The curse of the law

DesiredHaven · Apr 21, 2015

I missed those two, thanks InSpirit
I just collected all the verses and color coded them and put em away
(cause you know I am nutty)

This one right here acknowledges what they heard before as far as these

Mat 5:33
Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, (past oaths***)
Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

Mat 5:34
( ****) But I say unto you, Swear not at all;
neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool:
neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

Mat 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head,
becausethou canst not make one hair white or black.

I think you laid that out well, so that which was of old is acknowledged and a butI say unto you.

These folks had a real problem with swearing by things, I got an eye full while looking at this lol Man,

One of Elin's has got me thinking.

I could easily justfy scratching off the LORD swearing (as the promise by Christ come in by the same and the oath as it relates to His priesthood). And because there is none greater then Him and he can swear by himself whenever he would like, who am I to say otherwise right? And I wouldnt see that "but I say unto you" as applicable to him either.

The older priesthood would have continued doing so given it rejected Jesus (so that would be neither here nor there) because it speaks of a priest charging (adjuring) another by an oath in Numbers. That seems to be what they could do (or were instructed to do) and an example Numbers 5:21, charge there is adjure. and we see that there with the woman even as Elin points out that Jesus was adjured by the Living God (by the high priest) and answered when he had done so. That would fall ouside of what Jesus was speaking of (in relation to ourselves).

Elin brings up a good point in Paul though. His vow.

I keep thinking of the one Jesus said about not swearing by your head (in relation to making one hair on your head black or white). But he did say not to swear by any other oaths so is there a way to recconcile the vow Paul had? I mean its nothing like the kind of vow (or oath) those who swore they would not eat or drink till they killed Paul and could be understood to be no more then a harmless hair cut (?). Or no? Because it still shows a vow. I cant get around that one. My intent wouldnt be to pit the scripture because I really think you laid that out nice. I was looking at how to recconcile that loose end (if it even is one, because for me its tight with that smallest little thing.

I thought, okay maybe in his becoming all things to all men (in the vowing a vow) that was working before this lol But Im not all the familar with the vow stuff, or swearing its mentioned alot. I think what he did in respects "to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law" could work.

I have been up for two days with no sleep so I am not all there. Its just a hang nail really (but it would drive me nuts till I figured out how to remove that from the equation) I guess.

Talk to you tommorrow Bro (Lord willing)

God bless you

DesiredHaven · Apr 21, 2015

dcontroversal said:

Give me a break Marine LOL!

I might have to go to court and I dont want to swear on Gods words.

I took an oath in the Army, swearing in and being unsworn too, just never thought too much abuot that swearing stuff

Good advice though

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.

InSpiritInTruth · Apr 21, 2015

DesiredHaven said:

I missed those two, thanks InSpirit
I just collected all the verses and color coded them and put em away
(cause you know I am nutty)

This one right here acknowledges what they heard before as far as these

Mat 5:33
Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, (past oaths***)
Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

Mat 5:34
( ****) But I say unto you, Swear not at all;
neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool:
neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

Mat 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head,
becausethou canst not make one hair white or black.

I think you laid that out well, so that which was of old is acknowledged and a butI say unto you.

These folks had a real problem with swearing by things, I got an eye full while looking at this lol Man,

One of Elin's has got me thinking.

I could easily justfy scratching off the LORD swearing (as the promise by Christ come in by the same and the oath as it relates to His priesthood). And because there is none greater then Him and he can swear by himself whenever he would like, who am I to say otherwise right? And I wouldnt see that "but I say unto you" as applicable to him either.

The older priesthood would have continued doing so given it rejected Jesus (so that would be neither here nor there) because it speaks of a priest charging (adjuring) another by an oath in Numbers. That seems to be what they could do (or were instructed to do) and an example Numbers 5:21, charge there is adjure. and we see that there with the woman even as Elin points out that Jesus was adjured by the Living God (by the high priest) and answered when he had done so. That would fall ouside of what Jesus was speaking of (in relation to ourselves).

Elin brings up a good point in Paul though. His vow.

I keep thinking of the one Jesus said about not swearing by your head (in relation to making one hair on your head black or white). But he did say not to swear by any other oaths so is there a way to recconcile the vow Paul had? I mean its nothing like the kind of vow (or oath) those who swore they would not eat or drink till they killed Paul and could be understood to be no more then a harmless hair cut (?). Or no? Because it still shows a vow. I cant get around that one. My intent wouldnt be to pit the scripture because I really think you laid that out nice. I was looking at how to recconcile that loose end (if it even is one, because for me its tight with that smallest little thing.

