Law was an impossible system to keep

[Esaias]

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
(Acts 15:7-11 KJV)

I believe you are using Peter's words in verse 10 to say that according to Peter, those under the law covenant were under a burden that they could not bear, and therefore you are concluding that nobody could actually keep the law covenant? Is that what you are saying? That Peter was affirming a constitutional, or natural or 'inherent' inability to perform the words or terms of the Sinaitic Covenant?

I am not sure that such a conclusion follows from what Peter said.

Here is the context of the issue:

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
(Acts 15:5 KJV)

Notice it was 'certain of the sect of the Pharisees' who began the issue, who raised the issue, and who created the disturbance in the first place. When a Pharisee speaks of 'keeping the law' he does NOT mean merely obedience to the old covenant, he means obedience to the Pharisaic interpretation of the law. The belief of the Pharisees was that God not only gave the written Law, but also gave an oral Law, handed down by the 'elders'. Furthermore, they believed that rabbis had the authority to interpret and apply both the written Law and the oral Law, by making rules or 'halachah'. These things become 'mitzvot' or commands that must be followed by all Jews. Failure to obey these mitzvot and keep halachah is viewed as 'sin'. Thus, for example, every Orthodox Jew (Pharisee) ritually washes their hands before eating or praying, and says 'Blessed are you Lord, King of the Universe, who has commanded the washing of hands.' Even though God never did command such a thing.

Christ repeatedly dealt with these people who had a man-made interpretation they called 'the law'. And now, in Acts, many of these same people have become Christians, but are still holding on to their Pharisaic traditions they called 'the law'.

Peter could not have been saying the written commandments of God were 'a burden that none of us could bear'. We know this because of some things that Peter said elsewhere:

For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
(1 Peter 2:20-22 KJV)

Christ is our example, he did no sin, nor did he ever speak unrighteously. Therefore, we should follow his example - which would can only mean that we too should 'do no sin, nor speak unrighteously'.

Again,

Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
(2 Peter 3:11 KJV)

Peter's issue was not with anyone obeying the commands of God, but rather Pharisees putting a heavy burden on people that could not be borne. In contrast, we read this:

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
(Matthew 11:28-30 KJV)

Christ's yoke is easy, his burden is light, yet some have said that 'grace is harder than law'? Notice also what Christ said:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:17-20 KJV)

Now, whose burden was grievous and heavy and unbearable?

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
(Matthew 23:1-4 KJV)

And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
(Luke 11:46 KJV)

Neither Christ nor the apostles taught that God had placed a grievous burden on anyone (except as a consequence for sin and rebellion, perhaps). Rather, it was the Pharisees, scribes, and lawyers with their extrabiblical and man-made traditions - which they called 'the law' - which was a grievous burden that could not be borne.

Neither Paul nor Peter were arguing against anybody keeping any of the actual commandments of God. They were arguing against a)the Pharisaic religious doctrine, and b)attempting to be justified by the law.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
(Acts 15:7-11 KJV)

I believe you are using Peter's words in verse 10 to say that according to Peter, those under the law covenant were under a burden that they could not bear, and therefore you are concluding that nobody could actually keep the law covenant? Is that what you are saying? That Peter was affirming a constitutional, or natural or 'inherent' inability to perform the words or terms of the Sinaitic Covenant?

I am not sure that such a conclusion follows from what Peter said.

Here is the context of the issue:

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
(Acts 15:5 KJV)

Notice it was 'certain of the sect of the Pharisees' who began the issue, who raised the issue, and who created the disturbance in the first place. When a Pharisee speaks of 'keeping the law' he does NOT mean merely obedience to the old covenant, he means obedience to the Pharisaic interpretation of the law. The belief of the Pharisees was that God not only gave the written Law, but also gave an oral Law, handed down by the 'elders'. Furthermore, they believed that rabbis had the authority to interpret and apply both the written Law and the oral Law, by making rules or 'halachah'. These things become 'mitzvot' or commands that must be followed by all Jews. Failure to obey these mitzvot and keep halachah is viewed as 'sin'. Thus, for example, every Orthodox Jew (Pharisee) ritually washes their hands before eating or praying, and says 'Blessed are you Lord, King of the Universe, who has commanded the washing of hands.' Even though God never did command such a thing.

Christ repeatedly dealt with these people who had a man-made interpretation they called 'the law'. And now, in Acts, many of these same people have become Christians, but are still holding on to their Pharisaic traditions they called 'the law'.

