Bible Study

[Praxeas]

Balloon!

[Luke]

Originally Posted by BalancedLife

I really don't know what to say to you here, there is no rhyme or reason to your statement about the law. Of course it was the law that told us what is right or wrong. But we are not debtors to the law for we live it thru Christ. As Paul said, if you do one part of the law you are bound to folkow the entire law and therefore making the cross of Christ of none effect.

If you think involuntary manslaughter is just a civil law, then I have nothing else to say to you. That's what the law of Deut. 22:8 was for, to prevent blood on your house.


God bless

I never said we were bound to keep the law rather I said that we are not under the ceremonial law not the civil law. When the instruction is given as to house plans this is clearly an example of our building codes of today and therefore should easily be recognized as civil law. As to my point that you cannot seen to understand I am simply pointing out that it is inconsistent of you to say the law doesn't apply today then go to it to say something is wrong.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No you don't HAVE to go back to the Law (Old Testament), because these laws are repeated in the New Testament. The Law was a part of the Old Covenant and we have a New Covenant

Where are these two particular laws SPECIFICALLY spelled out in the new testament?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Luke

Where are these two particular laws SPECIFICALLY spelled out in the new testament?

what "two particular" laws?

[BalancedLife]

Originally Posted by Luke

I never said we were bound to keep the law rather I said that we are not under the ceremonial law not the civil law. When the instruction is given as to house plans this is clearly an example of our building codes of today and therefore should easily be recognized as civil law. As to my point that you cannot seen to understand I am simply pointing out that it is inconsistent of you to say the law doesn't apply today then go to it to say something is wrong.

You are missing the premise of Deut. 22:8, it is not a "building code" but it is a law to put something in place to stop involuntary manslaughter from happening. I will use an example for today - if you are driving in your car and go left of center hitting someone head on which results in their death, you will not be tried for the traffic offense but you will be tried for the death of that person due to reckless driving. Your penalty will not be a fine and driving school but could be prison time for killing someone. That's what Deut. 22:8 was designed for, to stop someone from falling and blood being upon your house. If you did not have the battlement around your roof you would be guilty of breaking the law which this was an extension of "thous shalt not kill".

Secondly, which law does Deut. 22:11-12 fall under? Civil? Ceremonial? Moral? They have nothing to do with ceremonial and nothing to do with civil, so are we to obey these laws? Of course, I am being cynical here but would like to know why some choose to obey parts of the law and not other parts. I would be interested in your thoughts:


11 You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together.

12 “You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself.



God bless

[BalancedLife]

Originally Posted by Luke

As to my point that you cannot seen to understand I am simply pointing out that it is inconsistent of you to say the law doesn't apply today then go to it to say something is wrong.

I am in line with the scripture in doing that for that is what Paul did. He said that he did not know what sin was if it wasn't for the Law. But we are not under the curse of the law but rather grace. That does not give us an excuse to sin but we are to live in the Spirit and not the flesh.

But as I mentioned before, all the sins that God kept in place were reiterated by the Apostle's in the NT. They were moved on by the Holy Spirit to teach the Gentiles what was sin and what was not. They knew not to follow the law for that would make the cross of none effect (Paul's very words). We obey the Law thru Christ now for he was the only one to fulfill it without sin.



God bless

[BalancedLife]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

what "two particular" laws?

I think he is referring to incest and sex with animals. These are spelled out in the NT as I mentioned to him before but he doesn't want to see that. Paul took care of incest in the Corinth church and he also covered both of these when he said the works of the flesh are evident in fornication. That Greek word he used was "porneia" which means all types of explicit sexual acts then the Greek word spells them all out and names incest and sex with animals.



God bless

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BalancedLife

I think he is referring to incest and sex with animals. These are spelled out in the NT as I mentioned to him before but he doesn't want to see that. Paul took care of incest in the Corinth church and he also covered both of these when he said the works of the flesh are evident in fornication. That Greek word he used was "porneia" which means all types of explicit sexual acts then the Greek word spells them all out and names incest and sex with animals.



God bless

Agreed

[Luke]

Originally Posted by BalancedLife

I think he is referring to incest and sex with animals. These are spelled out in the NT as I mentioned to him before but he doesn't want to see that. Paul took care of incest in the Corinth church and he also covered both of these when he said the works of the flesh are evident in fornication. That Greek word he used was "porneia" which means all types of explicit sexual acts then the Greek word spells them all out and names incest and sex with animals.



God bless

The thing condemned in the church at Corinth was incestuous fornication not incestuous marriage. While the other is never mentioned in the new testament at all. To say that the passage in Gal 5 deals with those topics one must first show how it even applies how do you know that Paul thought those acts were immoral upon what did he base this belief? The obvious answer to theses questions is the MORAL LAW without the law pointing out the immorality of these acts what basis would you have for saying that these acts are sin (other than they are disgustingly gross)? My point is if you say that the law is in no way applicable to us today then you cannot use it to back up your point here and say theses things are immoral.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Luke

The thing condemned in the church at Corinth was incestuous fornication not incestuous marriage. While the other is never mentioned in the new testament at all. To say that the passage in Gal 5 deals with those topics one must first show how it even applies how do you know that Paul thought those acts were immoral upon what did he base this belief? The obvious answer to theses questions is the MORAL LAW without the law pointing out the immorality of these acts what basis would you have for saying that these acts are sin (other than they are disgustingly gross)? My point is if you say that the law is in no way applicable to us today then you cannot use it to back up your point here and say theses things are immoral.

Incest is incest.

Pornea covers all sexual sins

Lawful marriages are not between relatives

Mat 14:3 For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife,
Mat 14:4 because John had been saying to him, "It is not lawful for you to have her."