Did Jesus ever tell us that we no longer need to keep the law of Moses?
- Thread starter Marcelo
- Start date
-
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.
the Law is the old covenant
a 'ministry' of a certain kind, written on tablets of stone.
and when He also said 'a new commandment I give you' - doesn't the logic of Hebrews 8:13 also apply?
He declared to you His covenant, the Ten Commandments, which He commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets.
(Deuteronomy 4:13)
a 'ministry' of a certain kind, written on tablets of stone.
and when He also said 'a new commandment I give you' - doesn't the logic of Hebrews 8:13 also apply?
-
1
- Show all
that's not necessarily true, and i will prove it:
U is the blue area
B is the orange area
A is the purple area
U is 'the whole space' and A ⊂ U and B ⊂ U
((A & B are both contained in U))
here, A ⊂ B , but ¬ A ≠ ¬ B
¬ A = U \ A = (B \ A) ∪ (¬ B)
¬ A is the green area
look at what you have here:
x ∈ A → x ∈ B
which is, A implies B
but you do not have the converse 'x ∉ A → x ∉ B'
which would be, 'not A implies not B'
because some of 'not A' is still in B.
this is what we have in Mark 16:16, and Romans 4:5 tells us us that (¬ A) ∩ (B) ≠ ∅
(( ¬ A ∩ B ≠ ∅ means that the intersection / overlap of 'not A' and B is nonempty: there exist people whom God accounts as righteous even though they do nothing other than believe Him))
U is the blue area
B is the orange area
A is the purple area
U is 'the whole space' and A ⊂ U and B ⊂ U
((A & B are both contained in U))
here, A ⊂ B , but ¬ A ≠ ¬ B
¬ A = U \ A = (B \ A) ∪ (¬ B)
¬ A is the green area
look at what you have here:
x ∈ A → x ∈ B
which is, A implies B
but you do not have the converse 'x ∉ A → x ∉ B'
which would be, 'not A implies not B'
because some of 'not A' is still in B.
this is what we have in Mark 16:16, and Romans 4:5 tells us us that (¬ A) ∩ (B) ≠ ∅
(( ¬ A ∩ B ≠ ∅ means that the intersection / overlap of 'not A' and B is nonempty: there exist people whom God accounts as righteous even though they do nothing other than believe Him))
-
1
- Show all
5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
Rom 4
There is a confusion here in language. Paul is talking about working for wages, not good works done
from a heart of love, because one wants to with no sense of obligation or a desire to get recognition.
Paul is saying we are given a gift by God, because we have put our faith in Him, righteousness.
But part of this faith is the acknowledging love is expressed through action, it is not just nice thoughts
and intentions, but actual help and delivery of good things. The world is full of people with good intentions
and evil actions, a rosy view of a doomed condition.
What you are pointing at is a common mistake made, confusing different uses of a word like work, and not
acknowledging the power of its context and meaning. But as with all things in God, He is happy to let those
who wish to construct excuses to do this, one less to consider in eternity. God bless.
Rom 4
There is a confusion here in language. Paul is talking about working for wages, not good works done
from a heart of love, because one wants to with no sense of obligation or a desire to get recognition.
Paul is saying we are given a gift by God, because we have put our faith in Him, righteousness.
But part of this faith is the acknowledging love is expressed through action, it is not just nice thoughts
and intentions, but actual help and delivery of good things. The world is full of people with good intentions
and evil actions, a rosy view of a doomed condition.
What you are pointing at is a common mistake made, confusing different uses of a word like work, and not
acknowledging the power of its context and meaning. But as with all things in God, He is happy to let those
who wish to construct excuses to do this, one less to consider in eternity. God bless.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
The problem with this kind of analogy, belief is just a thought, no more.
If there is no intention of change in Gods work, why does God only reward those who
change because of interaction with Him?
Why does God punish those who refuse to repent and change or acknowledge righteousness
and evil when He calls for judgement?
The prophets of Baal died because they worshipped a false god. God has not changed, or His
ways. What has changed is the communion with God in our hearts. That is profoundly different,
if one finds the reality of it in ones life.
If there is no intention of change in Gods work, why does God only reward those who
change because of interaction with Him?
Why does God punish those who refuse to repent and change or acknowledge righteousness
and evil when He calls for judgement?
The prophets of Baal died because they worshipped a false god. God has not changed, or His
ways. What has changed is the communion with God in our hearts. That is profoundly different,
if one finds the reality of it in ones life.
-
2
- Show all
oh? is it the language that informs you of that?
Paul uses two men as examples of what he is talking about here: Abraham and David
did neither of them do works out of love? did they both work as though for wages?
no, Abraham did nothing but believe, and it was credited as righteousness. and David said, blessed is the man against whom the Lord does not count his wrongs - his sin was removed; it was not because he offered any sacrifice for absolution.
we love, because He first loved us
Paul uses two men as examples of what he is talking about here: Abraham and David
did neither of them do works out of love? did they both work as though for wages?
no, Abraham did nothing but believe, and it was credited as righteousness. and David said, blessed is the man against whom the Lord does not count his wrongs - his sin was removed; it was not because he offered any sacrifice for absolution.
we love, because He first loved us
-
1
- Show all
it's just math.
nope, never heard of it.
looked it up. turns out ((no surprise)) the philosophy department is poor at math.
that falls apart when P ∩ Q = P but Q ∩ P ≠ Q
here's an example:
being a woman implies being an human being.
not being a woman does not imply not being an human being.
nope, never heard of it.
looked it up. turns out ((no surprise)) the philosophy department is poor at math.
that falls apart when P ∩ Q = P but Q ∩ P ≠ Q
here's an example:
being a woman implies being an human being.
not being a woman does not imply not being an human being.
-
1
- Show all
K
Abraham did nothing but believe? You call packing up the family, moving to parts unknown nothing? You call demonstrating a willingness to kill your own son nothing? Genesis 28:5because Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions."
-
2
- Show all
look,dude. it's not an universally applicable logical construct. i have proven it in the abstract, and i have given you two definite counterexamples. look up De Morgan's rules: your error in Mark 16:16 is because you are not negating the intersection correctly. or, if you'd rather use philosophical pseudo-logic, you are affirming the consequent.
trying to impress with latin phrases does not make up for being poor at math.
if my math is wrong, point it out.
if not being a woman really implies that you are not an human, please explain why men are not people.
trying to impress with latin phrases does not make up for being poor at math.
if my math is wrong, point it out.
if not being a woman really implies that you are not an human, please explain why men are not people.