Is "The Law" a Curse?

[other one]

7 hours ago, Josheb said:

If all the law is summarized by the two greatest commands then thinking we should keep the two and not the ten is a false dichotomy. 

the two are much more comprehensive than are the ten.   Read Matthew chapter 25 starting with verse 30 and tell me which of the ten those people that are going to hell broke.     It is dangerous to push the ten commandments without making sure we have to do the two.....    and the two are more far reaching.

[other one]

5 hours ago, Bawb said:

Yes, keep the two

The first covers the first 4

The second covers the other 6

I would agree, however since we now have the Holy Spirit within us that they didn't have prior to Jesus coming we now live a life of the sabbath rest and not set any day aside as special.   At least concerning salvation and eternity.    however there is nothing wrong with observing the 4th commandment sabbath if one chooses to do go, however I don't think it is right to demand it.

[Your closest friendnt]

3 hours ago, adamjedgar said:

I don't think that is correct. Paul in Romans 7 says differently...

12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good.

Paul also said that those who want to have the righteousness of the Law snd the Holiness of the Law, they are in their sins, or will die in their sins. 

[Bawb]

10 minutes ago, Josheb said:

I completely agree. 

It is a stark reality nearly everything Jesus taught can be found in the Old Testament. It's always been someone of an irony (or is it a paradox?) that Jesus did not teach much that was new, so much as he taught that which was old in its original meaning restored. An eye for and eye, for example, was never about retribution; it was always originally about restitution and equality of justice. 

 

Leviticus 24:17-22
If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death.  The one who takes the life of an animal shall make it good, life for life.  If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him:  fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.  Thus, the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death.  'There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God. 

If I broke your lawnmower, then I owe you a lawnmower and that standard applies whether I am rich or poor. Not particularly difficult to understand when love is the context. It's that part about life for a life that likely caused the retributional, vengeful interpretation. 

Does anyone think God wants a person lined up for their leg to be broken because they ran into someone on the ski slope? Is it not better that the injured have their medical bills paid and recompense for any other loss paid for by the one causing the injury? 

Matthew 18:9
"If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell."

Which does God prefer: repentant sinners with no eyes, or unrepentant sinners with eyes?  Oh, wait! Maybe He'd prefer repentant sinners with eyes!

Matthew 13:16-17
"But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it." 

Yeah, okay, maybe that last one was a little too fast and loose with God's word. My bad. 

 

 

Which part of my body do I lose for that? 

 

Do you understand what this verse states?

Matthew 5:17 - Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

[adamjedgar]

2 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

Paul also said that those who want to have the righteousness of the Law snd the Holiness of the Law, they are in their sins, or will die in their sins. 

I dont follow what your interpretation is of that statement?

Are you claiming that Jesus, in being the only human every able to fully keep the law perfectly is a heretic?

because in claiming the law is a curse a person would also be claiming Jesus, because he kept the law perfectly, is a curse.

If we are living under the new covenant, and the disciples and apostles apparently endorced this false doctrine, how then is it that James states "break one commandment and you break them all"?

James 2

"8If you really fulfill the royal law stated in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,”c you are doing well. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

10Whoever keeps the whole law but stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,”d also said, “Do not murder.”e If you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom. "

 

the reality is, we are not saved by keeping the law...it is too late for that. New covenant conspiracy theorists continue to make absurd claims about this (ie the old covenant condemned us but the new one does not). 

The point is, we are condemned because one man sinned (Adam). We are saved because one man (Jesus) died for all sin. 

Paul says, even Abraham was saved through faith in Jesus

We are saved by Gods Grace through faith in the righteousness of Jesus. That is the entire point...its not about whether or not the law applies.

I have said this before, if we are not under the law, then what do we need saving from exactly? The minute there is no law, I have done nothing wrong and I cant be condemned for it because there is now no threshold in which to judge me...I am therefore free to go and do whatever i like knowing that I cannot be condemned...you know the good old fundamentalist baptist view, "once saved always saved"!

 

The equation as far as i see it, we obtain 

grace by faith

righteousness by faith

salvation by faith

sanctification by faith

 

and yet i still believe i must keep the law...because, even though im not saved by it, by that standard i will be judged!

Our deeds are the fruit of our faith...we want to keep Gods commands because of our faith!

James 2

14What good is it, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith, but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you tells him, “Go in peace; stay warm and well fed,” but does not provide for his physical needs, what good is that? 17So too, faith by itself, if it does not result in action,f is dead.

