What is the Purpose of the law To christians Under new Covenant?

Now you're confusing the Moral with the Ceremonial.

 

When one observes the two commandments that Jesus spoke about in Matthew 22 and Mark 12, you are keeping the moral law.

 

Then we uphold the Law.

 

Not then ten on stone tablets, but the two Jesus spoke about in Matthew 22 and Mark 12.

 

The purpose of the Law was to show us how vile we really are. It was/is our schoolmaster, that brings us to Christ. Grace places us in Christ, the Law is what brings us to Christ. Major difference.

 

Earlier you said that the Two encompasses the Ten. Are you oscillating?

 

I think we are in much agreement, just maybe semantics?

The Law and the Prophets were unto John, and since then, the kingdom of heaven is preached, and man presseth into it. God puts the Law of love in our hearts, and by observing these two, we observe the moral law. We just don't have to keep sheep around when we sin. He is our Sheep.

 

OK now you have gone to defining “commands” and which apply to whom.
That is good but please define this new term you have introduced into the discussion.

Because it seems that you have altered the terms of the debate to put your rebuttals in a more favorable light.

First you denied that there were 613 commandments in the OT Law.

When it was shown that there is some question as to the exact number but at least 600 or so, I admitted and ceded to the point as to the exact number and went with an indeterminant number of "several hundred".

You also introduced "the commands we have which the church is to follow are for all time". But you didn't elucidate as to whether you were introducing a distinction between Israel and the church when I made that inquiry.

Now you have introduced a new determining factor (something called “ceremonial commands”) which you had not previously mentioned in the debate as to what is the definition of a command as applied (I would suppose) to the several verses you are quoting.

The definition of “His commandments” has now become a moving target which you seem to alter at will.

The only conclusion that anyone (or at least myself) can come to is that when you are challenged in accordance with the rules of debate you alter your terms or introduce new challenges to gain the "upper hand" (or so it would seem).

So, can you give me a chapter and verse which defines these "ceremonial commands" or at least tell me in your own words what you mean by “ceremonial commands” as I can’t find this differentiation in the scripture as it applies to this phrase “ceremonial”

When you introduce a determinant term into a debate you must define your terms.

In any event, here is what the scripture teaches:

Deuteronomy 27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Nothing about "ceremonial commands".

This seems to be a ploy FAL, rather than answer the question which I asked first, you now issue a condescending challenge to circumvent answering me.

So no, I asked my question first, so you tell me.

By not answering my question which I asked twice before why should I believe you or continue debating when you can’t or won’t answer me first?

Or you add qualifiers midstream such as “ceremonial commandments” without an explanation as to whether Revelation 22:14 means I have to keep the prohibition of wearing mixed fabric to enter heaven.

Do I or do I not?

As soon as you answer my question I will answer yours (BTW I already covered this question as to which we are to keep elsewhere but perhaps you didn't notice).

Here is my question for the third time (in this thread) expanded to include your additional statements:

Does this statement you have made - "the commands we have which the church is to follow are for all time" - include the command in Leviticus 19:19 concerning the prohibition of wearing of mixed fabrics or only for the nation of Israel or for the church as well?

Also, where in the scripture do we have the teaching concerning "ceremonial commands"?

HankD

 

All this commandment stuff was resolved when Paul was sent back to confer with the Jerusalem church.

There was a huge church wide uproar and a great deal of disputing that went of perhaps a week or more in the very heart of the seat of the Law were the temple sacrifices continued daily.

The decision was made and published that the gentiles were under NO obligation to the law of the Jews accept:

"That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." ​

Anything else is man made usurping of God's authority through the Apostles.

And less anyone try to refute by saying otherwise, I am certain that Paul, schooled in the greatest schools of that time and excelled in the written law, would have indicated differently had it been necessary.

Does that mean then that the commandments of God are not for the believer?

NO!!!! But there is NO judgment of the believer by the ten or any "law" other than what the Apostles stated.

Paul stated it even more definitively when he said, "There is therefore NO condemnation..."