"of course
what the first guy said
its logical"
Circular logic: It is good because it says it is and it must be true because it says it is...
Keep reading that link. Christians never will, they don't even read that book.
2006-07-24 10:40:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul. Psalm 19:7.
What is the point of the verse from Hebrews then? The Law which God gave to Moses on Sinai was holy and good. Romans 7:12. It was God's will to the people that they should observe the Law to know Him. It was perfect because God gave it. However, people are not perfect. People consistently break God's Law and the Law shows how powerless we are to save ourselves. God gave Adam and Eve one negative commandment. It wasn't enough. God gave new commandments to Noah's generation, it wasn't enough. God then gave commandments to Moses and the Children of Israel. That, too, proved to be insufficient. While in each instance, the Law from God was perfect because it came from God, people (not being perfect) were unwilling/unable to follow it exactly. "There is no one who does good; not even one." Therefore Jesus came and died and rose again to attain forgiveness for us. Now that Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice and is now the mediator and high priest of a new covenant, the Law is no longer necessary nor sufficient for salvation. Salvation is found only in Jesus Christ.
2006-07-24 17:46:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by leo509 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I see that you reference a "skeptic" site to phrase your question. Is it that you have no original thoughts?
As usual, taken by the two verses, out of context, a stupid person may think it is speaking of what you say. But it isn't.
Rather than give you a lengthy answer that you aren't interested in, anyway, I will give you a short one.
The jews, the chosen ones, being given "free will" to choose God's way or not, God was admittedly disappointed in that many Jews fell away from him by behaving in a sinful manner. To have a perfect outcome, as you think the bible is saying (which it isn't), would have God making thoughtless robots that just did what he said.
Never was that the intent of God's if you could or would read it yourself. You being a "thinking" person (I say with some reservation) have the same choice as well as the Jews did.
To supply a more "perfect" mediator, is God giving his son to us, to those who accept him. This is not an "improvement" for how could God improve himself by giving his son to the world..who is also God?
Look it up yourself (you probably don't have a copy of the book you quote) in the new testament and read it in CONTEXT. Read ALL of chapter 8 and see the reference to the book of Jeremiah
that is made right in the text.
Then if you still can't understand what is going on, I will try to explain it to you. no charge!
2006-07-24 17:47:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Again a weak example of a contradiction because the asker wont read for themselves :)
>>For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.<<
The first covenant was with the Jews, they broke it, PEOPLE are never faultless. The covenant was good but PEOPLE broke it therefore it was faulted. Not because it was wrong, but because people broke it. Difficult concept?
2006-07-24 17:34:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by impossble_dream 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually it is!!!
You forgot the next verse:
Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
GOD found "fault with them". Who are "them"?
Go to Exodus 19:6-8,
6And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
7And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
8And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
Notice in verse 8 that it says "All that the LORD hath spoken we will do."
The problem with the original covenant was that the Israelites COULD NOT KEEP THEIR END OF THE COVENANT!!!
GOD did not produce a bad covenant, it was PERFECT!!!
2006-07-24 17:40:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by Exodus 20:1-17 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes God's Law is perfect. If you would do a little bit of research you would have found that this is not talking about the Law of God but the priesthood of Jesus versus Aaron's. This is not talking about the original law being revamped but how Jesus' ministry was better than Aaron's. Do some research before you try to belittle the scriptures.
2006-07-24 17:41:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by Lacksnothing 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The first laws were faultless in that they taught us the need for a messiah. The new covenant is based on love, which through Christ, is in the heart.
2006-07-24 17:53:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, the law of God is perfect unto salvation. It was not the old covenant that was faulty, but the people unto whom the covenant was given. So God gave us a new covenant. It was better because it was not based on faulty man, but on the perfect gift of Jesus Christ.
2006-07-24 17:34:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by heaven_bound 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
The first covenant was put into place so that man could see that he was sinful. You wouldn't know that stealing was wrong unless the law said 'Do not steal.'
The second covenant was put into place so that man could see that there was hope. You see the law, you see yourself, and you see that something's gotta change. The second covenant, life thru grace, gave us a way to change.
2006-07-24 17:34:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The law of God is perfect...reviving the soul! Psalm 19:7, NIV
2006-07-24 17:34:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by christian_lady_2001 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Frankly, I find the idea of a fallible God more pleasing than an infallible one. If he is imperfect than we can believe that all the despair in this world was a mistake and that he did not mean to do this to us, his "children."
2006-07-24 17:37:07
·
answer #11
·
answered by Mila 2
·
0⤊
0⤋