You must have come across the post penned by alBHAGDADI, located [url=https://www.nairaland.com/5133118/daddy-freeze-proverbs-psalms-not]HERE[/URL] which eventually made it to front-page.


Examine the headline: Daddy Freeze: Proverbs, Psalms Not Written By Christians, Not Good For Doctrine
(Emphasis mine).

From the highlighted portion of the headline, one would think Daddy Freeze actually meant that those Scriptures are bad, and from the OP's defence, citing the likes of 1 Timothy 3:16 (which states that all the Scriptures area inspired by the Holy Spirit) to buttress his point, one would think Daddy Freeze actually tried to discredit the validity of those passages.

How true is this?

Everyone knows how much this man has been reviled, disputed and even threatened with all manner of retribution thus it comes as little to no surprise that tactics such as out of context red herrings and even outright falsehoods are employed to paint him black as they want.

Firstly, the picture attached to this post is the screenshot of exactly what Daddy Freeze said in his post (which alone should convince you of the desperation of the OP to create a mountain out of a molehill).


Now, what Daddy Freeze was actually saying (which the OP largely misconstrued) was that both passages (and the entirety of the Old Testament, which includes the Pentateuch and the writings of the other prophets) are not, and should never be basis or foundations of the Christians under the New Covenant. Why's that?

True, all Scriptures are inspired (God-breathed even) but the laws, traditions and writings of the Old Covenant are not foundations for the the New Covenant the very moment you are baptised into Christ. Take a clear illustration made by Paul:

* A woman married to a man is bound by a marital "Covenant" as long as the man lives and marrying another man while her husband lives makes her an adulteress, but the moment the man dies, she is released from that "Covenant" and no longer considered "married" to her dead husband:

“Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law— that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.” (Romans 7:1-3)

** Paul likens this situation to the "marriage" of God's people to the Old Covenant, stating by death (through which the Law was "nailed to the cross" — Colossians 2:14) those who are under the New Covenant have no binding to the old, "dead" Law:


“So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.” (vv. 4 -6)

This is absolutely clear. The moment you are baptised into Christ (i.e. “dying with Christ” — Romans 6:3-4) you are free from the Old Covenant, its Laws, traditions, writings and doctrines (which was solely for the people of Israel).

Having said that, is it wrong that Daddy Freeze advises Christians to not make a foundation on Psalms or Proverbs (amongst the many others) for their doctrines under the New Covenant?

Absolutely not!

Does this mean Psalms and Proverbs are not inspired by God or bad? Absolutely not.

It simply means that while Scriptures from the Old Covenant may be good for studying, even learning from (just as a widow married to another man could take note of things from her previous marriage and learn from them), they should not necessarily be a building block for the New Covenant (as a widow shouldn't necessarily build or approach her marriage to her new man on the knowledge and experiences from the her dead husband as her marriage to the new man is a whole new marriage entirely).

So, from what Daddy Freeze said, are you going to base your doctrine on David and Solomon (who were ruled by the law), or on Christ Jesus (into whole you are baptised)?


This is a no-brainer for even a baby Christian.

Headlines could be deceiving, people who derive pleasure in putting words in people's mouth should be ashamed.

Remain blessed.

Mtchew. You guys need to ask the holy spirit for wisdom to understand the word of God.
Collosians 2:14 has nothing to do with doing away with the old testament.
Also Romans 7 talks about man's sinful nature. How the law of sin takes advantage of the law of God in man because of our sinful nature. This same chapter states that the law of God righteous.
If you are a Christian and you try as much as possible to stay away from sin, I see no reason why the old testament/ or the law of God should be an issue.

Modified

Upton:
Mtchew. You guys need to ask the holy spirit for wisdom to understand the word of God

True, yet the same Holy Spirit said through Peter:

“...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you...” (1 Peter 3:15)

The Greek word for “answer” here is "apologia" which means "a speech in defense of something".

So rather than just pray for understanding, use that understanding to defend the faith.

Colosians 2:14 has nothing to do with doing away with the old testament.

Dear friend, do not read Scriptures to argue. It never ends well.

