blueAgent:


I slept with 4 different women yesterday, because I truly love them did I commit a sin?

I stole a Bible in order to read and know God did I commit Sin?

budaatum:

I lied to someone today. I commited a sin. And I'd be commiting another sin if sinful me starts doing God's job telling you if you sin or not.

As is written, "buda, before you start stoning blueAgent, go tend the massive forest in your own fuqing eyes and let blueAgent tend his tiny twigs"!

blueAgent:


Is there meaning to this your post?

budaatum:
What do you think? Does it mean anything to you?
Tell me what you understand by it.

Solomonjkk:
Abeg reply my mail I sent to you ASAP.
Thanks.

blueAgent:



You Make me laugh.

"Had man continually fellowed Jesus" this is your statement.
How do we know what Jesus will do and not do?

Me you and billions of people did not have the priveldge of meeting Jesus.

So how do we know things we can do and things we are not allowed to do in order not to offend Jesus?

blueAgent:



How can the law be done away with when Jesus died, since it was to uphold that very law that Jesus had to die?

JMAN05:

Do you keep all the law?

JMAN05:


The Bible.

blueAgent:
;31

You read out of context.
Paul is simply saying that we have been released from the penalty of the law which is death.
Remember that people were stoned to death for breaking any of the 10 commandments.
Why because the wages of Sin is death.

Paul asked the people that since we are no longer to stone people are we now allowed to continue to sin(break the law) he gave the answer as no. rather we should establish that is keep the law.

Remember God cannot change, what God called and saw as sin 10000yrs ago he still regards as sin today.

If people were stoned for breaking the sabbath,committing adultery stealing, disobeying parents.
then tell me why they would not be punished by God for doing the same now?

JMAN05:


I beg to disagree. And even if we were to go along with your position, you would still have to agree that believing that means that the law is out of the way. Because, if you are bound by the law, you are also condemned by the law if you sin. You cannot be under the law and say you are set free from the penalty. If you are under the law, you must observe every pin of the law. If you discard one, you discard all. You dont cherry-pick the law.

However, I dont see your reason that Paul was talking about the death pronounced by the law. He cant say that cos that is not how the law is practiced. You observe everything. Lets look at the verse again.

Roms 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, because we have died to that which restrained us, in order that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit and not in the old sense by the written code."

Paul was clear as to what he was saying, notice the use of old sense and new sense. He also made reference to written code. So, i dont see how you concluded he was referring to death pronounced by the law.

if we are to see things the way you recommend, it becomes hard to reasonably assemble your point. You said it is only the Ten commandment that was not annulled, yet you are talking about stoning an adulterer, one disobeying the mother, sabbath breaker etc. The ten commandment did not say such persons be stoned. So, why will Paul or anybody on your side of understanding be concerned about death? Was it not the other laws that pronounced stoning? Did the ten commandment pronounce stoning or even killing an adulterer?

It is true that Paul expanded on his point by saying that the Law made sin more sinful, and thus produced death. verses 4-5; "So, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of the Christ, that you might become another’s, the one who was raised up from the dead, so that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were living according to the flesh, the sinful passions that were awakened by the Law were at work in our bodies to produce fruit for death."

So, Paul made his point; That the law made sin to be obvious to those under law, thereby delivering them to death. Now, notice that in verse 6, Paul didnt say that we have been released from the death resulting from sin as made evident by the law. Nope. Rather in verse 6, he said that we have been "released from the law." Why could he not rightly say "released from death of the law?" Because that would make no meaning. The law is a body of rules, you cant choose one and live the other in as much as you are under the law. If you are under it, you have to stick to the punishment stipulated by the law. On the other hand, if you are released from the law, you can still choose what you can apply based on new direction issued by Jesus. So, you can learn that to steal in bad, to commit adultery is bad, in fact, that to even fantasize about the body of someone not your mate is bad too. But can you be stoned? nope. because you are no longer under the law. That covenant that brought the law, that gave it validity has been changed by a new covenant made with Jesus blood. (heb 9:15-19).

heb 7:11-12

If, then, perfection was attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for it was a feature of the Law that was given to the people), what further need would there be for another priest to arise who is said to be in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek and not in the manner of Aaron? 12 For since the priesthood is being changed, it becomes necessary to change the Law as well."

This is certainly not a change in concerning death. Did you notice that because God brought about a change in the priesthood, that necessitated a change in the law? why? the same reason, you cant do something different when you are under the law covenant. You have to follow it to the later.


You are just confusing and contradicting yourself.

Paul was reffering to the Levitical law and not the ten commandments.
We have been released from the penalty of the law which required stoning of those who transgressed it.
Here is Paul on the law.


Romans 2:12
For as many as have sinned without law will also
perish without law, and as many as have sinned
in the law will be judged by the law

JMAN05:


I beg to disagree. And even if we were to go along with your position, you would still have to agree that believing that means that the law is out of the way. Because, if you are bound by the law, you are also condemned by the law if you sin. You cannot be under the law and say you are set free from the penalty. If you are under the law, you must observe every pin of the law. If you discard one, you discard all. You dont cherry-pick the law.

However, I dont see your reason that Paul was talking about the death pronounced by the law. He cant say that cos that is not how the law is practiced. You observe everything. Lets look at the verse again.

Roms 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, because we have died to that which restrained us, in order that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit and not in the old sense by the written code."

Paul was clear as to what he was saying, notice the use of old sense and new sense. He also made reference to written code. So, i dont see how you concluded he was referring to death pronounced by the law.

if we are to see things the way you recommend, it becomes hard to reasonably assemble your point. You said it is only the Ten commandment that was not annulled, yet you are talking about stoning an adulterer, one disobeying the mother, sabbath breaker etc. The ten commandment did not say such persons be stoned. So, why will Paul or anybody on your side of understanding be concerned about death? Was it not the other laws that pronounced stoning? Did the ten commandment pronounce stoning or even killing an adulterer?

