When it changed from LAW to GRACE ?

[dan p]

Hi to all , and my greatest challenge to all , is to write why the Gospels are Part of the OT and why it changed in Acts 9:6 , because in Acts is a HARD and Transditional book and mis-understood , but here we will shift gears and show why Paul was chosen for a new message ,

It is found in Rom 1:1 , and for those who to not understand Dispensational thought , it may and WILL be harder to understand .

Rom 1:1 reads in a literal translation as follows ; Paul a slave of Jesus Christ a called apostle , HAVING BEEN SEPARATED for God's gospel .

In Gal 1:15 , Paul was already SEPERATED , from his mothers womb , and having called by HIS GRACE , GRACE , but no one believes that it was by Grace .

Having been sepatated , is A PERFECT TENSE , PASSIVE and a PARTICIPLE verb , and means the following .

SEPARATED/ APHORIZO is translated 3 ways ;
By Separated
By Limited
By Boundries

When Saul was called , chosen and elected , Saul was separated , boundries were set and Paul was then LIMITED to only preach Grace , and let the debate begin !!

#1 , APHORIZO is in the Present tense that happened in the Past .
This means that when Saul was saved in Acts 9:6 Saul was separated to only preach the Gospel of God , which only Paul was allowed to be preach , because Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles .

The 12 , were apostles to the Jews and ONLY to Israel .

The Past Actions , means that Saul could NEVER again be allowed to teach the Law of Moses or ever again be a Pharisee and the Present results are to teach Grace from then on ,

#2 , The Passive voice , speaks to , God put Saul into the Ministry , so where is the so-called FREE WILL ??

There is no free will !!

#3 , It is a Participle and see the translation , HAVING BEEN SEPARATED !!

Why another Apostle since there were already 12 , and that is because 12 apostles were to seat on 12 thrones judging Israel .

Saul is the FIRST/PROTOS saved by Grace and and no one will ever can DISPUTE IT , dan p

 

[Muffled]

Perhaps one could make a case for the Gospels being transitional from grace to law but their is no doubt in my mind that Jesus promotes grace over law.

For all that Paul has to say to promote grace, he still relies on law. Perhaps it is the same conundrum that appears in the libeeral churches. They wish to promote freedom within grace but too ofen freedom is taken as license to ignore law and grace. Yet they are reluctant to lay down the law on those who have fallen from grace.

 

[Bob Dixon]

I'd say that it was always "grace", but the Law is made for the benefit of those to whom it is given, so it is required for them.

Also, Jesus, being Jewish, required Law.

 

[dan p]

Perhaps one could make a case for the Gospels being transitional from grace to law but their is no doubt in my mind that Jesus promotes grace over law.

For all that Paul has to say to promote grace, he still relies on law. Perhaps it is the same conundrum that appears in the libeeral churches. They wish to promote freedom within grace but too ofen freedom is taken as license to ignore law and grace. Yet they are reluctant to lay down the law on those who have fallen from grace.

Hi . and I have never seen a verse where Jesus promotes Grace over Law , and where is that verse ??

When looking in Stong's concordance , Paul is the only one who defines Grace and its usage , dan p

 

[sunshineydays]

Hi . and I have never seen a verse where Jesus promotes Grace over Law , and where is that verse ??

When looking in Stong's concordance , Paul is the only one who defines Grace and its usage , dan p

John 8, Jesus had, has mercy, Grace here was promoted over the law by Jesus
Grace and mercy are synonomous

Yes Paul is recorded as one that defiines grace, Jesus is the giver of grace, paul received it while being taught by christ. this is in Galations 1 onward
sunshineydays

 

[dan p]

John 8, Jesus had, has mercy, Grace here was promoted over the law by Jesus
Grace and mercy are synonomous

Yes Paul is recorded as one that defiines grace, Jesus is the giver of grace, paul received it while being taught by christ. this is in Galations 1 onward
sunshineydays

Hi , mand uoy used John 8 , and where is the verse discribing Grace .

Psa 136 , shows how God uses MERCY in the Old Testament and John is still the OT , dan p

 

[sunshineydays]

Hi , mand uoy used John 8 , and where is the verse discribing Grace .

Psa 136 , shows how God uses MERCY in the Old Testament and John is still the OT , dan p

Yes that is correct that John is still a part of the old Testament for it is before the death, burial and ressurection, God even had grace oin the beginning with Adam and Eve afterr they ate. his mercy endures forever
It is in the whole chapter, Our law is to stone her, Jesus Okay then he who is w/o sin cast the first stone, they all left, then he said to her woman where are your accusers, they all left, and NEITHER DO I (JESUS) ACCUSE YOU, He pardoned her.
If you have ever been caught at something wrong and you knew what you deserved as punishment, But you were pardoned, let go, said to you are loved, and i am not going to punish you.
How would you react when you know you deserved the punishment. Would it be Thank You, or whatever.
I do not know what to tell you if you do not see the grace placed upon that woman. You seem to be using semantics to keep from seeing God's mercy, and that is okay
I know when this was placed upon me, my reaction has been THANK YOU to God ever since. It's amazing grace. Grace reveals God's mercy
sunshineydays

 

[elmarna]

#2 - you state - there is no free will!
I beg to differ! Through personal experience I can tell you that he had a CHOICE to go to monestary. Just as I was encouraged to go to mosque.
The insistence was never without leading to my higher good and only good things came of it when the voice of guidence speaks.
But, in the end it is my willingness and choice. Yes! I have free will!
Grace- is a resource found by living in the "ways" of God.
I am not sure why you have it compared to laws. (This is how I see it) nothing to do with scriptures.
Thank you for reading this!
Hope you found what you were looking for in posting this thread.

 

[sunshineydays]

#2 - you state - there is no free will!
I beg to differ! Through personal experience I can tell you that he had a CHOICE to go to monestary. Just as I was encouraged to go to mosque.
The insistence was never without leading to my higher good and only good things came of it when the voice of guidence speaks.
But, in the end it is my willingness and choice. Yes! I have free will!
Grace- is a resource found by living in the "ways" of God.
I am not sure why you have it compared to laws. (This is how I see it) nothing to do with scriptures.
Thank you for reading this!
Hope you found what you were looking for in posting this thread.

I agree with you we all have free will to choose the creator of all, the fallen angel, just plainly ourself, or someone that we think can lead us to salvation.
For me I choose God the creator of all, who knows all, sees all, and has mercy, (grace on all) just not everyone has received this love that takes away all fear.
Grace was revealed at the ressurection, when he went down to hell and took the keys to heaven and hell, then he took captivity captive, (those that believed) back with him from the purgatory they were in. Released from under the curse of the law (punishment), yet the law is still Holy and in place. Now through 2 laws, loving God with all and the second much like the first your neighbor as yourself. All the law is obeyed through the 2 laws, which I found through faith in the finished work of Jesus. Love goes on forever all else shall pass.
Sunshineydays

 

[dan p]

Yes that is correct that John is still a part of the old Testament for it is before the death, burial and ressurection, God even had grace oin the beginning with Adam and Eve afterr they ate. his mercy endures forever
It is in the whole chapter, Our law is to stone her, Jesus Okay then he who is w/o sin cast the first stone, they all left, then he said to her woman where are your accusers, they all left, and NEITHER DO I (JESUS) ACCUSE YOU, He pardoned her.
If you have ever been caught at something wrong and you knew what you deserved as punishment, But you were pardoned, let go, said to you are loved, and i am not going to punish you.
How would you react when you know you deserved the punishment. Would it be Thank You, or whatever.
I do not know what to tell you if you do not see the grace placed upon that woman. You seem to be using semantics to keep from seeing God's mercy, and that is okay
I know when this was placed upon me, my reaction has been THANK YOU to God ever since. It's amazing grace. Grace reveals God's mercy
sunshineydays

Hi , using Sematics you say , and all you have to do is check any Greek text and see that APHORIZO in used in Rom 1:1 and see that Separated is in the Perfect , Passive , Participle .

Use VINE'S for the word Separated and it will show you that it can be translated by 3 Engilsh words , Boundries , Limited or Separated , dan p

 

[sunshineydays]

Hi , using Sematics you say , and all you have to do is check any Greek text and see that APHORIZO in used in Rom 1:1 and see that Separated is in the Perfect , Passive , Participle .

Use VINE'S for the word Separated and it will show you that it can be translated by 3 Engilsh words , Boundries , Limited or Separated , dan p

Well yes english from greek a lot of times get wrongly translated. So it the meaning to be revealed to the truth. Tell me do you believe that the truth will set one free?
sunshineydays

 

[Shermana]

I agree with you we all have free will to choose the creator of all, the fallen angel, just plainly ourself, or someone that we think can lead us to salvation.
For me I choose God the creator of all, who knows all, sees all, and has mercy, (grace on all) just not everyone has received this love that takes away all fear.
Grace was revealed at the ressurection, when he went down to hell and took the keys to heaven and hell, then he took captivity captive, (those that believed) back with him from the purgatory they were in. Released from under the curse of the law (punishment), yet the law is still Holy and in place. Now through 2 laws, loving God with all and the second much like the first your neighbor as yourself. All the law is obeyed through the 2 laws, which I found through faith in the finished work of Jesus. Love goes on forever all else shall pass.
Sunshineydays

This is a very common misunderstanding, the entirety of the Law HANGS on those 2 commandments. Which means, every one of the commandments, that Jesus specifically said one must obey, is somehow categorized into these two laws. Otherwise, the definition of "Love" can be whatever anyone wants it to be. Thus, all the Mosaic Laws from Sabbath adherence to not defrauding are somehow based on the first two. 1 John 5:3 specifically says that the Love of G-d is obedience to (all) the commandments. Thus, to truly obey the greatest commandment, one must obey all the rest. And John says one who claims to know Jesus while rejecting the commandments is "a liar".

Jesus specifically said that the "doers of Lawlessness" will be rejected. In Revelation, it says the Lukewarm are those who do not have enough good deeds, and they shall be spat out. Clearly, obedience to the commandments is necessary, as Jesus said not one of them will be done away with.

Once again, it appears that Paul is in direct contrast to what Jesus taught, and this "Grace" theology relies purely on Pauline epistles while tossing out 99% of what Jesus actually taught.

 

[Shermana]

Perhaps one could make a case for the Gospels being transitional from grace to law but their is no doubt in my mind that Jesus promotes grace over law.

For all that Paul has to say to promote grace, he still relies on law. Perhaps it is the same conundrum that appears in the libeeral churches. They wish to promote freedom within grace but too ofen freedom is taken as license to ignore law and grace. Yet they are reluctant to lay down the law on those who have fallen from grace.

Jesus specifically said that anyone who teaches to break the Least of the commandments shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven (or rather, among the denizens of the Kingdom). The concept of "Grace" itself is highly misunderstood, not even taking into account the issues of Paul's dubiousness. The word itself means something like "mercy", but if all one needed was "grace", why does Paul even bother to advocate righteous behavior? Why does Paul say to "Work out your salvation in fear and trembling"? Is there not a condition to this so-called "grace?"

 

[sunshineydays]

This is a very common misunderstanding, the entirety of the Law HANGS on those 2 commandments. Which means, every one of the commandments, that Jesus specifically said one must obey, is somehow categorized into these two laws. Otherwise, the definition of "Love" can be whatever anyone wants it to be. Thus, all the Mosaic Laws from Sabbath adherence to not defrauding are somehow based on the first two. 1 John 5:3 specifically says that the Love of G-d is obedience to (all) the commandments. Thus, to truly obey the greatest commandment, one must obey all the rest. And John says one who claims to know Jesus while rejecting the commandments is "a liar".

Jesus specifically said that the "doers of Lawlessness" will be rejected. In Revelation, it says the Lukewarm are those who do not have enough good deeds, and they shall be spat out. Clearly, obedience to the commandments is necessary, as Jesus said not one of them will be done away with.

Once again, it appears that Paul is in direct contrast to what Jesus taught, and this "Grace" theology relies purely on Pauline epistles while tossing out 99% of what Jesus actually taught.

Jesus taught under the law, under a curse, you would have to obey the whole law, not miss anything, paul taught all have fallen and the reason for the law was put in place to show us our inability to oney the whole law. When Jesus walked the earth fullfilling the old Covenant of law he aniallated all, and ticked off the Pharisees and religous leaders of that day. They were put to shame. He even taught that in order to have this new life that under it one can obey, we need all new, using the ex: of old wineskins and new wineskins, if one puts new wine in old wineskins the bags burst.
This is the problem today, new wine (New Covenant) is being poured into old wineskins, We are mixing old covenant and new covenant, making a mess of our lifes
Born again of the Spirit leads to all understanding and obeying through Christ.
Ex: like an onion when being peeled, it hurts as one is peeling, but when one finally gets to the center, it is very sweet. All I can say is it does come together and one does see and understand their really are no incongruities in the Bible, it all joins together through the Spirit of God. Lot of misunderstandings otherwise.
sunshineydays

 

[sunshineydays]

1. Do you believe the verse truth will set you free?
2. So then error in my, your truth would put you/me in bondage, correct?

