What the Law and the Bible say about Homosexuality.

[Jacob]

Bring where?

To Jerusalem!

Okay. Do we have a verse for this?

Morality did NOT come from God. Morality was morality before the law. God is not merely righteous, He is righteousness. God has never not been moral. These are not rules that God made up or decided upon any more than God created Himself. The Law and morality are not the same thing any more that God and the Law are the same thing.

In the Bible we read about immorality. It is by God's standard. If the word moral or morality occurs I don't know where, but I have it in the context of God and the Bible not the world's morality or a worldly morality.

I have been crucified with Christ. The law has nothing to say once sentence has been carried out. For it to do so would be unjust.

In my life I do not know if a sentence has been carried out. But why do you say what you do? Are you talking about what Jesus accomplished? Certainly this applies to my life as well! I hope so.

Colossians 2:20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.​

You simply have no idea what you're talking about or the damage your doctrine is doing to your spiritual life.

Okay. But I do believe that there is value in obedience.

It is not possible for anyone to become a proselyte Jew today. Israel has been cut off and now there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile.

Incorrect if the Law is still in effect. For it is there that we learn about proselytes, in addition to the New Testament.

You know why?

There are several reasons but chief among them is because the handwriting that was against us and contrary to us has been wiped out. Christ has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (again Colossians 2)

I don't have that application, but I am listening.

Ephesians 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.​

Good scripture.

WELL THAT'S JUST EXACTLY THE WHOLE ENTIRE POINT!!!

It is Christ that you need NOT THE LAW!!!!

Amen. But we need the Law to show us our sin. If you observe the Law then the Law has nothing to point out as sin. Romans 3:23 NASB.

This entire discussion seems to be a study of the 2nd chapter of Colossians..

Colosians 2:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.​

Now, don't just skim over that passage! Read it. Read it twice.

Okay. It is good.

I didn't put anything in bold there, Jacob.

I was speaking in general. I am sorry if you had to or chose to think of if you had done so.

Regardless, I invite you not only to read what I've quoted but the whole chapter, the whole book for that matter. Paul's entire ministry can is "Do not partake of the Law because if you do, Christ will profit you nothing."

I am not sure about that, but I will read the book through.

Did you come to Christ through the Law or by faith? If you began by faith then on what basis do you wish to be perfected by your flesh which is what the law pertains to?

Faith. None.

That's not me asking those questions, it's the Apostle Paul!

Galatians 3 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?​

5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.​

The Law Brings a Curse

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”

13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.​

And for good measure, one more verse from Colossians 2...

Colossians 2:6 As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,​

Now, I wanted very much to highlight particular sentences but I did not. Instead I posted more of the passage to carry in the context. Please do not simply skim over it. You really must read it.

In western culture almost everyone who is circumcised was because of cultural norms, not because the Torah demands it. It wasn't a religious ritual and has nothing to do with what Paul is talking about.

I was born to one or two Christian parents. Yes, people are circumcised in terms of culture. But the commandment is found in the Torah.

The law is all about cutting off the desires of the flesh and circumcision, being a literal cutting off of the flesh, is symbolic of the whole law. Paul isn't merely talking about the specific religious ritual, he is telling people to not place themselves under the law. Go back up and read verse 10 of Galatians 3. I'll quote it again here for emphasis...

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”​

Amen.

Jesus absolutely did not cancel out the law. He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). But that isn't what I asked you.

I ask you again...

Was Jesus righteous because He follow the Law of Moses?

Yes. But that is not all that His righteousness entails. That is my answer.

Your comment here brings up another question. How would you reconcile these two verses...

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.​

Ephesians 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances,...(full passage quoted earlier in the post).​

This was after the cross but it might be speaking about something slightly different, so I have difficulty reconciling it.

Progress! :BRAVO:

Thanks. I hope I can continue to progress. You have put yourself in the driver's seat.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Shalom.

 

[ok doser]

Let God deal with that which pertains to God's laws. Government is not God.

Let the state deal with speeding tickets and the like, and let God deal with sodomites and adulterers.

let God deal with rapists, murderers, child molesters?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Let God deal with that which pertains to God's laws.

Rather, we should uphold that which God says.

Government is not God.

No, but God gave authority to the government to be His minister, and to instill the fear of God into the wicked.

Let the state deal with speeding tickets and the like,

Rather, let's get rid of speeding tickets and the like, as they're basically paid passes to break the law.

and let God deal with sodomites and adulterers.

:thumb:

The best way to do that?

The government should execute them and let God handle the rest.

 

[JudgeRightly]

let God deal with rapists, murderers, child molesters?

Best way to let God deal with them is to execute them so they can face Him directly!

:thumb:

 

[ok doser]

Best way to let God deal with them is to execute them so they can face Him directly!

:thumb:

I don't get it

God says "Thou Shalt Not Murder"

some particular Christians here say "Yes! That should be part of our law!"

God says "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery"

some particular Christians here say "Let God handle that one!"


:idunno:

 

[Jacob]

Let God deal with that which pertains to God's laws. Government is not God.

Let the state deal with speeding tickets and the like, and let God deal with sodomites and adulterers.

Do you leave this to the church or urge people not to deal with it? Someone needs to deal with things that are against God's law. Certainly nations and governments act on behalf of God. Certainly churches have developed governments of their own, and often sin is not named.

 

[Clete]

Okay. Do we have a verse for this?

There are probably several but one that comes to mind is Deuteronomy 16:16 which required all male Jews to travel to Jerusalem three different times a year.

In the Bible we read about immorality. It is by God's standard. If the word moral or morality occurs I don't know where, but I have it in the context of God and the Bible not the world's morality or a worldly morality.

Well of course we aren't talking about worldly morality, which isn't even morality in the first place. The point is that God didn't just make it up by some arbitrary declaration. God was righteous before the law, He was righteous under the law and will for ever be righteous when the law is a long past distant memory.

In my life I do not know if a sentence has been carried out. But why do you say what you do? Are you talking about what Jesus accomplished? Certainly this applies to my life as well! I hope so.

Whoever has taught you Christian doctrine has done you a gross disservice. Truly.

You don't need to hope so, you can know so. If you call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. for forgiveness, salvation et. al.) and believe that God raised Him from the dead then you have, in fact, passed over from death and condemnation to forgiveness and life eternal. There is no if's, and's or but's about it.

I recently did a thread about what doctrines were necessary to believe in order to be saved. After much consideration I got it boiled it down to the following list of doctrines...

• God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
• We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
• Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
• Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
• Jesus rose from the dead.
• If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

Now, that is clearly not an exhaustive list of Christian doctrines. There's quite a lot more to Christianity than those six things but that is the essential core. If you get everything else wrong and live your life up to your eyeballs in legalism or whatever other false doctrine, your error is insufficient to overcome the grace by which God has saved you.

Do you believe the first five points on that list and have you done the sixth?

Okay. But I do believe that there is value in obedience.

Obedience to what?

The laws and regulations of Israel's covenant or to Paul's express command not to allow yourself to placed under the law?

Incorrect if the Law is still in effect. For it is there that we learn about proselytes, in addition to the New Testament.

I have repeatedly established that it is not still in effect. At least not in any sense that would permit anyone to become a legitimate proselytic Jew. Israel has been cut off, Jacob. There is now no distinction between Jew or Gentile (Rom. 10:12). How could it possibly be legitimate for a Gentile to become a Jew if there is no distinction?

I don't have that application, but I am listening.

What application? I simply quoted the verse! It states explicitly the reason why there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. You don't need to "apply it" (i.e. interpret it), just read it.

Good scripture.

All scripture is good. The question is whether your willing to allow it to override your doctrine.

Amen. But we need the Law to show us our sin. If you observe the Law then the Law has nothing to point out as sin. Romans 3:23 NASB.

Okay but Paul doesn't stop at chapter three, Jacob!

Indeed, it is true that the Law is good if used lawfully, which has a great deal to do with the primary topic of the thread (i.e. criminal justice) (Romans 1 and Romans 13) and the law does serve us as a tutor to bring us to faith in Christ (Gal.3:24).

Galatians 3:24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

But that is the beginning, not the end...

I Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.


Further, Romans 3 is just the beginning of a discussion Paul undertakes that, in my view, finds it's crescendo in Romans 7 when Paul teaches us that righteousness cannot come through the Law and where we also find a direct answer to your earlier question about why I say that the Law has nothing else to say to me (and you)...

Romans 7 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from 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.

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.​

Yes, that's the entire 7th chapter of Romans. Be sure you read it all. It's critically important and applies directly to what we are discussing.

I was born to one or two Christian parents. Yes, people are circumcised in terms of culture. But the commandment is found in the Torah.

That isn't why your parents had it done though. Your parents had it done because everyone else did.

Yes. But that is not all that His righteousness entails. That is my answer.

It is not the correct answer. Jesus was righteous and therefore followed the Law, not the other way around.
Jesus is the physical incarnation of the Creator (John 1). God is not righteous because of the Law. He was righteous before one word of the Law was written.

We also are not righteous because of the Law but rather because of Christ. Indeed, our righteousness is nothing at all other than Christ's righteousness, the righteousness of God Himself, applied to us.

This was after the cross but it might be speaking about something slightly different, so I have difficulty reconciling it.

You might well be the most open and honest poster on TOL!!!

A good explanation of why these verses are not in conflict with one another would require more than is appropriate here and I have reservations about giving you the "nutshell" version for fear of causing more confusion than is necessary but I did ask the question and so it wouldn't be fair to leave you totally hanging without some sort of an answer. So, suffice it to say that it has to do with the fact that when Jesus was here on Earth, His ministry was to Israel and was all about Israel's promised Kingdom that He had every intention of setting up at a point shortly (about a year) after Pentecost but didn't do so because Israel rejected their risen Messiah (officially done with the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7) and so God cut off Israel and turned instead to the Gentiles (Romans 9). In short, your inability to reconcile them has to do with your having failed to distinguish between Israel (Jesus) and the Body of Christ (Paul).

Now, that's the answer but, once again, that is the shortest encapsulation of it that is probably possible. Entire books have been written on that specific topic and so just take it for what it is.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

The failure of modern laws to change behavior has little to do with their distance from God's law. The entire failure of our legal system to influence behavior is the lack of the political will to consistently enforce the punishment prescribed by law. It's been proven many times that inconsistent punishment is a greater cause of bad behavior than no punishment at all for inconsistent punishment causes those who would break the law to believe that even if they are caught they won't be punished. I can't remember the name of the guy who first discovered this but it's been known for quite a few decades. Inconsistency hardens people into deliberately breaking the laws of the land.

The evidence that what I said above is true can be found in the history of the kingdom of Israel. Whenever God's law was very inconsistently enforced the nation went to rack and ruin. One king would follow God's will and the next wouldn't. It created a huge dichotomy in the entire nation and even during the times of reform there were many who would not reform but continually break the laws God set up in Israel. Why? Because the penalties for breaking the laws were not enforced consistently. How many people would continue in a bad behavior like lying if the death penalty was enforced every time someone lied? Not very many, and those people would soon be dead so they couldn't continue their behavior. The deterrence of that kind of enforcement soon puts an end to destructive behaviors.

You present a false dichotomy here.

A failure to consistently punish crime is just another way in which our legal system is unjust. But is it our unjust laws that create and define our legal system. You want to blame "political will" or the lack thereof but its the same thing because it is political will, in one direction or another, that creates the laws. Our system is 100% based on "political will". That's what the phrase "consent of the governed" means. In effect, you're pointing the finger at the chicken while blaming the egg from which it came.

The question isn't about consistency but about justice. Justice is applied consistently, by definition. The closer a nations criminal code gets to being just, the more closely it will resemble that given by God in the Bible.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Jacob]

There are probably several but one that comes to mind is Deuteronomy 16:16 which required all male Jews to travel to Jerusalem three different times a year.

That is good. How does it apply to a Gentile offering?