It is true that Paul expanded on his point by saying that the Law made sin more sinful, and thus produced death. verses 4-5; "So, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of the Christ, that you might become another’s, the one who was raised up from the dead, so that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were living according to the flesh, the sinful passions that were awakened by the Law were at work in our bodies to produce fruit for death."

So, Paul made his point; That the law made sin to be obvious to those under law, thereby delivering them to death. Now, notice that in verse 6, Paul didnt say that we have been released from the death resulting from sin as made evident by the law. Nope. Rather in verse 6, he said that we have been "released from the law." Why could he not rightly say "released from death of the law?" Because that would make no meaning. The law is a body of rules, you cant choose one and live the other in as much as you are under the law. If you are under it, you have to stick to the punishment stipulated by the law. On the other hand, if you are released from the law, you can still choose what you can apply based on new direction issued by Jesus. So, you can learn that to steal in bad, to commit adultery is bad, in fact, that to even fantasize about the body of someone not your mate is bad too. But can you be stoned? nope. because you are no longer under the law. That covenant that brought the law, that gave it validity has been changed by a new covenant made with Jesus blood. (heb 9:15-19).

heb 7:11-12

If, then, perfection was attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for it was a feature of the Law that was given to the people), what further need would there be for another priest to arise who is said to be in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek and not in the manner of Aaron? 12 For since the priesthood is being changed, it becomes necessary to change the Law as well."

This is certainly not a change in concerning death. Did you notice that because God brought about a change in the priesthood, that necessitated a change in the law? why? the same reason, you cant do something different when you are under the law covenant. You have to follow it to the later.

Even the new covenant Jesus made still has the same Law in it.

Hebrews 10:16
“This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, says the LORD: I will put My
laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will
write them,”

Which law is that?

JMAN05:


I beg to disagree. And even if we were to go along with your position, you would still have to agree that believing that means that the law is out of the way. Because, if you are bound by the law, you are also condemned by the law if you sin. You cannot be under the law and say you are set free from the penalty. If you are under the law, you must observe every pin of the law. If you discard one, you discard all. You dont cherry-pick the law.

However, I dont see your reason that Paul was talking about the death pronounced by the law. He cant say that cos that is not how the law is practiced. You observe everything. Lets look at the verse again.

Roms 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, because we have died to that which restrained us, in order that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit and not in the old sense by the written code."

Paul was clear as to what he was saying, notice the use of old sense and new sense. He also made reference to written code. So, i dont see how you concluded he was referring to death pronounced by the law.

if we are to see things the way you recommend, it becomes hard to reasonably assemble your point. You said it is only the Ten commandment that was not annulled, yet you are talking about stoning an adulterer, one disobeying the mother, sabbath breaker etc. The ten commandment did not say such persons be stoned. So, why will Paul or anybody on your side of understanding be concerned about death? Was it not the other laws that pronounced stoning? Did the ten commandment pronounce stoning or even killing an adulterer?

It is true that Paul expanded on his point by saying that the Law made sin more sinful, and thus produced death. verses 4-5; "So, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of the Christ, that you might become another’s, the one who was raised up from the dead, so that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were living according to the flesh, the sinful passions that were awakened by the Law were at work in our bodies to produce fruit for death."

So, Paul made his point; That the law made sin to be obvious to those under law, thereby delivering them to death. Now, notice that in verse 6, Paul didnt say that we have been released from the death resulting from sin as made evident by the law. Nope. Rather in verse 6, he said that we have been "released from the law." Why could he not rightly say "released from death of the law?" Because that would make no meaning. The law is a body of rules, you cant choose one and live the other in as much as you are under the law. If you are under it, you have to stick to the punishment stipulated by the law. On the other hand, if you are released from the law, you can still choose what you can apply based on new direction issued by Jesus. So, you can learn that to steal in bad, to commit adultery is bad, in fact, that to even fantasize about the body of someone not your mate is bad too. But can you be stoned? nope. because you are no longer under the law. That covenant that brought the law, that gave it validity has been changed by a new covenant made with Jesus blood. (heb 9:15-19).

heb 7:11-12

If, then, perfection was attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for it was a feature of the Law that was given to the people), what further need would there be for another priest to arise who is said to be in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek and not in the manner of Aaron? 12 For since the priesthood is being changed, it becomes necessary to change the Law as well."

This is certainly not a change in concerning death. Did you notice that because God brought about a change in the priesthood, that necessitated a change in the law? why? the same reason, you cant do something different when you are under the law covenant. You have to follow it to the later.

JMAN05:


I beg to disagree. And even if we were to go along with your position, you would still have to agree that believing that means that the law is out of the way. Because, if you are bound by the law, you are also condemned by the law if you sin. You cannot be under the law and say you are set free from the penalty. If you are under the law, you must observe every pin of the law. If you discard one, you discard all. You dont cherry-pick the law.

However, I dont see your reason that Paul was talking about the death pronounced by the law. He cant say that cos that is not how the law is practiced. You observe everything. Lets look at the verse again.

Roms 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, because we have died to that which restrained us, in order that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit and not in the old sense by the written code."

Paul was clear as to what he was saying, notice the use of old sense and new sense. He also made reference to written code. So, i dont see how you concluded he was referring to death pronounced by the law.

if we are to see things the way you recommend, it becomes hard to reasonably assemble your point. You said it is only the Ten commandment that was not annulled, yet you are talking about stoning an adulterer, one disobeying the mother, sabbath breaker etc. The ten commandment did not say such persons be stoned. So, why will Paul or anybody on your side of understanding be concerned about death? Was it not the other laws that pronounced stoning? Did the ten commandment pronounce stoning or even killing an adulterer?

