The curse of the law

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E

Elin

Banned
#41
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#41
InSpiritInTruth said:
The curse of the law came in by 2 ways. . .

The first part of this curse has to do with sin. . .

Now for the second part of the curse, which is swearing to the oath. . .
Click to expand...
I'm not following you here.

The result of sin was the curse because those were the terms/conditions of the covenant into which they entered.
It's not two parts, it's all one transaction--terms of the covenant: obedience-->blessing, sin-->curse

Are you saying entering into the covenant was a curse?

None of this is making sense to me in the light of the NT.

After Moses had read the law, all the blessings and the curses, the people then bound themselves to the oath by agreeing to keep everything that was written in the law.
Click to expand...
Yes, they "bound" themselves to the covenant (oath).

Which is why Jesus said Matthew 5:33-37 “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:[SUP]34 [/SUP]But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:[SUP]35 [/SUP]Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.[SUP]36 [/SUP]Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.[SUP]37 [/SUP]But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”

And here again also in James 5:12 “But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.”

. . .being unable to perform the vow to God to keep the whole law. . .then the curses mentioned in the law were put into effect.
Click to expand...
The curses were more than just mentioned, they were the terms/conditions of the Sinaitic covenant.

The covenant into which they entered required blessing for its observance and curses for its violation.

Are you saying that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?
Are you saying they should have told God, "Thanks, but no thanks."

Are you saying God made them a false offer when he promised blessings for compliance with the covenant, because all he was actually promising were curses?

Are you saying God tricked them?

Do we find this notion anywhere in the NT?

Is that why you think oaths are forbidden, because they are trickery?

This is bizarre and totally contra-NT. . .please tell me it is not what you are saying.
 
Last edited:
D

DesiredHaven

Guest
#42
#42
Elin I cant even figure out what or where on earth the problem is, as I was straining at rereading for the problem the first time, and could agree on the one vow.

But what exactly is the problem, where are the verses you are reasoning from

Can you post those verses (the full verses and not just chapter verses) if you could please?

That actually assists me when this is done making whatever problem is present according to the scripture (as the scripture speaks) visible and less obscured by how we are reasoning with it.

Which comparisons according to which scriptures are you using in otherwords?

Which scriptures according to you conflict (on his end) and by which scripture on your end (can you present to contradict those which were posted by him).

That would be very helpful if you could.
 
InSpiritInTruth

InSpiritInTruth

Banned
#43
Jan 7, 2015
6,057
78
0
#43
Elin said:
I'm not following you here.
Are you saying entering into the covenant was a curse?
Are you saying that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?
Are you saying they should have told God, "Thanks, but no thanks."
Are you saying God made them a false offer when he promised blessings for compliance with the covenant,
that all he was actually promising were curses?

Are you saying God tricked them?
Click to expand...
Actually I don't remember saying any of that. But hey, if your first straw man argument fails, why not just try to build another. :)
 
E

Elin

Banned
#44
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#44
InSpiritInTruth said:
Elin said:
I'm not following you here.

Are you saying entering into the covenant was a curse (the wrong thing to do)?

Are you saying that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?
Are you saying they should have told God, "Thanks, but no thanks."

Are you saying God made them a false offer when he promised blessings for compliance with the covenant,
that all he was actually promising were curses?

Are you saying God tricked them?

Do we find this notion anywhere in the NT?

Is that why you think oaths are forbidden, because they are trickery?

This is bizarre and totally contra-NT. . .please tell me it is not what you are saying.
Click to expand...
Actually I don't remember saying any of that. But hey, if your first straw man argument fails, why not just try to build another. :)
Click to expand...
So you don't agree that

entering into the Sinaitic covenant was a curse, or

that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?
 
Last edited:
E

Elin

Banned
#45
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#45
DesiredHaven said:
Elin I cant even figure out what or where on earth the problem is, as I was straining at rereading for the problem the first time, and could agree on the one vow.

But what exactly is the problem, where are the verses you are reasoning from

Can you post those verses (the full verses and not just chapter verses) if you could please?

That actually assists me when this is done making whatever problem is present according to the scripture (as the scripture speaks) visible and less obscured by how we are reasoning with it.

Which comparisons according to which scriptures are you using in otherwords?

Which scriptures according to you conflict (on his end) and by which scripture on your end (can you present to contradict those which were posted by him).

That would be very helpful if you could.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the best way to address it is to answer if you agree with any of the questions in blue which I posed?

If you do not agree with those principles, then the issue is moot.
 
