[Christianity]Morality vs. Forgiveness

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Suzuki_Akira, Apr 30, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The_Fireman Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 2001
    star 4
    Matthew 6
    14"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.

    15"But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.


    Food for thought.
  2. severian28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2004
    star 5
    I find it quite ironic that Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Billy Graham, Jerry Faldwell and just about every other major " Christian " spokesman in America arent really Christian at all, by Christs' standards. John Paul 2 was, by himself as one person, the best example of large public figure that adhered to Christs teachings as they are in the New Testament. A follower of Christ is anti-violence - period. A follower of Christ would rather die then retaliate against a wrong committed against them. There certainly is a great nobility attached to this concept and its the very reason that Jesus is so beloved by nearly everyone on this planet - no matter what religion or affiliation, because Jesus was the first advocate of non-violence in written history. Large numbers of Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, Atheists, Sihks, Shintoists and Hindus have a tremendous love and respect for Jesus as a person and his teachings. A born-again Christian will tell you that unless any of the above people dont acknoweldge Christ as God, they will burn in hell, no matter how good a person they are. Its a complete hijacking of Christianity and the antithesis of Christs teachings of love, forgiveness and tolerance.


    EDIT: There is very real irony to the title of this thread. Christianity and Forgiveness was never supposed to be set against each other.
  3. The_Fireman Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 2001
    star 4
    You MIGHT want to read what Old Testament prophecy says regarding the Messiah's return. And if want something from the Messiah Himself, take a look at His own prophecies about the end. It's a pretty bloody and violent picture. And that's just the physical judgment. His depiction of the great white throne judgment is even more bleak.
  4. severian28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2004
    star 5
    I have read the Old Testament - many times. Jesus was NOT the Messiah that everyone thought they were getting in accordance to the Old Testament. Thats why its called the " New " Testament - because of how radically different it is from the old doctrines.
  5. The_Fireman Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 2001
    star 4
    That's the common misconception, yes.

    However, you will find, if you study, and not merely read, that it is in perfect harmony with it. Yeshua is the promised Messiah, who comes from Bethlahem Ephratah, and whose comings and goings are from eternity. He is the Word of Adonai, the Father of us all, the Creator and Holy One of Israel. He is the the one who spoke to the prophets of old, the one who handed Moshe the tablets of stone and spoke the rest of the Law of Elohim to him. He is the one who walked with Adam and Havah in the garden of Eden, and the one who wrestled with Ya'acov. He is the one who is called the angel of Adonai, who appeared to many of the people in the Old Testament. His first coming was in accordance to the prophecies found in the various writings of the Tenach (called the "Old Testament" by the Church world), and the prophecies of the servant found in Isaiah and some of the other prophets. This was intentional. He first had to lay down His life, so that He might take it up again, and display the promises of the Father before us all. He came to redeem His elect of their sins, and reconcile us, through our own sacrifices which are a picture of His, to the Father. He came to establish His kingdom on earth, or rather, to begin its redemption. You see, the church world believes that the Christian Church in its modern form is the kingom, when in actuality it is merely a part of it.

    The kingdom of Elohim is actually Israel. It always has been. We of pagan stock whom have been grafted in are merely joint heirs of this kingdom. So, his first coming, while partly to begin the salvation of the nations, was also largely intended to bring about the redemption of actual, physical Israel. The northern kingdom, Ephraim, the 10 tribes who were scattered by Assyeria long ago, as prophesied, began their return to Adonai, and to the land of Israel itself, because, through their intermarriage with the surrounding nations, they lost their identity within them. The Israelites of the Diaspora are not Jews. They are Ruebenites, Naphtalites, Ephraimites, Mannassites, etc. The grafting in was largely done for this very reason, in accordance with prophecy. The final fulfillment will come at His return, when He personally leads the lost Israelites out of their captivity within the nations, and back to the land of Israel, as He did when He brought them out of Egypt.

    But first, as prophecy dictates, He will annihilate the nations who rise up against Israel in the last days, and wipe out all those who resist His rule ans King of the world, and His Law, the Torah, given at Mt. Sinai.
  6. severian28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2004
    star 5
    Really? Then who is Jesus in the gospels who tells you to do unto others as you would have done unto you? Or the guy who tells the parable of the good Samaritan or the Ethiopian Eunuch or says love your neighbor as yourself? Why was Saul forgiven after stoning Stephen? Who is Jesus in the bible who freaks in the Temple because its being used to make money and is repeatedly calling the Pharisees a coven of asps? The tone of the New Testament is VASTLY different in tone than the Old Testament. I suggest that you are MISreading the entire bible and not I. But thats the quagmire of having Gods doctrines written by men - its too objective.
  7. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    I'll weigh in here briefly.