Peter could not have been saying the written commandments of God were 'a burden that none of us could bear'. We know this because of some things that Peter said elsewhere:

For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
(1 Peter 2:20-22 KJV)

Christ is our example, he did no sin, nor did he ever speak unrighteously. Therefore, we should follow his example - which would can only mean that we too should 'do no sin, nor speak unrighteously'.

Again,

Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
(2 Peter 3:11 KJV)

Peter's issue was not with anyone obeying the commands of God, but rather Pharisees putting a heavy burden on people that could not be borne. In contrast, we read this:

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
(Matthew 11:28-30 KJV)

Christ's yoke is easy, his burden is light, yet some have said that 'grace is harder than law'? Notice also what Christ said:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:17-20 KJV)

Now, whose burden was grievous and heavy and unbearable?

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
(Matthew 23:1-4 KJV)

And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
(Luke 11:46 KJV)

Neither Christ nor the apostles taught that God had placed a grievous burden on anyone (except as a consequence for sin and rebellion, perhaps). Rather, it was the Pharisees, scribes, and lawyers with their extrabiblical and man-made traditions - which they called 'the law' - which was a grievous burden that could not be borne.

Neither Paul nor Peter were arguing against anybody keeping any of the actual commandments of God. They were arguing against a)the Pharisaic religious doctrine, and b)attempting to be justified by the law.

Very good

The issue was the tradition of the elders "Mishna" vs Torah.
Big difference between Talmudic traditions and the Torah.

[shazeep]

nice E

[Godsdrummer]

That should settle it, but it probably won't.

[mfblume]

Thanks, Esaias.

Now, I seer that I may be in the minority on this issue here, but I insist you are in error. Peter did not distinguish the actual Law from Moses with w twisted version. When he meant their fathers, he meant all their ancestors ever under Law since the time of Moses. You claim all references to an impossible law are to a distortion and that the actual law was not impossible. I already addressed why it was not a distortion of actual law.

Galatians comes right out and says those under law are under the curse.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Now, notice he QUOTES LAW to validate his point. He did not quote a distortion of the law. He did not say those under law are under a curse by quoting some Pharisaical invention of what they should do. he quoted something from the Old Covenant.

The law itself said that if you are not able to continue in all the things the law said to do, you are cursed.

Deuteronomy 27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Now why would he say that everyone is cursed if they're under the law simply because Law said you are cursed if you do not continue it all of it? Would it not rather say that SOME are cursed because SOME would not continue in it all? Why did it give a sweeping overview of ANYBODY and EVERYBODY being cursed simply because they're under law, and the reason for it is because the law said your're cursed if you do not continue in it all? It is because NO ONE CAN. It is taken for granted that no one can continue in all of it. So if one is cursed because they cannot continue in it all, and Paul says that means EVERYONE UNDER LAW IS CURSED, then it can only be because no one can continue in it.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with a distorted version. I know those who insist on law keeping with feasts and all even today use this argument that they were up against a pharisaical distortion of law. But Gal 3 proves that was not the emphasis. Yes, the pharisees twisted it, but Paul is not dealing with that in Gal 3. And neither do I believe Peter was in Acts 15.

Now, you already stated before, and predict you will again, that using law to JUSTIFY us is what is the issue. That is obviously true. But before Paul said ANYTHING about justification, he said we are cursed if under law. Period. Just by being under law. Why again? Because you have to keep it all in order to not be cursed.

Then we read:

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Now, did Christ come to deliver people from a distortion of the law? No. He came to deliver them from the CURSE OF THE LAW. he came to deliver them from the fact that you have to continue in all of it or be cursed. If that was only talking about a distortion of the law it would be silly for Paul to say this is why Christi came.... to take us out from perversions of the law. But when he speaks here of Law and Christ he is speaking of THE ACTUAL AND PROPER LAW from Moses.

Christ did not come to take us away from thinking law can justify. He did not come to take us out from a pharisaical distorted version of Law. He came to take them out of the CURSE OF THE LAW.

If you are correct then Jesus merely had to return them to proper and genuine law, because Moses said:

Leviticus 18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.


LIFE is what Jesus came to give. But because no one COULD keep all law to live, and they were cursed by default if they were under law since you are cursed if you cannot keep it, then just being under genuine law curses you. And Jesus came to lift the curse including this one from law. So he would merely say "Get back tot he real Law and you shall live!"

But no. he had to DIE for them to be rescue from that CURSE OF LAW.

