what being apart from the law means.

[EGross]

In Mat 5 Christ says:

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

To full fill means two things here, to complete the law (by extending the law to cover thought and intentions, and to be the final sin sacerfice.)

I would suggest that "Law" here is referring to "Torah", sometimes referred to as the Book of the Law, and he is not speaking of Prophets, in the sense of speaking of human beings, but of their words, so as "Do not think that I am hear to destory the Holy Torah, or the words of the Holy prophets, but I am here to fulfill thier words" - meaning the words of the prophets, not the Torah. And since these is a proponderence of messianic references in the words of the prophets he was inferring: "I am not here to violate the holy words, but I am the fulfillment of it's prophetic messengers, for I am the Messiah".

18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Which not only points to the law itself, but to the part of the law that speaks or provides for attonement.

Again, I would suggest that again, he is speaking of a Messianic prophecy, that once the Messiah comes, only after that things can be changed, which is a radical idea, but not unheard of. Centuries later, a con man, Sabbatai Tzvi, would be seen as a Messiah and would drop and change laws of the Torah, and his followers accepted blindly. They eventually became Muslims.

Now there does seem to be a contradiction between "I am not here to break the Torah" and "nothing in the Torah will change until the Messiah comes", whereas one seems to be more radical than the other, but not contradictory, just expanding the intent.

And since Christianity doesn't hold but the tiniest number of those laws, this is certainly one way to justify that. On the other hand, only if Jesus said "Ok, the following items are no longer true, and the following items we will keep." All of that came from later leadership.

As for the rest of it, there was a lot of political unreast, primarily within the House of Shammai and the zealots who had integrated with them to enforce religious doctrine by the threats, and he was most likely addressing the fact that they were being jerks.

[Drich]

In Mat 5 Christ says:To full fill means two things here, to complete the law (by extending the law to cover thought and intentions, and to be the final sin sacerfice.)

I would suggest that "Law" here is referring to "Torah", sometimes referred to as the Book of the Law, and he is not speaking of Prophets, in the sense of speaking of human beings, but of their words, so as "Do not think that I am hear to destory the Holy Torah, or the words of the Holy prophets, but I am here to fulfill thier words" - meaning the words of the prophets, not the Torah. And since these is a proponderence of messianic references in the words of the prophets he was inferring: "I am not here to violate the holy words, but I am the fulfillment of it's prophetic messengers, for I am the Messiah".

Which not only points to the law itself, but to the part of the law that speaks or provides for attonement.

Again, I would suggest that again, he is speaking of a Messianic prophecy, that once the Messiah comes, only after that things can be changed, which is a radical idea, but not unheard of. Centuries later, a con man, Sabbatai Tzvi, would be seen as a Messiah and would drop and change laws of the Torah, and his followers accepted blindly. They eventually became Muslims.

Now there does seem to be a contradiction between "I am not here to break the Torah" and "nothing in the Torah will change until the Messiah comes", whereas one seems to be more radical than the other, but not contradictory, just expanding the intent.

And since Christianity doesn't hold but the tiniest number of those laws, this is certainly one way to justify that. On the other hand, only if Jesus said "Ok, the following items are no longer true, and the following items we will keep." All of that came from later leadership.

As for the rest of it, there was a lot of political unreast, primarily within the House of Shammai and the zealots who had integrated with them to enforce religious doctrine by the threats, and he was most likely addressing the fact that they were being jerks.

Ah, no.
I'll ask you the same thing I askd chad. If the Mat 5 says what you have repersented it to say here, then why have you only used 1/2 of 1 verse and had to self interpret the rest?
When you speak as the the bible speaks, then doesn't it make sense to let it do most of the talking?

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

In order for your arguement to work one has to completely ignore verses 19 and 20 (which you did in your version.) Because Even if the word for "law" (νόμος/nomos) here in the Greek was interpreted in to meaning the Torah, (Which when it is, the word Torah appears in english rather than the word law.) Christ in 19&20 focouses on the actual rule part of the law. Hence "Your righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharaisees." At that time the only way to obtain righteousness was obeying the rule part of the law. Which means God in this instance is Speaking of the Law as orginally translated.

