Sabbath

[SophieT]

Galatians 3:19 - Context is very important... You can see from verses 16 and 18 that Paul is referring to law POST Abraham. When we see the word "law" in scripture it could be referring to man created law, god's law, laws given to specific people, etc. I don't remember if it was my initial post or one of my early responses, but I clarified that when I was speaking about law I was speaking of all instructions from the Father... From "be fruitful and multiply" to the holy days, the sabbath, commandments, etc. Yes, sin existed in the world before the laws that Paul was referring to here, but not before the very first laws. Adam had to be given the law not to eat of the tree, before sin could enter into the world.

yes context is king. so maybe try to keep the verses in context and don't jump around from book to book like you have done here, scouting for verses

"MalikB, post: 4623382, member: 309648"]Romans 3:20 - I believe the phrase "works of the law" would be better understood if it just read "what the law entails"... Some translations write "deeds of the law" here. The point is that just the knowing of the law shows us how much we are falling short... but this is not saying that doing the law does not effect our future blessings or curses.

do you now? so if we apply your personal understanding, we will come to a different understanding no doubt.

Lets look at a verse from Paul in the previous chapter...

Romans 2:13 - For it is not merely those who hear the Law who are righteous in God’s sight. No, it is those who follow the Law, who will be justified.

you talk about context, but you forgot it here. here is the verse in context:

12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Paul is saying the OPPOSITE of what you say. He is saying that the law will punish EVERYONE who does not keep it. keep reading after v.16 and it is clear that the law condemns ALL who break any part of it. THEREFORE, a person can only conclude, unless you can keep the entire law, you are condemned by it.

If you insist on cherry picking verses, leaving out the contextual meaning and jumping around, there is no point to discussion. You are not going to lead anyone down a garden path of your choosing so either discuss properly, or stop complaining about how people answer you. obviously, you were not our Bible teacher


How Romans 3:20 is commonly interpreted, it would appear to be in direct contradiction with Romans 2:13.... But Romans 3:20 is just pointing out the first half of Romans 2:13... how merely KNOWING the law only shows how much we sin. The last half of Romans 2:13 points out that we are justified by actually DOING the law.

you have never been successful in completely 'doing', as you say, the law. so either Paul is a fool or you have misinterpreted what he is saying. are you sinless like Jesus?

for that matter, do you believe Jesus died for your sins or do you think you can obey the law and work out your own salvation?

keep verses in context. you have not done this and you prove how Sabbath people of any ilk, misapprehend, mistranslate and downright misconstrue scripture

that and the fact you do not give much credent to Paul and particularly enjoy twisting what he had to say...since the entire book of Romans explains what you refuse to accept. we are JUSTIFIED by faith in Christ. the law is not salvation. it is death to all who break even the tiniest part of it

Abraham was justified through faith in what God told him. Romans 4: 1-3

Paul, writing in Galatians 3:6 "Even as Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness, know ye therefore that they who are of faith, the same are the sons of Abraham, and the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed, so then they who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham."

 

[SophieT]

You said that Calvin states the opposite of support for my view. Just exactly what do you think my view is with regard to Romans 14 and the Sabbath?

since you cannot clearly express what that might be, I hesitate to explain it for you.

smh

 

[rstrats]

since you cannot clearly express what that might be, I hesitate to explain it for you.

smh

Oh come on, go ahead and give it a try.

 

[MalikB]

yes context is king. so maybe try to keep the verses in context and don't jump around from book to book like you have done here, scouting for verses

"MalikB, post: 4623382, member: 309648"]Romans 3:20 - I believe the phrase "works of the law" would be better understood if it just read "what the law entails"... Some translations write "deeds of the law" here. The point is that just the knowing of the law shows us how much we are falling short... but this is not saying that doing the law does not effect our future blessings or curses.

do you now? so if we apply your personal understanding, we will come to a different understanding no doubt.

Lets look at a verse from Paul in the previous chapter...

Romans 2:13 - For it is not merely those who hear the Law who are righteous in God’s sight. No, it is those who follow the Law, who will be justified.

you talk about context, but you forgot it here. here is the verse in context:

12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Paul is saying the OPPOSITE of what you say. He is saying that the law will punish EVERYONE who does not keep it. keep reading after v.16 and it is clear that the law condemns ALL who break any part of it. THEREFORE, a person can only conclude, unless you can keep the entire law, you are condemned by it.