Well of course we aren't talking about worldly morality, which isn't even morality in the first place. The point is that God didn't just make it up by some arbitrary declaration. God was righteous before the law, He was righteous under the law and will for ever be righteous when the law is a long past distant memory.

Amen.

Whoever has taught you Christian doctrine has done you a gross disservice. Truly.

Apart from what I have picked up from others I am self-taught.

You don't need to hope so, you can know so. If you call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. for forgiveness, salvation et. al.) and believe that God raised Him from the dead then you have, in fact, passed over from death and condemnation to forgiveness and life eternal. There is no if's, and's or but's about it.

Sounds good. I do not know what it is missing.

I recently did a thread about what doctrines were necessary to believe in order to be saved. After much consideration I got it boiled it down to the following list of doctrines...

Okay.

• God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
• We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
• Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
• Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
• Jesus rose from the dead.
• If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

I can only say that yes but I don't believe that Jesus' death was a human sacrifice.

Now, that is clearly not an exhaustive list of Christian doctrines. There's quite a lot more to Christianity than those six things but that is the essential core. If you get everything else wrong and live your life up to your eyeballs in legalism or whatever other false doctrine, your error is insufficient to overcome the grace by which God has saved you.

That is a danger that I seek to overcome in however it is real to me.

Do you believe the first five points on that list and have you done the sixth?

Yes, apart from human sacrifice which I don't believe Jesus' death was, yes. It has to do with how we talk about his death as a sacrifice.

Obedience to what?

God's commands. His commandments.

The laws and regulations of Israel's covenant or to Paul's express command not to allow yourself to placed under the law?

All of the above. Though I don't know that Paul expressly commanded to not allow oneself to be placed under the law, though I would not recommend it myself.

I have repeatedly established that it is not still in effect. At least not in any sense that would permit anyone to become a legitimate proselytic Jew. Israel has been cut off, Jacob. There is now no distinction between Jew or Gentile (Rom. 10:12). How could it possibly be legitimate for a Gentile to become a Jew if there is no distinction?

I don't believe that Israel has been cut off. I do believe that there is no distinction. Your verse says Jew and Greek.

What application? I simply quoted the verse! It states explicitly the reason why there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. You don't need to "apply it" (i.e. interpret it), just read it.

All scripture is good. The question is whether your willing to allow it to override your doctrine.

Not override. Maybe replace in however my doctrine does not match scripture.

Okay but Paul doesn't stop at chapter three, Jacob!

Right.

Indeed, it is true that the Law is good if used lawfully, which has a great deal to do with the primary topic of the thread (i.e. criminal justice) (Romans 1 and Romans 13) and the law does serve us as a tutor to bring us to faith in Christ (Gal.3:24).

Yes.

Galatians 3:24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Right.

But that is the beginning, not the end...

Okay. Listening.

I Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Okay. Right.

Further, Romans 3 is just the beginning of a discussion Paul undertakes that, in my view, finds it's crescendo in Romans 7 when Paul teaches us that righteousness cannot come through the Law and where we also find a direct answer to your earlier question about why I say that the Law has nothing else to say to me (and you)...

Maybe. I believe that if one keeps the law the law has no place in their life. I can talk about it. I am willing to mull it over.

Romans 7 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from 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.

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.​

A very good chapter.

Yes, that's the entire 7th chapter of Romans. Be sure you read it all. It's critically important and applies directly to what we are discussing.

Okay. I read it all the way through.

That isn't why your parents had it done though. Your parents had it done because everyone else did.

Maybe. I mean of course they did. But in addition to having been circumcised as a child, third day or whenever it was, I don't know how many times I have been circumcised.

It is not the correct answer. Jesus was righteous and therefore followed the Law, not the other way around.

I understand that. But though Jesus obeyed all the law, His righteousness was not found in the Law.

Jesus is the physical incarnation of the Creator (John 1). God is not righteous because of the Law. He was righteous before one word of the Law was written.

Except that the Law came before Jesus was born. This does not mean that He therefore did not keep it. He did keep it.

We also are not righteous because of the Law but rather because of Christ. Indeed, our righteousness is nothing at all other than Christ's righteousness, the righteousness of God Himself, applied to us.

