Sabbath

  • 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.

peldom10

Active member
May 22, 2020
769
122
43
If someone just randomly said "it is finished" you would have no idea what they were talking about. It is very vague... you have your beliefs on what it means based on preexisting beliefs from other things in the the bible, church, etc.
Couldn't it mean His plight of sacrifice is hereby completed...finished...His commitment to God to carry out God's orders is completed...finished? Because when baptized a voice is heard ...behold My Son in whom I am very pleased....as a dove landed on Christ's shoulders.
 

Jocund

Active member
Jan 14, 2021
669
229
43
What I said was "removing verses/passages from their context". I posted multiple other verses in Deuteronomy showing how Deu 21:18-21 is just one situation that still falls under the rules of a court system throughout the book. I see that you didn't address any of those verses.
There is a legal process that a child must be submitted into, with the parent as the plaintiff and the child as the defendant. Parents aren't the only judge, jury member, or executioner but they represent the first person that is required to place judgement, and they do represent at least one witness in the jury, and they do represent at least one executioner when the unruly child is stoned to death. And this was a requirement of the OT law, the law of Moses. A parent that refused to turn in their children for judgement and subsequent execution was in violation of the law. A man of the city that refused to stone the convicted child to death was in violation of the law. It was harsh, but that was the law, and in some sense it might have made a lot of sense back in the day.

If you believe that the OT law applies, then you believe that it is the duty of parents to submit their unruly children for execution within that prescribed process. It might not make as much sense in the culture of today (as nowadays we have better means for realignment and rehabilitation of rebellious youth), but that is OT law. That is similar to Moslem honour killings which are part of modern history. It isn't unfathomable that people could literally apply this rule. But what does our heart tell us? What is the kindest approach? Probably not capital punishment for unruly children, or surely, not the mandatory minimum sentence of death by stoning.

In most cases, people arguing for the modern application of OT laws claim that the court system of the day has a satisfactory modern equivalent. The position you present is peculiar because you claim the law of Moses applies but that the court system no longer does. The aspect of the law would literally be impossible to complete if that were the case. If a law cannot be correctly observed, it is being observed at all? Isn't that a loophole in itself just to allow the OT laws to fit into your inner concept of what you feel to be right and wrong? If that is so, how is that any different that concept of the NT covenant asking believers to follow their heart and mind? The heart and mind, where the true law of the covenant is written (this is mentioned in both Testaments).
 

Jocund

Active member
Jan 14, 2021
669
229
43
If I said that this was a "capital punsishment" why would you think I was talking about a punishment to the parent or the men of the city? If found guilty the punishment is for the son.
In post 3181 you said:

"Deu 21:18-21 contains both laws that a son is breaking, and a penalty (capital punishment in this case) for breaking laws. Like I've stated many times, the messiah's body paid for the earthly penalties (curses) associated with breaking "old" covenant laws."

If the passage said only "an unruly child shall be put to death", I might agree with that premise. But the passage includes instructions to third parties on specific actions that they are required to perform when encountering an unruly child (in various steps of the process).

The question in play is still "what is considered an earthly law?" vs "what is considered an unconditional law of God?" We've had some reshaping of this idea in our discussion, sometimes it has been referred to as "man's law" vs "God's law", etc. The principle remains the same. If we are claiming that some parts of the OT law apply and some don't, where is the hardline and why is that line placed where it is?

We could interpret each of the Mosaic 10 commandments to be earthly laws that exist in the same category as "penalties", as they were essentially penalties or restrictions applied to the Hebrews under Moses. That often isn't the intended interpretation. But how do we definitively resolve this categorisation issue without creating inconsistencies or disputes over interpretation?

The last lengthy conversation I've had with someone about the OT laws applying or not applying limited his conjecture to the OT iterations of the Mosaic 10 commandments. For better or for worse, I haven't seen any real consistency between advocates of OT laws applying today. For anyone seeking a good relationship with God, we all have the best intentions to do what is right, but our conclusions and interpretations sometimes take us in different directions. I still feel that the covenant of Christianity can be understood in entirety by the NT alone. Every commandment that you need can be found in the NT.

