoidance of being cursed, but because it is the right thing to do by faith. But of course I do not perceive that such is your intent or sentiment, for you point to a heavenly hope.

Personally and in all honesty, I do not hear the slogan "ignore works" as "be lazy". Because of semantics however I do understand how it could be perceived that way, and perhaps even some mean it that way, but I would rather not choose to believe that is what they mean. I also can grasp the concept that there are works we will do therefore out of Love that we did not see coming. And what I mean by this is that God's Spirit would then surprise us as to where we find the courage to sacrifice ourselves, and then we would say "Thank You", to God and not, "You're welcome".

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.

Yes, the seeking of God to me is a finding of one's self. And it is good to find His righteousness not in one's self by volition, but by God's providence. For without this, there can be no honesty, nor should the impure of heart wield power.

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;

Ah, a correction in my use of language. I rejoice that God has sent someone onto the forum with such an eye for detail and exactness. Thank you for any of your attention applied to my lack of skill. You may be surprised at how much a little thing corrected matters to me. Then again you may not be surprised at all.

but of course this happened before there was ever any law according to
my knowledge of the term.

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.

I sense that you wish to validate the need for law and are opposed to lawlessness. I can't disagree with that. Of course you make a solid point about the need for law when you speak about moving funds and causing businesses to collapse. My sincere concern however, is that we have limited our understanding if we frame the issue this way. You have said it yourself, "Love is the basis of law". Our Lord has said it this way,"the law was meant to serve man and not men meant to serve the law", and "I give you one law, Love one another as I have Loved you". Paul said it this way, "Love fulfills the law" rather than, the law fulfills Love. But simply because Love is seen as both the cause and purpose of the law, it cannot be assumed that Love is the result of the law.

You mentiion homosexuality as an example of how the term love can be used to mean those things that include physical attraction. And here you have drawn a worthwhile distinction. But that does not necessarily mean that a gay relationship has no empathy or is only self-serving. Certainly it is an unatural bond if we are to call a man woman relationship the natural bond meant by God. Nor do I know there even is any such bond between gays. But herein lies a problem. For God gave men over to the lusts of their flesh so says Romans 1, and they became abominations which seems to be God's intent. For it appears God did this as a means to show that He alone was what kept us from becoming abominations. Hence in Romans 2:1, Paul says, Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Now I am not gay, but I have been called by Christ's commandment to Love others as he has loved us. I must consider that he loved us in the midst of our sin and therefore I expect that I must do the same. For it seems to me that if God could change a man into an abomination, he can change him or her back. But I don't see this happening concerning gay people. Not that I know it doesn't. I'm just not aware of any. God could also simply not impute their sin, and for all intensive purposes, they would then be sinless. A complicated matter is this judging, best left up to God. Moreover, God's law does not advocate divorce or adultery and only recognizes a marriage as with a virgin. Hence there is already hypocrisy at work when condemning the joining of a gay couple as lawlessness. I do know this. The law will not make a person ungay. I think they want acceptance and my pity for them is to me a sincere sorrow. I better need loathe myself and glory in my own infirmity. For I have seen that we all tend to think others stink worse than ourselves.

Yes, sin is lawlessness, but the law of Christ is forgivness. For if we truly wish to please God, He has told us what He desires. And that is mercy and understanding.

 

[childeye]

of course. I do thank him for the cross. I do come from a bad background. that is why I emphasized the reading of the word so that one can know what proper love is. my dad wasn't bad to me but neither did he really show love to my mom. thus I must also struggle with that.

jesus set the example of love. but where in the gospels does it show how man should love his wife? paul mentions it in Ephesians.

jesus demonstrated his love for us yet while we who were his enemies died for us. I thank him for that act.

Again I apologize, I believe I had the quotation marks wrong and I think you perceived that i just wanted you to say thank you. But please notice all the bold print. This is what I meant to ask you to say and mean it when you say it, or don't say it if you don't mean it. "Thank You to our Father for His Spirit of Love that is our only goodness."
I apologize sincerely. but this is important to me. Please if you would, say what is in the bold print. I would ask you a question afterward.

