WishboneDawn

Yes. I DO find it a little embarrassing and sort of funny.

Quasimofo

Hey come on "<edit>" I would have used another word had it not been a reference to The Simpsons. Still the edit was just, I'll admit that.

James Madison

Gamera

No...Paul rejected any understanding the law could provide for salvation. Paul did not assert the law was entirely defunct and you have provided no evidence Paul held the belief the law was not good for anything. None. Rather, Paul makes it clear while the law cannot attain what Jesus did, i.e. eternal life, the law is good for righteous living. Paul makes it clear in his letter to Timothy the law is still good for at least one thing, righteous living. This is a statement you have not refuted at all. Until you can provide some evidence refuting the idea Paul believed the law was not good for anything, including righteous living where Paul makes it clear the Law is still good for righteous living, then you do not have an argument. Put a "PERIOD" here.

Yeah well you give me the verse where Paul and Jesus made such a claim and then you have an argument. Until then this is nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim.

Once again Paul made it clear the law could not provide salvation but expressly stated to Timothy the law still serves a purpose, adherence to it is righteous living. As Jesus himself said in the NT, "I did not come to abolish the law.

Well there is no evidence Jesus abolished all of the law or considered ALL of the law null and void. You have provided us with some great illustrations where Jesus rescinded one segment of the law but not ALL of the law. Then you provide us with some great verses where Paul is merely recalling what Jesus has already asserted, the law about clean and unclean food has been abolished by our Lord.

From this you attempt to draw the untenable conclusion ALL of the law is abolished and good for nothing. It is impossible to draw the conclusion ALL of the law is abolished and good for nothing by quoting a verse where only one part of it was rendered null and void. Not a very compelling argument. I am glad this is not how logic operates in the real world. If it were, then every time a legislature repeals a statute then ALL of the statutory law is revoked, at least by your logic.

Consequently, just because Jesus rescinded the law about clean and unclean food does not mean he abolished ALL of the law or the prohibition on same sex acts. You cannot derive from Jesus' remarks the law about clean and unclean food is rescinded therefore, the law on an entirely unrelated subject is also revoked. That does not follow. Nor did Jesus make any such statements reflecting an understanding the prohibition on same sex acts is rescinded, nor Paul.

Gamera

Paul explicitly rejected the dietary laws, as I've shown. He rejected circumcision. He rejected laws involving uncleaness.

The dietary laws and ceremonial laws are no different from any other law in the OT. It's all one. If you think otherwise, show us in the OT where is distinquishes dietary laws from the 10 commandment.s

Having rejected the law, he's rejected the anti-homosexual provisions.

Now, Paul doesn't say, since there is no more law, go out and kill people. The new law is the law of love announced by Jesus "Love one another." Which he repeats several times. So, generally, if you love people, you shouldn't kill them, or steal from them, etc.

Similarly, if you love people you don't attack them or condemn them for their consensual sexual practices.

This may help.

Galatians 5:3 - I testify again to every man
who receives circumcision that he is bound
to keep the whole law

[see the law is one. See also James: James 2:10 - For whoever keeps
the whole law but fails in one point
has become guilty of all of it. ]


Galatians 5:18 - But if you are
led by the Spirit you are not under
the law

[see the law doesn't apply to Christians]

Romans 7:6 - But now we are
discharged from the law, dead to
that which held us captive, so that
we serve not under the old written
code but in the new life of the Spirit

[see, discharged]

Gamera

[QUOTE=noah]If the hobbyhorse fits, ride it.

I don't need to defend the fact that I'm a Christian and you're a Jew. Different religions. Get used to it.

Yep, that's what Christianity teaches. Get used to it.

Sorry, that's what we Christians believe: the law is nonsense.

I didn't wander here. I post here.



Yep and Paul and Jesus teaches that that portion which is the law is defunct. Sorry, get used to it.

Show us the laws propounded ouside of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. List them.

Yeah, I'll work on it.

Thanks for making my point -- no Law here, just an exortation to follow the Law. See the difference or no?

Yeah, the hobbyhorse again. I've refuted you on these verses over and over again. But happy to do it again.

2 Corinthans 3:6 "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Romans 7:4 - Likewise, my
brethren, you have died to the law
through the body of Christ, so that
you may belong to another, to him
who has been raised from the dead
in order that we may bear fruit for
God.

Romans 7:6 - But now we are
discharged from the law, dead to
that which held us captive, so that
we serve not under the old written
code but in the new life of the Spirit.

Romans 13:8 - Owe no one
anything, except to love one
another; for he who loves his
neighbor has fulfilled the law.

Galatians 2:19 - For I through the
law died to the law, that I might live
to God.

Galatians 3:10 - For all who rely
on works of the law are under a
curse; for it is written, "Cursed be
every one who does not abide by all
things written in the book of the law,
and do them."

Galatians 3:23 - Now before
faith came, we were confined under
the law, kept under restraint until
faith should be revealed


Galatians 5:3 - I testify again to every man
who receives circumcision that he is bound
to keep the whole law

Galatians 5:4 - You are severed
from Christ, you who would be
justified by the law; you have fallen
away from grace.

Galatians 5:18 - But if you are
led by the Spirit you are not under
the law.

Ephesians 2:15 - by abolishing
in his flesh the law of
commandments and ordinances,
that he might create in himself one
new man in place of the two, so
making peace,

Hebrews 7:12 -
For when there
is a change in the priesthood, there
is necessarily a change in the law
as well.

