Dr. Brown Answers Your Questions

[Download MP3]

Is there spiritual meaning behind John the Baptist and Jesus being cousins?  How do we know which of the Old Testament laws are fulfilled in Christ, and which ones we still need to follow?  And how should Christians respond to Halloween?  Dr. Brown answers these questions and more today on the Line of Fire!

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Let us fearlessly present the truth, with clarity, wisdom, passion, and faith, knowing as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “We can do nothing against the truth, but only for the truth!”

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Truth will always triumph in the end!  Never forget it!

Featured Resource:


Other Resources:


A Queer Thing Happened To America AND Can You Be Gay and Christian?  (Brown/Knox Debate)


The Great Debate [DVD]:   Dr. Michael Brown tackles the perennial issue of suffering and the problem of pain with leading New Testament scholar and agnostic Dr. Bart Ehrman at Ohio State University.

60 Questions Christians Ask About Jewish Beliefs and Practices: Dr. Michael Brown answers sixty common questions about Jewish people and Jewish culture. He also addresses questions Christians have about their own relationship to the Old Testament Law.

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 4 by Dr. Brown: In this volume of the Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus series, Dr. Brown counters the arguments that the New Testament mistranslates, misuses, and misunderstands the Hebrew Scriptures, also addressing the objections that Jesus or Paul abolished the Law.

__

Our Hands Are Stained with Blood by Dr. Brown: This shocking and painful book tells the tragic story of the “Church” and the Jewish people. It is a story every Christian must hear.

476 Comments
  1. Dan1el,

    I know that you do not care for intricacies…that is why you make statements that you cannot back up. You brought up the marriage thing…not me.

    Shalom

  2. Dan1el,

    A simple yes or no will do.

    Is the Gospel of Matthew on the same par as Paul’s writings to you?

    Shalom

  3. Dan1el,

    You just cannot show who you really are and what you really believe. You are afraid to answer 3 simple questions with direct answers.

    1)Do you agree that Colossians 2:23 is speaking of the commandments of men and not the commandments of YHWH?

    2)How do you know that the law against sleeping with your sister is not repealed at this point in time?

    3)Is the Gospel of Matthew on the same par as Paul’s writings to you?

    Why would a politician refuse to answer such questions? Why would a person with nothing to hid not answer them?

    Shalom

  4. Dan1el,

    Can you answer that last question…what is the difference between hid and hide?

    a) Nothing really, considering the context.
    b) A silent “e” that makes us know more precisely what the sentence means.
    c) Nothing if I do not want it to.
    d) I won’t tell because it might make my real beliefs known to the readers here.

    Shalom

  5. Dan1el,

    You might like the following:

    Adultery is not a reason or just cause for divorce. Neither is abandonment by the unbelieving spouse. The believer is to let the unbeliever leave. There is no remarriage allowed after this, for the two are one flesh and man may not put this asunder.

    Messiah says that there can be a legal divorce for “fornication.” Fornication comes before the one flesh relationship is established. Messiah was very precise about this. Adultery is grounds for being stoned to death if there are at least 2 eye witnesses willing to testify. Our society, and the church that has been corrupted by it, is full of people that need to become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. Remarriage is almost always living in adultery.

    1 Corinthians 7
    10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
    11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife…
    39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

    The wife is bound by the law to the husband as long as he lives. If he is not dead by natural causes or via the Biblical death penalty, there is not option for the wife to remarry. A man may not marry again if he leaves his wife.

    Beside all of the above, a man may not get out of any vow, this includes the vow of, “till death do us part.” The woman can get out of this vow or any other if her father or husband cancels it on the day that he hears of it.(Numbers 30)

    Matthew 12
    36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
    37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

    Most of us have no possibility for remarriage. By the words of our mouth we are justified or condemned. If we are in big trouble for our idle words, what about our solemn vows? Repent! for the kingdom of heaven is at stake.

    Shalom

  6. Bo,
    1. I already answered Col 2 question – you can go back and read my answer, and tell me SPECIFICALLY what you didn’t agree with.

    2. When you answer 1 Cor 9:20 – before then, I won’t even THINK of answering this empty question (the point of it was that a Command be given, and then retracted).

    3. If you want to know what I think – if you want to uncover my “dark heretical beliefs” – I believe John’s writings are the absolute most trustworthy (though some things, I heard have been tinkered with over time, such as the woman caught in adultery scene from John, plus the issue of 1 John 5:7/8 – but, barring these aberrations, I believe John’s writings to be), superior writing in the NT. That is:
    1. “The Gospel According to John”,
    2. “1 John, 2 John, 3 John”, and
    3. “Revelation

    Equal to John is James & Jude; after them, Matthew Peter & Paul’s writings and the other two Gospels.

    SOMETHING LIKE THAT (not being exact, but something like that).

    I think the NT is, for the most part, trustworthy; but common sense and 1 Th 5:21 tell me to “test all things” – and I’m not alone in my belief that the NT is NOT “inerrant” (at least “inerrant”, as most people define “inerrant”); Dr. Robert A.J. Gagnon (whom Dr. Brown says is THE FOREMOST AUTHORITY on the Bible’s stance against homosexuality) also believes the NT is NOT “INERRANT”.

