What does Jesus want from us?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
On page 23, less than 24 hours ago, you wrote the following:
[quote][b]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 Chri ...[text shortened]... again, "Can you please just actually answer this question instead of continuing to prevaricate?"[/b]

Yes, Jesus meant what he said, with conditions.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[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]

I totally disagree with your comments. Either the whole bible is the word of God or none of it is. Any apparent contradictions are either in translation errors, or our understanding.

Originally posted by divegeester
I 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".

Please refrain from the drama about lawyers and witnesses.
Thanks.

You asked no such thing. Here is what you said:

If that is a teaching (the law of Christ) you think is central to the gospel, than I'm sure you have a catalogue of scripture you thinks supports "the law of Christ"

That is not a question. That is a statement.

The law of Christ appears twice? And the law of grace ... appears how many times?

NEVER.... thats the reason why you refused to respond to what I asked about the law of grace.

There is no drama. Its just that you have very poor communication skills and I cant be bothered to educate you.

Originally posted by Rajk999
You asked no such thing. Here is what you said:

If that is a teaching (the law of Christ) you think is central to the gospel, than I'm sure you have a catalogue of scripture you thinks supports "the law of Christ"

That is not a question. That is a statement.

The law of Christ appears twice? And the law of grace ... appears how many times? ...[text shortened]... ma. Its just that you have very poor communication skills and I cant be bothered to educate you.

You mean you can't provide scriptural evidence and so are having a bit of hissy fit.

Originally posted by Rajk999
You asked no such thing. Here is what you said:

If that is a teaching (the law of Christ) you think is central to the gospel, than I'm sure you have a catalogue of scripture you thinks supports "the law of Christ"

That is not a question. That is a statement.

The law of Christ appears twice? And the law of grace ... appears how many times? ...[text shortened]... ma. Its just that you have very poor communication skills and I cant be bothered to educate you.

I just made up "the law of grace" as a juxtaposition to the "law of Christ". You are just looking for "law" "law" "law". The New Testament is about grace and obedience.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Either the whole bible is the word of God or none of it is.

How do you know this?

Serious question.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I totally disagree with your comments. Either the whole bible is the word of God or none of it is. Any apparent contradictions are either in translation errors, or our understanding.

Was the whole bible the word of God before or after it was assembled by the early church, and were the books excluded also the word of God, or just the ones the church decided to include?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Was the whole bible the word of God before or after it was assembled by the early church, and were the books excluded also the word of God, or just the ones the church decided to include?

A long cut and paste is on its way ... wait for it 😀

Originally posted by Rajk999
You are really deceitful. I asked this question:

[b]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 l ...[text shortened]... and then proceed to ask questions in return.

Not interested in further discussions with you.[/b]

I've not been deceitful with you. You asked a question I responded with an answer that
was clear the scripture you quoted was very plain as far as I was concern and I asked
you a few questions on the same verse to draw out your thoughts. I get from you name
calling and now you are going to go away because I wasn't be fair with you I guess.

Originally posted by divegeester
How do you know this?

Serious question.

Just common sense. Why believe any of it? If it is not

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Was the whole bible the word of God before or after it was assembled by the early church, and were the books excluded also the word of God, or just the ones the church decided to include?

Before the early church, they were just scrolls. Old Testament.

Originally posted by chaney3
Okay....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.

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 co ...[text shortened]... isciples of Jesus. (Whatever that means?)

I obviously leave plenty of room if I am mistaken.

Why would that necessarily make it "impossible for a human being to NOT commit sin"?

Jesus explicitly states that His true disciples will be made free from committing sin (John 8:31-35). Jesus also says that He will judge. Shouldn't He be in a better position to know than you?

Perhaps you are reading things into certain verses / passages that are not there? If you have specific verses / passages in mind, then list them.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Yes, Jesus meant what he said, with conditions.

Well, it looks like you're going to continue to pretend to not understand the question even after I laid it out for you about as simply as possible.

Like I told chaney3:
"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."

And here you are right on cue. Nothing like proving the point.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, it looks like you're going to continue to pretend to not understand the question even after I laid it out for you about as simply as possible.

Like I told chaney3:
"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."

And here you are right on cue. Nothing like proving the point.

I understand the question full well. I also understand that you have been "set free" from sin. I can turn this right around and say the exact same thing to you.

Originally posted by Suzianne
As to the disposal of the thirty pieces of silver, perhaps you'd like to read more of the same scripture.

Or are you too enamored of your own "cherry-picking"? You stopped too soon, or the question as to the disposal of the silver would have been answered, but you couldn't have that.

"And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not ...[text shortened]... value;
And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me." -- Matthew 27:6-10, KJV

First this is not cherry picking, checkbaiter claimed that the bible never contradicts itself. The only way of arguing with that is to find examples of the bible contradicting itself. I selected that one because I'd noticed it years ago and just had to find the relevant passages - which took a while, the other three Gospels don't mention Judas after the scene at the Garden of Gethsemene. Acts says that "the man" bought the field with the "fruits of his iniquity" and fell down and burst asunder in the midst. It does not specify that he fell on his sword, I took that to be some sort of divine intervention, but I'll accept checkbaiter's explanation. Matthew has the Priests buying it. So the inconsistency is not as great as I at first thought, but nevertheless the story in Acts disagrees with the story in Matthew as to who bought the field.