Oh yes he spoke about doing away with the Law. Two verses afterwards, read what Paul wrote:

“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” (v. 16)

The same Sabbath that is in the Ten Commandments?
The same Sabbath Jehovah said you should keep holy, Paul said writes that no one should judge you whether you observe it or not, as they have been nailed to the cross? Is that not an indication that the Law (which was originally given to Israel) does not bind on Christians anymore?

Also Romans 7 talks about man's sinful nature. How the law of sin takes advantage of the law of God in man because of our sinful nature. This same chapter states that the law of God righteous.

That changes nothing, the moment you die with Christ in baptism, you are dead to the Law and it no longer binds. It is clearly stated there.

If you are a Christian and you try as much as possible to stay away from sin, I see no reason why the old testament/ or the law of God should be an issue.

Changes nothing still. There's a new covenant and that's the foundation for the Christian faith.

Stay blessed.

I hate to say this, but I have to: You are one big dumb idiot who has been deceived by Freeze. Even in the face of my clear explanation of the subject, you still opened this silly thread filled with heresies.

How dare you say we are no longer to obey the old testament because we are baptized as Christians? Once you fools hear Paul say we are no longer under the law, you foolishly thinks he is saying we should throw the law away and also the old testament books. I don't blame you, I only blame your false teachers who don't show you what salvation truly is and how Jesus is on almost every page of the Bible from Genesis to Revelations.

When Paul says we are no longer under the law, he's not saying we can now disobey the law e.g become homosexuals, cross-dress, sleep with our mother, worship idols, bear false witness etc which are things the law is against. What Paul is simply saying is that we are not under the law in terms of salvation i.e obeying the law is not a prerequisite to eternal life. What we are under now is the Grace of Jesus Christ who died on the cross. It is his sacrifice that guarantees eternal life, not our works of righteousness by obeying the law. This means that if you disobey the laws of God as a born again Christian, you will still make heaven because the grace of Jesus is sufficient enough. But guess what? God will punish you here on Earth for such because you are a disobedient child who breaks his laws. So clearly, we are not under the law for eternal salvation but under the law as obedient Christians.

Now, not all part of the laws of the old testament are to be followed. How do we know which to follow and which not to follow? It is quite simple. The laws which we are not to follow anymore, God specifically changed them in the new testament e.g animal sacrifices, dietary laws (unclean food), Sabbath day etc. Also, the ones we are to always continue with, he stated clearly in the new testament e.g loving our neighbors and enemies, abstaining from blood, not to worship idols etc. Now, what about those old testament laws he didn't mention at all in the new testament e.g cross-dressing, tattoos etc? It simply means that they remain his laws and are still to be obeyed. Since he has not said otherwise, then it means whatever he said back in the old testament still remains and no man must discard them unless he does so himself. Since he hasn't done so, then we must continue to obey them.

Now, you said we shouldn't live by certain dictates of the old testament because we are no longer under the law (which I just proved wrong).

Don't you know that...

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

All scriptures, the smallest jot to the biggest is given for us to use as doctrine for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness, so that we may be perfect. But your foolish self doesn't want to be perfect that's why you are using a knife to cut off huge chunks of the Bible and trashing it. Shame on you.

You and your Antichrist called Daddy Freeze say we shouldn't build doctrines based on David and Solomon, even when the Bible says all scriptures are profitable for doctrine. Let me show you how foolish the both of you are.

Is it a bad thing to draw inspiration from how David trusted in God against Goliath? Is it a bad thing for one to learn from Solomon who asked for wisdom from God when he could have asked for all the wealth in the world? We build doctrines on these scenarios.

But fools like you and freeze will love to point it out that David stole another man's wife and even killed him, so he's not fit to base doctrine on. What foolish thinking. Do you think God didn't know what he was doing when he allowed such attrocities by David to be recorded in the Bible? He intentionally allowed it. Read below.

1 Corinthians 10:11
Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

God allowed such to be written in the Bible so we the people of today can learn from them. Clearly, God hated what David did. Now, we christians today will stay away from stealing another man's wife like David did because we now through the story of David know that God hates such. But a fool like you think the story was written for us to follow David's footstep in stealing another man's wife. Such thinking can only come from a deceived person who lacks the spirit of God and so won't be able to interpret the Bible.

As seen, the life of David gave birth to the doctrine against stealing another man's wife. We are yet to even get to the tonnes of doctrines from Solomon's book of Proverbs.