If you insist on cherry picking verses, leaving out the contextual meaning and jumping around, there is no point to discussion. You are not going to lead anyone down a garden path of your choosing so either discuss properly, or stop complaining about how people answer you. obviously, you were not our Bible teacher


How Romans 3:20 is commonly interpreted, it would appear to be in direct contradiction with Romans 2:13.... But Romans 3:20 is just pointing out the first half of Romans 2:13... how merely KNOWING the law only shows how much we sin. The last half of Romans 2:13 points out that we are justified by actually DOING the law.

you have never been successful in completely 'doing', as you say, the law. so either Paul is a fool or you have misinterpreted what he is saying. are you sinless like Jesus?

for that matter, do you believe Jesus died for your sins or do you think you can obey the law and work out your own salvation?

keep verses in context. you have not done this and you prove how Sabbath people of any ilk, misapprehend, mistranslate and downright misconstrue scripture

that and the fact you do not give much credent to Paul and particularly enjoy twisting what he had to say...since the entire book of Romans explains what you refuse to accept. we are JUSTIFIED by faith in Christ. the law is not salvation. it is death to all who break even the tiniest part of it

Abraham was justified through faith in what God told him. Romans 4: 1-3

Paul, writing in Galatians 3:6 "Even as Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness, know ye therefore that they who are of faith, the same are the sons of Abraham, and the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed, so then they who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham."

Everything from both of us is "personal understanding". I don't know if you think that your views on this are not "personal understanding", but if you do there is no room for growth.

Romans 2:12 and 2:14-16 did not contradict what I was saying about Romans 2:13. I am not "cherry picking" verses and I have no problem at all with you adding extra context with what we are discussing. In fact, lets back up even further and start at verses 8-11...


Romans 2:8-11

8 but WRATH AND FURY for those who in their SELFISH PRIDE refuse to believe the truth and PRACTICE WICKEDNESS instead. 9 There will be suffering and anguish for EVERY HUMAN BEING who PRACTICES DOING EVIL, for Jews first AND FOR GREEKS AS WELL. 10 But there will be GLORY, HONOR, AND PEACE for everyone who PRACTICES DOING GOOD, initially for Jews but ALSO FOR GREEKS AS WELL, 11 because God does not show partiality.


When we start in verse 8, it is clear that Paul says our ACTIONS play a role in determining either "wrath and fury" or "glory, honor, and peace." Now these verses specifically aren't calling these practices "law", but we know that's what he's referring to once the word is introduced in verse 12.

I'm going to give you a literal translation of verses 12 and 13 that may and may not help with the confusion here. This is from Smith's literal translation, you can look Youngs version if you like... But even the KJV in verse 12 writes "IN the law" not "UNDER the law" and lists the verse as one complete thought, and doesn't make the verse look as much like its talking about two separate groups of people.....



Romans 2:12-13

Smith's Literal Translation

12 For as many as sinned without law, shall also perish without law: and as many as sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law just with God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.


So verse 12 is only referring to people without the law. It is saying... as many as sinned without the law will also perish without it... REGARDLESS... as many that have sinned according to what it says, will be judged by it. Verse 13 sums this up.. Its not about hearing the law, its actually doing it.

I'm not going to post verses 14-16 again here, but to me its just expanding on the same concept regarding the gentiles... Because the spirit of the law is written on their hearts they will begin doing the law without knowing it in its entirety. So its not about knowing all of the law up front, its about what they are actually doing. The Spirit will guide them to not kill, steal, cheat, etc (which are laws).... and if they have that spirit, that same spirit will guide them towards the Truth of the laws they aren't aware of when the time comes.



At the end of your last reply, you introduced two new passages about Abraham being justified through faith. I would have to spend more time studying those passages to gain an opinion on what Paul was trying to convey here. I am clear however on what you believe Paul was saying, and it directly contradicts James. Many scholars actually believe James was writing the following as a rebuttal to Paul...


James 2:19-26

19 You believe that there is one God. That’s fine! Even the demons believe that and tremble with fear. 20 Do you want proof, you foolish person, that faith without actions is worthless? 21 Our ancestor Abraham was justified by his actions when he offered his son Isaac on the altar, wasn’t he? 22 You see that his faith worked together with what he did, and by his actions his faith was made complete. 23 And so the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” And so he was called God’s friend. 24 You observe that a person is justified through actions and not through faith alone. 25 Likewise, Rahab the prostitute was justified through actions when she welcomed the messengers and sent them away on a different road, wasn’t she? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without actions is also dead.