I think that I understand this. I have accepted it, but I don't find it in the Bible.

You might well be the most open and honest poster on TOL!!!

Thanks I think.

A good explanation of why these verses are not in conflict with one another would require more than is appropriate here and I have reservations about giving you the "nutshell" version for fear of causing more confusion than is necessary but I did ask the question and so it wouldn't be fair to leave you totally hanging without some sort of an answer. So, suffice it to say that it has to do with the fact that when Jesus was here on Earth, His ministry was to Israel and was all about Israel's promised Kingdom that He had every intention of setting up at a point shortly (about a year) after Pentecost but didn't do so because Israel rejected their risen Messiah (officially done with the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7) and so God cut off Israel and turned instead to the Gentiles (Romans 9). In short, your inability to reconcile them has to do with your having failed to distinguish between Israel (Jesus) and the Body of Christ (Paul).

I believe that Jesus taught, preached, the kingdom and that the kingdom came then. I do not believe that it was postponed. I do not believe that Israel was cut off.

Matthew 21:43 NASB
“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.​

Now, that's the answer but, once again, that is the shortest encapsulation of it that is probably possible. Entire books have been written on that specific topic and so just take it for what it is.

Okay.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Shalom.

 

[Gary K]

You present a false dichotomy here.

A failure to consistently punish crime is just another way in which our legal system is unjust. But is it our unjust laws that create and define our legal system. You want to blame "political will" or the lack thereof but its the same thing because it is political will, in one direction or another, that creates the laws. Our system is 100% based on "political will". That's what the phrase "consent of the governed" means. In effect, you're pointing the finger at the chicken while blaming the egg from which it came.

The question isn't about consistency but about justice. Justice is applied consistently, by definition. The closer a nations criminal code gets to being just, the more closely it will resemble that given by God in the Bible.

Resting in Him,
Clete

We could have perfectly just laws and with the judges, prosecutors and law enforcement we now have in our judicial system punishment would only rarely be adminstered for the breaking of the laws. In Los Angelos right now we have the police saying they will not even investigate "minor" crimes like theft. The law is there that makes theft illegal, but the system just refuses to enforce it. We have judges who inform illegal aliens, who are criminals with felonies in their background, that ICE is coming after them so they can escape deportation and/or jail. We have states, counties and cities that brazenly violate our laws and contravene our Constitution. Why do they get away with it? Because the political will is too weak to require justice be meted out to lawbreakers. We have laws that govern how the FBI should act and those laws have been flat out ignored for decades and FBI agents have consistently broken the law and suffered no consequences. What is happening to Trump has been going on for a long time. The guilty walk and the innocent are prosecuted.

Justice requires the rule of law, and the rule of law has been so subverted that our justice system has become the rule of men. That isn't the fault of our laws, for our laws are based upon the rule of law, but those laws are routinely ignored and broken by those who are supposed to be making sure the rule of law is enforced.

Our Constitution is just. It is based upon God's laws, and yet our Constitution is violated every day. The problem is not the laws. The problem is the inconsistency and uneven enforcement of the laws. When that happens justice is destroyed.

 

[Clete]

That is good. How does it apply to a Gentile offering?


Amen.


Apart from what I have picked up from others I am self-taught.

Sounds good. I do not know what it is missing.

Okay.

I can only say that yes but I don't believe that Jesus' death was a human sacrifice.

That is a danger that I seek to overcome in however it is real to me.

Yes, apart from human sacrifice which I don't believe Jesus' death was, yes. It has to do with how we talk about his death as a sacrifice.


God's commands. His commandments.

All of the above. Though I don't know that Paul expressly commanded to not allow oneself to be placed under the law, though I would not recommend it myself.


I don't believe that Israel has been cut off. I do believe that there is no distinction. Your verse says Jew and Greek.





Not override. Maybe replace in however my doctrine does not match scripture.


Right.

Yes.

Right.

Okay. Listening.

Okay. Right.


Maybe. I believe that if one keeps the law the law has no place in their life. I can talk about it. I am willing to mull it over.

A very good chapter.

Okay. I read it all the way through.