You and Freeze are currently getting played by Satan but you do not know it. I don't pity you. I only anticipate the day I will mock you .

Upton:
Mtchew. You guys need to ask the holy spirit for wisdom to understand the word of God.
Collosians 2:14 has nothing to do with doing away with the old testament.
Also Romans 7 talks about man's sinful nature. How the law of sin takes advantage of the law of God in man because of our sinful nature. This same chapter states that the law of God righteous.
If you are a Christian and you try as much as possible to stay away from sin, I see no reason why the old testament/ or the law of God should be an issue.

Thank you jor.

Don't mind those fools.

royal rumble, Christians, shame no dey catch you

lindq:
You must have come across the post penned by alBHAGDADI, located [url=https://www.nairaland.com/5133118/daddy-freeze-proverbs-psalms-not]HERE[/URL] which eventually made it to front-page.


Examine the headline: Daddy Freeze: Proverbs, Psalms Not Written By Christians, Not Good For Doctrine
(Emphasis mine).

From the highlighted portion of the headline, one would think Daddy Freeze actually meant that those Scriptures are bad, and from the OP's defence, citing the likes of 1 Timothy 3:16 (which states that all the Scriptures area inspired by the Holy Spirit) to buttress his point, one would think Daddy Freeze actually tried to discredit the validity of those passages.

How true is this?

Everyone knows how much this man has been reviled, disputed and even threatened with all manner of retribution thus it comes as little to no surprise that tactics such as out of context red herrings and even outright falsehoods are employed to paint him black as they want.

Firstly, the picture attached to this post is the screenshot of exactly what Daddy Freeze said in his post (which alone should convince you of the desperation of the OP to create a mountain out of a molehill).


Now, what Daddy Freeze was actually saying (which the OP largely misconstrued) was that both passages (and the entirety of the Old Testament, which includes the Pentateuch and the writings of the other prophets) are not, and should never be basis or foundations of the Christians under the New Covenant. Why's that?

True, all Scriptures are inspired (God-breathed even) but the laws, traditions and writings of the Old Covenant are not foundations for the the New Covenant the very moment you are baptised into Christ. Take a clear illustration made by Paul:

* A woman married to a man is bound by a marital "Covenant" as long as the man lives and marrying another man while her husband lives makes her an adulteress, but the moment the man dies, she is released from that "Covenant" and no longer under considered "married" to her dead husband:

“Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law— that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.” (Romans 7:1-3)

** Paul likens this situation to the "marriage" of God's people to the Old Covenant, stating by death (through which the Law was "nailed to the cross" — Colossians 2:14) those who are under the New Covenant have no binding to the old, "dead" Law:


“So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.” (vv. 4 -6)

This is absolutely clear. The moment you are baptised into Christ (i.e. “dying with Christ” — Romans 6:3-4) you are free from the Old Covenant, its Laws, traditions, writings and doctrines (which was solely for the people of Israel).

Having said that, is it wrong that Daddy Freeze advises Christians to not make a foundation on Psalms or Proverbs (amongst the many others) for their doctrines under the New Covenant?

Absolutely not!

Does this mean Psalms and Proverbs are not inspired by God or bad? Absolutely not.

It simply means that while Scriptures from the Old Covenant may be good for studying, even learning from (just as a widow married to another man could take note of things from her previous marriage and learn from them), they should not necessarily be a building block for the New Covenant (as a widow shouldn't necessarily build or approach her marriage to her new man on the knowledge and experiences from the her dead husband as her marriage to the new man is a whole new marriage entirely).

So, from what Daddy Freeze said, are you going to base your doctrine on David and Solomon (who were ruled by the law), or on Christ Jesus (into whole you are baptised)?


This is a no-brainer for even a baby Christian.

Headlines could be deceiving, people who derive pleasure in putting words in people's mouth should be ashamed.

Remain blessed.

