Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you're saying, then, that you don't agree with Paul? That's what I was asking.
The law was added because the multitude as a whole refused to meet with God personally. They sent Moses up to the mount because they were afraid that they would die if they met with God. They chose (out of fear) to take another man's word for what God was like, and God in His mercy gave them a stop-gap measure until they could come into the full measure of faith.
He also clothed Adam and Eve after they ate from the Law Tree and realized they were naked. He was still with them outside the garden. He protected Cain by marking his head, even after he murdered his brother. He fed and clothed Israel when they wandered for 40 years in the wilderness in rebellion and fear. Many of them died without entering into the promise (including Moses), but death can't take someone out of God's hands. They finally made it to the place of God's will for them. So will we.
However, the law was not added because of transgressions... Nowhere in the Tanakh does it even imply that, so where did Paul come up with that?...If there is no law then there is no transgression, because transgression is disobedience of the Torah of HaShem and if no Torah existed before Mount Sinai, then there were no transgressions to necessitate the giving of the Torah because there was no Torah to transgress against...It is like speeding in my car, if there is no written law passed that says that i cannot speed, then there is no law that I have transgressed, so, in order to make me a safer driver, for me and everyone else on the road, a law is passed, not because I was transgressing a non-existing law, but to make the roads safer for everyone concerned, now, if I speed, then I am transgressing the law...No one can be held accountable for a law that does not yet exist...Can you comprehend the logic here?...
Fret not, because sabbath keeping was only for one nation and that nation was: ancient Israel.
When the temporary constitution of the Mosaic Law ended - Romans 10:4 - sabbath keeping ended.
Plus, the world does Not keep the Sabbath as outlined in Scripture anyway.
So, what you’re saying is:
it is now okay to believe in multiple gods...
It is now okay to have other gods before G-d...
It is now okay to make graven images...
It is now okay to take G-d’s Name in vain...
It is now okay to dishonor our parents...
It is now okay to murder...
It is now okay to commit adultery...
It is now okay to steal...
It is now okay to bear false witness against my neighbor...
It is now okay to covet...
In other words, I can be lawless, because there is no longer a Torah and still go to heaven...
However, the law was not added because of transgressions... Nowhere in the Tanakh does it even imply that, so where did Paul come up with that?...If there is no law then there is no transgression, because transgression is disobedience of the Torah of HaShem and if no Torah existed before Mount Sinai, then there were no transgressions to necessitate the giving of the Torah because there was no Torah to transgress against...It is like speeding in my car, if there is no written law passed that says that i cannot speed, then there is no law that I have transgressed, so, in order to make me a safer driver, for me and everyone else on the road, a law is passed, not because I was transgressing a non-existing law, but to make the roads safer for everyone concerned, now, if I speed, then I am transgressing the law...No one can be held accountable for a law that does not yet exist...Can you comprehend the logic here?...
Good analysis. ...as far as it goes. So the inevitable conclusion is that any "transgression" would have to be of something even more basic than law: some principle of social order that is the basis for law. It follows then that if a law or interpretation of a law violates that principle then the principle is what should rule rather than the law. For instance, if the principle is good sense then there ought not to be a law against eating cheeseburgers, right?
However, the law was not added because of transgressions... Nowhere in the Tanakh does it even imply that, so where did Paul come up with that?...If there is no law then there is no transgression, because transgression is disobedience of the Torah of HaShem and if no Torah existed before Mount Sinai, then there were no transgressions to necessitate the giving of the Torah because there was no Torah to transgress against...It is like speeding in my car, if there is no written law passed that says that i cannot speed, then there is no law that I have transgressed, so, in order to make me a safer driver, for me and everyone else on the road, a law is passed, not because I was transgressing a non-existing law, but to make the roads safer for everyone concerned, now, if I speed, then I am transgressing the law...No one can be held accountable for a law that does not yet exist...Can you comprehend the logic here?...
I can comprehend YOUR logic, yes, but I disagree. We have a different view of what a transgression is.
To say that you cannot transgress against God without the law being given indicates that you view God as merely a set of rules. I don't.
People who know God should also instinctively know what violates His law without Him spelling it out in writing.
This is the sum of the law and prophets: Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. The Old Testament believers were incapable of figuring that out because they didn't really know God. Hence, the Law.
Also is it a sin to work on certain days of the week? I work in retail and my job requires me to work on the weekends and I don't see why it would be a sin to work on a certain day of the week.
Unless you are part of a 5000 year old roving band of Jews , he did mean you .
Jesus came and said that He is " Lord of the Sabbath "
it is now okay to believe in multiple gods...
It is now okay to have other gods before G-d...
It is now okay to make graven images...
It is now okay to take G-d’s Name in vain...
It is now okay to dishonor our parents...
It is now okay to murder...
It is now okay to commit adultery...
It is now okay to steal...
It is now okay to bear false witness against my neighbor...
It is now okay to covet...
In other words, I can be lawless, because there is no longer a Torah and still go to heaven...
Jesus came and never said that He was " Lord of Adultery "
Or " Lord of stealing "
Or " Lord of False witnessing "
Or " Lord of Graven Images "
Or " Lord of Parent Dishonoring "
However , He did say that He , and He alone was " Lord of the Sabbath " .
I always laugh when people say they are "not under the law". Of course you are! You are under the (millions, literally) of local laws, state laws, federal laws, even the laws of your HOA if you live in a community that has one. You quarrel with those who keep the 613 laws of HaShem, and revel in your "freedom" under the local, state and federal systems.
(And for the record, it's not even 613 laws we have to KEEP. Some apply to one gender only, or only to the priests or to married people, for example. You keep the laws that apply to you)
I just realized this is the Christian forum, I thought it was the general religious forum. If I'm not supposed to comment, please let me know and I will delete this. Thank you!
I just realized this is the Christian forum, I thought it was the general religious forum. If I'm not supposed to comment, please let me know and I will delete this. Thank you!
No, it is the "Christianity" forum and you are welcome to comment on the vagaries of that general category, even when it is to contrast Jewish perceptions. The point of "not under the Law" is not that we are free to do what the Law prohibits,but that we are under a principle of love that may or may not compel the behavior specified. That is the Law is not our reason for conduct which may or may not parallel laws.
Good analysis. ...as far as it goes. So the inevitable conclusion is that any "transgression" would have to be of something even more basic than law: some principle of social order that is the basis for law. It follows then that if a law or interpretation of a law violates that principle then the principle is what should rule rather than the law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
