The Behavior of The Saved and Condemned

[preacher4truth]

I'm not the one claiming that we are saved by Jesus' obedience to the law.
Do you have a scrioture for that yet? Why not?
How many days do I have to wait for you to substantiate a claim?

I've provided the Scripture in Romans 5:19 which substantiated my claim.

The thing I am gathering is you have some sort of quasi savior who didn't obey God's law. I challenge you to find any commentator that claims in Romans 5:19 that Jesus didn't obey the law. The law is the context of the chapter.

This isn't the only claim of yours that is unbiblical in this scenario. You've also claimed he laid aside the law, which is not only unbiblical it's Antinomian as well. Your false gospel is frankly reckless, and your distorting of truth and Scripture is remarkable.

How many people does it take to show you that your interpretations on this are errant? Several have already done so, including myself. Lot's of folks here trying to help you see, but perhaps that is not possible in light of 2 Corinthians 2:14?

Part of the reason your absurdities are false and unbiblical is your lame claim that Jesus obeyed in order to fulfill prophecies. His earthly ministry wasn't a play or skit. He is the fulfillment of prophecies in his person, which is why he is Prophet, Priest, King.

People here have given multitudes of Scripture refuting your asinine claim that Jesus laid aside the law and that he didn't fulfill the law by obedience. Said Scriptures were provided proving him as the only one who could obey the law perfectly, therefore being the only one who could offer himself as a perfect sacrifice. Thus Romans 5, the SoTM &c.

Now, troll away dude, I'm not just going to ignore you, I'm going to "lay sketchy aside" and put you on ignore. Buh-bye!

 

[Sketch]

I've provided the Scripture in Romans 5:19 which substantiated my claim.

The thing I am gathering is you have some sort of quasi savior who didn't obey God's law. I challenge you to find any commentator that claims in Romans 5:19 that Jesus didn't obey the law. The law is the context of the chapter.

This isn't the only claim of yours that is unbiblical in this scenario. You've also claimed he laid aside the law, which is not only unbiblical it's Antinomian as well. Your false gospel is frankly reckless, and your distorting of truth and Scripture is remarkable.

How many people does it take to show you that your interpretations on this are errant? Several have already done so, including myself. Lot's of folks here trying to help you see, but perhaps that is not possible in light of 2 Corinthians 2:14?

Part of the reason your absurdities are false and unbiblical is your lame claim that Jesus obeyed in order to fulfill prophecies. His earthly ministry wasn't a play or skit. He is the fulfillment of prophecies in his person, which is why he is Prophet, Priest, King.

People here have given multitudes of Scripture refuting your asinine claim that Jesus laid aside the law and that he didn't fulfill the law by obedience. Said Scriptures were provided proving him as the only one who could obey the law perfectly, therefore being the only one who could offer himself as a perfect sacrifice. Thus Romans 5, the SoTM &c.

Now, troll away dude, I'm not just going to ignore you, I'm going to "lay sketchy aside" and put you on ignore. Buh-bye!

Are you a Sabbatarian?
They are the only ones I have heard use the term antinomian.

That may explain why you thought I was Catholic.
Sabbatarians hate Catholics, claiming they changed the Sabbath to Sunday. Is that you?

 

[posthuman]

From whence come wars and fightings among you? ​

come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
(James 4:1) ​

​

 

[Sketch]

Your false gospel is frankly reckless, and your distorting of truth and Scripture is remarkable.

Remarkable, you say. Well thank you.
That's probably the nicest thing you have ever said to me.
See, now that wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[UnderGrace]

I was mostly fine with the rest of the statement.
This is the part I wanted to discuss. It stands on its own as a question.

It does not stand on its own and it was not stated it on its own, therefore you should not be taking the words out of their context of the full sentence.

That is a dangerous practice.

 

[Sketch]

It does not stand on its own and it was not stated it on its own, therefore you should not be taking the words out of their context of the full sentence.

That is a dangerous practice.

That's ridiculous.
You are one mixed up crazy cat there. lol

 

[UnderGrace]

That's ridiculous.
You are one mixed up crazy cat there. lol

No, I just recognized what you did, but you do not want to admit to it.

I can tell you from experience ... best not to argue with scripture.

 

[Sketch]

No, I just recognized what you did, but you do not want to admit to it.

I can tell you from experience ... best not to argue with scripture.

Scripture was not even in question.
I was addressing an outlandish claim in human words that has yet to be substanciated.
Your comments are completely out of line. Just silliness to me.
I thought you were making a joke. Perhaps not.
I wonder if we are even talking about the same thing.

 

[luigi]

It's interesting to see how many here do not believe they're going to have to give account for every single derogatory remark they have made here, many of which against the Holy Ghost. Do you actually believe you believe in Christ with your contradictory behavior?

Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

 

[Sketch]

John 13:34​

A new commandment I give unto you,​

That ye love one another; as I have loved you,​

that ye also love one another.​

​

The saved will love you as Jesus loved them.​

​

The condemned will not love you as Jesus loved them.​

​

Is there any errors or flaws in this I have stated to you?​

If so point them out to me.​

​

Please no theories or doctrines or theologies​

or your opinions of what you believe as the truth.​

Just point out any errors or flaws you can find within​

the statements I made to you.​

​

Thank you.​

​

​

I see several errors. IMHO

Though your conclusions are worth consideration,
the scripture you have provided does not support them.
So, error number one is your failure to provide
scriptural support for your conclusions.

Now, let's review your conclusion statements.
The first conclusion statement says:
"The saved will love you as Jesus loved them."
How did Jesus love us?
Do we imagine that we could ever match such a feat?
And is this really the evidence of salvation?
If so, we are still lost in our sin.
What is the basis for salvation?
Not this. Not our works.
Therefore, error number two. (or more)

The second conclusion statement says:
"The condemned will not love you as Jesus loved them."
Sometimes the condemned are MORE loving than the saved.
What have you experienced on this forum?
How are you treated by the condemned? Better or worse?
Therefore, error number three. (or more)

 

[UnderGrace]

Scripture was not even in question.
I was addressing an outlandish claim in human words that has yet to be substanciated.
Your comments are completely out of line. Just silliness to me.
I thought you were making a joke. Perhaps not.
I wonder if we are even talking about the same thing.

LOL...

This was the statement made that you are arguing against.

"We know that Jesus obedience to the Law, his death and resurrection has saved us. "

Scripture is exactly in question and several people have given you the scripture to support the statement.

Yet somehow you feel justified lifting a "sentence fragment" and then wanting someone to justify an isolated idea that was never stated in the first place.

This is thread is breathing its last comical breath...it never really had any chance at being a meaningful discourse even though some tried.

 

[Sketch]

LOL...

This was the statement made that you are arguing against.

"We know that Jesus obedience to the Law, his death and resurrection has saved us. "

Scripture is exactly in question and several people have given you the scripture to support the statement.

Yet somehow you feel justified lifting a "sentence fragment" and then wanting someone to justify an isolated idea that was never stated in the first place.

This is thread is breathing its last comical breath...it never really had any chance at being a meaningful discourse even though some tried.

That proves my point.
You were claiming that I pulled something out of scriptural context.
I did not. This proves it.

The Bible does not say that Jesus' obedience to the law saved us.
Jesus' obedience was to the Father, not to the law.

 

[UnderGrace]

That proves my point.
You were claiming that I pulled something out of scriptural context.
I did not. This proves it.

The Bible does not say that Jesus' obedience to the law saved us.
Jesus' obedience was to the Father, not to the law.

It was not scriptural context it was context of the writer`s words!

Jesus was the spotless lamb, He was under the law, He fulfilled every ``iota`` of its demands perfectly and because of this He was able to be the propitiation, the perfect sacrifice to pay for the debt of all our sins.

I really do not think you get it, but I knew this even when I was Catholic!!

It is pretty plainly stated here.....

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Jesus had to be blameless and perfect according to the law or He would not have been able to save us even if he had gone to the cross.

You are trying to separate out His obedience from the fact that He kept the law, they go together.

 

[UnderGrace]

That proves my point.
You were claiming that I pulled something out of scriptural context.
I did not. This proves it.

The Bible does not say that Jesus' obedience to the law saved us.
Jesus' obedience was to the Father, not to the law.

The law is also defines what is sin....you seem to miss that too!!

 

[Sketch]

It was not scriptural context it was context of the writer`s words!

Jesus was the spotless lamb, He was under the law, He fulfilled every ``iota`` of its demands perfectly and because of this He was able to be the propitiation, the perfect sacrifice to pay for the debt of all our sins.

I really do not think you get it, but I knew this even when I was Catholic!!

It is pretty plainly stated here.....

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Jesus had to be blameless and perfect according to the law or He would not have been able to save us even if he had gone to the cross.

You are trying to separate out His obedience from the fact that He kept the law, they go together.

Obedience, yes. But obedience to what? The Father's will, not the law.
The law is the transitory ministry that brouhgt death and condemnation that has no glory now.

John 9:16
Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others asked, “How can a sinner perform such signs?” So they were divided.

 

[Sketch]

The law is also defines what is sin....you seem to miss that too!!

That's not correct either.

 

[UnderGrace]

Obedience, yes. But obedience to what? The Father's will, not the law.
The law is the transitory ministry that brouhgt death and condemnation that has no glory now.

John 9:16
Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others asked, “How can a sinner perform such signs?” So they were divided.

What are you trying to say, Jesus did not abide by the law?

Speak plainly please.

 

[Sketch]

What are you trying to say, Jesus did not abide by the law?

Speak plainly please.

I'm saying Jesus set the law aside. Is that news to you?
You can't break a nonexistent law, right?

 

[UnderGrace]

I'm saying Jesus set the law aside. Is that news to you?
You can't break a nonexistent law, right?

Well I was never under the law, I am not jewish.

 

[Sketch]

Well I was never under the law, I am not jewish.

I agree. Apparently we need to be reminded.