Maybe. I mean of course they did. But in addition to having been circumcised as a child, third day or whenever it was, I don't know how many times I have been circumcised.



I understand that. But though Jesus obeyed all the law, His righteousness was not found in the Law.

Except that the Law came before Jesus was born. This does not mean that He therefore did not keep it. He did keep it.


I think that I understand this. I have accepted it, but I don't find it in the Bible.


Thanks I think.

I believe that Jesus taught, preached, the kingdom and that the kingdom came then. I do not believe that it was postponed. I do not believe that Israel was cut off.

Matthew 21:43 NASB
“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.​

Okay.



Shalom.

This was almost entirely unresponsive. You react to each comment as though I'm starting a new conversation that has no connection to what has already been said and agree with something and then disagree with it.

Try again.

 

[Clete]

We could have perfectly just laws and with the judges, prosecutors and law enforcement we now have in our judicial system punishment would only rarely be adminstered for the breaking of the laws. In Los Angelos right now we have the police saying they will not even investigate "minor" crimes like theft. The law is there that makes theft illegal, but the system just refuses to enforce it. We have judges who inform illegal aliens, who are criminals with felonies in their background, that ICE is coming after them so they can escape deportation and/or jail. We have states, counties and cities that brazenly violate our laws and contravene our Constitution. Why do they get away with it? Because the political will is too weak to require justice be meted out to lawbreakers. We have laws that govern how the FBI should act and those laws have been flat out ignored for decades and FBI agents have consistently broken the law and suffered no consequences. What is happening to Trump has been going on for a long time. The guilty walk and the innocent are prosecuted.

Justice requires the rule of law, and the rule of law has been so subverted that our justice system has become the rule of men. That isn't the fault of our laws, for our laws are based upon the rule of law, but those laws are routinely ignored and broken by those who are supposed to be making sure the rule of law is enforced.

Our Constitution is just. It is based upon God's laws, and yet our Constitution is violated every day. The problem is not the laws. The problem is the inconsistency and uneven enforcement of the laws. When that happens justice is destroyed.

Our constitution is far from just but that's a different topic. The rest of what you said here was merely a repeat of the argument I already refuted. Simply repeating your position does not count as a rejoinder.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Let me restate it.

You say that "We could have perfectly just laws and with the judges, prosecutors and law enforcement we now have in our judicial system punishment would only rarely be administered for the breaking of the laws."
No, you couldn't! You could not have both. The fact that our laws are unjust is what permits the existence of corrupt judges, prosecutors and police.

In a just legal system, judges would be held responsible for their decisions, we wouldn't live in a police state where the cops have discretion as to what laws they will and will not enforce and prosecutors would not be permitted to make deals (plea bargains) with criminals.

And so, I say again, you are presenting a false dichotomy. It isn't that you're wrong about the need for consistency nor about the fact that even our current system would be improved if it were consistently enforced, but thinking that consistency would fix a fundamentally unjust criminal justice system is like thinking a cough suppressant will break a fever when what you've got is the common cold.

Clete

 

[Jacob]

This was almost entirely unresponsive. You react to each comment as though I'm starting a new conversation that has no connection to what has already been said and agree with something and then disagree with it.

Try again.

Actually, I check back with the words that you were responding to as well. I am sorry but I can't "try again". I have given you my response.

 

[Right Divider]

Our constitution is far from just but that's a different topic.

I'm curious what you find so very unjust about our constitution.

Now, the legal system and the laws... that's a completely different story.

 

[Clete]

I'm curious what you find so very unjust about our constitution.

Authority does not flow from the bottom up but from the Top down (note the capital T).

Justice by committee is unjust, by definition. The larger the committee, the more likely an unjust outcome because the majority is not righteous nor just (same thing).

Blacks are not 3/5 of a person.

A progressive income tax is theft.

Abortion is murder.

Etc, etc, etc...

In general, the constitution does not guarantee the rights that people think it does, nor could it. The same process that turned blacks from 3/5 of a person to a whole person with the right to vote could also enslave you. The same process that made it illegal to buy whisky could also make it illegal to own a bible. You might be thinking, "Well, that would never happen!" and perhaps not but that isn't the point. The point is that a just constitution would never allow it to be even a theoretical a possibility.