I think the words speak for themselves here and no further breakdown is needed. We have to remember that at the time of The Messiah, there wasn't one book that contained all of the scriptures. They were all separated on different scrolls and all authors did not carry the same authority. The Most High spoke directly to Moses, so his writings carried more weight then someone like Isiah that had visions. Likewise... Peter, John and James' writings carried more weight than the other disciples, and the all disciples had more authority than Paul.

So IF there does seem to be a conflict in scripture, we should prioritize the writings from those that The Father and the Messiah prioritized. Every verse you've used to support your beliefs has come from Paul. Do you have verses from Peter, James, the gospels, etc. that support your views on how following law is no longer required??

 

[SophieT]

Everything from both of us is "personal understanding". I don't know if you think that your views on this are not "personal understanding", but if you do there is no room for growth.

not at all

like I said though, try talking about passages or verse in context if you would sound credible

you don't know, of course, how many Sabbath day whatevers I have talked with. you all do the same thing...you cherry pick verses to support what you have been taught

the law is not in effect over believers in Christ but you are free to burden yourself if you so choose

what irks me, are people who twist scripture, as you and some others here are doing, taking verses out of context and entire books in some cases, and then trying to convince others you are right

as for the rest of your post, just more Sabbath keeper stomping and snorting...the usual response

 

[SophieT]

Smith's Literal Translation

you cannot translate word for word into any language and especially not into English from another because English breaks the rules for what is referred to as the latin languages...French, Spanish, Portuguese and several others.

Julia E. Smith Translation 1876
The Julia Evelina Smith Parker Translation is considered the first complete translation of the Bible into English by a woman. The Bible was titled The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments; Translated Literally from the Original Tongues, and was published in 1876.

Julia Smith, of Glastonbury, Connecticut had a working knowledge of Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Her father had been a Congregationalist minister before he became a lawyer. Having read the Bible in its original languages, she set about creating her own translation, which she completed in 1855, after a number of drafts. The work is a strictly literal rendering, always translating a Greek or Hebrew word with the same word wherever possible. Smith accomplished this work on her own in the span of eight years (1847 to 1855). She had sought out no help in the venture, even writing, "I do not see that anybody can know more about it than I do." Smith's insistence on complete literalness, plus an effort to translate each original word with the same English word, combined with an odd notion of Hebrew tenses (often translating the Hebrew imperfect tense with the English future) results in a translation that is mechanical and often nonsensical. However, such a translation if overly literal might be valuable to consult in checking the meaning of some individual verse. One notable feature of this translation was the prominent use of the Divine Name, Jehovah, throughout the Old Testament of this Bible version.

In 1876, at 84 years of age some 21 years after completing her work, she finally sought publication. The publication costs ($4,000) were personally funded by Julia and her sister Abby Smith. The 1,000 copies printed were offered for $2.50 each, but her household auction in 1884 sold about 50 remaining copies.

The translation fell into obscurity as it was for the most part too literal and lacked any flow. For example, Jer. 22:23 was given as follows: "Thou dwelling in Lebanon, building as nest in the cedars, how being compassionated in pangs coming to thee the pain as in her bringing forth." However, the translation was the only Contemporary English translation out of the original languages available to English readers until the publication of The British Revised Version in 1881-1894.(The New testament was published in 1881, the Old in 1884, and the Apocrypha in 1894.) This makes it an invaluable Bible for its period.

those of us who understand that a translation loses the original meaning if a word for word is used, do not rely on obscure and obviously incorrect books such as the one you are quoting from

the only claim to usefulness it had, was the use of contemporary English, as opposed to the KJ, using archaic English and words no longer in use. today we have different modern translation at our discretion...some are better than others .....and as the heavy type above illustrates, a comedic result can be had if one translate in a literal fashion, not taking into account the reasons this is not done

 

[MalikB]

you cannot translate word for word into any language and especially not into English from another because English breaks the rules for what is referred to as the latin languages...French, Spanish, Portuguese and several others.

