jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (71 posts)

If Yahuwshuwa did away with the law...Then why did Paul delight in it?

  1. Abihahyil Shawmar profile image58
    Abihahyil Shawmarposted 5 years ago

    Rom 7:22  For I delight in the Torah of Elohim according to the inward man

    1. profile image58
      ScepticFaithposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have a sweet nugget from Psalm 119 that taught me to delight in the Law of God.
      Jesus did not do away with the Law, he did away with our need to fulfill its righteous requirements. The law does not determine right from wrong, rather it imposes punishment & reward upon that which is already right & wrong.

      It is wrong to drive past a Kindergarten at 80 mph. Until there is a Law that requires you to slow down when Children are present, the cop cannot pull you over & write you a ticket. When the community decrees a Law requiring us to slow down around schools, then the cop can impose a penalty on us. The decree of Law did not make it wrong. It was wrong before the law was issued. What the law did was impose punishment. Murder was wrong before God imposed the decree “Thou shalt not Kill”.

      Psalm 119 is one of those ‘look at me, I’m special’, passages in the scriptures.
      The longest chapter in the Bible with structured stanzas’ that basically repeat the same concepts over & over again.
      “The precepts of the law”, “The counsel of the word”, “The statutes of God”, over & over these themes & more, are repeated with new insight at every turn.

      Take any Law and plug it into the thinking of Psalm 119. 
      For example the Laws regarding the Kosher Diet. There are clear black & white Statutes that deal with specific foods and apply to specific people. I would be in error to apply the Statute of these Laws to my life. I am not a Jew, nor do I live under the Government of ancient Israel. Though the Statute does not apply, there is a precept (perception) that does. Consider the Spirit of the Laws regarding the Kosher Diet. Be healthy, be set apart, some things are good to eat & some things are not.

      Look at the dress code for Levites. Am I to follow these Laws? Should I wear a blue & white shawl with a set number of knotted tassels? No! I am not a Levite Priest serving in the Temple at Jerusalem. Consider the uniform the ancient priest wore. Picture him looking in the mirror when his ancestral shift was called to serve in the Temple. Everything about him screamed “You are a priest of the Most High God”. Though I don’t wear the Levite’s priestly garb, I do wear a “Real Men Love Jesus” T-Shirt. By this I fulfill the counsel & precept of this Law. Because the same Spirit is accomplished in me.

      1. DoubleScorpion profile image82
        DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this



        I don't know if I agree with this completely...Is driving past a Kindergarden at 80 MPH prior to the law wrong? No...Unsafe...Yes...But not wrong (unlawful) For something like this example to be wrong (unlawful) there has to be a law in place first.
        Laws are what determine is right(Lawful) or wrong(Unlawful) in societial living. Unless there is law, then right or wrong is a personal interpretation and that can vary greatly depending on the person, culture or belief of the person.

        1. W. Joe B. profile image79
          W. Joe B.posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          let's be reasonable and realize we're talking about the Mosaic law here...not traffic laws....

          1. DoubleScorpion profile image82
            DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Agreed..And prior to the mosiac laws, these things were not considered "sin" or unlawful...

            It was only after the mosiac laws...

            1. profile image58
              ScepticFaithposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I disagree.
              They were wrong before the law.
              The law imposed penalty.

              Tithes were offered, the sabbath was honored, and sacrifices were made long before the Mosaic Law demanded them.

              Murder was wrong before Moses decreed it.
              The Bible is clear on all this.

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image82
                DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                How long has God's law been around???

                1. W. Joe B. profile image79
                  W. Joe B.posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  God's "law" has been around mankind since Eden.  It was given then as only one commandment, "Thou shalt not eat..."

                  Paul tells us the Mosaic law was given to identify sin, but no longer has any hold, and by the way, this was being written to Gentiles, ie: the Church at Rome. So much for saying the law only applied to the Hebrews, as stated by "disappearinghead" in one of his comments.  Good user name...fits... Romans 7:4-6

                  "4  So, my brethren, to you also the Law died through the incarnation of Christ, that you might be wedded to Another, namely to Him who rose from the dead in order that we might yield fruit to God.
                  5  For whilst we were under the thraldom of our earthly natures, sinful passions —  made sinful by the Law — were always being aroused to action in our bodily faculties that they might yield fruit to death.
                  6  But seeing that we have died to that which once held us in bondage, the Law has now no hold over us, so that we render a service which, instead of being old and formal, is new and spiritual.

                  1. DoubleScorpion profile image82
                    DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    So law has been around since the dawn of time to determine what is right or wrong...The Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil....

                2. profile image58
                  ScepticFaithposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  God inhabits eternity.
                  Science teaches us that both time & space are products of the Big Bang.
                  Whatever caused them must be outside of them.

        2. profile image58
          ScepticFaithposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Right & wrong exist with or without Laws.
          If Laws determine right from wrong then lets examine some laws from Germany circa 1938.
          All Jews must report to Ghettos to await transport to concentration camps.
          Anyone harboring Jews will be punished.
          All German citizens are to report all suspected Jews to the local authority immediately. 
          Laws do not determine right from wrong.
          If they did then we could find no fault with these laws.

          We do find fault with them because they are wrong.

          Screaming past a bunch of little children that are barely capable of seeing past the bouncing ball in front of them is wrong, regardless of whether or not a law exists.

          Right & wrong are independent of Law.
          Laws purpose is to impose punishment & reward.

          1. DoubleScorpion profile image82
            DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Then what determines right or wrong? And who gets to decide? And who does the right and wrong apply to?

            What we consider wrong and right in the USA, is not the same as what is considered right or wrong in Iran. Some things are...But not all...or even most for that matter..

            If a person thinks that it is right to kill someone, then who gets to say that it is wrong for them. Without laws, perception of what is right or wrong is up to an individual and it will vary from person to person depending on various inputs.

            1. profile image58
              ScepticFaithposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Then what determines right or wrong?
              A good question indeed. Answering that question is essential to life.
              It’s not you or me, or any man or group of men.

              And who gets to decide?
              Right & wrong must be determined by something that is higher than the thoughts & intents of Man.
              We are not the deciders of what is right & wrong.

              And who does the right and wrong apply to?
              Right & wrong are absolutes.
              They apply to all.

              1. profile image58
                ScepticFaithposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "Only the Syth deal in absolutes". OB1...LOL

              2. DoubleScorpion profile image82
                DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So let's say, for arguments sake, That God determines right and wrong... Where did Moses get his "Laws" from again??

            2. profile image58
              ScepticFaithposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Double Scorp
              Forgive my evasive answer.

              If not God then who?

              Don't tell me Man, or society.

              Right & wrong must be higher. They must stand alone, if they are to exist.

              If right & wrong exist, then they must be absolute.

              If they don't exist the Alister Crowley was right.
              "Do what you will shall be the whole of the law".

              If he his correct then there is no order.
              Nor could there be.

              1. profile image58
                ScepticFaithposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Moses implemented Laws to impose punishment on what was already right & wrong. Not to determine what was right & wrong but to ratify it.

        3. drbillfannin profile image59
          drbillfanninposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Anything that we do which places others at risk, cheats others of their rights or property, demeans others, inflates our own egos, makes others think less of us, and so on are wrong. There doesn't need to be a law for these things to be wrong. The law is written to alert ignorant or irresponsible people that others people matter as much as we do and that God values us so we should value ourselves. Plus, we know there is punishment or consequences for violating the law. Any Christian who knowingly violates the law of God will be punished. The Bible makes this very clear. We may be forgiven, but knowingly violating God's laws will get us in plenty of trouble. You may forgive your children who misbehave, but you will still issue whatever consequences you have set down for misbehavior. God is no different. Oh, Paul was a real person. If you choose not to believe that, then the entire Bible is a lie, and Christianity is a lie.

          1. profile image58
            ScepticFaithposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            well said

          2. DoubleScorpion profile image82
            DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this



            ?? So you think Christianity and the bible is based on the fact that Paul was a real person??
            Or am I misunderstanding your thought here...

    2. profile image58
      ScepticFaithposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      To be specific to your question.
      #1 Jesus did not do away with the Law. By fulfilling the Law he did away with our need to meet its righteous requirements.
      #2 The Law is Good. Though it destroys us outwardly, our Born-Again inner man delights & fulfills it. By our new nature the inner man fulfills the counsels & precepts of the whole Law.

    3. ElSeductor profile image61
      ElSeductorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ah yes, arguments about the bible.  We might as well argue about whether or not the laws of Santa should be followed, even though we are not elves.  What about the Easter bunny?  Since when do bunnies lay eggs?

      Ron

      1. W. Joe B. profile image79
        W. Joe B.posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        They don't anymore.  Obama gave them all free birth control pills....

      2. Chris Neal profile image82
        Chris Nealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Which one of those "deities" had a book written over the course of 1500 years by many different men that still worked so well as a whole?

  2. Eric Newland profile image60
    Eric Newlandposted 5 years ago

    Who keeps telling you that Y-etc. did away with the law? Tell them to shut up. They're obviously not much of a Bible scholar.

    1. W. Joe B. profile image79
      W. Joe B.posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Correct, Jesus said He FULFILLED the law...

      1. Abihahyil Shawmar profile image58
        Abihahyil Shawmarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So let me ask you a question, do you keep the Law? If not, then you have done away with it.  That's what done away with means.

        Mat 5:17  “Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete.For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done.

        Mat 5:19 "Whoever, then, breaks one of the least of these commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the reign of the heavens; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens.

