Been told

[Frogster]

go back and read my post #355.

the Lord is my Shepard (ps 23), not the law.

whooooaaa cowboy! Now you r doing to me, what u say scratch is doing!

do u feel satisfied, that each day, you meet the law's requirements, whereby u have peace?

Yes or no please, practice what u preach, and talk to me ...

 

[Frogster]

What are you running from that you think hurts you?

my oh my..who is running from the, "did Paul write rom 7, from a Christian perspective" me or u?

 

[from scratch]

Scratch, I went back and read your post 368, 398, 404 and 425. You have not explained what Gal 5:18 means...No sir...You're asking Johnrabbit to explain it for you so that you can try and chop it up. You need to explain in your own words what Gal 5:18 means!

Are you still having a problem with the definition of "under"? If one drowns then he is under the water...that might help you...

from 368 - So if I follow (observe) the law am I following the leading of the Spirit? Your verse sure seems to say the opposite. Under means subject to. It appears to me that you plainly said we're under (subject to) the law only if we're not led by the Spirit. Did I read that wrong? If the law can't convict so a sentence can be given, where is its power? To me you just said there is no penalty for violation. Why then keep/observe the law? It has no force and can do nothing.

​

from 398 -
Originally Posted by JohnRabbit

in connection with salvation, what do you think "under the law" means?
​

You obviously have missed a very improtant qualifying word with the phrase under the law. The word is not.Gal 5:3, 4 clearly states you can't have both.

you do realize that "under the law" has varying meanings, depending on it's connotation within the text?
​

What should I say? So why don't you provide some other meaning and give some examples?

from 404 -
Originally Posted by JohnRabbit

explain this verse to me.

Galatians 5:18 ( NKJV ) 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
​

I would really love to but first you must come to terms with the word under. Then maybe we could graduate to the word not.

from 425 -
Originally Posted by JohnRabbit

you guys always want me to answer, so that you can chop my answers up.

but notice that i answer.

however, you won't answer anything i ask you.

so i'm asking you again, will you explain gal 5:18?
​

Sure after you explain under to me.

Now when JohnRabbit complies with a reasonable request I will continue with Gal 5:18 and not until then. Got it?

I find it rather unreasonable that JohnRabbit demands I do anything when he refuses to respond to my posts on more than on occasion in this thread. First off it is he who has been called to explain and not me according to the OP. I owe nothing except questions and JohnRabbit owes explainations. He is the one that said I don't understand. I have been more than generous.

​

 

[YosemiteSam]

my oh my..who is running from the, "did Paul write rom 7, from a Christian perspective" me or u?

I think he wrote this when he was Islam. This was already addressed in another thread...You already know that.

 

[from scratch]

What are you running from that you think hurts you?

Just who is running? Tain't me. I already showed that.

 

[YosemiteSam]

from 368 - So if I follow (observe) the law am I following the leading of the Spirit? Your verse sure seems to say the opposite. Under means subject to. It appears to me that you plainly said we're under (subject to) the law only if we're not led by the Spirit. Did I read that wrong? If the law can't convict so a sentence can be given, where is its power? To me you just said there is no penalty for violation. Why then keep/observe the law? It has no force and can do nothing.
from 398 -
Originally Posted by JohnRabbit

in connection with salvation, what do you think "under the law" means?
​

You obviously have missed a very improtant qualifying word with the phrase under the law. The word is not.Gal 5:3, 4 clearly states you can't have both.

you do realize that "under the law" has varying meanings, depending on it's connotation within the text?
​

What should I say? So why don't you provide some other meaning and give some examples?

from 404 -
Originally Posted by JohnRabbit

explain this verse to me.

Galatians 5:18 ( NKJV ) 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
​

I would really love to but first you must come to terms with the word under. Then maybe we could graduate to the word not.

from 425 -
Originally Posted by JohnRabbit

you guys always want me to answer, so that you can chop my answers up.

but notice that i answer.

however, you won't answer anything i ask you.

so i'm asking you again, will you explain gal 5:18?
​

Sure after you explain under to me.