 

[Ryan]

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.

Please forgive me, but I would respectfully ask that you permit me to hear one thing spoken or rather written here on this forum, from your honest heart. I feel badly for asking this, but would you please, say "Thank You" to our Father for His Spirit of Love that is our only goodness?

Y'-va-re-ch'-cha A-do-nai v'-yish-m'-re-cha;

ya-er A-do-nai pa-nav a-le-cha vi-chu-ne-ka;

yi-sa A-do-nai pa-nav a-le-cha.

v'ya-sem-l'-cha sha-lom.



The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make

his face to shine upon you and be gracious unto

you; the Lord lift up His countenance upon you &

grant you peace. In the name of the Prince of

Peace, Yeshua, Ha-Mesheach

Heavenly Father, I lift this thread and all who read this up to you in prayer. We thank you for the sacrifice of your Son, the sinless and innocent Lamb of God for paying the debt for our sins for all those who call upon Jesus's name. Your Word says there is no greater love then one who lays down their life for his friends, and through your life being laid down for us, you paid the debt of death we all deserve for our sins. We've been forgiven, because you were forsaken and we give you all the glory and praise for giving us the perfect example in how to love one another. May our focus be on your Son, and only in him and through him will we be able to transformed into the image our Father so much desires for us. Father, I thank you for putting within childeye a spirit of unity and shalom towards others, and bless him in all that he does. Father, may your Spirit of Truth abound in this thread, in this site and throughout its members. We ask not for carnal, human wisdom, but the knowledge and wisdom that descends directly from the Throne Room. May we humble ourselves, and look towards the Word of Truth and reveal to us the revelations and instructions you would have us to know. I desire shalom with my brothers and sisters in Christ, and pray that through our faith in your Son, and being one in the Body of Christ, we unite ourselves with the love we have for our Savior, our Redeemer, our Master, the one who reigns on high and will soon rule out of Jerusalem. In Yeshua's most precious and Holiest Names above all other names, Amen.

 

[childeye]

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.

Please forgive me, but I would respectfully ask that you permit me to hear one thing spoken or rather written here on this forum, from your honest heart. I feel badly for asking this, but would you please, say "Thank You" to our Father for His Spirit of Love that is our only goodness?

Y'-va-re-ch'-cha A-do-nai v'-yish-m'-re-cha;

ya-er A-do-nai pa-nav a-le-cha vi-chu-ne-ka;

yi-sa A-do-nai pa-nav a-le-cha.

v'ya-sem-l'-cha sha-lom.



The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make

his face to shine upon you and be gracious unto

you; the Lord lift up His countenance upon you &

grant you peace. In the name of the Prince of

Peace, Yeshua, Ha-Mesheach

Heavenly Father, I lift this thread and all who read this up to you in prayer. We thank you for the sacrifice of your Son, the sinless and innocent Lamb of God for paying the debt for our sins for all those who call upon Jesus's name. Your Word says there is no greater love then one who lays down their life for his friends, and through your life being laid down for us, you paid the debt of death we all deserve for our sins. We've been forgiven, because you were forsaken and we give you all the glory and praise for giving us the perfect example in how to love one another. May our focus be on your Son, and only in him and through him will we be able to transformed into the image our Father so much desires for us. Father, I thank you for putting within childeye a spirit of unity and shalom towards others, and bless him in all that he does. Father, may your Spirit of Truth abound in this thread, in this site and throughout its members. We ask not for carnal, human wisdom, but the knowledge and wisdom that descends directly from the Throne Room. May we humble ourselves, and look towards the Word of Truth and reveal to us the revelations and instructions you would have us to know. I desire shalom with my brothers and sisters in Christ, and pray that through our faith in your Son, and being one in the Body of Christ, we unite ourselves with the love we have for our Savior, our Redeemer, our Master, the one who reigns on high and will soon rule out of Jerusalem. In Yeshua's most precious and Holiest Names above all other names, Amen.