        Have all of the prophecies been fulfilled? Has heaven and earth passed away? Vers 19 says those that break the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least. How can this be if we're not to obey them anymore?

  3. W. Joe B. profile image79
    W. Joe B.posted 5 years ago

    Note: jesus did NOT say He had done away with the law.  He said He came to fulfill it.  Now, there is no way He could fulfill all of the law, so what does this comment mean?

    Paul and the Christ both identified the answer.  The part of the law He fulfilled was the "Law of sin and death," or death as the wages of sin, period.  He instituted His sacrifice in it's place and offered grace and mercy for those who believed.

    Jesus had to come in the flesh to do this.  Adam sinned, so He had to be born of woman...a "son" of Adam...to qualify to take on the sins of Adam and his progeny.  That's why Jesus was identified as "fully God and Fully man..."  Does that help any?

    1. W. Joe B. profile image79
      W. Joe B.posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      BTW...Peter also argued before the other Apostles in Jerusalem that the Gentiles should not be required to be under Hebrew law.  The decision was that "You must abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. Keep yourselves clear of these things, and it will be well with you. Farewell." Acts 15:29.  That's it.  Paul said in Romans that the law we needed was written on our hearts.

      1. Abihahyil Shawmar profile image58
        Abihahyil Shawmarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Acts 15:29 is refering to vs 19-21 and is about what to teach the new believers First who had not learned Torah yet. They could then learn the rest of Torah, Mosheh/Moses every Sabbath.

        Act 15:19 -21 “Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the gentiles who are turning to Elohim, but that we write to them to abstain from the defilements of idols, and from whoring, and from what is strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Mosheh has, in every city, those proclaiming him – being read in the congregations every Sabbath.”

        Paul in Hebrews (I think that's what you meant) is quoting Jeremiah/ Yirmeyahu where YaHuWaH says He will write His Torah in our hearts

        Jer 31:33  “For this is the covenant I shall make with the house of Yisra’ĕl after those days, declares YaHuWaH: I shall put My Torah in their inward parts, and write it on their hearts. And I shall be their Elohim, and they shall be My people.
        Jer 31:34  “And no longer shall they teach, each one his neighbour, and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know YaHuWaH,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares YaHuWaH. “For I shall forgive their crookedness, and remember their sin no more.

        Heb 8:8-12  For finding fault with them, He says, “See, the days are coming,” says YaHuWaH, “when I shall conclude with the house of Yisra’ĕl and with the house of Yehudah a renewed covenant, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Mitsrayim, because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them,” says YaHuWaH. Because this is the covenant that I shall make with the house of Yisra’ĕl after those days, says YaHuWaH, giving My laws in their mind, and I shall write them on their hearts, and I shall be their Elohim, and they shall be My people. And they shall by no means teach each one his neighbour, and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know YaHuWaH,’ because they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. Because I shall forgive their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawlessnesses I shall no longer remember.”

        Heb 10:16-17  “This is the covenant that I shall make with them after those days, says YaHuWaH, giving My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I shall write them, and, “Their sins and their lawlessnesses I shall remember no more.”

  4. Disappearinghead profile image84
    Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago

    Jesus fulfilled the law on behalf of the Jews; it was to them that the 613 laws were given. I am not a Jew and even if Jesus had not fulfilled the law, it still would never have applied to Gentiles.

    In Jewish thinking, Gentiles are expected to adhere to the 7 Noahaic laws which they consider universal laws of civilisation. It is believed that the 10 commandments were derived from these. Today, no Jew would expect a gentile to obey the Mosaic law, and in fact many would consider it unlawful for a gentile to follow them.

    So what's the beef about the law?

    1. Abihahyil Shawmar profile image58
      Abihahyil Shawmarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Law is important because it tells us what sin is. 1Jn 3:4  Everyone doing sin also does lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.
      Yahuwshuwa didn't die so everyone could sin now. He died so we could be forgiven when we repented and turned back to obeying Him. That's what John the Baptist was preaching in the desert; Repent, Repent from breaking Torah and turn back to YaHuWaH's instructions.

      Exo 12:38  And a mixed multitude went up with them too, also flocks and herds, very much livestock.
      That word mixed is H6154
      ay'-reb, eh'-reb
      a mixture, (or mongrel race): - Arabia, mingled people, mixed (multitude), woof.

      It was a mixed multitude that went from Egypt with Moses. It was a mixed multitude that YaHuWaH gave the Law to. YaHuWaH's people are Anyone that wants to follow Him. Think of Ruth.. Rahab..Anyone. It's the same theme throughout Scripture. Torah is for those who Love YaHuWaH.

      Yahuwshuwa fulfilled the Law Yes,- Mat 5:17  “Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete/fulfill. 
      That word fulfill is
      G4137
      play-ro'-o
      From G4134; to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.: - accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.

      Yahuwshuwa was the living Word, the Torah in flesh. He fully preached Torah. He is our example. We are to follow Him. Does this mean we don't sin? Of course not, we all sin. Only Yahuwshuwa was sinless but when we sin we can be forgiven and keep following YaHuWaH's instructions, Torah.

      Look at the verses right before Mt 5:17 this:
      Mat 5:14-17  “You are the light of the world. It is impossible for a city to be hidden on a mountain. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it shines to all those in the house. Let your light so shine before men, so that they see your good works and praise your Father who is in the heavens. Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete.

      Do you know what the light is?
      Pro 6:23  For the command is a lamp, And the Torah a light, And reproofs of discipline a way of life,

      Then Yahuwshuwa goes on to fully preach Torah. He teaches how to follow Torah while in a heathen nation.
      Mat 5:22  “But I say to you that whoever is wroth with his brother without a cause shall be liable to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raka!’ shall be liable to the Sanhedrin. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to fire of Gehenna.
      Torah~Lev 19:18  ‘Do not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the children of your people. And you shall love your neighbour as yourself. I am YaHuWaH.

      Look what He says here.
      Mat 22:3641  “Teacher, which is the great command in the Torah?” And Yahuwhsuwa said to him, “ ‘You shall love YaHuWaH your Aluwhym with all your heart, and with all your being, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great command. And the second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ On these two commands hang all the Torah and the Prophets.”

      He's quoting Torah.
      Deu 6:5  “And you shall love YaHuWaH your Aluwhym with all your heart, and with all your being, and with all your might.
      Lev 19:18  ‘Do not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the children of your people. And you shall love your neighbour as yourself. I am YaHuWaH.

      This is not some New Command. He never said He came to get rid of Torah. He lived it and taught is as His Apostles did - including Paul. "New Theology" teaches the Law is not to be obeyed anymore and that its a curse but this wasn't what the earliest believers taught. Scripture bears this out, it's Faith and Works together. Faith without Works is dead.

      1Jn 2:3-6  And by this we know that we know Him, if we guard His Commands.The one who says, “I know Him,” and does not guard His Commands, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever guards His Word, truly the love of Aluwhym has been perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. The one who says he stays in Him ought himself also to walk, even as He walked.

      Joh 14:15  “If you love Me, you shall guard My Commands.

      1Jn 5:2-3  By this we know that we love the children of Aluwhym, when we love Aluwhym and guard His Commands.For this is the love for Aluwhym, that we guard His Commands, and His Commands are not heavy,

      1. Disappearinghead profile image84
        Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's all very nice, but I am not a Jew so I am not subject to the laws given to the Jews.

        Tell me, do you wear clothes of mixed fibres? Do you cut your hair on the sides in front of your ears? Do you offer God sacrifices of sheep, goats, oxen, etc? Do you eat prawns?

    2. W. Joe B. profile image79
      W. Joe B.posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So, let me get this straight...by your reasoning, if Jesus only fulfilled the law for the Jews, then the rest of the Hebrew people and the Gentile nations were left out of redemption.  That would be the case, because the Law of sin and death would still apply to them.  Sorry...look again.

      1. Disappearinghead profile image84
        Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You didn't read what I wrote. Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law, which Gentiles were never subject to as they were laws for Israel as they wandered the desert. Gentiles according to Jewish thinking are under the seven universal Noahic laws. Law of sin and death applies because all men know the difference between right ad wrong.

  5. Jojosi profile image60
    Jojosiposted 5 years ago

    When we talk about doing away with the law, a clarification should be made as to which law was abolished. There was the moral law given to Moses on the tablets of stone, written by God's own hand and there were also a lot of laws given for the good of the children of Isreal as they moved to the promised land- commonly referred to as ceremonial laws.

    The moral law is still in effect up to this day because no country in the world tolerates killers or those who steal, and even adultery is frowned upon by many societies.
    Man bid farewell to good health when he trampled on the health laws given by God himself.  They were given for our protection, because God has our best interest at heart.  What did we do?  Threw them out of the window and in came disease of all manner and kind.

    1. profile image58
      ScepticFaithposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      None of the Law was 'Done away with'.

      All of the law was fulfilled.
      All of the law is still in effect.

  6. krillco profile image94
    krillcoposted 5 years ago

    He did not 'do away with it', He fulfilled it.

  7. Dave Mathews profile image60
    Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago

    Jesus did not do away with the laws of the "Ten Commandments" or the laws of Moses, but he did teach the people that man was not created for the laws, rather the laws were created for man.

    Jesus gives an example: It is the sabbath, and your child by accident falls into a well and is drowning. Does it being the Sabbath prevent you from rescuing your child, because it is considered work, "NO" a father would not permit his child to die, because of the law of the sabbath to do no work.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image84
      Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed Dave. So why do we have Judaizers that want us Gentiles to be submissive to these laws all over again? Why do they think salvation is dependant upon the law?

      1. Abihahyil Shawmar profile image58
        Abihahyil Shawmarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Your Salvation depends on your Belief and Obedience.

        Rev 22:14  “Blessed are those Doing His Commands, so that the authority shall be theirs unto the tree of life, and to enter through the gates into the city.

        Look who the  Remnant are here:
        Rev 12:17  And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to fight with the Remnant of her seed, those guarding the Commands of Aluwhym and possessing the witness of Yahuwshuwa Mashiyach.

        Rev 14:12  Here is the endurance of the set-apart ones, here are those guarding the Commands of Aluwhym and the belief of Yahuwshuwa.

        1. Jerami profile image73
          Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Rev 12:2  And she binnf with child cried, travailing in birth and pained to be delivered.

            Many Christians believe this verse is talking about the woman as representing the church.

            Did the church give birth to Christ?
            If the church did give birth to Christ ...  Christ is the product of the church and can not therefore be the son of God.
            SOooo  I would sudgest Christians rethink their opinion of the woman as representing the Church.  Think about it, please.
            It the child is Christ and I believe it can be no other, then the woman in this story can be no other that "THAT" Hebrew peoples who had been living under bondage and suffering while awaiting their coming Messiah.
            With the Messiah coming out of the seed of King David, his mother can be no other that the Hebrew people.

            "If" there is any birthing to have transpired concerning the church, it is Jesus who gave birth to the church and NOT the other way around.

          1. Disappearinghead profile image84
            Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Agreed.

  8. profile image61
    wayne92587posted 5 years ago

    Would that I could I would destroy the Law!!

    Moral Law not being God's Law, being born of the Self-ish Righteousness of the Pharos, the Pharaoh, the Pharisees, being an abomination, Moral Law born of Self-ish Righteousness does not fulfill its promise to bring the Chaos to Order, Moral Law being Absolute, flies in the Face of Freedom, inhibits, limits, God's given right to Freedom.

  9. profile image61
    wayne92587posted 5 years ago

    The purpose of the Separation of Church and State is to set the People Free from the Self-ish Righteousness of the Church, the Moral Righteousness of Pharos, the Pharaoh, the Pharisees, not to limit Religious Freedom.

    1. Jerami profile image73
      Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The purpose for separation of Church and state was that the government Not be taken over by any particular Church.
        You should remember that most all of the emigrants coming to this country was fleeing from Church dominance which existed in Europe at that time.

        Separation of Church and state was not intended to clense the government from any religious affiliation what so ever. Quite the opposit. 

        It was origionally intended to establish the rights of any and all religious expression and/or the lack there of.

        Now, today, those people that sit on the side of "Lack thereof" would do away with my rights to worship regardless of the particular denomination which I hold dear.
        This was not the intent of this statute.

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hi jerami.I agree with you, but the lack thereof people are pushing back, I think. If the religious right would stop attempting to push their religion on everyone else by legislation, I think you'd see a drastic reduction in complaints. I think they started the problems.

        1. Jerami profile image73
          Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That is very true.  Everyone seems to forget from where we first came.
            I've always said that we gotta be real careful not to start hating and when we feel that we must; gotta be extra careful how we go about doing it or we become worse than the thing we are hating.

        2. Jerami profile image73
          Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I like the new PIC,  just about as cute as the other one

      2. profile image61
        wayne92587posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Jerami;

        I do not see where what I said is any different than your reply to my post??

        1. Jerami profile image73
          Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I wasn't disagreeing with what you said,  Just wanted to go a little farther than where you went with it.
            Sorry for the confusion.

          1. profile image61
            wayne92587posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hey! I am glad that ,you and I and a few others, that we see it the same way.

    2. profile image58
      ScepticFaithposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A comment on this post.

      wayne92587posted 20 hours ago
      The purpose of the Separation of Church and State is to set the People Free from the Self-ish Righteousness of the Church, the Moral Righteousness of Pharos, the Pharaoh, the Pharisees, not to limit Religious Freedom.

      ScepticFaith: The term ‘Separation of Church & State’ does not appear in the Constitution. Nor did it appear in any Government edict or legal decree until the 1960’s. The term comes from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1808 to a church that was concerned about Government infringement on their right to worship. The intent of the Constitution was not that there would be no religion in Government but that there would be no Government in religion.


      It has nothing to do with self righteous religion, righteous religion, or any aspect of religion beyond that fact that religion is between a man and his God. The Government has no say.

      1. profile image58
        ScepticFaithposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Quote: From the letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church.

        Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

        Thomas Jefferson; 1808

      2. profile image61
        wayne92587posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        SkepticFaith wrote;

        The intent of the Constitution was not that there would be no religion in Government but that there would be no Government in religion.

        Wayne wrote;
        The separation of Church and State is a two way Street.

        I never said anything about the separation of Church and State being in the Constitution.

        It's all about the Law, Moral Law, and the State's Rule of Law, The Rules of Law not based upon Moral Law, Church Law.


        SkepticFaith wrote;
        I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

        I agree, the State is not to make any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion,

        However, I also contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "not adopt Church Law, the Morality of the Church; which would prohibit my Freedom of Expression and the exercise there of";  thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

  10. gregb4hope profile image74
    gregb4hopeposted 5 years ago

    Early America adopted the Bible and it's principles as the basis for belief in God.  By faith a major segment of it's citizens accepted Christ as the Head of the churches that was in their infancy as the denomination branches were forming.  These men and women of faith also served official positions in govt and their beliefs impacted those positions. All of society was impacted even though we used free will and freedom of religious was prevalent.

    We use to have prayer "by faith" in school meaning society (it's majority and not a political party) accepted the practice of prayer because of our right to religious freedom.  Now prayer is being legislated in "by law" meaning legalizing thru political agenda. This process demonstrate the will of the people impacting govt officials to the point of legislating in what they believe to defer trying to legislate out a belief in God.  Seems fair enough.

    Jerami has said it well...freedom to express a belief.....any belief is under attack.  The ironic part is that America is still majority christian and only a small minority are actually atheist. So why is this process appearing to succeed  across America? I believe that there is another segment of people and while it is a minority  in numbers, it is growing.  This shifting in the wind  will continue because of the inherent nature of democracy as it reflects it citizens.

    It is the multitudes of religious ideologies that has been coming on the shores of America for over 25 years and it's infiltrating and literally attacking the Jesus we serve in every place it is found in the name of religious equality. Are they wrong? As naturalized American citizens...they may have a point.
    As freedom of religious go forth, why not they have their prayer said too in school? From the view of democracy it is doing what it always does for by design it yields to the people (most of the time). However,  from the view of christians our "biblical" ideals are losing influence because of  multi-religiousism and apathy among far too many christians in the House of the Lord.

    Legislation of religious practices begins the process of  joining church and state and as a result live by legalism toward our God.  The very thing we are trying to prevent is the very thing we are advancing. What a paradox?  If that's all we got I suppose there isn't much more to do. Except one thing...go to our closet room and come out praying anyway!! There ought to be something said about how far we got for believing or at least respecting a belief in God. Now defiance is preparing to step in!

    1. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Paul was a Roman spy. His teaching is against the teachings of Jesus.

      1. Jerami profile image73
        Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Mr. Dude  I'm not making any accusations, however I must admit that I have often questioned whether or not Paul was a real person or just created out of necessity when the "Universal Church" was being constructed?

        1. profile image60
          Robertr04posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Mr.Dude, Mr.Jerami, you sound as if you guy's take the time to research what you say, along with others, maybe you can help me with this? Read  Acts 13:7, Paul's full name was Sergius Paulus, what do you think this verse is saying? Just thinking of your above posts.

          1. Jerami profile image73
            Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The way that I understand this verse, Barnabas and Saul were traveling when they encountered that sorcerer (Barjesus) which was with the deputy of the country whose' name was Sergius Paulus. So Barnabas and Paul meet up with Barjesus and Sergius Paulus. This being four different people.

            My question would have to do with why is Paul refered to as Saul in this verse, When after his conversion Saul's name was changed to Paul?

    2. profile image61
      wayne92587posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      gregb4hope;

      The American people have bee hoodwinked, bamboozled, fed a line of crap, lied to, have allowed themselves to be deceived, beguiled.

      The only purpose for the Separation of Church and State is so the State can follow the Rule of Law, not the hypocrisy of Church Law, Law born of Self-ish Righteousness, Moral Law.

      The purpose of the Separation of Church and State is to lay the Moral Law of the Church to rest.

      The Separation of Church and State is in no way intended to inhibit the Freedom to worship.

      It is not the intent of the Rule of Law, the Separation of Church and State to legislate prayer.


      Gregb4hope wrote;
      Early America adopted the Bible and it's principles as the basis for belief in God.  By faith a major segment of it's citizens accepted Christ as the Head of the churches that was in their infancy as the denomination branches were forming.  These men and women of faith also served official positions in govt and their beliefs impacted those positions. All of society was impacted even though we used free will and freedom of religious was prevalent.

      We use to have prayer "by faith" in school meaning society (it's majority and not a political party) accepted the practice of prayer because of our right to religious freedom.  Now prayer is being legislated in "by law" meaning legalizing thru political agenda. This process demonstrate the will of the people impacting govt officials to the point of legislating in what they believe to defer trying to legislate out a belief in God.  Seems fair enough.

      Jerami has said it well...freedom to express a belief.....any belief is under attack.  The ironic part is that America is still majority christian and only a small minority are actually atheist. So why is this process appearing to succeed  across America? I believe that there is another segment of people and while it is a minority  in numbers, it is growing.  This shifting in the wind  will continue because of the inherent nature of democracy as it reflects it citizens.

    3. profile image61
      wayne92587posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      gregb4hopeposted

      We use to have prayer "by faith" in school meaning society (it's majority and not a political party) accepted the practice of prayer because of our right to religious freedom. Now prayer is being legislated in "by law"

      1.    Jerami has said it well...freedom to express a belief.....any belief is under attack. The ironic part is that America is still majority christian and only a small minority are actually atheist. So why is this process appearing to succeed across America? I believe that there is another segment of people and while it is a minority in numbers, it is growing. This shifting in the wind will continue because of the inherent nature of democracy as it reflects it citizens.

      It is the multitudes of religious ideologies that has been coming on the shores of America for over 25 years and it's infiltrating and literally attacking the Jesus we serve in every place it is found in the name of religious equality. Are they wrong? As naturalized American citizens...they may have a point.
      As freedom of religious go forth, why not they have their prayer said too in school? From the view of democracy it is doing what it always does for by design it yields to the people (most of the time). However, from the view of christians our "biblical" ideals are losing influence because of multi-religiousism and apathy among far too many christians in the House of the Lord.

      Legislation of religious practices begins the process of joining church and state and as a result live by legalism toward our God. The very thing we are trying to prevent is the very thing we are advancing. What a paradox? If that's all we got I suppose there isn't much more to do. Except one thing...go to our closet room and come out praying anyway!! There ought to be something said about how far we got for believing or at least respecting a belief in God. Now defiance is preparing to step in!

      Wayne wrote;

      You have said noting in regards to Religious Freedom that I would disagree with.

      My argument is in reverence to the separation of Church and State; which I say is a two-way street; it strictly being about the Rule by Law; it is not about governing worship.

      The state is not to rule the Church; meaning is not to limit the right of worship.

      The Church is not to rule the State, meaning is not to
      Limit the personal expression of Freedom.

      Where are the most dangerous places in regards to Freedom of Religion, the personal expression of Freedom.

      How about Afghanistan as ruled by the Fundamentalism Islam?????????

      Sharia, the Islamic Law of the Fundamentalist Muslim, is Moral Law, Law based upon the Self-ish Righteous Interpretation of the saying of Mohammad and his followers. Mind you there is great conflict between the Sunni Muslim and the Shiite Muslim based upon two different interpretations of Shia, Islamic Law, the Moral Law of Islam.

      Before the Invasion of Afghanistan the Taliban ruled according to the Fundamentalist interpretation of  Saria, Islamic Law; Moral Law as  interpreted by Fundamentalist slam.

      The people as rule by the Taliban were not allowed to the personal Freedom of Expression, Joy, excitement, at a soccer game; The Taliban stopping a game to bring a woman onto the field for execution.

      The Machismo, distorted, perverted, sense of Manliness as interpreted by the Fundamentalist Muslim;

      Machismo;

      1. a strong or exaggerated sense of manliness; an
          assumptive attitude that virility, courage, strength, and
          entitlement to dominate are attributes or concomitants of masculinity.
      2. a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to
          dominate:

      Take note; this definition also works for the Male Chauvinist Pig; Brawny Man; those having machismo,  a distorted sense of manliness, their heads filled with Brawn, Boiled Pig Fat, being sick in the Head, being full of it, Fundament, are sick in the Head, can be recognized as being Sic,Sic,Sic.

      Gregb4hope wrote;
      Early America adopted the Bible and it's principles as the basis for belief in God. By faith a major segment of it's citizens accepted Christ as the Head of the churches that was in their infancy as the denomination branches were forming. These men and women of faith also served official positions in govt and their beliefs impacted those positions. All of society was impacted even though we used free will and freedom of religious was prevalent.

      Wayne wrote;
      As it should have been; As it should still be.

      Gregb4help
      We use to have prayer "by faith" in school meaning society (it's majority and not a political party) accepted the practice of prayer because of our right to religious freedom. Now prayer is being legislated in "by law" meaning legalizing thru political agenda.

      Wayne wrote;

      I contend that is so because of the lack of understanding of the true purpose for the separation of Church and State;

      I say it is only about the Rule of Law, to the exclusion of the Rule by Moral Law, the Sel-fish Righteousness of those in authority, the Pharaoh, the Pharisees.

      I say to the Pharaohs of the World,“Set the People Free.”

  11. Jerami profile image73
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    I was in school when all of this was going on.
      I don't think that prayer would have been taken out of our schools had the civil rights movement (racial) had not been at a boiling over point.
      If at any other time in history a single person filed a complaint that they didn't want their child to hear other people praying in school, there would have been other accomidations made, But the civil rights of the people that wanted to pray in school or any other place of their choosing would not have been taken away.

