Jesus' commandments - opposed to His Fathers Commandments? - Really?

[1stcenturylady]

Jesus put it this way, (and later for His followers too) >>
Matthew 11:6 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me."

New Living Translation
And tell him, 'God blesses those who do not turn away because of me.'"

English Standard Version
And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.”

Berean Study Bible
Blessed is the one who does not fall away on account of Me."

from Matthew 11:6 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me."

True, but you didn't answer my question.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Romans 2 says the Holy Spirit does that.

"you go first" -- you mean you want me to quote the New Covenant first?

Yes, quote it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

True, but you didn't answer my question.

In Romans, it is written

those who DO TORAH (not just hear it (or have it memorized) )
are justified,
those who HAVE TORAH, but do not DO TORAH, are hearers only,
are not justified.

 

[ToBeLoved]

BobRyan said: ↑
The one that "includes" -- "Do not take God's name in vain" Exodus 20:7 and includes "Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5



Either-or

Or Both-AND

I choose "Both-AND"

Because that is also where James points out that what is included is dependent on "HE who Said" -- pointing that the "HE said" ALL of the LAW and thus to break on commandment is to break them all.

That is what we call the "Both AND" model.

Since we are talking about James 2 -- would you like to quote it or shall I?

What is the 'Both AND" model?

So your saying that to break one law is to break them all and sustain the punishment of sin is in the New Covenant?

Ummmmm... No it's not.

 

[ToBeLoved]

In Romans, it is written

those who DO TORAH (not just hear it (or have it memorized) )
are justified,
those who HAVE TORAH, but do not DO TORAH, are hearers only,
are not justified.

Would you please quote EXACT verses and include the Book, CHapter and verse.

 

[1stcenturylady]

In Romans, it is written

those who DO TORAH (not just hear it (or have it memorized) )
are justified,
those who HAVE TORAH, but do not DO TORAH, are hearers only,
are not justified.

I agree. Are you now criticizing me because I memorized the Ten Commandments, or justifying yourself because you haven't?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I agree. Are you now criticizing me because I memorized the Ten Commandments, or justifying yourself because you haven't?

When you make blatantly false statements , I'm not sure....

 

[1stcenturylady]

When you make blatantly false statements , I'm not sure....

What was my blatantly false statement? I asked you questions.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What was my blatantly false statement? I asked you questions.

Really? Like if I asked "Are you critizing me because I am under 100 years old, or because you are over 100 years old?"

See? Loaded question ....

 

[1stcenturylady]

Really? Like if I asked "Are you critizing me because I am under 100 years old, or because you are over 100 years old?"

See? Loaded question ....

And what type of question was this?
"Show please this word, memorized** , in Scripture .....
or
in any post in this thread,
or
possibly in any post at all on this site."

What could that possibly matter? But, even though your attitude stank, I answered you civilly.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Don't you see that if you walk in the Spirit you won't be breaking ANY moral commandment, even if you'd never memorized the OT commandments?

To get to the nitty gritty then, what was the purpose and motive of this post / question ? (if you remember)

 

[1stcenturylady]

To get to the nitty gritty then, what was the purpose and motive of this post / question ? (if you remember)

It was in answer to Bob Ryan's post #640

 

[1stcenturylady]

Romans 2 says the Holy Spirit does that.

"you go first" -- you mean you want me to quote the New Covenant first?

It was your idea.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Okay, here are the pertinent posts leading to the post in question:

(1) QUOTE="BobRyan"]
(2) QUOTE="1stcenturylady"]Yes, Bob, and John tells us what he is referring to by commandments in 1 John 3:23, "And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment." John also wrote Revelation 14:12, so we know what he is referring there as well.[/ (2) QUOTE

I think most here will agree that "do not take God's name in vain" is also included in the "not mentioned by John yet-still-valid" list.
So it is no wonder that Paul affirms the 5th commandment as still binding on all the saints in Ephesians 6:2 as another "not mentioned by John yet still valid commandment" -- that we all know about and agree to.
What is more the way Paul puts it in Eph 6:2 the entire unit of TEN - is still valid.
Even though no NT writer mentions the command to not take God's name in vain -- it is still valid.
Even though no NT writer mentions the command to "Love God with all your heart" outside of the Gospel accounts -- which were all before the cross.... yet it still is valid.
I think we have seen this same point a few dozen times by now so you are well aware of my POV on that , I was just posting it for any new readers to this forum.[/QUOTE (1)

(3) QUOTE="1stcenturylady"]Don't you see that if you walk in the Spirit you won't be breaking ANY moral commandment, even if you'd never memorized the OT commandments?[/QUOTE (3)

What does "memorized" (as asked about before)
in quote (3),
have to do with anything in (1) and (2) ?

Asking about "memorized", is pertinent, because "memorized" is not in Scripture, nor in the posts, as far as can be seen so far.
"Memorized" itself is not , per se, important, but it is the first step to understanding all of quote (3), see ?

Since you didn't answer yet, it is still 'open' to find the meaning you meant.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Okay, here are the pertinent posts leading to the post in question:

(1) QUOTE="BobRyan"]
(2) QUOTE="1stcenturylady"]Yes, Bob, and John tells us what he is referring to by commandments in 1 John 3:23, "And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment." John also wrote Revelation 14:12, so we know what he is referring there as well.[/ (2) QUOTE

I think most here will agree that "do not take God's name in vain" is also included in the "not mentioned by John yet-still-valid" list.
So it is no wonder that Paul affirms the 5th commandment as still binding on all the saints in Ephesians 6:2 as another "not mentioned by John yet still valid commandment" -- that we all know about and agree to.
What is more the way Paul puts it in Eph 6:2 the entire unit of TEN - is still valid.
Even though no NT writer mentions the command to not take God's name in vain -- it is still valid.
Even though no NT writer mentions the command to "Love God with all your heart" outside of the Gospel accounts -- which were all before the cross.... yet it still is valid.
I think we have seen this same point a few dozen times by now so you are well aware of my POV on that , I was just posting it for any new readers to this forum.[/QUOTE (1)

(3) QUOTE="1stcenturylady"]Don't you see that if you walk in the Spirit you won't be breaking ANY moral commandment, even if you'd never memorized the OT commandments?[/QUOTE (3)

What does "memorized" (as asked about before)
in quote (3),
have to do with anything in (1) and (2) ?

Asking about "memorized", is pertinent, because "memorized" is not in Scripture, nor in the posts, as far as can be seen so far.
"Memorized" itself is not , per se, important, but it is the first step to understanding all of quote (3), see ?

Since you didn't answer yet, it is still 'open' to find the meaning you meant.

What? You're grilling me because I used the word, "memorized." How funny.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What? You're grilling me because I used the word, "memorized." How funny.

Not at all - it was no grill to start with , and not meant to be now.
Simply appears that you objected to some other post, Bob Ryan's Biblical post,
but your objection has no biblical basis.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Not at all - it was no grill to start with , and not meant to be now.
Simply appears that you objected to some other post, Bob Ryan's Biblical post,
but your objection has no biblical basis.

What? Walking in the Spirit has no biblical basis?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What? Walking in the Spirit has no biblical basis?

Did I ask about walking in the Spirit? (no)

 

[1stcenturylady]

Did I ask about walking in the Spirit? (no)

You said my objection had no biblical basis...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You said my objection had no biblical basis...

Correct.
And if you had answered the question , the first post I made about that, it would probably be all cleared up long before now.