Status
Not open for further replies.

Christian7777777

Active Member
Dec 28, 2021
311
48
52
.
✟2,917.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well that is misquoting scripture. According to the scripture the law is not wrath it is holy, just and good according to Romans 7:12.

God's wrath is because of unbelief and sin (John 3:36) in all those who choose not to believe and follow what Gods' Word says.

If there is no law we have no knowledge of what sin is. If you have no knowledge of what sin is we do not know we are sinners in need of a Saviour. If we have no Savior we are all lost because we are still in our sins. Do you know the meaning of Matthew 9:12-13? If so what do you think it means?

Take Care.



The law works wrath, and although it is holy and just, it was only ( added) for transgressions and against transgressors.

The law only spoke to those under the law, and now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, the righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ upon all those that believe, Him set forth for propitiation through faith in His blood.


There is no law of works any more ( of transgression of the law) now there is solely the law of faith..



Romans 3:19 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.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.



Sin is unbelief.( never says to follow what Gods word says that is the letter that kills and that SDA add and observe)..


John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.



It is by the deeds of the law that there is knowledge ( committing) of sin.

Now we must awake from that death, and to put on belief in Christ ( righteousness) to sin not in the law which is the knowledge ( committing) of sin..


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.


1 Corinthians 15:34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.




Sickness is in the law, it is the knowledge of sin/death.

Now knowledge of Christ( salvation) is what saves ( belief in Christ rising solely, for the remission of sins)..


Matthew 9:12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luke 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.
 
Upvote 0

Christian7777777

Active Member
Dec 28, 2021
311
48
52
.
✟2,917.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"Love for God is obeying the truth" - OK. Whether it's obeying Jesus Christ who is the Truth, obeying the truth about Jesus Christ, obeying the Good News of Jesus Christ, obeying God's commandments, which I would take to be Truth, it all seems to comply with Scripture, but it is not the most succinct statement about Love in Scripture.

Gal3:1 does not explain Biblical Love, which is what my post discusses. Paul doesn't pick up discussion of Love specifically by word until Gal5 where in 5:14 he once again draws back to love neighbor from Lev19 to make his point.



Truth is Gods word, the Spirit of truth, truth is grace, that came by Jesus Christ..



John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.


John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I think you first need to understand what the biblical definition of what believe means.
I know exactly what is means. But thanks for asking.

From Acts 16:31 - "believe"

pisteuó: to believe, entrust
Original Word: πιστεύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: pisteuó
Phonetic Spelling: (pist-yoo'-o)
Definition: to believe, entrust
Usage: I believe, have faith in, trust in; pass: I am entrusted with.

Does believing in God mean we can also worship other gods? That doesn't sound like belief to me because God told us to only worship Him Exodus 20:3.
Red Herring. Next.

You are using the word belief in the broad sense, but the Bible doesn't teach that everyone who believes will be saved because the devil believes in God and he will not be saved according to scripture.
You have just provided a CLASSIC example of perverting Scripture.

James 2:19 is grossly misunderstood by way too many. First, that verse is NOT about salvation, so your premise is totally wrong.

Second, they believe that God is One. That is NOT a saving faith. In fact, they believe that because of EXPERIENCE, not faith. So those who use James 2:19 to push the nonsense about "the faith of demons" are beyond ignorant. There is NO faith in that verse.

People believe things because they experience them. That's not a faith thing.

Faith is trust. The Greek word for "believe" also means trust, or entrust.

Do you know what is being "entrusted" when a person comes to Christ for salvation?

I also never said we can ignore these two scriptures, but the rest of the Bible provides context to these two scriptures instead of deleting 99% of the bible to make the two scriptures fit.
OK, please show me what these 2 verses (John 5:24 and 10:28) mean from "the rest of the Bible". I want to know what these 2 verses actually mean. Can you do that?

You can't believe without faith
Wrong. Belief from experience excludes trust. But it seems you don't know that.

On what basis did Jesus appeal to the religious leaders?

John 10-
37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.
38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

Most people had actually witnessed the miracles of Jesus. And He used that to appeal to placing their trust in Him.

I hope you are able to see the difference.

Let put back context in the scripture you quote from John. It really is spelled out for us.

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”

Jesus is saying eternal life is conditional- those who do not believe are not His sheep because they do not hear His voice or follow Him (His example) and He does not know them.
You have really misunderstood this passage.

There is NO SUCH "condition" from v.27 that results in v.28, which is what you are claiming.

v.27 is a simple statement about what His sheep DO. Anyone can see that, if their eyes are open. It could also be a policy statement about what His sheep OUGHT TO DO.

Either way, it is NOT NOT NOT a conditional statement that relates to v.28.

The sole condition for receiving eternal life is to believe in Christ for salvation. Period.

And, on that basis, the recipient of eternal life shall never perish. That is eternal security, which you reject as a biblical doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,127
4,257
USA
✟480,522.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
v.27 is a simple statement about what His sheep DO. Anyone can see that, if their eyes are open. It could also be a policy statement about what His sheep OUGHT TO DO.

There is nothing that says My sheep ought to hear My voice- you are adding to the clear word of Jesus who says very plainly His sheep hears His voice and they are known by Jesus because they follow Jesus (His example). Those are three conditions before you get to John 10:28

Jesus very plainly tells us He does not know us if we do not obey (keep the commandments) Matthew 7:23, 1 John 2:4. That does not mean Jesus does not know who we are, but He doesn't "know" us because we don't listen to Him or does what He asks. Jesus tells us those who keep commandments of man over the commandments of God are worshipping in vain Matthew 15:3-9

If you claim to be God's sheep, why would you not want to hear His voice and obey Him? Why would anyone argue over this?

For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. 1 John 5:3

Your argument appears to be with the scriptures. I know nothing I say will convince you and I hope for your sake you're right and I am wrong, but the scriptures don't teach we can go to heaven without repenting from our sins Matthew 4:17, Hebrews 10:26 and true repentance means turning from sin and walking with the Spirit of Christ which is given when we obey. John 14:15-18, Acts 5:32

Be well.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,225
6,171
North Carolina
✟278,308.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I already did. Your response was to simply ignore what was written to you with no response. As shown from the scriptures, you were disregarding scripture context and subject matter of Hebrews 7 (see post # 631 linked)
More of the grand run-around, as predicted. (Darn, I'm good!)

My response below to your post #631 remains unaddressed.

No Biblical demonstration of the error in my exegesis below was presented.

My exegesis was not directly dealt with at all.


In the absence of such, your assertion is without merit.
LoveGodsWord said:
Hebrews 7: 11-18 [11], If therefore perfection were by
the Levitical priesthood, for under it the people received the law,
And what law did the people receive? . . .the people received the Mosaic law, not the laws for the priesthood.

And what happened to that law which the people received? . . .it was set aside (Hebrews 7:18a).

Which law was set aside? . . .the one that was weak and useless to make anything perfect (Hebrews 7:18b). . .the same law of Romans 8:3 that was powerless, which in Romans 8:3 is the Mosaic law given to the people.

So what law was changed with the change of the priesthood? . . .the law which the priesthood administered to the people (Hebrews 7:11), the law that was given under the priesthood to the people, (Hebrews 7:11), and not the laws of the priesthood.

Please explain the meaning of the parenthetical, "for on the basis of (under) the priesthood, the law was given to the people," being true to its words, context and to apostolic teaching (Hebrews 7:11).

This request still remains unanswered.

And now for more of the grand run-around. . .wait for it! . . .it's coming!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
FreeGrace2 said:
v.27 is a simple statement about what His sheep DO. Anyone can see that, if their eyes are open. It could also be a policy statement about what His sheep OUGHT TO DO.
There is nothing that says My sheep ought to hear My voice- you are adding to the clear word of Jesus
No, but you are a careless reader. Just scroll up to my quote. I gave a CHOICE of what v.27 is about. It is either a simple statement about what His sheep DO, or a policy statement about what His sheep OUGHT to do.

Do you understand what a policy statement is?

What v.27 CANNOT be is a conditional statement that leads to never perishing. There are NO words in v.27, or even v.28 that create a conditional clause.

I recommend that you consult a basic English grammar text and read about conditional clauses. A Greek grammar text would be even better.

who says very plainly His sheep hears His voice and they are known by Jesus because they follow Jesus (His example).
Again, either about what His sheep DO, or AS A POLICY STATEMENT, what His sheep OUGHT to do.

Those are three conditions before you get to John 10:28
This is WRONG again. They are NOT conditions. You really need to consult a grammar text and learn what a conditional clause looks like and how to create one.

It is sloppy reading that leads to much FALSE DOCTRINES.

Jesus very plainly tells us He does not know us if we do not obey (keep the commandments) Matthew 7:23, 1 John 2:4.
WRONG again. There is nothing in Matt 7:23 about keeping commandments. Why do you feel it necessary to make up such stuff? False statements do not help your side.

In Matt 7:21-23 the crowd's appeal for entering the kingdom is based on WHAT THEY DID. And Jesus never contradicts them by saying, "no, you didn't do that".

What He did say is that He NEVER KNEW them. Could He say that if any of them at any time HAD believed in Him for salvation? No, He couldn't. Because He is the giver of eternal liie, which cannot perish or die, and those given eternal life shall never perish.

That does not mean Jesus does not know who we are, but He doesn't "know" us because we don't listen to Him or does what He asks.
WRONG again. It means they NEVER believed in Him. They NEVER had a personal relationship with Him. All their works were based on their own efforts.

If you claim to be God's sheep, why would you not want to hear His voice and obey Him? Why would anyone argue over this?
No one IS arguing over this. You are just making up ridiculous questions that aren't even relevant. But I guess you have to do something to try to defend your views.

For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. 1 John 5:3

Your argument appears to be with the scriptures.
Quit the contrary. You are the one who isn't reading carefully or understanding what you read. Like making up the claim that v.27 is a conditional clause, when there isn't any words that create a condition.

I know nothing I say will convince you
That is correct, and because of all your errors.

and I hope for your sake you're right and I am wrong
Why would you hope this??

but the scriptures don't teach we can go to heaven without repenting from our sins Matthew 4:17, Hebrews 10:26 and true repentance means turning from sin and walking with the Spirit of Christ which is given when we obey. John 14:15-18, Acts 5:32
What you fail to understand is that "turning from sins" is a work, whether you agree or not.

Lifestyle, which is what "turning from sin" entails, is NOT NOT NOT the way to salvation.

Placing all your trust in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross is the ONLY WAY to salvation.

And those who do that SHALL NEVER PERISH.

All words of Jesus. But it appears you do not believe Him.

The only people who will go to heaven are those who received the gift of eternal life which is given on the basis of trusting in Jesus Christ.

Until you shed your belief that you must "do things" to get into heaven, well, you will find yourself in that crowd in Matt 7.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,127
4,257
USA
✟480,522.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
FreeGrace2 said:
v.27 is a simple statement about what His sheep DO. Anyone can see that, if their eyes are open. It could also be a policy statement about what His sheep OUGHT TO DO.

No, but you are a careless reader. Just scroll up to my quote. I gave a CHOICE of what v.27 is about. It is either a simple statement about what His sheep DO, or a policy statement about what His sheep OUGHT to do.

Do you understand what a policy statement is?

What v.27 CANNOT be is a conditional statement that leads to never perishing. There are NO words in v.27, or even v.28 that create a conditional clause.

I recommend that you consult a basic English grammar text and read about conditional clauses. A Greek grammar text would be even better.


Again, either about what His sheep DO, or AS A POLICY STATEMENT, what His sheep OUGHT to do.


This is WRONG again. They are NOT conditions. You really need to consult a grammar text and learn what a conditional clause looks like and how to create one.

It is sloppy reading that leads to much FALSE DOCTRINES.


WRONG again. There is nothing in Matt 7:23 about keeping commandments. Why do you feel it necessary to make up such stuff? False statements do not help your side.

In Matt 7:21-23 the crowd's appeal for entering the kingdom is based on WHAT THEY DID. And Jesus never contradicts them by saying, "no, you didn't do that".

What He did say is that He NEVER KNEW them. Could He say that if any of them at any time HAD believed in Him for salvation? No, He couldn't. Because He is the giver of eternal liie, which cannot perish or die, and those given eternal life shall never perish.


WRONG again. It means they NEVER believed in Him. They NEVER had a personal relationship with Him. All their works were based on their own efforts.


No one IS arguing over this. You are just making up ridiculous questions that aren't even relevant. But I guess you have to do something to try to defend your views.


Quit the contrary. You are the one who isn't reading carefully or understanding what you read. Like making up the claim that v.27 is a conditional clause, when there isn't any words that create a condition.


That is correct, and because of all your errors.


Why would you hope this??


What you fail to understand is that "turning from sins" is a work, whether you agree or not.

Lifestyle, which is what "turning from sin" entails, is NOT NOT NOT the way to salvation.

Placing all your trust in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross is the ONLY WAY to salvation.

And those who do that SHALL NEVER PERISH.

All words of Jesus. But it appears you do not believe Him.

The only people who will go to heaven are those who received the gift of eternal life which is given on the basis of trusting in Jesus Christ.

Until you shed your belief that you must "do things" to get into heaven, well, you will find yourself in that crowd in Matt 7.

Wow! We are getting into unnecessary mudslinging when I was hoping we could discuss scripture, there is no point in continuing under these circumstances. We will have to agree to disagree.

Be well and take care.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,225
6,171
North Carolina
✟278,308.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wow! We are getting into unnecessary mudslinging when I was hoping we could discuss scripture, there is no point in continuing under these circumstances. We will have to agree to disagree.

Be well and take care.
"Interesting" characterization of an irrefutable rebuttal. . .
 
Upvote 0

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,127
4,257
USA
✟480,522.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
"Interesting" characterization of an irrefutable rebuttal. . .
I have no problem discussing and rebutting, nothing was rebutted from my post through scripture other than an opinion, but when we get to calling each other names, we lose the whole point of sharing scripture. It pretty much defeats the purpose. It's okay to discuss and disagree with scripture, the name calling on here has been a bit much.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
"Interesting" characterization of an irrefutable rebuttal. . .
It seems your interpretation of a "rebuttal" is to deny (without showing why) rinse and repeat without addressing anything you are quoting from. If you would like to make a proper rebuttal of someones post you are best to address and respond to the content of the post you are wanting to rebut and prove why what that person is saying is not correct and then show the correct meaning through scripture exegeses. This, I believe you have not done in anything you have posted.

Take Care.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
More of the grand run-around, as predicted. (Darn, I'm good!)

My response below to your post #631 remains unaddressed.

No Biblical demonstration of the error in my exegesis below was presented.

My exegesis was not directly dealt with at all.

In the absence of such, your assertion is without merit.

And what law did the people receive? . . .the people received the Mosaic law, not the laws for the priesthood.

And what happened to that law which the people received? . . .it was set aside (Hebrews 7:18a).

Which law was set aside? . . .the one that was weak and useless to make anything perfect (Hebrews 7:18b). . .the same law of Romans 8:3 that was powerless, which in Romans 8:3 is the Mosaic law given to the people.

So what law was changed with the change of the priesthood? . . .the law which the priesthood administered to the people (Hebrews 7:11), the law that was given under the priesthood to the people, (Hebrews 7:11), and not the laws of the priesthood.

Please explain the meaning of the parenthetical, "for on the basis of (under) the priesthood, the law was given to the people," being true to its words, context and to apostolic teaching (Hebrews 7:11).

This request still remains unanswered.

And now for more of the grand run-around. . .wait for it! . . .it's coming!

Non-responsive to the post you are quoting from. Please see post # 631 linked. As shown from the linked post, you were disregarding scripture context and subject matter of Hebrews 7. see also post # 770. It would probably help the discussion rather then repeating yourself by addressing my post to you that is in disagreement with what you have already posted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,225
6,171
North Carolina
✟278,308.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I have no problem discussing and rebutting, nothing was rebutted from my post through scripture other than an opinion, but when we get to calling each other names, we lose the whole point of sharing scripture. It pretty much defeats the purpose. It's okay to discuss and disagree with scripture, the name calling on here has been a bit much.
I guess I missed the "names" in post #766.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Gee, thanks for the freedom, as if it's yours to give.

The real issue here is you STILL have not given a rational or reasonable explanation of what John 5:24, John 10:28, Eph 1:13,14 or 1 Peter 1:23 say.

What you HAVE DONE is terribly pervert Greek tenses, and even make up stuff.


In truth, you have been.

The clarity of the verses above absolutely refute your opinions.

All I see here from you in response to detailed posts and scriptures provided that disagree with you is denial without showing why you disagree with what was shared with you, and empty claims and accusations unsupported with any evidence or proof while providing interpretations of scripture that is contradictory to other scriptures in the bible, while disregarding the Greek and scripture context and subject matter that is in disagreement with you while repeating yourself like you have done here without addressing anything in the posts and scriptures that are in disagreement with you. So of course you are free to believe as wish as there is nothing shared with you that will change that. You have been provided scripture and the Greek tenses that I believe shows your interpretation of the scriptures you have provided above are not biblical. You were also provided supportive scriptures from Hebrews 6:4-8 and Hebrews 10:26-31 warning us not to "depart the faith" or we can lose eternal life meaning there is no such thing as once saved always saved because if we were once saved always saved we would not be warned against departing the faith. I believe it is you therefore dear friend that is making and as we are in disagreement we will of course need to agree to disagree. Let's talk more when you want to interact with the posts that have been shared with you. Until then I hope only the best for you.

Take Care.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,225
6,171
North Carolina
✟278,308.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Non-responsive to the post you are quoting from. Please see post # 631 linked. As shown from the linked post, you were disregarding scripture context and subject matter of Hebrews 7. see also post # 770.
More of the grand run-around, as predicted. (Darn, I'm good!)

Please demonstrate the context and subject matter of your above unsupported assertion regarding my following exegesis.
LoveGodsWord said:
Hebrews 7: 11-18 [11], If therefore perfection were by
the Levitical priesthood, for under it the people received the law,
And what law did the people receive? . . .the people received the Mosaic law, not the laws for the priesthood.

And what happened to that law which the people received? . . .it was set aside (Hebrews 7:18a).

Which law was set aside? . . .the one that was weak and useless to make anything perfect (Hebrews 7:18b). . .the same law of Romans 8:3 that was powerless, which in Romans 8:3 is the Mosaic law given to the people.

So what law was changed with the change of the priesthood? . . .the law which the priesthood administered to the people (Hebrews 7:11), the law that was given under the priesthood to the people, (Hebrews 7:11), and not the laws of the priesthood.

Please explain the meaning of the parenthetical, "for on the basis of (under) the priesthood, the law was given to the people," being true to its words, context and to apostolic teaching (Hebrews 7:11).

And this request likewise still remains unanswered.

And now for still more of the grand run-around?

.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
More of the grand run-around, as predicted. (Darn, I'm good!)

Please demonstrate the context and subject matter of your above unsupported assertion.


And what law did the people receive? . . .the people received the Mosaic law, not the laws for the priesthood.

And what happened to that law which the people received? . . .it was set aside (Hebrews 7:18a).

Which law was set aside? . . .the one that was weak and useless to make anything perfect (Hebrews 7:18b). . .the same law of Romans 8:3 that was powerless, which in Romans 8:3 is the Mosaic law given to the people.

So what law was changed with the change of the priesthood? . . .the law which the priesthood administered to the people (Hebrews 7:11), the law that was given under the priesthood to the people, (Hebrews 7:11), and not the laws of the priesthood.

Please explain the meaning of the parenthetical, "for on the basis of (under) the priesthood, the law was given to the people," being true to its words, context and to apostolic teaching (Hebrews 7:11).

And this request also still remains unanswered.

And now for still more of the grand run-around?
See post 771 linked your just repeating yourself again and being non-responsive to the contexts and subject matter of the post you are quoting from that disagrees with you. The context and subject matter you are disregarding in Hebrews 7 was provided in in post # 631 linked. You continue to be non-responsive to the content of this post that shows why your claims that Hebrews 7 is about Gods' 10 commandments. Here it is again if you do not want to go back to the linked post...

............

It seems you think that the law mentioned in Hebrews 7 is talking about Gods' 10 commandments? Prove it? I bet you cannot because the chapter context and subject matter is to the laws of the Levitical Priesthood.

Here is the context and subject matter you left out which is the changing of the law of the Levitical Priesthood because Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (only Levites could be Priests under old covenant law)...

Hebrews 7: 11-18 [11], If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, for under it the people received the law, what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? [12], For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. [13], For he of whom these things are spoken pertains to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. [14], For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. [15], And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there rises another priest, [16], Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. [17], For he testifies, You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. [18], For there is truly a cancellation of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Hebrews 7:28, For the law makes men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, makes the Son, who is consecrated for ever more.

Hebrews 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience

The changing of the law in Hebrews 7 is the changing of the law of the Priesthood and the old covenant laws for remission of sins and animal sacrifices not Gods' 10 commandments. Your disregarding chapter context and subject matter as your friend was earlier and reading into the scriptures (eisegesis) what the scriptures do not say or do not teach. Under the Levitical Priesthood the people received the laws for remission of sins through animal sacrifices and sin offerings for blood atonement (see Hebrews 8; Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10).

Your question in regards to Hebrews 7:11; 18? Under the Levitical Priesthood the people received the laws for remission of sins through animal sacrifices and sin offerings for blood atonement (see Hebrews 8; Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10) not God's 10 commandments. This is the context and subject matter your disregarding in Hebrews. Also, think it through, the people did not receive Gods' 10 commandments from the Levitical Priesthood or Aaron did they? They received it directly from God and through Moses (tables of stone). Your claim that Hebrews 7 is talking about Gods' 10 commandments is simply not biblical or supported by scripture. As shown through scripture context and subject matter, the runaround is your side not mine so we may have to agree to disagree.

Take Care
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,225
6,171
North Carolina
✟278,308.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It seems your interpretation of a "rebuttal" is to deny (without showing why) rinse and repeat without addressing anything you are quoting from. If you would like to make a proper rebuttal of someones post you are best to address and respond to the content of the post you are wanting to rebut and prove why what that person is saying is not correct and then show the correct meaning through exegeses. This you have not done in anything you have posted.

Take Care.
The rebuttal speaks for itself. . .each can decide for himself.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Wow! We are getting into unnecessary mudslinging
No, your reading was sloppy by claiming John 10:27 is a condition. It's NOT a condition so please quit thinking it is.

when I was hoping we could discuss scripture
When discussing Scripture, and one party makes an error, I will correct that error.

there is no point in continuing under these circumstances. We will have to agree to disagree.

Be well and take care.
No problem. If you can't take correction, it's good to know now.

:wave:
 
Upvote 0

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,127
4,257
USA
✟480,522.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
No, your reading was sloppy by claiming John 10:27 is a condition. It's NOT a condition so please quit thinking it is.


When discussing Scripture, and one party makes an error, I will correct that error.


No problem. If you can't take correction, it's good to know now.

:wave:
Jesus will sort all of this out when He comes back, which will be soon!

Take care.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I have no problem discussing and rebutting, nothing was rebutted from my post through scripture other than an opinion
No, you make a grave error by claiming John 10:27 is a condition attached to v.28. It is NOT. It's a description not a condition. Maybe you don't even understand the difference so you needed correction.

but when we get to calling each other names
Seems you don't even understand what "calling names" means. I called you nothing. I did describe your reading as sloppy. Did I say that you were sloppy? No. If I did, that would be name calling.

we lose the whole point of sharing scripture. It pretty much defeats the purpose. It's okay to discuss and disagree with scripture, the name calling on here has been a bit much.
Seems you just don't like to be corrected when in error.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.