The curse of the law

[Jeff_56]

If you understood the NT, you would know "the school" behind the posts. . .the why's and wherefore's. . .and why it is posted and defended.[/QUOTEaWhat is this school?? what hidden agenda . I don't understand would someone make it clear and quit hideing thing you might not even know or are real!! What is this school or thought????

they revealed that they were trusting their study of the scripture and the study of doctrines to find the truth (as if they could; they didn't)...

that was (apparently) the "hidden" agenda, it may or may not be, but it is enough to explain how or why they get so many simple things wrong.

 

[Jeff_56]

The title of this thread is "The curse of the Law". Yet for a time now we have been ping -ponging Gods Spirit in here. Some of the grace and service of God is, I feel, being lost. .......

part of the curse, whether "of the law" or not , is that the flesh by study or search can find and learn what

yahshua and yahweh's WORD says can only be revealed from the father in heaven.....

that's why elin and some others have such difficulty learning the truth when it is written and when it is posted.

she finally posted about 'needing' study of the word or doctrines, indicating therein her trust in such, and

that is actually part of the curse. (of the law, or of the flesh/ or other?)...

AT LEAST

 

[Jeff_56]

p.s. this is not any kind of attack , per se, nor in any kind of emotion, (except relief, as part of the cause was posted)

but bringing to the light why for so many weeks there has been discrepancies from GOD'S WORD in her(and some others posts also, later hopefully also revealed,,, as they haven't admitted it yet)

posts and assertions.(ideas/ reasons/ thoughts about scripture).

 

[Elin]

If you understood the NT, you would know "the school" behind the posts. . .the why's and wherefore's. . .and why it is posted and defended.

What is this school?? what hidden agenda . I don't understand would someone make it clear and quit hideing thing you might not even know or are real!! What is this school of thought????

they revealed that they were trusting their study of the scripture and the study of doctrines to find the truth (as if they could; they didn't)...

that was (apparently) the "hidden" agenda, it may or may not be, but it is enough to explain how or why they get so many simple things wrong.

Perhaps you are unaware that not all doctrine is from men,

1) that NT teaching is "doctrine" (didache) and is presented throughout the NT; e.g.,
Ac 2:42, 13:12; Ro 6:17, 16:17; 1Co 14:6, 14:26; 2Ti 4:2; Heb 6:2; 2Jn 9, 10, and

2) that the faith sometimes refers to "doctrine" in the NT; e.g.
Ac 6:7, 14:22; Gal 1:23; Eph 4:13; Php 1:27; 1Th 3:10; Jude 3, 20.

NT "teaching" and "the faith" are the words of God which I trust over the "doctrines of men."

Still do. . .

If one knew the NT, one would know that.

Just sayin'. . .

 

[Elin]

p.s. this is not any kind of attack , per se, nor in any kind of emotion, (except relief, as part of the cause was posted)

but bringing to the light why for so many weeks there has been discrepancies from GOD'S WORD in her(and some others also, later hopefully also revealed,,, as they haven't admitted it yet) posts and assertions.(ideas/ reasons/ thoughts about scripture).

Don't that beat all?

Sure would help if your otherwise meritless assertions were demonstrated from clear NT teaching.

 

[Jeff_56]

Don't that beat all?

Sure would help if your otherwise meritless assertions were demonstrated from clear NT teaching.

some posters tried, for quite some time, and have tried several times, to help you.

when i or they posted from the scriptures what your plain and clear error was,
you
ignored it, denied it, or buried your head in the sand, so to speak, instead of correcting your posts.

i.e. you never accepted the truth when posted from scripture or in any fashion at all.

some posters kept trying, but i decided just to watch.... so far, you've confirmed i made the right decision just to watch...
posting scripture to help you learn the truth as GOD reveals it
has not helped you at all, so far.

some perhaps still hidden 'lock' is tucked deeply away where no one so far has seen it.

maybe, GOD willing, it will come to light today; if you are willing....

yet, today, so far, you haven't been willing... so what's left to do but go back to watching for a while,

unless something egregious like today is posted that requires a response (or , more correctly, if yahweh says to reply) ....

just like the catholics, resistant to the truth, (but no, you're not nearly, not in a million years, as bad as the rcc doctrines, unless,
of course, you agree with them.)...

 

[Elin]

Don't that beat all?

