IF THE LAW OF MOSES WAS SET ASIDE , WHY ROM 13:9?

[daq]

Do you mean the meaning that not following all of Torah is lawlessness?

In the statement you quoted I was speaking of the same thing LGW just did again in a post above, this one:

Sure they do. Their application are to law. Any type of law, all law. The context of our discussion is to your claims that God's 10 commandments are abolished which is a teaching of lawlessness (without law or no law).

The meaning has been clarified by what was placed in the brackets, "(without law or no law)."

 

[LoveGodsWord]

In the statement you quoted I was speaking of the same thing LGW just did again in a post above, this one: The meaning has been clarified by what was placed in the brackets, "(without law or no law)."

Thanks daq, I am happy others beside @SabbathBlessings can see this as I have stated this all through my posts and discussions for clarification. I can understand why some are seeking to change the topic though into something no one is talking about.

 

[Leaf473]

Nope your trying to change the discussion into something I have never been talking about. I have defined my use of lawlessness (without law) in application to those who teach that Gods' 10 commandments have been abolished in application to God's 10 commandments being abolished from the beginning of my posts all through my discussions. You are trying to change the discussion into something no one is talking about. Like I said earlier I can understand why.

If different definitions were being used, then it seems to me like a good idea to bring that forward.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

If different definitions were being used, then it seems to me like a good idea to bring that forward.

Which was done from the very beginning in nearly every post. If you followed my discussions, like you claim you do you would see and know this. Perhaps you did not pay attention to what I was saying and missed it.

 

[daq]

It means "word"--not speech, thought, will, etc.--in both Scripture and in Greek.
If it has more than one meaning, context makes clear which one is intended, just as with all Greek words in Scripture.

One of the primary definitions of logos is reason in the sense of reasoning, (not a reason but thought, reasoning), and from that, the reasoning put into (a collection or grouping of) words: that's why it is used in John 1:1 and that's why Paul calls the Messiah the Power of God and the Wisdom of God in 1 Corinthians 1:24.

Elsewhere Paul also identifies the "mind of Messiah" as the same and therefore exhorts the reader "to put on Messiah" or "put on Christ". And how is this done? Only by way of prayerful study in the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts with an open and willing heart: and it is the Logos-Reasoning therein which converts the hearer, not the letter but the logos-reasoning within the contexts and sayings, for therein is the mind and Wisdom of God.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 3056: λόγος
λόγος, λόγου, ὁ (λέγω) (from Homer down), the Sept. especially for דָּבָר, also for אֹמֶר and מִלָּה; properly, a collecting, collection (see λέγω) — and that, as well of those things which are put together in thought, as of those which, having been thought i. e. gathered together in the mind, are expressed in words. Accordingly, a twofold use of the term is to be distinguished: one which relates to speaking, and one which relates to thinking.
Strong's Greek: 3056. λόγος (logos) -- a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech

 

[Leaf473]

Nothing to do with my application of the English word application to lawlessness in those talking in English making claims that Gods' 10 commandments have been abolished. Your trying to change the discussion topic and I can understand why because you believe God's 10 commandments have been abolished which is a teaching of lawlessness

@SabbathBlessings and I were discussing the Greek word "anomía" and its use in 1 John 3:4. That's where post #257 comes in.

 

[daq]

Thanks daq, I am happy others beside @SabbathBlessings can see this as I have stated this all through my posts and discussions for clarification. I can understand why some are seeking to change the topic though into something no one is talking about.

I have seen you do it so many times now, and not just here in this thread but in many threads for a good while now, that I have no doubt others see it too.

 

[Leaf473]

In the statement you quoted I was speaking of the same thing LGW just did again in a post above, this one:



The meaning has been clarified by what was placed in the brackets, "(without law or no law)."

Certainly you can give a specific definition to a word or phrase. What would you suggest doing if the other person doesn't seem to be using the same definition?

Would you agree that if people aren't using the same definitions it tends to impede the discussion? What would you suggest doing to make things move forward, especially towards an edifying discussion?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

@SabbathBlessings and I were discussing the Greek word "anomía" and its use in 1 John 3:4. That's where post #257 comes in.

