What are our implications by "unresurrected flesh", as concerning the fallen / 'old man'?

[Eleanor]

I couldn't find the right word at the time.

Jesus said laws were added by men,

Jesus said men added laws to God's laws, which laws of God are found in the OT writings.
Men's additions are not.

that's erased,

They were never part of Scripture.

the rest fulfilled in Christ by ending the Temple worship and everything else related to ceremonies and types and shadows that pointed to Christ (fulfilled in Him) leaving us one dietary law (bread and the cup) the royal laws, and the baptism.

I think that's generally it. Everything added God decreed. Christ fulfilled all, bringing us into the New Covenant now with our salvation secured.

The adding was allowed for transgressions I believe, due to their own sin. (the fence around the law).

The adding to God's law by men was not of God.

God also decrees the existence of sin, but sin is not of God.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Jesus said men added laws to God's laws, which laws of God are found in the OT writings.

They were never part of Scripture.

Matthew 15:1-15

Hebrews seems to indicate to me God allowed the fence around the law (the 600+ plus extra laws) even though it was sin, eg: God hardened their hearts I would think, so to fill up their own cup for the judgement.

That's what it seems to indicate when you combine what the author of Hebrews said with what Jesus said.

 

[Eleanor]

Matthew 15:1-15

Is that not God the Son giving new Law of the New Covenant, the Old Covenant becoming obsolete at his death (Heb 8:13)?

Hebrews seems to indicate to me God allowed the fence around the law (the 600+ plus extra laws) even though it was sin,

Could you explain what you mean by the "fence around the law" and where you see it allowed by God in Hebrews?

eg: God hardened their hearts I would think, so to fill up their own cup for the judgement.

That's what it seems to indicate when you combine what the author of Hebrews said with what Jesus said.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Could you explain what you mean by the "fence around the law" and where you see it allowed by God in Hebrews?

You quoted the verse I referred to, I figured since you quoted it I didn't need to.

The fence around the law was all the rules they added to prevent anyone from breaking God's law, thereby adding additional burdens to the law itself for the people living under the law.

It was why Jesus was oftentimes very angry with the Pharisees etc. and argued with them about the law.

Otherwise there were ceremonial laws related to the priesthood and some dietary laws which Christ fulfilled in His coming.

Is that not God the Son giving new Law of the New Covenant, the Old Covenant becoming obsolete at his death (Heb 8:13)?

It's a brand New Covenant, with Christ as our Mediator and High Priest.

He provided the sacrifice for sin, the perfect Lamb Slain, and rose from the dead in Triumph as our Mediator and High Priest before God, in whom He is the Second person of the Trinity.

The law itself has been from the beginning I imagine, it's God's law, but since we are called the order of Melchizedek it probably ties back to that time somehow more formally.

In general I just see it as God's law from the beginning. It's God's own morality from the beginning because God is unchanging.

 

[Eleanor]

You quoted the verse I referred to, I figured since you quoted it I didn't need to.
The fence around the law was all the rules they added to prevent anyone from breaking God's law, thereby adding additional burdens to the law itself for the people living under the law.
It was why Jesus was oftentimes very angry with the Pharisees etc. and argued with them about the law.

So this man-made "fence" was regarded by Jesus as an "offense" (Mt 23:4). . .

Where do you see it allowed by God in Hebrews?

 

[Hazelelponi]

So this man-made "fence" was regarded by Jesus as an "offense" (Mt 23:4). . .

Where do you see it allowed by God in Hebrews?

Honestly what's your point,? Do you even care what I think?

Your just hammering on with questions, we could do books and links.

I've already spent time posting Scripture and posting my position in detail. I spent hours on one post, for it to be completely dismissed.

I wasn't planning on round 3 when I have been clear. I don't think the Word of God is a hammer.

 

[Hazelelponi]

@Eleanor - I just figured we could have a two way conversation if you wanted, but I don't understand your point....

It just seems nonsense iif there is no discussion in any form or fashion. I'm human.

 

[Eleanor]

Honestly what's your point,? Do you even care what I think?

Your just hammering on with questions, we could do books and links.

I've already spent time posting Scripture and posting my position in detail. I spent hours on one post, for it to be completely dismissed.