Thank you Ryan for your great prayer. I feel silly so I apologize for any misunderstanding. I think because I put the quotations marks wrong, that is why I am not getting what I would like to see you type out here. Again, could you please say this exactly like you see that is in the bold print and mean it? Don't say it if you don't mean it. "Thank You to our Father for His Spirit of Love that is our only goodness."

 

[Ryan]

Thank You to our Father for His Spirit of Love that is our only goodness.

Curious, what test am I passing, or failing? :biglol

 

[childeye]

Thank You to our Father for His Spirit of Love that is our only goodness.

Curious, what test am I passing, or failing? :biglol

Thank you so very much for your cooperation in this experiment. An explanation is coming, but first I would ask you this: Are there any prayers or writings in the Torah that say that God is our Spiritual goodness?

 

[Deborah13]

In Yeshua's most precious and Holiest Names above all other names, Amen.

Amen and Amen

 

[childeye]

In Yeshua's most precious and Holiest Names above all other names, Amen.

Amen and Amen

Amen and Amen.

 

[Ryan]

Thank You to our Father for His Spirit of Love that is our only goodness.

Curious, what test am I passing, or failing? :biglol

Thank you so very much for your cooperation in this experiment. An explanation is coming, but first I would ask you this: Are there any prayers or writings in the Torah that say that God is our Spiritual goodness?

Well Genesis through Deuteronomy speaks to this. But how about start at Exodus 15 after the crossing of the Red Sea and Miriam's song.

As well the Shema in Deuteronomy 6.

 

[francisdesales]

Scripture is so much more fun when it interprets itself, instead of your theological mess that has people being told to be disobedient to God's Good Word.

:p

I am always curious about people who hold to a "canon within a canon", where we must look at Paul (or whoever) and then interpret the rest of the bible based upon one's interpretation of Paul's words, forgeting that the bible is inspired by God - so when major meanings class, we must evaulate our interpretation, not invent a "canon within a canon" that ignores parts of Scriptures because they are not really the "true gospel".

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I have a question for those that hold to the fact that torah doesn't teach. if I have a child(see the avatar) and love her. DO not I set rules for her, tell her no when she does something bad for her. demonstrate love for her by giving to her and also correction?

if yes then that is what the torah is for.otherwise, lets just pray to jesus and not read bible. somehow God will just transform us to his will. yet paul says the bible(in his day it was the tanach) is for correction.

Nobody in this thread has stated the Torah doesn't teach.

Those are your words.

You are mixing together the Laws of Gods kingdom, which are Eternal, together with the Law of Moses.

Laws, commandments, rules, precepts... do not have their origin in the Law of Moses.

They come from God and were here from the beginning.

It started for us with -

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying,
"Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Genesis 2:16

Thus the Law of sin and death was introduced.

As you can see, this did not begin with the law of Moses.

A commandment is something God tells you to do.

Which is not necessarily one of the 10 commandments, for God spoke of Abraham, who by the way was a Gentile, in this manner 430 years before the Law of Moses -

because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." Genesis 26:5

JLB

Good post, JLB. Just because something is in the Mosaic Law doesn't mean it originated there. Some laws precede the Mosaic Law - and so if we say that the Mosaic Law has fallen away, it doesn't mean that the Decalogue has. The Mosaic Law was just reiterating what has already been given to mankind in general - thou shall not kill. It has been incorporated into the New Law of Christ, to an even more strict degree.

Regards

 

[childeye]

Thank you so very much for your cooperation in this experiment. An explanation is coming, but first I would ask you this: Are there any prayers or writings in the Torah that say that God is our Spiritual goodness?

Well Genesis through Deuteronomy speaks to this. But how about start at Exodus 15 after the crossing of the Red Sea and Miriam's song.

As well the Shema in Deuteronomy 6.