So then if I/you are in bondage on anything, then there would be some kind of error in my/your truth, and I/you would have to find this error in my/your truth and fix it in order to become free.
Now the only ones that know who are in bondage or not are you yourself and you, so be honest and seek the truth and become free

Pleas give me you alls' responses on this line of thought in your walk, thank you in advance.
sunshineydays

 

[Shermana]

Jesus taught under the law, under a curse, you would have to obey the whole law, not miss anything, paul taught all have fallen and the reason for the law was put in place to show us our inability to oney the whole law. When Jesus walked the earth fullfilling the old Covenant of law he aniallated all, and ticked off the Pharisees and religous leaders of that day. They were put to shame. He even taught that in order to have this new life that under it one can obey, we need all new, using the ex: of old wineskins and new wineskins, if one puts new wine in old wineskins the bags burst. This is the problem today, new wine (New Covenant) is being poured into old wineskins, We are mixing old covenant and new covenant, making a mess of our lifes

This is a very common misinterpretation of the parable of the wineskins and stems from a very common misinterpretation of the Pharisees' doctrines which Jesus was opposed to. The Sadducees and Pharisees were mixing their own artificial rulings with the Law itself which were not only unscriptural but ignored many parts of the Law they did not like such as how to act charitably towards their brethren. That was the general gist of his opposition to them, that they had corrupted the Law, not that they were following the law uprightly as it was commanded. As for "fulfilling" the Law, this is also a very common misinterpretation of what it meant for Jesus to 'fulfill" the Law. Paul commands believers to "fulfill the Law of Christ", does this mean he is commanding believers to do away with the Law of Christ? No. The word "Fulfill" is actually just "fill", which means to "enact", not "Do away with". He specifically said he did not come to abolish the Law. Many interpret this to somehow mean he really did mean to abolish it though, or "Annihilated" in your terms. So how can he say "I have not come to abolish", yet "Annihilate all"? Why did he say that anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least in heaven? Why did he say that Doers of Lawlessness will be rejected on his return? The idea that Paul says the Law exists only to show our inability to obey it ignores some key passages that Paul said. For he does indeed say that those who are obedient to the Law are righteous, and not just those who hear it. Nonetheless, there are some contrasts in Paul's doctrine from Jesus's depending on how one interprets it. Jesus specifically taught total adherence to the commandments. This whole "Fulfilled" thing does not take into account most of his actual teachings.

Parable of the Cloth and Wineskins

Christ's illustration suggests that there is a wise and proper way to do things. It was not fitting to mix His doctrines with the old and corrupt doctrines of the Pharisees. To take God's truth and try to press it into some other form would change it into a lie, making the truth of God useless.

​

Born again of the Spirit leads to all understanding and obeying through Christ.
Ex: like an onion when being peeled, it hurts as one is peeling, but when one finally gets to the center, it is very sweet. All I can say is it does come together and one does see and understand their really are no incongruities in the Bible, it all joins together through the Spirit of God. Lot of misunderstandings otherwise.
sunshineydays

[/quote]

And how do we determine who is being led by the Spirit? Protestants? There are numerous sects, so obviously not everyone by your own criteria has such a perfect understanding. There may indeed be incongruities between Paul and Jesus nonetheless.

 

[sunshineydays]

Parable of the Cloth and Wineskins






[/quote]

And how do we determine who is being led by the Spirit? Protestants? There are numerous sects, so obviously not everyone by your own criteria has such a perfect understanding. There may indeed be incongruities between Paul and Jesus nonetheless.[/quote]


It is not a about being in a denomination, religion, joining a sect or a group of some sort. That is all worldly things that teach us worldly things trying to attain Spirituality.

It is about relationship with the Living Savior, a personal relationship
Can anyone mix oil and water, using this as an Ex: neither can anyone mix Law and Grace they do not mix. Under the new covenant, I do not make void the Law Rather I uphold it in the freedom of the law of liberty, For Christ has filled it in place of me and then through Faith gave me a new life, one were I know the law is Holy true, Just, and he the Father teaches me how to trust and thus obey, because of christ I can approach the throne of Grace with confidence, knowing the Father that guides me through his holy Ghost into all rightouesness.

