The Way of Righteousness.

Originally posted by Rajk999
I have no patience with dunces, which is what you are.
I have answered this question on page 7 of this thread.
If you tried to read and understand before asking foolish questions people would be more able to tolerate you.
Right now I have no patience with you.

I didn't ask my question till page 8, so unless you were given a vision about it before I ever asked I think you have not addressed it. So if you can forego insults please answer my question.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I would advise you to read the entirety of Romans and try to absorb the entire message, not just that which you think proves your 'point'.

Suzianne, you said 2 weeks ago you would come back to these verses and explain why I am mistaken in my interpretation. With respect, you have not done so. Until you do, I stand by what I have written.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I didn't ask my question till page 8, so unless you were given a vision about it before I ever asked I think you have not addressed it. So if you can forego insults please answer my question.

If you are participating in a thread then read the whole thread.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Suzianne, you said 2 weeks ago you would come back to these verses and explain why I am mistaken in my interpretation. With respect, you have not done so. Until you do, I stand by what I have written.

A woman versed in providing hot air. She cannot be accused of having substance in her posts.

Originally posted by Rajk999

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; (Romans 3:25 KJV)

Argue with that.

Down a few verses latter in verse 28 it reads -

"For we account that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." (v.28)

Those of the old testament time who did not have faith in those bulls, goats, and other offerings neglecting to believe in them, we cannot be so sure that God passed over their sins.

If they did not exercise faith how do you know that they were justified ?
Christ was the reality coming of all those offerings.
Suppose some held them in contempt and unbelief, not offering them as prescribed ?
I am not so sure your pseudo Universalism assures God overlooked their sins.

Originally posted by Rajk999
If you are participating in a thread then read the whole thread.

People must read the whole thead just to ask you to defend something you said? I guess your claiming you answered my question before I asked it was a little much even for you. You can not defend yourself is that why you are refusing to share the truth as you see it?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Fire is a good servant but a bad master. Same with context. "Context is everything " is a piece of cliched garbage that people use in religion to avoid the truth of what is being said by Christ and the Apostles. Context has to be considered Yes, but the meaning of what is being said cannot be put aside to please context. Context cannot override truth. Cont ...[text shortened]... ist died for all their sins .. a statement fabricated by the church and not stated in the Bible.

Context is very important, and I do not accept your assessment that it as a "piece of cliched garbage that people use in religion to avoid the truth". In fact I have seen posts of yours where you have referred a poster to reading more when a scripture was presented as a verse or two, you do the same thing. The reader needs to know to whom or what scripture is speaking to; is it contemporary, futuristic, general instruction, teaching? What?

You seem to think I don't agree with scripture, I do! I am only calling attention to some passages from the OP that... at least to me seem out of context from the way you are using them.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Suzianne, you said 2 weeks ago you would come back to these verses and explain why I am mistaken in my interpretation. With respect, you have not done so. Until you do, I stand by what I have written.

Romans 2:1-16 The Jews thought themselves a holy people, entitled to their privileges by right, while they were unthankful, rebellious, and unrighteous. But all who act thus, of every nation, age, and description, must be reminded that the judgment of God will be according to their real character. The case is so plain, that we may appeal to the sinner's own thoughts. In every wilful sin, there is contempt of the goodness of God. And though the branches of man's disobedience are very various, all spring from the same root. But in true repentance, there must be hatred of former sinfulness, from a change wrought in the state of the mind, which disposes it to choose the good and to refuse the evil. It shows also a sense of inward wretchedness. Such is the great change wrought in repentance, it is conversion, and is needed by every human being. The ruin of sinners is their walking after a hard and impenitent heart. Their sinful doings are expressed by the strong words, treasuring up wrath. In the description of the just man, notice the full demand of the law. It demands that the motives shall be pure, and rejects all actions from earthly ambition or ends. In the description of the unrighteous, contention is held forth as the principle of all evil. The human will is in a state of enmity against God. Even Gentiles, who had not the written law, had that within, which directed them what to do by the light of nature. Conscience is a witness, and first or last will bear witness. As they nature. Conscience is a witness, and first or last will bear witness. As they kept or broke these natural laws and dictates, their consciences either acquitted or condemned them. Nothing speaks more terror to sinners, and more comfort to saints, than that Christ shall be the Judge. Secret services shall be rewarded, secret sins shall be then punished, and brought to light.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/2-14.htm

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Not only does the Roman verses concerned 'not' say that, neither have I. (For all of us, it's what you do with that conscience that matters). Look again,really look:

'For when the Gentiles (unbelievers) which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law,(live righteously) these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves (self ...[text shortened]... ht there in front of you, in a book central to your faith?

* Comments in brackets are my own.

You have to be a little careful with that quotation, Paul says gentile not pagan, and it seems to me that he is talking about Christians who are gentiles, in other words not bound by Mosaic law. This was an issue in the early Church. I don't think that an interpretation involving atheists will work because of the preceding line:

8 but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

AKJV Romans 2:8-9

Your interpretation could be what Paul intended, but I think it is more likely that he is rebuking Jewish Christians for rejecting gentile Christians. The following fragments from the next couple of Chapters illustrate this:

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30 seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

AKJV Romans 3:28-30

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

AKJV Romans 4:8-10

He repeatedly talks about faith, I think the deeds of the law refers to the old Mosaic law. I do not think one can take this as Biblical justification of a claim that non-believers will be saved.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You have to be a little careful with that quotation, Paul says gentile not pagan, and it seems to me that he is talking about Christians who are gentiles, in other words not bound by Mosaic law. This was an issue in the early Church. I don't think that an interpretation involving atheists will work because of the preceding line:[quote] 8 but [i]unto th ...[text shortened]... t think one can take this as Biblical justification of a claim that non-believers will be saved.

Your analysis is incorrect. In the time of Paul, there were two kinds of people in the world - Jews and Gentiles. It was not Jews, Gentiles and Pagans. Also in the time of Paul there were two 'laws', the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. Paul preached the Law of Christ to the Gentiles and those who were converted became Gentile Christians.

Jews who continued in their faith would be judged by the Law of Moses.
Christians - Jews or Gentiles would be judged by the Law of Christ.
Others who have no law are a law unto themselves and would be judged by the law written in their hearts.

It is nonsense to claim that Paul is referring to Christian Gentiles and for Paul to infer that Christian Gentiles have no law.

Originally posted by leunammi
Context is very important, and I do not accept your assessment that it as a "piece of cliched garbage that people use in religion to avoid the truth". In fact I have seen posts of yours where you have referred a poster to reading more when a scripture was presented as a verse or two, you do the same thing. The reader needs to know to whom or what scriptur ...[text shortened]... passages from the OP that... at least to me seem out of context from the way you are using them.

Is your focusing on a side issue [context] deliberate or accidental?

I have to wonder why you neglected to determine if this one which I quoted is also out of context and not applicable to Christians:

How about this one:

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 KJV)

Christians who defile themselves [with sin clearly] will be destroyed.

And there are more .. all cannot be out of context.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You have to be a little careful with that quotation, Paul says gentile not pagan, and it seems to me that he is talking about Christians who are gentiles, in other words not bound by Mosaic law. This was an issue in the early Church. I don't think that an interpretation involving atheists will work because of the preceding line:[quote] 8 but [i]unto th ...[text shortened]... t think one can take this as Biblical justification of a claim that non-believers will be saved.

I'm not convinced Paul was referring to 'Christian Gentiles.'

Your post was interesting though.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Is your focusing on a side issue [context] deliberate or accidental?

I have to wonder why you neglected to determine if this one which I quoted is also out of context and not applicable to Christians:

How about this one:

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, hi ...[text shortened]... with sin clearly] will be destroyed.

And there are more .. all cannot be out of context.

Not really focusing on context (deliberately or accidental) as a side issue (it's not) I was just making a point and now that point is moot.

I have to wonder why you neglected to determine if this one which I quoted is also out of context and not applicable to Christians:

I have neglected nothing and please do not misrepresent my words, I said nothing about any passages not being "applicable to Christians", those would be your words.

To answer your question, as far as your quote about the temple of God? It makes sense to me.

Originally posted by leunammi
Not really focusing on context (deliberately or accidental) as a side issue (it's not) I was just making a point and now that point is moot.

I have to wonder why you neglected to determine if this one which I quoted is also out of context and not applicable to Christians:

I have neglected nothing and please do not misrepresent my words, I ...[text shortened]...

To answer your question, as far as your quote about the temple of God? It makes sense to me.

If you dont want to discuss the topic and come out and speak plainly and just say that. Pussyfootting around is wasting peoples time.

I think Twhiteheads comment about you .."Your rudeness is noted", is appropriate. Relying with "I did not mean to sound that way", is an insult to the intelligence of people around here. This is chesswebsite and you would find that posters here are above average intelligence and reasoning ability compared to your village or workplace.

Good luck to you.

Originally posted by Rajk999
If you dont want to discuss the topic and come out and speak plainly and just say that. Pussyfootting around is wasting peoples time.

I think Twhiteheads comment about you .."Your rudeness is noted", is appropriate. Relying with "I did not mean to sound that way", is an insult to the intelligence of people around here. This is chesswebsite and you w ...[text shortened]... e intelligence and reasoning ability compared to your village or workplace.

Good luck to you.

Get off his back Rajk999. You're hardly a beacon of cooperative discourse many times.

" Blah, Blah, Blah ", mocking, name calling, insulting, profanity, etc.

All that's behind us now ?
New and improved now are you ?

If I posted a few more remarks really dealing with your OP your true colors would come out, I expect - rude, crude, "blah, blah, blah ... "

A pristine example of adult discourse around the Scriptures ? - hardly.