Please have pity upon my blind eyes, but in all honesty, I do not see where it says that God is our Spiritual goodness. Here is Exodus 15 and Miriams song and Deuteronomy 6:Exodus 15

King James Version (KJV)

15 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the Lord, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.
2 The Lord is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt him.
3 The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.
4 Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea.
5 The depths have covered them: they sank into the bottom as a stone.
6 Thy right hand, O Lord, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.
7 And in the greatness of thine excellency thou hast overthrown them that rose up against thee: thou sentest forth thy wrath, which consumed them as stubble.
8 And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea.
9 The enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil; my lust shall be satisfied upon them; I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.
10 Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them: they sank as lead in the mighty waters.
11 Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?
12 Thou stretchedst out thy right hand, the earth swallowed them.
13 Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast redeemed: thou hast guided them in thy strength unto thy holy habitation.
14 The people shall hear, and be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina.
15 Then the dukes of Edom shall be amazed; the mighty men of Moab, trembling shall take hold upon them; all the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away.
16 Fear and dread shall fall upon them; by the greatness of thine arm they shall be as still as a stone; till thy people pass over, O Lord, till the people pass over, which thou hast purchased.
17 Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established.
18 The Lord shall reign for ever and ever.
19 For the horse of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with his horsemen into the sea, and the Lord brought again the waters of the sea upon them; but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea.
20 And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.
21 And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.
22 So Moses brought Israel from the Red sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water.
23 And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter: therefore the name of it was called Marah.
24 And the people murmured against Moses, saying, What shall we drink?
25 And he cried unto the Lord; and the Lord shewed him a tree, which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet: there he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them,
26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee.
27 And they came to Elim, where were twelve wells of water, and threescore and ten palm trees: and they encamped there by the waters.
Deuteronomy 6

King James Version (KJV)

6 Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the Lord your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it:
2 That thou mightest fear the Lord thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged.
3 Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the Lord God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk and honey.
4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:
5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.
10 And it shall be, when the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,
11 And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;
12 Then beware lest thou forget the Lord, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
13 Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
14 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;
15 (For the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.
16 Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.
17 Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee.
18 And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord: that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers.
19 To cast out all thine enemies from before thee, as the Lord hath spoken.
20 And when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which the Lord our God hath commanded you?
21 Then thou shalt say unto thy son, We were Pharaoh's bondmen in Egypt; and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand:
22 And the Lord shewed signs and wonders, great and sore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his household, before our eyes:
23 And he brought us out from thence, that he might bring us in, to give us the land which he sware unto our fathers.
24 And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.
25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.

 

[Ryan]

What does stiff necked mean?

 

[childeye]

What does stiff necked mean?

To me, it means to be stubborn.

 

[francisdesales]

I am thinking that spirit animates the flesh; So how is it that flesh can do anything by itself?
What exactly does Paul mean in terms of flesh, a man's spirit,; and my extension to other spirits which may also manipulate his body?

I believe Paul is not separating the body from the spirit, per sec, in his discussion on flesh v spirit. He is taking a holistic approach and discussing 'which spirit leads you - the one that supports your fleshy desires or the one that supports God's desires'. Thus, the ways of the flesh include the man's body, soul, and spirit - and are listed in Gal 5. The work of the Spirit would again refer to a man's entire self, to include the abiding presence of God, Who vivifies (like that old word? ;)) to do the works of the spirit, again listed in Gal 5.

Is Paul, in your opinion, saying that the sinful desires are not something that the spirit (of a man) can choose? For if this "law of sin", is actually in the flesh (not just metaphorically) -- and it's nowhere in the spirit -- then upon death, the spirit is free of sin; it merely needs clean flesh to arise in;

It would seem possible, then, that "sin" is merely the defect of the body, and a medical condition... and medication, or surgery might even remove the devil .... :D !

It would be a defect, when compared to the original state that God intended for mankind, as found in the Garden. The main problem is what we call "concupiscience", the tendency to do evil. That in of itself is not sin, but it leads us to want to do something that ends up being against God's will.