I thought, okay maybe in his becoming all things to all men (in the vowing a vow) that was working before this lol But Im not all the familar with the vow stuff, or swearing its mentioned alot. I think what he did in respects "to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law" could work.

I have been up for two days with no sleep so I am not all there. Its just a hang nail really (but it would drive me nuts till I figured out how to remove that from the equation) I guess.

Talk to you tommorrow Bro (Lord willing)

God bless you

Yea, the Lord can swear an oath because He is able to keep it 100%, but men sometimes, even with the best of intentions fail to perform their vows and fall into condemnation. And sure you can find all kinds of examples in the Bible where men have vowed vows, and swore oaths, but that is beside the point. It's what the Lord said about it that matters, and He said it for our benefit, "Swear not at all."

And two days is 2 long without sleep, get some rest Sis and I'll talk with ya later. (Lord willing) I'm probably going to be away tomorrow for most of the morning anyway, think I'll go fishing for fishes. Peace and God bless

DesiredHaven · Apr 21, 2015

InSpiritInTruth said:

Have a blessed day tommorrow, the Lord give you luck with those fishes lol

That was too cute, go fishing for fishes lol

You bet, talk to you later gator, God bless you

Good night

InSpiritInTruth · Apr 21, 2015

DesiredHaven said:

An Army brat and a Marine huh?.......BOO RAH! LOL

dcontroversal · Apr 21, 2015

InSpiritInTruth said:

You bet......Semper Fi hahahhhaha !

DesiredHaven · Apr 21, 2015

InSpiritInTruth said:

Army brats are children of Army personel, no way, you know better, I was service member, and what this Boo Rah?

How do spell that? LOL Dc would know

Jason0047 · Apr 21, 2015

God did not create the Law to taunt man so as not to keep it and or to show him that he could never keep it. God created the Law to show man that the only way to keep his laws was by having faith in God and in allowing God's Spirit to help keep His laws and statutes thru man. That is what Ezekiel 36:26-27 is saying. Man repents of sins and gets right with God and the Lord regenerates their spirit and then lives within them. The Lord then does the good work in keeping His laws thru man. Man by himself cannot keep God's laws. Nor can man seek to be saved by law keeping in and of itself. Yes, the curse is sin. For Adam and Eve were both deceived the devil and they passed down the curse of sin upon every man woman and child in human history. However, Jesus came to redeem us from the curse of Adam and Eve's sin. For Jesus Christ was manifested to destroy the works of the devil (i.e. sin within your life). Jesus saves us... not in only in Justiification but in Sanctification, too. Sanctification is the process of letting Christ do the good work within in your life.

Jason0047 · Apr 21, 2015

For the disciples were amazed at who could be saved when Jesus told them that it is easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle than for a richman to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Yet, Jesus said, with man this is impossibe, but with God all things are possible. Meaning..... God does the good work in the believer to save man and man does not save himself.

dcontroversal · Apr 21, 2015

DesiredHaven said:

HAHAH I can tell you it was not BOO RAH hahahhaha

DesiredHaven · Apr 21, 2015

dcontroversal said:

Its an OoRah!

I had to google that gargle how can you forget how to spell oorah? Im getting so old lol!

dcontroversal · Apr 21, 2015

DesiredHaven said:

ANd you would be correct.....My senior drill instructer said..we do not say OOOOOOH RAH.....we say OOHRAH with fervor, heat and tempered anger HAHAHHHAHAHHA

DesiredHaven · Apr 22, 2015

dcontroversal said:

I agree lol

Get some fire under you privATE!

I could never be a drill instructor.

We had a few, and one was a woman she was like 3 foot 9 or something she was the tiniest thing Im 5'8 I could have squashed her but she all up in your face. That was sort of strange.

