Grace (not law) unto you, and peace (not confusion),
from God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
NO. Your 'continuum' of Q is imagined, by TV;
due to still being image, of image/likeness.
Image is before, of before/after in Gen 1:26.
Grace does not 'forbid' (law),
Nor even 'imagine' any vain (f-lawed) things;
Unless it's f-lawed grace (both good + evil), like
Noah found in (plural) eyes of the LORD (Adam1).
Adam1/Adam2: 1Cor 15:45 = soul/spirit: Heb 4:12:
Adam1 = a living "soul", not quickening "spirit".
The word of God divides asunder soul <--> spirit,
to get us from soul-ish part, to spirit-ual part.
But spirit-ual still has this to deal with:
"comparing spiritual things with spiritual",
is allegorically comparing laws with grace,
since law can be both natural and spiritual,
but also natural disaster when it's natural,
and spiritual wickedness when it's spiritual.
Noah's soul-ish dichotomy: both clean + unclean,
God + LORD, Grace + Law, is vain as Life + Death.
It saves eight souls and destroys them afterward.
So Noah got inducted to a hall of shame, not fame.
Moral of Deluge allegory is: God is not the LORD;
which is to say good only isn't both good + evil.
So then, leave the soul-ish dichotomy of Adam1,
to go on to the spirit-ual dichotomy of Adam2;
But then also realize it's still of plural God,
Who both "spake" unto them vs "spoke" unto us,
in both "time past" (BC) vs "last days" (AD),
by "prophets" vs by "Son" = better: Hebrews 1.
Eg: love neighbour + hate enenmy vs love enemies.
Love enemies is "better", but still has "enemies".
So plural God both peril them + peril us: 2Tim3:1.
In plural mode "we stand in jeopardy every hour",
even if we not "under" law, but "under" grace,
for both such under(s) have an "under"-taker,
due to still giving "place" to "enmity" (law).
Remember, it's a "mystery" to solve, in time,
(by seek and find grace "in time" to "help")
and "allegory", so then 'allegoric mystery'.
Every good mystery has twists, till very end.
Only the end is all truth, and no lie at all,
and by be-ing all grace, and no law at all,
is as if all light, and no darkness at all.
No even-ing and mourn-ing on "seventh day".
So, Better of twain isn't yet Best nor yet Rest,
until we also put away dichotomy of plural God.
Plural God on "high" is not "higher" God is one.
For potential harmageddon is not yet "harmless".
So a more excellent way isn't broad nor narrow.
If we don't put away plural God & Son on high,
choice becomes Death1 or Death2 in Revelation.
What then? Resurrection1 or Resurrection2. But
even the better of two resurrections is like
reset, play again, till you "win" human race.
1st finished = "win". 2nd finished = "place";
And give "place" to the devil (law) = "death".
Death is what God of the living will not have.
God of the living is not God of the dead.
If there be any dead, it's "greatly err".
Eg: Mt 22:29-32; Mk 12:24-27; Lk 20:34-38.
Err = reset, play again, until none perish.
"Us-ward" is not just right of left/right,
but above of under/above, so none perish.
Grace is not Law. Mercy is not Sacrifice.
Peace is not Confusion. One is not plural.
"Eternal Life" is not both Life and Death.
Rather eternal life is life void of death.
So then, to "lay hold on eternal life",
we leave the dichotomy of life and death,
which is to say leave such grace and law.
That is why the end has no mention of law.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.
Grace, and Mercy, and Peace unto you,
from God, our Father, and our Lord JC.
Sorry for delayed response; didn’t notice your last post on GodShew forum.