Yes I saw this but it does not have anything to do with what I was talking about and my English word use and application of lawlessness to those teaching that Gods' 10 commandments have been abolished under the new covenant which is a false teaching of lawlessness.

 

[Leaf473]

Which was done from the very beginning in nearly every post. If you followed my discussions, like you claim you do you would see and know this. Perhaps you did not pay attention to what I was saying and missed it.

You may have been stating your definition again and again, are you sure that the people you were talking to were using that same definition?

 

[Leaf473]

Yes I saw this but it does not have anything to do with what I was talking about and my English word use and application of lawlessness to those teaching that Gods' 10 commandments have been abolished under the new covenant which is a false teaching of lawlessness.

That's okay, there can be more than one discussion taking place on the same thread.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I have seen you do it so many times now, and not just here in this thread but in many threads for a good while now, that I have no doubt others see it too.

Thanks daq. I appreciate your comments. I try to add the clarification on purpose as I know if I do not there will be wiggle room for those seeking to change the topic either on purpose or by not understanding what is being written.

God bless

 

[daq]

Certainly you can give a specific definition to a word or phrase. What would you suggest doing if the other person doesn't seem to be using the same definition?

Would you agree that if people aren't using the same definitions it tends to impede the discussion? What would you suggest doing to make things move forward, especially towards an edifying discussion?

At this point I would suggest that you have two choices: either believe the definition that the poster has offered as the definition intended, or call out the poster and accuse the poster of lying. The choice is all yours.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

That's okay, there can be more than one discussion taking place on the same thread.

Sure but the way I saw it and the timing seemed to be of the view to change the topic into something not being discussed in order to try and counter my application to the English use of the word lawlessness (without law or no law) to those promoting Gods 10 commandments have been abolished. Which is an unbiblical false teaching unsupported by the scriptures.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You may have been stating your definition again and again, are you sure that the people you were talking to were using that same definition?

I gave the definition and application from the beginning in nearly every posts I used it in. There was no need to think I am talking about anything differently. I include yourself in this statement as it is a misrepresentation of what I am saying and seeking to change the discussion into something I was never talking about.

 

[Leaf473]

At this point I would suggest that you have two choices: either believe the definition that the poster has offered as the definition intended, or call out the poster and accuse the poster of lying. The choice is all yours.

I would suggest arriving at a definition that is acceptable to both.

If such a definition can't be arrived at and unique definitions have to be used, I think it's very important that all parties be aware that unique definitions are being used.

That can help avoid angry exchanges imo.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I would suggest arriving at a definition that is acceptable to both.

If such a definition can't be arrived at and unique definitions have to be used, I think it's very important that all parties be aware that unique definitions are being used.

That can help avoid angry exchanges imo.

I would suggest taking the time to read what others are saying and don't pretend people are saying things they are not while pretending that they are even after clarification is given (strawman).

 

[Leaf473]

Sure but the way I saw it and the timing seemed to be of the view to change the topic into something not being discussed in order to try and counter my application to the English use of the word lawlessness (without law or no law) to those promoting Gods 10 commandments have been abolished. Which is an unbiblical false teaching unsupported by the scriptures.

I certainly don't see it that way, and no, I wasn't intending to derail your topic.

@SabbathBlessings and I were discussing the Greek word anomía and its use in 1 John 3:4.

I noted that the word "law" does not appear in the verse, though the King James makes it appear as though it does.

 

[Leaf473]

I gave the definition and application from the beginning in nearly every posts I used it in. There was no need to think I am talking about anything differently. I include yourself in this statement as it is a misrepresentation of what I am saying and seeking to change the discussion into something I was never talking about.

A person can say something again and again, it doesn't mean other people understand what they're saying.

A good way to check that out is to ask them to say back to you in their own words what they think you mean.

 

[Leaf473]

I would suggest taking the time to read what others are saying and don't pretend people are saying things they are not while pretending that they are even after clarification is given (strawman).

I agree 100%!