Now when JohnRabbit complies with a reasonable request I will continue with Gal 5:18 and not until then. Got it?

I find it rather unreasonable that JohnRabbit demands I do anything when he refuses to respond to my posts on more than on occasion in this thread. First off it is he who has been called to explain and not me according to the OP. I owe nothing except questions and JohnRabbit owes explainations. He is the one that said I don't understand. I have been more than generous.

​

Again Scratch you have not answered the question. So no, it is not unreasonable that he ask you to explain your position on this verse. You are trying to answer it from Johnrabbits perspective and not your own. So what does Gal 5:18 mean? You tell us what you think it is saying.

I also note that you said "If I". Take yourself out of it. Nobody is pointing a finger at you. Let me help you out! What does the verse say?

"But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law."

So does the verse infer that if one is not led by the spirit, then that person is under the law? I should say absolutely yes!

So you must acknowledge that it does in fact convey that message.

If you don't agree please let me know and why?

Now, please address, What law is the person, who is not led by the spirit, under?

 

[Frogster]

I think he wrote this when he was Islam. This was already addressed in another thread...You already know that.

wha??

 

[Frogster]

Again Scratch you have not answered the question. So no, it is not unreasonable that he ask you to explain your position on this verse. You are trying to answer it from Johnrabbits perspective and not your own. So what does Gal 5:18 mean? You tell us what you think it is saying.

I also note that you said "If I". Take yourself out of it. Nobody is pointing a finger at you. Let me help you out! What does the verse say?

"But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law."

So does the verse infer that if one is not led by the spirit, then that person is under the law? I should say absolutely yes!

So you must acknowledge that it does in fact convey that message.

If you don't agree please let me know and why?

Now, please address, What law is the person, who is not led by the spirit, under?

could someon plese tell me what is all this fuss about with 18? I must have missed it, please fill me in. Why do u guys think you 'got' scratch or something, seems like alot of straining over nothing.

what do u think u got here? i promise, i really don't know whatcha think u got?

where r u going with all this? What point r u trying to make?

 

[from scratch]

think about what you're saying.

i've done nothing but answer on this thread. this thread was started so that i could lay out what thought i've learned concerning the old covenant.

i have done that.

now, i ask you to explain one verse.

you said that you were interested in "truth" and based on the lambasting that you and your cohorts have given me, it would seem prudent that you explain the verse to me, since you know i don't have truth.

so, what i say will only throw us farther away from the "truth". given that, why not just explain the verse?

btw, what am i running to that benefits me?

Please read that again. I didn't say you were running to anything.

 

[JohnRabbit]

whooooaaa cowboy! Now you r doing to me, what u say scratch is doing!

do u feel satisfied, that each day, you meet the law's requirements, whereby u have peace?

Yes or no please, practice what u preach, and talk to me ...

i know that:

Romans 2:13 ( NKJV ) 13(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;

now i know that might be a hard pill for you to swallow, but that's what the bible says and you are free to say that it doesn't!

now, i can't meet the law's ( the ten commandments) requirements.


Galatians 2:20 ( NKJV ) 20I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.


but Christ in me can.

and like the verse says, "and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God".

and see this is where gal 5:18 comes in to play!

 

[JohnRabbit]

could someon plese tell me what is all this fuss about with 18? I must have missed it, please fill me in. Why do u guys think you 'got' scratch or something, seems like alot of straining over nothing.

what do u think u got here? i promise, i really don't know whatcha think u got?

where r u going with all this? What point r u trying to make?

that you don't answer questions we ask of you.

we answer your questions all the time and watch you spin and chop up our posts. i always answer you guys and you know it.

scratch made this forum up for me to come in and chat with him about the old covenant. and i have done just that.

now i ask for one verse to be explained to me and .....

i pressed because you never answer!

 

[Frogster]

i know that:

Romans 2:13 ( NKJV ) 13(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;

now i know that might be a hard pill for you to swallow, but that's what the bible says and you are free to say that it doesn't!

now, i can't meet the law's ( the ten commandments) requirements.


Galatians 2:20 ( NKJV ) 20I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.


but Christ in me can.

and like the verse says, "and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God".

and see this is where gal 5:18 comes in to play!

That was a misuse prooftext of rom 2;13, Paul would not overthrow his whole argument, he was on a diatribe, showing the hypocrisy of thejew, that is pretty much common knowledge today. He culminated in 3:20, NO ONE IS JUSTIFIED BY LAW.


Ohhhhhh...5;18..lol..us that what u guys think u got!

Dude...then why didn't he say,

"ok guys, you in the Spirit, keep Sabbath, and don't eat pork", if it was the same laws to be followed "by the Spirit"?

he told Peter he was not under jewish law, and peter wasn't either, and they were Christians! So they did not keep Mosiac law, "by the Spirit!



Paul..

12Brethren, I beg of you, become as I am [free from the bondage of Jewish ritualism and ordinances], for I also have become as you are [[e]a Gentile]. You did me no wrong in the days when I first came to you; do not do it now].


Peter..who stopped living as a jew....Moses...

14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

 

[Frogster]

that you don't answer questions we ask of you.

we answer your questions all the time and watch you spin and chop up our posts. i always answer you guys and you know it.

scratch made this forum up for me to come in and chat with him about the old covenant. and i have done just that.

now i ask for one verse to be explained to me and .....

i pressed because you never answer!

wow..i answerd your endless 5;18 question..

now, all i was doing, is asking how you feel each day,when you do or do not, keep all the laws?

I thought we would have an interesting chat, as buddies.

 

[Frogster]

Paul said,.... BY THE SPIRT, ALL FOODS ARE CLEAN, SO LETS STOP TRYING TO FUSE MOSES, AND THE NEW COV, AND ALL THOSE LAWS!

I can't believe u guys went 40 pages, acting like you had some kind of bombshell!

Fully persuaded by JESUS..JESUS...all nice and clean..that mean the new cov, does not means walk under moses! They dio not jive! Unless some weak person, some infant spirtually thinks so, as per 14;1. amd 15;1, ther weak people, not the mature...


14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.



20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.

I am totally loling at this big "bombshell" here today...luv you guys, thanks for the laugh....

 

[from scratch]

i know that:

Romans 2:13 ( NKJV ) 13(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;[

Yes that is correct. It says the doers of the law, not part time doers. IOW you can never violate the law. And indeed those folks have no need of a Mediator/Redeemer. The unfortunate thing is that no one quailfies as demonstrated by Scripture such as PS 14:3 and 53:3 among others.

now i know that might be a hard pill for you to swallow, but that's what the bible says and you are free to say that it doesn't!

Yes sir and that is the beautiful thing about the new covenant.

now, i can't meet the law's ( the ten commandments) requirements.

Great admission. Now you need a mediator and the only effective one is Jesus and not the law because Jesus replaced the law - Rom 10:4 for that very reason.

Galatians 2:20 ( NKJV ) 20I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.


but Christ in me can.[/qupte]Exactly! You can't and Jesus did that. That fact is not an ongoing process. Jesus said it is finished! - John 19:30.

and like the verse says, "and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God".

And who or rather what is it that lives - the flesh or the soul? What did Jesus offer in Mat 11:28-30? You're demanding performance of the flesh to something that no longer has jurisdiction because it has been superceded by the promised new covenant and testified to be in froce by God Himself in Mat 26:28, MK 14:24 and LK 22:20. If you know of another new covenant please tell me.

and see this is where gal 5:18 comes in to play!

And that is why you wish for the verse to read: But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are under the law. If it read that way I would have no argument. Notice the word not is missing in the way you wish it read.

 

[from scratch]

I think he wrote this when he was Islam. This was already addressed in another thread...You already know that.

What!?! Paul a Muslim? Where or where did you ever get that idea from? It isn't the Scripture.

 

[from scratch]

Again Scratch you have not answered the question. So no, it is not unreasonable that he ask you to explain your position on this verse. You are trying to answer it from Johnrabbits perspective and not your own. So what does Gal 5:18 mean? You tell us what you think it is saying.

