SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : A New Covenant

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

by philologos on 2010/7/3 23:53:35

"For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." Heb 7:12 NKJV

This verse holds an important truth. The law and the priesthood are inseparable.
------------------------------------------------------------
Boy, you really know how to make a guy look deeply into things that were once just accepted.

The law of the priesthood and sacrafice is inseperable from the priesthood. However, this Torah regarding common daily life is seperable from the law of priesthood and sacrafice, either that or Jesus was lying when he said Mt. 5:18.



It's hard to believe you went here already stating you were saving Hebrews for later on in this discussion.

Do you realize you are taking a verse out of context and misinterpreting what it actually says in stating what this post being commented on is all about?

The best English translation of this verse found, (having poured over them on Logos, Bluebible, my Bibles not online, and elsewhere is either the NKJV or the RSV.

Still, english does not do Koine justice.



Are you sure you should base a theology on one verse, and misinterpreted at that? Duet. 7:6, 19:15 and Mt. 18:16

The RSV and NKJV render it 'change in' the the Teachings (aka: Torah). First, this hardly spells out abolition...
____________________________________________________________
side-note:
It's thought that Westerners gravely misunderstand what Torah is all about, considering that they call it "Law". Of course how could they not, when that is all the greek calls it.
____________________________________________________________

...
Do you realize this is the only place in the whole New Testament where this 'change' in Torah is stated?

The question is, what type of change are we talking about?

In Acts 6:14 it does speak of a change regarding Torah, however this is in regards to addition/removal, i.e.,Purim, so it cannot be compared with this verse.

Rather than the word 'change', the word 'metamorphosis' or 'transformation' would have been better synonyms- (gk. 'nomou metathesis'). The need for what type of change, and why, is found in the passage of Heb. 7:11-14. The term metathesis does not say everything is abolished by any stretch of the imagination. It point to retention of form with variation in structure. It is rearrangement of elements within the object considered.

The whole of chapter 7 of Hebrews is in regards to change from a priesthood by physical descent -Gershom of Levi as priest in general and his great grandson Aaron for the High Priest. Pinchas, Aaron's great grandson, was given the covenant of an everlasting priesthood (Num. 25:13).

Yahshuvah posseses the everlasting priesthood because He alone is immortal, and thusly, after the order of Malki-Tzedek (I Tim. 6:16 & Heb. 5:6, 10, 6:20; Ps 110:4).

..there's a whole lot more, but to get to the point:

The context surrounding and word meaning for change in this verse speaks of 3, possibly more, things:

1. Context makes it overwhelmingly obvious that the only transformation of Torah is regarding priesthood and sacrafice.

2. As such there is no implication whatsoever that the teachings towards daily life are abrogated by this change in sacrafice and priesthood.

3. There is a faulty understanding of metathesis, based on taking an English synonym at face value without finding out the true archaic meaning and failing to consider the context and intent of the book of Hebrews.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Mt. 5:17


Yahshuvah did not come to abolish the Torah and the Prophets but 'to make full' (gk, plerosai) the meaning of Torah and the morality demanded by the Prophets.

He came to 'fill out' our understanding of these things. It means to 'bring to complete undrestanding, in both the nature and application' of these things.

Jesus Christ is the end of the law FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS; but, He is not the finality of it. He provided both the teaching and the means to enable us to become and do these things.


Sincerely,

Yur' lil' kotz,
gregg
Acts 20:32


 2010/7/4 15:18
ADisciple
Member



Joined: 2007/2/3
Posts: 835
Alberta, Canada

 Re:

Phanetheus, I'm a bit perplexed by your position. What do you think you gain by it? You'll end up in quite a quagmire if you continue along this line, trying to keep parts of Torah while leaving other parts of it behind.

You said, "The law of the priesthood and sacrafice is inseperable from the priesthood. However, this Torah regarding common daily life is seperable from the law of priesthood and sacrafice, either that or Jesus was lying when he said Mt. 5:18."

No, you can't split up the Torah that way. He who offends in one point is guilty of all (Jas. 2.10). If you want to be a Torah keeper, you'll have to start sacrificing lambs and bulls as well.

And, may I remind you of the clear teaching of Scripture, that "the Law (the Torah) was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (Jn. 1.17).

Grace and truth... beautiful words, both of which imply an intrinsic power that the Law didn't have.

Surely you know this verse: "What the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh..." (Rom. 8.3).

And this: "For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof" (Heb. 7.18).