What scripture proves this claim?
What scripture demonstrates this claim, you mean?

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” - Colossians 2:13-15 KJV

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


There are more, but this becomes a merry-go-round of differing interpretations based on these core passages.

So do you believe that Deu 21:18-21 is speaking of young children that are alcoholics?
Could it refer to young alcoholics? Certainly. Also, based on the phrasing of Deu 21:18-21, "drunkard" and "glutton" may just be examples of unruly behaviour and each many not necessarily be required in order for a child to be considered unruly.

These questions you can study more in the OT to gather your opinion on, but I don't see how they are relevant to God's law being abolished.
I take from the perspective that the law of Moses has been "abolished" in the sense that its observation is no longer required (unless one feels compelled to do so). Biblical references to "law" can sometimes be confusing especially when multiple senses or concepts are referenced in the same verse.

Bottom line is.... stoning (capital punishment) is a penalty for breaking law. It is a "curse of the law". The penalties for sin from the "old" covenant were paid with the Messiah's body.
There seemed to be many curses of the OT law aside from capital punishment, even just in Deuteronomy. I'm sure the topic of "curse of law" has quite a bit of depth to it by itself. I'm not terribly familiar with what is considered a "curse of law" aside from the NT concepts of death without spiritual life in Christ.

People get hung up on these spiritual commandments and think they are some kind of new laws...
The New Testament represents a set of laws that are different in some cases from the OT laws. Some might want to interpret the NT as just a "dressed up" version of the OT, but the interpretation that resonates with me is that it is its own standalone covenant with its own standalone law, and that this standalone covenant is the sole inheritor of the promise given to Abraham ("seed of the promise").

Let me share a different translation... ISV:
Galatians 5:14
KJV follows the original Greek better. And then comes the question of whether "law" mentioned here is the OT law (law of Moses) or NT law (law of Christ).

1. This court system no longer exists and the failure to follow the Fathers instructions have already resulted in the Deu 28 curses.
This position affirms the case that 1 John 5:3 is not discussing all commandments.

That is problem with with lawlessness... Without the law so much is left up to interpretation. What love is to you can be totally different to the next person. What does it mean to love God though?
Lawless? who is lawless? Some people aren't able to experience God's love and have no idea what it is (parable of the tares and the wheat). Those in Christ know God's love. Those that aren't don't.

The law of Christ is not lawlessness, it just isn't legalistic like the law of Moses. There are commandments in the NT, and guidance given, but the core message is about love and letting love guide your choices and the essence of who you are (which ultimately may lead you to following OT rules anyway).

1 John 5:3
3 For this demonstrates our love for God: We keep his commandments, and his commandments are not difficult
This passage doesn't necessarily refer to OT commandments (but it can).

Surprise surprise, this is actually a statement that I agree with. "Fulfill" means to make complete. The law is incomplete with just the physical component. If your heart is not in the right place the actions don't carry the same weight.
Then the question comes to whether the "fulfillment" is supplementary, complementary, or substitutionary.

These are the type of things that the Pharisees would have added, and some of these things you can still find in the jewish talmud today. But of course, these are not the Father's law.... and following the law correctly (physically and spiritually) only leads to blessings.
The Talmud has some pretty hateful antiChristian text, but there are some interesting bits and pieces hypothetically transcribed from before 0 AD that add possible contexts to different passages in the Bible. An example is the meaning of wine as a cure for sadness in the Talmud and that Jesus turns water into wine. Or that an "animal that falls into a pit is not to be saved" is a cryptic way of saying "If a non-Jew is in danger, you (as a Jew) are not to rescue the non-Jew from danger" which reveals an interesting second possible meaning (another "blasphemy") when Jesus discussed drawing an ass from a well on the Sabbath.