    So, before you try to “poison the well” (which is your tactic, since you are impotent to give real, straight or substantive rebuttals), realize that you’re also talking about someone who (at least to some degree) Dr. Brown says is “THE AUTHORITY” on an important issue (even if my belief may be just a tinge different than Gagnon’s – I’m not sure if he categorizes the books).

  7. Dan1el,

    If the law has no bearing on us today or on the People that Paul wrote his letters to, what do you make of this:

    Ro 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
    2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

    1Co 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

    Does the law still apply or not? Why is it that Paul writing to the Roman gentiles thinks that they would know the law if they weren’t supposed to care about it or apply it to their lives? Why does Paul say that the law has jurisdiction here?

    The above is probably 3 more questions that cannot be answered concisely, if at all, by Dan1el, because it will punch more holes in his balloon.

    Shalom

  8. Bo,
    Again, you have no right to ask me any question – except, maybe with respect to Col 2, since I brought it up right before I started to press you about 1 Cor 9:20. But I want an answer about 1 Cor 9:20 – which you’ve been dodging since the mid-200’s.

  9. Bo,
    It is no secret that Paul reinforces various moral laws.

    In Romans 7, he is actually describing how the Jew had died to the Law through the Law’s own words [Gal 2:19] in order to be joined to Messiah.

  10. Dan1el,

    You wrote:
    “I believe John’s writings to be), superior writing in the NT. That is:
    1. “The Gospel According to John”,
    2. “1 John, 2 John, 3 John”, and
    3. “Revelation

    Equal to John is James & Jude; after them, Matthew Peter & Paul’s writings and the other two Gospels.”

    How can John be superior but yet the other writings be equal to John? Or are you saying that James, Jude and John are equal and that Matthew, Peter and Paul are second and that Mark Luke and Acts are the least reliable?

    What did the Bereans use to test what they heard? The Torah and the Prophets? The same thing that Paul told Timothy to use for instruction in righteousness and doctrine?

    Shalom

  11. Dan1el,

    But the law still has authority in 1 Corinthians 7, even if what you say is true about Romans 7. And what are those gentile Romans doing paying attention to what the law says?

    Shalom

  12. Dan1el,

    In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul says that what the law requires is binding on marriage. Of course he thinks that what Messiah said was also binding. This is a perfect example of the two not being opposed and of the proper stance of those that wish to endure till the end as saints.

    Re 14:12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

    Shalom

  13. Dan1el,

    Remarriage?

    Betrothed, but not taken:

    Deuteronomy 20
    7 And what man is there that hath

    betrothed a wife,

    and hath

    not taken her?

    let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.

    Taken, but not married or gone in unto:

    Genesis 20
    3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the

    woman which thou hast taken;

    for she is a man’s wife.

    Going in unto, coming in unto, and lying with are the same thing:

    Genesis 19
    31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to

    come in unto us

    after the manner of all the earth:
    32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and

    we will lie with him,

    that we may preserve seed of our father.

    Going in unto/lying with is not the same thing as being married:

    Deuteronomy 21
    13 and turned aside the raiment of her captivity from off her, and hath dwelt in thy house, and bewailed her father and her mother a month of days, and afterwards thou dost

    go in unto her

    and hast

    married her,

    and she hath been to thee for a wife:

    Deuteronomy 22
    22 If a man be found

    lying with a woman married to an husband,

    then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

    The background:

    Deuteronomy 22
    13 If any man take a wife,

    and go in unto her,

    and hate her,
    14 And

    give occasions of speech against her,

    and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her,

    I found her not a maid:

    15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
    16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
    17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
    18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
    19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife;

    he may not put her away

    all his days.
    20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
    21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall

    stone her with stones that she die:

    because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to

    play the whore in her father’s house:

    so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

    If the husband goes in unto his virgin bride and then wants out some time later, he may not put her away. If the husband goes in unto a woman that has been a harlot in her father’s house, he can have her stoned to death. It does not say that he may divorce her.

    If the woman was found with another man while she was betrothed, she was to be stoned to death along with the man she was found with, except in the case of rape. (Deut.22:22-27) If she was found with a man before she was betrothed, she was to be married to him and, once again, there is no divorce allowed. (Deut. 22:28-29)

    To be continued below.

  14. Continued from above.

    When can a Husband divorce his wife?

    Deuteronomy 24
    1 When a man hath taken a wife,

    and married her,

    and it come to pass that she find

    no favour in his eyes,

    because he hath

    found some uncleanness in her:

    then let him

    write her a bill of divorcement,

    and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
    2 And when she is departed out of his house,

    she may go and be another man’s wife.

    The man may give the woman a bill of divorcement if he finds “uncleanness” in her when he marries her. The word for “uncleanness” is the word used in Leviticus 18 and 20 for incest. If the man cannot bring himself to accept her (she find no grace/mercy/favor in his sight) once her condition is known, he may dissolve the marriage…before it is consummated.

    If the man finds that his bride has been defiled, he may divorce her even if the marriage has taken place, as long as it is before he goes in unto her. The only option he has after he goes in unto her is to have her stoned to death if he wants out.