Sure would help if your otherwise meritless assertions were
demonstrated from clear NT teaching.

some posters tried, for quite some time, and have tried several times, to help you.

when i or they posted from the scriptures what your plain and clear error was,
you
ignored it, denied it, or buried your head in the sand, so to speak, instead of correcting your posts.

i.e. you never accepted the truth when posted from scripture or in any fashion at all.

some posters kept trying, but i decided just to watch.... so far, you've confirmed i made the right decision just to watch...
posting scripture to help you learn the truth as GOD reveals it
has not helped you at all, so far.

some perhaps still hidden 'lock' is tucked deeply away where no one so far has seen it.

maybe, GOD willing, it will come to light today; if you are willing....

yet, today, so far, you haven't been willing... so what's left to do but go back to watching for a while,

unless something egregious like today is posted that requires a response (or , more correctly, if yahweh says to reply) ....

just like the catholics, resistant to the truth, (but no, you're not nearly, not in a million years, as bad as the rcc doctrines, unless,
of course, you agree with them.)...

Pretty convinced there that you are the one to whom God shows the truth. . .

And that's some rewrite of history. . .it do beat all!

 

[Elin]

I just got here but..what wow!..

"You already answered when you said her line of questioning was insincere?" How can you know this , when the scriptures say only God can judge the hearts of man?
"She did not come here to seek understanding?", sorry
still not in the wheel house for you to conclude- JUDGEMENT.

. . .was your intent here to have her confess her sin, while committing your own? Don't worry about the spec in your brothers eye, worry about the log in your own scripture comes to mind.
Then, you expand the judgement.."but to misrepresent my post, bring accusations, bear false witness, and then outright lie about your motives"...each one judgement. . .God says, do not judge lest ye be judged. . .

Then you go on to mock her by saying now you ACT LIKE you are sincere etc etc.. I did not see her accusing you, by the way.She was stating her opinions, and asking questions of you.
She doesn't agree I don't believe but this was not the conclusions of your judgements. Then the LOL, comment. . .

You can say without a doubt? So I must conclude you don't agree with the scripture that says only God can judge the minds of Men?....
so after more judgement calls I won't rewrite, you become jury by saying you will leave her to her own understandings. . .Based on Gods Word and decrees? . . .

Matt. 5:22......."anyone who says you fool! will be in danger of the fire of Hell.

We then also have a tag team affect, for I even feel it and I am not her. That agree with you. We may have differing opinions, but we need to guard our tongues, for words do not leave us without a return of some kind.

Best I can tell the wheels came off when it was shown that Israel's oath to keep the covenant and the law was a self-maledictory oath and not a curse (excrative oath),
which provoked a picture-mockery tantrum and
whacked the hornets' nest of Judaizers who came flying out with a
veiled rejection of Paul in favor of Christ as the only true knowledge from God and
accusing of a hidden agenda for disagreeing.

However, the only real hidden agenda here is the thinly-veiled rejection of Paul, to drive a wedge between Paul and Christ, masquerading itself as a sanctimonious claim to God's truth only in Jesus Christ.

yahshua and yahweh's WORD says can only be revealed from the father in heaven.....

that's why elin and some others have such difficulty learning the truth when it is written and when it is posted.
she finally posted about (others) 'needing' study of the word or doctrines (translate: teachings of Paul), indicating therein her trust in such, and that is actually part of the curse.

if you could get only those who are holy (set apart in christ jesus, completely--translate: without Paul) to answer, you would get good answers, edifying truth, and very little if any strife.

when you , if you , get immersed in yahshua, (translate: omit Paul) then you may know the truth. it's not up to me, and perhaps yahweh will grant you mercy instead of hardening your heart. that's our prayer in yahshua anyway, for now. yahweh permitting.

it is still "in the dark" what school of thought or what 'religion' or what 'deception' at the root,
but it is obvious in most of the posts from that 'school', but they so far have not revealed what 'school' it is , as far as i know. definitely it (the school/religion/root) is not in SCRIPTURE or in JESUS (translate: it comes from Paul)....

whether she lied, was insincere, or just coming from error, that she /he/it/ stays in and defends or cannot defend, the scriptures has been opposed by her/he/it directly many times; and he/she/it has opposed those posting the truth many times,
sometimes it is done with subtlety, sometimes more obviously, but none-the-less it is done over and over and over again, with or without understanding of the TRUTH and without agreeing with the TRUTH....(translate: which excludes the writings of Paul).

. . .what is the source of the problem behind the poster is not so far revealed, but will be when GOD choses to do so.
meanwhile, the posts are not reliable, true, nor trustworthy, and it is well within the realm of SCRIPTURE to note this for what it is and , IF possible, seek resolution --- so far it has been resisted, refused, or denied. the why's and wherefore's are still unknown. as is the 'school' behind the posts..... and why it is even posted or defended or promoted.

. . .a lot is 'hidden' that will someday be revealed. . .some of my posts. . .rejected outright as if. . . some knowledge outside or instead of the WORD of GOD (translate writings of Paul). . .was better..... and the 'why' or 'wherefore' thereof remains unknown... (but looks like an agenda, not in Scripture agenda, being protected or defended...... ) again, still, it is not clearly out in the open....

. . .others. . .do not or cannot correct their errors, let alone admit them.
it is as if they have (and likely do) an agenda (translate: of presenting Paul) they are trusting in that is deeper than we can get into on this forum - and it's not worth it anyway, as they defend it, they don't seek to repent of it ..... that's kind of the crux of the issue. . .getting 'frustrated' with those other "hidden" agendas that keep on posting as if they are right when they have been clearly shown to be wrong (for some number of weeks now, at least)....
and it has not been possible to 'correct' things, because the 'hidden' agenda is never revealed(so far)...

there is obviously a "school of religious thought or study" (translate: teachings of Paul) something of that kind, being posted again and again, and in error, but not always seen for what they are --- the error is sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious, but so far not admitted (the error coming from the 'school', whatever it is. . .the deception is so subtle and can have such bad effects even if it is not revealed nor brought out in the open. . .others often post in reply to the schools in error (translate: Paul's teachings). . .but often, no matter if approached with gentleness or vigor, they do not even realize nor admit their error nor the depth of it.

since your heart was hardened in the past, up to the present moment, the prayer is certainly needed, prayed, and hopefully answered positively by yahweh. (he won't necessarily soften your heart or show you mercy, that's up to him, and he has conditions in HIS WORD that may apply; seek HIM and ask for mercy,
HE IS VERY GOOD at MERCY; but HE is also perfect and just, and hardens your heart as he pleases in line with HIS WORD and HIS PURPOSE in YAHSHUA......
for example of his conditions: as you just previously noted in one of your posts, as long as you trust in yourself, in your study of scripture, or in the study of doctrine, (translate: trust Paul's teachings)
he will withhold softening your heart until you (repent) and turn to him to trust him.

you declared you trusted in "word study and/or(more in) doctrinal study",(translate: Paul's teachings) which has led to many or most of your error. (or even all of it, the last several weeks at least)

. . .trusting their study of the scripture and the study of doctrines (translate: Paul's teachings) to find the truth (as if they could; they didn't). . .was (apparently) the "hidden" agenda, (translate: not to set Paul against Jesus) it may or may not be, but it is enough to explain how or why they get so many simple things wrong.

some posters tried, for quite some time, and have tried several times, to help you.
when I. . . posted from the scriptures what your plain and clear error was,
you ignored it, denied it, or buried your head in the sand, so to speak, instead of correcting your posts.
i.e. you never accepted the truth when posted from scripture or in any fashion at all.
posting scripture to help you learn the truth as GOD reveals it (translate: not as Paul reveals it)
has not helped you at all, so far. some perhaps still hidden 'lock' is tucked deeply away where no one so far has seen it.
maybe, GOD willing, it will come to light today; if you are willing....

yet, today, so far, you haven't been willing...

 

[weakness]

I missed those two, thanks InSpirit
I just collected all the verses and color coded them and put em away
(cause you know I am nutty)

This one right here acknowledges what they heard before as far as these

Mat 5:33
Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, (past oaths***)
Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

Mat 5:34
( ****) But I say unto you, Swear not at all;
neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool:
neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

Mat 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head,
becausethou canst not make one hair white or black.

I think you laid that out well, so that which was of old is acknowledged and a butI say unto you.

These folks had a real problem with swearing by things, I got an eye full while looking at this lol Man,

One of Elin's has got me thinking.

I could easily justfy scratching off the LORD swearing (as the promise by Christ come in by the same and the oath as it relates to His priesthood). And because there is none greater then Him and he can swear by himself whenever he would like, who am I to say otherwise right? And I wouldnt see that "but I say unto you" as applicable to him either.

The older priesthood would have continued doing so given it rejected Jesus (so that would be neither here nor there) because it speaks of a priest charging (adjuring) another by an oath in Numbers. That seems to be what they could do (or were instructed to do) and an example Numbers 5:21, charge there is adjure. and we see that there with the woman even as Elin points out that Jesus was adjured by the Living God (by the high priest) and answered when he had done so. That would fall ouside of what Jesus was speaking of (in relation to ourselves).

Elin brings up a good point in Paul though. His vow.

I keep thinking of the one Jesus said about not swearing by your head (in relation to making one hair on your head black or white). But he did say not to swear by any other oaths so is there a way to recconcile the vow Paul had? I mean its nothing like the kind of vow (or oath) those who swore they would not eat or drink till they killed Paul and could be understood to be no more then a harmless hair cut (?). Or no? Because it still shows a vow. I cant get around that one. My intent wouldnt be to pit the scripture because I really think you laid that out nice. I was looking at how to recconcile that loose end (if it even is one, because for me its tight with that smallest little thing.

I thought, okay maybe in his becoming all things to all men (in the vowing a vow) that was working before this lol But Im not all the familar with the vow stuff, or swearing its mentioned alot. I think what he did in respects "to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law" could work.

I have been up for two days with no sleep so I am not all there. Its just a hang nail really (but it would drive me nuts till I figured out how to remove that from the equation) I guess.

Talk to you tommorrow Bro (Lord willing)

God bless you

I think ,as it says ,that paul was being all things. He was trying to keep the jews from being paranoid about his rejecting the law. It was for show , I think, and think the verses say this. My oppinion.

 

[Jeff_56]

boy, elin's gone off her rocker. nothing in her last post makes any sense, nor is the truth.

her trust in "the study of doctrine" has left her helpless, and without any true assurance

of her own faith in jesus , apparently, because her posts for weeks now have not made sense

nor lined up with Scripture. (oh, she tries to make it work, and it may line up with her sacred cow doctrines....
but she cannot succeed as she has shown in her desperate lies in that last long post -- with her own invalid
interpretations.....(in blue she put her own false assertions) ) ...

all because she didn't back then trust in yahshua(jesus). or paul (jesus taught paul by revelation, and everything paul taught in scripture is from yahweh and in line with all of SCRIPTURE)....

so, she lied. outright. all anyone can do is pray for GOD'S WILL. not to help her. but for GOD'S WILL,

whatever HE may chose is best. maybe show her mercy. that's his choice. we can hope for the best in HIM.

 

[weakness]

She is doing her best to misrepresent what I clearly stated in my OP in order to build a straw man argument by suggesting and implying things I did not say. But I'm not in the mood for playing her games.[/QUOTE not to speak for some one else ,but I think El is saying that the oath or agreement was part of the covenant and to deny the agreement with the consequences of breaking the cov. they would have to deny the whole thing and tell God they wanted no part. May be I'm wrong.

 

[Jeff_56]

She is doing her best to misrepresent what I clearly stated in my OP in order to build a straw man argument by suggesting and implying things I did not say. But I'm not in the mood for playing her games.

even though she outright lied, wittingly or not,

we can and are willing to help her, if she will. (so far, she refuses the TRUTH and GOD'S WORD).

yes. TRUTH and GOD'S WORD. not me nor inspiritintruth.

rely on TRUTH and GOD'S WORD.

and
if
you're willing,

we can go ever so slowly as needed (because it's been a problem for a long long time and won't
be helped fast, unless yahweh as he pleases does a miracle)....

literally step by step, post by post, false doctrine by false doctrine, true doctrine by true doctrine...
and
separate the TRUTH from the LIE that has hindered you're walk..... it has been very obvious, that something
was severely out of step in your life with GOD'S WORD and with those serving JESUS here.....


but , for now, it is still 'hidden'. whether it's a fault, a sin, or you've just swallowed a camel being
deceived by whoever tricked you long long long ago, or a few months ago,
we don't know.

yahweh's purpose and plan in yahshua, OT and NT , is the ministry of reconciliation, which yahweh has
called us to.

but even JESUS did not reconcile with the people of Jerusalem, because they "would not" when "he would" have gathered them under his wings.

so, if you will, we will. if you "would not", we can't.

 

[Elin]

boy, elin's gone off her rocker.
nothing in her last post makes any sense, nor
is the truth.