MuttleyLaff:
It is because of people like you alBHAGDADI who base your doctrines on enemy assassination prayers etcetera influenced by Psalms and Proverbs verses that Freeze made the comment

MuttleyLaff:
jesusjnr and alBHAGDADI should go start fertilizer plants.

alBHAGDADI will distort anything in the bible in order to justify entitlement to tithes and so validate, spread and promote obligatory or imposed ecclesiastical monitised tithing. jesusjnr, on the other hand, in cahoot with luvmijeje, is an easily scared, self styled attacker of Apostle Paul who relishes in laying charges against Paul, by slandering and codemning him

lindq, thank you jor and God bless you real good for your timely rebuttal post

alBHAGDADI:


I hate to say this, but I have to: You are one big dumb idiot who has been deceived by Freeze. Even in the face of my clear explanation of the subject, you still opened this silly thread filled with heresies.

Your insults mean nothing to me. Inasmuch as what you promulgate is ignorance and the Scriptures can be alluded to that effect, opprobrious remarks from a cognitive dissonance induced mind means absolutely nothing. What worries me however is that as the Christian whom you should be, seeing remarks such as these emanating from an embittered mind such as yours, all I can do is pray God forgives you.

Additionally, Daddy Freeze is not “deceiving” anyone. All he has been saying is nothing new. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, “A lie does not become true for the reason of continuous propagation, and the truth does not become a lie because no one sees it.”

If there is anyone deceiving people around here, that should be you and your kind, the "memory verse Christians" going about skewing the Scriptures for self aggrandizement.

How dare you say we are no longer to obey the old testament because we are baptized as Christians? Once you fools hear Paul say we are no longer under the law, you foolishly thinks he is saying we should throw the law away and also the old testament books. I don't blame you, I only blame your false teachers who don't show you what salvation truly is and how Jesus is on almost every page of the Bible from Genesis to Revelations.

It is bad to know nothing, but worse to be deliberately bigoted. You don't read, and whenever you do, you do so wrongly.

Ordinarily, responding to you would be a waste of time because your bigotry has a royal seal from the Devil himself unless God releases you Himself.

Nowhere did I, or Daddy Freeze for that matter, ever claim that Christians should “disobey” the Old Testament. If semantics prove so difficult for your comprehension, say so and you'll be properly educated.

“Christians should not base their doctrines on the tenets of the Old Covenant ” IS NOT the same as “Christians should disobey the teachings of the Old Covenant ”. Use that sixth sense of yours!

Look at how you put words into Daddy Freeze's mouth in that utterly deceptive headline of yours, that is exactly what you seek to do here.

Christian are not bound by the Old Covenant, its tenets and law. It has been fulfilled by the crucifixion of the Messiah on the cross who instituted a New Covenant by his communion of body and blood.

When Paul says we are no longer under the law, he's not saying we can now disobey the law e.g become homosexuals, cross-dress, sleep with our mother, worship idols, bear false witness etc which are things the law is against. What Paul is simply saying is that we are not under the law in terms of salvation i.e obeying the law is not a prerequisite to eternal life. What we are under now is the Grace of Jesus Christ who died on the cross. It is his sacrifice that guarantees eternal life, not our works of righteousness by obeying the law. This means that if you disobey the laws of God as a born again Christian, you will still make heaven because the grace of Jesus is sufficient enough. But guess what? God will punish you here on Earth for such because you are a disobedient child who breaks his laws. So clearly, we are not under the law for eternal salvation but under the law as obedient Christians.

You are contradicting yourself (actually fighting with your own logic).

Paul made a statement in Colossians 2:12-16 where he urged Christians to not judge anyone whether or not they observe the Sabbath, new moon, food to eat etc, as they were shadow of things to come and were nailed to the cross with Christ.

Recall that God personally commanded the Israelites to keep holy his day, the Sabbath (the seventh day), but all of a sudden, Paul says that law has been nailed to the cross. Does that strike a bell?

Absolutely. That law's purpose has been fulfilled. It is no longer binding.

Now, not all part of the laws of the old testament are to be followed. How do we know which to follow and which not to follow? It is quite simple. The laws which we are not to follow anymore, God specifically changed them in the new testament e.g animal sacrifices, dietary laws (unclean food), Sabbath day etc. Also, the ones we are to always continue with, he stated clearly in the new testament e.g loving our neighbors and enemies, abstaining from blood, not to worship idols etc. Now, what about those old testament laws he didn't mention at all in the new testament e.g cross-dressing, tattoos etc? It simply means that they remain his laws and are still to be obeyed. Since he has not said otherwise, then it means whatever he said back in the old testament still remains and no man must discard them unless he does so himself. Since he hasn't done so, then we must continue to obey them.

