Why are you just using part of a verse you often quote? And why are you refusing to discuss the context of my passage quote?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why are you just using part of a verse you often quote? And why are you refusing to discuss the context of my passage quote?First commandment - where?
I counted five commandments from the ten commandments, not six. Loving your neighbor, is not a commandment listed in the ten commandments.
I will agree with your answer on this one.
Though I struggle deeply with your loose interpretation, and your absolute disregard of the law.
Indeed as well the rich young ruler was putting his riches before God also breaking the first.
You continue to keep cherry picking and divorcing this verse from the context or general discussion Paul presents. Here is the whole deal:
6 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
2 Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;
Why are you just using part of a verse you often quote? And why are you refusing to discuss the context of my passage quote?
Why are you quoting this passage? I take it as either condemning or gloating. The gloating is your claim to keep the ten commandments. John no where talks about keeping them. Quote a few texts have been quoted to you proving this and have been rejected.Given this --
Rev 14:12
- "The saints keep the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus
Same for the 2 above out of context quotes you mean to mean the ten commandments. I don't understand where you get that idea. Do you have some support for it?1 John 5:2-3
- "2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and a]">[a]observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome."
Matthew 19
- Christ said "Keep the commandments" and is asked "which ones" -- then Christ gives the same list we see Paul giving in Romans 13 -- quoting from the TEN Commandments
Great question from Paul. Why would you post it?===============================================
Let's Read Galatians 4:
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?
But that isn't what you promote. You require the keeping of the law for salvation. Keeping the law is being under (controlled by) the law.In Romans 3:19-21 Paul already defined his use of the phrase "Under the Law"
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
This passage doesn't define sin. It also doesn't leave the idea of obligation. Your idea is sin is only violation of the law. But Paul says: sin was in the world before the law in 5:13. That's Romans in case you want to argue you don't know where. The verse you base your premise on is 1 John 3:4 in which you only quote half ignoring a small word "also" which disallows for your opinion of only. The law came about because of sin (Galatians 3:19). So Romans 5:13 is supported as truth right along with the whole verse of 1 John 3:4.Paul makes the case that the Law is still binding
And it defines what sin is.
And it condemns all mankind - showing that all need salvation... need the Gospel for "All have sinned" Rom 3:23
You're trying to say no Jews attended the church of Galatia. How when Paul preached to the Jew first? How when the Jews followed Paul everywhere causing trouble. How when Paul says plainly false brethren sneaked in?The church in Galatia is a gentile church - not a Jewish one.
Unqualified premise as I showed above.And why is Paul accusing a gentile church of this?
Why does Paul think the gentiles of Galatia want to be "under the Law"?
Circumcision, a sin? What a laugh. I read the whole law. What Paul says if you keep any of the law for salvation you must keep all the law for salvation. Jesus also says the same thing to the man asking what must I do in Matthew 19. Jesus shows without doubt no one can. It has to be the reason the man left sorrowfully.Here Paul is expanding on what He thinks of certain Gentiles in Galatia
Gal 5
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
Back to Romans 3
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Why does Paul think the gentiles in Galatia are guilty of this?
ANSWER:
Gal 5
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
Ah-hah -- is that the great sin of the gentiles in Galatia??
In-other-words keeping the law doesn't matter. Now quote your favorite out of context partial verse from Corinthians.Nope. Paul requires that Timothy be circumcised
Acts 16
a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.
Gal 5 - whether you are circumcised or not - does not matter.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
Ah you did. Circumcision is part of the law and as such is required of all Jews. So circumcision does matter if one keeps any of the law for salvation.1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping of the commandments of God.
This is exactly the same reason you want others to keep the sabbath.Repeatedly Paul teaches that while it is true that it does not matter if one is circumcised or not - yet when the gentiles in Galatia do it -- they are "fallen from grace" and "severed from Christ". Gal 5:4
Why?
Because they are doing it as a "sign" that they wish to be "justified by law" Gal 5:4
You won't quote verse 5.Where did the GENTILES in Galatia get that idea if not from Paul?
Answer: a certain small contingent of Christian Jews from Judea
Acts 15:1
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
They simply made that idea up -- no OT or NT scripture required it. The Christian gentiles in Galatia were giving in to Jewish practice of "making stuff up" and setting their own tradition = the Bible.
Half truths with a distraction. The allegory indicates the law has nothing to do with salvation and to sever one's self from it.Gal 4
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic.
- Paul now tells the reader he is switching over from real-life-literal to "symbolic".
- In real life it is the children of Isaac son of Sarah that gather at Sinai - not the children Ishmael son of Hagar.
So this is not Paul claiming that Moses and Elijah who stand "with Christ" in Matthew 17 - in glory-- are standing in opposition to Christ, opposition to Grace, opposition to the Gospel.
What is different from what you do? You teach keeping the law is required because unless you do you can't have salvation.Gal 4
For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—
Paul argues that in rejecting the Messiah -- The non-Christian Jews (as well as Christian Jews that choose to "make stuff up" place tradition above the Bible) -- and by symbol - Jerusalem as their capital - stand in opposition to the Gospel - as a counterfeit to it - just as Hagar and Ishmael represented a counterfeit to the promise - that was to come through Sarah's son Isaac.
