The law has "NOT" been abolished. | The law has been abolished. |
---|
Overview there are no big ones, but I'll soon add the small ones with explanations. | ONE of the biggest "sticking points" from this point of view is: That in a certain way one calls God a liar, since God says that one lives by "keeping to the law" (Nehemiah/9-29 & in Leviticus/18-5 etc. see below, 7x), the person who sticks to it will live by it! That started with Adam and Eve, when If you eat of it, you will certainly die (spiritually). Breaking/disregarding the law is a path to spiritual death. In Nehemiah/9-13 it is CLEAR that the laws(Word H"4941") were right, and the statutes/regulations(Word H"2706") GOOD were. In Galatians, the OPPOSITE statement from this perspective is that the law would be a yoke of bondage (but what this means is that one is not saved through the works of the law alone. And circumcision is no longer prescribed, so one should not allow oneself to be forced to do it)! This implies that God is lying in Nehemiah/9-29, as if God say "THIS FOR PUNISHMENT" to one and "that" to others. This carelessness finds justification if one ignores a number of mistranslations in the NT, including common(G"2839") and unclean(G"169") (spewing laws slander including the highly blasphemous statement added to the Bible: "Jesus has all the food with this declared pure"), ONLY IF YOU put an "ETERNAL" in there. THE LAW SHOWED ME WHAT SIN IS, WITHOUT THE LAW I WOULD NOT HAVE RECOGNIZED THE SIN. NOW WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW( does that mean that you are no longer under the law if you ignore it e.g. must die, judged as the law prescribes, since one is now under grace. No longer in bondage, in sonship.) WE SHOULD THEREFORE SIN, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES (how should that work if the law no longer applies, unless one says that one is guided by the requirements of the NT, & that only the laws mentioned there from the Torah and the 10 Commandments have to be kept (but then hardly any come into being). But then there would still be a few laws that were sin, but would now no longer be a sin. Whether only for "Gentile Christians" or for "Jewish Christians", there are also different views. If this also applied to the future, in the kingdom of God, then male "gentile Christians" in Israel, where no one is allowed to commit sin, would be allowed to wear women's clothing according to the law? Absurd! But no, men should not have long hair and is perhaps an overview statement that is different subordinated. This leads to the question, which law is guaranteed to be abolished, which one is not even indirectly mentioned, and why should a law that is not indirectly mentioned be abolished? More on that in a moment. The dietary commandments hardly & the EXTREMELY CRIMINAL MIS TRANSLATIONS that you shouldn't argue with or listen to, that's SIN! Compare, among other things, old Luther translations with the new Luther translations of common(G"2839") and unclean(G"169"), AND LOOK FOR THE ACTUAL MEANINGS OF THESE TWO WORDS. THEN ASK THE QUESTION: CAN YOU JUST TRANSLATE IT DIFFERENTLY? |
---|