It is true that Paul expanded on his point by saying that the Law made sin more sinful, and thus produced death. verses 4-5; "So, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of the Christ, that you might become another’s, the one who was raised up from the dead, so that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were living according to the flesh, the sinful passions that were awakened by the Law were at work in our bodies to produce fruit for death."

So, Paul made his point; That the law made sin to be obvious to those under law, thereby delivering them to death. Now, notice that in verse 6, Paul didnt say that we have been released from the death resulting from sin as made evident by the law. Nope. Rather in verse 6, he said that we have been "released from the law." Why could he not rightly say "released from death of the law?" Because that would make no meaning. The law is a body of rules, you cant choose one and live the other in as much as you are under the law. If you are under it, you have to stick to the punishment stipulated by the law. On the other hand, if you are released from the law, you can still choose what you can apply based on new direction issued by Jesus. So, you can learn that to steal in bad, to commit adultery is bad, in fact, that to even fantasize about the body of someone not your mate is bad too. But can you be stoned? nope. because you are no longer under the law. That covenant that brought the law, that gave it validity has been changed by a new covenant made with Jesus blood. (heb 9:15-19).

heb 7:11-12

If, then, perfection was attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for it was a feature of the Law that was given to the people), what further need would there be for another priest to arise who is said to be in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek and not in the manner of Aaron? 12 For since the priesthood is being changed, it becomes necessary to change the Law as well."

This is certainly not a change in concerning death. Did you notice that because God brought about a change in the priesthood, that necessitated a change in the law? why? the same reason, you cant do something different when you are under the law covenant. You have to follow it to the later.

blueAgent:


Which one is law of faith?

Paul has already told you that faith does not nullify the law rather that we should establish the law.

blueAgent:



Please explain Romans 7:4.
Our website uses cookies to function properly. By
using our site , you agree to the use of cookies .
We take your privacy seriously . For more
information : See our privacy policy
Attend a Congregation
In this verse, the Apostle Paul wrote, “Wherefore, my
brethren, you also are become dead to the Law by the
body of Christ; that you should be married to another,
even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should
bring forth fruit unto God.”
Many cite this scripture to prove that the Law of God is no
longer in effect. It is important to note that Paul stated,
“You…are become dead” (Romans 7:4 , Old King James
Version). He did not say, “The Law is dead.” Christ’s
sacrifice did not do away with God’s Law. Rather, by the
acceptance of His sacrifice (repentance—leading to
baptism and the receiving of the Holy Spirit) as the
payment of the death penalty for their sins, the people had
become dead to the Law. (Notice Galatians 2:20 .)
Now notice Romans 7:5 : “For when we were in the flesh
[before conversion, and while we lived according to the
pulls of the flesh, and the influence of Satan and the
world], the motions of sins, which were by the Law [notice
verse 7 ], did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto
death .” While we were sinners, not having God’s Holy
Spirit, we were only worthy of death , having broken His
Law ( Rom. 3:23 ).
In verse 6 , Paul writes, “But now we have been delivered
from the [certain death penalty of the] Law, having died to
what we were held by, so that we should serve in the
newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the
letter” ( New King James ).
Keeping the Law does not save anyone. Christ’s sacrifice
did that. But Paul, whom most churches love to quote as
the source of their belief that the Law is done away,
wrote, “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God
forbid. No, I had not known sin, but by the law [analogy: A
driver would not know that he is breaking the speed limit
if the speed limit were not clearly posted. He might be
pardoned in that case. But, once a speed limit sign is
visibly posted, there would be no excuse for future
speeding]: for I had not known lust, except the law had
said, You shall not covet” ( Rom. 7:7 ). And although
merely adhering to the speed limit does not save a person
from the possibility of having an accident, the law still
requires him to travel at or below that speed (“To him that
knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is
sin” ( James 4:17 ). In addition, if Christ’s sacrifice did
away with the Law, there would be no such thing as sin. If
that were the case, then, aside from the gospel accounts,
why should the term “sin” even appear in the New
Testament?
Christ Himself stated, “I have come not to destroy, but to
fulfill.” How is it then that anyone, Paul included, could
even have the authority to come along and say that the
Law is void? Picture the following scenario:
A person is brought to trial for committing every hideous
crime imaginable. These crimes were each witnessed by
hundreds of people, each having testified to the person’s
guilt. Not only that, but there is more than sufficient
forensic evidence to convict the person of the crimes. The
loopholes and red tape of today’s legal system
notwithstanding, the person is guilty beyond all shadow of
reasonable doubt. He deserves the death penalty.
But the judge, knowing that the person is legitimately
sorry for, and repentant of, the acts he has committed,
decides to pardon him. However, the justice system
demands that someone pay the penalty for his crimes.
The judge’s own son, who has never broken a single law,
never even imagined it, volunteers to be executed in the
person’s place. The judge agrees with this decision. He
poses the “deal” to the condemned individual, stipulating
to him the one condition of his undeserved, complete
and total pardon:
“From this day forward, you have…absolute freedom and
license to do whatever you want—to break any law, or at
least and especially those that you feel are unfair or
unjust, or inapplicable to you personally. My son has done
nothing, absolutely nothing, to deserve to die, and has
freely volunteered to die in your place. You are therefore…
relieved of any responsibility to keep any law. You may lie,
cheat, steal, murder, rape, and do anything that any
specific situation in which you find yourself would deem
necessary, comfortable, or convenient. You have the right
to disregard, and even prosecute, any and all who would
have the audacity to tell you that your actions are wrong
(in either an illegal or immoral sense) or that you should
be expected to live your life in any dissimilar fashion from
that previously practiced. If you choose to accept the
terms heretofore set forth, you have my complete and
unconditional blessing. Court dismissed.”
While most professing Christians (and even individuals
who are non-religious) would find the above scenario
absurd, it is the very way in which they view God’s Law—
that Christ’s sacrifice eliminated the need for obedience
to it.
In no way does Romans 7:4-6 prove that God’s Law is
void. There, Paul merely points out that by dying for us,
Christ paid the penalty of the Law for us. And, as Romans
6:3-4 shows, we are dead with Him. (Again notice
Galatians 2:20 .) As Romans 8:1 shows, we are no longer
condemned, because, through Christ’s Resurrection, we
are also made spiritually alive (6:4-5 , 11 ).

