The postulate within which Galatians speaks of justification supposedly received only by attending to the commandments IS IMPOSED by hermeneutics through inferences or conjectures (such as by conflating sacrifices and commandments WITHOUT bases), although THEY KNOW THAT the Israelites who "were of the law", such as Romans 4:14 and "before faith came", Galatians 3:23, which are covered in Romans 3 to 5 and Galatians 2 to 4, obtained justification via sacrificed animals if they transgressed the ten commandments (conforming to the explicit requirement of Leviticus 4:27, 5:17 and Numbers 15:22, and Paul knew it). Although everyone knows the use of animal sacrifices in ancient Israel to justify violations of the commandments, HERMENEUTICS IMPOSES (WITHOUT BASIS) that to justify these violations, the same ten commandments were followed. ¿DID THEY FIND examples in the Pentateuch of rectification of conduct without the fault being expiated or punished? This reveals a fundamental point about understanding justification in light of scripture. ¿By what means was this population that "was of the law," like Romans 4:14 and "before faith came," Galatians 3:23, justified when they transgressed the ten commandments? The hermeneutical postulate interestingly replaces sacrifices with "belief" DURING those generations, invoking the figure of Abraham, whose belief was counted to him as justice (Genesis 15:6), to affirm that they obtained justification only by obeying the ten commandments and thus facilitating attack them. ¿What person after Sinai do they take as a reference to being justified in believing to affirm that those generations practiced it? #ItIsAQuestion. How is it possible that no one notices that the post-Sinai population was NEVER justified in believing, and that this practice CANNOT be attributed to them? . Paul certainly invokes Abraham's belief as a precedent (Galatians 3:6), but he actually applies it to replace (already in Christ) the sacrifice of animals (NOT the ten commandments), since he knew that after Sinai that method was applied by breaking the commandments ("cursed is he who does NOT take refuge in a sacrifice", Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26; "I have done according to all that you have commanded me", Deuteronomy 26:14); except if Paul did not know the texts Leviticus 4:27, 5:17 and Numbers 15:22. As can be seen, Hermes' postulate lacks appropriately contextualized scriptural evidence. How, then, or with what direct texts do you imply that the Israelites did NOT receive justification through animals sacrificed for their transgressions of the ten commandments but by attending to them, this to make it seem that Paul supposedly discards them?? #ItIsAQuestion, If the genuine context means anything.
#ChristianJustification
#BeUnderGrace
#WhatIsItToBeUnderTheLaw
#LetsMakeViral 
#TenCommandments 
Seen Here:
https://incluyendoperonolimitando-blogspot-com.translate.goog/2011/04/174-que-es-estar-bajo-la-ley.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en