Christian Perspectives Concerning the Law

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by houston

*places nfs on ignore* EVERY TIME I SEE HIS/HER HANDLE, REMINDS ME OF THE TIME I WAS TRIPPIN ON A HOLE IN A PAPER HEART

That's too bad. I enjoy NFS's posts. As well as yours (another person I don't always agree with).

(I have no idea what trippin on a hole in a paper heart means though)

[A.W. Bowman]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

It appears to me, if God intended for us to follow the infinite Laws etched by the Religious orders of yesterday, today, and the future, don’t you think the Master of the Universe would have given the first Man a BOOK?

My dear friend - He did. Only then, God wrote His book in Adam's mind and on heart. It is even so today, for those who will allow it to actually take place. But, even now, as it was with Adam before, we are all still free to close that book whenever we choose.

We who are in Christ, have taken on the mind of Christ. Yet, does not nature testify against us for refusing to keep the mind of Christ? We set Him aside whenever it becomes inconvenient or too uncomfortable to follow in His foot steps and after His precepts. We demand that our ways be accepted and our precepts be acknowledged. Jesus demanded neither. We demand to be served and admired. Jesus did neither. We desire to be justified in our own eyes, according to our own knowledge, understanding, wisdom, and religious performance. Jesus just did as He was instructed, and copied what He heard the Father saying and doing.

Bottom line: We complicate everything, Jesus kept it simple.

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by houston

*places nfs on ignore* EVERY TIME I SEE HIS/HER HANDLE, REMINDS ME OF THE TIME I WAS TRIPPIN ON A HOLE IN A PAPER HEART

The fantasy my friend is within your Religious fervor, as your belief system relies on what cannot be touched. That's one strong Drug!!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Amen!!! I personally like to say:
Pay tithes in the OT
Give tithes in the NT

Great way of saying it!

[mfblume]

Why can't things be discussed without belittlement of another's thoughts? Been happening A WHOLE LOT in the last several weeks.

We should be able to make a point, let others agree or disagree, and say why, and then leave it at that. Why the belittlement? Really turns me off.

[mfblume]

Galatians 3:10-14 KJV 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. (11) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. (12) And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. (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: (14) That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Notice that Paul is not talking about any distorted view of Law, but flatly speaks of Moses' law. Notice he quotes from Law, not some false set of texts, to support his claim that those under law are under a curse. This is similar to the statement he made in 2 Cor 3 saying those whose hearts are not turned to Christ, but are towards Moses and Law, are veiled. He is flatly speaking of Old Testament Law as God gave it. And one is under a curse when under that law.

He said Law is not of faith. Again, not distortion of law, but plain old and genuine law. Christ redeemed us from the actual law's curse.

Paul contrasted CURSE with BLESSING. Blessing cannot come upon those who adhere to Law, as they use self effort and will power to serve God. Law was never meant to take man on to righteousness. God knew it would not work with man. Law came to show us what sin was and to teach us a lesson that self effort, as the devil tempted the woman to live by, is futile.

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by HaShaliach

My dear friend - He did. Only then, God wrote His book in Adam's mind and on heart. It is even so today, for those who will allow it to actually take place. But, even now, as it was with Adam before, we are all still free to close that book whenever we choose.

We who are in Christ, have taken on the mind of Christ. Yet, does not nature testify against us for refusing to keep the mind of Christ? We set Him aside whenever it becomes inconvenient or too uncomfortable to follow in His foot steps and after His precepts. We demand that our ways be accepted and our precepts be acknowledged. Jesus demanded neither. We demand to be served and admired. Jesus did neither. We desire to be justified in our own eyes, according to our own knowledge, understanding, wisdom, and religious performance. Jesus just did as He was instructed, and copied what He heard the Father saying and doing.

Bottom line: We complicate everything, Jesus kept it simple.

HaShaliach, I have a lot of respect for you and your openness for debate. I feel I can be honest with my feelings and opinions, and that you will consider my approach to Faith and Religion. That's all I ask from people; just consider. You don't have to agree, but at least think about it.