It was for these reasons-- weakness, unprofitableness, and that it made nothing perfect (Heb. 7.19)-- that God said good-bye to the Old Covenant and brought in a New.

It is definitely true that "the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Heb. 7.12).

And not just parts of it. All of it. Under the New Covenant we are definitely no longer under the Levitical priesthood and its law. Our high priest is not after the order of Aaron, but "after the order of Melchizedek." And so the law-- all of it-- is changed as well.

What is the change? What law are we under now? The law of Grace. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. (Or as James calls it, the perfect Law of liberty, calling it a "mirror" into which we are called to look, and not look back).

James also calls it, (and there is a hint here, I think, of the Melchizedek order) "the royal law." "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well..." (Jas. 2.8). That royal law is written in the Torah, but is not fulfilled there. In fact it cannot be fulfilled under the Torah. But when it goes forth as a commandment from the royal throne of King Melchizedek (our Lord Jesus Christ) with grace and Life in it... that's the change in the Law that has taken place. And those who embrace this New Law in their hearts find it being written there with a power of Life, and Grace and Truth, that enables them to walk in it and fulfill it.

AD


_________________
Allan Halton

 2010/7/4 16:31Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

To build on AD's point I wish to return to Hebrews 7:18ff:

For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. (Hebrews 7:18ff)


Here disannulling in v. 18 is ἀθέτησις (nullified/removed) and it is used in only 2 places in the NT:

For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away (ἀθέτησις ) sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:26)

This is interesting because what has happened to the Law has also happened to sin. If the Law is still hanging around since the New Covenant has been in place- so is our sins. There is no way around it. Our sin is taken away in the same measure as was the Law. Our sin is either ἀθέτησις (nullified/removed)or it is not ἀθέτησις (nullified/removed).

Although ἀθέτησις (nullified/removed) is used just twice in the NT, the noun, in a technical, legal sense, is found in a number of papyri from 98 to 271 A.D., meaning the making void of a document. (Vincent) According to G. Kittel it is a legal term meaning 'to invalidate' or to 'declare invalid'.

Again this is not an argument for antinomianism, but rather...

For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. (Hebrews 7:19)

The New Covenant opens the possibility that men and women might fulfill God's desire that men and women might reflect the true image of God.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2010/7/4 17:19Profile









 Re: A Disciple

You said, "The law of the priesthood and sacrafice is inseperable from the priesthood. However, this Torah regarding common daily life is seperable from the law of priesthood and sacrafice, either that or Jesus was lying when he said Mt. 5:18."

No, you can't split up the Torah that way. He who offends in one point is guilty of all (Jas. 2.10). If you want to be a Torah keeper, you'll have to start sacrificing lambs and bulls as well.
------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't split it. Jesus did in His sacrafice and immortal eternal High Priestly position, and in what He said in Mt 5:17, 18.

As well, in O.T. times, the Laws of the Priesthood and of animal sacrafice were not applicable to the common Hebrew, except in the fact that they took their offerings to them to be adminishered. They could not break these teachings if they tried, because these ways of doing things only applied to the bloodline of the priesthood and not every tribe.

You are disregarding the true meaning of the word metathesis, and like Ron, are disregarding context. So, in a round about way, are you saying Jesus lied when He stated Mt. 5:17, 18. If not, you explain the truth of these verses. You, nor anyone else has any right to change what He said.
____________________________________________________________



AD:

And, may I remind you of the clear teaching of Scripture, that "the Law (the Torah) was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (Jn. 1.17).


Grace and truth... beautiful words, both of which imply an intrinsic power that the Law didn't have.
------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, very beautiful, and without the teachings (Torah), there is no need for grace and truth.

If the Law is abolished there is no need for the 'Fresh' Covenant. They hings upon one another.

Without the Old Covenant, there is no purpose for the refreshing of the New.
____________________________________________________________



AD:
And this: "For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof" (Heb. 7.18).

It was for these reasons-- weakness, unprofitableness, and that it made nothing perfect (Heb. 7.19)-- that God said good-bye to the Old Covenant and brought in a New.
------------------------------------------------------------
Not commandments, but commandment, referring to one portion of Torah. In context this is only speaking of the sacraficial system and the administration thereof.

Metathesis means retention of basic structure with the rearrangement of the elements within it. It is a transition transforming the initial form through any variety of metamorphic processes.

I did not write it. I just believe it, and i am not about to say what it does not say as you or Ron are attempting.
Read what it says and not what you want it to mean.

