What is good?

[Mark Quayle]

You misunderstand who I am. I'm not here to debate. I present truth and leave it up to those who disagree with me to accept or reject it. That's what Jesus did and as He is my Master I do the same.

I used to be someone who would debate until the cows came home because I thought it was my job to do the work of the HS and try to change people's hearts. I've come to realize how arrogant that attitude is so I stopped doing that and have begun trying to be more like Jesus as that is now the goal of my life. I'm new to such an attitude but God will finish changing me.

Well, that explains it, then, I guess. I'm just getting rambling irrelevancies from you as to the point of the thread, or as to any of its side tracks.

By the way, you aren't Jesus, to do as he did. And even his remarks were relevant as to what was going on. If you can show how your remarks are relevant, maybe people will listen to you.

 

[HIM]

Well, that explains it, then, I guess. I'm just getting rambling irrelevancies from you as to the point of the thread, or as to any of its side tracks.

By the way, you aren't Jesus, to do as he did. And even his remarks were relevant as to what was going on. If you can show how your remarks are relevant, maybe people will listen to you.

Wow You actually got positive accolade for this. Sad…because Christian’s are to be Christlike

 

[Clare73]

That isn't a valid reason. It must be taught in scripture that humanity is justified in setting aside God's law.

What Paul taught and practiced is authoritative for the NT church.

"He who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law." (Ro 13:8)

"The commandments. . .can be summed up in one rule, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' " (Ro 13:9)

"Love is the fulfillment of the law." (Ro 13:10)

"He himself is our peace. . .by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations." (Eph 2:15)

 

[Gary K]

What Paul taught and practiced is authoritative for the NT church.

"He who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law." (Ro 13:8)

"The commandments. . .can be summed up in one rule, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' " (Ro 13:9)

"Love is the fulfillment of the law." (Ro 13:10)

"He himself is our peace. . .by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations." (Eph 2:15)

Too bad you took Ephesians 2: 15 so far out of context as the reality is Paul was saying just the opposite ot you implied. But you have the right to believe as you choose.

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

 

[Mark Quayle]

That isn't a valid reason. It must be taught in scripture that humanity is justified in setting aside God's law.

See Ro 13:8-10 where all of God's law is fulfilled in simply loving.

In the NT, we have one law which fulfills all God's law: love of God and neighbor as self (Ro 13:8-10).

That still does not teach it is ok for humans to set aside God's specific commands on how we are to live. Sin is the transgression of the law.

Well, I would just say that scripture does not argue with itself and to attempt to make it do that is a really bad idea.

If you find it argumentative, then you are incorrectly interpreting Scripture, for Scripture does not contradict itself.

Until you reconcile them, rather than conflicting them, your understanding of them is not Biblical.

So your idea is that loving God supremely, loving Him with all your heart and mind, is setting aside His laws? How can that be? The two concepts are radically opposed to each other.

It's your job to reconcile Scripture to itself, not mine.

I have done so.

Gary, in all this, and before, notice that Clare never says anything about setting aside the law. That is your interpretation of what she does say. You are the one determined to cling to a theme, without regard for Scripture to the contrary. (And no, I do not there refer to setting aside the law. That is not what you are are actually trying to oppose.)

 

[Gary K]

Gary, in all this, and before, notice that Clare never says anything about setting aside the law. That is your interpretation of what she does say. You are the one determined to cling to a theme, without regard for Scripture to the contrary. (And no, I do not there refer to setting aside the law. That is not what you are are actually trying to oppose.)

I'll just comment on what I emphasized at the end of your post. So you can read my mind and heart and determine my motives? I thought only God has that ability.

1Sa_16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'll just comment on what I emphasized at the end of your post. So you can read my mind and heart and determine my motives? I thought only God has that ability.

Look back through your and her exchange, and where it began with @DamianWarS . You did not begin your countering of her posts with that assessment of her method/ conclusion. I don't need to read your heart. Just your posts.

 

[Gary K]

Look back through your and her exchange, and where it began with @DamianWarS . You did not begin your countering of her posts with that assessment of her method/ conclusion. I don't need to read your heart. Just your posts.

OK. If you say so.

 

[Leaf473]

You misunderstand who I am. I'm not here to debate. I present truth and leave it up to those who disagree with me to accept or reject it. That's what Jesus did and as He is my Master I do the same.

I used to be someone who would debate until the cows came home because I thought it was my job to do the work of the HS and try to change people's hearts. I've come to realize how arrogant that attitude is so I stopped doing that and have begun trying to be more like Jesus as that is now the goal of my life. I'm new to such an attitude but God will finish changing me.

How about discussing what you believe is true? Or would you rather just say what you believe the Bible is saying, and other people say what they believe the Bible is saying and after a few exchanges, leave it at that?

