Not only are we not under the law, we should not try to abide by it.

[Macabeus]

responses to jaybird

and your idea of fulfilled means abolished, in other words its not abolished its abolished???

Kataluo does not mean "to abolish". It means to destroy, throw down, or overthrow.

when someone teaches the law is not for to be followed its basically saying the example of Jesus is not our example.

Again, you are putting the Apostle Paul and Jesus at variance, effectively either seeking to cause a civil war within the scriptures or you are completely rejecting the writings of Paul.

Paul imitated Jesus and that was after the crucifixion. historians say the same of James.

Really? Galatians 2:14- But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

if you dont follow the law you are not following the example of Jesus. sorry there is just no way around this.
your following theology (of man) which has been wrong at times. im following the example of Jesus and that example is law obedience, there is no other example.

Again, you are pitting the teachings of Jesus and of Paul against one another. But in the way we interpret the scriptures, Jesus and Paul are in perfect agreement.

another thing you ignore, the new covenant is the law written on our heart. written on the heart does not mean tossed aside. written on the heart means the law is still very much there.

This is correct. But what you fail to understand is that both Jesus and Paul, and you can add James too, taught that the Law is fulfilled in one word LOVE.

but how can one sin when there is no law?

This is called an equivocation fallacy. You fail to distinguish between the moral law and the ceremonial law, which is what this discussion is really about.

so now its man and not the Most High who determines what is sin and what is not?

No the scriptures do. And nowhere in the scriptures are New Covenant christians commanded to get circumcised, offer turlle doves when their children are born, construct a building to offer sacrifices for sins, forbidden to wear mixed fabrics, forbidden to eat certain kinds of meats, etc. You won't find that anywhere in the scriptures

the law is a curse, did Jesus get cursed for obeying it?

answered above[/QUOTE]

 

[Macabeus]

so now its only a curse is its not done perfect. not what you said before.
Jesus commanded we love the Father and man, if we dont love them perfect, then what? see the problems this "you must do it perfect" causes.
the Father forgives sins, and has always forgiven. the curse comes from turning from the law and never turning back.

The sad thing is, you’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with the New Testament scriptures. You reject en Toto the teachings of Paul. Be honest, you do, don’t you?

 

[jaybird88]

responses to jaybird



Kataluo does not mean "to abolish". It means to destroy, throw down, or overthrow.

ohh no, thats the bible definition, thats not what we are talking about, we are talking about your definition and that one means the sqame as abolish

Again, you are putting the Apostle Paul and Jesus at variance, effectively either seeking to cause a civil war within the scriptures or you are completely rejecting the writings of Paul.

no, im letting Paul speak for himself, Paul sqaid he imitated Jesus. to do that you must obey the law.

Again, you are pitting the teachings of Jesus and of Paul against one another. But in the way we interpret the scriptures, Jesus and Paul are in perfect agreement.

??? show me a scripture that can be interpreted that Jesus did not obey the law.

This is correct. But what you fail to understand is that both Jesus and Paul, and you can add James too, taught that the Law is fulfilled in one word LOVE.

and if you really believe in this then there is nothing to be written on your heart.

This is called an equivocation fallacy. You fail to distinguish between the moral law and the ceremonial law, which is what this discussion is really about.

you can call it what ever you like, please explain how one sins when there is no law to sin against. good luck on that one.


[/QUOTE]

 

[Macabeus]

Under the Law, you should be offering burnt offerings, peace offerings, trespass and sin offerings...oh wait, Jesus FULFILLED all of those, didn’t He? And we don’t do that anymore, right?

So did He only partially fulfill the Law? Or did He finish the work His Father gave Him to do?

 

[jaybird88]

The sad thing is, you’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with the New Testament scriptures. You reject en Toto the teachings of Paul. Be honest, you do, don’t you?

so now you are equal to Jesus, Paul James and the other NT writers?

when people start claiming to be the bible usually shows their desperation. very sad.

