Which laws are and are not valid?

[just-me]

(1) I think you will find, if yahweh permits, that the carnal nature is not changed by the law (well, maybe provoked by it!) .... no difference if the law is or is not abolished (not pertinent here).

(2) so ?

(3) this is toward clarification, if it is even possible on this forum. (might have to go to a Hebrew forum to find the Truth).

I wrote this post while you were writing that LOL

A doctrine that claims that God's instructions are now abolished to any extent, and has changed the order, (from the beginning of time), of His step by step plan, is a false doctrine. If we are to focus on what has changed or what has been abolished, we should be focusing on what happed to the born-again believer, saved from death unto life. To focus on a change or abolishment of God's instructions labels a God that is reconnoitering according to the original plan from the beginning.

Granted, God has always desired to have His only begotten Son to be our High Priest, but in order for us to know all of our Savior's glory and might, we needed a physical forerunner as a parable so that we could believe He was able to fulfill that promise for the reemission of our sins and not God's supposed error of burdensome laws.

If this doctrine is purposeful, then it stands to reason why deceptive dialog demands us to believe that Jesus came to somehow change His own Father's omniscience. That is clearly taking the Lord's name in vain. (Exodus 20:7) We should be focusing on our change, not His change. That is the good news. If we focus on God changing through Christ so we can escape the punishment of sin without any accountability, that is not good news, it's actually bad news.

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:22-23

 

[Elin]

Obviously you do not understand the whole counsel of God.

The words spoken by the prophets of old (OT) can be correctly
understood only in the light of the words spoken by the Son
in these last days (Heb 1:1-2) through the NT writers (NT).

So you're saying you have to understand the NT before understanding the OT.

C'mon, guy. . .you just keep making easier and easier to see why you do not understand text.

Try reading the first chapter of Hebrews, and see if that helps.

 

[Elin]

A doctrine that claims that God'sinstructions are now abolished to any extent, and
has changed the order, (from the beginning of time), of His step by step plan,
is a false doctrine.

More assertion without demonstration.

See Heb 9:10 where diorthosis means: a making thoroughly right; reformation; new order.

Your issue is simply you do not believe all of the NT word of God written.

Again . . .above my pay grade.

 

[Biblelogic01]

C'mon, guy. . .you just keep making easier and easier to see why you do not understand text.

Try reading the first chapter of Hebrews, and see if that helps.

I read it, and it looks like all its saying is God spoke to people through prophets, then He sent Yeshua instead of another prophet.

It doesn't say the prophets were wrong, and it doesn't say don't pay attention to the prophets.

So Hebrews 1 has nothing to do with the topic I was stating. Not sure what you're getting at.

 

[Elin]

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." Deuteronomy 25:4

It was the law Paul was quoting to Timothy.

"For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And,
The labourer is worthy of his reward." 1 Timothy 5:18

That isn't hard to understand.

Agreed. . .and the latter is not the law found in Dt 25:4,
it is found only in Lk 10:7, which Paul calls "the Scripture."

"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." Matthew 13:13

"Who is this who darkens by counsel with words without knowledge?"

 

[Elin]

Obviously you do not understand the whole counsel of God.

The words spoken by the prophets of old (OT) can be correctly
understood only in the light of the words spoken by the Son in these last days (Heb 1:1-2) through the NT writers (NT).

So you're saying you have to understand the NT before understanding the OT.

C'mon, guy. . .you just keep making easier and easier to see why
you do not understand text.

Try reading the first chapter of Hebrews, and see if that helps.

I read it, and it looks like all its saying is God spoke to people through prophets, then He sent Yeshua instead of another prophet.

It doesn't say the prophets were wrong, and it doesn't say don't pay attention to the prophets.

It does say that the Son is superior to the prophets,
that the Son is superior to the angels by whom the law was given (Gal 3:19),
and that the Son is superior to Moses to whom the law was given (in chp 3).

