The Ten Commandments stands for ever.

[Stryder06]

I remember calling your commentary a philosophy. I don't think your saying I am wrong would be anything more than saying I am unscriptural in viewpoint. I think them that bark are usually th guilty. maybe you are barking cause you have been bitten.

bugkiller

De troops have arrived, ifin ya be a talkin' 'bout me. And thanks for the honor. Yep I am a little vain like everybody else.

I have now witnessed another rare event stryder used a scripture reference and like most preachers I can not for the life of me connect it to any thing he says.

I don't have a problem with illustrations,, but when that is all I see it is nothing more than a disconnected philosophy. I post scripture so you can see what I am talking about. I don't want you guessing. I don't just say your wrong and present something else. I try to address what you say and show why I think different. Rare as it is, I have also been known to agree with even you.

bugkiller

Where is this? You push the law. So tell us where this is, not about it. I don't have time to run down a defense for you.

bugkiller

Just out of curiosity, why is it that you answer posts that I've directed to other individuals, which have been answered by said individuals, as if I'm talking to you. Ever heard the phrase "all up in the kool-aid but ya don't know the flavor?"

 

[Stryder06]

Here is your most favorite proof text John 14:15 If you love Me keep My commandments.

When given a rebuttal and asked for dialouge you fly de coup.

Why don't you like Paul?

bugkiller

First, I don't prooftext. And John 14:15 isn't my "favorite" verse when it comes to the law.

And as far as "flying the coup" is concerned, I simply know there are certain people I can talk to and others I can't talk to. I've held dialogue with Froggy for some time now. We have a mutual respect for each other even though we disagree on this subject.

You and I however don't mix well.

But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

More so than not, our conversations are extremely foolish because of how you decide to address me. You say you are acquainted with my postings and that I don't use scripture. This is a lie because if you were actually acquainted with my past postings, you'd be very familiar with the scriptures I've used. I don't find it necessary to be redundant, and honestly I don't think you guys need to either. I'm very familiar with the texts used against the law, and I don't think you're being unscriptural if you post your understanding of said verse without appending the text. Should you be able to provide scripture if asked? Yes. Do I think it needs to be posted over and over again as if we haven't already read it? No.

When did Jesus or the Apostles ever give scripture reference when talking? Wasn't it usually "The scriptures said" or "The prophets said"? Quoting scripture doesn't do any good if we can't get down and talk about what the meaning is. Thus I use illustrations. It's what I do. I present the scripture, than try illustrating my point to show you what the Spirit has taught me in regards to its meaning.

Lastly. I love Paul. As well as Moses, and David, and Job, and Peter, and John, and the Prophets. I don't exclude one verse in light of another. I seek to understand each verse in harmony. You can't do that if you're trumping them all the time with one verse from here and another verse from there.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Good morning, Stryder. Unfortunately, you do exclude many verses from the Law and you do so not because the Law excludes them, but because your theology either entirely excludes them or redefines them.

For example, the Law never nicely divides itself into Ceremonial, Moral, or Civil. Those are artificial constructs applied to the Law based on the impossibility of keeping the Law as God commanded it. For example, because there is no functioning Temple in Jerusalem both Jews and Christians have to find some means of redefining all of the sacrificial laws. The Jews do it by substituting good works for sacrifices. You do it by tossing them out entirely under the rubric of Ceremonial Laws. In other cases, you redefine laws which are spelled out in explicit details. There is a set of Sabbath laws which your denomination has completely redefined to the point that nobody outside of your own denomination has ever kept the Sabbath holy as understood by your denomination. Yet, your denomination is insistent that this is an eternal commandment for all of mankind and not merely for those within the covenant made between God and the nation of Israel. It appears to us non-SDA that you view it as being only for those within the covenant made between God and the SDA (which you read to be the Church of God).

If and when you demonstrate a consistent biblical hermeneutic regarding the Law I will be much more inclined to consider your positions.

 

[Stryder06]

Good morning, Stryder. Unfortunately, you do exclude many verses from the Law and you do so not because the Law excludes them, but because your theology either entirely excludes them or redefines them.