The curse to eve (woman kind) was a generational curse. Just like the Messiah doesn't stop laws that the Father put in place to be carried out forever, he doesn't stop blessings or curses that were to be carried out forever.
Romans 9 gives an example of a promise given in the OT to Abraham and his seed and how it actually only applies to Christ as the seed (and those in Christ). A promise that might appear to have an intuitive application in the OT might not be so. The correct or potentially correct contexts of OT promises/blessings/curses needs special attention.
 
Aug 8, 2021
620
37
28
Couldn't it mean His plight of sacrifice is hereby completed...finished...His commitment to God to carry out God's orders is completed...finished? Because when baptized a voice is heard ...behold My Son in whom I am very pleased....as a dove landed on Christ's shoulders.
This very well could be... I just haven't yet seen seen enough evidence in scripture to support why some people are so sure what he meant by that statement.
 
Aug 8, 2021
620
37
28
There is a legal process that a child must be submitted into, with the parent as the plaintiff and the child as the defendant. Parents aren't the only judge, jury member, or executioner but they represent the first person that is required to place judgement, and they do represent at least one witness in the jury, and they do represent at least one executioner when the unruly child is stoned to death. And this was a requirement of the OT law, the law of Moses. A parent that refused to turn in their children for judgement and subsequent execution was in violation of the law. A man of the city that refused to stone the convicted child to death was in violation of the law. It was harsh, but that was the law, and in some sense it might have made a lot of sense back in the day.

If you believe that the OT law applies, then you believe that it is the duty of parents to submit their unruly children for execution within that prescribed process. It might not make as much sense in the culture of today (as nowadays we have better means for realignment and rehabilitation of rebellious youth), but that is OT law. That is similar to Moslem honour killings which are part of modern history. It isn't unfathomable that people could literally apply this rule. But what does our heart tell us? What is the kindest approach? Probably not capital punishment for unruly children, or surely, not the mandatory minimum sentence of death by stoning.


This may just be me, but when I think of the term "unruly child", I think of a young kid (male or female) having tempertantrums because its time to go home from the park or can't get the toy they want from the store. Everyone may not look at those words and have those thoughts, but I always think it's better to use the terminology that scripture actually uses. So rather than an "unruly child".... let's call this a "worthless, bitter, rebellious, alcoholic son." .... Yes, he would be someone's child (we all are), but I dont think this is talking about actual children (young age) at all....

1. This son has to be old enough to be an alcoholic.
2. It is also possible that the context of these sons is a continuation from the sons spoken of in verse 15. This would mean they would also have to be old enough to receive family inheriteance... and may even be referring to the firstborn specifically:


Deuteronomy 21:15-21

15 “If a man has two wives where one is loved but the other is unloved, and both of them bear him sons, but the firstborn is the son of the unloved wife, 16 then when he bequeaths his possessions to his sons, he must not give preference to the firstborn of the beloved wife over the firstborn of the unloved wife. 17 Instead, he must acknowledge the firstborn of the unloved wife by giving him double of everything he owns, because he is really the first fruit of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.” 18 “If a man has a stubborn son who does not obey his parents, and although they try to discipline him, he still refuses to pay attention to them, 19 then his parents are to seize him and bring him before the elders at the gate of his city. 20 Then they are to declare to the elders of their city: ‘Our son is stubborn and rebellious. He does not obey us. He lives wildly and is a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city are to stone him with boulders so that he dies. This is how you will remove this evil from among you. Then all Israel will hear of it and will be afraid.”

I see nothing in this passage that indicates that it is referring to the "youth."


In most cases, people arguing for the modern application of OT laws claim that the court system of the day has a satisfactory modern equivalent. The position you present is peculiar because you claim the law of Moses applies but that the court system no longer does. The aspect of the law would literally be impossible to complete if that were the case. If a law cannot be correctly observed, it is being observed at all? Isn't that a loophole in itself just to allow the OT laws to fit into your inner concept of what you feel to be right and wrong? If that is so, how is that any different that concept of the NT covenant asking believers to follow their heart and mind? The heart and mind, where the true law of the covenant is written (this is mentioned in both Testaments).

Since I've been on here speaking about laws in the OT still applying, I have made it clear that all laws were not given to all people for all times. I think there is much more needed study of language and context of the OT to help determine how to differentiate these laws.