"Jerusalem above isn't the law or Jerusalem in the middle east.Gal 4
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Jerusalem above "is mother of us all" - of both Christian gentiles and Christian Jews. Our "heritage" our "national and family identity" is united in the "Jerusalem above" which was in heaven at the time of Sinai and still is to this very day.
Jews served the law as evidenced in Acts 15:5.Paul is taking away the "heritage problem" that he brings up in Gal 4
8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods.
That was the gentile pagan "heritage" and that is apparently what the Christian Jews promoting circumcision of gentiles were selling them - a "deal" for getting rid of their pagan heritage by identifying with literal Jews or by egaging in other forms of syncretism
Weak and beggarly elements are the law as Paul demonstrates in more than one of his letters.9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.
My previous post stands on this.Gal 4
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now
Indeed - Christians were being persecuted by non-Christian Jews from Judea
Exactly what the Jews were doing as the council at Jerusalem was about. The demand was fully rejected by the Apostles.=========================================
Which said that Christians were being persecuted by non-Christian Jews. An irrefutable fact of history as we see in the NT. In theory - we both agree to it.
As proof that Paul was not condemning the fact that Jews were being circumcised -- and in Acts 21 he specifically denies that he is telling Jews not to circumcise their children when they convert to Christianity.
And your point on this is??
My claim is that the text says Jesus said "Keep the Commandments" and when asked "Which ones" Jesus proceeded to quote from the TEN
And that is...And your point on this is?? (I am pretty sure you are not about to blame me for what Jesus said)
Paul doesn't say keep the law demonstrated in chapters 5, 6 and 7 as well as Galatians.Paul says to do the same thing that Jesus said to do in Matthew 19 when writing Romans 13 -- exact same list - that Paul says "We" are to "fulfill". You new that right?
No. Paul isn't contrasting the wicked and saints in 8.[/quote]In Romans 8:4-10 Paul says that the wicked who are not born-again are in contrast to the saints - in that wicked "do not submit to the law of God neither indeed CAN they" -- we have seen this a few dozen times as well - right?
Given this --
Rev 14:12
- "The saints keep the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus
1 John 5:2-3
- "2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and a]">[a]observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome."
Matthew 19
- Christ said "Keep the commandments" and is asked "which ones" -- then Christ gives the same list we see Paul giving in Romans 13 -- quoting from the TEN Commandments
===============================================
Let's Read Galatians 4:
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?
In Romans 3:19-21 Paul already defined his use of the phrase "Under the Law"
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Paul makes the case that the Law is still binding
And it defines what sin is.
And it condemns all mankind - showing that all need salvation... need the Gospel for "All have sinned" Rom 3:23
The church in Galatia is a gentile church - not a Jewish one.
And why is Paul accusing a gentile church of this?
Why does Paul think the gentiles of Galatia want to be "under the Law"?
Here Paul is expanding on what He thinks of certain Gentiles in Galatia
Gal 5
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
Back to Romans 3
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Why does Paul think the gentiles in Galatia are guilty of this?
ANSWER:
Gal 5
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
Ah-hah -- is that the great sin of the gentiles in Galatia??
Nope. Paul requires that Timothy be circumcised
Acts 16
a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.
Gal 5 - whether you are circumcised or not - does not matter.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping of the commandments of God.
Repeatedly Paul teaches that while it is true that it does not matter if one is circumcised or not - yet when the gentiles in Galatia do it -- they are "fallen from grace" and "severed from Christ". Gal 5:4
Why?
Because they are doing it as a "sign" that they wish to be "justified by law" Gal 5:4
Where did the GENTILES in Galatia get that idea if not from Paul?
Answer: a certain small contingent of Christian Jews from Judea
Acts 15:1
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
They simply made that idea up -- no OT or NT scripture required it. The Christian gentiles in Galatia were giving in to Jewish practice of "making stuff up" and setting their own tradition = the Bible.
Gal 4
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic.
- Paul now tells the reader he is switching over from real-life-literal to "symbolic".
- In real life it is the children of Isaac son of Sarah that gather at Sinai - not the children Ishmael son of Hagar.
So this is not Paul claiming that Moses and Elijah who stand "with Christ" in Matthew 17 - in glory-- are standing in opposition to Christ, opposition to Grace, opposition to the Gospel.
Gal 4
For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—
Paul argues that in rejecting the Messiah -- The non-Christian Jews (as well as Christian Jews that choose to "make stuff up" place tradition above the Bible) -- and by symbol - Jerusalem as their capital - stand in opposition to the Gospel - as a counterfeit to it - just as Hagar and Ishmael represented a counterfeit to the promise - that was to come through Sarah's son Isaac.
Gal 4
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Jerusalem above "is mother of us all" - of both Christian gentiles and Christian Jews. Our "heritage" our "national and family identity" is united in the "Jerusalem above" which was in heaven at the time of Sinai and still is to this very day.
Paul is taking away the "heritage problem" that he brings up in Gal 4
8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods.