Julia E. Smith Translation 1876
The Julia Evelina Smith Parker Translation is considered the first complete translation of the Bible into English by a woman. The Bible was titled The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments; Translated Literally from the Original Tongues, and was published in 1876.

Julia Smith, of Glastonbury, Connecticut had a working knowledge of Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Her father had been a Congregationalist minister before he became a lawyer. Having read the Bible in its original languages, she set about creating her own translation, which she completed in 1855, after a number of drafts. The work is a strictly literal rendering, always translating a Greek or Hebrew word with the same word wherever possible. Smith accomplished this work on her own in the span of eight years (1847 to 1855). She had sought out no help in the venture, even writing, "I do not see that anybody can know more about it than I do." Smith's insistence on complete literalness, plus an effort to translate each original word with the same English word, combined with an odd notion of Hebrew tenses (often translating the Hebrew imperfect tense with the English future) results in a translation that is mechanical and often nonsensical. However, such a translation if overly literal might be valuable to consult in checking the meaning of some individual verse. One notable feature of this translation was the prominent use of the Divine Name, Jehovah, throughout the Old Testament of this Bible version.

In 1876, at 84 years of age some 21 years after completing her work, she finally sought publication. The publication costs ($4,000) were personally funded by Julia and her sister Abby Smith. The 1,000 copies printed were offered for $2.50 each, but her household auction in 1884 sold about 50 remaining copies.

The translation fell into obscurity as it was for the most part too literal and lacked any flow. For example, Jer. 22:23 was given as follows: "Thou dwelling in Lebanon, building as nest in the cedars, how being compassionated in pangs coming to thee the pain as in her bringing forth." However, the translation was the only Contemporary English translation out of the original languages available to English readers until the publication of The British Revised Version in 1881-1894.(The New testament was published in 1881, the Old in 1884, and the Apocrypha in 1894.) This makes it an invaluable Bible for its period.

those of us who understand that a translation loses the original meaning if a word for word is used, do not rely on obscure and obviously incorrect books such as the one you are quoting from

the only claim to usefulness it had, was the use of contemporary English, as opposed to the KJ, using archaic English and words no longer in use. today we have different modern translation at our discretion...some are better than others .....and as the heavy type above illustrates, a comedic result can be had if one translate in a literal fashion, not taking into account the reasons this is not done

It doesn't matter... you can use the Geneva, the KJV, etc if you like. The point still stands. How about addressing the actual verses.

 

[MalikB]

not at all

like I said though, try talking about passages or verse in context if you would sound credible

you don't know, of course, how many Sabbath day whatevers I have talked with. you all do the same thing...you cherry pick verses to support what you have been taught

the law is not in effect over believers in Christ but you are free to burden yourself if you so choose

what irks me, are people who twist scripture, as you and some others here are doing, taking verses out of context and entire books in some cases, and then trying to convince others you are right

as for the rest of your post, just more Sabbath keeper stomping and snorting...the usual response

Ahhh, I see. I actually gave more context than you in the same chapter. So its obvious now that when you can't back up your beliefs with scripture, you revert back to baseless claims. The need to be right runs deeper in you than the hunger for Truth.

 

[rstrats]

what irks me, are people who twist scripture, as you and some others here are doing, taking verses out of context

Which is what you are doing with Romans 14:5-6.

 

[rstrats]

that is not the question though. the question is what Romans 14 is about

you cannot rip a chapter out of the entire letter and then say that is doctrine about food

Sure I can when the subject/context of the whole chapter from beginning to end deals with eating practices. The is what Romans 14 is about.

 

[MalikB]

the entire point was that Jesus called Himself 'the Lord of the Sabbath'

deal with it

it is not a sin to worship on Sunday

if He did not break the Sabbath, then why did the Pharisees accuse Him of doing so?

I'm pretty sure that bunch knew more about the law than do you

as it is, He created the days, so He is LORD of all 7 of 'em

You said that "Jesus broke the sabbath" and "Jesus was sinless". After I pointed out how that was a contradiction, rather than either showing how its not one or conceding that you were wrong or made a mistake, you ignore it and move the goalpost again. That is what pride does.

Again, because of their pride and ego, the Pharisees ended up creating their own version of law. This was not the law of The Father. The Father's law did not have a separate oral tradition. I've brought up washing your hands before you eat as an example 3 times since I've been posting. The Pharisees mixed man's law with God's. They also failed to recognize the spiritual component of the law. The physical is WHAT in the law we are doing, the spiritual is WHY we are doing it. If you don't understand and prioritize the WHY, you can end up missing what the law was always meant to achieve.