D

DesiredHaven

Guest
#46
#46
Elin said:
Perhaps the best way to address it is to answer if you agree with any of the questions in blue which I posed?

If you do not agree with those principles, then the issue is moot.
Click to expand...

I agree only with the verses Elin, thats my rule, which verse?

Which verse implies what you just said? Or which words of his are pitting against the number of scriptures he provided?
 
E

Elin

Banned
#47
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#47
DesiredHaven said:
I agree only with the verses Elin, thats my rule, which verse?

Which verse implies what you just said? Or which words of his are pitting against the number of scriptures he provided?
Click to expand...
I see the verses being used to show that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant.

This is contrary to the NT.
Nowhere do we see Paul even suggesting such a notion.

If you think the verses ISIT presented show that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant,
we can go from there.

If you do not see that, the issue is moot.

ISIT has not answered my question whether he agrees that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant.
 
Last edited:
InSpiritInTruth

InSpiritInTruth

Banned
#49
Jan 7, 2015
6,057
78
0
#49
DesiredHaven said:
I agree only with the verses Elin, thats my rule, which verse?

Which verse implies what you just said? Or which words of his are pitting against the number of scriptures he provided?
Click to expand...
She is doing her best to misrepresent what I clearly stated in my OP in order to build a straw man argument by suggesting and implying things I did not say. But I'm not in the mood for playing her games.
 
D

DesiredHaven

Guest
#50
#50
Which is fine, I get it.

Great verses to me. I liked it, and snagged your stuff.

Hope you dont mind, cause if you do then you will have to sue me (lol)
 
E

Elin

Banned
#51
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#51
InSpiritInTruth said:
She is doing her best to misrepresent what I clearly stated in my OP in order to build a straw man argument by suggesting and implying things I did not say. But I'm not in the mood for playing her games.
Click to expand...
It's a simple question:
Do you agree that

entering into the Sinaitic covenant was a curse, or
that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?

Your failure to give an unequivocal answer reveals your answer,
which has the unavoidable totally contra-NT implications following:

Israel should have told God, "Thanks, but no thanks."

 God made a false offer to Israel when he promised blessings for compliance with the covenant,
 for all he was actually promising were curses.

 God tricked Israel.

 We find this bizarre notion nowhere in the NT.

That explains why you think oaths are forbidden, because they are trickery.

 This is bizarre and totally contra-NT.
 
D

DesiredHaven

Guest
#52
#52
Where is this verse?

Because this is getting bizarre...
 
E

Elin

Banned
#53
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#53
DesiredHaven said:
Which is fine, I get it.

Great verses to me. I liked it, and snagged your stuff.

Hope you dont mind, cause if you do then you will have to sue me (lol)
Click to expand...
What does "snagged your stuff" mean?
 
E

Elin

Banned
#54
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#54
DesiredHaven said:
Where is this verse?

Because this is getting bizarre...
Click to expand...
All it takes is an answer from ISIT to the question:

Do you agree that

entering into the Sinaitic covenant was a curse (the wrong thing to do), or
that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?

and the issue can go away.
 
D

DesiredHaven

Guest
#55
#55
Elin said:
What does "snagged your stuff" mean?
Click to expand...
That was directed at InSpirit he knows what it means because he allows for the same.
 
D

DesiredHaven

Guest
#56
#56
Elin said:
All it takes is an answer from ISIT to the question:

Do you agree that

entering into the Sinaitic covenant was a curse (the wrong thing to do), or
that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?

and the issue can go away.
Click to expand...
Is that InSpirits exact words?

Can you please quote him in context

The issue will go away by ignoring you, because he is not a wrangler so he will do that.
 
E

Elin

Banned
#57
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#57
DesiredHaven said:
Is that InSpirits exact words?

Can you please quote him in context

The issue will go away by ignoring you, because he is not a wrangler so he will do that.
Click to expand...
A yes or no answer is all that is required.

That is not wrangling.

His refusal is not about wrangling, it's about owning what he agrees with.

He can make it a moot issue with his answer.
 
D

DesiredHaven

Guest
#58
#58
Which verse are you seeking to entangle him by?

Just which verse?
 
D

DesiredHaven

Guest
#59
#59
You know what, nevermind.
 
E

Elin

Banned
#60
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#60
DesiredHaven said:
Which verse are you seeking to entangle him by?

Just which verse?
Click to expand...
Not seeking to entangle him. . .just making sure I have not misunderstood him, which can be clarified by his answer to my question, which he does not want to give.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.