Why are you too taking this out of context and disregarding the meaning behind it?
____________________________________________________________



AD:

It is definitely true that "the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Heb. 7.12).

And not just parts of it. All of it. Under the New Covenant we are definitely no longer under the Levitical priesthood and its law. Our high priest is not after the order of Aaron, but "after the order of Melchizedek." And so the law-- all of it-- is changed as well.
------------------------------------------------------------

...and here we go with what Jesus said in His earthly ministry, as well as in Hebrews further on.

Under grace, Failure to abide under the change of heart brought through this, anger is murder, and lust is adultery, forgive or you will not be forgiven, and so on. Jesus not just fulfilled the Torah, but made it complete, filling in all the missing parts that the commandments never detailed.

Where there is judgement under the Law, the judgement is more sever under grace, as not only the letter, but the spirit of the matter must find obedience...

(Examples: When you forgive, you are forgiven; when you are not angry, you will not murder; when you do not lust with your eyes, you will not commit adultery.)

...This severity of judement ounder grace is pointed to all over the New Testament, yet hopefully, 1 passaage will suffice: II Cor. 5:10,11,12

(...but, if not, when there is more time, more will be found to show you (there is one specifically that is thought of in direct relation to the need for more intense obedience under grace.
____________________________________________________________


AD:
And not just parts of it. All of it. Under the New Covenant we are definitely no longer under the Levitical priesthood and its law. Our high priest is not after the order of Aaron, but "after the order of Melchizedek." And so the law-- all of it-- is changed as well.
------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that the ministration of the priesthood through the Old Covenant was the same as the ministration of God through it? It seems this is what you are implying, yet God clearly states through the prophets, that He would rather there be mercy than sacrafice.

The ministration of the Levitical Priesthood was a failsafe for men due to hardness of heart were not living in and through the expression of God's mercy.

If all the Law has changed, go murder somebody and see just how much of a change there has been.

???????
____________________________________________________________



AD:

What is the change? What law are we under now? The law of Grace. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. (Or as James calls it, the perfect Law of liberty, calling it a "mirror" into which we are called to look, and not look back).

James also calls it, (and there is a hint here, I think, of the Melchizedek order) "the royal law." "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well..." (Jas. 2.8). That royal law is written in the Torah, but is not fulfilled there. In fact it cannot be fulfilled under the Torah. But when it goes forth as a commandment from the royal throne of King Melchizedek (our Lord Jesus Christ) with grace and Life in it... that's the change in the Law that has taken place. And those who embrace this New Law in their hearts find it being written there with a power of Life, and Grace and Truth, that enables them to walk in it and fulfill it.

------------------------------------------------------------

OK, from reading this last section above maybe now we are coming to terms just a bit.

The royal Law is briefly explained in the verses following, and these are contained in the last 6 commandments, yet under grace, it not only includes these 6, but the heart issues from which obedience to them springs.

The last 6 commandments are loving your neighbor as yourself, and this is what is covered in the sermon on the mount, the center premise of this sermon, on which everything hinges is Mt 6:14, 15.

Recall in the Prophets this is stated as mercy over sacrafice.

It's called royal law because it is in regard to the kingdom of God and the rule of King Yahshuvah on earth, after the New Jerusalem brought down from heaven.
____________________________________________________________

Yes, the law is weak through the flesh Rom. 8:3, yet truth and grace only applies to those who walk in the Spirit of this Grace, Rom 8:1.


You say all the "Law" has changed, but you hold up no scriptures to back this up.


Yur' lil' kotz 2,
g
Acts 20:32

 2010/7/4 19:41
ADisciple
Member



Joined: 2007/2/3
Posts: 835
Alberta, Canada

 Re:

Phanetheus said, "You are disregarding the true meaning of the word metathesis, and like Ron, are disregarding context. So, in a round about way, are you saying Jesus lied when He stated Mt. 5:17, 18. If not, you explain the truth of these verses. You, nor anyone else has any right to change what He said."

Phanetheus, it would do you good to come to a grasp of that one word "fulfil" in Mt. 5.17.

Our Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the Passover (1 Cor. 5.7) and so we no longer celebrate Passover by sacrificing a lamb etc. as the Jews of old did.

He fulfilled Pentecost, which you can read about in Acts Ch. 2: the beginning of the church. And so we no longer observe Pentecost after the shadow outlined in the Torah.

And our Lord will yet fufill the feast of tabernacles in the church.

And so with all the Torah.

And so as to keeping the Torah under the terms of the Old Covenant, this has utterly been done away.