    First off, while Jesus did not advocate the establishment of a literal earthly kingdom through violence, that's a far cry from what you said. First off, neither Roberts, nor Robertson, nor Graham has ever advocated violence, that I'm aware of. Secondly, you grossly over-simplify Jesus's teachings to say they were about non-violence. His teachings were about how he was the fulfillment of the messianic prophecy of Judaism. Similarly, MLK used non-violence, but that wasn't his purpose. That was his tactic to achieve racial equality.

    Secondly, Fireman is quite the high-caliber Old Testament scholar. You'll have quite a tiem if you're attempting to go up against him.
  8. severian28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2004
    star 5
    " First off, while Jesus did not advocate the establishment of a literal earthly kingdom through violence, that's a far cry from what you said. "

    Thats taking one thing that I wrote and making it into something else. Im just pointing out that he was definetly promoting non-violence, certainly amongst other things, but still non-violence is key amongst them.


    " Secondly, Fireman is quite the high-caliber Old Testament scholar. You'll have quite a tiem if you're attempting to go up against him. "

    Being studied in the Old Testament certainly doesnt make him correct, but Ill play along- what would either one of you say is Jesus message?
  9. The_Fireman Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 2001
    star 4
    Thanks for the kind words, Jabba. :) You're quite well-versed yourself.

    Now, Severian, the "Jesus", as you call Him, who tells you to do unto others as you would have done unto you, is the same one who, in the Law of God, the suppoed violent and arachaic stumbling block of the Jews as most Christians depict it, told us to love our neighbors as ourselves. The "guy" who tells the parable of the good Samaritan is the same one who, through His people, accepted Ruth, a Canaanite woman, into the congregation of Israel. "Why was Saul forgiven after stoning Stephen?" Because he repented of his sin, that is, he turned away from it, and never went back. He accepted the atonement of Messiah and turned from His sin. Just as those evil ones of the last days who repent at the Messiah's glorious return will be forgiven and accepted into the kingdom of heaven. "Who is Jesus in the bible who freaks in the Temple because its being used to make money and is repeatedly calling the Pharisees a coven of asps?" Why, the same one who designed the Temple in the first place, and repeatedly said throughout the Hebrew Scriptures that the Temple is the house of the glory of Adonai, the workplace of the Levites.

    When you say the tone of the Apostolic Scriptures is vastly different from the Hebrew Scriptures, you are correct. The reason for that is that the new is made up mostly of personal letters between believing Jews and some to newly converted pagans, and of historical accounts of the life a man, Yeshua the Messiah. The Tenach, on the otherhands, is narrative, poetry, and prophecy given through visions and dreams. Furthermore, the two are depicting very different times, and very different stages of the kingdom of God on earth.

    Where we disagree is on the idea that because the two have different tones, they thus have different messages. This simply is not the case.

    EDIT: As for the message of the Messiah, the main idea is faith and repentance: faith in His work, and repentance from our own evil deeds. Apart from that it is the further establishing of His kingdom on earth, before His return and installment of this kingdom, mainly by the resurrection of the dead elect, given eternal bodies which cannot be harmed, and thus which will easily wipe out the enemies of Israel, much like the army of the dead who followed Aragron in The Return of the King. ;) It is a message of love, even of our enemies (love comes in many forms, though), and forgiveness towards others, humility and before and obediance to the Father and His commandments.
  10. severian28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2004
    star 5
    It seems to me that Jesus arrival on the planet was for the specific purpose of offering salvation and defining spirituality. Is this not the reason he is killed - because his teachings went against what was becoming a very corrupt Hebrew hierarchy and what they were saying was Gods plan? The fact that Christs following after his death evolved into its own religion named after him is inconsequential. His teachings while on the earth - in the Gospel as I read it - is vastly different than the old Hebrew laws. And wasnt it, when it was all said and done, ego and jealousy of Hebrew Pharisees lining their pockets with gold, irate at the reverance that their constituents were giving Jesus and benefitting from the leeway that Rome gave them that prompted them to turn over their greatest and most progressive rabbi to the pagan Rome?
  11. The_Fireman Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 2001
    star 4
    The Messiah encountered a number of different viewpoints within the Hebrew hierarchy, as you put it. One was pharisaical, that is, adherence to not only the written Law, the Law contained within your Bible (specifically the first five books of Moses), but to the Oral Law as well. They taught their rabbinical traditions right alongside commandents of God, and even elevated them to the position of commandments. They were the most popular sect during the life of Yeshua, so naturally they were the ones He confronted most often. Because of their position within society, they were His biggest enemies. But He also encountered the Sadducees, a sect which denied the inspiration of the entire Bible, save for the Torah, the five books of Moses. They taught that anything after him, from the writings to the prophetic books, were of human origin, and thus they denied the Messiah, the resurrection of the dead, and many other important doctrines. So you see, He was actually a medium between these two extremes, walking right alongside the written Word. He denied the adding of to the Scriptures, as well as the subtracting from them. Everything was done to the Father's glorification. According to Him, the one who is sent is not greater than the one who sends.