 

[Macabeus]

Answer me this, were the sacrificial codes of the Law (burnt offering, sin offering, trespass offering, etc) abolished, fulfilled, both, or neither? IF they have not been fulfilled, and if they have not been discontinued, are you going to offer animal sacrifices the next time you go to your place of worship, or did Jesus fulfill them so that they are not needed anymore?

No need to answer, as I hope you know a rhetorical question when you see one.

 

[Dino246]

I generally agree with that. We are saved if we turn away from evil ways and choose to embrace only our good nature.

Um... "our good nature"? What is that?

 

[Macabeus]

so now you are equal to Jesus, Paul James and the other NT writers?

when people start claiming to be the bible usually shows their desperation. very sad.

Ummm...are you saying it is impossible to know the intent and meaning of the words that are written in scripture?

:What did Paul mean when he said we are dead to the Law? Romans 7:4

delivered from the law Romans 7:6

If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law Galatians 5:18

Are they too difficult to understand? Not at all. You just do not receive them

And we are under a law. It is the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Romans 8:2

 

[Adam4Eve]

responses to jaybird



Kataluo does not mean "to abolish". It means to destroy, throw down, or overthrow.



Again, you are putting the Apostle Paul and Jesus at variance, effectively either seeking to cause a civil war within the scriptures or you are completely rejecting the writings of Paul.



Really? Galatians 2:14- But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?



Again, you are pitting the teachings of Jesus and of Paul against one another. But in the way we interpret the scriptures, Jesus and Paul are in perfect agreement.



This is correct. But what you fail to understand is that both Jesus and Paul, and you can add James too, taught that the Law is fulfilled in one word LOVE.



This is called an equivocation fallacy. You fail to distinguish between the moral law and the ceremonial law, which is what this discussion is really about.



No the scriptures do. And nowhere in the scriptures are New Covenant christians commanded to get circumcised, offer turlle doves when their children are born, construct a building to offer sacrifices for sins, forbidden to wear mixed fabrics, forbidden to eat certain kinds of meats, etc. You won't find that anywhere in the scriptures



answered above

[/QUOTE]

I know you mean well, but in all seriousness have you considered that you're wasting your time.

There is 4 solid pages of you debating with this guy.
I say debate rather converse with, because that's exactly what I meant.

I've seen posts on this thread and other threads by this guy, and the responses.
He's known for three broad things:
a. Constantly moving the goalposts and changing his position, and going round in circles.
b. Purposely misinterpreting what other people say and accusing other people of saying things they clearly haven't.
c. Debating for debates sake.

He doesn't seem to read what you write.
He concedes some things (see pages 3 and 4), then comes back full circle and contradicts himself (pages 4 and 5).

Give up, I urge you.

 

[Macabeus]

I know you mean well, but in all seriousness have you considered that you're wasting your time.

There is 4 solid pages of you debating with this guy.
I say debate rather converse with, because that's exactly what I meant.

I've seen posts on this thread and other threads by this guy, and the responses.
He's known for three broad things:
a. Constantly moving the goalposts and changing his position, and going round in circles.
b. Purposely misinterpreting what other people say and accusing other people of saying things they clearly haven't.
c. Debating for debates sake.

He doesn't seem to read what you write.
He concedes some things (see pages 3 and 4), then comes back full circle and contradicts himself (pages 4 and 5).

Give up, I urge you.[/QUOTE]

 

[Macabeus]

I know you mean well, but in all seriousness have you considered that you're wasting your time.

There is 4 solid pages of you debating with this guy.
I say debate rather converse with, because that's exactly what I meant.

I've seen posts on this thread and other threads by this guy, and the responses.
He's known for three broad things:
a. Constantly moving the goalposts and changing his position, and going round in circles.
b. Purposely misinterpreting what other people say and accusing other people of saying things they clearly haven't.
c. Debating for debates sake.

He doesn't seem to read what you write.
He concedes some things (see pages 3 and 4), then comes back full circle and contradicts himself (pages 4 and 5).

Give up, I urge you.

