The truth behind the Law

[eternally-gratefull]

Who told you that I thought someone could trap me in my own words?

Originally Posted by FGT

I think you ask me to many stupid questions trying to trap me in my own words..

I mean really now...

 

[sevenseas]

why is FGT taking over this thread with personal desire to argue with someone, anyone, who responds?

yes I'm playing monitor again

do a little homework. some people just want someone to joust with

 

[Grace777x70]

why is FGT taking over this thread with personal desire to argue with someone, anyone, who responds?

yes I'm playing monitor again

do a little homework. some people just want someone to joust with

Exactly!.....( although technically this is not jousting - it reveals the spirit of it... )

 

[sevenseas]

uh huh

we can see from this actual joust pic here, that both parties can loose

both have lost their seat. riding is all about balance

( so many metaphors I am getting losteded)

btw, I always wanted to try fencing. we need some fencing here.

stop the metaphors!

ok I'm done

 

[BeyondET]

the law behind the Truth...

 

[miknik5]

uh huh

we can see from this actual joust pic here, that both parties can loose

both have lost their seat. riding is all about balance

( so many metaphors I am getting losteded)

btw, I always wanted to try fencing. we need some fencing here.

stop the metaphors!

ok I'm done

Yes. And we can also see that there might be some spectators on the sidelines who are happy about it


i wouldclije your input as to what you thought was stupid about my questions

thanks

 

[FGT]

oh boy

Jesus was born free, and he was free as long as he obeyed the law Which he did completely.

He lost his life on the cross.. I lost mine when I decided I could not earn my way back to God, I needed saved by God.

When did you give your up?

Jesus was never free from death until He lost His life.

 

[Rainrider]

Why do we still squabble today after thousands of years regarding the law ?
Because people do not understand or accept that GOD divided the Commandments, separating spiritual observance from carnal works.
Personally I think it would help our understanding if we referred to them separately as the
Commandments of God and
the law of Moses.
and not speak of LAW as if it was all one and the same. Lets 'put difference between what is holy/spiritual and what is carnal/physical' Lev 10v10. Lets do what scripture says !

Well thin you have folks like me, that see Law and know that al has been given by HaShem, and it simply can't be separated in that manner. A lot of the problem at lest in my mind is the use of the phrase Mosaic law. In our study group we did our best to find where that phrase got started. Our RCC member, is the one that came up with the idea, ( note, any that can't read please keep in mind this is NOT repeat NOT proven as fact) that it may have started in Pauls time. Then gained ground when the RCC became more powerful. His reasoning behind it is that if one could read some the oldest forms of the Bible as it was in the first canon of 350AD give or take a bit, they would read one thing. Then as time moved on, he thinks it was around 1000AD or so, the Law was changed by the Pope, and the 4th C was removed. they then split the 1st so they still had 10. When the Bible became available to everyone, they had to change change it back.
Now I know that is just 6 people looking for a lost foot note in history. We are all willing to say we don't really know for sure. Yet our RCC priest, knows for sure that at one point the law had been changed by a Pope. He even showed us a print out of 3 different sets. So I am not going to say he is wrong. I am sure that if his name was to get out, he would loss his job over it. Just as I am also sure that He attends a Baptist church service every Sunday night.
The point being, that once we give into teh removal of any part of HaShem's Law, then we may as well go ahead and remove them all. As to the parts that we can show from HIs Word He removed, well that's not us removing them.

 

[Rainrider]

Depends what you call law.
I only want to keep the Commandments of God Jesus also kept. I'm not talking of the law of Moses which were temporary - but the Commandments of GOD spiritual and eternal loving God and neighbour. Do you have a problem with those ?

Would say the Feast are a part of this law of Moses?

 

[sevenseas]

Yes. And we can also see that there might be some spectators on the sidelines who are happy about it


i wouldclije your input as to what you thought was stupid about my questions

thanks

I haven't been following YOUR input

do you feel left out?

 

[Rainrider]

I agree not all the law applies. I was more talking about the 10 commandments which I do believe apply to all who would accept God. There are many parts of the law that the law itself shows would change or cease with the coming of the Messiah. There are many aspects of the law that are yet to be fulfilled or brought into being by Yeshua.

many do not realise that the sacrifice of Jesus the true lamb of God was the first step in the sanctuary service. anyway I could say much more but thanx for your reply

We do agree on that for sure. I can't speak for every one I would like to talk about the rest of you have to say. Don't hold back in here my friend, you are free to say what you will. Then don't let me push you into anything you don't wish to say.

 

[miknik5]

I haven't been following YOUR input

do you feel left out?

Oh, I see. You thought the "joust" was between GRACE777x70 and FGT when you supplied the picture of both riders falling off their seats


i see

 

[Rainrider]

Excuse me, but the ten commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sinai and are apart of the Law. And you are correct, Jesus did keep the ten commandments, as well as the rest of the law and that on mankind's behalf and that because we were unable to keep the Law.