The record speaks for itself.

her trust in "the study of doctrine" has left her helpless, and without any true assurance.

she tries to make it work, and it may line up with her sacred cow doctrines....

The demonstration and importance of NT "doctrine" has been previously addressed.

her own invalid interpretations.....(in blue she put her own false assertions) ) ...

all because she didn't back then trust in yahshua(jesus). or paul
(jesus taught paul by revelation, and everything paul taught in scripture is from yahweh and in line with all of SCRIPTURE)....

If you can honestly say that
all of the NT, bar none, is God's word written,
you do not elevate any part of God's NT word written over any other part of God's NT word written,
that all God's NT word written is of equal authority,
that one part is not of greater authority, taking precedence over any other part of lesser authority, and
that all of God's NT word is absolutely and unequivocally on the same footing,

then I apologize for misrepresenting you, that you do not receive all of Paul's writings, or that you assert
Paul's writings do not enjoy equal authority with any other NT writing.

And then it falls on you to demonstrate your assertion of at least three of my supposedly non-Biblical presentations.

 

[Elin]

She is doing her best to misrepresent what I clearly stated in my OP in order to build a straw man argument by suggesting and implying things I did not say. But I'm not in the mood for playing her games.

not to speak for some one else ,but I think El is saying that the oath or agreement was part of the covenant and
to deny the agreement with its consequences for breaking the cov, they would have to deny the whole thing and tell God they wanted no part.

Yep. . .and they know that. . .

May be I'm wrong

Nope. . .

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

She is doing her best to misrepresent what I clearly stated in my OP in order to build a straw man argument by suggesting and implying things I did not say. But I'm not in the mood for playing her games.[/QUOTE not to speak for some one else ,but I think El is saying that the oath or agreement was part of the covenant and to deny the agreement with the consequences of breaking the cov. they would have to deny the whole thing and tell God they wanted no part. May be I'm wrong.

This shows the building of Elins strawman argument, Note, I never said these things, nor did I suggest these “ideas, notions, nor proposals” It was all Elin, I did not even respond to her “ideas, notions, nor proposals” even though as you will see, in the end she tried to pin “those proposals” on me. Note my words will be in red the rest are Elin’s words.
Originally Posted by Elin
Neither Jesus or James are talking about taking solemn oaths, The Scriptures do not teach such.
Note This is a outright lie.
I'm not following you here.
Are you saying entering into the covenant was a curse?
Are you saying that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?
Are you saying they should have told God, "Thanks, but no thanks."
Are you saying God made them a false offer when he promised blessings for compliance with the covenant,
that all he was actually promising were curses?

Are you saying God tricked them?
Are you saying entering into the covenant was a curse?
Are you saying that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?
Are you saying they should have told God, "Thanks, but no thanks."

Are you saying God made them a false offer when he promised blessings for compliance with the covenant,
that all he was actually promising were curses?

Are you saying God tricked them?

Do we find this notion anywhere in the NT?
Are you saying entering into the covenant was a curse?
Are you saying that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?
Are you saying they should have told God, "Thanks, but no thanks."

Are you saying God made them a false offer when he promised blessings for compliance with the covenant,because all he was actually promising were curses?

Are you saying God tricked them? Note all the suggested “are you saying” But I never said such things.
Again Elin’s “notion”
Do we find this notion anywhere in the NT?

Is that why you think oaths are forbidden, because they are trickery? Notion implied.

This is bizarre and totally contra-NT. . .please tell me it is not what you are saying. Nope
Are you saying entering into the covenant was a curse?
Are you saying that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?
Are you saying they should have told God, "Thanks, but no thanks."

Are you saying God made them a false offer when he promised blessings for compliance with the covenant, because all he was actually promising were curses?

Are you saying God tricked them? Again, note I never said these things though they are being suggested over and over again.

Do we find this notion anywhere in the NT? This “notion” is Elin’s notion, not mine

Is that why you think oaths are forbidden, because they are trickery? Elin is trying to inject “her notion” as being implied by me, but it was not

This is bizarre and totally contra-NT. . .please tell me it is not what you are saying. NOPE
So you don't agree that

entering into the Sinaitic covenant was a curse, or
that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?
Do you agree that

entering into the Sinaitic covenant was a curse, or
that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?

Your failure to give an unequivocal answer reveals your answer, Really?
which has the unavoidable totally contra-NT implications following:

Israel should have told God, "Thanks, but no thanks." Again notion implied, never I never said it.

God made a false offer to Israel when he promised blessings for compliance with the covenant,
for all he was actually promising were curses.

God tricked Israel.

We find this bizarre notion nowhere in the NT. Again bizarre “notion” is all Elins

That explains why you think oaths are forbidden, because they are trickery.

This is bizarre and totally contra-NT. Now Elin is a mind reader, telling me what I think.
Do you agree thatentering into the Sinaitic covenant was a curse (the wrong thing to do), or
that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?

and the issue can go away.
The fact remains that to say: Who said? Yes Elin, not me.

entering into the Sinaitic covenant was a curse (the wrong thing to do), or
Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses in the event of its violation

means that:

Israel should have told God, "Thanks, but no thanks."

God made them a false offer when he promised blessings for compliance with the covenant,
because all he was actually promising were curses.

God tricked them.

That in itself shows the error of this preposterous notion that
Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant Whose preposterous notion? Yes, it’s all Elin
I know. . .shows how seemingly innocuous and unBiblical notions of man can have grave Biblical ramifications, which is why we should not traffic in them.
Agreed. . .the ramifications of such an unbiblical notion as Israel should have refused the Sinaitic Covenant are not debatable. Again, whose notion is it? It’s all Elins

Still gettin' lotsa' heat with no light. . . That’s because your in the dark.
Agreed. . .which is what the preposterous notion that Israel should have refused the Sinaitic Covenant unavoidably implies. Not my notion, it’s all Elin’s notion
Agreed. . .which is why the notion that Israel should have refused the covenant is preposterous.
Yes, that idea is proposed by ISIT, which is why I asked. And there is the lie.
So my response to your incorrect meaning and misapplication of "the words of God which you posted" remains the same: I thought the words of God were correct.

No Scriptural basis has been presented for the notion that
Israel should have refused the laws God presented to them. Again now she is trying burn down her ownmanufactured “notion.”
I need your help in understanding Biblically how Israel refusing the laws God told Moses to present to them, which is refusing the covenant, can even be on the radar ("perhaps"). Because you put it on the radar silly.
I asked many times if I were understanding the point correctly.

That question still has yet to be answered. That’s right I still have not said any such thing, nor answered her “notion, idea, proposition.”

If I were understanding the point incorrectly, you chose not to inform me.
As I've stated twice already, I asked many times if my understanding of the point were correct,
and the choice was made not to inform me, but to leave me in my own understanding of it. Here she admits it’s her “own understanding” but wait for the switch….

So that understanding is what I effectively addressed.
I see all this heat and no light now as response to
the inability to forestall/prevent (by refusing still to own what was meant) Me own up to your notion Elin? No thanks.

Yes, that idea is proposed by ISIT, which is why I asked.
That idea, notion, proposal, was never proposed by ISIT, I never stated in my OP, nor even suggested it, nor did it even come to mind when writing my OP. This whole “idea, notion, proposal” has been all of Elin’s strawman argument from the start.

 

[Elin]

This shows the building of Elins strawman argument, Note, I never said these things, nor did I suggest these “ideas, notions, nor proposals” It was all Elin, I did not even respond to her “ideas, notions, nor proposals” even though as you will see, in the end she tried to pin “those proposals” on me. Note my words will be in red the rest are Elin’s words.

What I see from the following are
all the many, many, many times for which clarification of what was meant was asked, and
your choice not to give it, in a failed effort to be not accountable for what you meant.
However, no answer is also an answer, and that is the answer that was dealt with.

Originally Posted by Elin
Neither Jesus or James are talking about taking solemn oaths, The Scriptures do not teach such.
Note This is a outright lie.
I'm not following you here.
Are you saying entering into the covenant was a curse?
Are you saying that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?
Are you saying they should have told God, "Thanks, but no thanks."
Are you saying God made them a false offer when he promised blessings for compliance with the covenant,
that all he was actually promising were curses?

Are you saying God tricked them?
Are you saying entering into the covenant was a curse?
Are you saying that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?
Are you saying they should have told God, "Thanks, but no thanks."

Are you saying God made them a false offer when he promised blessings for compliance with the covenant,
that all he was actually promising were curses?

Are you saying God tricked them?

Do we find this notion anywhere in the NT?
Are you saying entering into the covenant was a curse?
Are you saying that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?
Are you saying they should have told God, "Thanks, but no thanks."

Are you saying God made them a false offer when he promised blessings for compliance with the covenant,because all he was actually promising were curses?

Are you saying God tricked them? Note all the suggested “are you saying” But I never said such things.
Again Elin’s “notion”
Do we find this notion anywhere in the NT?

Is that why you think oaths are forbidden, because they are trickery? Notion implied.
This is bizarre and totally contra-NT. . .please tell me it is not what you are saying. Nope
Are you saying entering into the covenant was a curse?
Are you saying that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?
Are you saying they should have told God, "Thanks, but no thanks."
Are you saying God made them a false offer when he promised blessings for compliance with the covenant, because all he was actually promising were curses?
Are you saying God tricked them? Again, note I never said these things though they are being suggested over and over again.
Do we find this notion anywhere in the NT? This “notion” is Elin’s notion, not mine
Is that why you think oaths are forbidden, because they are trickery? Elin is trying to inject “her notion” as being implied by me, but it was not
This is bizarre and totally contra-NT. . .please tell me it is not what you are saying.NOPE
So you don't agree that entering into the Sinnaitic covenant was a curse, or
that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?

Do you agree that entering into the Sinaitic covenant was a curse, or
that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?

Your failure to give an unequivocal answer reveals your answer Really?
which has the unavoidable totally contra-NT implications following:

What I'm seeing are all the times for which clarification of what was meant was asked,
with a failed plan to be not accountable for what was meant by refusing to correctly inform.

Israel should have told God, "Thanks, but no thanks." Again notion implied, never I never said it.
God made a false offer to Israel when he promised blessings for compliance with the covenant,
for all he was actually promising were curses.
God tricked Israel.
We find this bizarre notion nowhere in the NT. Again bizarre “notion” is all Elins
That explains why you think oaths are forbidden, because they are trickery?
This is bizarre and totally contra-NT.Now Elin is a mind reader, telling me what I think.

Do you agree that entering into the Sinaitic covenant was a curse (the wrong thing to do), or
that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses if they violated it?

What I see is more asking for the meaning of what was said, and another choice not to correctly inform of it.

and the issue can go away.
The fact remains that to say: Who said? Yes Elin, not me.

entering into the Sinaitic covenant was a curse (the wrong thing to do), or
Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses in the event of its violation
means that:
Israel should have told God, "Thanks, but no thanks."
God made them a false offer when he promised blessings for compliance with the covenant,
because all he was actually promising were curses.
God tricked them.
That in itself shows the error of this preposterous notion that
Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant
Whose preposterous notion? Yes, it’s all Elin

And the plan to be not accountable for what was meant, by refusal to correctly inform her, plays no part in it?

Typical blaming in a subterfuge to discredit.

I know. . .shows how seemingly innocuous and unBiblical notions of man can have grave Biblical ramifications, which is why we should not traffic in them.
Agreed. . .the ramifications of such an unbiblical notion as Israel should have refused the Sinaitic Covenant are not debatable.

Again, whose notion is it? It’s all Elins

Taken out of context. . .

Still gettin' lotsa' heat with no light. . . That’s because your in the dark.

Agreed. . .which is what the preposterous notion that Israel should have refused the Sinaitic Covenant unavoidably implies. Not my notion, it’s all Elin’s notion
Agreed. . .which is why the notion that Israel should have refused the covenant is preposterous.
Yes, that idea is proposed by ISIT, which is why I asked. And there is the lie

What I'm seeing it was the result of refusal to correctly inform her--a failed plan to be not accountable for what one meant.

So my response to your incorrect meaning and misapplication of "the words of God which you posted" remains the same: I thought the words of God were correct.

Straw man. . .

No Scriptural basis has been presented for the notion that
Israel should have refused the laws God presented to them. Again now she is trying burn down her own manufactured “notion."

Which is the only notion on the table, about which it was chosen not to correctly inform after many, many requests to do so--all in a failed attempt to be not accountable for what was meant.

I need your help in understanding Biblically how Israel refusing the laws God told Moses to present to them, which is refusing the covenant, can even be on the radar ("perhaps"). Because you put it on the radar silly.

I asked many times if I were understanding the point correctly.
That question still has yet to be answered. That’s right I still have not said any such thing, nor answered her “notion, idea, proposition.”
If I were understanding the point incorrectly, you chose not to inform me.
As I've stated twice already, I asked many times if my understanding of the point were correct,
and the choice was made not to inform me, but to leave me in my own understanding of it. Here she admits it’s her “own understanding” but wait for the switch….