Of course its not a sin to worship on Sunday. You can worship everyday. But the commandment still stands:


Exodus 20:8-11

8 “Remember the Sabbath day, maintaining its holiness. 9 Six days you are to labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. You are not to do any work—neither you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your livestock, nor any foreigner who lives among you— 11 because the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them in six days. Then he rested on the seventh day. Therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

We keep this commandment (and others) BECAUSE we love, honor, respect, trust our Father. That love, honor, respect, trust is the spiritual side of the law... the WHY we do it.

If someone was injured and needed to go to the hospital on the Sabbath, am I going to say ,"I can't take you, that's work"..... Of course not. Because the purpose (spiritual part) of the law is love, and by not showing love I would be breaking the spiritual to keep the physical.

On the flip side, if I know it pleases The Father to follow His instructions... How is it love to not do what He says? Would me NOT keeping the sabbath or other laws really be done out of love, or my own personal selfishness and addictions?

 

[SophieT]

You said that "Jesus broke the sabbath" and "Jesus was sinless". After I pointed out how that was a contradiction, rather than either showing how its not one or conceding that you were wrong or made a mistake, you ignore it and move the goalpost again. That is what pride does.

Again, because of their pride and ego, the Pharisees ended up creating their own version of law. This was not the law of The Father. The Father's law did not have a separate oral tradition. I've brought up washing your hands before you eat as an example 3 times since I've been posting. The Pharisees mixed man's law with God's. They also failed to recognize the spiritual component of the law. The physical is WHAT in the law we are doing, the spiritual is WHY we are doing it. If you don't understand and prioritize the WHY, you can end up missing what the law was always meant to achieve.


Of course its not a sin to worship on Sunday. You can worship everyday. But the commandment still stands:


Exodus 20:8-11

8 “Remember the Sabbath day, maintaining its holiness. 9 Six days you are to labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. You are not to do any work—neither you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your livestock, nor any foreigner who lives among you— 11 because the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them in six days. Then he rested on the seventh day. Therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

We keep this commandment (and others) BECAUSE we love, honor, respect, trust our Father. That love, honor, respect, trust is the spiritual side of the law... the WHY we do it.

If someone was injured and needed to go to the hospital on the Sabbath, am I going to say ,"I can't take you, that's work"..... Of course not. Because the purpose (spiritual part) of the law is love, and by not showing love I would be breaking the spiritual to keep the physical.

On the flip side, if I know it pleases The Father to follow His instructions... How is it love to not do what He says? Would me NOT keeping the sabbath or other laws really be done out of love, or my own personal selfishness and addictions?

you do not have a proper understanding of the law

you believe it is going to save your life. funny dat, because scripture calls it the ministry of death

But if the ministration of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! ~ 2 Cor 3:7-9

the rest of your post is the typical cherry picking, anecdotal nonsense which has been dealt with since you started posting

 

[SophieT]

someone please tell rstrats that I have him on ignore since he does not make sense and has succumbed to trying to be a smart donkey

 

[Moses_Young]

someone please tell rstrats that I have him on ignore since he does not make sense and has succumbed to trying to be a smart donkey

I didn't know donkeys could be smart. I've heard of smart asses... perhaps you meant one of those? ;-)

 

[SophieT]

I didn't know donkeys could be smart. I've heard of smart asses... perhaps you meant one of those? ;-)

shhhh....

 

[Moses_Young]

You have not addressed my statement about the difference between God's law and Man's law in regard to breaking the Sabbath.

I did. Jesus followed God's law, but was indifferent to man's law.

You have not addressed my statement about the people that were practicing circumcision not following law correctly (The Messiah never said it was acceptable for them to circumcise on the sabbath).

Did Jesus ever encounter a sin He did not correct?

If those two statements are not proven false, then by you inferring what you are, is just jumping to conclusions.

I think it is you jumping to conclusions. When Jesus speaks on a subject, He speaks truth.

You also did not supply any scripture that suggests that if some law is fond to be "greater" we can disregard the "lesser" laws. That sounds like something a Pharisee would make up and add to the law.