[/QUOTE]

In other words, he’s basically trolling. I agree, but the one good thing is we have laid out some answers and principles that we and others can use if we meet others who have similar positions but are more amendable

My replies are never intended only for the person I’m talking to. But you’re right. To argue further with Jaybird would not be beating a dead horse, it would be unearthing a fully decomposed horse fr it’s grave and beating it at this point

Blessings

 

[jaybird88]

I know you mean well, but in all seriousness have you considered that you're wasting your time.

There is 4 solid pages of you debating with this guy.
I say debate rather converse with, because that's exactly what I meant.

I've seen posts on this thread and other threads by this guy, and the responses.
He's known for three broad things:
a. Constantly moving the goalposts and changing his position, and going round in circles.
b. Purposely misinterpreting what other people say and accusing other people of saying things they clearly haven't.
c. Debating for debates sake.

He doesn't seem to read what you write.
He concedes some things (see pages 3 and 4), then comes back full circle and contradicts himself (pages 4 and 5).

Give up, I urge you.[/QUOTE]

some people cant see the example of Jesus was following the law.

 

[jaybird88]

In other words, he’s basically trolling. I agree, but the one good thing is we have laid out some answers and principles that we and others can use if we meet others who have similar positions but are more amendable

My replies are never intended only for the person I’m talking to. But you’re right. To argue further with Jaybird would not be beating a dead horse, it would be unearthing a fully decomposed horse fr it’s grave and beating it at this point

Blessings[/QUOTE]

call it trolling if you like but this theology leads to some major problems you cant seem to explain.
Jesus is not the example. this is the biggie.
no law means no sin or we make up the law as we go. mans law over the Fathers law.
no judgment in the next world as there is nothing to be judged on.
and on and on. just makes no sense at all.

and for some reason the quotes have stopped working?

 

[Grandpa]

you can call it what ever you like, please explain how one sins when there is no law to sin against. good luck on that one.

Whatever is not of faith is sin. (Rom 14:23)

The law is not of faith. (Gal 3:12)

 

[jaybird88]

Whatever is not of faith is sin. (Rom 14:23)

The law is not of faith. (Gal 3:12)

20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.

is the law the work of the Most High?

 

[Macabeus]

20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.

is the law the work of the Most High?

Many foods under the Law were unclean, but I’m the very verse you quoted, Paul says all things are clean. How do you explain that?

Now that you’ve refuted yourself...I’ll leave you be

 

[Macabeus]

Many foods under the Law were unclean, but I’m the very verse you quoted, Paul says all things are clean. How do you explain that?

Now that you’ve refuted yourself...I’ll leave you be

And no one said there is no law for us. We are under the Law of Grace which is much higher and demands much more than the Law of Moses. Please stop posting straw man fallacies, and I will stop replying.

 

[joseph123]

Um... "our good nature"? What is that?

... the part that our free will chooses. Whether to be good or evil. Don't tell me you don't even believe in free will.

What do you think Macabeus? The Law of Grace requires us to choose good over evil, doesn't it?

 

[jaybird88]

Many foods under the Law were unclean, but I’m the very verse you quoted, Paul says all things are clean. How do you explain that?

Now that you’ve refuted yourself...I’ll leave you be

i get the foods, i was talking about the part that says destroying the work of the Most High.

And no one said there is no law for us. We are under the Law of Grace which is much higher and demands much more than the Law of Moses. Please stop posting straw man fallacies, and I will stop replying.

where can i find the list of the grace laws?

 

[Macabeus]

... the part that our free will chooses. Whether to be good or evil. Don't tell me you don't even believe in free will.

What do you think Macabeus? The Law of Grace requires us to choose good over evil, doesn't it?

... the part that our free will chooses. Whether to be good or evil. Don't tell me you don't even believe in free will.

What do you think Macabeus? The Law of Grace requires us to choose good over evil, doesn't it?

the grace of God teaches us (people who are saved) to deny ungodly lusts and to live soberly and righteously Titus 2:11. This is done by crucifying the flesh and walking in the Spirit.