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.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, if that were the whole story. . .but no, for that is not the whole story.

"The wages of sin is death." (Ro 6:23)
"Where there is no law, there is no sin" (Ro 5:13) and, therefore, no death.
There was no law between Adam and Moses by which they could be charged with sin, yet all died (Ro 5:14). . .Oops!
So what sin (Ro 5:12) caused their deaths?

How do you reconcile what you are saying with what Romans 5:14 actually states?

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

How could sin reign if there is no sin?

Their deaths were caused by the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17) to those of Adam, which was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputed righteousness of Christ to those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

Yet all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. These verses state the condemnation was brought to bear on all, not Adam's sin. The comparison is Jesus, who alone was perfect. His righteousness is imputed, not his perfection or sinlessness.

It also happened to infants who did not sin. . .Adam's sin was imputed to them (Ro 5:17).

That is not what the verse states.

Sin is not inherited (Eze 18:20), Adam's sin is imputed.

You've just contradicted yourself and, again, misrepresented what God's word states, creating a conflict with the fact all have sinned and sin reigned.


I find your handling of scripture, the logic of your case, and the position reached seriously flawed.

 

[Eleanor]

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.

Righteousness and holiness are determined by what is just.

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

Justice and righteousness are the foundation of his throne (Dt 32;4, Ps 89:14).
God's love for us in Jesus Christ had to pay sin's penalty to justice for us to be forgiven.
God's love, and all his attributes, is governed by justice.

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.

We are warned to watch our life and our doctrine closely (1 Tim 4:16).
Doctrine matters, as is seen in all of Paul's epistles which, among other matters, defends Christian doctrine against various varieties of wrong doctrine; e.g.,
false teaching concerning the resurrection (1 Co 15, Col), Gnosticism (Col, 1 Tim), the catching up (1 & 2 Th), the gospel (2 Tim),
false teachers (Judaizers) requiring law keeping of circumcision (2 Co, Gal, Php, Tit).

My most declarative statements are simply about what I believe Scripture to teach. I don't claim to be absolutely right

Which is what these discussions are about. . .what Scripture actually presents so that we understand it correctly.

- 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

I'm not a "covenant theology" Christian. . .I am a Biblical Christian, basing my beliefs on what is actually stated/presented in Scripture, who is in agreement with Reformed theology, and who sees seven covenants presented in Scripture, including two covenants with Abraham (Ge 9:8-17), 15:9-21), the Old Covenant (of works) and the New Covenant (of grace), the others being with Noah (Ge 9:8-17), Phinehas (Nu 25:10-31), and David (2 Sa 7:5-16, Ps 89:28, 33-34).

flat typing with one or two thumbs into a tiny phone though in as few words as possible. This is new... Lol.

Oh, dear! Is that what you have to do to post?

Wish you had a laptop. . .

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.

The freedom between Adam and Moses from a law code prescribing death for violation in operation with the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17) which did cause death (it being the pattern, Ro 5:14, for the imputation of Christ's righteousness, Ro 5:18-19),
the addition of the Old Covenant law code prescribing death, which then required the atoning death of Christ, and
the New Covenant of grace would be my hill.
I see no need to improve on them.

 

[Josheb]

Who's contradicting themselves?

The law of sin and death requires a law to sin against in order for death.

That is incorrect.

When humans are summoned before God they will not be measured against a code of conduct written on scrolls. They'll be compared to God.

Matthew 5:48
Therefore, you shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Psalm 113:5-6
Who is like the LORD our God, Who is enthroned on high, Who humbles Himself to behold the things that are in heaven and in the earth?

Isaiah 40:25
To whom then will you liken Me That I would be his equal?" says the Holy One.

Not even Jesus considered equality with God something to be grasped. Post 80 reads like the rich young ruler who imagines himself compliant to the Law never realizing the Law is irrelevant because he will be compared to Jesus, not words on a page.

There was no law between Adam and Moses to sin against.

That has proven to be incorrect. The Law of Moses did not exist during the time between Adam and Moses but there were laws of God already in place. That law begins with the first two commands ever uttered by God, commands that God never revoked, are still applicable, and still have effect.

One more time. . .when the NT uses the word "Law," it is usually referring to the Decalogue with its penalty of death attached for violation

Not a point in dispute.

I note your human reasoning in overturning the word of God in Ro 5:13.

Have you forgotten the law is written on the human conscience, by which conscience those who do not have the law will be judged (Ro 2:14-15)?

Thank you for your time. I choose not to trade posts with those who make the discussion personal (especially when not attending to their own errors first).

It is completely irrational to say there was no sin prior to Sinai when scripture explicitly states everyone has sinned. It is, likewise, completely self-contradictory to say there was no sin when scripture explicitly states sin reigned during the time when there was supposedly no sin. The case presented for the no-sin-for-a-period-of-time position renders scripture inconsistently. It fails to understand sin as anything more than a matter of codified conduct.

 

[Arial]

Justice and righteousness are the foundation of his throne (Dt 32;4, Ps 89:14).
God's love for us in Jesus Christ had to pay sin's penalty to justice for us to be forgiven.
God's love, and all his attributes, is governed by justice.

God is not governed by anything. He is perfect within himself and in all his attributes equally active all the time. IOW he never contradicts himself, never ebbs and flows in any of his attributes. Righteousness does not tell him what justice is or the other way around. Justice does not tell him what love is or what righteousness is, or any of his other attributes. (Don't forget the omni's.) Justice does not tell him what is the correct response or action in a situational way.

God just IS. He can never be other than what he is.

 

[Arial]

Thank you for your time. I choose not to trade posts with those who make the discussion personal (especially when not attending to their own errors first).

I find your handling of scripture, the logic of your case, and the position reached seriously flawed.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Holiness is determined by what is just.

I would certainly disagree with this point, actually. Holiness, as defined by Scripture, is not merely determined by what is just, but by God's intrinsic "otherness" - His separateness from sin and all that is unclean, from all that is not in His perfect nature. The crowning glory of God's holiness is displayed in the person and work of Jesus Christ (John 17:4)

From Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology he notes:

"The holiness of God. God’s holiness is first of all that divine perfection by which He is absolutely distinct from all His creatures, and exalted above them in infinite majesty. Exodus 15:11; Isaiah 57:15. But it denotes in the second place that He is free from all moral impurity or sin, and is therefore morally perfect. In the presence of the holy God man is deeply conscious of his sin, Job 34:10; Isaiah 6:5; Habakkuk 1:13."

The purpose of holiness is to glorify God by reflecting His perfect character, In Christ, we see the full revelation of God's holiness, where His justice and mercy meet perfectly (Romans 3:26). To glorify God is to manifest His holiness through our lives, displaying His "otherness" to the world in all we do, thus becoming living reflections of Christ.

God commands His people to be holy as He is holy (1 Peter 1:16, Leviticus 11:44), which means to be set apart for His purposes and to reflect His purity. Holiness is not about aligning with notions of justice alone, but about embodying the distinctiveness of God's nature. As believers, we are called to live as vessels of honor, set apart for sacred use, much like the consecrated vessels in the Temple (2 Timothy 2:21)

Here's a link to the Greek: Strong's Greek: 40. ἅγιος (hagios) -- Holy, sacred, set apart

I have hyperlinked a few of the verses as well as the systematic theology in case you wanted some ease in looking at a couple verses, but I didn't hyperlink every verse I used.