    Summing up the Torah instructions:

    From the above, we find that in all cases but one the defiled woman must die if the husband wants out of the relationship. The only case that is different is the one where the marriage is not consummated. The man and woman never became one flesh. There is no divorce allowed in any instance when there is a marriage and he has gone in unto her…even when the going in unto came before the marriage.

    Did Y’shua say anything different?

    Matthew 19
    3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him,

    Is it lawful

    for a man to put away his wife for

    every cause?

    4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
    5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and
    they twain shall be one flesh?
    6 Wherefore they are

    no more twain, but one flesh.

    What therefore God hath joined together,

    let not man put asunder.

    7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
    8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
    9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife,

    except it be for fornication,

    and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
    10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
    11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
    12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves

    eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

    He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

    Y’shua says that it is not lawful to divorce a wife “except it be for fornication.” “Fornication” is used in the specific sense here. He could have said “except if be for adultery” but chose to use the word that means unchastity outside of wedlock. (Adultery is grounds for stoning not divorce.) The woman, once she is betrothed, is in a state of wedlock. So Y’shua is stating emphatically that the term “uncleanness” in Deuteronomy 24 is limited only to defilement before wedlock. He is also restating that once the couple has been joined by YHWH, via covenant and consummation, there is no option for divorce. Man may not put this one flesh relationship asunder.

    Y’shua carries this to its logical conclusion by saying that the only way to gain the kingdom of heaven, if a man has divorced his wife after they were one flesh and married another or his first wife has married another, is to remain celibate; because to continue to go in unto the subsequent spouse would cause him to be in a continual state of adultery. And we know that no adulterer can inherit the kingdom of heaven. (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21)

    There is no difference between the full teaching of Torah and Y’shua’s summary. Messiah answered the temptation of the Pharisees with precision and accuracy. His stance is more stringent than the oral law, but exactly what Torah stipulates.

    The second man.

    Deuteronomy 24
    3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which

    took her

    to be his wife;
    4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

    In light of all the discussion above, we are reading into the text to assume that the second husband in Deuteronomy 24 can give a legitimate divorce certificate if he has become one flesh with the woman…and there is no indication, either that he has or hasn’t. We only know that YHWH considers it an abomination for the legitimately divorced wife, once she has entered wedlock with another man, to return to the man that divorced her.

    There are some other nuances to this discussion that could still be hashed out, I’m sure, but for sake of brevity and cohesiveness, this should answer most of the bigger and more necessary questions.

    Shalom

  15. Dan1el,

    1 Corinthians 9
    18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I

    preach the gospel,

    I may make the

    gospel

    of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the

    gospel.

    19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
    20 And unto the

    Jews

    I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are

    under the law

    , as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
    21 To them that are

    without law

    , as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
    22 To the

    weak

    became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
    23 And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
    24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
    25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is

    temperate in all things.

    Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
    26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
    27 But I

    keep under my body,

    and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a

    castaway.

    First-Paul is speaking of how he preaches.

    Second-Paul tells us at the end that he keeps his body under subjection so that he won’t become a castaway. So whatever he is referring to in the above verses cannot mean that he changed his lifestyle.

    Third-Under the law is a different category than “Jew” or “weak” or “lawless”.

    We see examples of Paul adjusting the message to fit the audience in Acts. We do not see him adjusting his torah observant lifestyle. He proved that he didn’t stop keeping torah in Acts 21.

    Shalom

  16. Dan1el,

    You wrote:
    “Bo,
    I’ll understand your silence as a concession. Thanks!”

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander…so I’ll understand your silence as a concession.

    Shalom

  17. Bo,
    1. Not that you’ll even listen, but the context in which I wrote that was that you continued having active conversations with other people, while not responding to me – so, the you attempted to use to rebut me is a phrase that didn’t even apply; that is an interesting coincidence, since that’s what this post about.

    2. Concerning 1 Cor 7:39
    The reading of the surviving Greek manuscripts of Paul’s epistles vary – the way it has fallen out, the Greek phrase translated “bound by law” is alternately present/absent.
    

For this reason, I considered how to deduce more fairly and accurately how the original 1 Cor 7:39 may have first read (even if my conclusion wasn’t authoritative, at least it could be informative); so, I did two things:



    I. Consulted the “early church fathers’” citations of the text, to see which versions they used and taught.
    
II. Tried to find a Consensus of the earliest (currently-known) manuscripts

    ==================

    
I. “Early church fathers” were recorded as citing 1 Cor 7:39, as follows:
    

a. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
    
”…alligata, quandiu vivit vir ejus; sin autem mortuus fuerit, libera est ut nubat, modo in Domino. Beata est autem si sic permanserit, mea quidem sententia.”

