When did the Law pass or has it passed away?

[JLB]

You have answered with a question again

Ok, for a third time I ask you.

Does the Law of Moses make provision to murder Christ Jesus and His followers?


Please, if you know the answer, then answer with a yes or a no.


JLB

Ryan and I both answered it.

How is it that the mistakes of the Jews, and their misuse and misunderstanding of the law, prove what you claim about the law of Moses? It's unreasonable, irrational theology.

I want him to answer for himself. A simple yes or no.

Then I will answer the question.

Let's you and I re focus on our conversion.

I just finished some "pulled pork" tacos. Sorry for the delay.


JLB

 

[JLB]

How is it that the mistakes of the Jews, and their misuse and misunderstanding of the law, prove what you claim about the law of Moses? It's unreasonable, irrational theology.

You are presuming an answer that I have not made.

My point is Judaism is a perversion of the Law of Moses.

By your "reasoning", do you think those whom had been given much, and had the Son of God murdered, though He was innocent, will have an excuse before God.

You make some of my point by saying, and their misuse and misunderstanding of the law, as if that was an excuse for murdering and innocent Man.

Judaism is a misuse and a mixture of the Law of Moses and man-made religion.

JLB

 

[Mitspa]

Where does this blindness come from? 2 Cor 3:13-15
Do you think that the letter blinds the jew and not the gentile?

THE MINISTRY OF DEATH, WRITTEN AND ENGRAVED IN STONES. (THE 10 COMMANDMENTS)

In the case of the Jews, and any gentile who thinks the same, it blinds the one who thinks it is the way to be justified before God, thinking it is in and of itself the source of righteousness. But somehow you think simply wanting to uphold the righteous requirements of the holy and good law of Moses through faith in the blood of Christ by the Holy Spirit is to be blind and accursed. To believe THAT, my friend, is to be blind.

yes THE LETTER KILLS BUT THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE.
those who look to the written code are in fact blinded by the law!
Rom 7:7-8
Its very clear that one cannot through the written code work righteousness.

 

[Mitspa]

Of course 'false doctrine' is the excuse many Christians use to handle those they perceive as dangers to the sacred doctrines of the church with the cruelty, harshness, and coldness they insist Christianity is NOT all about. That's the scary hypocrisy of the church that shuts the ears of the very people we want to reach. It's especially apparent, and hard to acknowledge, when the one's that get alienated by our 'religious' attitudes are our own unsaved family members.

I'm pointing out that your words reveal the very attitude that murderous, hateful 'religion' is built upon. To what extent you are involved in the actual activities of hatred that attitude carries out, I do not know. I'm pointing out the attitude that under girds that ugly side of us Christians, but which we chastise the Jews for having about the law. We share in the same 'spirit' that put Jesus to death.




I wish this was truer than you claim that it is. IMO, the Church's 'grace w/o rules' is easily the more prevalent doctrine in the church today.

I wish law was mixed up more in it because I think there is more hope for someone who has yet to die to the law than one who has died to the law but who continues in the hypocrisy of the all too popular 'grace w/o rules, leave me alone, I'm not under the law anymore' belief in the church today.




Actually that's YOU that keeps coming back to that same old thing, lol.

I am not nor do not need to be judged by the law of moses, Love fulfills the law. FOR HE WHO LOVES ANOTHER HAS FULFILLED THE LAW.

James and John both use the law to illustrate what love looks like, but you? You don't need that, right? I guess you know better than those who God chose to speak to his people for the rest of human history in the pages of our Bibles.

Yes James, John and Paul! That the law stands as a witness to the Spirit and love in the Spirit.

I have made that point over and over, glad to see you move toward the truth. Maybe my time has not been wasted with you?

I think we can all see who's coming around.

But sadly, it will be that once again you will seem to be acknowledging the truth but will show yourself to really be stuck in the same vein of belief you were in. I've noticed this pattern in your responses when your doctrine gets nailed to the wall.

My doctrine was nailed to the Cross. For I am determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

If you want to agree on the truth? I will place my ego upon the Cross as well and rejoice in the truth with you.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

How is it that the mistakes of the Jews, and their misuse and misunderstanding of the law, prove what you claim about the law of Moses? It's unreasonable, irrational theology.

You are presuming an answer that I have not made.

My point is Judaism is a perversion of the Law of Moses.

That's all?

I don't think you'll get much of an argument out of Ryan concerning Rabbinical nonsense. Certainly you won't from me. And it's hardly an excuse for saying the Law of Moses is utterly done away with.

By your "reasoning", do you think those whom had been given much, and had the Son of God murdered, though He was innocent, will have an excuse before God.

