God did away with some of His own sayings

[atwhatcost]

It is hard to have a conversation/discussion with someone if they are unwilling to answer questions. Thanks for your open and kind response. I was not jumping to conclusions, I read clearly what was being said and saw between the lines. Assumptions weren't being made about the person, but rather where his line of logic leads. Maybe he doesn't truly subscribe to a legalistic doctrine, and if that is the case, he ought to work on the way he portrays himself as he could lead people astray and put a burden on them Jesus wants to set people free from.

You want to see how this person won't have conversation? Look no further...



Questions were given and answers were not. He ignored them. They aren't even leading, they are plain faced. All together the questions can be summed up as, "Are you a legalist?" However, that requires some specific information that just-me, apparently, isn't willing to share for who knows what reason.

Thanks for your response to not go with the crowd because the crowd could be wrong. Such a non-conformist you are, haha. Though, as far as I am able to tell with what just-me is willing to share, the crowd doesn't seem to be wrong. Maybe just-me is willing to prove the crowd wrong and answer the questions I posited to him? Who knows.

"Presumptuous allegations?" Ummm, "You're wrong?" "You're a legalist" (with or without a question at the end but the vast majority just tell him he is.)

Yeah, I consider that a presumptuous allegation.

As for how Just-me answers? Here's the problem. You learned how to say what you think in terms of Christ by what you've been taught. I've learned how to say what I think in terms of Christ by how I was taught.

What do you do when you learn about Christ on your own? Truly on your own? That's why Just-Me doesn't talk like us. Never got those lessons -- or did, but much later in life. But if your not taught early to speak Christianese, it really is a matter of those who have are going to have to struggle to accept what is said, instead of how it is said.

Think what he's been getting on this site. Most people think he's a legalist simply because some who skimmed through instead of tried to understand decided that. He's a much more patient guy than I am. I fling once I've been served that same hash for too long.

The truth is there is no clear cut line for legalist vs. anarachist. 10% may be legalists. 10% may be anarchists. The rest of of fall somewhere in the middle. Is the 40% mark "a legalist?" Is a 60% mark a legalist? Where do we draw lines and what is "bad line?" You keep saying to pick sides as if there are only two. There are so many more than two.

I lean more toward legalism than anarchy. I don't abide with no rules. Grew up with OCD and Asperberger's Syndrome, (family members, but it affects me), so rules were heavy-duty in my house. The Law is heavy-duty in God's house. It's not something to dismiss. It also doesn't save nor does it sanctify, but it sure aims us in the right direction.

So, if someone asks me if I'm a legalist, I'd probably head for Yes, but am I? Do I sound like it just because I think the Law is a good description of God?

But I'm not Just-Me either. He IS answering if he's a legalist. He's simply answering it through the Bible. Probably would work for all of us if we weren't trained in Christianese. His answer, if you listen? Well, listen and you'll hear it eventually.

Also, good advice -- be at peace and converse with the man. Converse. Different than interrogate.

He's different. Different isn't bad, it's just different. You see love and honor in him, right? Isn't that the kind of person to converse with in peace?

 

[weakness]

The fact that there are two covenants, one old and another new points to the fact that one is fulfilled, or "abolished." Once you pay your mortgage on a house, I would recommend you stop sending payments to the bank. Its been fulfilled, in the same way we are no longer under Law trying to fulfill its requirements. Jesus did that on our behalf, and has imputed His righteousness to us.

I don't see why it sickens you when people say a particular part of God's Word doesn't apply to us, as we have gone from one covenant to another. You can't take that which is of the old and mix it with the new, unless the new states it as well. Its like a lot of the things Jesus said before He died on the cross and resurrected on the third day, it was to people under the Law, not in the new covenant reality of grace. For example, forgive others or the Lord won't forgive you. Thats an old testament principle. In the new it is stated that we forgive others as the Lord has forgiven us, meaning we already have the forgiveness. That is just one example.

Its all about rightly dividing the Word. Don't put Law into grace, because you then nullify it. That is why there is a distinction, that is why somethings are now 'void.' Mixture or balancing of Law and grace takes away from both, one is self-righteousness and the other imputed, no work of your own. You can't mix the two, it doesn't work.[/QUOTE He who sins without law shall be judged without the law, he who sin within the law will be judged by the law. Seems like the law still exists for some who have not received Gods salvation by grace Also the law still leads us to Jesus by shewing we can't keep it . And keeps us in the place of a child. It still exist.