    
Google Translation (feel free to challenge it):
    
”…bound by the Law as long as her husband liveth: but if he shall be dead, she is free to marry, if only in the Lord. Blessed if she so remain, however, is, in my opinion.”


    b. TERTULLIAN

    “The woman is bound for such length of time as her husband liveth; but if he shall have died, she is free; whom she will let her marry, only in the Lord.”


    c. CYPRIAN

    “The woman is bound so long as her husband liveth; but if he die, she is freed to marry whom she will, only in the Lord. But she will be happier if she abide thus.”
    

d. ORIGEN
    
”A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth, but if the husband be dead she is free to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord…”

    

II. Consensus Of Earliest Manuscripts

    a. According to the “Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown Commentary” on 1 Corinthians (made in the late 19th century)…
    
“39. bound by the law – The oldest manuscripts omit ‘by the law.’”
    
…but it is an old Commentary, so I tried to find a more recent source.


    b. The ESV and NASB (and some other recent translations) are compiled by scholars who use what they consider to be “the (currently) most reliable texts” – neither the ESV nor NASB (nor some of the other newer translations) believe the Greek manuscripts that contain the phrase “bound by law” are trustworthy.
    

c. I have asked some educated people to help me concerning this question, and I will get back to you if and when I hear from them.

    BOTTOM LINE:
    Apparently, it has been believed for a while (at least, by some) that the texts which omit the phrase “by the Law” are both the earlier and more reliable ones.
    Since Law is never preached in the New Testament, I believe it is fitting that those manuscripts scholars deemed more reliable happened to be those same ones which omitted “by the Law” in 1 Cor 7:39 – revealing it for the aberration that it was/is.

    You can believe whatever you want (I don’t need to tell you this); I’m just presenting you with information – and it just so happens to not agree with your view you’re trying to substantiate.

  18. Dan1el,

    Ro 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
    2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

    Even if 1 Cor 7 is not supposed to contain “bound by the law,” here we have it in Romans right smack in the middle of a discussion of the law. I do not think that you are going to say that Paul is referring to some new law of Christ, since that would negate your theology. He is not saying “as also saith the law.”

    In regard to this, you previously wrote:
    “It is no secret that Paul reinforces various moral laws.”

    He is not reinforcing a moral law, but stating a fact. He is stating the fact that the law is binding and making a analogy from this.

    Shalom

  19. Dan1el,

    You wrote:
    “Apparently, it has been believed for a while (at least, by some) that the texts which omit the phrase “by the Law” are both the earlier and more reliable ones.
    Since Law is never preached in the New Testament, I believe it is fitting that those manuscripts scholars deemed more reliable happened to be those same ones which omitted “by the Law” in 1 Cor 7:39 – revealing it for the aberration that it was/is.”

    The law is not void or done away with according to Paul, so it should not be unexpected to find him basing doctrine upon it as he told Timothy to do.

    2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

    Just because we are under grace does not give us permission to discard the law and continue in sin.

    Ro 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

    The law is where we have our foundation in knowing what is righteous and what is sinful. It is not void.

    Ro 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

    Shalom

  20. Bo,
    The “1 Cor 9:20 question” (which you still haven’t answered, I’m sorry to say) is, specifically:
    “What does Paul mean when he says, ‘μὴ ōn ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμονis'”?
    I’ve provided you with various easily accessible scholarly writings on the meaning of “hupo”, and an instance of its usage from nearly every “book” of the NT so that you might have a better understanding of the definition and usage of “hupo” (and, the way it has fallen out, it just doesn’t mean “condemned” or “condemned by” – which is what you were trying to make it mean: it just isn’t the meaning of the word, no matter how badly you want it to mean that – I’m sorry).
    The meaning of the phrase, “μὴ ōn ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμονis” is: “though I myself and not under the authority of the Law”.

    The question that arises is:
    “What do you make of that — why does Paul say, unequivocally, that he is “not under the authority of the Law”, which is a flat-out denial/contradiction of what you believe? Are you still going to try to defend your position that that ‘ὑπὸ νόμονis’ means ‘condemned by the Law’, or are you going to concede that it does NOT mean what you want it to mean (i.e.: that Paul was/is ‘not under the authority of the Law’)?”

    I’d appreciate an answer to this specific question.

    Thanks

  21. Bo,
    Romans 7:1 was Paul speaking specifically to Jews, and was divorcing them from the Law through the Law to marry them to Christ – the same exact process Paul underwent [Gal 2:19] – through the Law, he died to the Law. He was leading them to die to the Law through the Law.

  22. Correction:
    #428 – instead of “and”, should be “am” in the phrase

    “though I myself and not under the authority of the Law”.

  23. Bo,
    As I said before, I’m not asserting that YOU cannot obey the Law of Moses “as unto God” – certainly, there is space for that [Ro 14] – just that it is not the Gospel, and it cannot be required of believers (at ANY point in the process of salvation).

  24. Bo,
    “The law is where we have our foundation in knowing what is righteous and what is sinful.”

    The “knowledge of good and evil” is what got Adam killed; it is also what killed Paul.

    Romans 7:9
    “I was once alive apart from the Law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.”

    We are to eat from the tree of life – and Jesus said that life is NOT IN THE SCRIPTURES [John 5:39]; LIFE IS IN GOING TO HIM WHO IS THE MANIFEST PERSON [Col 2:16,17] THE SCRIPTURES TALKING ABOUT!
    Our food should be to do the will of Him Who is sending us (Jesus); this is not the Law, for there is no NT argument to substantiate that. It is GO TO HIM, LISTEN TO HIM AND OBEY HIM – and that will be along the lines of loving others as He has loved us.