I referred to Galatians, which shows us that the whole law is fulfilled in Christ, and those who seek to keep it are under a curse, as they cannot. Galatians focused on circumcision as representative of the law, as it is/was greater than the Sabbath, as can be deduced from the previous points which you refused to consider.

You also did not answer the question I asked about Matthew 5:18-19. Again, the Pharisees did not keep the law correctly. They added and took away from it (E.G. Washing your hands before you eat) and they prioritized the physical component of the law (what is being done) over the spiritual component (why its being done). Because they did not follow law how it was always intended to be, saying that our righteousness needs to exceed theirs clearly does not prove that us following law correctly does not effect our place in heaven.

There is no one righteous, not even one. Jesus' point was that without His righteousness, no one can enter Heaven. No amount of law-keeping on our account can save us - our failure to do so would actually condem us.

Regardless of how you interpret Matthew 5:20, it is irrelevant to the question I asked about 5:18-19. The question was: WHICH LAWS/COMMANDMENTS WERE BEING REFERRED TO that The Messiah says whether or not we keep them and whether or not we teach them effect our place in heaven???

The answer is all the laws/commandments were being referred to, and these are completely fulfilled in Christ alone.

 

[MalikB]

you do not have a proper understanding of the law

you believe it is going to save your life. funny dat, because scripture calls it the ministry of death

But if the ministration of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! ~ 2 Cor 3:7-9

the rest of your post is the typical cherry picking, anecdotal nonsense which has been dealt with since you started posting

... More baseless and hypocritical claims. False accusations of "cherry picking" when I actually expanded on every scripture you've posted... and you have yet to address any scriptures outside of Paul's writings that I have given.

You cherry pick Paul's writings and ignore others because the interpretation you have adopted of them allows you the freedom to keep the sin you have fallen in love with. Like many others that are completely closed off to the possibility that some of what they learned may be incorrect, your desire to be right outweighs your desire to be righteous.

 

[MalikB]

I did. Jesus followed God's law, but was indifferent to man's law.

Did Jesus ever encounter a sin He did not correct?

I think it is you jumping to conclusions. When Jesus speaks on a subject, He speaks truth.

I referred to Galatians, which shows us that the whole law is fulfilled in Christ, and those who seek to keep it are under a curse, as they cannot. Galatians focused on circumcision as representative of the law, as it is/was greater than the Sabbath, as can be deduced from the previous points which you refused to consider.

There is no one righteous, not even one. Jesus' point was that without His righteousness, no one can enter Heaven. No amount of law-keeping on our account can save us - our failure to do so would actually condem us.

The answer is all the laws/commandments were being referred to, and these are completely fulfilled in Christ alone.

"Did Jesus ever encounter a sin He did not correct?"............... The answer is we don't know. We only have a small portion of his life in the scriptures. Regardless, he did not point out the type of sin we were speaking about in that conversation with the Pharisees. He only pointed out their hypocrisy as a sin.

I actually pointed out HOW you were jumping to conclusions... you just using the same words is a baseless claim.

The term "fulfilled in Christ" is so vague you can make it mean so many different things. WHAT does it mean to "fulfill" the law? You have to add to the scriptures to say fulfilling the law here means that when you die the law no longer applies. To you the law ends when The Messiah dies and not when heaven and earth passes.... all because of how you interpret the word "fulfill"??

 

[SophieT]

It doesn't matter... you can use the Geneva, the KJV, etc if you like. The point still stands. How about addressing the actual verses.

baloney

picking an obscure and erroneous translation does not serve anyone who actually wants to be accurate

 

[SophieT]

... More baseless and hypocritical claims. False accusations of "cherry picking" when I actually expanded on every scripture you've posted... and you have yet to address any scriptures outside of Paul's writings that I have given.

You cherry pick Paul's writings and ignore others because the interpretation you have adopted of them allows you the freedom to keep the sin you have fallen in love with. Like many others that are completely closed off to the possibility that some of what they learned may be incorrect, your desire to be right outweighs your desire to be righteous.

nice little hit piece

you simply reversed what I said to you. I include scripture to show you the error of you ideas about the law and you go postal. You do understand you are talking about scripture, right? didn't notice it? whatever

again, using obscure translations and conflicting the old and new testaments is not going to help anyone

you sound like you are getting angry. I'm not bothering anymore since most who tired to discuss this with you have left

think I will send you over to ignore as well