04 May 16
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999If you are being led by the Spirit of God what does that tell you about the life of that
He did not give a reference for it but Chrekbaiter did -
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
(Galatians 5:18 KJV)
Is it correct to interpret such a statement by Paul to mean that the Christian has no laws or commandments to follow?
person? For one they have the Spirit of God in their lives, if you do not have the
Spirit of God in your life do you belong to God?
If you are being led by the Spirit of God to what end is God leading you, for what purpose?
Is there anything that the scripture teaches us that the Spirit of God will do for those that
are being lead by God? Is it possible to know what God wants without the Spirit of God in
you or are you in the flesh only without God?
The scripture seems very clear about law and Spirit, how do you read it?
04 May 16
Originally posted by KellyJayI dont know why you would answer a simple question with a bunch of other questions. If you dont want to answer then just say so.
If you are being led by the Spirit of God what does that tell you about the life of that
person? For one they have the Spirit of God in their lives, if you do not have the
Spirit of God in your life do you belong to God?
If you are being led by the Spirit of God to what end is God leading you, for what purpose?
Is there anything that the scripture tea ...[text shortened]... sh only without God?
The scripture seems very clear about law and Spirit, how do you read it?
The question was Is it correct to interpret such a statement by Paul to mean that the Christian has no laws or commandments to follow?
So forget it.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
04 May 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf an individual answers yes to what? I think was is Jesus correct in being set free from sin?
I reread all your posts on page 16 and don't see how they answer this specific question:If any given individual answers "Yes", how exactly does it show that Jesus could not have meant that his true disciples will be set free from committing sin?
Can you please just actually answer this question instead of continuing to prevaricate?
Yes, and as I answered in page 16.... To the extent that we renew our minds..
04 May 16
2 edits
Originally posted by checkbaiterOn page 23, less than 24 hours ago, you wrote the following:
If an individual answers yes to what? I think was is Jesus correct in being set free from sin?
Yes, and as I answered in page 16.... To the extent that we renew our minds..
ToO sounds like he takes Christ literally on being set free from sin.
I explained why this cannot be what he meant.
If he says no, he does not sin, than I John says he is a liar.
If he says yes, than my point is made.
Your sarcasm is duly noted, for a so called Christian or follower of Christ.
So I responded with the following question less than 4 hours ago:
If any given individual answers "Yes", how exactly does it show that Jesus could not have meant that his true disciples will be set free from committing sin?
Then you subsequently side-stepped the question and so I asked you again.
Now you're going to pretend to not know what "If any given individual answers 'Yes'", is referring to? That you don't even know what you wrote less than 24 hours ago? And seemed to understand what it was referring to less than 4 hours ago?
The prevarication and disingenuousness continues....
So once again, "Can you please just actually answer this question instead of continuing to prevaricate?"
04 May 16
Originally posted by Rajk999Don't be a coward!
I dont know why you would answer a simple question with a bunch of other questions. If you dont want to answer then just say so.
The question was [b]Is it correct to interpret such a statement by Paul to mean that the Christian has no laws or commandments to follow?
So forget it.[/b]
Either stick with the discussion or go hide knowing your beliefs are intact as long as you
don't let any actually make you back them up!
I answered the question the scripture was clear, but I wanted your take. I asked you
questions because this is a discussion. If you cannot handle that, than by all means
forget it.
Originally posted by chaney3Can it be concluded that maybe there are conflicting teachings in the Bible?...That's why people are cherry picking verses that make sense to them, because in its entirety, the messages are different.
Can it be concluded that maybe there are conflicting teachings in the Bible? If there are other verses where Jesus said something different, does it mean we must now ignore Galatians 5:18? Conflicting verses seem to be a problem when trying to look at all of His teachings as a whole.
Edit: That's why people are cherry picking verses that make sense to them, because in its entirety, the messages are different.
It's just as I wrote to you earlier in this thread:
Of course you can't make sense of [the Bible]. The Bible is filled with inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. Though most refuse to admit it, they pick and choose the verses and passages that support their beliefs and dismiss those that don't and often do so in a most disingenuous manner...
By and large the teachings of Jesus while He walked the Earth are coherent...
The confusion and nonsense stem from the parts of the Bible other than what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth, so why not dispense with them?
Is the truth of my point becoming clearer and clearer?
BTW, I don't really expect checkbaiter to stop with the prevarication and disingenuosness. It's the way they hold on to their beliefs. They have to keep them away from the light of truth.
04 May 16
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are really deceitful. I asked this question:
Don't be a coward!
Either stick with the discussion or go hide knowing your beliefs are intact as long as you
don't let any actually make you back them up!
I answered the question the scripture was clear, but I wanted your take. I asked you
questions because this is a discussion. If you cannot handle that, than by all means
forget it.
Is it correct to interpret such a statement by Paul to mean that the Christian has no laws or commandments to follow?
And here was your reply:
1. If you are being led by the Spirit of God what does that tell you about the life of that person?
2. For one they have the Spirit of God in their lives, if you do not have the Spirit of God in your life do you belong to God?
3. If you are being led by the Spirit of God to what end is God leading you, for what purpose?
4. Is there anything that the scripture teaches us that the Spirit of God will do for those that
are being lead by God?