    Regarding His message being different from the old Hebrew laws, as you put it, I would very much disagree with you. Let's start with Matthew.

    Matthew 4
    3And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."

    4But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'"


    This reply of Yeshua's was taken directly from the book of Deuteronomy, which was basically a summary of the Law given atop Sinai. Incidentally (or perhaps not) the very Law itself was spoken out of the mouth of God.

    7Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'"

    A commandment, found within the Law.

    9and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me."

    10Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'"


    Again, a commandment.

    17From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

    What does it mean to repent? quite simply, to turn away from sin. What is sin? John tells us in 1 John that transgression of the Law is sin.

    13"You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.
    14"You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden;

    15nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.

    16"Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

    17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

    18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

    19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    20"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.


    This passage speaks for itself. Very mightily, I must say.

    48"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

    21"(R)Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

    22"Many will say to M
  12. severian28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2004
    star 5
    Go on all you want, if it helps you - Im not really disputing you on the fact that Jesus wanted the populace to recognize his father as God. I dont think that I said Jesus is God and God is not God. Part of the mystery of faith is that they are both God. Its not even what Im talking about. And the mighty message that you allude to? Are you saying that it is a difficult thing that you must surpass the scribes and Pharisees in holiness - or are you reading it that " if your as bad as these guys then you cant be saved "? I seriously doubt that the fatalistic consequences of the Old Testament is the message of Christ. All I was originally trying to say was: since when does morality come into direct conflict of forgiveness? Jesus absolutely, positively preached forgiviness. I think its time to stop using a 1500 year old book and start being spiritual the good old fashion way - by being peaceful and non-violent, loving people in spite them hating you, and be a caretaker to this earth.
  13. The_Fireman Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 2001
    star 4
    Old fashioned on which side of the globe? ;) This IS the old fashioned way, in the mid-east, where life began. This is THE original way. Through the growth of families and tribes into nations with cultures, and the slow passage of time, the message has been dispersed, spread thin, across the globe, and has thus become diluted and twisted. Some things have been forgotten. Others have been purposefully left out. Still others have morphed into something new entirely. But this is the original message.

    All I was pointing out with those passages is that Yeshua the Messiah taught the Law, the commandments (all 613 of 'em) as something to be obeyed. He taught repentance first and foremost in the walk of faith, the road to redemption if you will. He taught that His people should live a life of sinlessness, that is, obediance to His Law - completely, both the letter and the spirit, for you can't do one without the other.

    Yes, forgiveness does play a part. Where we stumble, whether intentionally or in ignorance (still studying up on this part), we have a mediator with the Father, that mediator being Messiah. He provided atonement for our sins, the means of forgiveness and reconciliation with the Father. But repentance is key to this. Who is to judge whether one person will inherit eternal life or not? Perhaps that is not our place. But one thing is certain: if we love God, we will obey His commandments, for this IS the love of God. If we continue to walk in sin (I would suggest anyone who cares just what exactly that entails study it out a bit further and deeper than in their Sunday School class), we will be held accountable FOR that sin. We will not be forgiven. Does that mean we won't have eternal life? That we aren't part of the kingdom of God? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But unless we repent, turn away from our sin, completely and forever, we will be judged by the Law of God, and by the Messiah who gave it. The determining of who should receive salvation is up to Him.
  14. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    severian, you are conflating several issues.