blueAgent:



Please explain Romans 7:4.
Our website uses cookies to function properly. By
using our site , you agree to the use of cookies .
We take your privacy seriously . For more
information : See our privacy policy
Attend a Congregation
In this verse, the Apostle Paul wrote, “Wherefore, my
brethren, you also are become dead to the Law by the
body of Christ; that you should be married to another,
even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should
bring forth fruit unto God.”
Many cite this scripture to prove that the Law of God is no
longer in effect. It is important to note that Paul stated,
“You…are become dead” (Romans 7:4 , Old King James
Version). He did not say, “The Law is dead.” Christ’s
sacrifice did not do away with God’s Law. Rather, by the
acceptance of His sacrifice (repentance—leading to
baptism and the receiving of the Holy Spirit) as the
payment of the death penalty for their sins, the people had
become dead to the Law. (Notice Galatians 2:20 .)
Now notice Romans 7:5 : “For when we were in the flesh
[before conversion, and while we lived according to the
pulls of the flesh, and the influence of Satan and the
world], the motions of sins, which were by the Law [notice
verse 7 ], did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto
death .” While we were sinners, not having God’s Holy
Spirit, we were only worthy of death , having broken His
Law ( Rom. 3:23 ).
In verse 6 , Paul writes, “But now we have been delivered
from the [certain death penalty of the] Law, having died to
what we were held by, so that we should serve in the
newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the
letter” ( New King James ).

Keeping the Law does not save anyone. Christ’s sacrifice
did that. But Paul, whom most churches love to quote as
the source of their belief that the Law is done away,
wrote, “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God
forbid. No, I had not known sin, but by the law [analogy: A
driver would not know that he is breaking the speed limit
if the speed limit were not clearly posted. He might be
pardoned in that case. But, once a speed limit sign is
visibly posted, there would be no excuse for future
speeding]: for I had not known lust, except the law had
said, You shall not covet” ( Rom. 7:7 ). And although
merely adhering to the speed limit does not save a person
from the possibility of having an accident, the law still
requires him to travel at or below that speed (“To him that
knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is
sin” ( James 4:17 ). In addition, if Christ’s sacrifice did
away with the Law, there would be no such thing as sin. If
that were the case, then, aside from the gospel accounts,
why should the term “sin” even appear in the New
Testament?

Christ Himself stated, “I have come not to destroy, but to
fulfill.” How is it then that anyone, Paul included, could
even have the authority to come along and say that the
Law is void? Picture the following scenario:
A person is brought to trial for committing every hideous
crime imaginable. These crimes were each witnessed by
hundreds of people, each having testified to the person’s
guilt. Not only that, but there is more than sufficient
forensic evidence to convict the person of the crimes. The
loopholes and red tape of today’s legal system
notwithstanding, the person is guilty beyond all shadow of
reasonable doubt. He deserves the death penalty.
But the judge, knowing that the person is legitimately
sorry for, and repentant of, the acts he has committed,
decides to pardon him. However, the justice system
demands that someone pay the penalty for his crimes.
The judge’s own son, who has never broken a single law,
never even imagined it, volunteers to be executed in the
person’s place. The judge agrees with this decision. He
poses the “deal” to the condemned individual, stipulating
to him the one condition of his undeserved, complete
and total pardon:
“From this day forward, you have…absolute freedom and
license to do whatever you want—to break any law, or at
least and especially those that you feel are unfair or
unjust, or inapplicable to you personally. My son has done
nothing, absolutely nothing, to deserve to die, and has
freely volunteered to die in your place. You are therefore…
relieved of any responsibility to keep any law. You may lie,
cheat, steal, murder, rape, and do anything that any
specific situation in which you find yourself would deem
necessary, comfortable, or convenient. You have the right
to disregard, and even prosecute, any and all who would
have the audacity to tell you that your actions are wrong
(in either an illegal or immoral sense) or that you should
be expected to live your life in any dissimilar fashion from
that previously practiced. If you choose to accept the
terms heretofore set forth, you have my complete and
unconditional blessing. Court dismissed.”
While most professing Christians (and even individuals
who are non-religious) would find the above scenario
absurd, it is the very way in which they view God’s Law—
that Christ’s sacrifice eliminated the need for obedience
to it.
In no way does Romans 7:4-6 prove that God’s Law is
void. There, Paul merely points out that by dying for us,
Christ paid the penalty of the Law for us. And, as Romans
6:3-4 shows, we are dead with Him. (Again notice
Galatians 2:20 .) As Romans 8:1 shows, we are no longer
condemned, because, through Christ’s Resurrection, we
are also made spiritually alive (6:4-5 , 11 ).

JMAN05:


Read that chapter well and more carefully. I do understand your position here, and why you reached that conclusion. Paul asked do we abolish law (mosaic law), he answered no, rather we establish law. Some translation say, "we uphold law". It is sort of open to question. However, we cannot dismiss the fact that there is law of faith. verse 27 made that clear. But one would ask, is Paul saying we establish law, how? The law is already established before faith came on board. In fact he cant be stating that law of Moses is established by faith since he drew a contrast from verse 27. A contrast that obviously showed the weakness of the law. How? verse 30 showed that God declared people uncircumcised righteous even though they were not observing the commandment of the law. So the law of faith rules supreme. Not the Mosaic law. So, in verse 31 it will be a contradiction if paul was saying that they are establishing law of the jews. He is apparently saying that we are establishing the law of faith.