That said the other reason your arguement does not work is because If Christ nullifies the Law and perserves the Torah/Phrophets then His sacerfice means nothing. Because it is through the law that His sacerfice has power and meaning. In that it is the Law that calls for blood/death to attone for sin. Christ's purpose here was to become that sacerfice thus full filling that law. Kinda how verse 17 says..

[EGross]

Chapter 5 is the beginning of his sales pitch to preceed the sermon on the mount.

19 and 20 are quite interesting in that, as we will see elsewhere, jesus will later diss the pharsiees and the scribes, and separate righteousness from them. In the beginning he's cool with them. One possible explanation, this was during his sales pith for being the messiah, and later was after they had rejected his possibility of being valid.

17 and 18 is part of the general sales pitch, saying that he is going to fulfill the prophecy of messiahship, and that (to be safe) he is not going to say are do anything to violate the mitzvot (law) or Torah. To do otherwise at that stage would invalidate his claim.

Although having a non-Jewish father probably has the pharisees dismiss him out of hand, ticking him off, and going on a rampage about them in the later chapters.

[Cato]

When you speak as the the bible speaks, then doesn't it make sense to let it do most of the talking?

Particularly when a snake, bush, or donkey is doing the talking.

[Drich]

Chapter 5 is the beginning of his sales pitch to preceed the sermon on the mount.

19 and 20 are quite interesting in that, as we will see elsewhere, jesus will later diss the pharsiees and the scribes, and separate righteousness from them. In the beginning he's cool with them. One possible explanation, this was during his sales pith for being the messiah, and later was after they had rejected his possibility of being valid.

17 and 18 is part of the general sales pitch, saying that he is going to fulfill the prophecy of messiahship, and that (to be safe) he is not going to say are do anything to violate the mitzvot (law) or Torah. To do otherwise at that stage would invalidate his claim.

Although having a non-Jewish father probably has the pharisees dismiss him out of hand, ticking him off, and going on a rampage about them in the later chapters.

Red herring much?

What does any of this have to do with the usage of the Greek word (Not Hebrew) νόμος/nomos being translated to mean torah rather than Law? The usage of this word has no bearing how one feels about the Pharisees.

---

When you speak as the the bible speaks, then doesn't it make sense to let it do most of the talking?

Particularly when a snake, bush, or donkey is doing the talking.

Hee Haw

[Cinjin]

[Neo-Scholastic]

PLEASE do not take this the wrong way, as I am not trying to insult or invalidate your beliefs... But take note as to how you use scripture. You will quote one verse, and then tag a meaning onto that verse that the orginal text does not support.

I have nothing by respect for the zeal with which you present your ideas and extensive scriptural support.

I have spent the majority of my christian life following what 1thess 5:21 tells us to do: Question all things and hold on to what is Good. This does not mean question only the questionable. It means to also question the foundational.

We are alike it this respect, even though we have reached different conclusions. We have both demonstrated our willingness to follow the evidence wherever it may lead and change our beliefs accordingly. It is evident that you have come to your interpretation through much study and earnest thought.

If I were in your place my first question would be: "Why Can't my doctrinal arguement (The one I used here today) Be found in One place, One Chapter, or even One Book? Why do i have to take a single verse from multiple places and put them together to say what i believe? Is God really so ellusive? Or is that my denomination being ellusive?

I pull verses from multiple places to show that a doctrine is presented throughout whole of scripture. I only point to specific verses 1) for the sake of brevity and 2) so that you do not have to wonder which verse out the entire context I believe is critical. To demonstrate that I have not cherry-picked one verse I will provide detailed commentary for each verse for both Rom 7 and Matt 5 below. From this you will see New Church doctrine enjoys more scriptural support than you believe is warranted.

ROMANS 7:
1. Brothers and sisters, you all understand the Law of Moses. So surely you know that the law rules over people only while they are alive.
By this time in history people had lost the spiritual import of Mosaic law. As such they had become purely civil in nature, external gestures and prohibitions without spiritual significance.