I have to leave for work now. Will be back to deal with more. Thanks so much for your involvement!

But in the meantime please respond to this point for now.

[Aquila]

I always ask, if we are expected to "keep the law", specifically what commandments must we keep? I would like to see them listed.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I always ask, if we are expected to "keep the law", specifically what commandments must we keep? I would like to see them listed.

imo that is a subject change, even if it does not appear to be. Keeping the law is not fulfilling the law. Keeping the law is not good enough. It is not enough. And it is also too much, which i think is what E illuminated.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by shazeep

imo that is a subject change, even if it does not appear to be. Keeping the law is not fulfilling the law. Keeping the law is not good enough. It is not enough. And it is also too much, which i think is what E illuminated.

My point was simply that if Christians are to keep the Law, we need to know what laws must be kept in order to determine if the Law is impossible to keep.

[mfblume]

That was a response to shazeep who quoted the psalm to imply salvation can be by works. The Psalm does not teach that, but his use of it was toward that purpose. So, no, that was not what I asked you to respond to. But seeing as you did, we can deal with your thoughts about these passages as well.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Paul's use of the law in Romans was to establish that the unregenerate Jew could not rely upon his Sinaitic covenantal status to establish his righteousness in the eyes of God.

I disagree. Paul was not writing to unregenerate Jews in the book of Romans. He was writing to saved and regenerate Jews. But those Jews had a problem with feelings of superiority over the gentile believers. I know this is writing to saved Jews because Romans 6 continues the context and asks them if they knew their baptism into Christ was baptism into His death? While he address specific Jews in Chapter 2, the audience also includes gentiles who were saved, and he speaks to them all in Romans 6. So, there's nobody unregenerate in Paul's audience in this epistle. There just isn't. And the epistles were generally read in other churches, too, as was directly noted in Colossians to the Colossian congregation.

Col 4:16....And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.


The Jews in the Roman Church had the same problem the Jews in Jerusalem had over the position Mosaic Law held in the churches in regard to gentiles.

The reason being that the law declared that 'there is none righteous, no not one'. He clarified by saying 'whatsoever the law says, it says to them that are under the law.' And thus, he showed that according to the law, everyone under the law had no righteousness to boast of. The Gentiles, not being in covenant, were automatically assumed to be unrighteous. The Jew trusted that he was 'not like other men', that is, Gentiles, that is, he was covenanted to God under the law and therefore was one of the 'saints of God'. But since the law declared (to those under the law) that 'there is none righteous', it follows that there is none under the law who could boast or trust that they were righteous under the law. The law itself declared, de facto and de jure, that 'there is none righteous', so even if a Jew was not conscious of any particular sin, and could not be convicted of any particular sin, yet he was still 'under sin' by the authoritative declaration of the law. And so Paul says the following:
What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
(Romans 3:9-19 KJV)

Amen, but He is not writing to unregenerate Jews, brother. Seriously. Again, it's like the Acts 15 council in Jerusalem. SAVED JEWS were demanding circumcision to their gentile brethren. These were not unregenerate Jews any more than the readers of Romans were. They were in the church.

Romans 5 which you cited was where Paul is declaring that Adam's sin was the occasion by which sin entered the world, and his disobedience brought sin upon all, and that contrariwise, Christ (doing what Adam failed to do) provides the occasion for all to be made righteous. All who are in Adam are constituted sinners, but all who are in Christ are constituted righteous. Not sure how you were referring to that verse in this discussion, perhaps you could explain?

Again, as this was directed to Shazeep who appeared to think the spam he does not actually name excused people from the cross so they can be saved, so I showed him that none of us were righteous, first of all, and that Christ's work of obedience, not ours, make us righteous.

I will address Acts 15 in my next post.

Thanks! Please go back further to some posts of mine you did not yet respond to.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
(Acts 15:7-11 KJV)

I believe you are using Peter's words in verse 10 to say that according to Peter, those under the law covenant were under a burden that they could not bear, and therefore you are concluding that nobody could actually keep the law covenant? Is that what you are saying? That Peter was affirming a constitutional, or natural or 'inherent' inability to perform the words or terms of the Sinaitic Covenant?

I am not sure that such a conclusion follows from what Peter said.

Here is the context of the issue:

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
(Acts 15:5 KJV)

Notice it was 'certain of the sect of the Pharisees' who began the issue, who raised the issue, and who created the disturbance in the first place.