Of course not, but how is this a reflection on the Law of Moses, and how does that somehow connect to the Law of Moses being done away with as the church presently understands that? Connect the dots for me.

You make some of my point by saying, and their misuse and misunderstanding of the law, as if that was an excuse for murdering and innocent Man.

Judaism is a misuse and a mixture of the Law of Moses and man-made religion.

JLB

And this means what, now, in regard to the law passing, or not passing away?

 

[Drew]

So in fact for the "believer" the old heaven and earth have passed away. It is clear for those who desire to know the truth

I would add the following:

1. It is patently absurd to not at least consider the possibility that Jesus is using a figure of speech, and is not being literal. If you read the following statement from one lover in respect to another: "I will love you till the world comes to an end", do you take that statement literally? You shouldn't.

2. Further to point (1), Jesus was heir to a tradition where such "end of the world" language was used to denote changes in the present socio-politcal order. So not only is it possible that Jesus is using a figure of speech here, it is a strong possibility;

3. The Jews of Jesus' day, in keeping with a number of Old Testament passages, saw the Temple as the place where heaven and earth come together. So, in light of points (1) and (2), Jesus could very easily be referring the soon-to-be-realized destruction of the Temple when He speaks of heaven and earth passing away.

So this argument that "the law is still in force because heaven and earth are still here" is very shaky indeed.

 

[reba]

Reading some of these posts I get the idea that some how this list of 'things' is ok

Lust is not a problem the internet will fill that want..
It is now OK to murder
adultery is OK
Have all the gods you want...
kick your mom and dad

the law is gone right? so when was the last time you committed adultery etc. I guess if there is no law there is no sin.. back into confusion If there is no sin what does man have to be forgiven?

 

[Drew]

don't think you read my post earlier explains this passage.

I did read it. And my post is a response to your post.

I can do that, but you also overlooked many examples being grafted in during the OT times. Israel was to be a light to the nations. They failed, often. And I provided ample scripture aliens or foreigners were part of the Sinai Covenant. It is not a mutually exclusive covenant to the Jews, it is for all believers in Christ.

You are not even engaging the details of my argument. I agree: there are Old Testament texts about Gentile being grafted in to the nation of Israel.

But we still have to deal with the Ephesians 2 text! And what does it say? It says that the uniting of Jew and Gentile is effected, yes, through the abolition of a law. You really need to address the details of my argument. No competent writer would expect either Jew or Gentile to believe that these two groups have been united unless either:

1. The scope of application of the Law of Moses is extended to include Gentiles;
2. The law is abolished.

What option does the writer of Ephesians 2 offer. It is clear and unambiguous: the law is abolished. And this law has to be the Law of Moses, and not mere man-made add-ons to it. Why? I explained this in my recent post whose content you have simply not addressed.

It is not enough to point to statements about the grafting in of Gentiles into Israel. Why not? Because that ingrafting can occur together with the abolition of Moses (just as it can occur without abolition of the Law). But the author of Ephesians 2 tells us that the law has indeed been abolished. And it has to be the Law of Moses for reasons I have explained.

You need to actually deal with my argument. This is a common problem here on this board. People seem to think that if certain texts support their position, they can simply ignore other texts that challenge it. Note that I am not doing this: I am accepting that other texts speak of the ingathering of the Gentiles, and have pointed out that this does not necessitate preservation of the Law of Moses. Do you deny this?; do you believe that it would be impossible for God to bring Jew and Gentile together by abolishing the Law of Moses?

If that's the premise you take then, who is the New Covenant with? Israel or Gentile? Because it doesn't say Gentile in the covenant, are you excluded now?

I don't understand your question. I believe that the basic New Testament argument is that all people - Jew or Gentile - are considered to be candidate members of the "true Israel" category associated with the New Covenant.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I had made a comment about (Romans 3) verse 27 where Paul was making a legal argument about the law of works vs the law of faith, and we might think he is referring to the Law of Moses.

Paul goes on to say -

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law [the law of works]through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Because the law of works says that you do something to achieve a goal.

Okay, do you see the flaw in what you're saying? Let me show you:

Do we then make void the law [the law of works]through faith? Certainly not!

Doesn't it make much more sense to insert 'the requirements of the law' in your '[ ]'s? What you are making Paul say is, "'faith makes the law of works void, then? No!" I seriously doubt you want to go on record as insisting Paul is saying that.

What fits better with Paul's 'No' is, "do we make void [the requirements of] the law through faith? Certainly not!"

Which leads to what faith does do in regard to [the requirements of] the law--"On the contrary, we establish the [requirements of the] law (through faith in Christ)."