You get used to the yelling though

We went to basic at Fort McClellan Alabama, and its now a a taped off vacant toxic waste site

Sheesh, even when serving in the millitary you have to be careful where our goverment parks you, its nuts

Anyway, in case your wondering, that is what happend to me (lol)

That why I am messed up in the head lol

heh heh

dcontroversal · Apr 22, 2015

DesiredHaven said:

HAHAH well I was a Hollywood Marine....Marine recruit depot San Diego California and then Camp Pendleton.......after ITS at San Onefre (spelling) been like 30 plus years HAHAH

prove-all · Apr 22, 2015

DesiredHaven said:

well I never had to spell it, but sure had fun yelling at the top of my lunks,

to wake the sleeping squids up in the mornings. lol

InSpiritInTruth · Apr 22, 2015

DesiredHaven said:

I made a funny

Carry on marines BOO RAH! LOL

DesiredHaven · Apr 22, 2015

prove-all said:

We were woken up by metal trash can lids flying down the isle of our sleeping quarters.
I cant count that for fun. And you were so exhausted that it was actually possible you slept through that there were other less fun means of getting you to open your eyes (and get moving) lol

I recall one guy (I still know his face in my head). He either went or tried to go awol or something like that and was caught (through some other unfortune). And what they did was tie him and his mattress in an upright position against one of the pillars in the CQ office (all night). Thats how he was to sleep (if he could find any).

I recall walking into that one and had to do a double take.

There is no wishy-washy "pampering you" (when you do wrong) there

I would love to be able to say I enjoyed an ounce of it but I didnt, things like losing your off base pass over something left in your BTU jacket pocket or the lock on your locker not taking, or that there was the slightest of residue left in some crevice of a used gas mask that was found by a snow white q-tip.

Just stupid things like that.

The world has their oaths, like an oath to another set of principals such as those pertaining to the constitution (law of the land) and to ones presidency, and the millitary, our court system.

Which I sort of dont get. We (here which abide in the U.S) are as one nation ("supposedly" under God) which is also trying kick the mention of Him out of just about everywhere (in government type places) but still would ask you to swear by Him who lives forever (using His own words) before you when it comes to taking your word seriously on the stand in a court of law.

The gesture of your hand upon His words (even before them) who might be considered the unjust, actually meant something to do so...

Wow, that just dawned on me, but then if you actually did take Jesus seriously why are you swearing on the words of God, so help you Him?

But again, what is the difference of swearing to tell the truth (and not telling it) and someone asking you what is the truth without swearing to tell it or an oath (and lying against what is the truth)? Why is one considered greater then the other in respects to being perjured or lying?

Because they will always remind you... "remember you are under oath" because if you lie under oath it is considered perjury and there is a penalty if law (even among the unjust) to serve justice to that if one is caught.

How about thing way,

Paul also says the law is made for perjured persons, so in what way is it made for the same?

What can the law do for those it is made for? Except in any immediate sense to convict and serve its justice against those which do pratice such things (the one leading us to Christ as well)

In this case (in respects to oaths) I am speaking of the worlds (in that sense) because the same seems to be shown even among the unjust as well (asking you to take one in various things)

Paul said, the law itself is against that which can be committed (inclusive of perjury as he lists it) and any other thing listed with it (even such like things which are not) which are also contrary to sound doctrine as well. (See 1 Tim 1:8-9)

Therefore commiting perjury is not sound doctrine but against it (obviously).

But to be found guilty of perjury one would have to swear by such an oath (even enter into an oath, or be under oath) whatever you might call it.

And then... do contrary to what you are bound by oath to, and be charged with the guilty verdict of perjury for doing so correct?

So why set youself up? I can understand why none should enter into an oath, on either a smaller or larger scale.

Which could possibly show the larger as it was pointed out, no?

Neh 10:29 They clave to their brethren, their nobles,
and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law,
which was given by Moses the servant of God,
and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord,
and his judgments and his statutes;

Great topic anyway.

Oh and all of that after was not directed at you prove all, just sort of putting it out there,

God bless you

Peace

DesiredHaven · Apr 22, 2015

InSpiritInTruth said:

No you didnt

Elin · Apr 22, 2015

InSpiritInTruth said:

I'm not following you here.

The result of sin was the curse because those were the terms of the covenant into which they entered.

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.

Yes, they "bound" themselves to the covenant (oath).

The curses were more than mentioned, they were the terms 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,
that all he was actually promising were curses?

Are you saying God tricked them?

Do we find this notion anywhere in the NT?

Elin · Apr 22, 2015

InSpiritInTruth said:

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.

Yes, they "bound" themselves to the covenant (oath).

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.

The curse of the law

DesiredHaven

Guest

DesiredHaven

Guest

Banned

DesiredHaven

Guest

Banned

Banned

DesiredHaven

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned

DesiredHaven

Guest

Banned

DesiredHaven

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

DesiredHaven

Guest

DesiredHaven

Guest

Banned

Banned