So Hebrews 1 has nothing to do with the topic I was stating. Not sure what you're getting at.

It has to do with your not understanding text, including my statement above, and hoping Heb 1 would help.

But it doesn't seem to have done so.

 

[just-me]

More assertion without demonstration.

See Heb 9:10 where diorthosis means: a making thoroughly right; reformation; new order.

Your issue is simply you do not believe all of the NT word of God written.

Again . . .above my pay grade.

God made void some of what He spoke instead of Jesus coming to make void our transgressions? How backwards this doctrine of yours. That's all I get from your explanations. You are pointing an accusing finger at God's law rather than our need for salvation.

This verse clearly shows that the law within the Old Covenant is not a threat to the promise God made with Abraham that we are now a part of.
"And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." Galatians 3:17

Stop accusing the law as something that needs to vanish away. Rather accuse the sinful nature of the human that vanishes away by faith in Christ.

 

[just-me]

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." Deuteronomy 25:4

It was the law Paul was quoting to Timothy. Parables can be understood by some and not by others.

"For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." 1 Timothy 5:18

That isn't hard to understand.

"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." Matthew 13:13

Agreed. . .and the *latter is not the law found in Dt 25:4,
it is found only in Lk 10:7, which Paul calls "the Scripture."


"Who is this who darkens by counsel with words without knowledge?"

So if Paul quoted the law to Timothy, has it been made void? So by you mentioning the "*latter" what's your point?

 

[Biblelogic01]

It does say that the Son is superior to the prophets,
that the Son is superior to the angels by whom the law was given (Gal 3:19),
and that the Son is superior to Moses to whom the law was given (in chp 3).


It has to do with your not understanding text, including my statement above, and hoping Heb 1 would help.

But it doesn't seem to have done so.

Right, I agree He is superior. The law was given by God not Moses. I don't recall it ever saying Moses or the angels or the prophets gave the law.

I mean overall your saying to just throw out the OT period and don't pay attention to it. . Which that would be false prophecy according to the NT.

For the record the start of the convo I never brought the law into it technically. All I stated there needs to be an understanding of the OT to understand the NT.

There are plenty of examples of that in the gospel. The people who understood and knew Yeshua was the Messiah was because they understood and knew the teachings from the OT.

Example: When Yeshua stated He's the good shepherd, the reason why the Pharisees and what not got mad is because they understood the prophets, and that to claim to be the good shepherd is to claim to be God. So to them having a spiritual binding, this was blasphemy(even though it was not). Kind of like if someone just walked into a church today and claimed to be the Messiah, I'm pretty sure that person would be accused of blasphemy.

Like I said, one must understand the OT to understand the NT, just like learning to stand comes before walking or running. It's not vise versa.

 

[Elin]

1) in 1Tim 5:18, Paul does not say "it is written in the Law of Moses,"
2) rather he quotes the gospel of Luke (Lk 10:7) as "the Scripture says," and
3) what he quotes from Lk 10:7 is not found anywhere in the OT.

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." Deuteronomy 25:4

It was the law Paul was quoting to Timothy.

"For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And,
The labourer is worthy of his reward." 1 Timothy 5:18

That isn't hard to understand.

Agreed. . .and the latter is not the law found in Dt 25:4, it
is found only in Lk 10:7, which Paul calls "the Scripture."

So if Paul quoted the law to Timothy, has it been made void?
So by you mentioning the "*latter" what's your point?

The point is the topic--i.e,. Paul quotes Luke 10:7 as Scripture.

Try to keep up. . .

 

[just-me]

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." Deuteronomy 25:4

It was the law Paul was quoting to Timothy. Parables can be understood by some and not by others.

"For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." 1 Timothy 5:18

That isn't hard to understand.

"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." Matthew 13:13

Agreed. . .and the latter is not the law found in Dt 25:4,
it is found only in Lk 10:7, which Paul calls "the Scripture."

"Who is this who darkens by counsel with words without knowledge?"