    For instance, you are claiming that Jesus departed from the Old Testament and point to his tensions with the Pharisees as evidence. That doesn't hold up, though. As Fireman has shown, and Jesus himself said, the Pharisees had departed from strict adherence to the Old Testament law, and made their own customs equal to it. Or from another angle, much of Jesus's criticism of the Pharisees was about their hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a problem of lining up one's actions to ones beliefs, not a problem with one's beliefs themselves.

    Moreover, implicit in preaching forgiveness is that there is something to forgive. Why would people be concerned with forgiving people of their sins if they weren't sinning in the first place?

    What you're doing is something different. You are talking about taking things that God, through the Bible, has declared sin, and then say "no they're not." So under your scenario, there would be nothing to forgive. That's completely different than what Jesus taught.
  15. DarthDogbert Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2004
    star 2
    If someone were to ask me which was more important for a Christian, forgiveness or morality, my answer would be yes. They are both necessary.

    When spelling out the "woes" upon the scribes and Pharisees (pretty harsh and "un-Christian" by todays standards), He told them that they should be keeping the letter of the law without neglecting faith, justice, and mercy. They needed to keep both.

    Mt. 23:23 - "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone."

    As far as the Jews under the Old Law, though we are under a New Law today (the gospel), in principle we are forgiven on the same basis as they were: faithful obedience. Not faith alone or works alone, but faith and works is what God required of them and is what God requires of us.
  16. The_Fireman Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 2001
    star 4
    I challenge that last statement, Dogbert. Are you SURE we're under a new law? Where in the Hebrew Scriptures is this decidedly major change in God's plan discussed, or even mentioned?

    On the contrary, I would go so far as to say that the "Old Law" is quite clearly shown to be for us today even, as evidenced by my signature. If you would like, I could post all the prophecies relating to the "Old Law"/"Mosaic Law" (God's Law) and how it is very much something to be obeyed, even in our time. I've already given a little bit of proof from the New Testament regarding this.
  17. severian28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2004
    star 5
    " What you're doing is something different. You are talking about taking things that God, through the Bible, has declared sin, and then say "no they're not." So under your scenario, there would be nothing to forgive. That's completely different than what Jesus taught. "



    Please, name one thing the Bible has declared sin that Im saying is not. Which is besides the point because I personally dont believe the bible is infallable. Its written by men and no matter how much anyone cries faith, faith, faith, thats 100 % fact. No evidence has ever surfaced to prove that God was directly involved in every part of the bible and considering the literally millions of unnecessary deaths that can be directly or tangentially connected to religion or the bible, Im going to say that the bible and alot of the people that have perpetuated its messages throughout history have done as much harm as good. Pope John Paul 2 himself said no murder - not in the name of war, not in the death penalty, not in euthanasia, and not in abortion. Is he misreading the bible?
  18. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Fireman, Dogbert, perhaps its time to reopen that discussion on the first apostolic council, eh?

    Well, you said, "A born-again Christian will tell you that unless any of the above people dont acknoweldge Christ as God, they will burn in hell, no matter how good a person they are. Its a complete hijacking of Christianity and the antithesis of Christs teachings of love, forgiveness and tolerance."

    That flies in the face of a whole host of scriptures:

    "As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:9

    "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:33

    "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins."
    John 8:24

    "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, [even] by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
    Acts 4:10-12

    Et cetera

    As to the rest of your post:

    A) Who said anything about murder being okay? No one that I'm aware of.

    B) In any case, insofar as I'm aware, Popes have latitude to change Catholic doctrine--they are considered somewhat "above the Bible" in that sense, I suppose.

    C) How would you prove that "God was directly involved in every part of the Bible?" There's not even absolute proof of a God, so I don't understand what your point is.

    D) What does the harm or good done by people using the Bible have to do with it's validity? That's right--nothing.

    E) Well, we only have a couple of options. Either the Bible is divinely inspired or it's not. The Bible claims that it is a divinely inspired text. We also know that the authors of the Bible were some of the major prophets and apostles. So then we have something of a dilemma.

    If they called those writings divinely inspired and they're not, then they would be liars--and lying in the worst way possible, unrepentant of their lies. Which would mean that they were all a sham. If this were true, though, then why would you bother listening to Jesus or anyone at all? Alternatively they were telling the truth, as would make sense for the prophets of God to do, and it is in fact divinely inspired. If the Bible is divinely inspired, then the only logical possibility is that it's infallible.