By me? . . .Gosh, I hope not!

I wasn't planning on round 3 when I have been clear. I don't think the Word of God is a hammer.

Which is probably what the Judaizers thought about Paul's continuing and on-going correction that circumcision was not necessary for salvation.

But I suspect you have worn yourself out and need some peace.
You are in a forum where accuracy regarding NT doctrine is the goal, and which is what drives these discussions.

Time for you to take a rest?. . .

 

[Eleanor]

@Eleanor - I just figured we could have a two way conversation if you wanted, but I don't understand your point....

It just seems nonsense iif there is no discussion in any form or fashion. I'm human.

I think the point goes back to post #78 where I understood you to be saying that the ceremonial laws were an addition of man, which
laws I was pointing out were from God, not man (post #75).
The laws which Jesus was censoring were not the ceremonial laws in Scripture (Lev 11-15, 21-25), but their own man-made laws, which God did not sanction.

Sorry I am so hard to understand. . .

 

[Eleanor]

@Eleanor -

It just seems nonsense iif there is no discussion in any form or fashion. I'm human.

All Scripture is the word of God--God-breathed (theopnuestos, 2 Tim 3:16).

Discussion here is about understanding the word of God correctly, which means in the light of all Scripture rather than in just our own understanding of it.

So discussion here is not so much about how one understands it as it is about what Scripture actually presents on the matter, which accurate presentation also invites good discussion.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I think the point goes back to post #78 where I understood you to be saying that the ceremonial laws were an addition of man, which
laws I was pointing out were from God, not man (post #75).
The laws to which Jesus was referring were not in Scripture, but in their own man-made laws, which God did not sanction.

I was trying to make a distinction between the various sets of laws, they had going on back in the day There were ceremonial laws that were from God, they had laws for the preists etc related to the temple worship that were from God, they had civil laws related to inheritance and various civil issues etc that likewise were from God.. and they had laws or rules built around the law that were of men.

Everything that was from God is fulfilled in Christ. It is finished. He fulfilled the whole of the law. This is fulfillment.

Jesus said I came not to change the law by one dotting of the eye or crossing of the T ..

This is how you say it in English but semitic languages you can actually change the meaning of entire words that way.

Jesus fulfilled the keeping of God's law, this is not abrogation. God's morality is unchanging, God is unchanging and God's law for man has existed since the beginning of time. Civil, ceremonial and dietary laws from God found their fulfillment in Christ because the civil ended and the ceremonial ended and the Temple ended with with the judgement upon Israel and the destruction of the Temple. Anything added by men would be considered of no affect or abrogated.

We sit on a planet that is literally suspended on absolutely nothing .. nothing but the Will of God we call "gravitational laws"

We are literally owing every breath to a God of laws, God's most awesome trait is His morality and He has made it known since the beginning of time along with the fact He's a God of laws.

So discussion here is not so much about how one understands it as it is about what Scripture actually presents on the matter.

Where I come from we would speak about the things of God with the appropriate reverence due God's Word to start with.

Then, we would treat each other with love and respect and care as human beings interested in two way conversation where Google isn't who you're talking to on the other end - generally speaking.

If the answer wasn't sufficient in the first place say something at the outset and make it clear, 1.) what you're position even is, and 2.) that the answer didn't make sense to the question.

I stop using Scripture when it's disrespected to God in the first place. Just so everyone knows, these are the very words of God and if we aren't treating them appropriately there's no point my discussing because I don't believe God would appreciate it. That's just a heads up on my personality.

 

[Arial]

I think the point goes back to post #78 where I understood you to be saying that the ceremonial laws were an addition of man, which
laws I was pointing out were from God, not man (post #75).
The laws which Jesus was censoring were not the ceremonial laws in Scripture (Lev 11-15, 21-25), but their own man-made laws, which God did not sanction.

Sorry I am so hard to understand. . .

I understand. The Pharisees, the religious leaders and judges of Israel in Jesus' time, added many things to the law (legal code) that God had not given. Making it intensely legalistic and were hypocrites about it to boot. Those were the things added by the traditions of men.

 

[Eleanor]

All Scripture is the word of God--God-breathed (theopnuestos, 2 Tim 3:16).

