When did the Law pass or has it passed away?

[JLB]

"… for where no law is, there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15).

According to Paul, you cannot have sin without law. There are many passages showing that sin continues to exist today (Rom. 5:12; James 4:17; 1John 5:16-17), providing evidence that the obligation to observe the Law also continues to exist.

This same Paul teaches us that "because of Transgressions the Law was added"
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Galatians 3:19

So there was sin before the Law of Moses, for it is written -

sin entered the world through man... Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. Romans 5:20

JLB

I've read through yours and Sons of God exchange about this passage, and if I recall, I agree with his arguments and would use the same. Just not quite in depth though. So we'll just have to disagree on this.

By the language in your response, it is evident you didn't read to well.
The point of contention was not about the passage, rather it was about his understanding of the word until is this passage. He felt it would best be rendered "while". As such, that the word until does not infer change.

In this dialog with you, I am commenting on the phrase "because of transgressions, the Law was added", which is focused on the idea of there being "transgressions" before the Law of Moses.

The point being made to your quote of "… for where no law is, there is no transgression".

This verse of course proves there was "Law" before the Law of Moses, as it is written -... because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws."

It is those Kingdom Laws that remain in effect, even though the Law of Moses has been "taken away".

So it would seem you have no argument, nor do you understand what I wrote.

JLB

 

[Mitspa]

And does the New Covenant annul previous covenants?

(Insert the necessary verse from Hebrews to say it has)

Hebrews 7.18-19

Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Some confuse this verse and mistakenly offer it as clear evidence that the law has been abolished, simply because Jesus Christ is now our High Priest. This confusion is hard to understand, because it specifically states that the law is changed, not abolished. In fact, the author uses the same Greek word, metatithemi, in chapter 11 verse 5:

Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated (metatithemi) that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Here, the translators translate the same word as “translated.†Obviously Enoch was not abolished or deleted. He was simply transferred or translated into the Heavenly realms without seeing death.

Strong’s defines the word to literally mean to translate or carry over something. As one incorporates this into the overall teaching that the letter to the Hebrews is offering us, it is quickly apparent that all verse 12 is stating is that the priestly laws that were once laws for the Levitical (imperfect) priesthood, are now transferred in responsibility to our perfect High Priest Jesus Christ (Yeshua), thereby removed from the Levitical priesthood and established with Jesus Christ (Yeshua) as our new High Priest.

Which goes to the verses you cited Farouk

Hebrews 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

it states there is a disannulling of a commandment, not commandments. If it was the whole law of Moses being cancelled then we would be dealing with more than one commandment. The law is not weak and unprofitable, however; the author does not clarify yet at this point what is weak and unprofitable. Later we discover it is the sinful man administration of the priesthood that is causing the weakness, which is the root cause of the problem at hand.

In verse 12 when reading verse 18. We know the commandment was not erased, but transferred, or removed from the Levitical Priesthood to Yeshua (Jesus) in the order of Melchizedek.

The Greek word for disannulling (athetesis) explains what is happening. Athetesis means “to set aside something, to refuse to recognize its validity, or the complete removal of something“

To the Levitical Priesthood, the commandment that placed them in charge of the High Priesthood, it was “set asideâ€, and “removed,†and “they were longer recognized†as the administers of the Priesthood, but in fact, as verse 12 already clearly stated, the law was not thrown out the window, but handed off, or transferred, to the perfect administrator, Jesus He, unlike the Levites, was without sin.

Ezekiel 36:26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

The New Covenant is about changing the people, not changing its laws.

Heb 8:19
Of course if one reads this chapter in context with the whole book of Hebrews in context with the New Testament, There is no doubt about the law and that it has been annulled.
Heb 8:6-7

And by the way if ANY PART "jot or tittle" of the law has passed, all has past.

 

[Ryan]

In case you missed it.
...
The complete ushering in yet of the New Covenant is still not in full effect. Read Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31 carefully.