For example, the Law never nicely divides itself into Ceremonial, Moral, or Civil. Those are artificial constructs applied to the Law based on the impossibility of keeping the Law as God commanded it. For example, because there is no functioning Temple in Jerusalem both Jews and Christians have to find some means of redefining all of the sacrificial laws. The Jews do it by substituting good works for sacrifices. You do it by tossing them out entirely under the rubric of Ceremonial Laws. In other cases, you redefine laws which are spelled out in explicit details. There is a set of Sabbath laws which your denomination has completely redefined to the point that nobody outside of your own denomination has ever kept the Sabbath holy as understood by your denomination. Yet, your denomination is insistent that this is an eternal commandment for all of mankind and not merely for those within the covenant made between God and the nation of Israel. It appears to us non-SDA that you view it as being only for those within the covenant made between God and the SDA (which you read to be the Church of God).

If and when you demonstrate a consistent biblical hermeneutic regarding the Law I will be much more inclined to consider your positions.

Not gonna lie, you lost me in there. I've already stated that I'd have no problem discussing this with you personally. This thread however would be a most inappropriate forum for that. Message me with your questions and I'll gladly share dialog with you.

To make a long story short for this thread, Alot of "the law" was fulfilled in Christ. No it doesn't divide itself up, but that's where study comes in and an understanding of what Christ meant when He said He came to fulfill the law is necessary. As far as what laws my denomination has made up in regards to the sabbath, you seem to know more about that then I do.

Later.

 

[Frogster]

Not gonna lie, you lost me in there. I've already stated that I'd have no problem discussing this with you personally. This thread however would be a most inappropriate forum for that. Message me with your questions and I'll gladly share dialog with you.

To make a long story short for this thread, Alot of "the law" was fulfilled in Christ. No it doesn't divide itself up, but that's where study comes in and an understanding of what Christ meant when He said He came to fulfill the law is necessary. As far as what laws my denomination has made up in regards to the sabbath, you seem to know more about that then I do.

Later.

If i remember correctly you tithe?

It says ONLY tithe in jerusalem..

so how do you square that?

Do you mail a check to a temple that is not there?

OR..do you mail them food,which is really what the tithe was anyway.

 

[bugkiller]

First, I don't prooftext. And John 14:15 isn't my "favorite" verse when it comes to the law.

No, bet it is the first one you use when talking to some one about the sabbath. And you have used it on this forum. I tend to use my favorite verses first.

And as far as "flying the coup" is concerned, I simply know there are certain people I can talk to and others I can't talk to. I've held dialogue with Froggy for some time now. We have a mutual respect for each other even though we disagree on this subject.

And Froggy as you call him has mentioned your lack of scripture, too. We are not the only ones either. Is the problem I am focused on the cause instead of the effect? A doctor gives you a prescription to change the effects of the problem. They rarely treat the problem. If they do you become healthy and they don't make any money. They aren't interested in your health. Those who are quickly and quietly put down unless they refuse, then it goes to public assination of character to get compliance - silence.

You and I however don't mix well.

Kinda like oil and water.

But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

I generally do not engage in foolish questions. They are fun and good diversions sometimes. I don't strive about the law,because it is foolish. I talk about grace and faith because they are profitable. You bring up the law not me. Same applies to my buddy Frogster. It seems by his repeated questions that you also ignore what he says. You seem to refuse to answer them. If you did answer them they would not be repeated.

More so than not, our conversations are extremely foolish because of how you decide to address me. You say you are acquainted with my postings and that I don't use scripture. This is a lie because if you were actually acquainted with my past postings, you'd be very familiar with the scriptures I've used. I don't find it necessary to be redundant, and honestly I don't think you guys need to either. I'm very familiar with the texts used against the law, and I don't think you're being unscriptural if you post your understanding of said verse without appending the text. Should you be able to provide scripture if asked? Yes. Do I think it needs to be posted over and over again as if we haven't already read it? No.

You do get alot of my attention, but you are not the focus of my attention. I give the same kind of detail attention else where and on other sites as well. If I only had a focused eschange with you I could understand.

So would you be so kind as tell me why I bristle you the wrong way? It could facilitate us both. All I see is a statement of distaste and you leave me guessing what that distaste is. Do I need to to agree with you to improve things? Do you need more one liners? I did notice you mentioned you need to run before I got back? Why - is it because you can't answer me.

