Christ kept the Law of Moses, so....

[Snacks]

It's ok, and you can even answer yourself, But, when you start saying "huh?" then
you know your in trouble!

Bwahahahahaha

 

[Papermonkey]

There’s so much interpolation here this site should be called Christian Interpolation.

That's sad.

Remember though the scripture warning.

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

 

[Snacks]

I can provide supporting evidence. Whether you consider that evidence "proof" is up to you.

"In general, the person or party making an argument has the burden of proof to justify it (whether they argue that something is true or false). This applies, in particular, to situations where someone challenges a prevailing status quo or a well-established idea.

In a debate, the burden of proof lies typically with the person making a claim; the opposing side doesn’t have a burden of proof until evidence has been provided for the original argument. However, once the evidence has been provided, it’s up to the opposing side to show if the evidence is insufficient. If the opposing side argues that your claim is invalid, then, in turn, the burden of proof is on them to justify the disagreement." - Burden Of Proof Fallacy: Who Has The Burden of Proof and Why? - Fallacy In Logic

The U.S. criminal justice system is based on the very premise you share.

 

[Snacks]

That's sad.

Remember though the scripture warning.

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

Your words are well received.

 

[Inquisitor]

I very seriously am telling you this.

When you say Jesus fulfilling the law abolished the law you're willfully ignoring Jesus statement that he did not come to abolish the law.

You wilfully ignore Jesus not only reiterated the commandments, aka the law, he taught if we love him we will keep them.

Whatever your motive to contradict Jesus own words, that will be between you and God.

Jesus is to be believed. You are to be prayed for. Abandon your Sophestry and repent.
What I and others think of it doesn't impact your soul. What God knows does.

So your effectively saying that Christians are under the law.

Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Paul is telling the Romans that they are not under the law.

Your saying that the law is not abolished and your under the law?

 

[Papermonkey]

So your effectively saying that Christians are under the law.

Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Paul is telling the Romans that they are not under the law.

Your saying that the law is not abolished and your under the law?

I think Christians who worship Christ respect his teachings.

 

[Inquisitor]

I think Christians who worship Christ respect his teachings.

You need to answer the following question.

Are we under the law or not?

Not teachings but the law?

 

[Papermonkey]

You need to answer the following question.

Are we under the law or not?

Not teachings but the law?

What did Jesus say?

 

[Inquisitor]

What did Jesus say?

Your not answering the question.

Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Papermonkey I need you to say.

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are under the law and under grace.

 

[Inquisitor]

What did Jesus say?

Exodus 20 is the law.

Exodus 20 is the eleven commandments.

When you refer to the commandments you must specify the law. Otherwise, confusion reigns. The scripture has commandments throughout.

 

[Artios1]

Many things are unproveable by Scripture but are true nonetheless. Use the appropriate tool for the job.

I can provide supporting evidence. Whether you consider that evidence "proof" is up to you.

"In general, the person or party making an argument has the burden of proof to justify it (whether they argue that something is true or false). This applies, in particular, to situations where someone challenges a prevailing status quo or a well-established idea.

In a debate, the burden of proof lies typically with the person making a claim; the opposing side doesn’t have a burden of proof until evidence has been provided for the original argument. However, once the evidence has been provided, it’s up to the opposing side to show if the evidence is insufficient. If the opposing side argues that your claim is invalid, then, in turn, the burden of proof is on them to justify the disagreement." - Burden Of Proof Fallacy: Who Has The Burden of Proof and Why? - Fallacy In Logic

My claim would have been invalid (according to my standards).
I have learned ...especially in witnessing and counseling to answer a question with a question ....in a refined sort of way.

And of the 113 different questions that Jesus was asked in the gospels … 29 x He answered a question with a question….. So my response had some merit.

 

[Inquisitor]

If what you claim is true, then why did Paul write this to the born again saints at Ephesus?

Ephesians 6
1Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise) 3That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

That is not a good passage to quote because it can be read two ways.

1. Children obey your parents because even the law specified that.

2. Children your under the law, now obey the law.

 

[Papermonkey]

Your not answering the question.

Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Papermonkey I need you to say.

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are under the law and under grace.

No, I'm noting something here. Many say they know Christ and God's word. Yet few hold to it.

They will interpolate passages to their personal satisfaction, and then argue from that perspective.

Or, they insist Jesus didn't say what is written.

Or, they don't actually know the Bible's message and need others to tell them , so the nay sayers can then make claims against it.


You need to study.

 

[Mem]

I think I can separate the OT and the NT via the creation of a new nomenclature for 'the Law' in order to maintain the NT distinction from the OT. Wherein the OT reference to the Law is "the Ten Commandments of Moses,' would the NT Law reference be more fittingly called 'the King's Proclamation"?
'

 

[Inquisitor]

No, I'm noting something here. Many say they know Christ and God's word. Yet few hold to it.

They will interpolate passages to their personal satisfaction, and then argue from that perspective.

Or, they insist Jesus didn't say what is written.

Or, they don't actually know the Bible's message and need others to tell them , so the nay sayers can then make claims against it.


You need to study.

The point you are noting is what everyone does, it is called an interpretation.

You need to be able to explain the following verse without altering the text.

Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Your in conflict with what Paul wrote.

Regardless of what Jesus might have said to the Jews.

I need you to tell everyone that they are under the law.

You certainly need to confess your true faith, what you really believe.

 

[Nehemiah6]

When you say Jesus fulfilling the law abolished the law you're willfully ignoring Jesus statement that he did not come to abolish the law.

Now pay close attention; (1) before His crucifixion Christ said that He came to fulfill the Law; (2) Christ satisfied all the just requirements of the Law in His life, and in His death, burial, and resurrection; then (3) Christ through the Holy Spirit announced that since He had fulfilled the Law He abolished it. I and others have already quoted the relevant Scriptures. But if you want to cling to the Law of Moses go right ahead. The Galatians were warned about the consequences.

 

[Nehemiah6]

When the law of Moses was replaced, so were the ten commandments.

Actually the Ten Commandments were the only portion of the Torah which were never set aside. They were incorporated into the Law of Christ. See Romans 13.

 

[Papermonkey]

The point you are noting is what everyone does, it is called an interpretation.

You need to be able to explain the following verse without altering the text.

Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Your in conflict with what Paul wrote.

Regardless of what Jesus might have said to the Jews.

I need you to tell everyone that they are under the law.

You certainly need to confess your true faith, what you really believe.

You're mistaken. I don't need to tell anyone anything such as you describe.

Every Christian knows they are under the law of Christ.

 

[Papermonkey]

Now pay close attention; (1) before His crucifixion Christ said that He came to fulfill the Law; (2) Christ satisfied all the just requirements of the Law in His life, and in His death, burial, and resurrection; then (3) Christ through the Holy Spirit announced that since He had fulfilled the Law He abolished it. I and others have already quoted the relevant Scriptures. But if you want to cling to the Law of Moses go right ahead. The Galatians were warned about the consequences.

What passage is that from?

 

[Runningman]

I think I can separate the OT and the NT via the creation of a new nomenclature for 'the Law' in order to maintain the NT distinction from the OT. Wherein the OT reference to the Law is "the Ten Commandments of Moses,' would the NT Law reference be more fittingly called 'the King's Proclamation"?
'

Sometimes “the Law” is also a reference to the books of the law in general, the first five books of the OT.