Although I do understand what you are intending to say, I also have read carefully. I will continue to trust that my observation is correct about the SPECIFIC section of the law regarding sexual immorality and it's subset 'bestiality' and that this is indeed written on your heart (at least as well as it is written on mine). Kindly consider taking a different tack in this discussion regarding the topic of sexual immorality which is covered well in all covenants, that of the Old, that of the Written New and that which has been written, is being written and will continue to be written, on your heart and hopefully mine as well. In other words, look there in the fleshly tablets of your heart. If you need further help from any startling evidence that you may find that contradicts my assumption (and the Law as explained by God in any method of your choosing) you may open another thread in the Christian Help and Advice forum, or in the Men's Locker Room or elsewhere as the Lord guides you.

I'm just saying nowhere does it say the law written on our hearts, will be a different one from the Law of Moses. If one thinks there was an ushering in of the New, to replace the Old, God seemed to of forgotten some pretty key stuff. Covenants are layered on top of each other, they do not cancel each others out. It is no different then getting marriage vows renewed. Do the marriage vows cancel out the original ones made?

Psalm 19:7 The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

Why would he get rid of something that is perfect?

But without the law we would not know what sin is. Is it logical to believe we do not need the commandments of God anymore with the coming of Messiah we are perfected to the point we no longer need His commandments to guide our lives? If that is the case, why don't we lay our bibles down, and allow the Spirit and the Law written on our hearts guide us?

 

[Mitspa]

In case you missed it.
...
The complete ushering in yet of the New Covenant is still not in full effect. Read Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31 carefully.

Although I do understand what you are intending to say, I also have read carefully. I will continue to trust that my observation is correct about the SPECIFIC section of the law regarding sexual immorality and it's subset 'bestiality' and that this is indeed written on your heart (at least as well as it is written on mine). Kindly consider taking a different tack in this discussion regarding the topic of sexual immorality which is covered well in all covenants, that of the Old, that of the Written New and that which has been written, is being written and will continue to be written, on your heart and hopefully mine as well. In other words, look there in the fleshly tablets of your heart. If you need further help from any startling evidence that you may find that contradicts my assumption (and the Law as explained by God in any method of your choosing) you may open another thread in the Christian Help and Advice forum, or in the Men's Locker Room or elsewhere as the Lord guides you.

I'm just saying nowhere does it say the law written on our hearts, will be a different one from the Law of Moses. If one thinks there was an ushering in of the New, to replace the Old, God seemed to of forgotten some pretty key stuff. Covenants are layered on top of each other, they do not cancel each others out. It is no different then getting marriage vows renewed. Do the marriage vows cancel out the original ones made?

Of course its very different! The written code was a shadow of that which was to come. The law of sin and death.
The ministry of condemnation and death, written and engraved in stones. 2 Cor 3
Its purpose was to make all guilty before God.
The New Covenant is the Spirit that makes all righteous based upon the Faith in Christ.

The old letter demands righteousness and brings death, the Spirit gives righteousness and life.

This is why it is written the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

For example circumcision is a work of the Spirit, by the letter it is a work of mans efforts to attain righteousness.

The sabbath is a carnal commandment and the keeping of a temporal day.
The Truth Sabbath is the ETERNAL DAY, and the eternal rest we enter when we cease from our own works.
Heb 4

The natural mind cannot know the spiritual meaning of the law.
It is hidden from the natural man.
The Holy Spirit alone teaches the spiritual fulfillment that was represented in the written code.

 

[Drew]

"… for where no law is, there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). According to Paul, you cannot have sin without law

The text below from Romans 5 illustrates that Paul believes that while sin is not "imputed" in the absence of law, there is indeed a sense in wihch sin "exists" in the absence of law:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for [h]until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [i]type of Him who was to come.

What was the offence of Adam? He disobeyed a command. So I think its pretty clear that Paul is saying that sin is there even in the absence of law - his point is that death - which is the consequence of sin - existed in the "lawless" period between when Adam was given a "law" (a command not to eat) and when God delivered the Law of Moses at Mount Sinai.

Not sure whether this is relevant, but I think its worth mentioning.

I am from the camp that believes that the Law of Moses has essentially "passed away" and we now have the Holy Spirit as the "informing source" that governs how we should live.

 

[Drew]

Why would he get rid of something that is perfect?

Because, as of the Cross, the Law of Moses had fulfilled it purpose - it had achieved its goal.

I think it clear that both Paul and Jesus believe the Law of Moses has come to an end.

Paul makes a number of direct statements to this effect plus he also (in Romans) gives us an explanation as to why the Law of Moses has come to an end.