That was the gentile pagan "heritage" and that is apparently what the Christian Jews promoting circumcision of gentiles were selling them - a "deal" for getting rid of their pagan heritage by identifying with literal Jews or by engaging in other forms of syncretism
9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.
Gal 4
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now
Indeed - Christians were being persecuted by non-Christian Jews from Judea
=========================================
Christians were being persecuted by non-Christian Jews. An irrefutable fact of history as we see in the NT. In theory - we both agree to it.
As proof that Paul was not condemning the fact that Jews were being circumcised -- and in Acts 21 he specifically denies that he is telling Jews not to circumcise their children when they convert to Christianity.
My claim is that the text says Jesus said "Keep the Commandments" and when asked "Which ones" Jesus proceeded to quote from the TEN
Paul says to do the same thing that Jesus said to do in Matthew 19 when writing Romans 13 -- exact same list - that Paul says "We" are to "fulfill". You new that right?
In Romans 8:4-10 Paul says that the wicked who are not born-again are in contrast to the saints - in that wicked "do not submit to the law of God neither indeed CAN they" -- we have seen this a few dozen times as well - right?
And the rich young ruler of Mathew 19 turns away in sorrow
Free will. He chose not to take Jesus up on His offer "sell all that you have and follow Me"
Why are you quoting this passage?
I take it as either condemning or gloating.
You require the keeping of the law for salvation
. Keeping the law is being under (controlled by) the law
.This passage doesn't define sin. It also doesn't leave the idea of obligation. Your idea is sin is only violation of the law.
Paul doesn't say keep the law demonstrated in chapters 5, 6 and 7 as well as Galatians.
No. Paul isn't contrasting the wicked and saints in 8.
My posted Scripture also must be illusive because you don't want to discuss it either.I find your logic "illusive" just then..
This isn't creative writing:1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
Rom 3:31 "do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith - on the contrary we ESTABLISH the LAW of God"
More Bible - less creative writing.
A dead man can do nothing.In Romans 8:4-10 Paul says that the wicked who are not born-again are in contrast to the saints - in that wicked "do not submit to the law of God neither indeed CAN they" -- we have seen this a few dozen times as well - right?
My above quotes aren't creative writing.yes. He is.
More Bible details - less creative writing.
Verse 4 doesn't indicate we are to fulfill (keep) the law.Rom 8
He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Please note the pronouns in my quotes. They indicate Paul is talking about the same people all the way through.The two groups clearly contrasted
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.
The real point Jesus makes without saying is you don't (rather he didn't) keep the law. Jesus made this point without condemning.He left out "do not covet" but then covered it in his command "sell all that you have - give it to the poor and come follow me".
In any case Paul provides that same list in Romans 13.
It it shows that under the Lev 19:18 command "Love your neighbor" He is upholding and affirming the six Commandments that come under that umbrella - not deleting them
hmmm... interesting
those false accusations -- easy enough to make
Please show otherwise with discussion and exegetical and parsed backing.Because that is the topic of this thread
Are you imagining that it is some sort of prideful statement - that I can stay on topic?
You continue to try and sneak in the guarded back door with your partial quotes changing the truth into a lie.Will you be saying that each time I insist that it is a 'sin' even for Christians to "take God's name in vain" since even in the NT - "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" -- 1 John 3:4
Doesn't work even for you, does it?1 John 2:1 "these things I write to you that you sin not"
Paying attention to the details in your post is what gets you into trouble with the Scripture. You continue to try and prove we obey at least part of the law whether we want to or not. As has been demonstrated to you this is false. There's no such thing as obedience by incidence.Interesting creative writing ... Paul never says it - but you do. Paul gives his own definition for that term in Romans 3:19-20 as we all know by now.
So once again - will you be saying that each time I insist that it is a 'sin' even for Christians to "take God's name in vain" since even in the NT - "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" -- 1 John 3:4
1 John 2:1 "these things I write to you that you sin not"
It appears you are not paying enough attention to the detail in the posts.
Yes according to you we can get into heaven bypassing Jesus by keeping the law. The quoted words of Jesus found in the Gospel of John disagrees with you.1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
Rom 3:31 "do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith - on the contrary we ESTABLISH the LAW of God"
More Bible - less creative writing.
Yes according to you we can get into heaven bypassing Jesus
You require the keeping of the law for salvation
. Keeping the law is being under (controlled by) the law
.This passage doesn't define sin. It also doesn't leave the idea of obligation. Your idea is sin is only violation of the law.
You continue to try and sneak in the guarded back door
Paying attention to the details in your post is what gets you into trouble with the Scripture.
The real point Jesus makes without saying is you don't (rather he didn't) keep the law. Jesus made this point without condemning.
Debating and discussing Scripture isn't your strong suit. All I've seen from you is promotion of your churches teaching ignoring much Scripture. Your claim is I ignore the Scripture you post. The truth is you ignore even Moses and the words of Jesus.Creative writing not your strong suit -- and not a substitute for quoting someone instead of just falsely accusing them by merely "quoting you" ... as we all know.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?