Makes tons more sense than inserting 'the law of works' in his statement.

The Law of faith says you must believe something to achieve a goal.

However Paul is showing that by faith working by believing what you hear God tell you, you must do what He tells you, for it to be a living faith.

So the law of faith establishes the law of works through obedience.

I'll come back to this.

This works for both Jew and Gentile as Paul states, so it can not be referring to the law of Moses.

Only if you have the faulty premise to begin with that the Law of Moses was only for blood Jews.

Or, maybe it's your belief that Paul intended Gentiles to keep the Law of Moses?

Any gentile living among the Jews was to have the same law as the Jew:

"15 The community is to have the same rules for you and for the foreigner residing among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the foreigner shall be the same before the Lord: 16 The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigner residing among you.’”" (Numbers 15:15-16)

The law itself did discriminate in regard to race and sex, but one and the same law ruled over both Jew and gentile in the community of God's people.

 

[Drew]

Reading some of these posts I get the idea that some how this list of 'things' is ok

Lust is not a problem the internet will fill that want..
It is now OK to murder
adultery is OK
Have all the gods you want...
kick your mom and dad

the law is gone right? so when was the last time you committed adultery etc. I guess if there is no law there is no sin.. back into confusion If there is no sin what does man have to be forgiven?

No one is saying this.

You appear to be saying that if there is not a "law" against X, that its OK to do X.

This is simply not the case. The Spirit-filled believer does not need a law to tell him (her) to not commit adultery, or whatever.

Besides, Paul is quite clear in Romans 5 - sin is still sin even in the absence of Law.

Are you really saying that Spirit-filled believers need a list of "law" to tell them how to behave. Did Jesus - the ultimate "Spirit-filled Christian" need such a set of rules?

 

[Sparkey]

Reading some of these posts I get the idea that some how this list of 'things' is ok

Lust is not a problem the internet will fill that want..
It is now OK to murder
adultery is OK
Have all the gods you want...
kick your mom and dad

the law is gone right? so when was the last time you committed adultery etc. I guess if there is no law there is no sin.. back into confusion If there is no sin what does man have to be forgiven?

 

[Mitspa]

Reading some of these posts I get the idea that some how this list of 'things' is ok

Lust is not a problem the internet will fill that want..
It is now OK to murder
adultery is OK
Have all the gods you want...
kick your mom and dad

the law is gone right? so when was the last time you committed adultery etc. I guess if there is no law there is no sin.. back into confusion If there is no sin what does man have to be forgiven?

Sounds like the same charge that was made against Paul?
Do some of you need the "spirit of bondage again to fear" to obey God? I do not, I obey God by His law written upon my heart. It is clear that no one can look to the written code and obey it demands. Rom 7:7-8

Those who "think" they do are just as decieved as the pharisees was.

 

[Mitspa]

So in fact for the "believer" the old heaven and earth have passed away. It is clear for those who desire to know the truth

I would add the following:

1. It is patently absurd to not at least consider the possibility that Jesus is using a figure of speech, and is not being literal. If you read the following statement from one lover in respect to another: "I will love you till the world comes to an end", do you take that statement literally? You shouldn't.

2. Further to point (1), Jesus was heir to a tradition where such "end of the world" language was used to denote changes in the present socio-politcal order. So not only is it possible that Jesus is using a figure of speech here, it is a strong possibility;

3. The Jews of Jesus' day, in keeping with a number of Old Testament passages, saw the Temple as the place where heaven and earth come together. So, in light of points (1) and (2), Jesus could very easily be referring the soon-to-be-realized destruction of the Temple when He speaks of heaven and earth passing away.

So this argument that "the law is still in force because heaven and earth are still here" is very shaky indeed.

Of course! and just as no one sees with their natural eyes the "born-again" spirit, they can not see with natural eyes the fulfillment of this scripture 2 Cor 5:17

Like all things we look not at the things which are seen, but the thingd which are not seen, for the things that are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are ETERNAL.

 

[reba]

No Drew what I am saying is this ..,. Reading some of these posts I get the idea that some how this list of 'things' is ok

Am I the only person on the whole internet who see some of these posts like this or is some one not making the clear point they believe they are making....

Wow you did surprise me , Drew I did not expect you would try and put words in my post!

 

[JLB]

That's all? I don't think you'll get much of an argument out of Ryan concerning Rabbinical nonsense. Certainly you won't from me. And it's hardly an excuse for saying the Law of Moses is utterly done away with.

Would you ask him if he thinks Judaism is a perversion of the Law.