Jesus clearly violates the Law of Moses a number of times, not least in his clear statements that "no food makes a Jew unclean". That statement is in direct contradiction to the Law of Moses.

Yes, I am aware of Matt 5:18, and I am prepared to argue that Jesus is using a common literary device when He makes that statement about the Law staying around "till heaven and earth pass away".

 

[Ryan]

"… for where no law is, there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). According to Paul, you cannot have sin without law

The text below from Romans 5 illustrates that Paul believes that while sin is not "imputed" in the absence of law, there is indeed a sense in wihch sin "exists" in the absence of law:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for [h]until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [i]type of Him who was to come.

What was the offence of Adam? He disobeyed a command. So I think its pretty clear that Paul is saying that sin is there even in the absence of law - his point is that death - which is the consequence of sin - existed in the "lawless" period between when Adam was given a "law" (a command not to eat) and when God delivered the Law of Moses at Mount Sinai.

Not sure whether this is relevant, but I think its worth mentioning.

I am from the camp that believes that the Law of Moses has essentially "passed away" and we now have the Holy Spirit as the "informing source" that governs how we should live.

Welcome to the ruckus

If you followed back along a few posts, I just pointed out as an argument bestiality is nowhere cited in the Gospels or Epistles as a sin. So in essence, we are starting out with a clean chalkboard and God has rewrote everything into this New Covenant. A so called Old Covenant that is fading, or has faded away, one cannot grasp onto a commandment from the OT not stated in the New Covenant, and says it applies to us. That's the logic presented. What defined sexual immorality? Well you cannot go back and look at the Law of Moses because it has faded away. What defines holiness and how to be holy? Well then you can't look at Leviticus 11 and Leviticus 20 that explains how one is to set them apart as stated in 1 Peter 1:15-16. You have to look only at the New Covenant as one has "faded" away. I do not believe this of course, but am only using the argument and logic presented to highlight this way of thinking doesn't make sense. Of course bestiality is a terrible sin, as said in the Torah. But who are we to pick and choose which ones are still relevant and practical or our lives. I'll use an example:

There has been arguments made tattooing is ok as it was in the Law and has now passed away. Fine, great. But then in the same breath, use the Law as justification for getting those great big huge earring holes because Exodus 21:6 gives permission for a master to drive an awl through the ear to signify the redemption of a slave. So one is not practical because it doesn't conform to our sensibilities, but the other is permissible even though they are both coming from the Law. 1 Timothy 1:8. I am sure I will hear about this, but was only using it as an argument about commandments that are picked out when we do, or do not agree with them.

 

[Ryan]

Why would he get rid of something that is perfect?

Because, as of the Cross, the Law of Moses had fulfilled it purpose - it had achieved its goal.

I think it clear that both Paul and Jesus believe the Law of Moses has come to an end.

Paul makes a number of direct statements to this effect plus he also (in Romans) gives us an explanation as to why the Law of Moses has come to an end.

Jesus clearly violates the Law of Moses a number of times, not least in his clear statements that "no food makes a Jew unclean". That statement is in direct contradiction to the Law of Moses.

Yes, I am aware of Matt 5:18, and I am prepared to argue that Jesus is using a common literary device when He makes that statement about the Law staying around "till heaven and earth pass away".

Jesus could not contradict his Father, or go against his will.

Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

A false prophet was defined by this verse. That is why the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus in anything and asking him "is it not lawful..." questions. Matthew 12:2, Matthew 19:3, Matthew 22:17. They were trying to have Jesus contradict the Law of Moses, and then label him a blasphemer because he had taught against the Word of God. But they had perverted the Word and were called hypocrites many times. Jesus was bringing clarity to his Word, not replacing it with version 2.0. Everything he said was in agreement with the Law. He could not add or take away anything. That would be considered blasphemous.

 

[Sparkey]

I'm just saying nowhere does it say the law written on our hearts, will be a different one from the Law of Moses.

From the law written through Moses and given to the children of Israel, as amended by what we find in the New Testament? Because now you're taking to me and I don't like loopholes. Nail it down for me, brother. But be careful because I've not only studied, I've also walked this and experience has a ready reply to theory, as you know. Here's what I know. This "law", no matter what form, has been given for reason. That's where our hearts are drawn as we "reason to gather".