    HOWEVER, you can obey the Law [Ro 14] – you just require anyone else to do it, that’s all!

  25. Bo,
    You may ask “well, what do I do, then?”

    You live to glorify Christ, because you love Him and you love others (and know they need Him).

  26. Dan1el,

    I do not remember saying that ὑπὸ νόμονis means condemned by the law. I remember saying that under the law is an equivalent to under sin for all have sinned and if we are trying to gain salvation by works (whether of the law or otherwise)we are under a curse and under sin. Paul equates under the law to being guilty. And not just the Jews, because every mouth is stopped and all are guilty.

    Ro 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

    Ro 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

    We are all, both Jews and gentiles, proved under sin. Every mouth is stopped and everyone is guilty. This is what the meaning of under the law is. I have answered this many times, though you say I haven’t. You just do not read things carefully. Neither my posts or the scripture.

    Lu 11:34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.

    What is an evil eye or a single eye? Are the Greek words in these phrases to be taken literally? No!

    Under the law does not mean “under the authority” of the law. For that we need to see the phrase “υπο εξουσια” as in:

    Mt 8:9 For I am a man under(υπο) authority(εξουσια), having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

    Under the law does not mean “subjected to” the law for that we need to say “υποτασσω” which would be submitted to. Paul does not say that he is not “υποτασσω” the law. He does say that the carnal mind cannot subject(υποτασσω) itself to YHWH’s law.

    Ro 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject (υποτασσω) to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

    James says something similar.

    Jas 4:7 Submit yourselves (υποτασσω) therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

    Who is submitted to YHWH and resisting the devil? According to John, those that do not transgress the law are living righteously and those that continue to sin/transgress the law are of the devil.

    1 John 3
    4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
    5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
    6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
    7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
    8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

    What is James talking about when he says that we should submit to YHWH? Keeping YHWH’s perfect law.

    Jas 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
    23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
    24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
    25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

    It is self deception to look into the law and not do it.(Jas. 1:22) We are deceived if we think that those that neglect keeping the law are righteous. (1 Jo. 3:7) There is no sacrifice for purposeful sin.

    Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
    27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

    We must confess our transgressions of the law/sin to be forgiven and cleansed of our unrighteousness/transgression of the law.

    1 Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

    Shalom

  27. Dan1el,

    You wrote:
    “The “knowledge of good and evil” is what got Adam killed; it is also what killed Paul.”

    You definitely do not read your scripture carefully. It is their disobedience to YHWH’s Torah/instruction/law that got them killed. Eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in an idiomatic sense is deciding for ourselves what is right and wrong…making ourselves our own elohim/judge/god. It is rejecting YHWH’s instructions/Torah/law. For to whom we yield our members servants to obey, we are his slave.

    Ro 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
    16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

    This is why it is so important to renew our minds so that we can subject ourselves to YHHW’s law. Being under grace does not void the law. We are not allowed to sin/transgress the law.

    Ro 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

    Ps 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

    2Ti 3:16 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, throughly furnished unto all good works.

    Do we want to be throughly furnished in good works? Do we want to be perfect/mature? Do we want to be instructed in righteousness? Do we want a transformed mind/renewed soul? Or do we want to continue to have a carnal mind that cannot agree to keeping YHWH’s law?

    Ro 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

    Shalom

  28. Dan1el,

    You wrote:
    “1. Did Jesus or did Jesus NOT downplay the Torah Command about giving a certificate of divorce – did He not say that the correct standard was NOT the Torah, but ‘as it was from the beginning’? Saying that sinful men needed the Torah’s concession?”

    I answered your question quite thoroughly, especially in posts 420 and 421. So now where is your proof that Messiah did not uphold torah as the standard? The religious leaders failed to account for all that the law said and used loose interpretation to justify their transgression of the law. This is the same thing that is being done today in the Church.

    You also wrote:
    “I said that the COMMAND was given to sleep with your sister in Genesis 1; when Torah came, it was abolished (and long before that it became disgusting in the sight of most normal humans). The REASON I brought it up was because it showed that a Command of YHWH could be given at one moment, and revoked at another – thus, you shouldn’t be surprised at ANY revocation (for instance, the way Jesus down-played the Command about the certificate of divorce, saying it was fitted to sinful men, but if they were NOT sinful, they would’ve followed a much higher standard; and we cannot be sure how many times God actually did this in the Law!).”

    First, there is no actual command to marry one’s sister.

    Second, that YHWH added more instructions for our well being is to be expected of a loving Father.

    Third, how do you know when marrying one’s sister became disgusting to most normal humans? How do you know that it did not become disgusting because of what YHWH has instructed in his law? We live in a society that has benefited from 3500 years of reading the scripture.

    Fourth, you have not given an example of a revocation of YHWH’s law in the above quote. You have shown where YHWH gave a law that was a good and righteous thing to instruct us on how to conduct ourselves. You have mistakenly accused Messiah of down-playing YHWH’s commandment.