Bible Gateway passage: Titus 3:9 - New International Reader's Version

But keep away from foolish disagreements. Don’t argue about family histories. Don’t make trouble. Don’t fight about what the law teaches. Don’t argue about things like that. It doesn’t do any good. It doesn’t help anyone.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Gary K]

How about discussing what you believe is true? Or would you rather just say what you believe the Bible is saying, and other people say what they believe the Bible is saying and after a few exchanges, leave it at that?

Bible Gateway passage: Titus 3:9 - New International Reader's Version

But keep away from foolish disagreements. Don’t argue about family histories. Don’t make trouble. Don’t fight about what the law teaches. Don’t argue about things like that. It doesn’t do any good. It doesn’t help anyone.

www.biblegateway.com

That's fine but I don't see the point in endless arguing about it as that is what is going on here. You know I'm more than willing to discuss my beliefs but I lose my interest when people start becoming rude and attributing motives to me which they cannot know are true. How is that even close to answering the question of the title of this thread?

 

[Clare73]

Too bad you took Ephesians 2: 15 so far out of context as the reality is Paul was saying just the opposite ot you implied. But you have the right to believe as you choose.

And I choose to believe what the language of the text clearly states until you clearly and Biblically demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Clare73]

Gary, in all this, and before, notice that Clare never says anything about setting aside the law. That is your interpretation of what she does say. You are the one determined to cling to a theme, without regard for Scripture to the contrary. (And no, I do not there refer to setting aside the law. That is not what you are are actually trying to oppose.)

Thanks for doing the weeds.

 

[Gary K]

And I choose to believe what the language of the text clearly states until you clearly and Biblically demonstrate otherwise.

So the surrounding tests which clearly demonstrate that Jesus broke down the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile is meaningless. which wall was entirely man made according to the OT.

Exo_12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Exo_22:21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Exo_23:9 Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Lev_19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers

Lev_23:22 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.

 

[Clare73]

So the surrounding tests which clearly demonstrate that Jesus broke down the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile is meaningless. which wall was entirely man made according to the OT.

What surrounding texts? You have presented no "surrounding texts" because there are none.

The wall of partition refers to the Levitical laws of defilement ("the law with its commandments and regulations") which necessarily separated the Jews from the Gentiles in order to prevent defilement, and likewise caused the Gentiles to be seen as "unclean" by the Jews, creating a hostile environment between them because of the Jews' derogatory view of them as "unclean."

That dividing wall of hostility, that barrier, was eliminated with the "abolishing of the law with its commandments and regulations" (Eph 2:15). The Jews were no longer made unclean by the Gentiles and no longer needed to remain separated from them.

 

[Gary K]

The wall of partition refers to the Levitical laws of defilement ("the law with its commandments and regulations") which necessarily separated the Jews from the Gentiles in order to prevent defilement, and likewise caused the Gentiles to be seen as "unclean" by the Jews, creating a hostile environment between them because of the Jews' derogatory view of them as "unclean."

That dividing wall of hostility, that barrier, was eliminated with the "abolishing of the law with its commandments and regulations" (Eph 2:15). The Jews were no longer made unclean by the Gentiles and no longer needed to remain separated from them.

Prove that assertion from Leviticus.

 

[Clare73]

Prove that assertion from Leviticus.

What assertion?

See Lev 15.

 

[Gary K]

What assertion?

See Lev 15.

The strangers, or in other words Gentiles, aren't even mentioned in the entire chapter.

 

[Clare73]

The strangers, or in other words Gentiles, aren't even mentioned in the entire chapter.

True, but the Jews considered them unclean according to their own Jewish laws.

Chp 15 presents some of the occasions in the defilement laws which the Jews would be concerned about since the Gentiles did not observe the cleanliness laws which cleansed of those defilements.

 

[Gary K]

True, but the Jews considered them unclean according to their own Jewish laws.

Chp 15 presents some of the occasions in the defilement laws which the Jews would be concerned about since the Gentiles did not observe the cleanliness laws which cleansed of those defilements.

That's a mistake in understanding. Samaritans were considered to be Gentiles even though the were related to the Jews from being a part of the nation of Israel after it was destroyed because of practicing idolatry. The Jews hated the Samaritans with a great passion in the time of Christ. Remember the story of the Samaritan woman at the well?

The Jews hated them both with a passion and their own man made laws were a reflection of that hatred. Read the Talmud if you don't believe me as the Talmud is a collection of Jewish traditions.

 

[Clare73]

That's a mistake in understanding. Samaritans were considered to be Gentiles even though the were related to the Jews from being a part of the nation of Israel after it was destroyed because of practicing idolatry. The Jews hated the Samaritans with a great passion in the time of Christ. Remember the story of the Samaritan woman at the well?

The Jews hated them both with a passion and their own man made laws were a reflection of that hatred. Read the Talmud if you don't believe me as the Talmud is a collection of Jewish traditions.

Eph 2:15 specifically identifies the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility as being "destroyed" by the abolishment of "the law with its commandments and regulations."

The text is plain, specific and clear. The mistake is not in my understanding.
Your assertion reveals a lot about your hermeneutics.