I would appreaciate it very much if you would stop using SDA manipulative tactics on me. I grew up with manipulation and recognized it on the horizion most of the time. I'm extremely resistant and riled by the tactic. One of the things you are communitcating to me is that I didn't say what you want me to say and didn't like my answer. You and JohnRabbit do what you accuse me of all the time. You surely are the pot calling the kettle black.

I also note that you said "If I". Take yourself out of it. Nobody is pointing a finger at you. Let me help you out! What does the verse say?

Yes if I take myself out of it, what should I replace me with - Ellen Garmon White? Surely you're thinly vailed.

"But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law."

So does the verse infer that if one is not led by the spirit, then that person is under the law? I should say absolutely yes!

You argue for me very well and there is no need of me explaining the verse. You just showed that you understand it perfectly.

So you must acknowledge that it does in fact convey that message.

I can read. Consider these two versions of the verse:
version 1 - "But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law."


version 2 - "But if you are led by the spirit, you are under the law."

I think you read the second version. A common problem. And you need it to read that way to support you idea that Christians are obligated to the law. If it read that way I would not be asking about the word under which JohnRabbit said has other meanings and refuses to to provide them and examples so I can see what he means. He is acting more like his shoe size than his poted age.



If you don't agree please let me know and why?

Now, please address, What law is the person, who is not led by the spirit, under?[/quote]

 

[from scratch]

i know that:

Romans 2:13 ( NKJV ) 13(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;

now i know that might be a hard pill for you to swallow, but that's what the bible says and you are free to say that it doesn't!

now, i can't meet the law's ( the ten commandments) requirements.

Why then do you demand we follow the law?

Galatians 2:20 ( NKJV ) 20I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.


but Christ in me can.

and like the verse says, "and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God".

You in no way follow completely Jesus as you claim in following the law. You have sinned - The Bible says so - and Jesus didn't sin. You therefore aren't following Jesus foot steps. This isn't a best you can do thing. If your righteousness isn't better than the scribes and paharisees you won't make the grade. Where did the scribes and pharisees get their righteousness from? Clue - It wasn't Jesus. You also can't redeem yourself and are dependant on Jesus for redemption.

and see this is where gal 5:18 comes in to play!

Yes but it doesn't say what you wish it to say.

 

[from scratch]

that you don't answer questions we ask of you.

we answer your questions all the time and watch you spin and chop up our posts. i always answer you guys and you know it.

scratch made this forum up for me to come in and chat with him about the old covenant. and i have done just that.

now i ask for one verse to be explained to me and .....

i pressed because you never answer!

No, no Scratch made this thread for JohnRabbit to show what I don't understand about the first covenant. So far you're lacking. I completely understand the material you presented. What you now need to do is show how the Christian is obligated to a has been per Jer 31:31-34 and Jesus' testimony presented in Mat 26:28, MK 14:24 and LK 22:20. You need to prove that the 10 commandments aren't the first covenant and not part of the law. Both James and Paul explicitly say the 10 commandments are the law - James 2:10,11 and Romans 7:7. Deut 4:13 explicitly claims the 10 commandments as the covenant.

You need to get by Romans 6:14, 15; 7:6; 10:4; II Cor 3:7; Gal 3:17,19; 4:30; LK 16:16; 24:44; 22:20; MK 14:24; Mat 26:28; Jer 31:31-34; Hosea 2:11; Heb 7:12; Mat 11:28-30; Deut 5:1-5. That should keep you busy for a month of Sundays er Sabbaths. Then we can start with Acts and some of John, a little of Corithians, even some Revelation. Scripture and history is stacked in my favor.

 

[from scratch]

that you don't answer questions we ask of you.

we answer your questions all the time and watch you spin and chop up our posts. i always answer you guys and you know it.

scratch made this forum up for me to come in and chat with him about the old covenant. and i have done just that.

now i ask for one verse to be explained to me and .....

i pressed because you never answer!

I don't think it is so much chopping up your posts as it is filling huge gapping holes in your argument. If our filler didn't plug them you would easily diuscinigrate them to nothing. So get busy and stop whinning. Only children whine and throw tantrums.