But of course, one can make a case that the place is talking about the law of the jews. So, there is another way these could be understood. The law aimed at making people righteous. However, because of sin, it couldnt reach that goal, but faith did. it made people not under the law to be declared righteous. So, it upheld the law, it furthered the course of the law,and achieved it. So, it is not against the law in that it took off from where Law stopped and lead to the goal of the law - to make people righteous. (Roms 8:3, 4) This however does not mean that the law continuous effective. It is weak already. A stronger law can help reach it's goal.

The context does not support any establishing of law, in the sense of encouraging its observance. I dont see that conveyed by the context. Since the context suggests that without the law people are declared righteous. So, why observe what has weakness? what has limitations?

JMAN05:


There seems to be a disconnect here. I do agree that the law delivered us to death. But notice the point here. Paul was talking about the law of a man to his wife. The wife is free if the man dies. When married to a new man, he obeys the new man's laws.

You did well by saying that people have become dead to the law. Now, true Christian are now married by another husband - Christ. We now live by the law of the Christ, not by the law of the Jews which we died to.

Christ used his blood to purchase us to be his own. We now live by his laws.

You did agree that Christ died for us, he paid the old husband, that keep highlighting our sins and demanding our death. He paid him the death penalty for us, and now married us to himself. We are now under his laws. I wonder why you didn't reach that conclusion. That's the analogy Paul was making.



With or without the law code sin has always been around.

Anything not in harmony with God's personality is sin. Anything contrary to his standards, ways, will. Anything that destroys man's relationship with God is sin.

View Pauls words from context. He was writing to people who knew the law. During his lifetime, the law has been around. So Paul got to know about sin from the law. He met the law from birth cos he was born a jew.That does not mean that sin is never sin until a law codes comes up. No. Adam and Eve was condemned without the Mosaic law. Cain knew what he did was wrong because God warned him not to kill his brother. Sodom was destroyed and many died in Noah's day even before the Law came on board.

1jhn 5:17 says all unrighteousness is sin. So anything contrary to God personality is sin. Why the law? To make sin more sinful, to expose our weak state and help us to look forward to a ransom. However, many who served God had to Know about what is bad from the law code. Not that it was never sin, it was, but many did it unknown to them that they were sinning.



In that scenario, assume that the man under charge of death is given asylum by another nation, the nation gives another person to die on his behalf. When into the new nation, he follows the new nation's laws. That will make the analogy fit. Read Romans 7:1-3.

Law being out of the way doesn't mean disobedience reigns supreme. We can live by the principles found in the law. Jesus life and speech constitutes the law of the Christ.

JMAN05:


Read that chapter well and more carefully. I do understand your position here, and why you reached that conclusion. Paul asked do we abolish law (mosaic law), he answered no, rather we establish law. Some translation say, "we uphold law". It is sort of open to question. However, we cannot dismiss the fact that there is law of faith. verse 27 made that clear. But one would ask, is Paul saying we establish law, how? The law is already established before faith came on board. In fact he cant be stating that law of Moses is established by faith since he drew a contrast from verse 27. A contrast that obviously showed the weakness of the law. How? verse 30 showed that God declared people uncircumcised righteous even though they were not observing the commandment of the law. So the law of faith rules supreme. Not the Mosaic law. So, in verse 31 it will be a contradiction if paul was saying that they are establishing law of the jews. He is apparently saying that we are establishing the law of faith.

But of course, one can make a case that the place is talking about the law of the jews. So, there is another way these could be understood. The law aimed at making people righteous. However, because of sin, it couldnt reach that goal, but faith did. it made people not under the law to be declared righteous. So, it upheld the law, it furthered the course of the law,and achieved it. So, it is not against the law in that it took off from where Law stopped and lead to the goal of the law - to make people righteous. (Roms 8:3, 4) This however does not mean that the law continuous effective. It is weak already. A stronger law can help reach it's goal.

The context does not support any establishing of law, in the sense of encouraging its observance. I dont see that conveyed by the context. Since the context suggests that without the law people are declared righteous. So, why observe what has weakness? what has limitations?

JMAN05:


There seems to be a disconnect here. I do agree that the law delivered us to death. But notice the point here. Paul was talking about the law of a man to his wife. The wife is free if the man dies. When married to a new man, he obeys the new man's laws.

You did well by saying that people have become dead to the law. Now, true Christian are now married by another husband - Christ. We now live by the law of the Christ, not by the law of the Jews which we died to.

Christ used his blood to purchase us to be his own. We now live by his laws.

You did agree that Christ died for us, he paid the old husband, that keep highlighting our sins and demanding our death. He paid him the death penalty for us, and now married us to himself. We are now under his laws. I wonder why you didn't reach that conclusion. That's the analogy Paul was making.



With or without the law code sin has always been around.

Anything not in harmony with God's personality is sin. Anything contrary to his standards, ways, will. Anything that destroys man's relationship with God is sin.

View Pauls words from context. He was writing to people who knew the law. During his lifetime, the law has been around. So Paul got to know about sin from the law. He met the law from birth cos he was born a jew.That does not mean that sin is never sin until a law codes comes up. No. Adam and Eve was condemned without the Mosaic law. Cain knew what he did was wrong because God warned him not to kill his brother. Sodom was destroyed and many died in Noah's day even before the Law came on board.

1jhn 5:17 says all unrighteousness is sin. So anything contrary to God personality is sin. Why the law? To make sin more sinful, to expose our weak state and help us to look forward to a ransom. However, many who served God had to Know about what is bad from the law code. Not that it was never sin, it was, but many did it unknown to them that they were sinning.



In that scenario, assume that the man under charge of death is given asylum by another nation, the nation gives another person to die on his behalf. When into the new nation, he follows the new nation's laws. That will make the analogy fit. Read Romans 7:1-3.

Law being out of the way doesn't mean disobedience reigns supreme. We can live by the principles found in the law. Jesus life and speech constitutes the law of the Christ.