 

[Ryan]

I'm just saying nowhere does it say the law written on our hearts, will be a different one from the Law of Moses.

From the law written through Moses and given to the children of Israel, as amended by what we find in the New Testament? Because now you're taking to me and I don't like loopholes. Nail it down for me, brother. But be careful because I've not only studied, I've also walked this and experience has a ready reply to theory, as you know. Here's what I know. This "law", no matter what form, has been given for reason. That's where our hearts are drawn as we "reason to gather".

I ask, why would God have to amend his law? Was it the law at fault?
Psalm 19:7 The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

Or was it the people?

Jeremiah 31:32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.

Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, He says, “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, When I will effect a new covenant With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;

Would you not agree the promise was the Holy Spirit as the helper?

But did God say anywhere he would write a "new law" onto our heart? But again, this Covenant is not fully implemented yet. This is another argument, but Israel has still not reached national salvation as stated later in the Covenantal agreement.

 

[childeye]

"But now we are delivered from the law" - We are

delivered from the condemnation of the Torah that came when we tried to
follow
it outside of faith and failed. Remember blessings and curses
from the Torah
(Deuteronomy 30:19)? What was the first curse of
disobedience? Think of Adam
and Eve.

"... being dead
wherein we were held" - Because Jesus paid the penalty (by His death), for our
violation of God's Torah, we have been released from this sentence (the fruit of
unbelievers is death, Romans 7:5). We are not released from the entirety of
Torah however, only certain aspects, (i.e., its condemnation) just as the woman
in the analogy of Romans 7:1-4, was only released from certain aspects of the
Torah.

"... serve in newness of spirit" - Those of the Spirit continue to
"serve" (follow Torah - Romans 8:2-8)

"... not in the oldness of the
letter." - Outside of faith, we can only grasp at the "letter of the Law." We
are no longer to serve God in a lifeless spirit of self-righteous legalism, or
misuse of God's Torah. We are now to follow it out of love of God, as Torah is
holy, righteous and good (Romans 6:12), as well as spiritual (Romans 6:14).

Wow Ryan. I get here this Monday morning and find that you seem to be at the present, the most popular poster on this thread. Everyone wants to write and respond to the things you say.

Above you say we are to follow it out of love of God. Your love for the law is obvious to me. I do agree with a lot of what you say. But as I have said before, this discussion is a futile excercise in semantics. I can only shake my head at the discrepencies that leave people wondering. Can God create a rock that He Himself cannot Lift?

Did Jesus not lead a sinless life according to his

Word and Torah? To me, Jesus led a sinless life because he was conceived
by
the Holy Spirit and not of the seed of Adam..

What determined sin
though? It was the Torah.

Respectfully, it seems as if you have bypassed or dsimissed the transcendency of my statement. I will rephrase; Jesus did not live a sinless life because of the Torah. He did however die a sacrificial and gruesome death because of those who administered Torah.

Could Jesus contradict his own Word and preach another Gospel? I don't see how, the Gospel is all about him..

So the question is, how could Jesus preach a different Torah, change,
annul,
amend things? What were the Pharisees trying to do the entire
time?

Mark 12:13 [ Jesus Answers the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes ] Then
they *sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Him in order to trap Him in a
statement.

They were trying to trap him in anything against the Torah.
He was speaking the truth of his Word, but with authority and insight. What is
truth?

Did truth change somehow?

Granted the Truth does not change because the Truth is testifying to the Eternal Spirit of Love. And therefore such is the Truth that mercy is greater than justice and hypocrisy from hypocrits is not even justice.

How could follow in the truth be different before to after Jesus? Are
there two truths?

No there is One Truth even as their is only One God.

Nor could he preach or teach contrary to his Word. Many examples of great
intercession to hold off judgement on people. Stand in the gap so to speak.

Agreed.

Could Jesus preach obedience to himself and ignore the instructions from the Torah? John 10:30 The way I see it,If God wanted to kill a man for who had done no wrong, He has every right to even if the Torah forbids it. As Job said, The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away. Jesus has been given all authority, so yes he is not bound by the Torah. He will smash men like jars of clay..