    I wrote:
    “Y’shua says that it is not lawful to divorce a wife “except it be for fornication.” “Fornication” is used in the specific sense here. He could have said “except if be for adultery” but chose to use the word that means unchastity outside of wedlock. (Adultery is grounds for stoning not divorce.) The woman, once she is betrothed, is in a state of wedlock. So Y’shua is stating emphatically that the term “uncleanness” in Deuteronomy 24 is limited only to defilement before wedlock. He is also restating that once the couple has been joined by YHWH, via covenant and consummation, there is no option for divorce. Man may not put this one flesh relationship asunder.

    Y’shua carries this to its logical conclusion by saying that the only way to gain the kingdom of heaven, if a man has divorced his wife after they were one flesh and married another or his first wife has married another, is to remain celibate; because to continue to go in unto the subsequent spouse would cause him to be in a continual state of adultery. And we know that no adulterer can inherit the kingdom of heaven. (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21)

    There is no difference between the full teaching of Torah and Y’shua’s summary. Messiah answered the temptation of the Pharisees with precision and accuracy. His stance is more stringent than the oral law, but exactly what Torah stipulates.”

    Shalom

  29. Dan1el,

    You wrote:
    “
God (by inescapable conclusion) had previously “Instructed” men to sleep with their sisters [Gn 1:28]; later, He abolished that “Instruction” (Torah), so that what was once a “Holy Command from YHWH” became a despicable act – and the same thing goes for His Command to Noach to eat clean and unclean: later, it becomes an unlawful act for Jews.



    Now, if we are understanding correctly, this must cause us to conclude that “the Instructions of God” (Torah) are “time-sensitive” (time being just one of any number of aspects which may regulate His Instructions’ relevance and applicability). 
Not all of His Instructions are applicable to all times (either present ones to past times, or past ones to present times); thus, how is it that His Instructions (Torah) are being presented as if “immutable”? GOD is immutable; His Instructions are not.
”

    I wrote:
    “How do you know the the law about not sleeping with one’s sister is still in place? Why could that not be restored now that we are new creatures? How do you know that the shadow of marriage has not passed away and that we should only let the unregenerate procreate while all of us born again new creations just preach the good news and deny the fleshly aspect of the marriage shadow…since you seem to think that shadows are no longer to be done? Is the restoration of grass eating lions here yet?”

    You have not answered these questions. How do we know that marrying our sister is still wrong? The Apostles didn’t mention it specifically one way or the other. If this commandment is still in place, without direct NT attestation, how can we say any others are not in force?

    The prophets declare that the torah will be in place during he Messianic kingdom, even to the point of food, feasts, sabbaths, new moons and sacrifices which are only shadows of the real. As far as time sensitivity goes:

    Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    According to Messiah, all is not fulfilled till this heaven and earth pass away. So the law is immutable as for the present. The new heavens and earth must come before we can expect to see a change. Our place in Messiah’s kingdom will be predicated upon our faithfulness in this life of doing and teaching all of YHWH’s commandments.

    Mt 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 heaven.

    Your place in the kingdom is at stake. We must do and teach all of YHWH’s commandments or be least in the kingdom at best. Or at worst:

    Mt 7:21 ¶ “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but /only/ the one who does the will of My Father in heaven.
    22 On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?’
    23 Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!’

    Not a pretty sight.

    Shalom

  30. Bo,
    “Your place in the kingdom is at stake.”

    You’re renewing the same heresy you already supposedly reneged on. Which is it? Do people need to do and teach the commands? I thought you told Dr. Brown “no” ?

  31. Dan1el,

    You wrote:
    “He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.’

    Therefore, Jesus is upholding and putting forth the standard that is CONTRADICTORY to the Law of Moses.”

    It is my contention that Messiah will be the greatest in His own kingdom. This means that He could not put forth a standard that is “CONTRADICTORY to the Law of Moses.” He must be the one that perfectly did and taught us to do it.

    Mt 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 heaven.

    And as you can see by reading posts 420 and 421, I show how he perfectly taught the Torah on marriage. He brought Genesis to bear upon Deuteronomy and showed the flaw in the Pharisee’s interpretation of the word uncleanness. For it has always been the case that it is wrong for man to divide what YHWH has joined together. Only death actually separates spouses that have become one flesh.

    The divorce cert. that Moses instructs us about is only for those that have not become one flesh yet. So, uncleanness is specifically fornication (sex before marriage). Adultery (Sexual violation of the marriage covenant) is a different matter. It requires the death penalty to be enforced for the spouse to be free to marry.

    Messiah upheld the teaching of Moses perfectly.

    Shalom

  32. Dan1el,

    More accurately:

    Your position in the kingdom is at stake…great or least.(Mt 5:19) If one is lawless he does not get in.(Mt 7:23)

    Shalom

  33. Bo,
    1) You said:
    “I do not remember saying that ὑπὸ νόμονis means condemned by the law”
    “I remember saying that ‘under the law’ is an equivalent to ‘under sin’ for all have sinned”
    “Paul equates ‘under the Law’ to being ‘guilty’. And not just the Jews, because ‘every mouth’ is stopped ‘and’ all are guilty.”
    “We are all – both Jews and Gentiles, proved ‘under sin’ – every mouth is stopped and everyone is guilty. This is what the meaning of ‘under the law’ is.”