You asked, "Are you saying that the ministration of the priesthood through the Old Covenant was the same as the ministration of God through it? It seems this is what you are implying, yet God clearly states through the prophets, that He would rather there be mercy than sacrafice."

Sorry, I don't understand your question. It was indeed God who instituted the Old Covenant. His purpose in it was to "bring in a better hope" (Heb. 7.19).

You say, "If all the Law has changed, go murder somebody and see just how much of a change there has been."

It appears to me you don't understand the nature of the basic difference between the Old Covenant and the New.

As Robert W has said, and I agree with him, to say that the Old Covenant and its Torah have been done away is not to champion antinomianism.

We are under a far higher order now.

...I'm still somewhat perplexed as to just where you are at, Phanetheus. I don't know why you are trying to defend this. Look at what the Apostle Paul had to go through regarding the Judaizers. Yet, no man loved the Jews more than he.

...And if you don't mind my saying it, can't you just use Anglicized words like the rest of us who are speaking and writing in the English language? When you use words like "Avraham," and "Yehoshua," etc. this does not make you more spiritual. In fact you come across as being bit affected. If I ever moved to Israel and learned Hebrew, certainly I'd use those spellings to communicate with others who speak Hebrew. Meanwhile, I'm going to use English with those who understand English. :)


_________________
Allan Halton

 2010/7/4 20:21Profile









 Re:

by RobertW on 2010/7/4 13:19:10

To build on AD's point I wish to return to Hebrews 7:18ff:

------------------------------------------------------------
Now why are you trying to build on something that has quite a shakey foundation, if any at all.

Show us on this forum just one scripture that states the Law was abolished.
____________________________________________________________


Ron:
For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. (Hebrews 7:18ff)


Here disannulling in v. 18 is ἀθέτησις (nullified/removed) and it is used in only 2 places in the NT:

For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away (ἀθέτησις ) sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:26)

This is interesting because what has happened to the Law has also happened to sin. If the Law is still hanging around since the New Covenant has been in place- so is our sins. There is no way around it. Our sin is taken away in the same measure as was the Law. Our sin is either ἀθέτησις (nullified/removed)or it is not ἀθέτησις (nullified/removed).
------------------------------------------------------------

There is no need for a New Covenant if the Torah is removed.

It is the context of Hebrews 7 to cover the change of Priesthood and sacrafice. You are majoring on minors and pulling issues out of context to do it.

Hebrews 7:15-19 are one piece of information. This is speaking of the second reason for the change from generational priesthood by fleshly descent. The contrast between a weak power and rule with the 'Fresh' Covenant order is explicitly stated in vv,18 and 19. This is also alluded to in other places in the NT such as Rom. 8:3 that AD mentioned, and also Gal. 3:2-3.



Re: Heb. 9:26

says "he has appeared to disannul" and it does not say that he has already disannulled 'sin'. He came to make possible the removal of the sin nature. Heb. 7:19 clearly states that this is still a hope and not yet seen,
(though through this hope in faith we can draw near unto God (and recieve His good graces). Redemption has not yet come, and all we have is a down-payment at present.

Where do the scriptures say that this has been done already?

The Law is still in effect and this in a more comprehensive way now through grace, being not merely a matter of letter, but the heart of this matter is the sprit of forgiveness in mercy.
____________________________________________________________



Phanetheus thinks:
There is no point in moving on when things already do not stack up with this 'theology' you are attempting to promote.

(...and from what has been seen
how the Q&A's to issues expressed
are supposedly silenced
(and hopefully forgotten?)
if they do not agree
with your slant of
the discussion at hand,
the following
list is probably already currently longer
than what you will be importuned with now.)

For the sake of light and truth, please quit making up stuff that doesn't fit with the whole counsel of God.

THESE THINGS YOU HAVE STILL NOT YET ANSWERED
from what is recalled without checking back
over this thread:

1. Is God 1, 3, 9, or 10?

2. How do you account for several of the prophets being filled with the Spirit of God, when you imply that this is something only after Pentecost?

3. How do you reinterpret Mt. 5:17, 18 since there is no more "law"?

4. Why are the feasts, new moons, as well as not only God's Sabbath, but also the High Holy days of Sabbath of these 7 festivals going to be enforced during the millenial reign of Yahshuvah since the Old Covenant is totally abolished?

5. Why do you say the Law is removed/negated when this is not found in scripture anywhere?

6. Why do you keep saying things that have not yet occured have occured already? Why do you apply meanings to things that are not in the text, nor have cross-reference to prove what you say? Why do you take things out of context?