 

[pottersclay]

Its come to my attention that these law threads are debated and feelings are hurt, anger ensues, because nobody addressee the reason why God wrote the law.
I seen 2 almost answers imo on why but to me no one has hit the nail on the head and if they did do they understand what it means......

 

[ERICA821]

Its come to my attention that these law threads are debated and feelings are hurt, anger ensues, because nobody addressee the reason why God wrote the law.
I seen 2 almost answers imo on why but to me no one has hit the nail on the head and if they did do they understand what it means......

Now I could go into detail about how the law brings about knowledge of sin, and how the knowledge of sin brings about repentance, and how repentance points us to true faith in Jesus (Romans 7)- and all of this would be true but... well, I can make this much, much simpler- God wrote the law because He loves us, of course!

Law = Torah = Instruction.

Why do I give instruction to my children? Why do I teach them right from wrong? Because I love them!

 

[atwhatcost]

Its come to my attention that these law threads are debated and feelings are hurt, anger ensues, because nobody addressee the reason why God wrote the law.
I seen 2 almost answers imo on why but to me no one has hit the nail on the head and if they did do they understand what it means......

I see the Law as God's perfect nature. The thing we can most easily see of him, since we can't see an image of him. That's my shortened version. My longer versions didn't work for you?

 

[just-me]

Now I could go into detail about how the law brings about knowledge of sin, and how the knowledge of sin brings about repentance, and how repentance points us to true faith in Jesus (Romans 7)- and all of this would be true but... well, I can make this much, much simpler- God wrote the law because He loves us, of course!

Law = Torah = Instruction.

Why do I give instruction to my children? Why do I teach them right from wrong? Because I love them!

Many times we hear that there are only 2 laws that Jesus endorsed and that is to love God, and love our neighbor as ourselves. This is certainly true, but after a while questions come into my mind about the people who say this, giving reason for denying the instructions of how to exact that love. To me, that is the opposite of involving the mind with the love they talk about. Maybe their heart and soul is sincerely in it, but their mind isn't putting it together because their excuse is a 180 degree contradiction to itself, in my opinion. The instruction of how to love is not for the lost. They are for the saved. Yet at the same time, people will say the law is only to bring people to Christ and then it's gone. WHAT!?

Then I ask myself, and God;

"How can a person love God's way if they have previously determined to neglect the instructions given in the Torah after being taught that the the instructions are opposed to grace?"

Then;

"Do those who are advocating this love of God and neighbor act out what they think God's love is according to their own interpretation?"

And finally;

"Does purposeful rejection of God's Torah (according to the doctrines of men) give any confirmation as to what spirit is actually leading them?"

To me, this is like endeavoring to do a job without having any tools to work with. Why have so many been taught that the following (in part) is an adversary to God's grace?

Leviticus 19:11-18
[SUP]11 [/SUP]Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord.
[SUP]15 [/SUP]Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the Lord.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

 

[gb9]

you do understand the gentiles were never given the law, only Israel. as said earlier, Abraham ,Noah did not have the law, they were called righteous. notice in John 3 how many times Jesus said believe. nothing about the law. you are correct in the fact that the Torah teaches about God, but we are enabled to do these things, do right I mean, by grace. belief leads to behavior, not behavior leads to belief. by the way, for the 3rd time I ask you do understand the Bible IS NOT A BOOK. it is series of books. written by dozens of people over 100's of years. is that truth or not??? answer please.

 

[Brother_Don]

Never has the Almighty done away with His sayings, because that would make Him a liar, and the Almighty can not lie. Our enemy is the liar, tries to take us on a merry-go-round, for instance, one day he will tell us one thing, then when we do it, he will try making us feel stupid, and try convincing us of something else, he is the author of confusion, and a liar. i'm so thankful that his time is short, and someday this life of flesh will be like a blink of an eye and be gone, and we will be living in eternity living under the Law of the Almighty. Don't be fooled into thinking eternity is a free for all, and we can do whatever, we will have rules given us by the King of kings, and Lord of lords. Know Christ Jesus, know peace, no Christ Jesus no peace.