 

18But someone will say, “You have faith and I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19You believe that God is one.g Good for you! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

Edited December 31, 2021 by adamjedgar

[Bawb]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Yes, I understand what it states and what it means. How about you? 

Can you tell me? Explain it word by word? And if clarity of the meaning of the word is needed, can you give me the Greek and Hebrew? Because it does clear up misunderstandings and wrong assumptions that it clashes with other Scriptures.

Do you know what an opposing conjunction is?

Edited December 31, 2021 by Bawb

[adamjedgar]

12 minutes ago, Bawb said:

Can you tell me? Explain it word by word? And if clarity of the meaning of the word is needed, can you give me the Greek and Hebrew? Because it does clear up misunderstandings and wrong assumptions that it clashes with other Scriptures.

Do you know what an opposing conjunction is?

I think if you read the text within its context, its very self explanatory.

Jesus came and lived the life of a "teacher".

 

If you were a teacher, what would be YOUR expectation of your students after they leave your care?

Would you not expect them to uphold your teachings and your role modeling?

So if i taught follow the commandments, if i taught love thy neighbour, wouldnt it be pretty obvious what is mean by the phrase i came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it?

 

It means you are to follow your teachers lifestyle and role modelling. Jesus kept the law perfectly, you should aim to do the same not because it will save you, but because that is the fruit of your faith in Him! (consider the pericope adulterae..."go and sin no more")

Edited December 31, 2021 by adamjedgar

[Your closest friendnt]

1 hour ago, adamjedgar said:

I dont follow what your interpretation is of that statement?

Are you claiming that Jesus, in being the only human every able to fully keep the law perfectly is a heretic?

because in claiming the law is a curse a person would also be claiming Jesus, because he kept the law perfectly, is a curse.

If we are living under the new covenant, and the disciples and apostles apparently endorced this false doctrine, how then is it that James states "break one commandment and you break them all"?

James 2

"8If you really fulfill the royal law stated in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,”c you are doing well. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

10Whoever keeps the whole law but stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,”d also said, “Do not murder.”e If you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom. "

 

the reality is, we are not saved by keeping the law...it is too late for that. New covenant conspiracy theorists continue to make absurd claims about this (ie the old covenant condemned us but the new one does not). 

The point is, we are condemned because one man sinned (Adam). We are saved because one man (Jesus) died for all sin. 

Paul says, even Abraham was saved through faith in Jesus

We are saved by Gods Grace through faith in the righteousness of Jesus. That is the entire point...its not about whether or not the law applies.

I have said this before, if we are not under the law, then what do we need saving from exactly? The minute there is no law, I have done nothing wrong and I cant be condemned for it because there is now no threshold in which to judge me...I am therefore free to go and do whatever i like knowing that I cannot be condemned...you know the good old fundamentalist baptist view, "once saved always saved"!

 

The equation as far as i see it, we obtain 

grace by faith

righteousness by faith

salvation by faith

sanctification by faith

 

and yet i still believe i must keep the law...because, even though im not saved by it, by that standard i will be judged!

Our deeds are the fruit of our faith...we want to keep Gods commands because of our faith!

James 2

14What good is it, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith, but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you tells him, “Go in peace; stay warm and well fed,” but does not provide for his physical needs, what good is that? 17So too, faith by itself, if it does not result in action,f is dead.

 

18But someone will say, “You have faith and I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19You believe that God is one.g Good for you! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

I have to make my self clear and this is not easy, and it may take more than one post.

The Law was not given to Abraham, and Abraham did not give the Law to his children. 

What did Abraham give to his children? 

This is interesting because we examine matters before the Law.

The Lord did not give them the Law also till after the exodus and why? 

Edited December 31, 2021 by Your closest friendnt

[Your closest friendnt]

2 hours ago, Bawb said:

Can you tell me? Explain it word by word? And if clarity of the meaning of the word is needed, can you give me the Greek and Hebrew? Because it does clear up misunderstandings and wrong assumptions that it clashes with other Scriptures.

Do you know what an opposing conjunction is?

Mathew 5:17 KJV

Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

Young's Literal Translation
'Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets -- I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill. 

               ****

Jesus had the burden to fulfill the prophetic. 

How strange for Jesus to make this claim. 

in Essence he was telling them that he was the Messiah and he will prove that he is by fulfilling all the prophetic that made up the profile of the Messiah as it was written in the Law and the prophets.

this was the burden God had put on him that he had to fulfilled all that was written about the Messiah in the Prophets and the Psalms and in the volume of the book and the Law.

Jesus had the burden to fulfill all that was written about him because the Gospel will be preached and challenge on that basis. 