You people who trust in the law will be thinking that you are going to get a pat on the back from God for attempting to keep the law. But you will be kept out of the kingdom of God because you trusted in your own works instead of trusting in Christ as the One who fulfilled the Law and thereby satisfying God's requirement for fulfillment.

Think of it this way, scripture states that "unless there is a shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sins." Jesus fulfilled that shedding of blood by shedding His righteous blood on our behalf. As a believer, do you feel that you need to go out and shed your blood to help Jesus fulfill what He already accomplished?

Jesus also took upon himself the wrath of God that we deserve as a result of our sins. Do you feel the need to experience God's wrath to finish the provision of salvation that Jesus already provided? That is exactly what you are doing by attempting to keep the Law. You're saying the Christ's fulfillment of the law was insufficient.

Just one question. Do you read past the word Law to find what a person really believes, or is the word Law enough for for your assumption to work?

 

[Rainrider]

No, you would not be condemned for saying salvation is by faith, unless you add works.

As for law. As I posted a few pages back (which no one responded to) the law has a purpose. And it has nothing to do with making anyone righteous, or being a part of their salvation.

Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

 

[beta]

Well thin you have folks like me, that see Law and know that al has been given by HaShem, and it simply can't be separated in that manner. A lot of the problem at lest in my mind is the use of the phrase Mosaic law. In our study group we did our best to find where that phrase got started. Our RCC member, is the one that came up with the idea, ( note, any that can't read please keep in mind this is NOT repeat NOT proven as fact) that it may have started in Pauls time. Then gained ground when the RCC became more powerful. His reasoning behind it is that if one could read some the oldest forms of the Bible as it was in the first canon of 350AD give or take a bit, they would read one thing. Then as time moved on, he thinks it was around 1000AD or so, the Law was changed by the Pope, and the 4th C was removed. they then split the 1st so they still had 10. When the Bible became available to everyone, they had to change change it back.
Now I know that is just 6 people looking for a lost foot note in history. We are all willing to say we don't really know for sure. Yet our RCC priest, knows for sure that at one point the law had been changed by a Pope. He even showed us a print out of 3 different sets. So I am not going to say he is wrong. I am sure that if his name was to get out, he would loss his job over it. Just as I am also sure that He attends a Baptist church service every Sunday night.
The point being, that once we give into teh removal of any part of HaShem's Law, then we may as well go ahead and remove them all. As to the parts that we can show from HIs Word He removed, well that's not us removing them.

I can see I did not ref to scriptures in my post you responded to but I have quoted them in other posts on this thread and thought they had been seen.
I will get back to this when I have had a sleep, now being nearly 10pm I am tired and in pain...see you later.

 

[Rainrider]

Can you explain atonement for me? The law taught us how sin was atoned for. Since people in here are talking about law. Can someone explain atonement. What was it that was done to cause God to forgive sin?

Licentiousness is a false gospel. Yes But replacing it with legalism (works) is just as dangerous as licentiousness.

Atonement for sin = death. In the sacrificial system, the blood of an innocent animal would ONLY COVER the sin, not wash it away. Please not before you go off the deep end.
Hos 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Amo 5:22 Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.
Psa 50:8 I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, to have been continually before me.
Psa 40:6
You take no delight in sacrifices or offerings. Now that you have made me listen, I finally understand—you don’t require burnt offerings or sin offerings.

That is just a hand full, so I think ends this as requirement. Being made clear from the WORD. Their is not one passage that can be used to twist this.

When Yeshua walked this earth, there is not one passage that ever points to, hitns at or can be made to, show He ever offered any of the Sacrifices, or burnt offerings.
When He gave His life willing, His blood made it so that our sins can be washes away, and removed never to be remembered again. Will that work for you?

 

[Rainrider]

True, we can not judge peoples salvation.

But we can listen to what they say, and I think have a prety good understanding, Especially if we walked in their shoes (believed the same thing and taught it) before..lol

From the kind of post you have left, I can say that you did not follow the same understanding as I do. If you did, then your post would show a little more understanding, and not be full of so much condemnation.

 

[sevenseas]

Oh, I see. You thought the "joust" was between GRACE777x70 and FGT when you supplied the picture of both riders falling off their seats


i see

actually (this is hopeless) I was looking at the exchange between EG and FGT. Grace liked my post and inserted a pic and I picked up on that and did the same and ran a few metaphors

you don't see and I can't help you. sorry

 

[miknik5]

Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Yes. But don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, don't announce your works before men, and after you do what you do say of yourself...I am only a servant...i did what was expected

 

[miknik5]

actually (this is hopeless) I was looking at the exchange between EG and FGT. Grace liked my post and inserted a pic and I picked up on that and did the same and ran a few metaphors

you don't see and I can't help you. sorry

Sure! If you say so