    So I would suggest to you that if you're going to make any claim at believing in God (the Hebrew/Christian one), then this really comes as a corrollary to that belief.
  19. severian28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2004
    star 5
    I would suggest what you read literally doesnt necessarily make it so. Your gonna sit there and tell me that there are not any contradicting versus in the entire bible? Were never gonna agree dude, it just dawned upon me, so good luck to you and hopefully we both make it to heaven.
  20. Cyprusg Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 16, 2002
    star 4
    If the Bible is divinely inspired, then the only logical possibility is that it's infallible.

    Jabba-Wocky, I think you should think long and hard about what you just said. All I want you to do is to think about the word "INSPIRED" and then infallibility.

    Just think about it.
  21. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Cyprusg, I understand your point. Now hear mine.

    We are talking about the Bible being divinely inspired. That means we are postulating the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being. One that's trying to communicate with humans, no less.

    Under what circumstances would an omnipotent, omniscient being not be able to muster up enough resources to communicate appropriately with humans, should He desire to do so?

    Would the author's biases influence what's written? An omniscient God would already have known about that (and thus been able to compensate for it) when He chose the author in the first place? Would their provencial, narrow worldview be a problem? I wouldn't imagine so, since all humans have a "provenvcial, narrow worldview" when we're talking about things like the creation of the universe and life after death. So if He weren't able to overcome this problem, he never would've been able to communicate at all. If He could overcome this problem, then obvioiusly it won't be a source of error in aynthing He divinely inspires.

    Might it get lost or mistranslated? Yes, some copies could be. But is it logical that a God would go through all the anticipatory precautions and efforts described above (among many others) just to let everything be wasted because someone can't understand the langauge it's written in? It doesn't seem like that would make much sense to me.

    How is it logical to go through the trouble of trying to communicate, but somehow without bothering to see if you're understood or not? Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of trying to communicate?

    So that's why I say divine inspiration implies infallibility. If an all-powerful being takes interest in communicating, there's no reason to assume they would suddenly give up on that. And with their being all-powerful, there's no reason to assume they would fail.
  22. The_Fireman Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 2001
    star 4
    That's fine with me, Jabba. I'd be more than happy to reopen that discussion. ;) By the way, good points about the validity and divine inspiration of the Scriptures.
  23. DarthDogbert Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2004
    star 2
    You'll have to excuse my ignorance, but I know nothing about the first apostolic council. Or are you talking about the meeting in Jerusalem in Acts 15?

    Fireman, here's a couple of verses that I can pull up off the top of my head about the Law of Moses.

    Heb. 7:11-19

    11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.
    14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning *priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. 17 For *He testifies:

    "You are a priest forever
    According to the order of Melchizedek."*

    18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.


    The Hebrew writer deduces (through infallible inspiration, I might add) that since Christ is from the tribe of Judah, not Levi, and yet He is our High Priest, we must be under a different law than Israel was. The book of Hebrews is full of passages like this. In fact, I would summarize Hebrews as the book of greater things: a greater law, a greater sacrifice, a greater High Priest, etc.

    A mistake that is made, though, when reading Hebrews is to think that the writer was saying that the Law of Moses was bad. That is incorrect. The Law was just as God had intended it to be and it perfectly served His purpose. The "weakness" and "unprofitableness" of the Law, though, was that it had no provision for forgiveness. Yes, they had the sacrifices, but "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." Christ came to bring the perfect sacrifice and perfect law, fulfilling and completing the Old Law with His death.

    Col. 2:14

    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.

    The purpose of the Law of Moses in a nutshell was to prepare for Christ and the gospel. Just as John the baptizer came before to "make straight the ways", the Law of Moses did the same in the long term.

    Gal. 3:19-25

    19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
    21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.


    A couple more and I'll be done for this long post.

    Heb. 8:7-13

    7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their
  24. severian28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2004
    star 5
    Nice post Dogbert! And your twin girls ( God help you ! ) are due on my birthday. Congrats.
  25. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Yeah, Dogbert, that's what we're refering to--the meeting in Jerusalem in Acts 15 as to whether or not Christians are bound by the law.

    I'll have to see if I can dig up the old thread. I think we had left off discussing what James's position was in that debate, and how it compares to the position he takes in the book of James.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.