Amos 3:7, the New Testament & the Commandments

[bugkiller]

Who is saying it's "OKAY"?

I have asked that often. Never got an answer yet.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Nothing in the OT is from Jesus as the Gospel of John indicates even by quote of Jesus.

Jn 1:17 and 15:10 are greats verses from John on this.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

So God and Jesus are not one? They do not agree with eachother? The Son is in the Father and we are in the Son.

God the Father is not God the Son. God the Father endorses the commandments of His only begotten Son Jesus in I Jn 3:23. Jesus gives commandments which are not the Father's commandments proved with the comparative statement of Jn 15:10.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

To help understand or clarify this idea ^^^^^^^^
what group, teacher, or church teaches this ?

You seem to be asking what group of people you need to put down. Both listed and I draw our ideas from the Bible. You say the same thing. Why then are you not engaging our passages with discussion specifically about them?

If your response was to Bob S I would have said Bob S. I think Bob S is more less in the same boat as listed and me.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I am pondering how we are reading the same thing and it is perplexing me how we see it so different. I know these verses have been posted possibly a million times on the Sabbath/law forum.

If you don't mind me asking. What is your beef with people who keep God's law? Is it a bad thing to teach and to keep it? Why are you and others so focused on teaching that they have been done away with? What is your objective by teaching others to not keep God's commandments ?

Why are you taking this personal? Maybe I should ask what is your beef with people who follow Jesus?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Amein, this especially: where or when did God ever tell His children to be disobedient ?

Who is telling God's children to be disobedient?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I am just so confused why they just don't see what the context says. Do they honestly see something totally different than we do? It is so clear in scripture. The meaning of these verses, within the verse itself, have been bolded, put in red, all caps, repeated over and over and they are still constantly being debated. Why? I do not understand

Yes indeed we do because words have meaning.

bugkiller

 

[1John2:4]

Why are you taking this personal? Maybe I should ask what is your beef with people who follow Jesus?

bugkiller

Don't have any beef with folks following Jesus. Will you answer my questions?

 

[bugkiller]

Yes. It seems so anyway. "Talking it out" with those who do not see something totally different than we do is not usually possible on internet forums - just barely at times, in the best of times.

Yes, but nothing is "so clear" to everyone. Again, unable online to go into depth in this direction, except for a few rare(it seems) times.


Maybe, maybe not. As it is written (the explanation from YHWH in HIS WORD), and

" Then opened HE their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,"

and

1 Corinthians 2:13Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

13 These are the things we are talking about when we avoid the manner of speaking that human wisdom would dictate and instead use a manner of speaking taught by the Spirit, by which we explain things of the Spirit to people who have the Spirit.

What exactly do you want to talk out? Is it really you want others to take your ideas as their own? There is no real conversation to be found in these forums.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Don't have any beef with folks following Jesus. Will you answer my questions?

I see. It is your way or the highway. I'll take the High Way, thanks.

bugkiller

 

[1John2:4]

I see. It is your way or the highway. I'll take the High Way, thanks.

bugkiller

Ok, or don't answer the question.

 

[bugkiller]

Again fullfill is taken out of context, if you read the context clues He says "do not THINK I have come to distroy the Law and the Prophets" how can you miss that part?

Your real issue with the verse is heaven and earth are still here. You totally dismiss the conditional word in the verse. This condition is fully revealed in LK 24:44. But then you will only say I have taken that out of context as well. Oh well as they say.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Don't have any beef with folks following Jesus. Will you answer my questions?

As soon as you explain how "not according to" means "the same as."

bugkiller

 

[1John2:4]

Your real issue with the verse is heaven and earth are still here. You totally dismiss the conditional word in the verse. This condition is fully revealed in LK 24:44. But then you will only say I have taken that out of context as well. Oh well as they say.

bugkiller

I think we have been over this before. I will break it down again.

Context clues
1. Do not think I have come to distroy
2. Until heaven and Earth pass nothing is removed
3. Those that teach contrary are least.

 

[1John2:4]

As soon as you explain how "not according to" means "the same as."

bugkiller

All ready been over this- it's where the law is put, it says it in the context. His law on our inward parts.

Please answer my other question, what is your objective for teaching against God's law? What do you hope to gain?

 

[bugkiller]

I think we have been over this before. I will break it down again.

Context clues
1. Do not think I have come to distroy
2. Until heaven and Earth pass nothing is removed
3. Those that teach contrary are least.

Who said Jesus came to destroy the law? No pro gracer that posts here. It is the concoction of the pro law group.

As mentioned point 2 has a conditional qualifier clarified in Lk 24:44.

Who care care about position in heaven? Vanity is sin and there will be no sin in heaven. Jesus is talking to those under (obligated to) the law. At the time Jesus spoke those words those He spoke to were fully obligated to the law just like Him.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

All ready been over this- it's where the law is put, it says it in the context. His law on our inward parts.

Please answer my other question, what is your objective for teaching against God's law? What do you hope to gain?

Your position is the law is the covenant issued to Israel at Sinai. Verse 32 fully denies this. It is the middle part of a sentence. In English we can have only one subject per sentence. The subject can be compound. That requires an inclusive conjunction. There is no such in the three verses of contention.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

All ready been over this- it's where the law is put, it says it in the context. His law on our inward parts.

Please answer my other question, what is your objective for teaching against God's law? What do you hope to gain?

The answer to your other question is I Jn 3:23. No one here is teaching against the commandments in that they are teaching other to murder etc.

Your personal problem is the disbelief of Jere 31:31-33 to justify your position of being required to keep the law for salvation. It does not matter if you claim keeping the law is required for salvation or if it is because you love God. If one does not keep the law in your eyes they are sinning, that is unjustified. Being unjustified means no salvation. It does no good to quote the inspired Word of God because it is summarily dismissed.

bugkiller

 

[1John2:4]

Your position is the law is the covenant issued to Israel at Sinai. Verse 32 fully denies this. It is the middle part of a sentence. In English we can have only one subject per sentence. The subject can be compound. That requires an inclusive conjunction. There is no such in the three verses of contention.

bugkiller

Nvmd

 

[1John2:4]

Your position is the law is the covenant issued to Israel at Sinai. Verse 32 fully denies this. It is the middle part of a sentence. In English we can have only one subject per sentence. The subject can be compound. That requires an inclusive conjunction. There is no such in the three verses of contention.

bugkiller

And your position is to take 32 out of the context of the passage and use it to determine your own interpretation by ignoring the surrounding sentences which provide the CONTEXT of the subject at hand.