    1) Oll Korrect – either I misunderstood you, or you’re changing your story (to me, either one is a possibility – sorry).
    Now, if I understand correctly, you’re asserting:

    “The phrase ‘under the Law’ includes ‘all men’ (Jew and Gentile), because it means ‘under sin’”. 

Without forgetting that this discussion is about whether a believer is bound to obey the Law of Moses for righteousness after being saved, or not (a question which, in my perspective, has already been answered), I cannot believe that ‘under the Law’ means ‘under sin’, because there is just too much solid evidence to the contrary. I just cannot, based on the information, believe ‘under the Law’ means ‘under sin’. Don’t get me wrong – I can totally understand WHY someone would want to believe that – obviously, it is an attempt to legitimize your stance; the problem it faces, however, is that there is no passage of Scripture (no context) that would encourage me to believe it along with you (this is aside from all the “overt” passages).

I’ve tried to be as honest as possible, and as thorough as was called for:

    A. How Romans 2; 1 Cor 9:19-21 Seem To Differ Sharply With Said View
    
Romans 2:10
    10…to the Jew first, and also to the Greek

    a. So, here we see two people-groups:
    i. Jews, and
    ii. Greeks

    
Romans 2:11
    
11for there is no partiality with God


    
b. Paul makes it clear to those who think they will escape God’s judgment [Ro 2:3] (due to some sort of “partiality” God would have for them [Ro 2:11] – I believe this is speaking to “Jews”, since:

    i. it would naturally be the Jew who “boasts in God” and “boasts in the Law” to suppose he would have “special treatment”, or that “partiality” would be shown him
    
ii. Paul has to clarify that the judgment will indeed fall on both the Jew “under the Law” and the Greek “without the Law”)


    Whether you agree, or not, let’s continue…

    Romans 2:12
    12for all who have sinned ‘without the Law’ will also perish ‘without the Law’, and all who have sinned ‘under the Law’ will be judged by the Law

    c1. So, here are two classes/categories of people:
    i. those who sinned ‘under the Law’
    ii. those who sinned ‘without the Law’

    So, some people sin “under the Law”; others sin “without the Law” – doesn’t this “right off the bat” prove the wrongness of your belief? We can already see that there are two groups of sinning humans – that sinners are not, by any means, relegated to a singular category (i.e.: “under the Law”).
    In stead of that, first two people-groups (i. Jews, ii. Greeks) are presented; after that, two “classes” or “categories” of people (i. under the law, ii. without the Law) are presented.
    Is this number (2) a coincidence, or do the two following classes/categories apply to the two aforementioned people-groups? I’m sure the answer is obvious: some sin ‘under the Law’ (Jews), and some sin ‘without the Law’ (Greeks) . This will be substantiated, shortly.

    

But don’t the two people-groups “remind” you of another passage? Maybe the one can give some light to the other. Two lights are brighter than one, right?

    1 Corinthians 9:19, 22
    19For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to ‘all’, so that I may win more.
    22…I have become all things to ‘all men’, so that I may by all means save some.

    d. Paul became a slave to ‘all’, so that he might save some of their souls.

    20To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews: to those who are ‘under the Law’, as ‘under the Law’ (though not being myself ‘under the Law’), so that I might win those who are ‘under the Law’;
    21to those who are ‘without Law’, as ‘without law’ (though not being without the Law of God, but ‘under the Law of Christ’), so that I might win those who are ‘without Law’.

    e. So, that what we just saw was:
    i. a general term – “all men” – whom Paul wants to save
    ii. a detailed analysis (of sorts) just who “all men” are – classifying them into two categories:
    i. “under the Law” (who I think are Jews)
    ii. “without the Law” (who I think are Gentiles)

    Paul says he wants to save some – and this ‘saving’ he wants to do among ‘all’ men. As he continues the verse, he reveals in detail just who the group of “all men” (who need salvation) are comprised of – i.e.: both those “under the Law”, and those “without the Law” are in this group (“all men”). So, the two people-groups each has their own distinct “relationship” to “the Law”, am I right? One people-group is “under” it; the other people-group is “without” it. Thus, we can deduce:
    i. The people-group who are described as being “under the Law” cannot be one and the same people-group as they who are “without the Law” – i.e.: these two “designations” (“under” vs. “without” Law) must be indicative of two distinct people-groups (no differently than all throughout Ro 2)
    ii. However, both of the people-groups (those “under” and those “without” the Law) are evidently in need of salvation – so:
    iii. Those “without” the Law are a people-group who are sinners, together with those who are “under” the Law – so:
    iv. The term “under the Law” cannot be taken to mean “all sinners” (i.e. “all humans”) – because there are two distinct people-groups, who are sinners in need of salvation. If all sinners are encompassed in the “under the Law” category, then what is this people-group, termed “without the Law” doing floating around outside? If “under the Law” encompasses all sinning humans, then: a) the “without the Law” group must be saints; but, then b) Paul is attempting, in vain, to save a people-group who do not need salvation, and c) Romans 2:12 is undone, because it said that the “without the Law” people-group had “sinned without the Law”.