Discussion here is about understanding the word of God correctly, which means in the light of all Scripture rather than in just our own understanding of it.

So discussion here is not so much about how one understands it as it is about what Scripture actually presents on the matter, which accurate presentation also invites good discussion.

I was trying to make a distinction between the various sets of laws, they had going on back in the day There were ceremonial laws that were from God, they had laws for the preists etc related to the temple worship that were from God, they had civil laws related to inheritance and various civil issues etc that likewise were from God.. and they had laws or rules built around the law that were of men.

I see a lot of good work in the following. . .

Everything that was from God is fulfilled in Christ. It is finished. He fulfilled the whole of the law. This is fulfillment.

Jesus said I came not to change the law by one dotting of the eye or crossing of the T ..

This is how you say it in English but semitic languages you can actually change the meaning of entire words that way.

Jesus fulfilled the keeping of God's law, this is not abrogation. God's morality is unchanging, God is unchanging and God's law for man has existed since the beginning of time. Civil, ceremonial and dietary laws from God found their fulfillment in Christ

Yes, the ceremonial (sacrifices, dietary, defilement, cleansing) laws were all types/patterns to show the meaning of sin (spiritual defilement) and its remedy (blood sacrifice), the remedy for that sin being fulfilled in Christ.

because the civil ended and the ceremonial ended and the Temple ended with with the judgement upon Israel and the destruction of the Temple. Anything added by men would be considered of no affect or abrogated.

We sit on a planet that is literally suspended on absolutely nothing .. nothing but the Will of God we call "gravitational laws"

We are literally owing every breath to a God of laws, God's most awesome trait is His morality and He has made it known since the beginning of time along with the fact He's a God of laws.

God's governing trait (attribute) is justice, which governs all his other attributes, including love. . .which is why Jesus' love had to pay our debt for sin (the cross) to God's justice in order for us to be forgiven (salvation is not free, it cost the Son of God infinitely).

Where I come from we would speak about the things of God with the appropriate reverence due God's Word to start with.

Then, we would treat each other with love and respect and care as human beings interested in two way conversation where Google isn't who you're talking to on the other end - generally speaking.

If the answer wasn't sufficient in the first place say something at the outset and make it clear, 1.) what you're position even is, and 2.) that the answer didn't make sense to the question.

In addition to questions, I often respond to declarative statements regarding Scripture.

I stop using Scripture when it's disrespected to God in the first place. Just so everyone knows, these are the very words of God and if we aren't treating them appropriately there's no point my discussing because I don't believe God would appreciate it. That's just a heads up on my personality.

Your personality is awesome--transformed by the power of the word of God through the Holy Spirit. . .and if you see me not treating the words of God appropriately, (disrespectfully) please let me know.

 

[Hazelelponi]

God's governing trait (attribute) is justice, which governs all his other attributes, including love. . .which is why Jesus' love had to pay our debt for sin (the cross) to God's justice in order for us to be forgiven (salvation is not free, it cost the Son of God infinitely).

I've actually never heard this before. Where does this come from?

I would have thought God's overriding attribute was God's Holiness myself, That's pretty much all the angels say about isn't it? Holy, Holy, Holy .. It's the first thing Jesus taught to say in praise about God in prayer, Hallowed be the Name.

Where do you see justice as the trait that is above every other?

Your personality is awesome--transformed by the power of the word of God through the Holy Spirit. . .and if you see me not treating the words of God appropriately, (disrespectfully) please let me know.

I will. and no I didn't think you were for the record.

I simply hadn't understood why you were asking or even what you were asking after and in the middle of a devolving thread I was starting to distrust motive since there was none (motive) to be seen and no conversation taking place.

My most declarative statements are simply about what I believe Scripture to teach. I don't claim to be absolutely right- until I'm standing before God I don't figure I know, know, these just are my beliefs, whether hills to die on or tentatively held.

I'm not perfect at rattling off the entirety of covenant theology in seconds flat typing with one or two thumbs into a tiny phone though in as few words as possible. This is new... Lol.

But I'm closer to a hill I would be perfectly happy dying on than not when it comes to the Covenant, even when my brain is sluggish.