But -- let's move away from Paul's symbology into your more theological idea;

I think there is still a mysterious element of the sin nature/original sin which is passed on by "propagation"; for I am pretty sure that not even Catholics allow for evolutionary polygenesis where sin infects man in "parallel" (Polygenesis are theories of many Adams and Eve's, or races of man from different parents. All must be *from* Adam for original sin to hold -- I post this just to verify the position, not to go off on a tangent.... -- "Humani Generis" Pope Piux XII? circa 1950; google search for it. )

You are absolutely correct. Catholic teaching is flexible on much of the Genesis 1-2 stories, but that Adam is the originator of sin is one we hold without flexibility. It is passed on by propagation, which is something that is beyond the ability to counter with manmade abilities. It is not passed on by imitation.

I look at Paul's writing, and your comment, and I can't help wondering if Paul's statement implies we need a new source of flesh; for that which we have is unclean.

I think you are correct, this would explain "putting on Christ" and doing away with the "old man"...

Jethro has stated the idea that the Holy Spirit cleanses the spirit, but he only talks about water cleaning the flesh -- !! so that must be some pretty powerful water !!

I imagine he has baptism in mind, for through it, we are born again - with a new "flesh". This flesh, again, is the holistic complete version, not just our body excluding our soul/spirit. I think it refers more to a new principle that is now guiding us, which enables us to do "works of the Spirit of God". Tilts the scales, so to speak, since none of us is immune to falling into sin again.

Although the old law certainly had purifications for flesh, and for sin,
Jethro also spoke about there being sin that the law (Old law) could not forgive...

Shadows of the good things to come. Hebrews(Romans also) also notes the patience of God in "passing over sin" until the Christ would come.

Sin that the Law could not forgive? Perhaps the unforgiveable sin, which I believe would be the sin of pride that refuses to admit or ask for repentance. God's salvation is conditional upon our asking for forgiveness. So if we refuse to ask for forgiveness, God does not forgive that sin. So I believe.

For Jethro said: the Law could not forgive certain sins (eg: murder) -- but at the same time; I have noticed that a man's life has a fixed monetary value according to the law of Moses (I can look it up in Exodus-Numbers, but a quick example for now -- Jesus went for a *calculated* price of 20 pieces of silver) They were mistaken concerning Jesus, but none the less -- a normal man's life has a fixed value relative to other men.

Jethro may be correct, I am a bit rusty on that. Man's value - that certainly sounds like something the Mishna would lay out in very legalistic terms.

In a real sense, then (Moses law wise), when a person dies they are "paying" for their sin, for that person has to give up (forfeit) the value of the remainder of their life. It's not entirely clear, then, whether or not the sin needs to be forgiven; for reparation (in some cases) can be made by death. ( this is getting fun ).

Fun??? :D

I am not sure that a man's death is "paying" for sin, since it is not something they control. We don't have that power or knowledge, nor can anyone pay to God (according to the Psalms on wealth) a ransom. Death is certainly the "wages of sin", what we owe God beginning with Adam, but perhaps that is sin in general, for original sin. Death is one of the effects of original sin, which again is not passed down by imitation, but by propigation. So personal sin is not "payed off" by our death, although if lovingly offered to God, relying in His mercy, we are taught that this has some purgative effect. Again, though, it relies on God's mercy, not on the "value" of our own life.

You caught me a bit off guard, so hopefully, I didn't say anything repulsive or heretical!

However, I meant spiritual as only "life giving"; but you are totally correct. The devil is personified death, power of death, (and there's a real devil, TOO!); Yet spirit, as a word, is intrinsically life. So the devil is the exception to the rule.... Is there a foot in mouth emoticon? :crazy

LOL! :silly

But if I am not mistaken, There are historians (A Calvinist mentioned a "St." Augustine, I think, once) arguing against Pelagius around the year ~400; and used the fact that exorcisms were performed in all the churches of his time without exception, during baptism of infants, as a proof that man had a sin nature/original sin -- eg: as a tradition all known churches once accepted; and therefore assumed to go all the way back to Jesus himself.