JMAN05:


There seems to be a disconnect here. I do agree that the law delivered us to death. But notice the point here. Paul was talking about the law of a man to his wife. The wife is free if the man dies. When married to a new man, he obeys the new man's laws.

You did well by saying that people have become dead to the law. Now, true Christian are now married by another husband - Christ. We now live by the law of the Christ, not by the law of the Jews which we died to.

Christ used his blood to purchase us to be his own. We now live by his laws.

You did agree that Christ died for us, he paid the old husband, that keep highlighting our sins and demanding our death. He paid him the death penalty for us, and now married us to himself. We are now under his laws. I wonder why you didn't reach that conclusion. That's the analogy Paul was making.



With or without the law code sin has always been around.

Anything not in harmony with God's personality is sin. Anything contrary to his standards, ways, will. Anything that destroys man's relationship with God is sin.

View Pauls words from context. He was writing to people who knew the law. During his lifetime, the law has been around. So Paul got to know about sin from the law. He met the law from birth cos he was born a jew.That does not mean that sin is never sin until a law codes comes up. No. Adam and Eve was condemned without the Mosaic law. Cain knew what he did was wrong because God warned him not to kill his brother. Sodom was destroyed and many died in Noah's day even before the Law came on board.

1jhn 5:17 says all unrighteousness is sin. So anything contrary to God personality is sin. Why the law? To make sin more sinful, to expose our weak state and help us to look forward to a ransom. However, many who served God had to Know about what is bad from the law code. Not that it was never sin, it was, but many did it unknown to them that they were sinning.



In that scenario, assume that the man under charge of death is given asylum by another nation, the nation gives another person to die on his behalf. When into the new nation, he follows the new nation's laws. That will make the analogy fit. Read Romans 7:1-3.

Law being out of the way doesn't mean disobedience reigns supreme. We can live by the principles found in the law. Jesus life and speech constitutes the law of the Christ.

JMAN05:


Read that chapter well and more carefully. I do understand your position here, and why you reached that conclusion. Paul asked do we abolish law (mosaic law), he answered no, rather we establish law. Some translation say, "we uphold law". It is sort of open to question. However, we cannot dismiss the fact that there is law of faith. verse 27 made that clear. But one would ask, is Paul saying we establish law, how? The law is already established before faith came on board. In fact he cant be stating that law of Moses is established by faith since he drew a contrast from verse 27. A contrast that obviously showed the weakness of the law. How? verse 30 showed that God declared people uncircumcised righteous even though they were not observing the commandment of the law. So the law of faith rules supreme. Not the Mosaic law. So, in verse 31 it will be a contradiction if paul was saying that they are establishing law of the jews. He is apparently saying that we are establishing the law of faith.

But of course, one can make a case that the place is talking about the law of the jews. So, there is another way these could be understood. The law aimed at making people righteous. However, because of sin, it couldnt reach that goal, but faith did. it made people not under the law to be declared righteous. So, it upheld the law, it furthered the course of the law,and achieved it. So, it is not against the law in that it took off from where Law stopped and lead to the goal of the law - to make people righteous. (Roms 8:3, 4) This however does not mean that the law continuous effective. It is weak already. A stronger law can help reach it's goal.

The context does not support any establishing of law, in the sense of encouraging its observance. I dont see that conveyed by the context. Since the context suggests that without the law people are declared righteous. So, why observe what has weakness? what has limitations?

JMAN05:


I beg to disagree. And even if we were to go along with your position, you would still have to agree that believing that means that the law is out of the way. Because, if you are bound by the law, you are also condemned by the law if you sin. You cannot be under the law and say you are set free from the penalty. If you are under the law, you must observe every pin of the law. If you discard one, you discard all. You dont cherry-pick the law.

However, I dont see your reason that Paul was talking about the death pronounced by the law. He cant say that cos that is not how the law is practiced. You observe everything. Lets look at the verse again.

Roms 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, because we have died to that which restrained us, in order that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit and not in the old sense by the written code."

Paul was clear as to what he was saying, notice the use of old sense and new sense. He also made reference to written code. So, i dont see how you concluded he was referring to death pronounced by the law.

if we are to see things the way you recommend, it becomes hard to reasonably assemble your point. You said it is only the Ten commandment that was not annulled, yet you are talking about stoning an adulterer, one disobeying the mother, sabbath breaker etc. The ten commandment did not say such persons be stoned. So, why will Paul or anybody on your side of understanding be concerned about death? Was it not the other laws that pronounced stoning? Did the ten commandment pronounce stoning or even killing an adulterer?

It is true that Paul expanded on his point by saying that the Law made sin more sinful, and thus produced death. verses 4-5; "So, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of the Christ, that you might become another’s, the one who was raised up from the dead, so that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were living according to the flesh, the sinful passions that were awakened by the Law were at work in our bodies to produce fruit for death."

So, Paul made his point; That the law made sin to be obvious to those under law, thereby delivering them to death. Now, notice that in verse 6, Paul didnt say that we have been released from the death resulting from sin as made evident by the law. Nope. Rather in verse 6, he said that we have been "released from the law." Why could he not rightly say "released from death of the law?" Because that would make no meaning. The law is a body of rules, you cant choose one and live the other in as much as you are under the law. If you are under it, you have to stick to the punishment stipulated by the law. On the other hand, if you are released from the law, you can still choose what you can apply based on new direction issued by Jesus. So, you can learn that to steal in bad, to commit adultery is bad, in fact, that to even fantasize about the body of someone not your mate is bad too. But can you be stoned? nope. because you are no longer under the law. That covenant that brought the law, that gave it validity has been changed by a new covenant made with Jesus blood. (heb 9:15-19).

heb 7:11-12

If, then, perfection was attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for it was a feature of the Law that was given to the people), what further need would there be for another priest to arise who is said to be in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek and not in the manner of Aaron? 12 For since the priesthood is being changed, it becomes necessary to change the Law as well."