 

[just-me]

you do understand the gentiles were never given the law, only Israel. as said earlier, Abraham ,Noah did not have the law, they were called righteous. notice in John 3 how many times Jesus said believe. nothing about the law. you are correct in the fact that the Torah teaches about God, but we are enabled to do these things, do right I mean, by grace. belief leads to behavior, not behavior leads to belief. by the way, for the 3rd time I ask you do understand the Bible IS NOT A BOOK. it is series of books. written by dozens of people over 100's of years. is that truth or not??? answer please.

What? Is not a stranger and a sojourner the same as a Gentile? Are you one of those that have been indoctrinated with the doctrine that Jews are grafted into the Gentile Church according to the "Nicene creed?"

One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. Exodus 12:49

And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you: Leviticus 16:29 (Atonement anyone?) Romans 5:11

Why is it so hard for some who have been indoctrinated with doctrines of men to understand that ALL of God's spoken words have never been made void to the Gentiles as will as the Jews? Have we actually denied the fact that salvation is of the Jew first and then to the Gentile?

Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. John 4:22

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Romans 1:16

 

[just-me]

you do understand the gentiles were never given the law, only Israel. as said earlier, Abraham ,Noah did not have the law, they were called righteous. notice in John 3 how many times Jesus said believe. nothing about the law. you are correct in the fact that the Torah teaches about God, but we are enabled to do these things, do right I mean, by grace. belief leads to behavior, not behavior leads to belief. by the way, for the 3rd time I ask you do understand the Bible IS NOT A BOOK. it is series of books. written by dozens of people over 100's of years. is that truth or not??? answer please.

I agree with your question that the Bible is a series of books. I didn't respond to you the first time because I didn't see the point of your question. What's your point in asking that question?

 

[gb9]

my point Is that means that one cannot just pluck out and connect verses. one should not mix O.T. and N.T. to make a point. context and history should be used. rightly dividing. that is my point.

 

[atwhatcost]

you do understand the gentiles were never given the law, only Israel. as said earlier, Abraham ,Noah did not have the law, they were called righteous. notice in John 3 how many times Jesus said believe. nothing about the law. you are correct in the fact that the Torah teaches about God, but we are enabled to do these things, do right I mean, by grace. belief leads to behavior, not behavior leads to belief. by the way, for the 3rd time I ask you do understand the Bible IS NOT A BOOK. it is series of books. written by dozens of people over 100's of years. is that truth or not??? answer please.

Let me reply with the same tone you're giving off.

You do know Cain wasn't absolved of his sin just because he didn't have the law. Why is that? Because he had the law, just like the Gentiles have.

Is the Bible a book? Well, look at it on your bookshelf. How many books are you looking at? I see one. I see one because Bible means "Book." Inside that book are smaller sections - called books, albeit quite a few are letters -- written by over 40 people in the span of roughly 1600 years. So, exactly why do you think repeating yourself 3 times makes your questions any more relevant, especially given you didn't have the exact right answer to your own question?

Did you know the prickly pear cactus is native to all of North America from Mexico way into Canada? Did you? DID YOU? Are you going to answer my question?

And should you answer my question since it is as related to the topic as your question?

The 'tude isn't becoming is it? Yeah. How about that?

 

[atwhatcost]

my point Is that means that one cannot just pluck out and connect verses. one should not mix O.T. and N.T. to make a point. context and history should be used. rightly dividing. that is my point.

Why can't one, since Jesus -- the One -- did it? Why can't one, since both the OT and the NT are in that same book. What is this point? What does it have to do with rightly dividing?

 

[just-me]

my point Is that means that one cannot just pluck out and connect verses. one should not mix O.T. and N.T. to make a point. context and history should be used. rightly dividing. that is my point.

Why can't verses in the Bible coordinate with other scriptures? It's all God's word.

Example;

And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. Romans 15:10-11

Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people. Deuteronomy 32:43

O praise the Lord, all ye nations: praise him, all ye people. Psalm 117:1

So which books and verses in the Bible has God made applicable to certain sects of believers since His is not a respecter of persons? Please give an answer according to your beliefs.

Acts 10:34-40[SUP]
34 [/SUP]Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
[SUP]35 [/SUP]But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
[SUP]36 [/SUP]The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all,
[SUP]37 [/SUP]That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
[SUP]38 [/SUP]How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
[SUP]39 [/SUP]And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
[SUP]40 [/SUP]Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

 

[just-me]

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

How true!!!

For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Malachi 3:6

I and my Father are one. John 10:30

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? John 14:9

Jesus NEVER endorsed anything that is different for the original words of God the Father. It takes spiritual understanding to believe that.