The Messiah came and ret-taught us about the spiritual component of the law (it's purpose). This is not to say that the physical no longer applies or is something new.... this means that if you aren't following the physical out of love for your fellow man, or love for God (the spiritual components); then the physical is without value. This is very different then saying all we have to do is show love (and leave it up to mans interpretation to determine how that love is to be shown).... while at the same time saying we have a new set of laws to follow, which are only the ones found in the NT (even though these are all also found in the OT).... while at the same time saying that all that is required is faith (not works).
 

DavidTree

Well-known member
Aug 2, 2021
3,863
1,139
113
I quoted you. Are you retracting your comment?

"anyone that refuses or works on His Sabbath shall never see LIFE"

No Jesus is not the Sabbath. lol
it's way past you - your mind is closed
 

DavidTree

Well-known member
Aug 2, 2021
3,863
1,139
113
Again, you change the subject. You preach Sabbath and work on Sabbath. How is that not utter hypocrisy?
because your brain cannot work in understanding only what the Holy Spirit can reveal
 
Aug 8, 2021
620
37
28
In post 3181 you said:

"Deu 21:18-21 contains both laws that a son is breaking, and a penalty (capital punishment in this case) for breaking laws. Like I've stated many times, the messiah's body paid for the earthly penalties (curses) associated with breaking "old" covenant laws."

If the passage said only "an unruly child shall be put to death", I might agree with that premise. But the passage includes instructions to third parties on specific actions that they are required to perform when encountering an unruly child (in various steps of the process).
I addressed the "unruly child" terminology in my previous post... A "worthless, bitter, rebellious, alcoholic, adult son" to me seems much closer to what the scriptures suggest. The passage does two things... It gives a penalty (capital punishment) for a son, as well as give instructions to that son's father.

The question in play is still "what is considered an earthly law?" vs "what is considered an unconditional law of God?" We've had some reshaping of this idea in our discussion, sometimes it has been referred to as "man's law" vs "God's law", etc. The principle remains the same. If we are claiming that some parts of the OT law apply and some don't, where is the hardline and why is that line placed where it is?

We could interpret each of the Mosaic 10 commandments to be earthly laws that exist in the same category as "penalties", as they were essentially penalties or restrictions applied to the Hebrews under Moses. That often isn't the intended interpretation. But how do we definitively resolve this categorisation issue without creating inconsistencies or disputes over interpretation?
I haven't used the term "earthly law", but I have used the term "earthly penalties" when referring to the penalties from covenants before the Messiah's death. When I use this term, I am always speaking of penalties for breaking God's law... I just say "earthly" because all of those penalties deal with the physical here on earth.... as apposed to penalties that effect our soul after the death of the body.

"God's law vs man's law" is something different. This is just rules that the Father has instructed mankind to follow as opposed to rules that come from man. Sometimes these rules from man are because of some power trip and ego, but others it can just be misinterpretations of God's law causing you to head in the wrong direction.


The last lengthy conversation I've had with someone about the OT laws applying or not applying limited his conjecture to the OT iterations of the Mosaic 10 commandments. For better or for worse, I haven't seen any real consistency between advocates of OT laws applying today. For anyone seeking a good relationship with God, we all have the best intentions to do what is right, but our conclusions and interpretations sometimes take us in different directions. I still feel that the covenant of Christianity can be understood in entirety by the NT alone. Every commandment that you need can be found in the NT.
I can't speak for anyone else that believes in OT laws still applying. I am not part of any religious group or organization. I've obtained my beliefs through independent study as well as bouncing thoughts and scriptures off of other believers. There is so much in the NT that is only referencing OT scriptures. I believe that in modern Christianity this devaluing of OT writings has lead a lot of people to lawlessness. Many Jews are missing a lot of the spiritual component of law because they don't accept Yaoshoa (Jesus) as the Messiah or the NT writings, and modern Christians are missing a lot of the physical component of law because of devaluing the OT and over valuing and misinterpreting Paul. I believe that each component of law should work in tandem... and both of these religious groups are missing something very important.