Hebrews 10:1 - For since the
law has but a shadow of the good
things to come instead of the true
form of these realities, it can never,
by the same sacrifices which are
continually offered year after year,
make perfect those who draw near

James 1:25 - But he who looks
into the perfect law, the law of
liberty, and perseveres, being no
hearer that forgets but a doer that
acts, he shall be blessed in his
doing.



James 2:10 - For whoever keeps
the whole law but fails in one point
has become guilty of all of it.


See above and the Sermon on the mount. That type of literalism was overturned by Jesus. But you're welcome to it.

See above. And the Sermon on the Mount.


Sorry, you see Christians believe Paul. Get used to it.

Why would you mention something being uninspired except to draw attention to what is. Gesssh.

God didn't. His covenant did.

By God, who is beyond some paltry laws.

Nope, you reject Paul, Christians don't. See the difference?

Did Moses create you?

I see your problem, You think Christianity is a bunch of doctrines. Let me help you, Christianity is the gospel message, which we all agree upon.

Quasimofo

Gamera your retorts and explanations are weak and fatuous.

Here lies a Christian not worth arguing with, his mind is set because he WANTS to believe.

Disagree and you shall be punished!

You've been scared into believing, it nearly worked on me when I was in year 6. Came from Canada over to Australia and they allow "religious studies" in state primary schools. Turns out to be a Bible bashing where they throw the concept of Hell at you a hunderd times in the span of an hour. No kid (or anybody for that matter, though I think only the mind of a child would believe in such a concept) wants to go to Hell and I tried desperately to believe in Jesus so I wouldn't have to suffer. Then I grew up!

James Madison

Gamera:

You are missing the point Gamera. In what way were these laws rejected by Paul? Did he reject them as having no further application? No, and you CANNOT provide for me ANY verse where Paul asserts the LAW is completely USELESS. NONE. Rather, Paul rejects the law in a very narrow and limited context. The context in which Paul REJECTS the law is with the understanding the law cannot provide salvation. Paul was rebuking the notion adherence to the law could accomplish what Jesus did by dying on the cross and being resurrected. Paul disputes the notion salvation is attainable through the law BUT stop short of asserting the law is good for nothing. Paul ONLY rejects the law in the sense it cannot bring salvation. He does not assert the law does not serve some other purpose.

NONE of your verses indicate to Paul expressed a belief ALL of the law was pointless. None.

Rather, the following verses out of Galations indicate to me, as Paul does elsewhere in the OT, the law was rendered defunct in a narrow sense, which was eternal life cannot be achieved by adhering to the law. know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.


Notice here Paul does not assert the law is entirely pointless, void, inapplicable, or defunct. Paul is merely emphasizing in this passage the law cannot grant salvation and ONLY in this narrow sense is the law defunct.

Not in this verse, or the others you mention, does Paul assert the law is completely and entirely void or defunct. Context is very important, in fact context is key, to understanding what Paul is asserting in this verse from Romans. Some research is necessary in how Paul viewed the law but what Paul is asserting in Romans, as he does elsewhere, such as Galations, is we are not captive to the condemnation the law brought upon us. In Galations Paul argued the law brought about condemnation because of the impossibility to adhere to or satisfy the law. In other words the law brought upon us all a curse, the curse of death because violating the law was sin and the consequence of sin is death. In both Romans and Galations, Paul is not making the argument the law is completely and entirely null and void. No, Paul is asserting we are no longer under the curse of death the law brought upon us because Christ died for our sins, he died so every time we transgress against the law we are eternally forgiven. This is what he meant when he said, "But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoings.

As Paul said, "The law was given to show how guilty we are.....If the law could have given us new life, then we could be made right with God by obeying it. But the Scriptures have declared that we are all prisoners of sin, so the ONLY WAY to receive God's promise is to believe in Jesus Christ.

Paul is asserting Jesus Christ has rescued all of us from the condemnation and the curse of death brought upon us by the law. Jesus did not rescue us from adherence to the law but rather saved us from the condemnation and sin which is a consequence for disobeying the law. The law cannot provide salvation but only Christ Jesus. It is in this context in which Paul asserts we are discharged from the law. As far as Paul is concerned, the LAW is still good for righteous living and we know this because he gives this instruction to Timothy. The only difference now, as far as Paul is concerned, we are not condemned to death for violating the law. However, Paul still understands the law to be good instruction for righteous living but not good for obtaining everlasting life.

In the alternative, after some research, I think it is likely Paul is condemning same sex intercourse in Romans 1:26-28. Building upon the analysis I began on the previous page, the likely meaning for the word "natural" is "physical". Man left the physical use of woman and woman left the physical use of man. Now in regards to the word arsenokoites, it seems likely to me Paul is using this to condemn both the penetrator and the receiver, although an argument can be made in the alternative. From what I have read so far the best and persuasive argument suggests to me Paul is condemning same sex intercourse, both the penetrator and receiver.

James Madison

One final remark Gamera, there is a difference between repealing part of the law and ALL of the law. This argument you are making where Paul repudiated SOME of the law therefore, he repudiated ALL of the law is not logically sound.

Johnny Skeptic

We need to discuss whether the Bible's comments about homosexuality are God's opinions or the opinions of the writers.

seraphimkawaii

im not really sure what the united methodist church thinks. i think they tolerate them, but think that they'll go to hell still. support for that theory i know is somewhere in leviticus along with all the other pointless rules