Don't get me wrong. The constitution created a government that is, in many ways better than man have ever devised prior to it and it has created a nation that is responsible for the greatest world wide increase in living standards and prosperity that has ever been seen in history but oh how it could have been so much better! In fact, it really wasn't the constitution that created the wealth of the United States but rather the freedom it's citizens had from government interference into their lives and businesses that the nation started with. The major thing that the constitution did to preserve that freedom was to make it quite difficult and cumbersome to change the laws of the land. But it was the inclusion of democracy that doomed it. The founders presumed that people were far better than they are and that they would preserve for themselves the freedoms that the nation began with which the constitution did not guarantee. Indeed, quite the contrary in fact. The constitution guarantees the right of the lazy to vote their way into the pockets of the producers. This one fact alone guarantees that the country will eventually collapse because there are lot more lazy people than there are producers. The constitution successfully created a system that preserved freedom for a time but allowed the corrosive force of "political will" (i.e. democracy) to exist as part of the system and we are living with the results today and will get far worse.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Authority does not flow from the bottom up but from the Top down (note the capital T).

Justice by committee is unjust, by definition. The larger the committee, the more likely an unjust outcome because the majority is not righteous nor just (same thing).

Blacks are not 3/5 of a person.

A progressive income tax is theft.

Abortion is murder.

Etc, etc, etc...

None of those things are in the constitution.

In fact, they are actually unconstitutional.

In general, the constitution does not guarantee the rights that people think it does, nor could it. The same process that turned blacks from 3/5 of a person to a whole person with the right to vote could also enslave you. The same process that made it illegal to buy whisky could also make it illegal to own a bible. You might be thinking, "Well, that would never happen!" and perhaps not but that isn't the point. The point is that a just constitution would never allow it to be even a theoretical a possibility.

OK... those are not really problems with the constitution itself, but with people.

I agree with your general idea.

Don't get me wrong. The constitution created a government that is, in many ways better than man have ever devised prior to it and it has created a nation that is responsible for the greatest world wide increase in living standards and prosperity that has ever been seen in history but oh how it could have been so much better! In fact, it really wasn't the constitution that created the wealth of the United States but rather the freedom it's citizens had from government interference into their lives and businesses that the nation started with. The major thing that the constitution did to preserve that freedom was to make it quite difficult and cumbersome to change the laws of the land. But it was the inclusion of democracy that doomed it. The founders presumed that people were far better than they are and that they would preserve for themselves the freedoms that the nation began with which the constitution did not guarantee. Indeed, quite the contrary in fact. The constitution guarantees the right of the lazy to vote their way into the pockets of the producers. This one fact alone guarantees that the country will eventually collapse because there are lot more lazy people than there are producers. The constitution successfully created a system that preserved freedom for a time but allowed the corrosive force of "political will" (i.e. democracy) to exist as part of the system and we are living with the results today and will get far worse.

Clete

Agreed. But I would also point out that most of what goes on today in our government is actually quite unconstitutional and most people don't even care or understand. This is why politicians like Bernie Sanders can be so popular.

 

[Gary K]

Our constitution is far from just but that's a different topic. The rest of what you said here was merely a repeat of the argument I already refuted. Simply repeating your position does not count as a rejoinder.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Let me restate it.

You say that "We could have perfectly just laws and with the judges, prosecutors and law enforcement we now have in our judicial system punishment would only rarely be administered for the breaking of the laws."
No, you couldn't! You could not have both. The fact that our laws are unjust is what permits the existence of corrupt judges, prosecutors and police.

In a just legal system, judges would be held responsible for their decisions, we wouldn't live in a police state where the cops have discretion as to what laws they will and will not enforce and prosecutors would not be permitted to make deals (plea bargains) with criminals.

And so, I say again, you are presenting a false dichotomy. It isn't that you're wrong about the need for consistency nor about the fact that even our current system would be improved if it were consistently enforced, but thinking that consistency would fix a fundamentally unjust criminal justice system is like thinking a cough suppressant will break a fever when what you've got is the common cold.