I was having a conversation with him that was brought to a head by him saying "Messianic Judaism" is the center of what Jesus taught"

Then the conversation took a turn towards the "religion of Judaism", in which he wouldn't answer my question with a direct yes or no about the Law of Moses making provision for murdering Christ and His followers.

Thats when you "answered" for him.

By the time the Seed had come, the Law of Moses was a mixture of man made traditions and writings from various "Lawyers" together with the Book of the Law of Moses, which became known as Judaism. Which is why the High Priest and leadership of Israel murdered the Son of God, because Judaism is an antichrist religion.

That is the point I was am making and am making and will continue to make.

As I said before, so I will say it again - JUDAISM IS AN ANTICHRIST RELIGION!!!!

Murdering Christ is antichrist.

The law of Moses that God gave him made no provision for murdering an innocent man.

Why would anyone, such as yourself Jethro, validate someone who "thinks" Messianic Judaism or any other form of Judaism is any different.

Thats the point!

The Messianic movement has at its foundation Messianic Judaism. It promotes another Jesus and another Gospel, one that mixes Judaism with the Gospel.

Let me show you from the scriptures what Messianic Judaism looks like -

And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."


Please tell me Jethro, what parts of the Law of Moses do you believe that gentiles should keep.

Please list them for me so I will know.

And this means what, now, in regard to the law passing, or not passing away?

This conversation is about Judaism, and it relationship to the Law of Moses.

There are parts of Judaism that are labeled under the Law of Moses falsely, and I am trying to separate it from the Law so that we are speaking about the same thing.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Okay, do you see the flaw in what you're saying? Let me show you: Do we then make void the law [the law of works]through faith? Certainly not! Doesn't it make much more sense to insert 'the requirements of the law' in your '[ ]'s? What you are making Paul say is, "'faith makes the law of works void, then? No!" I seriously doubt you want to go on record as insisting Paul is saying that. What fits better with Paul's 'No' is, "do we make void [the requirements of] the law through faith? Certainly not!" Which leads to what faith does do in regard to [the requirements of] the law--"On the contrary, we establish the [requirements of the] law (through faith in Christ)." Makes tons more sense than inserting 'the law of works' in his statement.

I am not inserting the Law of Moses into this text. You are.

I am saying Paul is making a legal argument using these two laws:

The Law of works.

The law of faith.

The Law of Moses is not in the legal argument at all.

It is a comparison of the law of works and the law of faith.

If I were to compare the law of gravity and the law of aerodynamics, so that I could make a point about the law of Moses, the Law of Moses is not in the conversation.

So it is in Romans 3:27 -

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.

The law of faith was in operation long before the Law of Moses.

The law of works is seen in the tower of Babel.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Only if you have the faulty premise to begin with that the Law of Moses was only for blood Jews.

I am under the correct premise in that the covenant with Abraham always included Gentiles and was before the Law of Moses.

Furthermore the Law of Moses was added to the Abrahamic covenant, till the Seed should come.

The law of Moses was a temporary tutor, untill the One who would come that the tutor was pointing to.


JLB

 

[Sparkey]

Do some of you need the "spirit of bondage again to fear" to obey God? I do not, I obey God by His law written upon my heart. It is clear that no one can look to the written code and obey it demands.

Are you going to send the spirit of bondage, or are you talking above your head? Just curious.

 

[Mitspa]

Do some of you need the "spirit of bondage again to fear" to obey God? I do not, I obey God by His law written upon my heart. It is clear that no one can look to the written code and obey it demands.

Are you going to send the spirit of bondage, or are you talking above your head? Just curious.

Well those who are under the written code of the law, are under a spirit of bondage and fear. This is the very point Paul makes in Rom 8 as he contrast the law of the Spirit of life in Christ to the LAW OF SIN AND DEATH (TEN COMMANDMENTS)
i very well could be speaking above your understanding? but it does not change the truth of Pauls point. Nor the point that I made.
That those who "think" they can keep the standard of the law, by looking to the written code are in clear conflict with scripture! Rom 7:7-8

The strength of sin is the law.
For sin will not have dominion over you BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT UNDER LAW, but under grace.

If you do not understand this? maybe you should ask if you are not trying to speak of things that are over your head?

 

[Sparkey]

i very well could be speaking above your understanding? but it does not change the truth of Pauls point. Nor the point that I made.

You've tried to dodge my question, "Will you send?" And the implicit question, "By what authority?"

I will remind you that it was your speculation that I am in reference to: "Do some of you need the "spirit of bondage again to fear" to obey God? and it was your allegation given in contrast that [you] do not, [need this]. I had just quoted reba, another Moderator here. Your reply included both my quote and reba's observation.

So again, will you send this spirit or no?