reply to post by SimonPeter
In the first place the Talmud/ Mishnah /Oral law existed in it's many forms before Christ in one form or another . The Talmud is the
manifestation of Oral Law is it not .
I don't know if such a thing existed as such, meaning what we see today as the Talmud. There would have
been an oral tradition within the priesthood, in ancient times concerning the details of how rites were performed. There would have also been legends
and lore as stories told about the exploits of national heros. Those things show up in the written word that we call the Old Testament. The Talmud is
something else where the experts in the law would make decisions about how they apply to real-world circumstances, and it probably began when those
experts were deported from the land of Canaan, to Babylon, and they had no temple. The same old methodology got a further impetus with the destruction
of Herod's temple, and was at that time written down, to preserve them, since they could not find a clear consensus to leave in a single tradition,
and felt the need to record the dissenting views also.
The synagogue of Satan referred to the sinful Pharisees who were not of the lineage of
Aaron as they were supposed to be .They were not up to standards and Jesus knew it
I have no idea where you got that from unless it is from
your cult that has Jewish teachers in it to subvert the member's belief in Christianity.
Your free grace cult argument is your calling
The Free Grace cult is a fact and you can look it up in Wikipedia and see how the theory was developed over time and got its final version
in the 1890's.
Again John 15 tells you all about being grafted into the vine and your not bringing forth fruit
Were you going to make a
point with that bit of knowledge?
The Covenant with the Jews involve sacrifice for sin
Would you care to quote any of the pertinent
Let's take a look at the story in the Old Testament of King David, how he basically murdered Uriah to get his wife for himself. He felt awful about it
when their subsequent child was dying, and felt that his sin was responsible. Why didn't he then just make a sacrifice and fix it? Because there was
no such provision in the law for that.
The 10 commandments define sin . The Law is a Jewish recompense for having sinned . Which could really
never be kept completely.
You are again only reciting your cult's propaganda. The Law demanded obedience, period, and if you read the story,
people who broke it met a nasty end.
The Law was meant to be kept and was the conditions of the covenant. The giving of the Law was not for the purpose of punishing humanity for the
people in the past who had sinned. Paul said that his life as a Pharisee was "blameless", meaning that he did keep the law. The problem with the law
was that it really didn't make you a better person by keeping it, but it gave you a social status that would be actually counterproductive as far as
your eternal soul goes.
God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son
Jesus died for our sins . John 3:16 .
God made a personal sacrifice, to hand over His son to the forces of evil in order to judge Satan.
edit on 20-7-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no