  34. B. On Righteousness Apart From The Law
    Rom 2:13,14
    13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
    14For when Gentiles, who ‘do not have the Law’, do instinctively the things of the Law, these, ‘not having the Law’, are a Law to themselves…

    a. This has just defined, beyond any doubt, just who those people were in vv10-12 were, who had “sinned ‘without the Law'” – Gentiles!

    15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts
    17But if you bear the name ‘Jew’ and RELY UPON THE LAW and boast in God,
    18and ‘know His will’ and approve the things that are essential, BEING INSTRUCTED OUT OF THE LAW,
    19and are confident that you yourself are a ‘guide’ to the ‘blind’, a ‘light’ to ‘those who are in darkness’,
    20a ‘corrector’ of ‘the foolish’, a ‘teacher’ of ‘the immature’, having IN THE LAW, the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth,
    21you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who PREACH (the false Gospel of Law) that one shall not steal, do you steal?
    22You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
    23You who BOAST IN THE LAW, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God?
    25For, indeed, circumcision is of value IF you PRACTICE THE LAW; but, if you are a TRANSGRESSOR OF THE LAW, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
    26So, if the uncircumcised man KEEPS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW (BY INSTINCT), will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
    27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who THOUGH HAVING THE LETTER OF THE LAW AND CIRCUMCISION ARE A TRANSGRESSOR OF THE LAW?
    28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
    29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, BY THE SPIRIT, NOT BY THE LETTER; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

    b1. This has just defined, beyond any doubt, just who it is that vv10-12 meant when it said “those who have sinned ‘under Law'” – Jews!

    b2. Additionally, this tells us that:
    i. Ironically, it is the Messianic Jews (who have, and boast in the written Law) who were (in this instance) “hearers but not doers” (“breakers of the Law” [Ro 2:23,25])
    ii. Ironically, it will be these very Gentiles (whom the arrogant Messianics were “judging” as “blind”, “in darkness”, “foolish”, and “immature”) who will judge the “judgers” – and, it is these Gentiles, who were (despite being ‘without the Law’), ultimately, “doers of the Law” (who “established of the Law” [Rom 3:31])!

    Precisely as Jesus said it would happen…

    Mt 8:11
    “I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven…”

    Mt 19:30
    “But many who are first will be last; and the last, first.”

  35. Dan1el,

    Exodus
    19:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD.

    One of those things that YHWH spoke from the mount that we are to believe Moses forever on is Sabbath keeping. Real repentance leads one to believe Moses forever…as long as heaven and earth are here.(Mt 5:18)

    Luke 16
    29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
    30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
    31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

    Messiah came and walked out the law perfectly and we are to walk in His footsteps. He also taught it. Why do we think that we do not have to do and teach it? If we do not hear Moses and the Prophets, we do not hear the one that rose from the dead.

    John 8
    39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
    40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
    41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
    42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
    43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
    44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

    Why do we not understand Y’Shua? Why do we not do the works that Abraham did? Why do we think that we are children of Abraham if we do not do what he did? What did he do?

    Genesis
    26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

    How can we know who our father is?

    1 John 3
    4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
    5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
    6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
    7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
    8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
    9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
    10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

    Sin is the transgression of the law. Keeping the law, like Abraham did, is a display of our being made righteous by faith. We are deceived to think that we may ignore the law and still be righteous. If we are born of YHWH we do not continue in sin/law breaking. If we are children of the devil we do not do righteousness. If we are walking in the Spirit we do the righteousness of the law. If we cannot bring ourselves to agree to do it, we are carnal.

    Romans 8
    4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
    5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
    6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
    7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

    Shalom

  36. Dan1el,

    Romans 14 has nothing to do with not keeping the law. It is about disputable matters. The law is not disputable except to those that want to continue to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil by deciding for themselves what is right and wrong and will not allow their carnal minds to be subject to YHWH’s law.

    Shalom

  37. Bo,
    Are you going to tell me whether you still think “under the Law” means “under sin” (encompassing all sinners)?

    I would love to know what you thought of the evidence.

  38. Dan1el,

    Revelation 14
    12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

    Yep, no one can become righteous by keeping the law. That takes faith in Y’shua. The problem you are having is that you do not understand that the saints also keep YHWH’s commandments. It is the outcome of real faith. Just like Abraham, we start out righteous by faith apart from any merit from our works of righteousness then and our real faith produces obedience to YHWH’s commandments, statutes and laws…this is what Paul told Timothy to do. He was already saved, but he was to learn the ways of righteous living and good works from reading the law.

    2 Timothy 3
    15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
    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, throughly furnished unto all good works.

    Shalom

  39. Dan1el,

    I already answered that question at least 3 times, but you haven’t answered quite a few of mine.

    What do you think now? Did Messiah uphold the law on marriage or teach something “CONTRADICTORY”, as you put it?

    Are we allowed to marry our sister now that we are new creatures in Messiah? If not how do you know from the scripture that you are right?

    Shalom

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*