      I do not see any problem for a few moments being set aside for anyone of any faith to have a silent prayer. Anyone that didn't choose to pray could have a short daydream of any sort that they choose.

       Christianity was the only faith that was being recognized in any of the schools I went to. And anyone who didn't at least pretend to go along with this long standing practice would have been picked on by "Some" of their fellow students and made to feel like an outsider. But taking prayer out of the schools didn't fix any problem. It didn't stop the bullies. Now they have different targets.
       We can not legislate away the bullies. Like that one song says talking about her husband, "Ya cain't beat them up cause they are bigger than you, and Ya cain't shootUM"

  12. Jerami profile image73
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    drbillfannin wrote
      Oh, Paul was a real person. If you choose not to believe that, then the entire Bible is a lie, and Christianity is a lie.

    = - = - =

       I would have to disagree with this statement.
    It is kinda like when my teenage son would tell a "Untruth" concerning how the fender of the car got damaged. In order to avoid punishment he would tell a lie while 99% of his story was true.

       As a parent, I would have to discern what part of his story might be found out to be an untruth.

      If I wanted to conn you out of your savings the best way to do that would be to come up with a story while telling as much truth as possible and still get what I wanted.

  13. profile image61
    wayne92587posted 5 years ago

    A Lie is a half-truth according to Webster's.

    Half-Truth;
    1. a statement that is only partly true, esp. one intended to deceive, evade blame, or the like.
    2. a statement that fails to divulge the whole truth.

    1. Chris Neal profile image82
      Chris Nealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Just refresh my memory, who are you saying is lying here?

  14. profile image61
    wayne92587posted 5 years ago

    Jerami wrote.

      I do not see any problem for a few moments being set aside for anyone of any faith to have a silent prayer. Anyone that didn't choose to pray could have a short daydream of any sort that they choose.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Abihahyil Shawmar wrote;

    Mat 5:17  “Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete. For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done.

    Mat 5:19 "Whoever, then, breaks one of the least of these commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the reign of the heavens; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens.

    Have all of the prophecies been fulfilled? Has heaven and earth passed away? Vers 19 says those that break the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least. How can this be if we're not to obey them anymore?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Wayne wrote;

    Freedom if not absolute is not Freedom; Absolute Freedom belonging only to an Absolute Individuality, a Indivisible Singularity alone in the Emptiness; Freedom within a system of Chaos, such as the World of Reality, Reality as seen in the Light of Day, being relative, not absolute.

    You are Free to (there being nothing Immoral, nor it being against the Rule of Law) to yell Fire, if you are nothing more than a voice crying it the Wilderness.

    You are Free to (there being nothing Immoral about yelling Fire) to yell Fire in a crowded theater; it is however against the Law, the Rule of Law, to yell Fire in a crowded theater.

    The point being is that Law is about Law and Order, is not about Moral Law; Moral Law being born of Self-ish Righteousness, Righteousness based upon a distorted sense of Manliness, Machismo;
    1. a strong or exaggerated sense of manliness; an
        assumptive attitude that virility, courage, strength, and
        entitlement to dominate are attributes or concomitants of masculinity.
    2. a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to
        dominate:

    The Law before it became a Tool of the Pharos;
    Pharos; 1. a small peninsula in N Egypt, near Alexandria: site of ancient lighthouse built by Ptolemy.
    2. the lighthouse on this peninsula. 3. any lighthouse or beacon to direct sailors

    Any Lighthouse, Person, Organization, Church, having the authority to act as a Guiding Light, having a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to dominate.

    Moral Law is born of the Self-ish Righteousness of the Pharaoh, the Pharisees, Machismo; Moral Law being born of Man’s ability to reason, rationalize.

    Usage. Although RATIONALIZE retains its principal senses “to make conformable to reason” and “to treat in a rational manner,” 20th-century psychology has given it the now more common meaning “to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that seem reasonable but actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious causes.” Although the possibility of ambiguity exists, the context will usually make clear which sense is intended.


    The Purpose, the intent of the Law (Moral Law being a dismal failure in its attempt to fulfill it promise, intent, purpose), is to bring Order to the Chaos.

    Would that I could, I would destroy Moral Law; the intent of Moral law being to satisfy the needs, desires, the Self-righteousness of the Pharaoh, the Pharisees.

    The Law, Law, Law, what frigging Law, has, is, the Christ suppose to fulfill, complete.

    The destruction of the Law is not about the Torah, Prophecy itself.

    You are relatively Free to worship as you please as long as you do not interfere with another persons relative Freedoms.

    The Rule of Law implies that you do not have the moral right to distub others with your relative Freedom to worship as you please.

    Moral, Church Law, the Law of the Pharaoh, the Pharisees is Fundament.

    Fundamental Law, the Law of Nature determining that Might is Right.

    Moral Law is an abomination, does not enhance Freedom, bring order to the chaos; Moral Law inhibits Freedom, 



    :

 
working