When did Jesus or the Apostles ever give scripture reference when talking? Wasn't it usually "The scriptures said" or "The prophets said"? Quoting scripture doesn't do any good if we can't get down and talk about what the meaning is. Thus I use illustrations. It's what I do. I present the scripture, than try illustrating my point to show you what the Spirit has taught me in regards to its meaning.

Lastly. I love Paul. As well as Moses, and David, and Job, and Peter, and John, and the Prophets. I don't exclude one verse in light of another. I seek to understand each verse in harmony. You can't do that if you're trumping them all the time with one verse from here and another verse from there.

In Jesus' and Paul's day there was no chapter and verse like today and the Jew had the Torah memorized. When a quote was given or a refenence made they knew exactly where it was from and in most instances a focused discussion with another party (individual or group). We (at least me) are having a few discussions going at the same time. I need you to help me with what you are saying with a scripture. Even in commentaries they quote or at least provide reference to what they are talking about.

Talking with out quoting has no meaning. Seems to me that you are saying you can not talk about a scripture if you quote it. I do even definitions of words.

Lets take my use and discussion of Jer 31:31-33. I discuss it right down to the definition of words. I use Jeremiah because you can not say Paul. You havent discussed it with me yet. It has been a one way street. Why? I repeat it often enough especially to johnny come lately (new participants) law pushers. It sticks in your craw. I have further discussed this idea of the new covenant with other various scriptures. You just seem to by pass and continue to push the law as if I said nothing.

It is kinda like the other day when I said Andrews University was the main SDA college and you denied. My good friend VictorC provided proof that it was so. Either you lied or don't know much about your church. The same source material was available to you as him. It causes me to think that you don't know what you are talking about.

When I present conflicting ideas presented by folks here. I show proof, ask questions and they get angry because they are shot down.

You don't like it. So why don't you show the harmony when it seems to you that I am trumping.

I think I am reaching out.You going to reach back?

bugkiller

 

[Frogster]

No, bet it is the first one you use when talking to some one about the sabbath. And you have used it on this forum. I tend to use my favorite verses first.And Froggy as you call him has mentioned your lack of scripture, too. We are not the only ones either. Is the problem I am focused on the cause instead of the effect? A doctor gives you a prescription to change the effects of the problem. They rarely treat the problem. If they do you become healthy and they don't make any money. They aren't interested in your health. Those who are quickly and quietly put down unless they refuse, then it goes to public assination of character to get compliance - silence.
Kinda like oil and water. [/COLOR]I generally do not engage in foolish questions. They are fun and good diversions sometimes. I don't strive about the law,because it is foolish. I talk about grace and faith because they are profitable. You bring up the law not me. Same applies to my buddy Frogster. It seems by his repeated questions that you also ignore what he says. You seem to refuse to answer them. If you did answer them they would not be repeated.
You do get alot of my attention, but you are not the focus of my attention. I give the same kind of detail attention else where and on other sites as well. If I only had a focused eschange with you I could understand. [/COLOR][/COLOR]

So would you be so kind as tell me why I bristle you the wrong way? It could facilitate us both. All I see is a statement of distaste and you leave me guessing what that distaste is. Do I need to to agree with you to improve things? Do you need more one liners? I did notice you mentioned you need to run before I got back? Why - is it because you can't answer me.
In Jesus' and Paul's day there was no chapter and verse like today and the Jew had the Torah memorized. When a quote was given or a refenence made they knew exactly where it was from and in most instances a focused discussion with another party (individual or group). We (at least me) are having a few discussions going at the same time. I need you to help me with what you are saying with a scripture. Even in commentaries they quote or at least provide reference to what they are talking about.

Talking with out quoting has no meaning. Seems to me that you are saying you can not talk about a scripture if you quote it. I do even definitions of words.

Lets take my use and discussion of Jer 31:31-33. I discuss it right down to the definition of words. I use Jeremiah because you can not say Paul. You havent discussed it with me yet. It has been a one way street. Why? I repeat it often enough especially to johnny come lately (new participants) law pushers. It sticks in your craw. I have further discussed this idea of the new covenant with other various scriptures. You just seem to by pass and continue to push the law as if I said nothing.

