Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Studyman]

I am just explaining to you politely, since you don't seem to get it.

Why do you even think I was calling you a name?

Thanks. I personally don't think ignoring most of a post sent to me is polite. Since I don't like it when men do this to me, I don't do it to them. But to each their own.

I am glad you asked me this question. I think you called me a name, for the same reason the mainstream preachers of Jesus Time called Him names when HE quoted the Law and Prophets to them, and they also refused to acknowledge or discuss them with Him. After all, the Pharisees had already adopted the interpretations of Gamaliel and were not really interested in what the Law and Prophets actually said, especially if they brought question to their long held religious doctrines and traditions.

Again, thanks for asking.

 

[Leaf473]

Obviously, the Jesus of the Bible doesn't share your views regarding fewer words.

Jesus didn't put every word in a single sermon

Matt. 4: 4 It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

And neither does Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

You are right about one thing though. It's much easier to pick and choose a few words of scripture for instruction, than to consider all that is written. That's what the mainstream religions of Jesus' Time did. The Jesus of the Bible said though, " these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

I'm not ashamed that I believe all that is written.

 

[Gary K]

Jesus didn't put every word in a single sermon

Studyman is well capable of answering for himself but I have a comment to make.

So? What exactly does that mean? Does everyone talk nonstop? Does everyone say everything at one time? No. Everyone says what they have to say at the moment and then shuts up.

 

[Leaf473]

Studyman is well capable of answering for himself but I have a comment to make.

So? What exactly does that mean?

It means that in a discussion limited to short posts, our minds are less able to hide behind walls of words, and we have to face our blind spots

Does everyone talk nonstop? Does everyone say everything at one time? No. Everyone says what they have to say at the moment and then shuts up.

 

[Gary K]

It means that in a discussion limited to short posts, our minds are less able to hide behind walls of words, and we have to face our blind spots

Oh, so I'm someone who writes long posts? That's why you have to ask so many questions to clarify the many points I make my very long posts?

 

[Leaf473]

Oh, so I'm someone who writes long posts?

No, neither #1,100 nor #1,103 is addressed to you. It's fine if you want to respond to them but they're not about you.

That's why you have to ask so many questions to clarify the many points I make my very long posts?

No, I ask a lot of questions because it's a good way to keep a discussion going and to learn what other people are saying

 

[Gary K]

No, neither #1,100 nor #1,103 is addressed to you. It's fine if you want to respond to them but they're not about you.


No, I ask a lot of questions because it's a good way to keep a discussion going and to learn what other people are saying

I know.

 

[Guojing]

That's how it is with us humans, isn't it? We all have blind spots, but of course we can't see them... That's why they're called blind spots

From his responses, he is not even considering that as a blind spot.

 

[Guojing]

Thanks. I personally don't think ignoring most of a post sent to me is polite. Since I don't like it when men do this to me, I don't do it to them. But to each their own.

But when I respond to your posts, you merely brushed it off, and repeatedly said "That is your opinion/interpretation".

And you repeat your own personal interpretation towards those verses, especially regarding Romans 2:28-29, even though I already shared with you that we interpret those 2 verses differently.

But, as I reminded you, you kept replying with "This is what the Bible says, you are disagreeing with Paul" etc.

Do you actually think you are being polite there? Do you think your readers would like you doing this to them?

 

[Gary K]

But when I respond to your posts, you merely brushed it off, and repeatedly said "That is your opinion/interpretation".

And you repeat your own personal interpretation towards those verses, especially regarding Romans 2:28-29, even though I already shared with you that we interpret those 2 verses differently.

But, as I reminded you, you kept replying with "This is what the Bible says, you are disagreeing with Paul" etc.

Do you actually think you are being polite there? Do you think your readers would like you doing this to them?

Sorry, but Studyman interprets scripture exactly as it is written. You're the one who responds with your own ideas and ignores the scripture he quotes.

 

[Studyman]

But when I respond to your posts, you merely brushed it off, and repeatedly said "That is your opinion/interpretation".

An actual review of our conversation will reveal another reality. I never "Brushed off" any of the doctrines you openly promoted on this forum. I posted detailed explanations as to why I saw the Bible as disagreeing with you, and asked you many questions, most of which you brushed off. So a review of our discourse will show it was you who "brushed off" what was shown to you. Not just be me, but others as well.

There is a psychological phenomenon practiced by many called "Projection". It's when a person "projects" the unsavory characteristics they possess, unto others with whom they disagree. In this case, you have accused others of "Egocentric bias" and "Brushing off" your interpretations.

When it appears, after a reviews of posts, that you are the one who possesses these characteristics.

Whereas I am being accused of responding in a disagreement of Doctrine with too long of detailed replies with scriptural evidence and questions giving a detailed reason why I believe the Scriptures disagree.

That isn't "brushing off" your adopted interpretations.

And you repeat your own personal interpretation towards those verses, especially regarding Romans 2:28-29, even though I already shared with you that we interpret those 2 verses differently.

I posted many Holy Scriptures that I believe contributes to my understanding of Paul's interpretation of the Law and Prophets that he gave us in Romans 2 regarding what circumcision is and what a Jew is. And hoped for a discussion of them. You refused to discuss them.

You provided an internet video from a random preacher.

I'm ok with that, you can do as you please. But be honest about what transpired here, please.

But, as I reminded you, you kept replying with "This is what the Bible says, you are disagreeing with Paul" etc.

Yes, I believe what the Bible actually says and what Paul actually says is more trustworthy than random U-tube videos on the internet.