Indeed, if Grace were ever forced upon people, it would then be as faulty as Law. So “the God of all grace”, aka the “higher” of two Gods (in heaven “higher than the heavens” on high), just waits for people to “ask”, before “liberally” giving people higher learning, and notably “without upbraiding” (no biting and smiting involved). Eg: in my case, like Saul of Saul/Paul, I did all the churchy things even more than pastors and priests, studied more than all my peers, and was more zealous than peers; But in the end of this 2D realm of my life I was weary, from the linear and circular logic, even when right of wrong/right, aka grace of law/grace, which is still division and not peace, still partiality and not perfection. So I finally trashed it all: all Bibles, books, audio tapes, videos, concordances, and notes… in the dumpster. For after seven years of diligent study on 15 lousy pages of Revelation, I couldn’t get anyone’s theory, not even my own, to compute from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. So I gave up what I call study1 of study1/study2; study1 being as Eccleseastes 12:12’s study, and study2 being as 2Timothy 2:15’s study.
Then, while on the couch brooding, due to depression becoming bi-polar dis-order, I remembered and pondered a couple of Bible things, and as if now from within me.
The first thing was that God had said he would never leave nor forsake me, thrice in Deuteronomy 31:6, Deuteronomy 31:8, and Hebrews 13:5. So then, that had to be a different God than the other God who notably said in Jeremiah 23:39 Therefore, behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you, and I will forsake you.
The second thing was about when you lack wisdom, then you should “ask God”, But it clarified such was the God who “upbraided not” (didn’t bite nor smite any), And also clarified how to ask: “nothing wavering”; As noted in James 1:5-8 (KJV). So I asked that God, accordingly, noting I wanted the truth, not more confusion; For Paul said God is not [the author] of confusion (unrest), but of peace (rest).
Then I began getting the “higher” learning, as if being taught directly by the Spirit. It was as 3D mode from above of under/above, not 2D mode from right of left/right. So it was more like ‘dialectic’ logic, which is neither linear logic nor circular logic. Dialectic logic does look at both sides of any issue like law vs grace; But then concludes be neither of such “under the law” vs “under grace”, since both sides are “under”, so both have this problem: an under-taker.
Eg: heart established “with grace” =
neither “under the law” nor “under grace”.
Eg: being no more children =
neither children of the wicked nor children of God.
Eg: above a servant =
neither servants of sin nor servants of righteousness.
Eg: a more excellent way =
neither the broad way nor the narrow way in Mt 7.
Eg: greatest of three things =
neither great tribulation nor greater damnation.
So the higher God had not forced anything on me, but waited for me to ask; And after asking according to James 1:5-8, I got abundance of revelations.
I still have a briefcase of revelations I have not uploaded onto the web site. One reason is that it’s not up to me to do everyone else’s home-work; Else how would they learn and retain the learning if I did it all for them. Another reason is like Paul the Steward, I still both reveal and conceal. This way the mystery gets revealed to those who go on to 3D, but remains a mystery to those still in the 2D mode.
So like higher God, I wait for people to ask, then I share (not teach). Yet when I conceal, it’s as if in plain sight, for truth seekers to find. Eg: the GodShew Epistle, only goes out to subscribers who find it.I notice you haven’t yet found it and not yet subscribed to receive it.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen.
Grace unto you, and peace,
from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,
You seem to have conflated the meaning of a "prescriptive" law or a law that "prescribes" (e.g., "Thou shalt not kill") with the meaning of a "descriptive" law or a law that "describes" (e.g., F = MA); for the former comprises those things which are violable or able to be violated (e.g., edicts, rules etc.) while the latter comprises those things which are inviolable or not able to be violable.
Now any "law" whatsoever that "prescribes" anything whatsoever (e.g., one of the Ten Commandments) is a law that is violable. However, the expression "You can't put on incorruption (grace),
till you first put off corruption (law)" does NOT "prescribe" anything whatsoever; for it is merely a saying which expresses a proposition that DESCRIBES a certain reality - namely, that is NOT possible for one to put on incorruption without firstly putting off corruption.
Thus, clearly, such an expression is actually a DESCRIPTION, even a proper subclass of those sorts of things which are subsumed under that class of things which are NOT violable.
The grace of our Lord Jesus (the) Christ (be) with you all. Amen.
I understand that there is difference between this laws. But both are laws :). That what I want to say. In fact F=MA is physical law, but it is also a law which bind us to something.
The question is if at the end it will be no law at all (I can not imagine it too :)) or maybe law you propose which prevents from falling into another law.