Clete

First off. You are simply repeating yourself.

Second, laws eliminate corruption? What kind of nonsensical thinking is that as we live in a sinful world? That's the same as saying laws stop criminals from existing. The FBI has multiple laws governing it that were supposed to stop the entire coup against Trump. Did that happen? Not in the least. Those guys broke a ton of laws. That's why I say the rule of law is broken. Putting corrupt people in positions of power is what causes corruption on that scale. Corrupt lawyers, judges, and law enforcement officials will take a perfect set of laws and completely ignore them. Laws mean nothing to corrupt individuals. And in a world of sin we will always have corrupt individuals. The example I gave from Los Angelos illustrates this well. Our laws criminalize theft, but the cops are not going to investigate most of it. What good is the law doing in that case? It might as well not even exist when corrupt politicians simply ignore what it says.

Corruption comes from the heart. And laws, even the 10 commandments which is a perfect set of laws, have never stopped people from breaking them. This is a heart condition caused by, you know, sin. Sin causes laws not to be followed, even perfect laws like the 10 commandments. It's the rebellion found in the unregenerate hearts of mankind. If a perfect set of laws could stop corruption then the Israelites would have always followed God and obeyed His leading. They also would not have slain the author of those laws.

Your thinking in this area is deeply flawed. Your logic is relentless, but your underlying assumption is false.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I am somewhat amazed that someone who is a Christian will make statements like this. Here is why.

Who has an intelligence that makes human intelligence look absolutely puny in comparison? Who knows human nature inside and out, perfectly? Who has more foresight, God or humans? Who understands the consequences of sin better, God or humans? The answers to these questions leads me to understand that God had good reasons for associating the punishments and behaviors that He did.

I look at these behaviors and understand that each of them has unleashed a torrent of pain, misery and suffering upon the world. Lying introduced sin and untold misery upon the human race. It is a terrible behavior with horrific consequences. All we have to do to understand this is look at human history. How about adultery? How much pain and suffering has it unleashed upon humanity? How many broken homes, heartbroken adults and children has it produced? How many times has it introduced an std into the marriage relationship? Now how about strictly fornication? How many unwanted children has it produced? How many children have grown up in grinding poverty because of it? How many children have been robbed of the needed influence of one or both their parents that would result in a stable individual instead of one who grows up to be a drain on society? How many people have suffered for a lifetime from the effects of stds? How many men and women have had their hearts broken because they were used by another individual to satisfy their own lusts? How much misery, pain and suffering has homosexuality introduced into the world? How much pain and suffering has AIDS alone caused? How many children have been confused as to their God-given identities and died because of it?

These are only a very few of the consequences of these behaviors, and yet the punishments that God invoked for limiting all the resulting pain and suffering are seen as cruel and unjust. I simply do not understand the reasoning. I simply do not understand how humans can think they know more than God about all of this. God set the punishments He did to limit the evils all these sins create.

Think what our world would be like if no one lied. Think what it would be like if no one cheated on their spouse. Think what our world would be like if we didn't have sexual predators. The examples are numerous. If our world actually followed God's instructions and His 10 commandments the amount of suffering in this world would be reduced to a very small percentage of what it is now. And yet even Christians are conflating license and liberty and in so doing think themselves loving and caring. It's really sad.

For starters, lots of people are simply homosexual and it's not a "choice" or born out of confusion or some such so what do you propose then? That they should return to the closet and live a lie? Some marriages fail whether adultery is part of the equation or not. Sometimes it's worse for the children when a marriage is beyond repair and the parents stay together. Ideal? No, of course not but not all relationships work out for varying reasons. "Executing" people for being gay etc isn't loving or caring, it would just be religious tyranny run amok. One reason for having separation of church and state...

 

[ok doser]

For starters, lots of people are simply homosexual....

no such thing

 

[ok doser]

For starters, lots of people are simply homosexual and it's not a "choice" or born out of confusion or some such so what do you propose then? That they should return to the closet and live a lie?

btw, this is the same argument made by pedophiles