Has the Law been done away with?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
You still have not addressed what John 1:17 is actually talking about.
Heck, I even gave you the road map.
There is nothing to address. I don't see anything wrong. I have commented with my thoughts on the verse. Obviously I can't do anything more than that. No problem.
God bless you Danoh. Shalom.
Yep.
Parts of the Law involve Promises to Israel that Daniel prayed about in Daniel 9 and that were not fulfilled in the 1st Century because Israel knew not the day of her visitation, and now await another day, just as the Angel Gabriel had told Daniel would be the case.
Remain ignorant about it then.
Why don't you just tell him ?
I can't know what you want to tell me unless you do tell me. I can't read minds, you are claiming to have some knowledge I don't have, and I don't even have anything to anticipate here. I have no way of knowing what you want to tell me.
At the end of six days, the first six days of the week, with the beginning of the Sabbath at or before sundown/sunset, I am not online. I don't know if this will ever change for me.
May you enjoy your Sabbath.
For the simple reason that he always goes against what I share with him if it does not fit his habit of reasoning his ideas into the passages.
So I thought I would challenge him to look at the references I cited in the hope they might be his answer.
He not only went off into his law keeping - which was not even what I was talking about - but also, he obviously did not bother with the passages I pointed him to over his standard, own two cents.
But since you stuck your nose in it; you might make good use of having done so, read the references I cited; see what they might point you to as to a better understanding of what John 1:17 is actually talking about.
Or not..
Anyway, you asked why, there you have it, and then some :chuckle:
Danoh,
In my response I told you I read all the scripture you referred to. Here you said I didn't even bother with it but did some law keeping instead.
May you have a blessed Sabbath. I hold nothing against you. Shalom.
Reading and bothering with the passages - actually getting in there with them - studying them out - are not...the same thing.
And you did conclude I was going on against your law keeping; be honest.
I was not talking about that.
I was attempting what I just shared with PJ and even attempted to encourage him to consider studying out as well.
Or not...
There is nothing wrong with studying them. I thank you for the opportunity to study with you.
I agree
Let me ask you a sincere question ......
What do you think it means when it says Jesus fulfilled the law?
Do you think it means that He obeyed the law, or something else?
Ya tell em exactly where to find the answer, and they still cannot connect the dots.
Gonna be a hard row to hoe.
Epoisses
New member
If I open up my bible the first five books of Moses are still there, they haven't passed away. That doesn't mean I fall from grace to go back and keep a covenant that was never for me in the first place.
The point - about the need to consider studying out the actual sense of John 1:17 - continues to go unaddressed.
The passage reads "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
If we were discussing the cold weather and one of us were to say to the other "close the door - FOR we do not want to let the draft in" it would be obvious that that "FOR" is in connection with what we have been discussing.
What has John the writer been talking about when he then says FOR the law...BUT truth, etc.
What is John the Baptist and those sent to ask him some things, talking about?
What do the Apostles talk about there in that same chapter?
What is John 1:17 actually talking about when all that is cinsidered?
What does he mean in light of all that by his "For the law came by Moses"
And what does he mean in light of all that there in John 1 by his "but truth"?
And what does he mean in light of all that by "and grace came"?
And what does he mean in light of all that as to "by Jesus Christ"?
What I am attempting by all this is to persuade others to consider where they actually approach looking at passages of Scripture from.
In contrast to where they perhaps only think they are actually approaching the passages from.
My entire emphasis being - what do the passages say about the passages?
In an earlier post, I shared some other places in Scripture where what John 1:17 is actually talking about is also in view.
Again, and this is a point that can not be overemphasized - we each really do need to constantly ask ourselves if we have really allowed Scripture to interpret Scripture or is it that we are actually erroneously thinking that is the practice we have followed.
I hate baiting. That is not my intent here.
My intent is along the line of that old proverb "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime."
I could just simply share the answer - give a man a fish, feed him for a day.
I would rather share, explore the much more important - teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime.
I enjoy that as much as I am ever just as willing to drink from another's well - of experience - where this how to is concerned.
In fact, the how to is so great because even when another has not shared the how to behind how they arrived at their assertion, it allows you to work their assertion back to their how to.
And you not only know why they are right or wrong in any aspect of their assertion, but the how behind it.
And you not only learn from their right and their wrong a little bit more about your own, but how to solve for same.
Of course, there is no room for personal pride in this. That just gets in the way.
It results in all sorts of conclusions about another's intent that can actually be nothing more than false positives.
The passage reads "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
If we were discussing the cold weather and one of us were to say to the other "close the door - FOR we do not want to let the draft in" it would be obvious that that "FOR" is in connection with what we have been discussing.
What has John the writer been talking about when he then says FOR the law...BUT truth, etc.
What is John the Baptist and those sent to ask him some things, talking about?
What do the Apostles talk about there in that same chapter?
What is John 1:17 actually talking about when all that is cinsidered?
What does he mean in light of all that by his "For the law came by Moses"
And what does he mean in light of all that there in John 1 by his "but truth"?
And what does he mean in light of all that by "and grace came"?
And what does he mean in light of all that as to "by Jesus Christ"?
What I am attempting by all this is to persuade others to consider where they actually approach looking at passages of Scripture from.
In contrast to where they perhaps only think they are actually approaching the passages from.
My entire emphasis being - what do the passages say about the passages?
In an earlier post, I shared some other places in Scripture where what John 1:17 is actually talking about is also in view.
Again, and this is a point that can not be overemphasized - we each really do need to constantly ask ourselves if we have really allowed Scripture to interpret Scripture or is it that we are actually erroneously thinking that is the practice we have followed.
I hate baiting. That is not my intent here.
My intent is along the line of that old proverb "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime."
I could just simply share the answer - give a man a fish, feed him for a day.
I would rather share, explore the much more important - teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime.
I enjoy that as much as I am ever just as willing to drink from another's well - of experience - where this how to is concerned.
In fact, the how to is so great because even when another has not shared the how to behind how they arrived at their assertion, it allows you to work their assertion back to their how to.
And you not only know why they are right or wrong in any aspect of their assertion, but the how behind it.
And you not only learn from their right and their wrong a little bit more about your own, but how to solve for same.
Of course, there is no room for personal pride in this. That just gets in the way.
It results in all sorts of conclusions about another's intent that can actually be nothing more than false positives.
I know that He fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, and that He did not come to abolish them.
I'm not sure what you are saying, but I think you are saying you believe we are each familiar with a different translation of the verse and neither one of us has said the other is wrong for the translation they are using.
You've already said that, and I already agreed.
I asked what you think "fulfilled the law" means.
Fulfilled has to do with the Law and the Prophets, just as He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.