The Bible disagrees. He can do no wrong and is the perfect judge. The Psalms
speaks to the Torah's perfection.

I fail to see where God would do wrong if He destroyed all men for no reason at all. It is by His grace that men have Life to begin with.

If it was not perfect, how could he ever operate outside of it?

This statement is hard to wrap my head around. Did you make an error in wording here by putting not in front of perfect? For it seems you meant to ask, "If it were perfect how could He operate outside of it?" Personally, I believe the law was a trap for Satan and the vanity that began in him. And unto that end, I think it worked perfectly.

 

[Sparkey]

Introductions may be in order. Drew? This is Ryan. He has an appreciation for the Books written prior because his heritage and ancestry includes those who were set apart (Hebrew). I do too, by the way, because my blood is tied to his too, thank God.

Ryan? This is Drew. My blood is tied to his too, just by the way. But you already know we not really talking about "my" blood, made from my bones, but talking about the precious blood of another which is shed for all of us. Drew has a solid (unshakable?) opinion on matters of law and has withstood years upon years of challenges to the ideas that I trust will be advanced here. Some have resorted to name calling and even I (before I was a Mod) came close. (still sorry, Drew) - not because we can disagree, but because there is no call for that. I would issue myself a retro Warning if I were not already corrected in it. That's mostly because he's also very tenacious while discussing in a highly disciplined and reasoned manner.

So, yes. Welcome to the "ruckas".

**************************

As far as the topic regarding "stony tablets vs. fleshly tablets" I must ask, "What is the difference between stone and flesh? Okay, sure. One is more pliant than another? Well, that could be. Maybe. But we've all seen some very stony hearts in the expression of various concepts. Is it truly a character of flexibility that defines the chief difference?

I think no. Getting right down to brass tacks, we see that the chief difference between stone and flesh is that one is alive. The other is not. One may be animated (as evidenced by the very animated conversations here) and the other may not. One may breathe (and I'm thinking pneuma here) where the other may not. One may move on its own volition and the other may not. And that, my friends is the chief difference and that last part, where one may move of its own volition, where the other (the stone) may not, is also the part that comprises the chief struggle we face.

It's good to consider God in all things, to love Him with all our heart and with all our mind and with all our strength. When we do so, it will be visible by the love, the willingness to move, for our brothers and sister. It will be seen.

The whole "moved by self" vs. "moved by others" things is what I think of as the chief difference between rock and heart.

Cordially,
Sparrow

 

[childeye]

I hope everyone had a blessed Easter!
He has risen as he said! Hallel Jah! Halleluia alleluia, Amen.

Amen and Glory be to God and His Christ.

 

[Sparkey]

But did God say anywhere he would write a "new law" onto our heart?

This new agreement or covenant is what God declared. The "new" part includes whatever God does, automatically. I don't think that there is any difference that may be found in the purpose of God anywhere but there is a "more sure word". What is Prophecy exactly? Was there a change made to the "office of the Prophet" and is that change visible between the two main Covenants? But I think we may be running down a bunny hole here, unless we can agree about the chief difference between stone and flesh, it might be difficult enough to get up the speed and swiftness of foot necessary to chase that rabbit together, right?

 

[Sparkey]

But again, this Covenant is not fully implemented yet. This is another argument, but Israel has still not reached national salvation as stated later in the Covenantal agreement.

This is a true saying. Things will continue to change. We can look forward to that. Part of what I'm seeing is the image of you and I putting one leg each into a gunny sack and then trying to chase various rabbits. It's comical. It's fun. It's not profitable. But there may be something that we can together do. I'm for that, and will bow out of the conversation and continue to watch while interjecting thoughts as the spirit moves, so to speak...

 

[Ryan]

Wow Ryan. I get here this Monday morning and find that you seem to be at the present, the most popular poster on this thread. Everyone wants to write and respond to the things you say.

Above you say we are to follow it out of love of God. Your love for the law is obvious to me. I do agree with a lot of what you say. But as I have said before, this discussion is a futile excercise in semantics. I can only shake my head at the discrepencies that leave people wondering. Can God create a rock that He Himself cannot Lift?




Respectfully, it seems as if you have bypassed or dsimissed the transcendency of my statement. I will rephrase; Jesus did not live a sinless life because of the Torah. He did however die a sacrificial and gruesome death because of those who administered Torah.

