Timeline for In Ephesians 2:15 exactly what part of the Law has been abolished?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 4, 2020 at 20:04 | comment | added | Dottard | Very good and though provoking answer indeed. +1. | |
| Apr 11, 2020 at 7:52 | comment | added | Jack Douglas | @crazyTech yes I think so, or to put it another way, abolishing the primacy of external obedience over obedience that originates from the heart and thus has a different nature (even if sometimes apparently similar expression). This is neatly expressed in the imagery of the commandments engraved on tablets of stone versus "I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts" | |
| Apr 10, 2020 at 21:22 | comment | added | user1338998 | Would be correct to say Paul views "abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances" as "abolishing legalism(nomism)" (i.e, abolishing legalism as in legalism within the field of thelogy) ? | |
| Sep 9, 2017 at 22:34 | comment | added | Ruminator | Paul said that if you get circumcised you become beholden to the law again and fall from divine favor and come under a curse. It speaks of no longer being under a tutor. Paul talks of being "dead to the law" and "free from the law". This answer has good notions but on a different subject. This doesn't address "abolishment" at all. | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ with https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| May 14, 2016 at 18:57 | comment | added | Jack Douglas | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| May 13, 2016 at 18:47 | comment | added | user10231 | (-1) How does a proper interpretation of the law get deemed an abolishment? | |
| May 13, 2016 at 17:31 | history | edited | Jack Douglas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed minor typos
|
| Aug 4, 2015 at 9:03 | history | edited | Jack Douglas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
partial roll-back
|
| Aug 4, 2015 at 1:22 | comment | added | rhetorician | Fine job, Jack! I took the liberty of tidying things up a bit, but your observations are spot on, in my opinion. Don | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 1:21 | history | edited | rhetorician | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
tidied things up a bit
|
| Aug 3, 2015 at 21:24 | history | edited | Jack Douglas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Aug 3, 2015 at 20:03 | history | edited | Jack Douglas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Aug 3, 2015 at 19:43 | history | edited | Jack Douglas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 176 characters in body
|
| Aug 3, 2015 at 19:37 | history | edited | Jack Douglas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 176 characters in body
|
| Aug 3, 2015 at 19:24 | history | edited | Jack Douglas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 176 characters in body
|
| Aug 3, 2015 at 19:17 | history | edited | Jack Douglas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 176 characters in body
|
| Aug 3, 2015 at 18:30 | history | edited | Jack Douglas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added some links
|
| Aug 3, 2015 at 13:48 | comment | added | user8377 | Good answer, but what to do until children are grown up to understand it ? I think deut 6 still applies | |
| Aug 3, 2015 at 13:01 | history | answered | Jack Douglas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |