The “sin lists” in the NT condemn all habitual sinners!
- Thread starter JamesM
- Start date
James, you are probably aware of this, but if not, sarcasm is veiled hostility:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/think-well/201206/think-sarcasm-is-funny-think-again
Perfect love is found in Christ. In Him, there is no spirit of sarcasm. If you would like to talk about Christ, I am in.
Their bark is worse than their bite and all of fall short of having any real argument, let alone 'proof'. This place has some truly ignorant people no matter what thread you visit. One commonality they have is they are rabid Israeli supporters if you are looking for the commonality that binds them together.
Yes really, Jesus himself is cited as making the point: Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17 and 19:16-17. Even Paul agreed, sometimes: Romans 2:13 and 3:31. But if you want to argue the opposite view, you can cite Luke 16:16, Romans 3:28, 6:14, 7:4-6, Galatians 3:13, 3:24-25, 5:18, Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14. And you needn't bother with another of your long-winded and tedious explanations of what you think those passages really mean, I wont read it. I have zero confidence that you could possibly be right because I'm convinced the Bible isn't what you think it is and doesn't mean what you think it does.
It is, but that doesn't mean only true believers can comment here, it's also a public forum open to anyone, so you can't expect not to be challenged.
Poor ole megaloon is deluded. He has invented his own theology from the dark recesses of his imagination. He hasn't a clue.
Y'all be hooped. Become a catholic and you can wipe your record clean every week in confession. Born Againers have a tough row to hoe believing the stuff they do cuz there ain't no way in hell they gonna make it trying to please their god.
That is your typical debating style that is for sure. You can 'comment' and it better be read but you put yourself under no such obligation. Sounds like your case is weak and the long tedious reply should easily show that for all you posturing you really are clueless about a lot that you claim to be 'the authority'.
No facts involved and it isn't like you don't have an ego as big as a house, another reason you can't debate theology.
Comment would be a reply, the trolls here don't comment, they try to mock and insult any believer, that is the state of the quality of your collective replies.
Here we go:
The term 'law' in your selective verses is explained further in the same passage. The 'do not kill' is from the 10 Commandments and not one jot of them has been voided yet Acts:10 clearly show that the dietary laws were changed for the Jews just before Gentiles were being taught. It would seem that the Jews today still believe in 'kosher' food so it is they (and you) that are slow on the uptake.
M't:5:17:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law,
or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
M't:5:18:
For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,
till all be fulfilled.
M't:5:19:
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,
and shall teach men so,
he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:
but whosoever shall do and teach them,
the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
M't:5:21:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not kill;
and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Lu:16:17:
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass,
than one tittle of the law to fail.
The 10 Commandments are in effect until the start of the 1,000 years, the 600+ laws fell by the wayside at the cross, the law that is in effect for the new earth (after this heaven and earth vanish) is given in Re:21 so just which law are you claiming this is referencing??
The verses below are not about 'law' it is about teaching people about God.
Lu:19:16:
Then came the first,
saying,
Lord,
thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
Lu:19:17:
And he said unto him,
Well,
thou good servant:
because thou hast been faithful in a very little,
have thou authority over ten cities.
Since this is to Gentiles why would you try and claim it supports the OT 600+ laws rather than the 2 laws Gentiles are under as that is what they will be judged on according to the judgment of the Nations passages such as the sheep and goats passage from Matthew:25.
Ro:2:12:
For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law:
and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
The passage cover both OT and NT law and the unmentioned law is from Adam until Moses and from the start of the 1,000 years until the end of eternity. Clearly one set of laws is above the other 2 sets that are temporary as they cover the time Ge:3:15 takes to be completed.
Ro:3:31:
Do we then make void the law through faith?
God forbid:
yea,
we establish the law.
Ro:3:29:
Is he the God of the Jews only?
is he not also of the Gentiles?
Yes,
of the Gentiles also:
You are just guessing which law it is referencing but it is the 600+ rather than the 10 Commandments.
Lu:16:16:
The law and the prophets were until John:
since that time the kingdom of God is preached,
and every man presseth into it.
Romans is to the Gentiles so it is the 2 NT laws that is being referenced. The companion verses are posted to help you ssee that.
Ro:3:28:
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Jas:2:14-17:
What doth it profit,
my brethren,
though a man say he hath faith,
and have not works?
can faith save him?
If a brother or sister be naked,
and destitute of daily food,
And one of you say unto them,
Depart in peace,
be ye warmed and filled;
notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body;
what doth it profit?
Even so faith,
if it hath not works,
is dead,
being alone.
I fail to see what point this verse is supposed to show.
Ro:6:13:
Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin:
but yield yourselves unto God,
as those that are alive from the dead,
and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
This is referencing that the OT had sin based on committing a physical act while NT law is based on a thought being all that is needed to put a person into sin.
Ro:7:4:
Wherefore,
my brethren,
ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ;
that ye should be married to another,
even to him who is raised from the dead,
that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Ro:7:5:
For when we were in the flesh,
the motions of sins,
which were by the law,
did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
Ro:7:6:
But now we are delivered from the law,
that being dead wherein we were held;
that we should serve in newness of spirit,
and not in the oldness of the letter.
This is a reference to the death penalty that came with most of the 600+ laws.
Ga:3:13:
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us:
for it is written,
Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
The last verse in the reference states that the OT morality laws have been parked.
Ga:3:23:
But before faith came,
we were kept under the law,
shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Ga:3:24:
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ,
that we might be justified by faith.
Ga:3:25:
But after that faith is come,
we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
The spirit is the NT law which is based n thoughts rather than action like the OT laws were based on.
Ga:5:16:
This I say then,
Walk in the Spirit,
and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Ga:5:17:
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit,
and the Spirit against the flesh:
and these are contrary the one to the other:
so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Ga:5:18:
But if ye be led of the Spirit,
ye are not under the law.
The key word in the verse seems to point it to being about the 10 Commandments.
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;
The 600+ laws were put into place for Jesus to follow, that ended with the cross as they had fulfilled their purpose.
Col:2:14:
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us,
which was contrary to us,
and took it out of the way,
nailing it to his cross;
Isa:53:9:
And he made his grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death;
because he had done no violence,
neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Isa:53:10:
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him;
he hath put him to grief:
when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,
he shall see his seed,
he shall prolong his days,
and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Oh Wow! Pages of scriptures no one is going to read. Why, you might ask. Cuz it is all made up by men who hungered for power over others.
Read all about it. It appears that going to the grave before this event is the better option as you get to sleep through it rather than staying awake in the grave.
Psalms:37:20:
But the wicked shall perish,
and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs:
they shall consume;
into smoke shall they consume away.
Zec:14:12:
And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem;
Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet,
and their eyes shall consume away in their holes,
and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
Just to show Sex doesn't have a clue what he is talking about most of the time. You either BTW.
Men are still controlled by the military rather than religion.
Another demonstration of why it's impossible to have a sensible conversation with you, you just make things up, attribute claims to people they haven't made, then call them down on that basis.
Nobody's under any obligation to read anything I write, I've made no such claim. In fact I'd rather you didn't read anything I write, you never understand or accept any of it, you just continue to comment from your position of relentless ignorance about what the Bible really is. Nor have I ever claimed to be an authority, I claim only that I've read the Bible and various scholarly analyses and discussions of it--I've given you the references--and have better information on it than you do. As long as you continue to regard the Bible as literally true, correct, and consistent in all particulars and believe it contains a sort of future history of humanity, when it is none of those things, you're not going to be right. I'm not interested in reading long and tedious explanations that can't possibly be right.
Dex, save the medicine for somebody that ain't dead.
Seriously. Kick over to the "Gun Control Is Completely Useless" thread. I laid out a legislative agenda. I'd truly appreciate your lights on it.
LOL, man are you ever a retard. That you confirm it with every post is almost amazing as it sets a new standard for where the stupid line is.
Dead would be somebody who is void of any reply, that would be you and Dex and a few others. Nothing like making a fool of yourself but I feel more sorry for you guys than amused as that ended a few years back.
Do you proof-read anything you write as this is about as stupid as it gets. You have some 'special powers' that allow you to determine if an article is right or wrong without reading it?? That's pretty messed up on it's own. Perhaps the truth is closer to you can't look bad in front of the few here who think you are a thinking brain rather than a person who just regurgitates what they have read that was written by others.
Actually I'm quite careful to include references to almost every post i make and that is especially true of the Bible. You just can't stand to have anybody reply to your words like they were written by a child in that they contain little or no insight about the book.
If the posts aren't meant to be read they why even post on the religious themes? What is closer to the truth is that you prefer they be read and not replied to unless it an concession that you have it right. You don't and there are a lot of words that can be used to show you why your (adopted from what other men have written) doctrine is not very stable. Those are the ones who don't like to talk about the finer details if the book. You can't even comment on a chapter that is a single passage like Hebrews:12 or Isaiah:65 but you want to be viewed as the only one who has a handle on what the book means. You belong in a shrink thread to explore your many characteristics that give you such an ego.
If I don't understand it how can I point out it's flaws? It is comments like that show me you are not capable of independent thinking and in this case it only means the various doctrines that you have adopted are a result of that inability. I don't feel intimidated by that character flaw of yours.
Sure you have while even admitting that reading the book didn't clue you in you had to read explanations arrived at by other men who may or may not have a sound outlook on the book. Since you don't have a sound outlook it would be the fault of the ones you read. Care to name a few as their versions would also have flaws if it splits off the 70 week from the whole.
What is 'future history' even supposed to mean? You having another meltdown??
You are the only person who reads into the bible the stuff you do. Not one single bible thumping god botherer agrees with you, but you are the only one who is right. Anybody with even a vague understanding of psychology can see that is some kind of psychosis/neurosis. Although I don't always agree with Dexter's take on spiritual matters, I and most others can see that he is clearly a whole lot more intelligent and logical than you are Htz. And he knows a whole lot more than you do about the history of the book than you do. Your stance on the book is fanatical and without foundation. You are suffering from a Messiah complex. Truly, and I say this with compassion, seek professional help. Messiahs always end up dead before their time.
I doubt you get out much in order to discuss the book very much so if you are basing that on this site then you might as well admit I am one of the few who have read the book, let alone extensively via various duscussion that took place before I even stumbled onto this site.
I don't have to promote my own version as the various popular doctrines all have huge gaping holes in them when you look at them closely. They often forbid debate because of that very fact, at least I don't do that but it is people like you and Dex who claim my version is wrong yet neither of you can actually point out any particular flaw and even when I ask for you input on certain passages you both close up and have nothing to say. Do you really expect me to drop my version under those circumstances because it isn't going to happen or it would have already by now. If either of you had any valid replies you would have posted them by now so the only method you have is to try and claim that I'm not in a position to know more than either of you, jet I clearly do have a better doctrine as it supports itself through many different passages. Considering how little you have heard from me you can't even repeat what my version entails yet you 'know' it is wrong. Two little children agreeing with each other does not alter the facts, I can form a reply to anything either of you can post, and it is really easy.
BTW that goes for a lot more topics than the Bible.
I get the feeling you have been on the receiving end of that rather than either of you being able to determine what drives a person.
Really?? I think it is that you are both Atheists that is the root of your admiration for him because he certainly is a novice when it comes to the Bible. Who else takes little parts of other doctrines and weaves it into something he promotes as being 'his version'. You and he are probably really short on having any original thoughts, let alone finding passages that belong together.
Really?? Who moved the 12 books after Daniel to where they are now found as they were all (except Ezra) written before the Book of Daniel? This would include the Gospels being written by people 300 years after the events took place even when many verses point to all 4 being the work of the original witnesses. Do you not understand even a simple verse like the ones below??
Joh:21:24:
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,
and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.
Joh:21:25:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did,
the which,
if they should be written every one,
I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
Amen.
1Jo:1:1:
That which was from the beginning,
which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes,
which we have looked upon,
and our hands have handled,
of the Word of life;
1Jo:1:2:
(For the life was manifested,
and we have seen it,
and bear witness,
and shew unto you that eternal life,
which was with the Father,
and was manifested unto us
1Jo:1:3:
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you,
that ye also may have fellowship with us:
and truly our fellowship is with the Father,
and with his Son Jesus Christ.
The book is what my foundation is based on. Yours and Dex's foundation is based on explaining who God is while keeping the Bible out of the discussion. It makes me laugh when you claim to have knowledge about who God is.
I'm a reader of the book dumbas* lol