What scripture demonstrates this claim, you mean?

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” - Colossians 2:13-15 KJV

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

There are more, but this becomes a merry-go-round of differing interpretations based on these core passages.

Colossians 2:14

14 having erased the charges that were brought against us, along with their obligations that were hostile to us. He took those charges away when he nailed them to the cross.


The "charges" (penalties) of the law were nailed to the cross... Not the entire law.

I am currently looking into some things regarding the levitical preisthood and Melchizedek... A few verses up in Hebrews 7 they are talking about tithing, so the law spoken of in 12 may be related to that.... To be continued.


I take from the perspective that the law of Moses has been "abolished" in the sense that its observation is no longer required (unless one feels compelled to do so). Biblical references to "law" can sometimes be confusing especially when multiple senses or concepts are referenced in the same verse.
For the laws that were instructed to be carried out generationally/forever, I definitely believe they are still required. Yes it can get confusing, even with language alone... sometimes we have the same English word like "law", but a different hebrew or greek word in different places. The word used for a man made law... "decree" is different in the Greek than the word used for God's law. Depending on the bible version you use, the English doesn't always reflect that. It always helps to see multiple translations, and use concordanances and lexicons when possible.


There seemed to be many curses of the OT law aside from capital punishment, even just in Deuteronomy. I'm sure the topic of "curse of law" has quite a bit of depth to it by itself. I'm not terribly familiar with what is considered a "curse of law" aside from the NT concepts of death without spiritual life in Christ.
Yes... to me the "curse of the law" is just the penalties for breaking it. From the sin in the garden alone... The Enchanter was cursed, woman was cursed, and the ground was cursed on behalf of man.
 
Aug 8, 2021
620
37
28
The New Testament represents a set of laws that are different in some cases from the OT laws. Some might want to interpret the NT as just a "dressed up" version of the OT, but the interpretation that resonates with me is that it is its own standalone covenant with its own standalone law, and that this standalone covenant is the sole inheritor of the promise given to Abraham ("seed of the promise").
What laws are in in the NT that can't be found in the OT? What scriptures support a replacement standalone law (not covenant)?

The commandments talking about "love" are not new laws. They are not telling you WHAT to do, they are telling you WHY you do what you do. This is why in these commandments the verses say they are a "summary" or the law "hangs on" these commandments. This love is the PURPOSE of the law, not a new standalone law where we can interpret on our own what it means to love.


KJV follows the original Greek better. And then comes the question of whether "law" mentioned here is the OT law (law of Moses) or NT law (law of Christ).
I do use the KJV the most for deeper studying simply because it has been used so much and has the deepest studying tools that align with it. However, in my opinion there are some versions that are closer to the original language. There is no perfect bible version though.



This position affirms the case that 1 John 5:3 is not discussing all commandments.
I think passages like this, and "not a jot or tittle"... assume that people are going to understand that the law as whole being forever doesn't mean there aren't parts of it that were only given to certain people for certain time periods.


Lawless? who is lawless? Some people aren't able to experience God's love and have no idea what it is (parable of the tares and the wheat). Those in Christ know God's love. Those that aren't don't.

The law of Christ is not lawlessness, it just isn't legalistic like the law of Moses. There are commandments in the NT, and guidance given, but the core message is about love and letting love guide your choices and the essence of who you are (which ultimately may lead you to following OT rules anyway).

One main thing the Messiah did was teach law (correctly). To follow him IS to follow his Father's instructions (law). Yes, the OT contained much more of the physical requirements of law and the NT more so the spiritual, but they both had both:

The NT says:

Matthew 22:37-40

37 Jesus told him, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and most important commandment. 39 The second is exactly like it: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments.”


The OT says:

Deuteronomy 6:5

5 You are to love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength.

and

Leviticus 19:18

18 “You are not to seek vengeance or hold a grudge against the descendants of your people. Instead, love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.”
 