Could you kindly point me to where in the New Testament where God corrected the following laws:

*If two men are fighting, and the wife of one grabs the organ of the other man, that woman's hand should be cut off:* "When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." Deuteronomy 25:11-12

*Do not wear clothes made of both Linen and Wool:* "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee." Leviticus 19:19

*Do not plant more than one kind of crop in one field:* "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee." Leviticus 19:19

You can have the whole day to search if you wish.

Oh, let me guess, you are type of Christian (the "memory verse Christian" ) that cherry picks what and what not to obey and/or disobey from the Bible, right?

Now, you said we shouldn't live by certain dictates of the old testament because we are no longer under the law (which I just proved wrong).

You proved nothing (you made no point actually).

Christians are not to base their doctrines on the tenets of the Old Covenant.

Don't you know that...

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

All scriptures, the smallest jot to the biggest is given for us to use as doctrine for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness, so that we may be perfect. But your foolish self doesn't want to be perfect that's why you are using a knife to cut off huge chunks of the Bible and trashing it. Shame on you.

Are you for real?

Of course all of the Bible is God-breathed and inspired, no one is discrediting its validity.

God is a God of purpose, and everything he says (his Words) have their ascribed purpose and anointing.

His laws to the Israelites, were to the people of Israel whom he had redeemed from the land of Egypt. All those laws were to run a course until the advent of the Messiah, after His death and resurrection. That course has been fulfilled (glory to God!).

The Old Testament was profitable while the old covenant ran its course, the new covenant is profitable while it runs its course.

In fact, there will come a time when the knowledge and teachings in the New Covenant will be done away with when “something more perfect” is revealed under the tutorship of Holy Spirit in God's Kingdom (1 Corinthians 13:19-12)

That is why even while we know God's word is inspired, we know that laws such as cutting of the hands of the organ grabbing woman; outlawing of planting one kind of seed in one field, wearing of linen and cotton, shaving the side of the head, etc., is not applicable today.

You and your Antichrist called Daddy Freeze say we shouldn't build doctrines based on David and Solomon, even when the Bible says all scriptures are profitable for doctrine. Let me show you how foolish the both of you are.

Is it a bad thing to draw inspiration from how David trusted in God against Goliath? Is it a bad thing for one to learn from Solomon who asked for wisdom from God when he could have asked for all the wealth in the world? We build doctrines on these scenarios.

SMH, use your sixth sense for once!

Drawing inspiration from David, Solomon, Moses, etc is different from basing your doctrine on the tenets of their teachings.

Even a five year old wouldn't find it so difficult to comprehend.

But fools like you and freeze will love to point it out that David stole another man's wife and even killed him, so he's not fit to base doctrine on. What foolish thinking. Do you think God didn't know what he was doing when he allowed such attrocities by David to be recorded in the Bible? He intentionally allowed it. Read below.

1 Corinthians 10:11
Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

God allowed such to be written in the Bible so we the people of today can learn from them. Clearly, God hated what David did. Now, we christians today will stay away from stealing another man's wife like David did because we now through the story of David know that God hates such. But a fool like you think the story was written for us to follow David's footstep in stealing another man's wife. Such thinking can only come from a deceived person who lacks the spirit of God and so won't be able to interpret the Bible.

Straw man argument. Argumentum ad hominem. Not worthy of a response.

As seen, the life of David gave birth to the doctrine against stealing another man's wife. We are yet to even get to the tonnes of doctrines from Solomon's book of Proverbs.

You and Freeze are currently getting played by Satan but you do not know it. I don't pity you. I only anticipate the day I will mock you .

You should update your knowledge of Bible dear friend.
You know nothing, and it hurts to see you paint the whole forum with the colour of your ignorance.

Death with Christ is freedom from the law (Romans 10:4; 2 Corinthians 3:3)

The earlier you understand that pretty easy Christian tenet, the earlier your ignorance fades away.

Remain blessed.

lindq:


Your insults mean nothing to me. Inasmuch as what you promulgate is ignorance and the Scriptures can be alluded to that effect, opprobrious remarks from a cognitive dissonance induced mind means absolutely nothing. What worries me however is that as the Christian whom you should be, seeing remarks such as these emanating from an embittered mind such as yours, all I can do is pray God forgives you.

