For the Bible Tells Me So...

Paul explicitly stated that "the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed" in Rom. 3. Look around in that chapter, Paul says alot about what the old law did/does. Then he goes on to describe that neither the law or works can bring righteousness.
Also, i'd suggest looking at Rom. 2:14. Talks about doing "the law" without having read it. I would think this has something to do with this topic...
Hebrews also deals with the old law, that the old covenant was made obsolete by the new.
Complex issue, the old law is.
edt: But, yes, it doesn't say ignore the old law. It is good for study/understanding of the new, as it "made way" for the new.
 
Last edited:
Barachai said:
Paul explicitly stated that "the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed" in Rom. 3. Look around in that chapter, Paul says alot about what the old law did/does. Then he goes on to describe that neither the law or works can bring righteousness.
Also, i'd suggest looking at Rom. 2:14. Talks about doing "the law" without having read it. I would think this has something to do with this topic...
Hebrews also deals with the old law, that the old covenant was made obsolete by the new.
Complex issue, the old law is.
edt: But, yes, it doesn't say ignore the old law. It is good for study/understanding of the new, as it "made way" for the new.
Click to expand...


Was Paul the son of god?

Jesus Christ said:
Matthew 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Click to expand...
Now... Which person matters more? Paul who never even met Jesus, or Jesus ...
 
Paul wrote after "everything was accomplished". Christ's death was the signing of the new covenant, so when christ spoke the old covenant was still binding. After christ's death, the old law became "obsolete", but many of the moralities of the law remained. At least, that's how I understand it.
And if you're going to use Jesus, use more than that one verse. Jesus also mentioned on several occasions how parts of the law were made for the people, and would procede to correct/clarify them (Divorce, Sabbath, etc.). There was a moral law before the old law, which is more universal (in the beginning it was not so...).
 
I am going to apologize ahead of time for the following post. Since I do not come often, I felt compelled to guide each of you by providing a specific passage of scripture. I most likely will not contribute to the debate, but I am curious to see how you choose to interpret the following, especially with reference to verse 25:

"10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."[c] 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."[e] 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[f] 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
The Law and the Promise
15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed,"[g] meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." (Galatians chapter three-NASB translation, copied from biblegateway.com)
 
Shaigar, babe, it's quoted from Galatians, so, naturally, the author was Paul. If you want to make this a discussion about whether or not NT books should or should not be included as a part of the bible in it's entirety based on authorship, I would seriously suggest a new thread!
 
Oh no, I'm not questioning whether or not the New Testament books should be in the bible... The NT combined with the OT is what makes it the bible. However I question whether or not someone other than jesus, has the right to say what is and what is not.

Of course then if you want to start admonishing me on the topic rather than putting forward an argument that puts mine down, I'm going to quote 1 Timothy 2:12 and win against you by my testicles.
 
"In that He says 'A new covenant', He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13, NKJV.
May I suggest you read Hebrews? It deals extensively with the old law, and its relation to the new.
 
May I suggest you read Matthew, where he states that the old covenant stands as strong as it ever did, and will until judgement day?
 
The old law was made to be temporarily binding (look up how a covenant works). It had to be reinstated several times because the people broke it. Thus, Christ reinstated it as the last covenant, bound by his death.

The apostles spoke the words of God. Disregard them if you want, but they carry as much weight (2 Tim. 3:16, Acts 2:4), as they were told what to teach by God. If you want to take the skeptics path, remember that the epistles were actually writen before the gospels.

Also, why don't you study what Jesus said rather than quoting one verse? He said more than just that.
 
Sure he did, but the other stuff he said is useless for my argument.

However, Tomorrow (daylight hours today) I'll ring an expert and find out.
 
Shai Gar said:
Oh no, I'm not questioning whether or not the New Testament books should be in the bible... The NT combined with the OT is what makes it the bible. However I question whether or not someone other than jesus, has the right to say what is and what is not.

Of course then if you want to start admonishing me on the topic rather than putting forward an argument that puts mine down, I'm going to quote 1 Timothy 2:12 and win against you by my testicles.
Click to expand...

Lol. I'll admonish you after a little more discussion! For now, my real life, which is . . . complicated . . . is literally calling me for the millionth time in this half over day (for America, that is)
 
Dang I miss posting here!! That real life can really be a . . . (fill in blank at leisure, pleasure, whatever!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top