What is the difference?

[New_Wineskin]

2.6 Accusations of Rules Violations Prohibited

You will not accuse other members of violating these Rules in the discussion forums. Please use the report feature instead.

Yes , I remembered that one after I logged off . It is better that I simply place you on my ignore list . You question my word that I am a Christian . There is no reason to discuss things with someone calling me a liar .

 

[brother daniel]

Consistency of the Bible is in it's continuity.

Continuity consists of many points that are chronological in nature.

Each point fulfills the previous one.

The Bible is revelatory in nature. So, the revelation is gradual. Unveiling.

The error that the Pharisaeic believers were trapped in was that they tried tu lump the OT and NT into one.

So, ... one needed to be a Jew first (circumsised) and then a believer (by faith).

Do you know the verse where Christ said that he fulfilled the law?

Do you know the verses where it states that the Temple is in us now?

(Sorry for asking, I just do not know the extent of your Bible knowledge).

Thanks,
Ed

Yes , I remembered that one after I logged off . It is better that I simply place you on my ignore list . You question my word that I am a Christian . There is no reason to discuss things with someone calling me a liar .

Forgive me,New-Wineskin, I never called you a lier or implied it. I question your assumptions, Many call themselves Christians and mean it, but what do they mean?

When I use the term Christian I am speaking about disciples who have given up everything to follow him.

Its a very narrow way and few see it as I do.

Very few Christians today seem aware of the differance between carnel and spiritual.

I find its a daily struggle to tame the carnel habits of my mind. The words of Jesus settle the matter for me.

Jesus is rightous and he set a rightous example. We have a Holy Ghost, Comforter to remind us of him and we learn about Jesus and the Holy Ghost from scripture or someone who has studed the written word of God.

With love in Christ
brother daniel

 

[Sleaker]

There is nothing about the Law of the Scriptures in my quote . I was discussing the Lord and His personal relationship with His children . Of course , one can always have the Law say whatever they want . So , I suppose that you can have an interpretation that the Law says that I must do this communion . I can give several passages to live by the Spirit and not the written code .

I think we overextend a fallacy in the 'New Covenant Living' stating that just because a truth about how to live for Christ becomes written or is contained within scripture it becomes a 'law' and if we follow it we are going back to the old covenant way of things. Rather when I read the Gospels I am presented with Jesus telling me that if I love him I will keep His commandments. The only thing that Jesus did to the law was tell me I am not justified by it, but rather that I am justified because of His sacrifice! Awesome, does that mean that living by the spirit can not contain the works of the Law, Not so, for the Law shows me obedience to God. And if I truly Love God, I will not only do the Law, but move past it into Love.

The reason why I bring up this point, is because you attempt to make a distinction between Following law and living in the Spirit, and I say that following the Law is one facet of Living in the spirit.

 

[New_Wineskin]

I think we overextend a fallacy in the 'New Covenant Living' stating that just because a truth about how to live for Christ becomes written or is contained within scripture it becomes a 'law' and if we follow it we are going back to the old covenant way of things.

I agree . I don't do that . I will explain after bringing in the end of your post :

The reason why I bring up this point, is because you attempt to make a distinction between Following law and living in the Spirit, and I say that following the Law is one facet of Living in the spirit.

I do not make the distinction of following the Law and living in the Spirit . Nor do I consider that doing something in the Scriptures indicates that one is under Law . I have no problem with people following the Scriptures . I have a problem when people say that *I* must do something simply because *they* see something in the Scriptures that *I* should do ( or not ) . *That* is living according to the Law and not the Spirit . *That* is attempting to have *me* follow the Law instead of the Spirit .

For example : we are discussing communion . I stated that I didn't see it as a requirement for me . I didn't say that it was wrong for anyone to do so - only that it wasn't something for me to do in any specific way or number of times or whatever . I then get a lot of questions and statements indicating that it was indeed for me and that it was a matter of obedience for me - for *me* . And , their reasoning for that ? - because they think that the Scriptures say that it was - for *me* . *This* is doing what the Jewish believers were doing to the Gentile believers . It didn't matter what passages were being used , they were usurping the Holy Spirit's authority by claiming that they had authority by quoting the Scriptures .