It is kinda like the other day when I said Andrews University was the main SDA college and you denied. My good friend VictorC provided proof that it was so. Either you lied or don't know much about your church. The same source material was available to you as him. It causes me to think that you don't know what you are talking about.

When I present conflicting ideas presented by folks here. I show proof, ask questions and they get angry because they are shot down.

You don't like it. So why don't you show the harmony when it seems tou you that I am trumping.

I think I am reaching out.You going to reach back?

bugkiller

Yes..as far as posting scripture..some seem to have a scriptureless theology.

 

[Stryder06]

You said at the end that you're reaching out, so I will reach back. >>Takes a deep breath before diving into the unknown.<<

No, bet it is the first one you use when talking to some one about the sabbath. And you have used it on this forum. I tend to use my favorite verses first.

I do indeed like that verse, but its not my favorite. And I have used it before, but it typically comes after Exodus 20:8-11. That is my bedrock, if you will.

And Froggy as you call him has mentioned your lack of scripture, too. We are not the only ones either. Is the problem I am focused on the cause instead of the effect? A doctor gives you a prescription to change the effects of the problem. They rarely treat the problem. If they do you become healthy and they don't make any money. They aren't interested in your health. Those who are quickly and quietly put down unless they refuse, then it goes to public assination of character to get compliance - silence.

Frogster didn't like the scirpture I gave him before which is why I stopped giving it. Like I said before, we've been down this road already and I've provided scripture to him.

Kinda like oil and water.

Something like that.

I generally do not engage in foolish questions. They are fun and good diversions sometimes. I don't strive about the law,because it is foolish. I talk about grace and faith because they are profitable. You bring up the law not me. Same applies to my buddy Frogster. It seems by his repeated questions that you also ignore what he says. You seem to refuse to answer them. If you did answer them they would not be repeated.

Again, I've been down this road with Frogster. I've engaged him about faith and grace and the law. You think they are unrelated. Scripture shows differently. It's how we "interpret" scripture which causes the division.

You do get alot of my attention, but you are not the focus of my attention. I give the same kind of detail attention else where and on other sites as well. If I only had a focused eschange with you I could understand.

That would be fine, save for the fact that you constantly make assumptions about how I believe and how I got to that belief. This bothers me because its rude and I've not done the same to you out of respect for your relationship with Christ.

So would you be so kind as tell me why I bristle you the wrong way? It could facilitate us both. All I see is a statement of distaste and you leave me guessing what that distaste is. Do I need to to agree with you to improve things? Do you need more one liners? I did notice you mentioned you need to run before I got back? Why - is it because you can't answer me.

See above statement. Perhaps its the way you word your sentences that makes it hard to distinguish your intent.

In Jesus' and Paul's day there was no chapter and verse like today and the Jew had the Torah memorized. When a quote was given or a refenence made they knew exactly where it was from and in most instances a focused discussion with another party (individual or group). We (at least me) are having a few discussions going at the same time. I need you to help me with what you are saying with a scripture. Even in commentaries they quote or at least provide reference to what they are talking about.

As I said. I don't like being redundant. You may be new to these discussions, but you said in so many words that you were tracking me since I've been here. If this were so than you should be well acquainted with the verse I've used before. I'm well acquainted with the ones you favor and in no wise would say that your "commentary" was unscriptural, because I know what scriptures you base your understanding off of. Quoting gets us no where. We need to get to understanding what's been quoted.

Talking with out quoting has no meaning. Seems to me that you are saying you can not talk about a scripture if you quote it. I do even definitions of words.

I don't see how. The way I see it. As well versed as you are in the NT, I'd like to think you'd be just as well versed in the OT, thus eliminating the need to expect verses to always accompany a response. I have no problem providing a text if I am referring to one specifically. However, more so than not, I'm basing my responses off of the entire storehouse of scriptures that I've become familiar with. Unfortunately I don't have the chapters and verses memorized, thus it takes time for me to look them up. That makes it hard to discuss.