5. Is it possible to know what God wants without the Spirit of God in you or are you in the flesh only without God?
6. The scripture seems very clear about law and Spirit, how do you read it?
Six questions. All irrelevant and nothing to do with the question asked. Someone with some basic forum etiquette would have the decency to first answer the question asked and then proceed to ask questions in return.
Not interested in further discussions with you.
04 May 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI am really trying to understand your point, but feel that I am not quite there yet. Even if we only focus on the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, it still should be obvious, in just this thread, that nobody can agree on the entirety of His message.
[b]Can it be concluded that maybe there are conflicting teachings in the Bible?...That's why people are cherry picking verses that make sense to them, because in its entirety, the messages are different.
It's just as I wrote to you earlier in this thread:
[quote]Of course you can't make sense of [the Bible]. The Bible is filled with inconsistenci ...[text shortened]... top with the prevarication and disingenuosness. It's a way for them to hold on to their beliefs.[/b]
I would like to understand your point further, so if you care to, please explain what I may be missing. Thanks.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
04 May 16
Originally posted by Rajk999What does "we are not under law but under grace" mean to you in your every day Christian life?
Your last post had nothing to reply to. Yes there is a catalog of scripture that supports the fact that Christians are under the law of Christ, like you said.
I never said that we are under the OT Law. We are under the law of Christ.
You use the expression 'law of grace'. What exactly is that? It is not a biblical expression. I discuss the Bible not ...[text shortened]... ARERS will continue to live in sin and live unrighteously. Therefore DOERS are just before God.
04 May 16
1 edit
Originally posted by chaney3Even if we only focus on the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, it still should be obvious, in just this thread, that nobody can agree on the entirety of His message.
I am really trying to understand your point, but feel that I am not quite there yet. Even if we only focus on the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, it still should be obvious, in just this thread, that nobody can agree on the entirety of His message.
I would like to understand your point further, so if you care to, please explain what I may be missing. Thanks.
Actually, I'm suggesting that you dispense with everything except what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth. So only the words attributed to Him prior to His death in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. They are reasonably coherent. Try to piece together the major themes and the concepts that support them. He often presented the same concepts over and over again in different ways.
A major reason for the disagreement with what Jesus was saying is because many do not allow His words to speak for themselves. Instead they distort or dismiss His words in an attempt to make them "fit" the teachings of Paul and others or the dogma they learned in church. The fact is that outside of what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth, the Bible is littered with inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions.
Look at my discussion with checkbaiter regarding John 8:31-35 for example. I keep pointing to the words of Jesus and checkbaiter keeps countering with the words of Paul, the writer of 1 John, etc. He tried to claim that those words were "Jesus speaking through" them which is just nonsense of course. He then illogically concluded that Jesus couldn't have meant that His true disciples would be set free from committing sin since that concept doesn't square with Paul and the writer of 1 John. This despite that fact that that was what Jesus explicitly stated.
This should do for a start. Feel free to ask whatever questions you may have.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
04 May 16
1 edit
Originally posted by chaney3Have you ducked out of the points I made to you in Robbie's "dasa" thread then?
I am really trying to understand your point, but feel that I am not quite there yet. Even if we only focus on the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, it still should be obvious, in just this thread, that nobody can agree on the entirety of His message.
I would like to understand your point further, so if you care to, please explain what I may be missing. Thanks.
04 May 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOkay....I will start with this: In the Old Testament, sin was considered an 'action', but in the New Testament, Jesus took it a step further and said that sin could also be a 'thought', and not just an action.
[b]Even if we only focus on the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, it still should be obvious, in just this thread, that nobody can agree on the entirety of His message.
Actually, I'm suggesting that you dispense with everything except what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth. So only the words attributed to Him prior to His death in Mark, ...[text shortened]... icitly stated.
This should do for a start. Feel free to ask whatever questions you may have.[/b]
It is my opinion that once Jesus included 'thoughts' as counting as a sin, then it would seem impossible....impossible for a human being to NOT commit sin. With that said, then my conclusion is that there are NO true disciples of Jesus. (Whatever that means?)
I obviously leave plenty of room if I am mistaken.
04 May 16
Originally posted by divegeesterYou are not a lawyer and I am not in the witness box. Please answer questions I posed to you first, then we proceed from there.
What does "we are not under law but under grace" mean to you in your every day Christian life?
I answered your questions, I made comments and I provided supporting references.
Please treat me with the same respect and regard that I treat you otherwise Im done. Thanks.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
04 May 16
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999I asked you for robust scriptural evidence supporting your statements about "the law of Christ", you didn't provide it. You can't provide it because the phrase is only mentioned twice in the entire NT as far as I know. So, the onus remains on you to explain your claims that the "law of Christ" somehow negates the scripture that "we are not under law, but under grace".
You are not a lawyer and I am not in the witness box. Please answer questions I posed to you first, then we proceed from there.
I answered your questions, I made comments and I provided supporting references.
Please treat me with the same respect and regard that I treat you otherwise Im done. Thanks.
Please refrain from the drama about lawyers and witnesses.
Thanks.