This is certainly not a change in concerning death. Did you notice that because God brought about a change in the priesthood, that necessitated a change in the law? why? the same reason, you cant do something different when you are under the law covenant. You have to follow it to the later.

JMAN05:


There seems to be a disconnect here. I do agree that the law delivered us to death. But notice the point here. Paul was talking about the law of a man to his wife. The wife is free if the man dies. When married to a new man, he obeys the new man's laws.

You did well by saying that people have become dead to the law. Now, true Christian are now married by another husband - Christ. We now live by the law of the Christ, not by the law of the Jews which we died to.

Christ used his blood to purchase us to be his own. We now live by his laws.

You did agree that Christ died for us, he paid the old husband, that keep highlighting our sins and demanding our death. He paid him the death penalty for us, and now married us to himself. We are now under his laws. I wonder why you didn't reach that conclusion. That's the analogy Paul was making.



With or without the law code sin has always been around.

Anything not in harmony with God's personality is sin. Anything contrary to his standards, ways, will. Anything that destroys man's relationship with God is sin.

View Pauls words from context. He was writing to people who knew the law. During his lifetime, the law has been around. So Paul got to know about sin from the law. He met the law from birth cos he was born a jew.That does not mean that sin is never sin until a law codes comes up. No. Adam and Eve was condemned without the Mosaic law. Cain knew what he did was wrong because God warned him not to kill his brother. Sodom was destroyed and many died in Noah's day even before the Law came on board.

1jhn 5:17 says all unrighteousness is sin. So anything contrary to God personality is sin. Why the law? To make sin more sinful, to expose our weak state and help us to look forward to a ransom. However, many who served God had to Know about what is bad from the law code. Not that it was never sin, it was, but many did it unknown to them that they were sinning.



In that scenario, assume that the man under charge of death is given asylum by another nation, the nation gives another person to die on his behalf. When into the new nation, he follows the new nation's laws. That will make the analogy fit. Read Romans 7:1-3.

Law being out of the way doesn't mean disobedience reigns supreme. We can live by the principles found in the law. Jesus life and speech constitutes the law of the Christ.

blueAgent:


OLD TESTAMENT
Does the Old Testament Law Still Apply?
It’s a question we all ask ourselves at some point: does the
Old Testament law still apply? Read the passage below
along with the notes taken from the Chronological Life
Application Study Bible to help you explore this question.
What is the Old Testament Law?
The Old Testament Law is found in Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy. This includes the Ten
Commandments.
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not
come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of
the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their
purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth
disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law
will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you
ignore the least commandment and teach others to
do the same, you will be called the least in the
Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s
laws and teaches them will be called great in the
Kingdom of Heaven. But I warn you—unless your
righteousness is better than the righteousness of the
teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will
never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!” — MATTHEW
5:17-20
DOES THE OLD TESTAMENT LAW STILL
APPLY?
If Jesus did not come to abolish the law, does that mean all
the Old Testament laws still apply to us today? In the Old
Testament, the law can be understood to have three
dimensions: ceremonial, civil, and moral.
ONE
The ceremonial law related specifically to Israel’s worship
(see Lev 1:2-3 , for example). Its primary purpose was to
point forward to Jesus Christ; these laws, therefore, were no
longer necessary after Jesus’ death and resurrection. While
we are no longer bound by ceremonial law, the principles
behind them—to worship and love a holy God—still apply.
Jesus was often accused by the Pharisees of violating
ceremonial law.
TWO
The civil law applied to daily living in Israel (see Deut
24:10-11 , for example). Because modern society and culture
are so radically different from that time and setting, all of
these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. But the
principles behind the commands are timeless and should
guide our conduct. Jesus demonstrated these principles by
example.
THREE
The moral law (such as the Ten Commandments) is the
direct command of God, and it requires strict obedience
(see Exod 20:13 , for example). The moral law reveals the
nature and will of God, and it still applies today. Jesus
obeyed the moral law completely.
THE ULTIMATE GOAL
God’s laws were given to help people love God with all their
hearts and minds. Throughout Israel’s history, however,
these laws had often been misquoted and misapplied. By
Jesus’ time, religious leaders had turned the laws into a
confusing mass of rules. When Jesus talked about a new
way to understand God’s law, he was actually trying to bring
people back to its original purpose. Jesus did not speak
against the law itself but against the abuses and excesses
to which it had been subjected (see John 1:17 ).
OBEYING > EXPLAINING
Some of those in the crowd were experts at telling others
what to do, but they themselves missed the central point of
God’s laws. Jesus made it clear that obeying God’s laws is
more important than explaining them. It’s much easier to
study God’s laws and tell others to obey them than to put
them into practice. How are you doing at obeying God
yourself?
HEART CHANGE > OBEYING
The Pharisees were exacting and scrupulous in their
attempts to follow their laws. So how could Jesus
reasonably call us to greater righteousness than theirs? The
Pharisees’ weakness was that they were content to obey the
laws outwardly without allowing God to change their hearts
(or attitudes). They looked pious, but they were far from the
Kingdom of Heaven. God judges our hearts as well as our
deeds, for it is in the heart that our real allegiance lies.
Jesus was saying that his listeners needed a different kind
of righteousness altogether (out of love for God), not just a
more intense version of the Pharisees’ obedience (which
was mere legal compliance). Our righteousness must
(1) come from what God does in us, not what we can do by
ourselves,
(2) be God-centered, not self-centered,
(3) be based on reverence for God, not approval from
people, and
(4) go beyond keeping the law to living by the principles
behind the law. We should be just as concerned about our
attitudes that people don’t see as about our actions that
they do see.

blueAgent:



Hebrews 7:12 – “A CHANGE
OF THE LAW”
September 27, 2019 - by Admin
Context is so important in coming to a proper
understanding of what is spoken. That is true for our
day-to-day conversations about earthly activities. It is
equally true as we study the Bible. Disregarding the
context of a biblical statement can bring about
unwarranted conclusions, cause confusion, and even
lead to teachings which contradict God’s truth.
The text of Hebrews 7:12 consists of one sentence: “For
the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a
change of the law.” Let us break that declaration down
into three thoughts and then examine them one by one.
 “For the priesthood being changed” – To get a grasp
on this passage’s meaning, you guessed it, context is of
the utmost importance. In the previous verse, two
distinct priesthoods are mentioned: (1) something called
“the Levitical priesthood” and (2) a priesthood
“according to the order of Melchizedek.” It is crystal
clear from the first ten verses of this chapter (Hebrews
7:1-10) that there is a definite distinction between those
two priesthoods named above.
First of all, “the Levitical priesthood” refers to the
priesthood which was ordained by God to function in the
nation of Israel under the law of Moses. “Levi” originally
was the name of one person – the third oldest son of
Jacob (Genesis 29:34). “Levi” later was used to identify
the tribe of Levi, and any person who was from that tribe
(and thus a descendant of Levi), was called “a Levite.”
Per God’s arrangement, under the old law all priests
came from the tribe of Levi (Deuteronomy 18:1). Thus,
the terminology “the Levitical priesthood” that we read in
Hebrews 7:11.
In addition, in that same verse we read of a priesthood
“according to the order of Aaron.” That expression is
another way of designating “the Levitical priesthood.”
You see, under the law of Moses, not only were all
authorized priests from the tribe of Levi, but they also
were required to be the descendants of Aaron, Moses’
older brother. Thus, the priesthood “according to the
order of Aaron” and “the Levitical priesthood” were one
and the same.
What about the priesthood that is according to the order
of Melchizedek, which is mentioned in Hebrews 7:11?
That priesthood is introduced in this letter in Hebrews
5:6. According to the prophecy of Psalm 110:1-4, the
Messiah was to be a priest after the order of
Melchizedek. In the book of Hebrews, Jesus is the one
who is pictured as the high priest of Christians and a
priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Prophecy
made, prophecy fulfilled. But, wait a minute: Jesus was
from the tribe of Judah, not the tribe of Levi (Hebrews
7:14). That being true, how can He function as our
priest? Answer: Per God’s decree, the priesthood has
been changed. That is, the priesthood which is in force
has been changed. That leads to the important
conclusion which the Holy Spirit spelled out for the
Christians to whom the book of Hebrews was
addressed:
 “There is also a change of the law” – That does not
mean that the message of a particular law itself was
changed. Rather, it means that, per God’s plan, there
was a change in which law is in force. The law of Moses
was a covenant between Jehovah and the nation of
Israel (Deuteronomy 5:1-3). It was God’s will for the old
law to be a temporary law, serving to bring the Israelites
to the Christ (Galatians 3:23,24). Jesus took that law out
of the way in order to establish His new covenant
(Hebrews 10:9). In the language of Ephesians 2:15,
Jesus abolished the old law, meaning that it was no
longer in force.
The old law/law of Moses came from God, so it was a
good law (Romans 7:12). It was in force for about 1500
years. It fulfilled its purpose. Then what? God said since
the priesthood changed, then the law changed, too.
Anyone today who continues to attempt to follow the
old law is following a system of instruction that no
longer is in force. Do not miss the powerful point of
Hebrews 7:12: if the priesthood has changed, so has the
law.
 “Of necessity” – Someone decided that this logic
applies: if the priesthood has changed, then the law
must change, too. Whose reasoning is that? The Lord’s.
That has to count for something, correct?! Why was it
necessary to change the law? Because God said so.
Trying to be joined to two laws at the same time would
be a form of spiritual adultery. For Christians to be
married to the Christ, they must be dead to the old law
(Romans 7:4). The law of Moses served its purpose, but
it was not suitable for the spiritual kingdom over which
Jesus reigns through “the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2).
If God said the plan governing which law is to be in
effect had to change, then that change cannot be
brushed aside.
A person recently told me that for God to take away the
old law and put in its place a new system “is rude.” Not
rude at all, friend. It is God’s wisdom at work and God’s
love on display. Thank God for them!
— Roger D. Campbell

www.klangchurchofchrist.org/latest-news/hebrews-712-a-change-of-the-law

blueAgent:



What was changed was the law concerning priesthood and not the 10 commandments.
Priests were people from the tribe of Levites but when it came to Christ the law had to be changed just as Melchizedek king of Salem was a priest of God without father or mother(not from the tribe of Levite's)
So also Christ priesthood was.


https://www.str.org/blog/what-does-change-of-the-law-in-hebrews-7-12-mean-video

blueAgent:


You just proved that the 10commandments were existing before God gave it to the Isrealities.
https://www.nairaland.com/3038010/ten-commandements-preceded-moses

blueAgent:


Jesus did not ask you to stop obeying the 10commandments.

Matthew 5:19
“ Whosoever therefore shall break
one of these least commandments,
and shall teach men so, he shall be
called the least in the kingdom of
heaven: but whosoever shall do
and teach them , the same shall be
called great in the kingdom of God.

blueAgent:



In the new nation is he allowed to comitt the same of fence?

blueAgent:



You make me laugh.
every where you see the word law you assume it is the 10commandments.


Of course it cannot be the 10commandments because we are told that been circumcised or not what matters is keeping the law of God.

Looking at the context in which h the word Law is applied we can see that it is the ceremonial or law of Moses that require circumsion for the Israelites that is been referred to.
Now in Christ Jesus weather we observe or don't observe those ceremonial laws it does not matter What matters is keeping the 10 commandments which is eternal.



1 Corinthians 7:19
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is
nothing, but keeping the commandments of God
is what