Jesus faced the adversity from the Scribes because they had not correctly identified the profile of the Messiah the Christ of God. 

Was it necessary that the Law and its requirements be nailed on the Cross and why?

Why Paul used this analogy and why he did say to the believers not to abused but to honor their freedom from the burden to keep the Law.

But he did tell that God will require from them a lot and in a similar and in other ways, and they would asked to obey him.

Jesus did tell his disciples that they have to follow him and do as he would asked them, without telling them what it is at that time. 

They had to wait for the time he will ask them on an individual missions.

It was about individual commands, like he was the Captain and they were enlisted under his command. 

And everyone will receive an envelope with the details what their mission will be.

That time their was not mentioned of any written comandments, they were going to receive their commands through the Holy Spirit. 

Jesus Christ is Alive, then and now and always all the time. 

He Rules he is the chief commander. 

Paul said that in due time Jesus took him or he called him unto himself to be his apostle. And his Evangelists and he distance him from the  from his duties and his missions from the churches who were supporting his missions, Jesus was doing something new with Paul.

The time came to call him unto him. 

To be the only commander Paul needed. 

What so difficult about it? 

Edited December 31, 2021 by Your closest friendnt

[adamjedgar]

3 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

Mathew 5:17 KJV

Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

Young's Literal Translation
'Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets -- I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill. 

               ****

Jesus had the burden to fulfill the prophetic. 

How strange for Jesus to make this claim. 

in Essence he was telling them that he was the Messiah and he will prove that he is by fulfilling all the prophetic that made up the profile of the Messiah as it was written in the Law and the prophets.

this was the burden God had put on him that he had to fulfilled all that was written about the Messiah in the Prophets and the Psalms and in the volume of the book and the Law.

Jesus had the burden to fulfill all that was written about him because the Gospel will be preached and challenge on that basis. 

Jesus faced the adversity from the Scribes because they had not correctly identified the profile of the Messiah the Christ of God. 

Was it necessary that the Law and its requirements be nailed on the Cross and why?

Why Paul used this analogy and why he did say to the believers not to abused but to honor their freedom from the burden to keep the Law.

But he did tell that God will require from them a lot and in a similar and in other ways, and they would asked to obey him.

Jesus did tell his disciples that they have to follow him and do as he would asked them, without telling them what it is at that time. 

They had to wait for the time he will ask them on an individual missions.

It was about individual commands, like he was the Captain and they were enlisted under his command. 

And everyone will receive an envelope with the details what their mission will be.

That time their was not mentioned of any written comandments, they were going to receive their commands through the Holy Spirit. 

Jesus Christ is Alive, then and now and always all the time. 

He Rules he is the chief commander. 

Paul said that in due time Jesus took him or he called him unto himself to be his apostle. And his Evangelists and he distance him from the  from his duties and his missions from the churches who were supporting his missions, Jesus was doing something new with Paul.

The time came to call him unto him. 

To be the only commander Paul needed. 

What so difficult about it? 

I find it really interesting that conveniently, the new covenant conspirators never quote James, and quite often ignore Peters writings. The reason for this is because these two seem be opposed to the modern new covenant christian interpretation (which means the modern view is therefore obviously in error)

 

1Peter 1:

15But just as He who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do, 16for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy...17Since you call on a Father who judges each one’s work impartially, conduct yourselves in reverent fear during your stay as foreigners...22Since you have purified your souls by obedience to the truth so that you have a genuine love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from a pure heart.

 

1 Peter 2:

"12Conduct yourselves with such honor among the Gentiles that, though they slander you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day He visits us."

 

Peter in vs 22 quotes Isaiah next...

21For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in His footsteps:

22“He committed no sin,

and no deceit was found in His mouth.”g

23When they heaped abuse on Him,

He did not retaliate;

when He suffered, He made no threats,

but entrusted Himself to Him who judges justly.

24He Himself bore our sinsh

in His body on the tree,

so that we might die to sin

and live to righteousness.

“By His stripes you are healed.”

 

There is a danger when interpreting scripture, instead of letting scripture revealing itself via its many links within its pages, we attempt to interpret based on historical wives tails... 2 Peter 3 says:

15Consider also that our Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him. 16He writes this way in all his letters,g speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort,h as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

So how does one reconcile the apparent opposing views between Paul and James+Peter?

I think the key is found in Rev 14:12 where we find that those who are saved (the saints who go to heaven) do both, they believe and produce fruits according to the commandments of God

12Here is a call for the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

 

The interesting thing is that keeping the commandments of God is written first by the apostle John!

 

Edited December 31, 2021 by adamjedgar