I wish I could agree about the simplicity in Jesus Christ, but it's not that simple. For example, the same Jesus that extended mercy to the lowest of the lows on his earthly mission, will someday sit on a Throne, casting all of humanities unworthy subjects into the torment of eternal fire. This doesn't make any sense.

Look at the Talmud. How do we look at this? How does this fit in Faith and our mission as Christians? Unveiling this "Document" can unnerve the best at heart in regards to Christianity and the Jews.

The Bible itself is full of discrepancy, opinion, and doctrines that cannot be proven (the afterlife being one); this alone leaves people to ponder in speculation and doubt. Why in the world would God leave human beings, who can’t even pay their bills, with the responsibility of dishing out Eternal Damnation to people who struggle to understand or don’t agree with a particular Religious ideal?

Even you had posted that if Jesus is the Truth, and we must follow this Truth, we would need another Book as large as the Bible to explain the Truth about Jesus, and that very few people can describe this Truth.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by IvyWalker

I'm interested in getting a thread going on the topic of the Law.

What is the Law? (10 Commandments, 614 Canonical laws, should we include those outside the canon but that were in practice?)

How did Jews view the Law? What was the original intention of the Law?

How should Christians view the Law? Paul states in Galatians that the Law is dead, no more useful, then the write of Hebrews says otherwise (are they contradicting, or are the points much finer)?

Are the primary perspectives on the Law the Dispensationalist and Covenant Theology camps?

Curious to get a pulse on AFF on this topic.


Ivy Walker
"I once was blind, but now I see."

Just so as to NOT disappoint anyone, I will first point out (again! ) that Moses was responsible for the Law and not the Pentateuch.

That is important as we begin such a study because we first have to consider, "What is the Law?"

The term has both a very generalized application and a very specific meaning. Specifically, the Law represented the core commandments (Deuteronomy 27:1-8). Notice here, "The Law" was succinct enough to have been carved "very plainly" upon the plaster covering just 12 stones. This means that the words were carved large enough to have been read by an audience standing several meters back from the altar itself.

Later, in the postexilic period (days of Ezra and Nehemiah) the "Old Testament" as we know it today in its Jewish layout, was put together. This included the introduction of a lot of explanatory narrative to the text. These "additions" (which I believe were as inspired as the 'original' documents themselves) were intended to help the newly reestablished people understand their religion and history.

The original intention of the Law was to provide a covenant relationship between Israel and God. This was not the same as "salvation" in the sense that we generally mean it today. If any Israelite was "saved" it was because of the predetermined counsel of God. This principle, as it relates to Jacob and Esau, is described in Romans 9 (See especially Romans 9:7).

The Law was intended as a means of providing an "outward" sign of the calling and works of God in the lives of the Israelite people. This can be compared to the Abrahamic covenant in many ways. Abraham was already "saved" before the covenant was even offered (Genesis 15:6). Then, when he went through some trials, Abraham appeared to falter a bit (see Genesis 16 and the involvement with Hagar). And so, a blood-covenant was instituted by God (Genesis 17).

The Law was intended for a similar purpose. This is also why we have the lengthy stories of the failings and sins of the patriarchs. The shortcomings of man were not something that the Bible tried to cover up. Of course, the Law itself could not make people "perfect." Only the Perfect Man is able to do that (Hebrews 9:9-28 and Hebrews 10:1).

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Why can't things be discussed without belittlement of another's thoughts? ...

Because you're just a "stupidhead?" ... oh, wait! sorry.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by houston

*places nfs on ignore* EVERY TIME I SEE HIS/HER HANDLE, REMINDS ME OF THE TIME I WAS TRIPPIN ON A HOLE IN A PAPER HEART

"houston, you have a problem." (I've been wanting to say that).

I guess my adhd has once again prevented me from accurately catching up on a thread. I didn't see the offending things that you guys are referring to.

Anyhoo... "TRIPPIN ON A HOLE IN A PAPER HEART?" Is that like those little wads of "window pane" from back in the Seventies?