Mar 14, 2011
77,140
18,010
113
the phrase "it is finished" in scripture is the greek word tetelesti -

It is a legal term in the greek. which means "paid in full"

he who knew no sin became sin for us. He paid it all.. It is finished.

The law was given to lead us to this point. To recieve Gods grace. Not based on being worthy or how hard we work. But based on his mercy and grace
 
Mar 14, 2011
77,140
18,010
113
Oh. That's what I'M doing... :ROFL:

I didn't see you quote any scripture. You just stated a PART of a scripture. The part that you like. You ignored the rest of it.

I wonder why you ignored the rest of it? Is it because you DON'T like it? Or because you don't understand it?


I think its probably both.
This scripture fits him well

1 Timothy 1:7
desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.
 
Aug 8, 2021
620
37
28
the phrase "it is finished" in scripture is the greek word tetelesti -

It is a legal term in the greek. which means "paid in full"

he who knew no sin became sin for us. He paid it all.. It is finished.

The law was given to lead us to this point. To recieve Gods grace. Not based on being worthy or how hard we work. But based on his mercy and grace
This would fit in line with what I believe.... He paid our debt from the first covenant. No evidence of a new law here.
 

Grandpa

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2011
10,993
2,864
113
Where does it say he fulfilled the law again?
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.


John 19:28-30
28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.


That's pretty simple, isn't it?
 
Mar 14, 2011
77,140
18,010
113
This would fit in line with what I believe.... He paid our debt from the first covenant. No evidence of a new law here.
I have no clue what you mean by first covenant he paid the sins of all mankind from adam until the last man. That whoever believes.

Your right, there is no new law. The law exposes sin as much today as it did when moses was given it. It was given to lead us to christ. It required perfection.
 
Mar 14, 2011
77,140
18,010
113
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.


John 19:28-30
28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.


That's pretty simple, isn't it?
Its simple only when we have an open mind.

To lawyers. They cant see it.
 

Grandpa

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2011
10,993
2,864
113
Let me help you out a little...


Matthew 5:18-19


18 because I tell all of you with certainty that until heaven and earth disappear, not one letter or one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law until everything has been accomplished. 19 So whoever sets aside one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom from heaven. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom from heaven


Luke 16:17

17 However, it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one stroke of a letter in the Law to be dropped.



Revelation 21:1

21 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, because the first heaven and the first earth had disappeared, and the sea was gone.
The 613 laws of Moses would be considered letters or stroke of letters, right?

The whole book of Leviticus would be considered letters or stroke of letters, right?


Have they disappeared or are you still under them?


Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

How is it possible to say this if the Law wasn't fulfilled by Christ? If there wasn't a better Way (Hebrews 8:6) Romans 6:14 couldn't be stated. If the Law wasn't changed (Hebrews 9:24-28) then Romans 6:14 couldn't be stated.
 
Mar 14, 2011
77,140
18,010
113
The 613 laws of Moses would be considered letters or stroke of letters, right?

The whole book of Leviticus would be considered letters or stroke of letters, right?


Have they disappeared or are you still under them?


Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

How is it possible to say this if the Law wasn't fulfilled by Christ? If there wasn't a better Way (Hebrews 8:6) Romans 6:14 couldn't be stated. If the Law wasn't changed (Hebrews 9:24-28) then Romans 6:14 couldn't be stated.
If the Law was not fulfilled by Christ.

We have no hope

Plain and simple
 

DavidTree

Well-known member
Aug 2, 2021
3,863
1,139
113
I have no clue what you mean by first covenant he paid the sins of all mankind from adam until the last man. That whoever believes.

Your right, there is no new law. The law exposes sin as much today as it did when moses was given it. It was given to lead us to christ. It required perfection.
Your talking to a wall of bricks which has a sign on it - Welcome to the school of Law
 
Mar 14, 2011
77,140
18,010
113
Your talking to a wall of bricks which has a sign on it - Welcome to the school of Law
He should not attempt to be a teacher of the law.

He has no understanding of what the law is.

He still thinks we try our best we are ok. because then we can receive grace.

Thats works 101