2 It’s like what the law says about marriage: A woman must stay married to her husband as long as he is alive. But if her husband dies, she is made free from the law of marriage.
3 But if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, the law says she is guilty of adultery. But if her husband dies, she is made free from the law of marriage. So if she marries another man after her husband dies, she is not guilty of adultery.
Here Paul starts to use a familiar, but now merely civil law, to demonstrate a spiritual principle

4 In the same way, my brothers and sisters, your old selves died and you became free from the law through the body of Christ. Now you belong to someone else. You belong to the one who was raised from death. We belong to Christ so that we can be used in service to God.
When Paul says “your old selves have died” he means that earthly motivations of loving the self and the world have been replaced by love of God and neighbor. To be “free from the law” means that we are not bound by external motions. The “body of Christ” means a spiritual community governed by love. The rest is self evident.

5 In the past we were ruled by our sinful selves. The law made us want to do sinful things. And those sinful desires controlled our bodies, so that what we did only brought us spiritual death.
To be “ruled by our sinful selves” is to be swayed by the ego’s love of self and the world. The statement “the law made us want to do sinful things” means that compliance with letter of Mosaic law had become contrary to the spirit of the Law. People were performing rituals for show to feed their pride and glorify themselves.

6 In the past the law held us as prisoners, but our old selves died, and we were made free from the law. So now we serve God in a new way, not in the old way, with the written rules. Now we serve God in the new way, with the Spirit.
The “law held us prisoners” means that the rituals and prohibitions, performed without love for the Lord or neighbor, were pointless restrictions and strict compliance was a form of bondage.
…

Now having given examples and contrasting civil compliance with spiritual obedience, Paul offers himself as an object lesson, but only rhetorically. We know that it is rhetorical for the following reason. First, post-conversion Paul was not a wicked man. We hold up his life as an example of obedience and love of Christ. Second, Paul was writing as a believer, i.e. we was reborn and thus, according to the traditional view, he was saved. As a saved believer is ceased being a slave to sin and by his own account was a bondservant of Christ

14 We know that the law is spiritual, but I am not. I am so human. Sin rules me as if I were its slave.
The spiritual law is to love the Lord and our neighbor as ourselves. When he says, I am so human (not spiritual0, he means that sin comes from our earthly human nature which is love of self. When he says, “sin rules me as a slave”, he intends for the un-saved listeners to identify with that as a rhetorical device, not as a statement literally applying reborn Christians like himself.

15 I don’t understand why I act the way I do. I don’t do the good I want to do, and I do the evil I hate.
This means that if your motivation comes from yourself, and not from the Lord, is evil That’s because the good that we do is from the Lord and not from ourselves.

16 And if I don’t want to do what I do, that means I agree that the law is good.
The “law” in this verse means the spiritual commandment to love the Lord and our neighbor like ourselves.

17 But I am not really the one doing the evil. It is sin living in me that does it.
The meaning of this verse is a bit trickier. Here Paul acknowledges the limitations of mortal flesh and the difference between man’s natural will and the Lord’s. This will become more clear in later verses.

18 Yes, I know that nothing good lives in me—I mean nothing good lives in the part of me that is not spiritual. I want to do what is good, but I don’t do it.
Here is the qualifier. The natural man, apart from Christ, focuses only on earthly concerns. Man on his own does not do good. The good that we do comes from the Lord and not from ourselves.

19 I don’t do the good that I want to do. I do the evil that I don’t want to do.
This means that the good the natural man thinks he does is not really good at all, because it stems from self love. Only evil results when a man acts from his own inititiative, and not from the power of Christ within him.

20 So if I do what I don’t want to do, then I am not really the one doing it. It is the sin living in me that does it. 21. So I have learned this rule: When I want to do good, evil is there with me.
In this world, we have both a spiritual and earthly nature. Thus we are challenged to chose between our earthly body’s evil desires and the divine spark inside us that longs for Jesus. When Paul says, “I am not the one doing it” he is blaming the natural man.

22 In my mind I am happy with God’s law.
This means that his rational mind accepts the truth of God’s commandment to love.

23 But I see another law working in my body. That law makes war against the law that my mind accepts. That other law working in my body is the law of sin, and that law makes me its prisoner.
This means that although he knows the truth, he is still unwilling to do it. This is because the will to do good does not come from man, it only comes from the Lord.