But these pharisees were BELIEVERS. they were part of the church at Jerusalem. And though they may have a distortion of actual Law, Peter is not addressing that distortion. Peter's use of "fathers" is a sweeping term that is ONLY USED TO SPEAK OF ISRAEL for centuries including those in the time of Moses.

Just because Pharisees were involved, albeit believing pharisees, does not give grounds to say Peter addressed Pharisaical understanding of Law. Why is it not possible for Peter to be speaking of genuine God-intended Law from Moses, and not a twisted pharisaical version, when he addresses the church about what correct opinion to hold regarding Mosaic Law, even if Pharisees were involved?

If Peter was correcting people's opinions of the proper place Mosaic law has in the church, he did not have to deal with distortions. Why would he not be speaking of actual Mosiac Law that existed before Pharisees ever twisted it? Peter says nothing about any distortion. I keep saying this, but even in Galatians Paul simply said actual and genuine Law puts one under a curse. There is no disclaimer saying that these men are only directing their critique against a distorted version of law. Since the issue is simply LAW OF MOSES, why would we assume it's not actually LAW OF MOSES but a distortion just because pharisees are mentioned? I know pharisees would consider their distortion to be the LAW OF MOSES, but Peter would make that distinction, and he doesn't. So, when Peter talks about LAW without making that distinction of a distortion we need to realize he is actually speak of of pre-pharisaic Mosaic Law.

When a Pharisee speaks of 'keeping the law' he does NOT mean merely obedience to the old covenant, he means obedience to the Pharisaic interpretation of the law.

I disagree, for the reasons stated above. Peter made no such distinction.

...
Christ repeatedly dealt with these people who had a man-made interpretation they called 'the law'. And now, in Acts, many of these same people have become Christians, but are still holding on to their Pharisaic traditions they called 'the law'.

Peter could not have been saying the written commandments of God were 'a burden that none of us could bear'. We know this because of some things that Peter said elsewhere:

For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
(1 Peter 2:20-22 KJV)

Christ is our example, he did no sin, nor did he ever speak unrighteously. Therefore, we should follow his example - which would can only mean that we too should 'do no sin, nor speak unrighteously'.

Again,

Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
(2 Peter 3:11 KJV)

Peter's issue was not with anyone obeying the commands of God, but rather Pharisees putting a heavy burden on people that could not be borne. In contrast, we read this:

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
(Matthew 11:28-30 KJV)

Christ's yoke is easy, his burden is light, yet some have said that 'grace is harder than law'?

You misrepresent those who said grace is harder than law. Those who said that are saying WITHOUT THE SPIRIT OF GOD it is harder. Grace is divine empowerment. And ironically GRACE itself is enablement to do what is required. But the requirements to do what is right are harder than the law's requirements, but that is only if there is no actual regeneration and empowerment fop the Spirit involved. This breakdown of communication is detrimental to the overall issues involving law, because now it's affecting this conversation.

Notice also what Christ said:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:17-20 KJV)

Now, whose burden was grievous and heavy and unbearable?

What is your opinion of what it is to fulfill law and destroy it? It seems you imply that FULFILLING law means KEEPING it. That is not true. Fulfill it means to bring to an expiration, and end it, by having achieved the intended goal to which law was created to lead Israel, while destroy means to wipe out as useless trash when law was not useless. That's why Paul said grace complements the law.

Rom 3:31....Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Making the law void means it had no use. Establishing law means the same thing as fulfilling it. It's demands for sacrifice, and its claims of sin were all true. Grace answers all of that. But that dopes not mean law of Moses continues to exist in our live. Yet were are not lawless. There is the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus teaching godliness.

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
(Matthew 23:1-4 KJV)

And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
(Luke 11:46 KJV)

Neither Christ nor the apostles taught that God had placed a grievous burden on anyone (except as a consequence for sin and rebellion, perhaps). Rather, it was the Pharisees, scribes, and lawyers with their extrabiblical and man-made traditions - which they called 'the law' - which was a grievous burden that could not be borne.

Neither Paul nor Peter were arguing against anybody keeping any of the actual commandments of God. They were arguing against a)the Pharisaic religious doctrine, and b)attempting to be justified by the law.

I strongly disagree. You have to provide the distinction in the epistles to a twisted version as opposed to actual Law. I have already indicated references in epistles that point directly to Mosaic law itself, and not a twisted version. I will continue to show this is the case.

You can't become like dispies who say God did not have to say something for us to realize that something is involved in what He intends us to believer, now, bro.