Christians Must Serve by the Law

[GracePeace]

Look at your own responses to everyone here....the only thing you have addressed is that people do not understand your point.
So it is time to make your point clear, if we have misunderstood you.

I made it clear from the very start. Read the OP instead of responding without reading the OP.

 

[GracePeace]

Look at your own responses to everyone here....the only thing you have addressed is that people do not understand your point.

Because you all erred in the same way: you haven't read the OP.

 

[Wrangler]

Great topic! Just had numerous emails exchanged with my pastor on point.

 

[GracePeace]

Great topic! Just had numerous emails exchanged with my pastor on point.

Hope you enjoy the OP.

 

[Grailhunter]

I made it clear from the very start. Read the OP instead of responding without reading the OP.

Still no point!

 

[GracePeace]

Still no point!

Really?

I argued that when a Jew believes in Jesus he no longer has an obligation to serve by the Law.
By not mentioning the Gentile believer I invoked the question, "What about Gentiles"--I planned to answer "Gentiles were never under Law."
I argued that this was a normative Pharisaic doctrine (Paul was a Pharisee).

 

[Wrangler]

I made it clear from the very start. Read the OP instead of responding without reading the OP.

Because you all erred in the same way: you haven't read the OP.

It’s interesting how fully the ignore feature works. Implied is people I have put on ignore are posting in this thread contrary to the Spirit of the OP.

They just want to pontificate their doctrine without analyzing a stand alone idea and deduce where that leads.

 

[Wrangler]

Hope you enjoy the OP.

I do and will respond this evening to it in more detail.

 

[GracePeace]

It’s interesting how fully the ignore feature works. Implied is people I have put on ignore are posting in this thread contrary to the Spirit of the OP.

They just want to pontificate their doctrine without analyzing a stand alone idea and deduce where that leads.

I am absolutely flabberghasted.

It was accidental. I wasn't trying to be smart and "catch" people.

 

[Grailhunter]

Really?

I argued that when a Jew believes in Jesus he no longer has an obligation to serve by the Law.
By not even mentioning the Gentile believer I invoked the question "What about Gentiles"--which I was to answer "Gentiles were never under Law."
I argued that this was a normative Pharisaic doctrine (Paul was a Pharisee).

And I have pointed out all through this that the term "serve" is just one aspect of our disconnection from the law.
As far as converts? It does not matter if it is Jew or a hindu, nothing of their past religion applies.

 

[GracePeace]

And I have pointed out all through this that the term "serve" is just one aspect of our disconnection from the law

1. You don't get to define the topic. The topic was defined for you; you are off-topic if you are raising that point.
2. You have been responding as if I believed Christians were under Law... because you tried responding without reading. Just humble yourself and admit you erred.

As far as converts? It does not matter if it is Jew or a hindu, nothing of their past religion applies.

This is perhaps the fourth time I've addressed this.
1. "Jew" can and has been used of a Christian Romans 2:29.
2. For a religious Jew it really was a legitimate question whether they should continue serving by the Law God gave them. Peter in fact continued keeping dietary Law until directed otherwise by God.
And again I purposely omitted the issue of Gentiles and the Law in order to point out that they are not under Law because they were never under Law.

 

[GracePeace]

Well exactly, what is your point, you have not defined your point, except some attachment to the law. And as you can tell from the responses, that is the general consciences. You have not been clear what you want or believe of the Old Testament. So if there is any confusion, that is on you.

Actually, Wrangler had no issue finding my point.
Why? Because he actually read what I said before responding to it.
He says he enjoyed the OP.

 

[Grailhunter]

1. You don't get to define the topic. The topic was defined for you; you are off-topic if you are raising that point.
2. You have been responding as if I believed Christians were under Law... because you tried responding without reading. Just humble yourself and admit you erred.


This is perhaps the fourth time I've addressed this.
For a Jew it really was a legitimate question whether they should continue serving by the Law God gave them.