Under the law, under the curse if your eye causes you to sin gouge it out, better for part of you to go to heaven than for all of you to enter Hell, if your hand causes you then you know what to do.
So then this way to go to heaven we would become a torso with no way of communication to anyone, but hey great you get to go to heaven as a torso.
That is what the old covenant shows, showed, the people, and is in place to show you, me or anyone else the truth, as Paul said in Romans when The Law flows through me it kills me, who will save me from this body of sin and death, Jesus Christ My Lord will. Therefore there is no condemnation for those that seek the truth.
Romans 6,7,and 8
God has the perfect everythig, I do not, but Thank you, there is no one good except, God the Father of Christ, Christ said that himself to a person that called him good Master
Sunshineydays

 

[Muffled]

Jesus specifically said that anyone who teaches to break the Least of the commandments shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven (or rather, among the denizens of the Kingdom). The concept of "Grace" itself is highly misunderstood, not even taking into account the issues of Paul's dubiousness. The word itself means something like "mercy", but if all one needed was "grace", why does Paul even bother to advocate righteous behavior? Why does Paul say to "Work out your salvation in fear and trembling"? Is there not a condition to this so-called "grace?"

Any defintion that I can remember is "unmerited gift." No doubt mercy is an unmerited gift.

It is a question of what a person needs. If a person needs salvation, that is by grace; if a person needs to learn to behave himself, the law is most helpful. As the song goes "sometimes God calms the storm" but when He doesn't a person has to deal with it from his own resources.

Grace is unconditional.

However it is Jesus who refines the law. So the law isn't some person's interpetation of it but is what God says it is. Grace provides the ability to keep the law. A person without grace will fail to keep the law at some point.

 

[Muffled]

Hi to all , and my greatest challenge to all , is to write why the Gospels are Part of the OT and why it changed in Acts 9:6 , because in Acts is a HARD and Transditional book and mis-understood , but here we will shift gears and show why Paul was chosen for a new message ,

It is found in Rom 1:1 , and for those who to not understand Dispensational thought , it may and WILL be harder to understand .

Rom 1:1 reads in a literal translation as follows ; Paul a slave of Jesus Christ a called apostle , HAVING BEEN SEPARATED for God's gospel .

In Gal 1:15 , Paul was already SEPERATED , from his mothers womb , and having called by HIS GRACE , GRACE , but no one believes that it was by Grace .

Having been sepatated , is A PERFECT TENSE , PASSIVE and a PARTICIPLE verb , and means the following .

SEPARATED/ APHORIZO is translated 3 ways ;
By Separated
By Limited
By Boundries

When Saul was called , chosen and elected , Saul was separated , boundries were set and Paul was then LIMITED to only preach Grace , and let the debate begin !!

#1 , APHORIZO is in the Present tense that happened in the Past .
This means that when Saul was saved in Acts 9:6 Saul was separated to only preach the Gospel of God , which only Paul was allowed to be preach , because Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles .

The 12 , were apostles to the Jews and ONLY to Israel .

The Past Actions , means that Saul could NEVER again be allowed to teach the Law of Moses or ever again be a Pharisee and the Present results are to teach Grace from then on ,

#2 , The Passive voice , speaks to , God put Saul into the Ministry , so where is the so-called FREE WILL ??

There is no free will !!

#3 , It is a Participle and see the translation , HAVING BEEN SEPARATED !!

Why another Apostle since there were already 12 , and that is because 12 apostles were to seat on 12 thrones judging Israel .

Saul is the FIRST/PROTOS saved by Grace and and no one will ever can DISPUTE IT , dan p

1. Paul is called to preach to the Gentiles but that doean't mean that it is his exclusive territory. Peter also preached to the Gentiles and Barnabus as well. This is not a schism in the church (separation by theology) because that was resolved by a church council.

2. A person who receives Jesus as Lord and Savior cedes their free will. However the decision to do that comes from a person's free will.

3. There were 70 apostles. If you are referring to the 12, they are among those apostles but their major attribute was that of disciples. Whatever you call them, Jesus called them to be associated with him in His physical presence whereas other apostles and disciples don't have that physical presence. Paul did not have it.

Peter was saved by grace. Before the Holy Spirit came, he lacked boldness to preach the gospel but afterwards spoke openly, before he did not have a good undestanding of the gospel but afterwards he spoke with understanding.

 

[Muffled]

Hi . and I have never seen a verse where Jesus promotes Grace over Law , and where is that verse ??

When looking in Stong's concordance , Paul is the only one who defines Grace and its usage , dan p

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever,

The Paraclete comes by grace not by any law.