Lets take my use and discussion of Jer 31:31-33. I discuss it right down to the definition of words. I use Jeremiah because you can not say Paul. You havent discussed it with me yet. It has been a one way street. Why? I repeat it often enough especially to johnny come lately (new participants) law pushers. It sticks in your craw. I have further discussed this idea of the new covenant with other various scriptures. You just seem to by pass and continue to push the law as if I said nothing.

If that's how you feel than I apologize. My patience runs thin at times and to avoid saying something I shouldn't, I simply avoid discussing it altogether because of where I believe the conversation is going. I'd be glad to discuss Jeremiah with you.

It is kinda like the other day when I said Andrews University was the main SDA college and you denied. My good friend VictorC provided proof that it was so. Either you lied or don't know much about your church. The same source material was available to you as him. It causes me to think that you don't know what you are talking about.

Not at all. First it's not about my church but my college. Andrews, if I'm not mistaken, is frequented by more of our non African American brothers. Oakwood University is the main focus for our division because it is a predominately black school. Thus, in my mind, it was our "main" college. So again, this is a moot point. Whether Andrews is the "main" University, or it's Oakwood, or CUC, the point I was making was that the material presented was unbiased in nature and should not be discarded simply because it was authored by an Adventist.

When I present conflicting ideas presented by folks here. I show proof, ask questions and they get angry because they are shot down.

If that's what you think. Being shot down isn't the case. It's simply the mannerism that is unappealing.

You don't like it. So why don't you show the harmony when it seems tou you that I am trumping.

I can't show harmony if you already believe the OT has no power. That's why I started other threads dealing with that topic. But then they just turned into threads about the law and were thrown off course. You can't convince a seeing man that he isn't blind if he refuses to open his eyes.

I think I am reaching out.You going to reach back?

bugkiller

That depends on if you consider this reaching back.

 

[bugkiller]

You said at the end that you're reaching out, so I will reach back. >>Takes a deep breath before diving into the unknown.<<


I do indeed like that verse, but its not my favorite. And I have used it before, but it typically comes after Exodus 20:8-11. That is my bedrock, if you will.

Frogster didn't like the scirpture I gave him before which is why I stopped giving it. Like I said before, we've been down this road already and I've provided scripture to him.

So to prove to you that one dosen't dislikes a scripture they must agree with you. One can't present something that disproves what you say, or does not show understanding of what you say. Do you not understand that everything about the person and words are being considered by some when replying to a statement. People quickly develop a personna by what they say here. That is an individual gets classified. What classifies you? Well lets see. Your first hurdle is identifying with the SDA. Is it wrong or bad? No, but you gotta admit the SDA has an image. I will not discuss that image or your churches problems unless so engaged by someone. Then kitty bar the door. I am easily provoked on this matter and have a battleship loaded with plenty ammo and big guns begging to be dared. I do admire you for identifying whith the SDA. That takes courage. Many on here won't, and it causes problems for you. You need to speak to these people and cause them to understant the ninth commandment. What does follow is your classic SDA attitude. The biggest is denial and second place comes to avoidance, silence or running. These two things by themselves cause problems the first of which is trust.

Again, I've been down this road with Frogster. I've engaged him about faith and grace and the law. You think they are unrelated. Scripture shows differently. It's how we "interpret" scripture which causes the division.

Where and how? In Hebrews 11 twenty-nine (29) out of 40 verses are before the law. That is about 72.5% unrelated to law. And when really looking at the rest of the chapter, I can find only 3 words that I can connect with or to the law. This would make faith and law unrelated more than 97%. So yes we do have trouble relating faith to the law. The law does not provide for grace. God does however. Something always dies for violation of the law in every instance.

That would be fine, save for the fact that you constantly make assumptions about how I believe and how I got to that belief. This bothers me because its rude and I've not done the same to you out of respect for your relationship with Christ.

Name them. I can handle it. I am not to sure you haven't assumed and maybe at least alluded to what I believe. Take your above statement about faith, grace and law (really OC).

See above statement. Perhaps its the way you word your sentences that makes it hard to distinguish your intent.

So why aren't you asking questions? Don't you want to understand? Questions are among the top of my best friends. I simply love them!

