Keeping His Commandments

[Forty9er]

Do you deny that there will be sacrifices in the future?

I have no problem acknowledging the fact that I don't fully understand all the prophecies regarding the future. But those prophecies, whatever their meaning, can't change the fact that today Christians have been released from the Law, having died to that which held us captive.

[Off-Grid Organics]

I have no problem acknowledging the fact that I don't fully understand all the prophecies regarding the future. But those prophecies, whatever their meaning, can't change the fact that today Christians have been released from the Law, having died to that which held us captive.

Do you know the depth of Romans 7? First off, it says this:

Rom 7:1 Or do you not know, brothers – for I speak to those knowing the Torah – that the Torah rules over a man as long as he lives?

Rom 7:2 For the married woman has been bound by Torah to the living husband, but if the husband dies, she is released from the Torah concerning her husband.
Rom 7:3 So then, while her husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress if she becomes another man’s. But if her husband dies, she is free from that part of the Torah, so that she is not an adulteress, having become another man’s.

I must ask you, according to Torah, what was the remedy for this:

Jer 3:8 “And I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Yisra’ĕl had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Yehuḏah did not fear, but went and committed whoring too.

[Forty9er]

Rom 7:3 So then, while her husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress if she becomes another man’s. But if her husband dies, she is free from that part of the Torah, so that she is not an adulteress, having become another man’s

You can't just accept the fact that Scripture teaches something contrary to what you believe so you have to actually change the text to make it say what you want it to say. In other words, you have created, or are using, a counterfeit Bible. Here is what the true verse says. The following is Romans 7:3 in the KJV with Strong's numbers:

Rom 7:3 So then G686 G3767 if G1437, while her husband G435 liveth G2198, she be married G1096 to another G2087 man G435, she shall be called G5537 an adulteress G3428: but G1161 if G1437 her husband G435 be dead G599, she is G2076 free G1658 from G575 that law G3551; so that she G846 is G1511 no G3361 adulteress G3428, though she be married G1096 to another G2087 man G435.

First, you incorrectly make a universal substitution of the word "Torah" for the Greek word which can either mean "a law" or "the Law of Moses". There is no Greek word that means "Torah".

And second, you have inserted the words "part of the" in the phrase "she is free from that part of the Torah". Those words don't exist in the actual text. The KJV says "she is free from that law" and even the KJV translators have added the word "that" for clarification because it is not actually in the Greek. But there is absolutely no justification to add the words "part of the" to the verse unless you want to create an alternate Bible which says what you want it to say.

When you will go to those lengths to justify your false doctrine, we really have nothing to discuss.

[Off-Grid Organics]

And second, you have inserted the words "part of the" in the phrase "she is free from that part of the Torah". Those words don't exist in the actual text. The KJV says "she is free from that law" and even the KJV translators have added the word "that" for clarification because it is not actually in the Greek. But there is absolutely no justification to add the words "part of the" to the verse unless you want to create an alternate Bible which says what you want it to say.

When you will go to those lengths to justify your false doctrine, we really have nothing to discuss.

LOL! Here, is this better? Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

You don't like to discuss because you always get tripped up when we look at context!

[Forty9er]

You don't like to discuss because you always get tripped up when we look at context!

LOL Now THAT is funny. I am fully confident that the people reading this thread can determine for themselves what the truth is and who has not only tripped but fallen flat on their face.

[Off-Grid Organics]

I am fully confident that the people reading this thread can determine for themselves

Good! Then maybe you can answer so we address the context of Romans 7 and figure out what 'that law' was? I must ask you, according to Torah, what was the remedy for this:

Jer 3:8 “And I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Yisra’ĕl had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Yehuḏah did not fear, but went and committed whoring too.

[dmatic]

Those verses in Romans are talking about the Law of Moses. That is perfectly clear:



Which law is it that these verses are talking about that says "You shall not covet"? Your blindness is total.

Thanks, Off-Grid, for the Creflo thing. I'd heard of him, but never heard him. Wow. So it is the devil who is trying to get people to keep God's law? I think I get it....Just remove the law and then the problem of sin is done away with! No need to be changed and have the law written on our hearts, just get rid of the law, then sin disappears! Shucks, Jesus would not even have had to die. Why didn't God think of that? Such a mean God. Gave instructions that no one could keep. The Law's purpose is not to show us the will of God for our lives, but that we are just poor miserable beings.

forty9er, do you think it is now legal to covet? Since that law was done away with according to you and Creflo?

[dmatic]

I have no problem acknowledging the fact that I don't fully understand all the prophecies regarding the future. But those prophecies, whatever their meaning, can't change the fact that today Christians have been released from the Law, having died to that which held us captive.

forty9er, wasn't it sin that held us captive? Bondage to sin is what we need to be free of! Sin needs to die. Sin is the transgressing of the Law. Do you really agree with those who teach that the only way God can get rid of sin in our lives is to remove the law? Seriously?

[dmatic]

Do you know the depth of Romans 7? First off, it says this:

Rom 7:1 Or do you not know, brothers – for I speak to those knowing the Torah – that the Torah rules over a man as long as he lives?

Rom 7:2 For the married woman has been bound by Torah to the living husband, but if the husband dies, she is released from the Torah concerning her husband.
Rom 7:3 So then, while her husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress if she becomes another man’s. But if her husband dies, she is free from that part of the Torah, so that she is not an adulteress, having become another man’s.

I must ask you, according to Torah, what was the remedy for this:

Jer 3:8 “And I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Yisra’ĕl had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Yehuḏah did not fear, but went and committed whoring too.

Thanks Off-Grid! Paul says the Law rules over a man as long as he lives. True. And the wages of sin is death. So, it is not the law that dies, it is the sinner. Now what? A new creature must be formed.

The Law sets the woman free....to marry another.

[Forty9er]

forty9er, do you think it is now legal to covet?

As you frequently do, you didn't answer the issue I raised. You had implied that the "law" that Rom 7:4-6 says we have died to and are released from is not the Law of Moses but some different law called "the law of sin and death". And I showed you in the very next verse that the Law those verses are talking about and the Law we are released from IS the Law of Moses. But you just want to ignore that and divert attention by asking a ridiculous question. If that is the way you treat Scripture, by just ignoring verses that don't agree with your doctrine, then I can see how you believe what you do.

Since that law was done away with according to you and Creflo?

Once again, you are trying to divert attention from your errors by using a smear tactic that is used by people who are backed into corner in a discussion and are desperately trying to find a way to discredit the other person's argument. Creflo Dollar is a false teacher who doesn't believe what I believe but you and OGO want to use him to try to discredit me. That's like me finding something you have in common with Hitler and then saying you and he believe the same things.

If that is the best you can do it is pathetic.