Additionally, Daddy Freeze is not “deceiving” anyone. All he has been saying is nothing new. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, “A lie does not become true for the reason of continuous propagation, and the truth does not become a lie because no one sees it.”

If there is anyone deceiving people around here, that should be you and your kind, the "memory verse Christians" going about skewing the Scriptures for self aggrandizement.



It is bad to know nothing, but worse to be deliberately bigoted. You don't read, and whenever you do, you do so wrongly.

Ordinarily, responding to you would be a waste of time because your bigotry has a royal seal from the Devil himself unless God releases you Himself.

Nowhere did I, or Daddy Freeze for that matter, ever claim that Christians should “disobey” the Old Testament. If semantics prove so difficult for your comprehension, say so and you'll be properly educated.

“Christians should not base their doctrines on the tenets of the Old Covenant ” IS NOT the same as “Christians should disobey the teachings of the Old Covenant ”. Use that sixth sense of yours!

Look at how you put words into Daddy Freeze's mouth in that utterly deceptive headline of yours, that is exactly what you seek to do here.

Christian are not bound by the Old Covenant, its tenets and law. It has been fulfilled by the crucifixion of the Messiah on the cross who instituted a New Covenant by his communion of body and blood.





You are contradicting yourself (actually fighting with your own logic).

Paul made a statement in Colossians 2:12-16 where he urged Christians to not judge anyone whether or not they observe the Sabbath, new moon, food to eat etc, as they were shadow of things to come and were nailed to the cross with Christ.

Recall that God personally commanded the Israelites to keep holy his day, the Sabbath (the seventh day), but all of a sudden, Paul says that law has been nailed to the cross. Does that strike a bell?

Absolutely. That law's purpose has been fulfilled. It is no longer binding.



Could you kindly point me to where in the New Testament where God corrected the following laws:

*If two men are fighting, and the wife of one grabs the organ of the other man, that woman's hand should be cut off:* "When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." Deuteronomy 25:11-12

*Do not wear clothes made of both Linen and Wool:* "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee." Leviticus 19:19

*Do not plant more than one kind of crop in one field:* "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee." Leviticus 19:19

You can have the whole day to search if you wish.

Oh, let me guess, you are type of Christian (the "memory verse Christian" ) that cherry picks what and what not to obey and/or disobey from the Bible, right?



You proved nothing (you made no point actually).

Christians are not to base their doctrines on the tenets of the Old Covenant.



Are you for real?

Of course all of the Bible is God-breathed and inspired, no one is discrediting its validity.

God is a God of purpose, and everything he says (his Words) have their ascribed purpose and anointing.

His laws to the Israelites, were to the people of Israel whom he had redeemed from the land of Egypt. All those laws were to run a course until the advent of the Messiah, after His death and resurrection. That course has been fulfilled (glory to God!).

The Old Testament was profitable while the old covenant ran its course, the new covenant is profitable while it runs its course.

In fact, there will come a time when the knowledge and teachings in the New Covenant will be done away with when “something more perfect” is revealed under the tutorship of Holy Spirit in God's Kingdom (1 Corinthians 13:19-12)

That is why even while we know God's word is inspired, we know that laws such as cutting of the hands of the organ grabbing woman; outlawing of planting one kind of seed in one field, wearing of linen and cotton, shaving the side of the head, etc., is not applicable today.



SMH, use your sixth sense for once!

Drawing inspiration from David, Solomon, Moses, etc is different from basing your doctrine on the tenets of their teachings.

Even a five year old wouldn't find it so difficult to comprehend.



Straw man argument. Argumentum ad hominem. Not worthy of a response.



You should update your knowledge of Bible dear friend.
You know nothing, and it hurts to see you paint the whole forum with the colour of your ignorance.

Death with Christ is freedom from the law (Romans 10:4; 2 Corinthians 3:3)

The earlier you understand that pretty easy Christian tenet, the earlier your ignorance fades away.

Remain blessed.

You didn't address any of any point but deflected away with new argument.