Could Jesus contradict his own Word and preach another Gospel? I don't see how, the Gospel is all about him..

So the question is, how could Jesus preach a different Torah, change,
annul,
amend things? What were the Pharisees trying to do the entire
time?

Mark 12:13 [ Jesus Answers the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes ] Then
they *sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Him in order to trap Him in a
statement.

They were trying to trap him in anything against the Torah.
He was speaking the truth of his Word, but with authority and insight. What is
truth?

Did truth change somehow?

Granted the Truth does not change because the Truth is testifying to the Eternal Spirit of Love. And therefore such is the Truth that mercy is greater than justice and hypocrisy from hypocrits is not even justice.

How could follow in the truth be different before to after Jesus? Are
there two truths?

No there is One Truth even as their is only One God.

Nor could he preach or teach contrary to his Word. Many examples of great
intercession to hold off judgement on people. Stand in the gap so to speak.

Agreed.

Could Jesus preach obedience to himself and ignore the instructions from the Torah? John 10:30 The way I see it,If God wanted to kill a man for who had done no wrong, He has every right to even if the Torah forbids it. As Job said, The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away. Jesus has been given all authority, so yes he is not bound by the Torah. He will smash men like jars of clay..

The Bible disagrees. He can do no wrong and is the perfect judge. The Psalms
speaks to the Torah's perfection.

I fail to see where God would do wrong if He destroyed all men for no reason at all. It is by His grace that men have Life to begin with.

If it was not perfect, how could he ever operate outside of it?

This statement is hard to wrap my head around. Did you make an error in wording here by putting not in front of perfect? For it seems you meant to ask, "If it were perfect how could He operate outside of it?" Personally, I believe the law was a trap for Satan and the vanity that began in him. And unto that end, I think it worked perfectly.

Getting a headache with multi quoting thing going on. But what defined sin as Jesus lead a sinless life and what Paul spoke to.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

Jesus had to live a sinless life according to his Torah, or he would not have been the sacrificial Lamb of God. God defined sin, Jesus lived out the sinless life.

God could not, and would annihilate every single one of us if he desires in a whim. His Word doesn't say he would. It always speaks to the mercy, patience and ever abounding love he has for his own. And yes, that was a typo.

Explain this passage then from Isaiah if you could.

Isaiah 2:3. And many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, To the house of the God of Jacob; That He may teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths.” For the law will go forth from Zion And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

And parallel passage in Micah 4:2

Further, in Revelation, speaks to holding and abiding to he commandments of God.

Revelation 12:17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Revelation 14:12 Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

Time is coming up soon I believe. I hope for a pre-trib rapture, but will probably not happen. When the Two Witnesses arrive on the scene and preach a message of repentance, what would you do if they preached a message of faith in Jesus in return to the Torah? Just food for thought and to think about it when the time comes?

It's funny, being a good Christian one is already fulfilling many of the instructions from the Torah. Charity, help your neighbor, forgive your enemy, not take advantage of others are all part of it. I'm just sayin, don't cast off things that are traditionally thought of as just for the Jews and for Israel. Cause don't you know?

Zechariah 8:23 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘In those days ten men from all the nations will grasp the garment [tallitz]of a Jew, saying, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”’

 

[Ryan]

Introductions may be in order. Drew? This is Ryan. He has an appreciation for the Books written prior because his heritage and ancestry includes those who were set apart (Hebrew). I do too, by the way, because my blood is tied to his too, thank God.

Ryan? This is Drew. My blood is tied to his too, just by the way. But you already know we not really talking about "my" blood, made from my bones, but talking about the precious blood of another which is shed for all of us. Drew has a solid (unshakable?) opinion on matters of law and has withstood years upon years of challenges to the ideas that I trust will be advanced here. Some have resorted to name calling and even I (before I was a Mod) came close. (still sorry, Drew) - not because we can disagree, but because there is no call for that. I would issue myself a retro Warning if I were not already corrected in it. That's mostly because he's also very tenacious while discussing in a highly disciplined and reasoned manner.

So, yes. Welcome to the "ruckas".