I know the Saint had a few interesting views that went beyond what the official Church taught, such as mass damnatia. The Council of Orange (the Reformed Protestant's favorite council!) does thoroughly rebuke Pelagius and his ideas based upon a somewhat darker view of humanithy, but not as bad as Jean Calvin or Martin Luther. If I am not mistaken, Origen vouches for an apostolic teaching to the effect that the original apostles were baptizing children, I believe Tertullian and Irenaeus (2nd century) also mention these things. I am not sure if the original reason for infant baptism relied on original sin, since that theology came up later. I am of the view that baptism was the natural replacement of circumcision (Col 2) and it would seem quite natural to baptize those who were formerly circumcised. If memory serves me, I believe there was a big discussion that people shouldn't even have to WAIT until 8 days... I think that would imply that people WERE waiting for the 8th day (as circumcision) before baptizing, and the Church said "you don't have to wait"...

SO, although I'm tracing this from a strictly biblical point, I don't see how your remark about "lack" can in any way really be different, unless your churches don't perform and exorcism any more (rejecting of Satan?).

We still do, and will do so tonight! I am just not sure if the theological issue came up so soon, although there was a sense, yet theologically little explored, that man is born in sin and absolutely needs God's grace.

I realize there is a difference between "concupiscence" and sin; but I don't know that we can really work that out here....

HA HA, let's try to, since the saints say it is better to work it out here then in Purgatory!!!

I know that's not what you meant, it is another thread subject! :p

Back to the "tittles" of the law:
One of the largest correspondences I can see between the old law and the new is on the comparison of Circumcision with Baptism ; so although you might not see the value in exploring possession of babies, yet, I think it's actually very close to the heart of the matter of what "power" the new law has over the "old";

Interesting, probably some truth there. i imagine that Christians were teaching that the Jewish "sacraments" were shadows of what was to come, and that baptism was superior to circumcision, which is the sacrament of initiation. It would seem natural that a jew would baptize their child, just as they would circumcise their child for the same reason. Theological reason? Sure, to buy back or ransom their infant from the demon, i can see that as a line of thinking among the Church Fathers. There is discussion along that lines of Christ's death ransoming back man from satan.

I honestly don't know where it will lead, but I hope by sharing thoughts -- I'll learn something new, or more perfectly.

John 3:5-6

... If flesh begets flesh, then how is it that sin propagates? ( if sin is a lack, what does the flesh lack?)

God's grace that wins us salvation. That is lacking. But again, "flesh" here is more a holistic term, meaning the entire self. I think the Jews were more holistic than the Greeks.

Thanks for the discussion. I hope I can keep up - fortunately, I have had some time before getting ready for the Vigil tonight.

God bless and much regards

 

[childeye]

Thank you Ryan for your wonderful awesome prayer on behalf of all of us here in this forum. It deserves a heart felt Amen. For me personally, you deserve an explanation for why I asked you to say what I had asked you to say. It seemed to me that at the heart of this matter pertaining to the law are two fundamental differences as to how we view God.

For those who do not see any more purpose in the law, we feel that God's Spirit in us will perform the intentions of the law without the law. Whereas those who value the law seem to be saying that the Spirit of Christ is meant to fulfill the law and so the law is still in effect. I was therefore curious to know if people such as yourself recognized how we who have come to Christ without the law view this.

Therefore I felt if I could get you to say it in the most simplest way, there might be some place where we all can say Amen together. I confess I was a little bit concerned that you would not say it, until I realized I had placed the quotation marks in the wrong place. I now feel rather silly about that. Now I am wondering if the Torah ever taught that God is our spiritual goodness, for then I could put to rest certain questions I wonder about coming to Christ from your perspective and come to appreciate what is in the law that you appreciate.