Concerned Follower Of Jesus!

[NancyT]

Yep.

Paul only becomes 'hard to understand' when someone tells you, "Oh, he really didn't mean THAT . . . he really meant THIS . . . " Echos of the "Did God really say . . . ?" lie anyone?

-JGIG

As someone very familiar with many law-'keeping' sects, having been raised in one from toddlerhood and having struggled for decades with the outright carnage to the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ these self-professed law-'keepers' do, I can say with authority that that is IT in a nutshell. "Did God really say", indeed.

[TheAnonymousCoward]

As someone very familiar with many law-'keeping' sects, having been raised in one from toddlerhood and having struggled for decades with the outright carnage to the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ these self-professed law-'keepers' do, I can say with authority that that is IT in a nutshell. "Did God really say", indeed.

More like "Did Paul really say"? The answer is no either way of course. Preaching against Torah gets you a one way ticket to False Prophetsville, according to God Himself. People love to forget about Deuteronomy 13 and act like Paul is somehow exempt from the Scriptural litmus test.

[Theresej]

More like "Did Paul really say"? The answer is no either way of course. Preaching against Torah gets you a one way ticket to False Prophetsville, according to God Himself. People love to forget about Deuteronomy 13 and act like Paul is somehow exempt from the Scriptural litmus test.

And yet, Hebrews 8:13 stands there clear and uniequivocable in its statement that the Old Covenant has ceased to be.

[TheAnonymousCoward]

And yet, Hebrews 8:13 stands there clear and uniequivocable in its statement that the Old Covenant has ceased to be.

Except that it doesn't say "covenant" anywhere in that verse.

[Theresej]

Except that it doesn't say "covenant" anywhere in that verse.

It doesn't have to In verse 13 he's quoting a portion of verse 8 where it does state covenant in the original language.

He does not have to restate "covenant" since it is very clear he is qouting "a new covenant" from verse 8 when he says "a new" in verse 13.

[JGIG]

More like "Did Paul really say"? The answer is no either way of course. Preaching against Torah gets you a one way ticket to False Prophetsville, according to God Himself. People love to forget about Deuteronomy 13 and act like Paul is somehow exempt from the Scriptural litmus test.

As usual, you misrepresent the entirety of the facts in the case.

What Jesus Christ did at the Cross meant something. It accomplished something.

Those who put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ and what He did at the Cross die to the Law. Dead people are not bound to law. We died with Christ and are made alive with Him:

Romans 6:5-14
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.


8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

Did Paul really say we are not under the law, but under grace?

Yes he did.

Unambiguously.

On Whose authority and under Whose inspiration did he write that?

On the authority and under the inspiration of Jesus Christ, God in the flesh.

-JGIG

[TheAnonymousCoward]

What Jesus Christ did at the Cross meant something. It accomplished something.

Yes, it did. It's called "paying the penalty for SIN", NOT "getting rid of that which defines sin". Why can you not see the clear difference?

[JGIG]

Yes, it did. It's called "paying the penalty for SIN", NOT "getting rid of that which defines sin". Why can you not see the clear difference?

We agree, Coward! The Law does still define sin! That is the Law's purpose after the Cross! Very good!

It is abundantly obvious that the religious system within the Law has been made obsolete by Jesus Christ - by His incarnation and subsequent work on the Cross and the Resurrection.

You yourself will admit that the sacrificial system within the Law is obsolete, yes?

As are the types and shadows and all the things that kept Israel separate from the world so that Messiah would be recognized.

Those things are no longer necessary because Messiah has come. Those things therefore are now as obsolete as the sacrificial system because of the work of Jesus Christ. The precepts and statutes of God still stand, however, and are those things which are fulfilled by the Law of Christ, the Law of Love. Why can you not see that clear reality?

-JGIG