As I said. I don't like being redundant. You may be new to these discussions, but you said in so many words that you were tracking me since I've been here. If this were so than you should be well acquainted with the verse I've used before. I'm well acquainted with the ones you favor and in no wise would say that your "commentary" was unscriptural, because I know what scriptures you base your understanding off of. Quoting gets us no where. We need to get to understanding what's been quoted.

Sometimes redundance is the only way to get thru. Especially to those in denial. It also goes by other names like persistence and perseverance which the NT teaches.

I don't see how. The way I see it. As well versed as you are in the NT, I'd like to think you'd be just as well versed in the OT, thus eliminating the need to expect verses to always accompany a response. I have no problem providing a text if I am referring to one specifically. However, more so than not, I'm basing my responses off of the entire storehouse of scriptures that I've become familiar with. Unfortunately I don't have the chapters and verses memorized, thus it takes time for me to look them up. That makes it hard to discuss.

There are to many Bible tools or aides to have an excuse. I use both a printed and online corcordance. This provides me a concordance to many translations. You can use netbible, biblegateway.com, strongs concordance all on line. Just google them from a seperate tab.

If that's how you feel than I apologize. My patience runs thin at times and to avoid saying something I shouldn't, I simply avoid discussing it altogether because of where I believe the conversation is going. I'd be glad to discuss Jeremiah with you.

If you could only see the emotional responses I go through before responding you'd be amazed. This sometimes means a delayed response. Am I glad yo can't be sitting on my shoulder? You bet I am very glad indeed.

Not at all. First it's not about my church but my college. Andrews, if I'm not mistaken, is frequented by more of our non African American brothers. Oakwood University is the main focus for our division because it is a predominately black school. Thus, in my mind, it was our "main" college. So again, this is a moot point. Whether Andrews is the "main" University, or it's Oakwood, or CUC, the point I was making was that the material presented was unbiased in nature and should not be discarded simply because it was authored by an Adventist.

Thanks for revealing more of the picture. If some one's employment depends on what they say, it is biased in nature. If you don't think so do something your employer doesn't like and see what happens. I especially note the SDA treatment of those who disagree. Want me to name some of them? I can.

If that's what you think. Being shot down isn't the case. It's simply the mannerism that is unappealing.

Would you mind being specific? I can handle it.

I can't show harmony if you already believe the OT has no power. That's why I started other threads dealing with that topic. But then they just turned into threads about the law and were thrown off course. You can't convince a seeing man that he isn't blind if he refuses to open his eyes.

My belief has nothing with preventing you from anything. But it is the same agruement my SDA neighbor uses about observing the law. I am not successful yet but that doesn't mean I quit trying. He says I know I can't and won't even try. Yep I realize that is a conflicting idea. But that is my neighbor.

That depends on if you consider this reaching back.

I do.

bugkiller

 

[Cribstyl]

Sheeze....I need a mascot or something..(lol)

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Mod Hat On

Thread Moving To Ministry/Exploring Christianity

Mod Hat Off

 

[bugkiller]

Mod Hat On

Thread Moving To Ministry/Exploring Christianity

Mod Hat Off

Why was this thread moved? I am not complaining, just more than curious.

bugkiller

 

[bbbbbbb]

Whoa, Toto! Is this Kansas?

 

[visionary]

1. Sin is the transgression of the law John 3:4. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God Romans 3:23. That all includes all that ever lived and will ever live. It therefore means that the law must always be there to convict of sin, to point out sin, for except the law said thou should not covet how would I have known? Romans 7:7
2. What shall we be judge by except the law? If it is abolished there is no standard for judgment! There can be no Judgment! James 1:25 and 2:12
3. What did Jesus die for except for sinners who broke the law? If the law could have been abolished by God there would have been no need for Jesus to die. Remove the law and there would be no transgression, no sin. Jesus died so why remove the law? Jesus knowing what would come to pass stated before that not one dot of an &#8220;I&#8221; or the crossing of a &#8220;t&#8221; would pass from the law Matt. 5:17-18. Do you believe Jesus?
4. If the law was abolish by the disciples, why was the last of them John, still keeping the Sabbath?

Is that icon of the OP.. non-christian?? Is that why the thread got moved?