7. Why do you say Koine Greek words say what they do not say (mostly in regards to tense and genetives), or attempt to lose people in your form of misdirectional rhetoric through the misapplication of such?



AD asked what i am trying to gain in this, and the answer is in two words:

UNADULTERATED TRUTH

To adulterate God's Word with all the "I think"'s and "so-and-so says" is nothing more than the polity of idolatry.


Yur lil' kotz,
gregg
Acts 20:32

 2010/7/4 20:48
ADisciple
Member



Joined: 2007/2/3
Posts: 835
Alberta, Canada

 Re:

"Show us on this forum just one scripture that states the Law was abolished."

2 Cor. 3.12-14


_________________
Allan Halton

 2010/7/4 21:34Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Gregg's: Show us on this forum just one scripture that states the Law was abolished.

Answer: Consider the strength of Paul's argument here:

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.


Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.


Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.


Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.


Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.


Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.


Gal 5:7 ¶ Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?


Gal 5:8 This persuasion [cometh] not of him that calleth you.


Gal 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.


The Old Covenant with it's sign of Circumcision is likened in verse 1 to a YOKE of bondage that we are NOT to be entangled again with. Verse 2 says that if we do, Christ shall profit us nothing. Verse 3 says that if we come again under the bondage and Christ profits us nothing then we then are a debtor to the WHOLE Law (this presents a serious problem because it is impossible to keep the Law now because the sacrificial system is not in place).

Verse 4 says for those in Circumcision in debt to the whole Law that Christ is of no effect to them, they have FALLEN from grace. Paul then calls re-entangling again with the yoke of the Old Covenant disobedience in verse 7. The notion according to verse 8 does not come from God. It is a leaven that has the power to ruin the whole lump.

BTW it is impossible to be under the Law (old Covenant). You will know that this is where the concept of Halakhah came from. Because it is utterly impossible to keep so much of the 613 Laws the Rabbi's has to systematize all sorts of reinventions and innovations to give some sense of fulfillment. But it is a sham- a propped-up nonsense that does no justice to the Law whatsoever. When Titus destroyed the Temple is sealed the coffin of the Old Covenant for Israel. Every single offering they would attempt to offer God today is STRANGE fire before the Lord. Why? They long ago lost the sacred flame- the only flame that made their offerings acceptable. They have no Fire and no Glory, but they kept innovating means to keep the Old Covenant on life support. .


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2010/7/4 22:56Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

I want to zoom in on a critical passage and consider some simple logic:

Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.


To suggest that the Old Covenant is still in effect is to imply that we ought to observe it. If we observe the Old Covenant, even circumcision, then we become a debtor to the whole law. If we do this then Christ profits us nothing. So it is impossible to promote men/women observing the Old Covenant without reproaching Christ.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2010/7/4 23:16Profile









 Re:

Being rather limited for time presently, there will be an attempt to speak back regarding what you two are double teaming regarding. If not, everything will be addressed in time.

First it is desired that both you AD and philo consider that as was stated near the onset of what has beeen stressed from here is your failure to recognize that there are the Mosaic ordinances of the Old Covenant, and then there is the Law of God, the commandments. Both of these things are seperate issues

The greek word used for Torah is nuos, which means Law, yet there is no greek word for Torah, basically consisting of: 1. History of origins (including the foreshadowing of the "Fresh" covenant-and all that proceeded through God and Abraham's faithfulness.
2. The Exodus and Wilderness
3. The Expression of God's commandments, spoken and written by God
4. The Mosaic ordinances written by Moses, from angels mediating.

All this is what falls under the term nuos. So, when i read the word law ...i'm thinking ok, are they meaning the Torah, the laws of Moshe, or the Laws of God.

At times in this discussion, there is seen confusion by me and yourselves as to what actually is being addressed. So in my instance i am looking to the Bible reference you give, by mention of incident or passage, because the greek word nuos just does not cut it in meaning Torah, though this is the only appropriate Greek word that exists. One must look to the context of the passage to see in the NT what nuos is in reference to. (you group all these things together as one thing, and yet these 4 things are hardly the same. When nuos is in reference to Mosaic Law, there is the specific change only related to the sacrafice and piesthood, whether in substance-(such as Jesus being High Priest or Annointed King and Mediator) or in form-(such as Jesus being our passover, circumcision of the heart through regeneration via Jesus Christ crucified represented by immersion (Baptism))



Onvorten!
g
Acts 20:32

 2010/7/5 0:54





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy