15 Dec 16
Originally posted by leunammiWhy "strangely"? You feel free to cast aspersions at someone just because he hasn't answered your request after less than eight hours?
I asked my question in response to Too statement, not because I didn't believe it but wanted to gain his understanding, strangely enough I still haven't.
15 Dec 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBy "strangely", I am referring to a question posed to you answered by another, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Do you want to answer that question posed to you, or piggyback off of Raj's comments.
Why "strangely"? You feel free to cast aspersions at someone just because he hasn't answered your request after less than eight hours?
Originally posted by leunammiBy "strangely", I am referring to a question posed to you answered by another, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less.
By "strangely", I am referring to a question posed to you answered by another, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Do you want to answer that question posed to you, or piggyback off of Raj's comments.
Let's see:
ToO: "Your belief that it's impossible for anyone to "keep his commands all the time" is contrary to what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth."
L: "Would you kindly provide scripture references to backup this claim? Thanks"
R999: "Sounds like you believe that it is in fact impossible to keep the commandments of Christ...So if you are correct and nobody can keep the commandments of Christ..."
L: "Am I correct? No not really because I never made such a statement, I only asked a question."
R999: "You only asked a question yes, but why did that question arise?"
L: "I asked my question in response to Too statement, not because I didn't believe it but wanted to gain his understanding, strangely enough I still haven't."
ToO: "Why "strangely"? You feel free to cast aspersions at someone just because he hasn't answered your request after less than eight hours?"
Exactly how does your explanation fit with the above? What was the purpose of tacking on the clause "...strangely enough I still haven't.""? Your statement seems to be saying that you found it "strange" that you hadn't "gained [my] understanding" because I had yet to respond to your question.
Do you want to answer that question posed to you, or piggyback off of Raj's comments.
Read my response in the post just prior to the one you responded to.
17 Dec 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIts one of the paradoxes of Christianity that they preach Christ saves, but he is not to be followed. Strange!
Strangely enough neither leunammi nor Fetchmyjunk have cited even a single verse where, while He walked the Earth, Jesus taught that it is impossible for anyone to "keep his commands all the time".
18 Dec 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnePaul was the one to say that.
Strangely enough neither leunammi nor Fetchmyjunk have cited even a single verse where, while He walked the Earth, Jesus taught that it is impossible for anyone to "keep his commands all the time".
Did Jesus say anyone could perfectly follow Jesus' commands?
18 Dec 16
Originally posted by Rajk999Maybe stick with what people actually say instead of making stuff up, you might gain a little more credibility. That is what is strange!
Its one of the paradoxes of Christianity that they preach Christ saves, but he is not to be followed. Strange!
Originally posted by leunammiSo tell me, referring to the commandments of Christ as :
Maybe stick with what people actually say instead of making stuff up, you might gain a little more credibility. That is what is strange!
- legalistic
- works based salvation
what is the purpose of those and similar labels.
Are those intended to tell people to follow the commandments?
Or are then intended to tell people not to.
18 Dec 16
Originally posted by Rajk999First off, I have made no such comments or implied them, but you have lumped me into a pot with some that aledgedly did or hold such a view whatever it may mean, the real question is...
So tell me, referring to the commandments of Christ as :
- legalistic
- works based salvation
what is the purpose of those and similar labels.
Are those intended to tell people to follow the commandments?
Or are then intended to tell people not to.
People that say (use these phrases), are they meaning the same thing to the person saying them and what you think? What I mean is, is the understanding or intent the same, apples to apples comparison if you will. You don't ask questions about what people think because you don't want them asked back for some reason. To understand what a person thinks, questions need to be asked not positions assumed. My point in responding to you was to show you that fact so that you could strive more towards an honest exchange of conversation rather the tact I have seen you take with regards about things posters never said/implied, in this case myself.
As for the purpose of your labels, ask those that have made the comments or placed them, better yet ask what they mean by them. Perhaps you will be surprised to learn that others don't see things or think like you do and have a reason/understanding for it. Surprise.
What do you think about the questions you posed to me, what do you think is an intent with regards to those labels and others that are similar?
There is nothing legalistic about Jesus or what he has said, he came to sent men free not bind them. By legalistic I am referring to how the pharisees treated people and wanted them to be in the day.
I will settle on this.
2 Timothy 3, ESV
You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Originally posted by leunammiI have already been down that road many times of discussion and explanations of these phrases used. There is no satisfactory answer [a lot of waffle and beating around the bush] therefore no surprise for me as you might think. How these discussions often end is by these Christians saying or implying:
First off, I have made no such comments or implied them, but you have lumped me into a pot with some that aledgedly did or hold such a view whatever it may mean, the real question is...
People that say (use these phrases), are they meaning the same thing to the person saying them and what you think? What I mean is, is the understanding or intent the sam ...[text shortened]... raining in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.[/b]
- nobody could perfectly follow the commandments of Christ [nothing like this in the Bible]
- everybody sins [of no relevance]
- following Christs commandments does not save anyone [a complete lie]
I fully agree with your quote from Timothy.but for fullest effect I would add the 4 verses after as well:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 3:16-4:4 KJV)
First what Paul calls scripture is not what Christians now call scripture [something worth thinking about]. Paul says to preach, correct, rebuke because the time will come when people will turn their ears from the truth.
Christ is the way, the truth and the life - there is no other way / method, no other truth and no other route to eternal life.. In other words Paul is saying that there are Christians who will turn away from Christ and their doctrine will be fables or fabrications of the church.
If you cannot see that that is happening to the Christian church then your need to open your eyes.
18 Dec 16
Originally posted by Rajk999You certainly pick and choose when to believe what Paul wrote and when to disbelieve what Paul wrote.
I have already been down that road many times of discussion and explanations of these phrases used. There is no satisfactory answer [a lot of waffle and beating around the bush] therefore no surprise for me as you might think. How these discussions often end is by these Christians saying or implying:
- nobody could perfectly follow the commandments of Chris ...[text shortened]... you cannot see that that is happening to the Christian church then your need to open your eyes.
18 Dec 16
Originally posted by Rajk999
I have already been down that road many times of discussion and explanations of these phrases used. There is no satisfactory answer [a lot of waffle and beating around the bush] therefore no surprise for me as you might think. How these discussions often end is by these Christians saying or implying:
- nobody could perfectly follow the commandments of Chris ...[text shortened]... you cannot see that that is happening to the Christian church then your need to open your eyes.
First what Paul calls scripture not what Christians now call scripture [something worth thinking about]. Paul says to preach, correct, rebuke because the time will come when people will turn their ears from the truth.
What do you think is the difference from what Paul calls Scripture to what Christians call scripture?
18 Dec 16
Originally posted by EladarI dont disbelieve anything Paul wrote. I have repeatedly said that you need to have a complete understanding of the writings of the Apostles because if you cherrypick their writings you will end up with false doctrines. The writings of the Apostles match the teachings of Christ perfectly.
You certainly pick and choose when to believe what Paul wrote and when to disbelieve what Paul wrote.
eg in Ephesians 2 Paul told Christian saints that they are saved by faith and not by works. Then shortly after in Ephesians 5 he said that if they live unrighteously they would nt get into the Kingdom of God.
Clearly saved by faith does not mean that that Christiian will get eternal life. There is more to it - living righteously and doing good works. But there are Christians who just take that one Eph 2 sentence from Paul and make it their doctrine, and ignore the rest... like what you do.
18 Dec 16
Originally posted by leunammiThe scripture in the days of the early church was the Hebrew Tanak or the Greek Septuagint [these included about 12 additional books]. Teachings of Christ was handed now by word of mouth.First what Paul calls scripture not what Christians now call scripture [something worth thinking about]. Paul says to preach, correct, rebuke because the time will come when people will turn their ears from the truth.
What do you think is the difference from what Paul calls Scripture to what Christians call scripture?