So that understanding is what I effectively addressed.
I see all this heat and no light now as response to
the inability to forestall/prevent (by refusing still to own what was meant) Me own up to your notion Elin? No thanks.
Yes, that idea is proposed by ISIT, which is why I asked.
That idea, notion, proposal, was never proposed by ISIT, I never stated in my OP, nor even suggested it, nor did it even come to mind when writing my OP. This whole “idea, notion, proposal” has been all of Elin’s strawman argument from the start

And your refusal to respond to the many, many requests to correctly inform is blameless?

What I see is the typical blaming by those of your persuasion in a subterfuge to discredit.

 

[slave]

boy, elin's gone off her rocker. nothing in her last post makes any sense, nor is the truth.

her trust in "the study of doctrine" has left her helpless, and without any true assurance

of her own faith in jesus , apparently, because her posts for weeks now have not made sense

nor lined up with Scripture. (oh, she tries to make it work, and it may line up with her sacred cow doctrines....
but she cannot succeed as she has shown in her desperate lies in that last long post -- with her own invalid
interpretations.....(in blue she put her own false assertions) ) ...

all because she didn't back then trust in yahshua(jesus). or paul (jesus taught paul by revelation, and everything paul taught in scripture is from yahweh and in line with all of SCRIPTURE)....

so, she lied. outright. all anyone can do is pray for GOD'S WILL. not to help her. but for GOD'S WILL,

whatever HE may chose is best. maybe show her mercy. that's his choice. we can hope for the best in HIM.

Am I to take this for what is said or am I missing your meaning here>? You Maybe show her mercy? Gods character is that He always shows mercy Just like you do right? as a Child of God. we are to see things thru His eyes, and act those things out in the demeanor God gives us which is changed from the original Man.

. And We can HOPE for the BEST in HIM?? You may have had another thought in your mind when you said that, but that, in and of itself, is not something his children do...For it is the Hope in us that is the basis of my belief. Saying you hope for the best in Him, is like saying you are not sure He is right. And that you are sure you are. Do you doubt Him is He the one of complete authority and understanding or are you? For I am not apart the the we you spoke of.

Did you have an agenda in those comments? as to throw your anger off on Christ, so He would take the wrath of your displeasure?..It came off to me that way, so I ask you to clarify so no misunderstandings are availed.

Proverbs 11:2.

When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility, comes Wisdom.

Proverbs 16:2.

All a mans ways seem innocent to him, but motives are weighed by the Lord.

The Lord detests all the proud of heart be sure of this: they will not go unpunished.

When a mans ways are pleasing to the Lord, he makes even his enemies live at peace with him.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

It was all you Elin from start to finish, all the ideas, notions, proposals, accusations, and then lies. I never said those things, never even implied or suggested those things, and I also didn't answer to your false "ideas, notions, and proposals," which you then tried to put on me. For shame Elin, for shame.

You made your own bed Elin, and now your going to lie in it. Enjoy!

 

[just-me]

Elin, when I first joined CC I thought that you had some problems with understanding others. I took that all in stride, for I have always had a hard time communicating with you. Your verbiage was admirable, and I thought that you might have some things to share, and agree with you on. I was wrong in assuming that.

I finally put you on ignore because conversations with you always turned out to be a conflict. As the months have passed by, many others have seen how you really are because you have exposed yourself. I feel sorry for you for real. I don't know what your problem is, but when you said that the Strong's Concordance was pagan to refute what I posted, and then days later you said you were just kidding, that's when I gave up and put you on ignore.

Most of what you post is utterly superfluous, and unnecessary, and you have made an impression on many here in CC, but it isn't a positive one. If you could become humble enough to realize other people have substantial things to present, you might have a chance to get over whatever you have and begin to communicate as Christians are exhorted to do by God's Word. Ignorance is not a demeaning word, it just means not learned.

 

[slave]

It was all you Elin from start to finish, all the ideas, notions, proposals, accusations, and then lies. I never said those things, never even implied or suggested those things, and I also didn't answer to your false "ideas, notions, and proposals," which you then tried to put on me. For shame Elin, for shame.

You made your own bed Elin, and now your going to lie in it. Enjoy!

Better a little with righteousness than much gain with injustice. Proverbs 16:8.