As stated , I have no problem with people doing something that they obtain from Scriptures . I think that the Gentile Messianics are great . It isn't for me . That's all . Although , it seems that they get a lot of flack because they go too far in looking to the Scriptures . This shows that none can win for those proposing that the Scriptures are to be followed . Either you are not observing enough or obsevring too little .

If the Spirit is leading you to observing the Laws ( or even only some of the Laws ) of the Scriptures , I have no problem with that . For me , no thanks . Abraham was called by the Lord to be His friend and Abraham didn't follow any of the Scriptures - they didn't exist , yet .

Rather when I read the Gospels I am presented with Jesus telling me that if I love him I will keep His commandments. The only thing that Jesus did to the law was tell me I am not justified by it, but rather that I am justified because of His sacrifice! Awesome, does that mean that living by the spirit can not contain the works of the Law, Not so, for the Law shows me obedience to God. And if I truly Love God, I will not only do the Law, but move past it into Love.

That's great . This goes along with what I wrote .

 

[Sleaker]

I think what I'm getting at is Jesus blatantly tells everyone in the Church to do this in remembrance of him.. Is that not a command that if we love Him we will do? or is there nothing that is required except mental belief in Jesus' words? I have a hard time understanding what you mean that we should follow certain commands of Jesus such as the one to love, but not other commands, that's just where I'm having trouble understanding you. It seems like you are saying two things. We should do the things that Jesus tells us to, but really we don't have to because it's a commandment and 'subject to the spirit?'

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Does it matter either way?

Communion is advocated by Jesus --- but with a specific end in mind --- and it is this that often is lacking in communion services... but that is sometimes most evident among those who would not do "comunion" in the conventional, or indeed any, sense.

 

[New_Wineskin]

I think what I'm getting at is Jesus blatantly tells everyone in the Church to do this in remembrance of him..

I know that is what you are getting at but then deny it every other post .

How do you know that Jesus blatantly told *me* ANYTHING ?

Is that not a command that if we love Him we will do?

Why do you make this assumption ?

or is there nothing that is required except mental belief in Jesus' words?

"Mental belief" ? What is that ?

The only thing that I want to know is Jesus . What Jesus tells me are His words .

I have a hard time understanding what you mean that we should follow certain commands of Jesus such as the one to love, but not other commands, that's just where I'm having trouble understanding you. It seems like you are saying two things. We should do the things that Jesus tells us to, but really we don't have to because it's a commandment and 'subject to the spirit?'

I didn't say those things . I only say that it is a good thing to do as Jesus says . The only thing that I hear from you is to do things that you interpret the Scriptures as saying . The Scriptures did not die for me . The Scriptures were not raised from the dead for me . If any of the Scriptures are to obeyed because they are Scriptures , then *all* of them are to be obeyed .

Do you really want me to obey the Scriptures ? Before you answer , I will tell you this ... If *I* ever begin to consider that obedience to the Scriptures is necessary , I will obey them all . And , I will start with the direct words of the Lord's command to put to death all of those who claim that obedience of the Scriptures are important and yet breaking the Sabbath . That command deals wih a specific day and a specific way of keeping the various Sabbaths .

Since absolutely *no one* obeys all of the Scriptures , I have no idea why people say that we should do so . They pick and choose which ones to obey and deny that they do while forbidding others from doing so .

I am in full support of obeying Jesus - NOT obeying an interpretation of the Law . We have access to Jesus - *that* is the Gospel . No need to read about Him - He is here .

 

[New_Wineskin]

Does it matter either way?

Not to me . That is my whole point . But , there are those that say that it *must* matter .

 

[Sleaker]

I know that is what you are getting at but then deny it every other post .

How do you know that Jesus blatantly told *me* ANYTHING ?



Why do you make this assumption ?



"Mental belief" ? What is that ?

The only thing that I want to know is Jesus . What Jesus tells me are His words .



I didn't say those things . I only say that it is a good thing to do as Jesus says . The only thing that I hear from you is to do things that you interpret the Scriptures as saying . The Scriptures did not die for me . The Scriptures were not raised from the dead for me . If any of the Scriptures are to obeyed because they are Scriptures , then *all* of them are to be obeyed .

Do you really want me to obey the Scriptures ? Before you answer , I will tell you this ... If *I* ever begin to consider that obedience to the Scriptures is necessary , I will obey them all . And , I will start with the direct words of the Lord's command to put to death all of those who claim that obedience of the Scriptures are important and yet breaking the Sabbath . That command deals wih a specific day and a specific way of keeping the various Sabbaths .

Since absolutely *no one* obeys all of the Scriptures , I have no idea why people say that we should do so . They pick and choose which ones to obey and deny that they do while forbidding others from doing so .

I am in full support of obeying Jesus - NOT obeying an interpretation of the Law . We have access to Jesus - *that* is the Gospel . No need to read about Him - He is here .

Isn't there a difference between obeying NT scriptures and obeying The OT law though?

 

[New_Wineskin]

Isn't there a difference between obeying NT scriptures and obeying The OT law though?

There *are* no New Testament Scriptures . The New Covenant isn't about writings . Several of the new writings talk about that . The newer writings *explain* the new covenant - they are not the covenant themselves . That would violate the passages discussing the New Covenant .

Here is how the letter called Hebrews discusses the new covenant :

7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[c]

If it were about writings on paper , it would be *like the old covenant* which the above declares isn't so .


There is also the following in the writing called "Second Corinthians" :

3You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

4Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, ...

A reminder - the Lord wrote on those stone tablets Himself . And , Paul is taking those to task specifically .

Now , directly to the question . There is also ( in the letter called "Galatians" ,

21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.

If there is a difference , it would be on the side of the older writings - not the newer ones .

If writings on paper or stone could do any good , the older ones would have been those writings - so state the newer writings .

I would also say that any argument that states that one should obey the Scriptures , they use passages from the older writings or they use passages from the newer writings which always refer to the older ones when they discuss the Scriptures - the older writings *were* the Scriptures to the writers of the newer writings .

To me , this shows that *if any* passages should not be obeyed , they would be those in the newer writings as the arguments *for* obedience to the Scriptures are *for* the older writings . Disregarding the older writings is a blank statement that the Scriptures are not to be obeyed at all .

 

[faithpilgrim]

new wineskin said,

For example : we are discussing communion . I stated that I didn't see it as a requirement for me . I didn't say that it was wrong for anyone to do so - only that it wasn't something for me to do in any specific way or number of times or whatever . I then get a lot of questions and statements indicating that it was indeed for me and that it was a matter of obedience for me - for *me* . And , their reasoning for that ? - because they think that the Scriptures say that it was - for *me* . *This* is doing what the Jewish believers were doing to the Gentile believers . It didn't matter what passages were being used , they were usurping the Holy Spirit's authority by claiming that they had authority by quoting the Scriptures .[/quiote]

I have seen the same type of attitude toward us if we don't meet for church on Sunday mornings or if we don't have regular meetings with a certain amount of people. While it is certainly not wrong for large groups of people to meet, it is not a requirement. Nor is it a requirement to meet on Sun. or Sat. That's not to say it is wrong; but it is not a commandment in stone for everyone to obey.

There are many things mentioned in scripture that they did at certain times; but that does not necessarily mean those things were addressed to us or that they are requirements for all at all times. Why do so many get so hung up on rituals, customs, ceremonies? I think of what the Lord said to Israel about their insistance of ritual and custom.

Amos 5:21
I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.

Communion is more about remembering the Lord and what he did for us than a custom of bread and wine. How can we not remember when we come together for he is the reason we are Christian and can come together with others?

 

[New_Wineskin]

new wineskin said,

For example : we are discussing communion . I stated that I didn't see it as a requirement for me . I didn't say that it was wrong for anyone to do so - only that it wasn't something for me to do in any specific way or number of times or whatever . I then get a lot of questions and statements indicating that it was indeed for me and that it was a matter of obedience for me - for *me* . And , their reasoning for that ? - because they think that the Scriptures say that it was - for *me* . *This* is doing what the Jewish believers were doing to the Gentile believers . It didn't matter what passages were being used , they were usurping the Holy Spirit's authority by claiming that they had authority by quoting the Scriptures .[/quiote]

I have seen the same type of attitude toward us if we don't meet for church on Sunday mornings or if we don't have regular meetings with a certain amount of people. While it is certainly not wrong for large groups of people to meet, it is not a requirement. Nor is it a requirement to meet on Sun. or Sat. That's not to say it is wrong; but it is not a commandment in stone for everyone to obey.

There are many things mentioned in scripture that they did at certain times; but that does not necessarily mean those things were addressed to us or that they are requirements for all at all times. Why do so many get so hung up on rituals, customs, ceremonies? I think of what the Lord said to Israel about their insistance of ritual and custom.

Amos 5:21
I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.

Communion is more about remembering the Lord and what he did for us than a custom of bread and wine. How can we not remember when we come together for he is the reason we are Christian and can come together with others?

Thank you !

 

[Edial]

to New_Wineskin ...

You said - ... I only say that it is a good thing to do as Jesus says . The only thing that I hear ... is to do things that you interpret the Scriptures as saying . The Scriptures did not die for me . The Scriptures were not raised from the dead for me . If any of the Scriptures are to obeyed because they are Scriptures , then *all* of them are to be obeyed .

Do you really want me to obey the Scriptures ? Before you answer , I will tell you this ... If *I* ever begin to consider that obedience to the Scriptures is necessary , I will obey them all . And , I will start with the direct words of the Lord's command to put to death all of those who claim that obedience of the Scriptures are important and yet breaking the Sabbath . That command deals wih a specific day and a specific way of keeping the various Sabbaths .

Since absolutely *no one* obeys all of the Scriptures , I have no idea why people say that we should do so . They pick and choose which ones to obey and deny that they do while forbidding others from doing so .

I probably never heard such an angle put so plainly on the table.

1. Yes. The Scriptures did not die for us, but they contain the written record of the One who did.
Is your objection that it is not an accurate record?

2. No one obeys all of the Scriptures, but the Scriptures are presenting that it is not necessary to do so in the context of the Law.
How do you understand this text?
MT 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

3. How do you understand this text?
MT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

What is that "everything" that they need to obey?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

to New_Wineskin ...

You said - ... I am in full support of obeying Jesus - NOT obeying an interpretation of the Law . We have access to Jesus - *that* is the Gospel . No need to read about Him - He is here .

Jesus is here.
But how do you explain his statements that if one loves him he'll obey his commands?

JN 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command.

And how would one know what he commands unless he reads about it?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[brother daniel]

Is there a difference between a house church and a church?
Is the difference only in a structure of a building or is there more to it than that?

Thanks,
Ed

I think there is more to it. I am inclined toward Anabaptist theology in house or local church.

I have a basic distrust for any form of governence other than local accounability.

Disciples are accountable to God through the local congregation. Even when disciples plant a local church they give place to Christ in his members.

"Anabaptist theology was remarkably consistent. They viewed the essential nature of the Christian faith in terms of the common elements of discipleship, non-resistance, and community."
.
http://www.bethelks.edu/services/mla/guide/

The starting point for the evangelical Anabaptists was discipleship

"follow after Christ." Christianity, for them, was tested by one's behavior. They had no well-developed theology of salvation. If one walked as Christ had walked; if one kept His commandments, then one was saved. Conversely, if one did not so walk; if one did not keep His commandments, then one surely could not be saved, irrespective of whatever beliefs were claimed.

This understanding of discipleship implied a unique attitude toward the Bible

The Anabaptists, claiming that the New Testament (that part of the Bible that most directly reveals Christ's commands) was more important to those who claimed to be followers of Christ. Moreover, they espoused "the principle of the harder reading," refusing to soften even the hardest demands of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount.

This concept of discipleship and view of scripture led the evangelical Anabaptists to the practice of non-resistance. At least for the most radical of the Anabaptists, this meant the absolute refusal to bear arms, to hold political office, to swear an oath of loyalty to the state, or to sue in courts of law. Such convictions resulted in intense suffering (the more so given the fact that the Moslem Turks were threatening to invade Europe in the late 1520s), but the Anabaptists saw such suffering as evidence of their discipleship. After all, Christ too had suffered.

The third key element in the Anabaptist understanding of the Christian faith was the necessity of community. The Anabaptists clearly saw themselves as a righteous remnant, a people set apart from the world. They denied absolutely the role of the state in the church, rightly assuming that any such role involved coercion. In contrast, they insisted that adults freely consent to join the redeemed community. The rite of baptism was reserved for adults on scriptural grounds, but also because only adults could choose freely. Furthermore, only adults could voluntarily submit themselves to the discipline of the community as outlined in Matthew 18: 15-20.

The local or household church.
.
The Anabaptists understood that not all Christians would interpret Christ's commands in the same way, and the commitment to subjecting one's actions and interpretations to review by the discerning community provided a needed-but not always successful-corrective.

This commitment to community carried economic as well as spiritual implications. From the very beginnings in Zurich in 1525, mutual aid was a central feature of Anabaptist church practice. Its most extreme manifestation, of course, was among the Anabaptists of Moravia, but the concept was present everywhere. Commitment to the community clearly implied the willingness to sacrifice all one's possessions on its behalf.

The Hutterites. left Russia in the 1870s, settling in what was then Dakota Territory. Their communitarian lifestyle, coupled with large families, has resulted in unusual prosperity. Unlike the Amish, the Hutterites do not shun technology; in fact, they welcome it.

The benefits of that technology, however, are always the property of the community, rather than the individual.

I do not believe any other christian must do what I am doing. But as I study and pray, for me I see no other way.

With love in Christ
brother daniel

 

[Edial]

to New_Wineskin ...

You said ... How do you know that Jesus blatantly told *me* ANYTHING ?

Let me ask you this.

Do you believe that you, New_Wineskin are included in this prayer of Jesus Christ?
Why yes or why not?

JN 17:20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, ...

If you do not have time to answer all the questions that I posted, please answer this one.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

I think there is more to it. I am inclined toward Anabaptist theology in house or local church.

I have a basic distrust for any form of governence other than local accounability.

Disciples are accountable to God through the local congregation. Even when disciples plant a local church they give place to Christ in his members.

I understand that.
In 2000 years much corruption was instilled.

"Anabaptist theology was remarkably consistent. They viewed the essential nature of the Christian faith in terms of the common elements of discipleship, non-resistance, and community."

.
http://www.bethelks.edu/services/mla/guide/

Good definition. Thanks.

The starting point for the evangelical Anabaptists was discipleship

"follow after Christ." Christianity, for them, was tested by one's behavior. They had no well-developed theology of salvation. If one walked as Christ had walked; if one kept His commandments, then one was saved. Conversely, if one did not so walk; if one did not keep His commandments, then one surely could not be saved, irrespective of whatever beliefs were claimed.

This is really well put.

This understanding of discipleship implied a unique attitude toward the Bible

The Anabaptists, claiming that the New Testament (that part of the Bible that most directly reveals Christ's commands) was more important to those who claimed to be followers of Christ. Moreover, they espoused "the principle of the harder reading," refusing to soften even the hardest demands of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount.

"Hard reading" is the only way of reading - literal reading. That's the way I personally read and I feel comfortable doing that.

However, I noticed that "hard reading" often takes an incorrect form of interpretation due to the misunderstanding of that same literal text.

This concept of discipleship and view of scripture led the evangelical Anabaptists to the practice of non-resistance. At least for the most radical of the Anabaptists, this meant the absolute refusal to bear arms, to hold political office, to swear an oath of loyalty to the state, or to sue in courts of law. Such convictions resulted in intense suffering (the more so given the fact that the Moslem Turks were threatening to invade

Europe in the late 1520s), but the Anabaptists saw such suffering as evidence of their discipleship. After all, Christ too had suffered.

I really sympathize with non-resistance.
I do not agree with it due to various NT texts (and I also believe that NT is much more relevant to a believer than the OT), but one cannot help, but sympathize with it.
Non-resistance keeps one close to the Lord.
And the Lord honors that methodology regardless of "theological" leanings.

The third key element in the Anabaptist understanding of the Christian faith was the necessity of community. The Anabaptists clearly saw themselves as a righteous remnant, a people set apart from the world. They denied absolutely the role of the state in the church, rightly assuming that any such role involved coercion. In contrast, they insisted that adults freely consent to join the redeemed community. The rite of baptism was reserved for adults on scriptural grounds, but also because only adults could choose freely. Furthermore, only adults could voluntarily submit themselves to the discipline of the community as outlined in Matthew 18: 15-20.

Again, I sympathize with that.
There are things that I do not agree with in that context and I believe that are incorrect, but that is theology.
I am certain that "my theology" also has holes in it.

The local or household church.

.
The Anabaptists understood that not all Christians would interpret Christ's commands in the same way, and the commitment to subjecting one's actions and interpretations to review by the discerning community provided a needed-but not always successful-corrective.

This commitment to community carried economic as well as spiritual implications. From the very beginnings in Zurich in 1525, mutual aid was a central feature of Anabaptist church practice. Its most extreme manifestation, of course, was among the Anabaptists of Moravia, but the concept was present everywhere. Commitment to the community clearly implied the willingness to sacrifice all one's possessions on its behalf.

Again. I symphathize with that also.

The Hutterites. left Russia in the 1870s, settling in what was then Dakota Territory. Their communitarian lifestyle, coupled with large families, has resulted in unusual prosperity. Unlike the Amish, the Hutterites do not shun technology; in fact, they welcome it.

The benefits of that technology, however, are always the property of the community, rather than the individual.

I do not believe any other christian must do what I am doing. But as I study and pray, for me I see no other way.

With love in Christ
brother daniel

This is a good conclusion, brother daniel.

Thank you for a good post.

Ed

 

[New_Wineskin]

to New_Wineskin ...

After almost finishing a response , it was lost through a keystroke . I will attempt again , later .

 

[Edial]

After almost finishing a response , it was lost through a keystroke . I will attempt again , later .

I happened to me several times ... cold sweat, look of desperation, thoughts of Satan's work, thoughts of God's work, some more desperation, peace with inevitable.

 

[New_Wineskin]

Ok . I will try again . I won't go with the tact that I had in my first try . Maybe this will be better .

to New_Wineskin ...

You said - ... I only say that it is a good thing to do as Jesus says . The only thing that I hear ... is to do things that you interpret the Scriptures as saying . The Scriptures did not die for me . The Scriptures were not raised from the dead for me . If any of the Scriptures are to obeyed because they are Scriptures , then *all* of them are to be obeyed .

Do you really want me to obey the Scriptures ? Before you answer , I will tell you this ... If *I* ever begin to consider that obedience to the Scriptures is necessary , I will obey them all . And , I will start with the direct words of the Lord's command to put to death all of those who claim that obedience of the Scriptures are important and yet breaking the Sabbath . That command deals wih a specific day and a specific way of keeping the various Sabbaths .

Since absolutely *no one* obeys all of the Scriptures , I have no idea why people say that we should do so . They pick and choose which ones to obey and deny that they do while forbidding others from doing so .

I probably never heard such an angle put so plainly on the table.

Thanks .

1. Yes. The Scriptures did not die for us, but they contain the written record of the One who did.

Is your objection that it is not an accurate record?

I have already stated my objection(s) :
a) first and foremost , people contradict themselves by using the Scriptures as Law and insisting that *I* produce righteousness by obedience to *their* interpretation of them .

b) They contradict themselves in the above a) by ignoring the many passages that Paul wrote to sway people from that ery attitude .

c) people who say that one should do as *they* interpret the Scriptures themselves refuse to obey parts of it . It isn't that they are ignorant of the commands or "slip" while attempting to obey the commands - they outright refuse to obey them while stating that people should obey the Scriptures .

d) All of the above create the same atmosphere with which Jesus dealt in His confrontations with the religious leaders of His time . There is hypocracy in how people deal with the Scriptures and there is the turning away from the Lord by focussing on the writings instead of Him while using the writings to earn righteousness . While the leaders of His time had logical reasons for being that way , Christians don't . The very writings used to circumvent that atmosphere are turned into another set of laws to create the cycle again .

e) All but one ( that I know of ) doctrine of the Scriptures that people use is self-contradictory . I have asked several times for people to abide by their own doctrines to explain them and they won't abide by their own doctrines .

Accuracy of the record is not the point at present . But , it is a very argueable point .

2. No one obeys all of the Scriptures, but the Scriptures are presenting that it is not necessary to do so in the context of the Law.

If so , then what is the purpose of this disussion ? If you refuse to obey all of the Scriptures , why insist that I follow the few that you have chosen of your own accord to obey ? Why have you given yourself the right to pick and choose which passages to obey and yet deny me the same right ?

How do you understand this text?
3. How do you understand this text?

Before I answer , please explain why you ask about my understanding of *any* text ?