Satan really is Moses

[WhiteWings]

Laws are issued by the governments.
I can make my own sets of laws but it's unlikely a judges is impressed with them and/or sees them as a law.
Because Father was/is the law issuing authority of Israel it means all added things were not laws at all. Maybe outlaws :icon_jokercolor:
So the additions are not laws at all from the POV of the issuing Authority and His Son.
So also in that way the laws were not done away. Simple because none authorized laws are not laws at all.
The only thing that was done away with is the the priests themselfs.
Because everyone became a priest with laws written on their heart.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: The law was designed to raise up the tares in the hearts of men. That's why Paul said, when the law came, I died. Because God knows what is in the heart of man is emnity against Him, but He needed MAN to know it by experience, giving him something to overcome thru Christ in the process. The law is not evil in itself, Paul said, it is just and good.

But the HEART of man is what perverts it's purpose. The Spirit of Christ fulfills the law by writting it on our hearts. We learn to do the essence of the law because it's become our new nature within, not something to accomplish on the outside. The HG does the works, and this is what the works accomplishes.

I read recently an article where he claimed that he had found in the old Jewish texts, that the Pharisees had crushed the hand of the man with a withered hand that Jesus healed on the Sabbath, with a stone, because he was a stone mason and they caught him working on the Sabbath. So it wasn't just that Jesus healed that man on the Sabbath, but that He further insulted and showed forth the Pharisee's corrupt hearts for what they were, and so infuriated them even more, by healing the man they had mutilated, on the Sabbath. If true, oh, to have been a fly on the wall for that one..... :laughing7:

[WhiteWings]

:cloud9: The law was designed to raise up the tares in the hearts of men. That's why Paul said, when the law came, I died. Because God knows what is in the heart of man is emnity against Him, but He needed MAN to know it by experience, giving him something to overcome thru Christ in the process. The law is not evil in itself, Paul said, it is just and good.

So doesn't that mean Jesus was NOT destroying God's law?

I read recently an article where he claimed that he had found in the old Jewish texts, that the Pharisees had crushed the hand of the man with a withered hand that Jesus healed on the Sabbath, with a stone, because he was a stone mason and they caught him working on the Sabbath. So it wasn't just that Jesus healed that man on the Sabbath, but that He further insulted and showed forth the Pharisee's corrupt hearts for what they were, and so infuriated them even more, by healing the man they had mutilated, on the Sabbath. If true, oh, to have been a fly on the wall for that one..... :laughing7:

The man with the withered (sp?) hand was the high priest of the qumran sect. =Scribes =Dead Sea Scroll writers

[jabcat]

Paul said the old, that was unable to save, was passing away so the New could come - Jesus.

[jabcat]

IMO, some of the law was given to protect the children of Israel - set boundaries for them;  while much of the rest was given to both point to Christ, and prove man could not save himself by his own works.   :2c:

[WhiteWings]

Paul said the old, that was unable to save, was passing away so the New could come - Jesus.

I knew that answer would be posted.
The law can't save. But that's not a flaw in the law. The law was/is perfect because it was wriiten by Father.
But because WE can't keep the law Jesus had to "fix the problem".
So yes the law kills BECAUSE breaking the law means death. But that was NOT because the law was wrong.
Bad law and bad people both lead to death.
Good  law and bad people also leads to death.
I think cause and result should not be confused.
The Ten Commandments were laws set in the OT. Did Jesus destroy the: You shall not murder and you shall have no other gods before me commands....?
I'm taking the liberty to answer that question for you: No.
Then my next question is; if Jesus (clearly) didn't abolish all old laws were is the list of laws that He did abolish?

[Taffy]

oh, to have been a fly on the wall for that one.....

:icon_flower:

[Nathan]

WW . . .not sure where you got the thinking that the letter doesn't kill . . .it seems to be in direct contrast with what Scripture has stated on such matters.

Jabcat, for me it's not the law that was abolished, it was the levitical priesthood which required us to adhere to the laws to the best of our physical abilities . . .which was/is an impossibility . .no man can come into righteousness by living in law.  It wasn't for "us" to even consider.  It was something God used to pronounce grace over judgment.  Law was given to reveal to man, it's impossible to enter into the kingdom by administering law in acheiving our righteousness.  It was used to reveal to us that our own labors will always fall short, no matter how hard we try to live by the law, we'll always miss the mark because law isn't illuminating grace . . .that's why the Levitical order had to be removed. 

It did what it was supposed to do.  But I still stand on what I originally shared, law is in opposition to grace.  The crazy part is . . .law was still necessary to be established in preparation for grace to abound.

Okay, here's my platform of affirmation on why I say what I say in that law is in opposition to the order of the Melchezedek lineage . . .

Hebrews 7
11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:
   "You are a priest forever,
   in the order of Melchizedek."[a]

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

The law in all of it's glory and greatness, was never intended to be used to lead us into the kingdom.  It's purpose was merely a bridge to get them from Moses to Jesus . . .it was never meant for us to now take a hold of and embrace.  Is that too bold of me to suggest?

[jabcat]

Good that you knew that would be posted, then you know the scrips  :laughing7:

I've also said this before, but I guess I'll say it again.  When one is spiritually reborn, "to do right" is written on our hearts, convicted and done by the Holy Spirit working through us - His works, no longer ours - therefor, the law written on our hearts of flesh rather than on stone tablets - just rules to keep.