I told you earlier that you do not know what the law Paul was talking about means, that's why your last paragraph says Jesus has freed you from the law without you knowing what he freed you from. To you, he freed you from the law meaning you must not obey it again. Then make sure you have hot steamy sex with your mother and sister tonight because you are no longer under the law against such. But if you want to understand, go back and read my post.

As for those laws you quoted, many got changed in the new testament e.g The law against wearing mixed materials. Pail changed it when he gave us how a Christian lady should dress. Note that he didn't mention that we are to continue obeying the mixed materials law

1 Timothy 2:9-15 King James Version (KJV)
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

As for different seeds, even Jesus changed it as seen in the parable of the fig tree planted in a vineyard

Luke 13:6 (KJV)
He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.

As for two men fighting and a woman grabbing one's manhood, only a disobedient Christian will fight. Didn't you hear Christ say turn the other cheek? One's you fight, then it means no punishment for any woman who grabs your manhood, because you have disobeyed the law of turning the other cheek.

I believe the little I dropped is enough to make an open mind become calm. But I doubt you will, because you have been blinded.

alBHAGDADI:


You didn't address any of any point but deflected away with new argument.

You don't read. I'm not a bit surprised. However, the message is there for the readers to see and be enlightened. Your bigotry is your business.

I told you earlier that you do not know what the law Paul was talking about means, that's why your last paragraph says Jesus has freed you from the law without you knowing what he freed you from. To you, he freed you from the law meaning you must not obey it again. Then make sure you have hot steamy sex with your mother and sister tonight because you are no longer under the law against such. But if you want to understand, go back and read my post.

I read and reread your rebuttal and what you said is same as what you posited in the post that made front-page.

You keep quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 to back up your stance, and you keep getting it wrong each time.

For every word spoken, and Scripture ("graphe", written work [of God's word]), there is a purpose and it is beneficial to the doctrine (Greek has "instruction" for which they are spoken.

A perfect example is God's instructions to Ezekiel to cook with animal dropplings, cut his hair and partition the strands into four different bundles as a message to the people of Israel. Those were the words and "instructions" of God to Ezekiel, but they were fulfilled after the prophet carried out Jehovah's command.

Does the fact that God's word is inspired and beneficial to instructions/doctrine mean that if another prophet (say Hosea) did the same act as Ezekiel without specifically being instructed by God himself that it would yield any result? Absolutely no.

God's words are said for a specific purpose and that purpose is fulfilment. God's words in the old covenant were fulfilled by the Messiah at his death and are therefore no longer building blocks or foundations for the New Covenant.

Does that make the written work ("graphe", Scripture) of God's words from the old covenant uninspired or bad? Absolutely not.

The scriptures are there for historical enlightenment on the happenings of old and doings of God during the first dispensation. They were laws for the people of Israel alone.

As for those laws you quoted, many got changed in the new testament e.g The law against wearing mixed materials. Pail changed it when he gave us how a Christian lady should dress. Note that he didn't mention that we are to continue obeying the mixed materials law

1 Timothy 2:9-15 King James Version (KJV)
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

Did he make room for annulment of the “no linen-cotton clothing” here? SMH, how does this annul the Leviticus law for God's sake?

As for different seeds, even Jesus changed it as seen in the parable of the fig tree planted in a vineyard

Luke 13:6 (KJV)
He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.

Are you for real?

How does a parable (a fictional story!) annul a law, I can't believe what I'm seeing

As for two men fighting and a woman grabbing one's manhood, only a disobedient Christian will fight. Didn't you hear Christ say turn the other cheek? One's you fight, then it means no punishment for any woman who grabs your manhood, because you have disobeyed the law of turning the other cheek.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. This indeed is an upgrade from the Leviticus law.

That notwithstanding, there are countless laws that were not specifically changed in the covenant, those mentioned in the backdrop to this are absolutely unrelated and far fetched.

I believe the little I dropped is enough to make an open mind become calm. But I doubt you will, because you have been blinded.

You've said nothing.

When Paul said we are dead to the law, he meant we are absolutely of no obligation to build our Christian faith on the tenets, writings and teachings of the law.

This explains his audacity to challenge the circumcision law, even Sabbath that was in the Ten Commandments, passover, etc.

You can't challenge a law you are bound by.

The Law's course has come to its fulfilment and is no longer binding in any way.


Stay blessed.