@posthuman
A quick recap of what you have said. I am doing this so you can see that what you say is not always in line with other things you say.
and is not our husband or master, but only remains to curse those who reject the Messiah, according to Romans 1-8 & Galatians 1-6
“obsolete and ready to pass away" per Hebrews 8
"taken away" and "nailed to the cross" per Colossians
is a mere shadow of and testifies of Christ - Who has come - per more scripture than i care to look up and list, but trust you are not ignorant of
so what is our appropriate approach to it?
that's what remains.
A fast recap of what you said, that isn't in line other things you have said.
Keep in mind that you said,
Rainrider said:
The parts that apply to them yes. Now can you answer me this?
If Paul said the law was removed, and Yeshua said He didn't come to remove it, how do you recessional this?
why should i answer for something i never said? That's post #289
you followed this with,
Rainrider said:
The parts
The Law is one law; not parts with various jots and tittles deleted. see James 2:10 post #296
Then in post #3111 you say. Hebrews 8:13
In that He says, "a new" He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
from this it is clear that the Law wasn't completely passed away yet by the time of the writing of Hebrews, which is before 70AD, around 50-60.
From this one can see that you do teach the Law has been removed. As well as only removing a part, Your the one that the law isn't parts. So what which is it?
The came post #314 where you say the law has been removed.
Rainrider said:
And still isn't, according to Mat. 5:17-18
and is not our husband or master, but only remains to curse those who reject the Messiah, according to Romans 1-8 & Galatians 1-6
“obsolete and ready to pass away" per Hebrews 8
"taken away" and "nailed to the cross" per Colossians
is a mere shadow of and testifies of Christ - Who has come - per more scripture than i care to look up and list, but trust you are not ignorant of
so what is our appropriate approach to it?
that's what remains.
As you have said it hasn't been in post #289 you make the claim you never said that. So now let me ask you this. How can one take what you say as truth, when you say one thing them turn around and say the opposite?
Now that this is done, I hope you can see why it is that I may not see what you are saying. After all, when you look at this in full, you do seem to want to stand on both sides of this topic.