I did not err....LOL....it is up to the person creating the thread to make their point clear.
Obvious by the responses you received you did not make your point clear...and I still do not think that you are addressing your intent.
It was obviously a question that the biblical era Jews were wrestling with because there were Jewish Christians that stood against Paul and worked against his ministry. The Jewish Christian sect pretty much died out within the first century.

But what you are questioning, neither applies to modern Jews or Christians.

 

[GracePeace]

I did not err....LOL....it is up to the person creating the thread to make their point clear.
Obvious by the responses you received you did not make your point clear...and I still do not think that you are addressing your intent.
It was obviously a question that the biblical era Jews were wrestling with because there were Jewish Christians that stood against Paul and worked against his ministry. The Jewish Christian sect pretty much died out within the first century.

But what you are questioning, neither applies to modern Jews or Christians.

1a. Yeah, it's pretty hard to get someone's point... when you haven't read what they've said.
1b. Wrangler got my point loud and clear because he read whereas you erred and did not.

2. Yes, it was a question; there are still many people today who affirm both Jewish and Gentile Christians must serve by the Law... hence this debate topic... that's how this works. If you already agree with me you don't need to reply.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

If "under" (in "under Law") means "condemned", then "under Grace" means "condemned by Grace". How is that a reason sin will not be your master?

I do not see why you think this

the law condemns whoever does not fulfill it, which means only Christ would not be condemned by it

grace is a term of saving the condemned so yur thinking is flawed,

the law condemns people

No one is threaded to be condemned under grace,

 

[Grailhunter]

"Jew" can and has been used of a Christian Romans 2:29.

but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Romans 2:29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
We are not Jews inwardly or in any way. The heart of the Jews...lets see... The the Jews! LOL Crucify Him! Crucify Him! Let his blood be on us and our children!

 

[GracePeace]

I do not see why you think this

the law condemns whoever does not fulfill it, which means only Christ would not be condemned by it

grace is a term of saving the condemned so yur thinking is flawed,

the law condemns people

No one is threaded to be condemned under grace,

If the word "under" means condemned by then the phrase "under Grace" must mean condemned by Grace.

 

[Wrangler]

Actually, Wrangler had no issue finding my point.
Why? Because he actually read what I said before responding to it.
He says he enjoyed the OP.

I enjoy analysis - philosophical discussion and debate. I can take an opposing point of view JUST for the sake of discussion.

Heaven forbid I go through life and might change my mind about anything!

It’s so odd that some people take ideas as a personal affront. Threads like this is why I am on this site! Endlessly squabbling, “I’m right. You’re wrong” is boring.

 

[GracePeace]

but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Romans 2:29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
We are not Jews inwardly or in any way. The heart of the Jews...lets see... The the Jews! LOL Crucify Him! Crucify Him! Let his blood be on us and our children!

You're just disagreeing with Paul.
You went from ignoring what I've stated is my point to ignoring what Paul has stated is his point.
Actually try READING Romans 2 before responding to it.
The whole argument is that they aren't going to be justified just because they have a) a pedigree b) the written Law c) physical circumcision if they don't actually fulfill righteous requirement of the Law, and that one must be "Jewish" inwardly and then mentions how "circumcised in the heart by the Spirit" is the basis thereof. What does that refer to?
Colossians 2:11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ...
Clearly, this refers to someone being "inwardly Jewish" in relation to being Christian.

 

[Grailhunter]

1a. Yeah, it's pretty hard to get someone's point... when you haven't read what they've said.
1b. Wrangler got my point loud and clear because he read whereas you erred and did not.

2. Yes, it was a question; there are still many people today who affirm both Jewish and Gentile Christians must serve by the Law... hence this debate topic... that's how this works. If you already agree with me you don't need to reply.

Ya, well there are people that believe the rapture will occur with flying Saucers. But anyone that is knowledgeable of the scriptures cannot come away with the idea that Christians have any religious connection to the law.