**************************

As far as the topic regarding "stony tablets vs. fleshly tablets" I must ask, "What is the difference between stone and flesh? Okay, sure. One is more pliant than another? Well, that could be. Maybe. But we've all seen some very stony hearts in the expression of various concepts. Is it truly a character of flexibility that defines the chief difference?

I think no. Getting right down to brass tacks, we see that the chief difference between stone and flesh is that one is alive. The other is not. One may be animated (as evidenced by the very animated conversations here) and the other may not. One may breathe (and I'm thinking pneuma here) where the other may not. One may move on its own volition and the other may not. And that, my friends is the chief difference and that last part, where one may move of its own volition, where the other (the stone) may not, is also the part that comprises the chief struggle we face.

It's good to consider God in all things, to love Him with all our heart and with all our mind and with all our strength. When we do so, it will be visible by the love, the willingness to move, for our brothers and sister. It will be seen.

The whole "moved by self" vs. "moved by others" things is what I think of as the chief difference between rock and heart.

Cordially,
Sparrow

You have a way with words. I wish you were thinking my thoughts while I am typing.

Welcome Drew. Good to have you and your 11000+ posts here compared to my paltry some.

 

[childeye]

Getting a headache with multi quoting thing going on.
But what defined sin as Jesus lead a sinless life and what Paul spoke to.

As I see it, sin is a step in a direction in seperation from God. And the Torah describes what those steps would look like. Hence the Torah describes what Love does and does not do. But this does not make the Torah God. Consequently, the term sin is relative to God Himself.

Jesus had to live a sinless life according to his Torah, or he would not have
been the sacrificial Lamb of God. God defined sin, Jesus lived out the sinless
life.

Respectfully, I believe you missed my point again. Consequently, I am not sure I can agree that Jesus had to live a sinless life according to his Torah. He had to live a sinless life according to his own person is the way I see it. He was born without sin and conceived through the Holy Spirit. But I would agree that Jesus did exist as flesh for the express purpose of becoming a sacrifice so sins could be forgiven. And that indeed was a servitude to the law in that respect. I am trying to point out that God did not write the laws for Himself to keep, since God cannot walk away from God and sin is separation from God. He does not exist to serve the law therefore. His Spirit fulfills the law because His Spirit is Who He is. Am I not doing an adequate job of explaining this concept? I am saying darkness and Light are not equals even as something is greater than nothing. Nothing does not define something, but something does define nothing. Lies came after the Truth and not before.

 

[childeye]

Explain this passage then from Isaiah if you
could.

Isaiah 2:3. And many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go
up to the mountain of the Lord, To the house of the God of Jacob; That He may
teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths.” For the law
will go forth from Zion And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

I would say this describes a time of great learning and unlearning.

Further, in Revelation, speaks to holding and abiding to he commandments of
God.

Revelation 12:17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went
off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God
and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Revelation 14:12 Here is the
perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in
Jesus.

I see no difference between keeping the commandments and walking in the Love that is God. No one here has advocated sin, only that we are flesh and require mercy and understanding, which also is Love.

When the Two Witnesses arrive on the scene and preach a
message of repentance, what would you do if they preached a message of faith in
Jesus in return to the Torah?

I expect the two witnesses to be speaking of the Old Testament and of the New Testament. One is not really comprehensive without the other. In answer to your question, There can be no return to Torah since Christ fulfilled the Torah as should we all. This is the problem with semantics. Man was made in the Image of God, and Satan came and tempted us with being like God when in fact we already were. It is a subtle lie when Satan proposes to a free people that they can be free.

 

[Drew]

If you followed back along a few posts, I just pointed out as an argument bestiality is nowhere cited in the Gospels or Epistles as a sin. So in essence, we are starting out with a clean chalkboard and God has rewrote everything into this New Covenant. A so called Old Covenant that is fading, or has faded away, one cannot grasp onto a commandment from the OT not stated in the New Covenant, and says it applies to us. That's the logic presented.

Not entirely sure what you are saying but if it is what I think it is, I would disagree.

True, we are not "instructed" to abstain from bestiality, but that certainly does not mean that those of us who assert that the Law of Moses has been set aside are forced into the position of saying its OK to have sex with animals.

Of course it isn't. And we have the Holy Spirit letting us know this. We hardly need a law to tell us that its wrong.