24 What a miserable person I am! Who will save me from this body that brings me death?
Jesus of course, but how. Paul is saying we have to die to self so that we can live in the Lord. That means we shun the dictates of our natural will, which is evil, so that God’s will which is good, can act through us.

25 I thank God for his salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord! So in my mind I am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful self I am a slave to the law of sin.
The salvation of Jesus Christ comes from his power over sin. When we bring him into our heart, his love drives out the sinful desires of our selfish will and replaces it with His own. But in his final statement he recognizes that in our earthly embodiment we always still face a choice between our will and God’s

MATHEW 5:
…
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”

At that time the only way to obtain righteousness was obeying the rule part of the law.

Jesus was not saying that the Pharisees were really really close to being absolutely perfect and that you have to be even better at following the Mosaic laws than them, i.e. perfect. Conforming to external rules and regulations never made anyone righteous. That is because you could do them with evil intentions. Those were the Pharisees. The only way to become righteous is to love God and your neighbor as yourself, the spiritual meaning inside the Mosaic laws that had been lost. Now if we weren’t able to do that, then why would that be the consistent admonition throughout the whole Word?

You do not have to be perfect to be in the presence of the Lord. Heaven is not a one-size fits all solution. There are many mansions and rewards proportional to the degree that we can receive the Divine Love and Wisdom of the Lord. It is through reception of these that gives us the power to love the Lord and our neighbor as our selves.

(James 2:14-26)

i was waiting for this one…Love is the missing element.

Indeed it is.

---

See what I said Drich. You can hear the heckling from the peanut gallery already.

[Drich]

See what I said Drich. You can hear the heckling from the peanut gallery already.

I know there would be heckling, but at the same time i think they also need to see that Christians have the freedom to live and let live as well. For the freedom I enjoy may not be the same freedom you enjoy. We are 'free' to experience as much or as little grace as we can process and still Love God with all of our being.

Christ puts it the best when He said: "What ever you bind here on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose here on Earth will be loosed in Heaven." Paul's dealings with this concept had him speak on the consumption of meat offered to idols. In the end he sumized that if you think something a sin(even if it is not) then for you, it is.

I did read your response, and i respect it. I was there for a long time myself. Matter of fact did some of my best works under the idea needing to stick to the law. (Nothing wrong with that if this is 110%of what God has given you to give.)

Meaning if this is where you need to be then do not think I am telling/teaching you to sin.. Also know that when/if you are ready the bible will grow with you. Whatever that may mean for you. If you Keep God at the center and put all your love into how you worship, then whatever that may look like it will pleasing to God.

In the end that's what it is all about. Not denominations, traditional worship nor even the act of worship itself..

[catfish]

Seriously guys... What the Hades makes all of you defend blood sacrifice?

Jeremiah 7:22
For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

[Drich]

Seriously guys... What the Hades makes all of you defend blood sacrifice?

Jeremiah 7:22
For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

Obedience Is Better Than Sacrifice
21 This is what the Lord All-Powerful, the God of Israel, says: “Go and offer as many burnt offerings and sacrifices as you want. Eat the meat of those sacrifices yourselves. 22 I brought your ancestors out of Egypt. I spoke to them, but I did not give them any commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 I only gave them this command: ‘Obey me and I will be your God, and you will be my people. Do all that I command, and good things will happen to you.’

24 “But your ancestors did not listen to me. They did not pay attention to me. They were stubborn and did what they wanted to do. They did not become good. They became even more evil—they went backward, not forward. 25 From the day that your ancestors left Egypt to this day, I have sent my servants to you. My servants are the prophets. I sent them to you again and again. 26 But your ancestors did not listen to me. They did not pay attention to me. They were very stubborn and did evil even worse than their fathers did.

27 “Jeremiah, you will tell these things to the people of Judah. But they will not listen to you. You call to them, but they will not answer you. 28 So you must tell them these things: ‘This is the nation that did not obey the Lord its God. These people did not listen to God’s teachings. They don’t know the true teachings.’

Context, Context, Context