I'm sure I don't understand it all, but I believe it needs to be "rightly divided/cut", into at least 3 eras;  old covenant/law/before Jesus came, the era of Jesus' earthly ministry, and this era, the age of grace (not law).  Different things were occurring in each of these eras or administrations.  They can't all be lumped together, each serve(d) their purpose.    Not all the answers, but a few pieces of the big picture for perspective and to think about, perhaps. 

[Nathan]

 :thumbsup:

[Taffy]

It did what it was supposed to do.  But I still stand on what I originally shared, law is in opposition to grace.  The crazy part is . . .law was still necessary to be established in preparation for grace to abound.

Its seems many  find this Hard to comprehend

:icon_flower:

[WhiteWings]

Good that you knew that would be posted, then you know the scrips  :laughing7:

Everyone can read scrips.
But our chat proves not everybody understands the scrips. And because I wrote my option, it means my finger points to you and all who oppose me :laughing7:
I have yet to see someone refute my thought. Quoting a verse out of context (again my opinion) isn't going to work for me.
Father is without flaws -> therfore His laws are without flaws -> therefore they are still good
To avoid 'refutations' about sacrificing sheep being abolished :winkgrin: True but that has a very cleary stated reason...

I've also said this before, but I guess I'll say it again.  When one is spiritually reborn, "to do right" is written on our hearts, convicted and done by the Holy Spirit working through us - His works, no longer ours - therefor, the law written on our hearts of flesh rather than on stone tablets - just rules to keep.

Agreed. But WHAT is written on the hearts? Worship satan, murder and lie daily? Or could it be that the laws written on the heart look very much the same as those on the stone tablets?

I'm sure I don't understand it all, but I believe it needs to be "rightly divided/cut", into at least 3 eras;  old covenant/law/before Jesus came, the era of Jesus' earthly ministry, and this era, the age of grace (not law).  Different things were occurring in each of these eras or administrations.  They can't all be lumped together, each serve(d) their purpose.    Not all the answers, but a few pieces of the big picture for perspective and to think about, perhaps.

Sure they serve their purpose.
But that's not my point. The laws Father gave were perfect and still are. Otherwise He would have given flawed laws.
If you read the OT you will see laws are added over time. There isn't a chapther very early in Genesis that gives all laws. New laws are always added to the old ones. Not replacements.
You see it as seperate era's. I don't. I see it as additional era's.
I'm not saying Jesus did nothing. I'm not refuting you thought of grace. None of that.
I'm saying laws are perfect*. But we keep breaking them. And the new convenant means a huge amount of grace is added to the mix. And Jesus bought/triggered that grace.

*= God's laws. Not mans additions, twisting and faulty interpretations of that law.

[jabcat]

I probably don't have anymore to add to what I've said Tony, except to question how quoting Paul's revelations on law/grace is out of context.  IMO, it very much IS the context.   :dontknow:  It has to do with the "next step" - only by grace.

[WhiteWings]

It did what it was supposed to do.  But I still stand on what I originally shared, law is in opposition to grace.  The crazy part is . . .law was still necessary to be established in preparation for grace to abound.

Its seems many  find this Hard to comprehend

I know that's why I'm going to explain it again to you all.... :laughing7:
Without laws there can't be sin.
Without laws there can't be grace.
So if Father shows grace it automatically shows laws are still very much in effect!
1+1=2

Dunno why but I keep remembering this article when reading all replies :mblush:

[jabcat]

Well, I guess I do have something to add after all  :laughing7:.  No, the Holy Spirit won't write anything on our hearts against the true will of the Father.  We often miss the leading, but the Holy Spirit will lead us into truth - step by step.   :thumbsup:

[WhiteWings]

Well, I guess I do have something to add after all  :laughing7:.  No, the Holy Spirit won't write anything on our hearts against the true will of the Father.  We often miss the leading, but the Holy Spirit will lead us into truth - step by step.   :thumbsup:

Temped by teh dark one....  :winkgrin:

Good to see you using the brain God gifted you with. :thumbsup:
Now your brain is warmed up tell me if those commands include for example the ten commandments?

[Molly]

It did what it was supposed to do.  But I still stand on what I originally shared, law is in opposition to grace.  The crazy part is . . .law was still necessary to be established in preparation for grace to abound.

Its seems many  find this Hard to comprehend

I know that's why I'm going to explain it again to you all.... :laughing7:
Without laws there can't be sin.
Without laws there can't be grace.
So if Father shows grace it automatically shows laws are still very much in effect!
1+1=2

Dunno why but I keep remembering this article when reading all replies :mblush:

:thumbsup:

But that's not my point. The laws Father gave were perfect and still are. Otherwise He would have given flawed laws.

:thumbsup:


Psalm 119:97
O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.

[thinktank]

It did what it was supposed to do.  But I still stand on what I originally shared, law is in opposition to grace.  The crazy part is . . .law was still necessary to be established in preparation for grace to abound.

Its seems many  find this Hard to comprehend

I know that's why I'm going to explain it again to you all.... :laughing7:
Without laws there can't be sin.
Without laws there can't be grace.
So if Father shows grace it automatically shows laws are still very much in effect!
1+1=2

Dunno why but I keep remembering this article when reading all replies :mblush:

:thumbsup:

Jesus fullfilled the law for us, but if we are truly in Christ, we will not do that which is against Gods laws. There is a verse that says exactly this. In the old testament if we failed we payed the price, but in the new covenant, if we fail the laws, grace covers us, but if we do not strive to obey the law then are we truly in Christ?

In the end the beast makes war against the saints that keep the commandments of God, because those who keep the commandments are confident in christ, but those who disobey the commandments and teach it are considered least in the kingdom of God.