 

[BenFTW]

"Presumptuous allegations?" Ummm, "You're wrong?" "You're a legalist" (with or without a question at the end but the vast majority just tell him he is.)

Yeah, I consider that a presumptuous allegation.

As for how Just-me answers? Here's the problem. You learned how to say what you think in terms of Christ by what you've been taught. I've learned how to say what I think in terms of Christ by how I was taught.

What do you do when you learn about Christ on your own? Truly on your own? That's why Just-Me doesn't talk like us. Never got those lessons -- or did, but much later in life. But if your not taught early to speak Christianese, it really is a matter of those who have are going to have to struggle to accept what is said, instead of how it is said.

Think what he's been getting on this site. Most people think he's a legalist simply because some who skimmed through instead of tried to understand decided that. He's a much more patient guy than I am. I fling once I've been served that same hash for too long.

The truth is there is no clear cut line for legalist vs. anarachist. 10% may be legalists. 10% may be anarchists. The rest of of fall somewhere in the middle. Is the 40% mark "a legalist?" Is a 60% mark a legalist? Where do we draw lines and what is "bad line?" You keep saying to pick sides as if there are only two. There are so many more than two.

I lean more toward legalism than anarchy. I don't abide with no rules. Grew up with OCD and Asperberger's Syndrome, (family members, but it affects me), so rules were heavy-duty in my house. The Law is heavy-duty in God's house. It's not something to dismiss. It also doesn't save nor does it sanctify, but it sure aims us in the right direction.

So, if someone asks me if I'm a legalist, I'd probably head for Yes, but am I? Do I sound like it just because I think the Law is a good description of God?

But I'm not Just-Me either. He IS answering if he's a legalist. He's simply answering it through the Bible. Probably would work for all of us if we weren't trained in Christianese. His answer, if you listen? Well, listen and you'll hear it eventually.

Also, good advice -- be at peace and converse with the man. Converse. Different than interrogate.

He's different. Different isn't bad, it's just different. You see love and honor in him, right? Isn't that the kind of person to converse with in peace?

You seem to skim over the fact that he isn't replying to questions directed at him. You then go on a stupid rant, every single time. You are defending him for no reason and wrongly so. He is not answering questions, that are not presumptuous but are trying to get to the heart of the discussion. You, however, keep coming to his defense halting any progress that can be made. Stop speaking for him. Let him answer the questions, and whether its Christianese or not, he ought to learn "Christianese" if he wishes to partake in any edifying discussion rather than spew out the nonsense we have been reading this whole thread.

If that came off aggressive its because it was meant to, you have such a passive aggressiveness about you that its the only tone that seems to get you to think (if at all). Stop defending just-me when he isn't being attacked but rather people are trying to reveal what is, obviously, hidden to some at the sake of you persecuting them and vilifying them.

I completely understand what you are saying. It, however, doesn't apply in this instance as just-me is apparently incapable of discussion because the questions raised would bring to light his position of which it seems he would rather others be ignorant of. If that isn't the case, answer the questions just-me. Stop letting atwhatcost defend you at the cost of her dignity and respect (at least what I had towards her).

Gosh, some people are annoying...

 

[BenFTW]

Let me reply with the same tone you're giving off.

You do know Cain wasn't absolved of his sin just because he didn't have the law. Why is that? Because he had the law, just like the Gentiles have.

Is the Bible a book? Well, look at it on your bookshelf. How many books are you looking at? I see one. I see one because Bible means "Book." Inside that book are smaller sections - called books, albeit quite a few are letters -- written by over 40 people in the span of roughly 1600 years. So, exactly why do you think repeating yourself 3 times makes your questions any more relevant, especially given you didn't have the exact right answer to your own question?

Did you know the prickly pear cactus is native to all of North America from Mexico way into Canada? Did you? DID YOU? Are you going to answer my question?

And should you answer my question since it is as related to the topic as your question?

The 'tude isn't becoming is it? Yeah. How about that?

Sigh...

 

[just-me]

BenFTW so as long as you on on here, ask me one question at a time.

 

[BenFTW]

BenFTW so as long as you on on here, ask me one question at a time.

I will consider what atwhatcost said and truly try and understand your perspective. If you felt I was probing you, I apologize. I just wanted to get to the heart of the discussion as I saw where the logic of the OP could lead.

First question, if we do not obey the commandments of the Law what penalty do we take upon ourselves?