That is why I posted so many scriptures that say the same thing, in an attempt to discuss them. But it takes two. I was willing, you are not.

I'm OK with that.

Do you actually think you are being polite there? Do you think your readers would like you doing this to them?

Words like "polite" and "good" are subjective. Having a lively debate regarding adopted interpretation of scriptures is "Good". Refusing to consider what is written, so as to preserve popular tradition, is not so good. In my view.

And remember, you asked me. And I responded in detail. I didn't blow your question off like you did so many of mine.

You will, of course, demand the last word. And you can have it.

By my friend.

 

[Studyman]

No. I'm not mad at you any more than you're mad at that dispensationalist guy. All I did was ask you if you had actually studied SDA beliefs or had taken other people's word for what they supposed us to believe. There is just as much disinformation, or more, spread around on the internet about SDAs as there is here about the Sabbath.

I truly had no idea you had adopted the SDA religion. Perhaps I should have looked at your profile earlier. I meant no disrespect to you personally, but I have a fundamental problem with this world's wealthy religious corporations. They, like the LDS, and several catholic sects, have worked 24/7 for years to build and promote their religious business around the world. I can even invest is bonds and stocks through SDA GC initiatives. And the Catholic church has their own investment site, "Global X S&P 500 Catholic Values ETF (CATH)"

I'm sorry Gary, Although I love you, I cannot accept that I must first become a member of one of these religious corporation of this world I was born into, to know God or His Son. There is a fundamental disconnect between the Body of Christ, as defined in the Holy Scriptures, and the religious corporations of this world today that profess to know Him.

As to your question, YES! I have spent countless hours in discussions with SDA preachers, and in the writings of William Miller and the teaching and prophesies of Ellen White.

I won't engage with you about them but will continue in biblical discussions seeking the truth of Scriptures, in the hopes that someday, you too, will "Come out of her".

 

[Gary K]

I truly had no idea you had adopted the SDA religion. Perhaps I should have looked at your profile earlier. I meant no disrespect to you personally, but I have a fundamental problem with this world's wealthy religious corporations. They, like the LDS, and several catholic sects, have worked 24/7 for years to build and promote their religious business around the world. I can even invest is bonds and stocks through SDA GC initiatives. And the Catholic church has their own investment site, "Global X S&P 500 Catholic Values ETF (CATH)"

I'm sorry Gary, Although I love you, I cannot accept that I must first become a member of one of these religious corporation of this world I was born into, to know God or His Son. There is a fundamental disconnect between the Body of Christ, as defined in the Holy Scriptures, and the religious corporations of this world today that profess to know Him.

As to your question, YES! I have spent countless hours in discussions with SDA preachers, and in the writings of William Miller and the teaching and prophesies of Ellen White.

I won't engage with you about them but will continue in biblical discussions seeking the truth of Scriptures, in the hopes that someday, you too, will "Come out of her".

No problem. Our General conference and some of our local conferences are corrupt. I know that very well, but have no where else to go as I will never find another church that believe the Biblical truths that are encapsulated in SDA doctrines. We used to be the "people of the book", but we have become corrupted by the devil. What Peter said is very true. Our adversary the devil goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may destroy.

The end times are upon us and we don't have much time left on this old sinful world.

 

[Guojing]

I posted many Holy Scriptures that I believe contributes to my understanding of Paul's interpretation of the Law and Prophets that he gave us in Romans 2 regarding what circumcision is and what a Jew is. And hoped for a discussion of them. You refused to discuss them.

You provided an internet video from a random preacher.

I'm ok with that, you can do as you please. But be honest about what transpired here, please.

That video was actually in response to Leaf473's discussion with me, and was not even directed to you.

Of course you have to be okay with that, since you jumped in and commented on it.

So likewise, you are projecting your own dishonesty onto me

 

[Guojing]

Sorry, but Studyman interprets scripture exactly as it is written. You're the one who responds with your own ideas and ignores the scripture he quotes.

Naturally, when you agree with someone's interpretation, you will think he is interpreting "exactly as it is written".

We always view ourselves as the protagonist in our own private movie.

 

[Gary K]

Naturally, when you agree with someone's interpretation, you will think he is interpreting "exactly as it is written".

We always view ourselves as the protagonist in our own private movie.

Sorry, but I've been wrong before on major spiritual issues such as the nature of Christ. Not all of us believe we can never be wrong. Being wrong on that issue causes a person to reexamine and change most of their beliefs.

 

[Guojing]

Sorry, but I've been wrong before on major spiritual issues such as the nature of Christ. Not all of us believe we can never be wrong. Being wrong on that issue causes a person to reexamine and change most of their beliefs.

I never said you are never wrong, if you have read my post carefully.

I am saying when you agree with someone's interpretation, you will think he is interpreting "exactly as it is written".

 

[Gary K]

I never said you are never wrong, if you have read my post carefully.

I am saying when you agree with someone's interpretation, you will think he is interpreting "exactly as it is written".

I know what you said.

Naturally, when you agree with someone's interpretation, you will think he is interpreting "exactly as it is written".

We always view ourselves as the protagonist in our own private movie.

Not all of us. We all don't see things that way.

 

[Guojing]

Not all of us. We all don't see things that way.

As in you don't see yourself as a protagonist in your own life?

That is interesting if its true.

 

[Gary K]

As in you don't see yourself as a protagonist in your own life?

That is interesting if its true.

Odd how you keep changing your own statement.

Naturally, when you agree with someone's interpretation, you will think he is interpreting "exactly as it is written".

We always view ourselves as the protagonist in our own private movie.