You say "the latter is not the law found in Dt 25:4" but I say that the precept or principle is in the law found in both Leviticus 19:13, and Deuteronomy 24:14-15. Take your pick.

Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. Leviticus 19:13

"Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates: At his day thou shalt give him his hire," Deuteronomy 24:14-15a

Also see Matthew 10:10 "Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat."

"Who is this who darkens by counsel with words without knowledge?"

 

[Elin]

Right, I agree He is superior. The law was given by God not Moses. I don't recall it ever saying
Moses or the angels or the prophets gave the law.

See Gal 3:19. . .and Moses was a prophet.

I mean overall your saying to just throw out the OT period and don't pay attention to it. . Which that would be false prophecy according to the NT.

Your inability to understand text is showing again.

For the record the start of the convo I never brought the law into it technically. All I stated
there needs to be an understanding of the OT to understand the NT.

Yes, to understand what has been fulfilled in the NT, the OT must be understood.

But to understand the doctrines of condemnation, justification, righteousness, salvation, etc., the OT revelation given by the prophets of old must be understood in the light of the NT revelation given by the Son in these last days (Heb 1:1-2) through the NT writers.

 

[just-me]

Right, I agree He is superior. The law was given by God not Moses. I don't recall it ever saying Moses or the angels or the prophets gave the law.

I mean overall your saying to just throw out the OT period and don't pay attention to it. . Which that would be false prophecy according to the NT.

For the record the start of the convo I never brought the law into it technically. All I stated there needs to be an understanding of the OT to understand the NT.

There are plenty of examples of that in the gospel. The people who understood and knew Yeshua was the Messiah was because they understood and knew the teachings from the OT.

Example: When Yeshua stated He's the good shepherd, the reason why the Pharisees and what not got mad is because they understood the prophets, and that to claim to be the good shepherd is to claim to be God. So to them having a spiritual binding, this was blasphemy(even though it was not). Kind of like if someone just walked into a church today and claimed to be the Messiah, I'm pretty sure that person would be accused of blasphemy.

Like I said, one must understand the OT to understand the NT, just like learning to stand comes before walking or running. It's not vise versa.

This is true. Even Jesus own words back up what you say.
John 5:44-47
[SUP]44 [/SUP]How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
[SUP]45 [/SUP]Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
[SUP]46 [/SUP]For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
[SUP]47 [/SUP]But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Acts 17:10-12[SUP]10 [/SUP]And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

The scriptures they had were the Old Testament writings including the law.

 

[Elin]

You say "the latter is not the law found in Dt 25:4" but I say that the precept or principle is in the law found in both Leviticus 19:13, and Deuteronomy 24:14-15.

Sorry. . .Paul is quoting Scripture directly, not giving a paraphrase of some principle.

And that quote is found only in Luke 10:7 showing, a long with 2Pe 3:16, that the NT writings were considered Scripture during the time of the apostles.

You handle the word of God much too loosely, taking many unwarranted liberties with it.

"Who is this who darkens by counsel with words without knowledge?"

 

[just-me]

You say "the latter is not the law found in Dt 25:4" but I say that the precept or principle is in the law found in both Leviticus 19:13, and Deuteronomy 24:14-15. Take your pick.

Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. Leviticus 19:13

"Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates: At his day thou shalt give him his hire," Deuteronomy 24:14-15a

Also see Matthew 10:10 "Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat."

"Who is this who darkens by counsel with words without knowledge?"

Sorry. . .Paul is quoting Scripture directly, not giving a paraphrase of some principle.

And that quote is found only in Luke 10:7 showing, a long with 2Pe 3:16, that the NT writings were considered Scripture during the time of the apostles.

You handle the word of God much too loosely, taking many unwarranted liberties with it.

"Who is this who darkens by counsel with words without knowledge?"

Tell me where did Luke receive this understanding. Did the Holy Spirit tell Him, or was it the words of Jesus both in Matthew and Luke that Paul was quoting to Timothy? God gave the law and God doesn't change. So did Jesus pull this out of thin air or was He rightly dividing the word of truth by the principles of His Father who gave the law?

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." John 12:49

What is your point if it isn't trying to debunk the law using Christ our Savior as an excuse? Or is that all you want to endorse?

 

[Elin]

.

Right, I agree He is superior.

The law was given by God not Moses. I don't recall it ever saying
Moses or the angels or the prophets gave the law.

See Gal 3:19. . .and Moses was a prophet.

I mean overall your saying to just throw out the OT period and don't pay attention to it. . Which that would be false prophecy according to the NT.

Your inability to understand text is showing again.

For the record the start of the convo I never brought the law into it technically. All I stated
there needs to be an understanding of the OT to understand the NT.

Yes, to understand what has been fulfilled in the NT, the OT must be understood.

But to understand the doctrines of condemnation, justification, righteousness, salvation, etc., the OT revelation given by the prophets of old must be understood in the light of the NT revelation given by the Son in these last days (Heb 1:1-2) through the NT writers.

This is true. Even Jesus own words back up what you say.

Addressed above. . .

 

[Elin]

Sorry. . .Paul is quoting Scripture directly, not giving a paraphrase of some principle.

And that quote is found only in Luke 10:7 showing, along with 2Pe 3:16, that the NT writings were considered Scripture during the time of the apostles.

Also see Matthew 10:10 "Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves:
for the workman is worthy of his meat."

Very good. . .but we are dealing with a direct quote here, and Paul's direct quote in 1Tim 5:18 does not use the word "meat," or any other word meaning "food" and, therefore, is not a direct quote
of Mt 10:10.

It uses the word hire/pay/wages, meaning "money," which is found in, and is a direct quote of, Lk 10:7,
which Paul states is Scripture, just as Peter groups Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures."
(2Pe 3:16)

Why do you object so strongly to something so benign as the NT writings being recognized as Scripture by the apostles?

What apple cart of your agenda does it overturn?

Hmmmmm. . . .

 

[eternallife7]

God made void some of what He spoke instead of Jesus coming to make void our transgressions? How backwards this doctrine of yours. That's all I get from your explanations. You are pointing an accusing finger at God's law rather than our need for salvation.

This verse clearly shows that the law within the Old Covenant is not a threat to the promise God made with Abraham that we are now a part of.
"And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." Galatians 3:17

Stop accusing the law as something that needs to vanish away. Rather accuse the sinful nature of the human that vanishes away by faith in Christ.

No its the opposite repent I can see that your going to be cut off from Christ if you do not repent and listen to His so by your own posting. This is not about winning arguements this is about seeing the Gospel correctly.

 

[Elin]

A doctrine that claims that God'sinstructions are now abolished to any extent, and
has changed the order, (from the beginning of time), of His step by step plan,
is a false doctrine.

More assertion without demonstration.

See Heb 9:10 where diorthosis means: a making thoroughly right; reformation; new order.

Your issue is simply you do not believe all of the NT word of God written.

Again . . .above my pay grade.

God made void some of what He spoke instead of Jesus coming to make void our transgressions?
How backwards this doctrine of yours.

Sorry you don't believe the NT word of God.

Above my pay grade. . .

 

[Elin]

As we have discussed before, Hebrews 8:13 is the old man,

Not according to its context in vv. 7-8.

with the physical priesthood by comparison. Stop endorsing that God's word of the Old Covenant is vanishing away when it is clear that Jesus came to change us, and
the believers old carnal nature is in the process of vanishing away. The Aaronic priesthood represents the carnal, the Messiah priesthood is the spiritual in Jesus our Savior. That doesn't negate the law of the Old Covenant. Don't throw away God's word that it contains, just get rid of the container.

Your fallacious hermeneutic of ignoring context which unseats your false doctrine speaks for itself, revealing more than you realize.