User Tag List

Page 33 of 37 FirstFirst ... 2330313233343536 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 495 of 542

Thread: What the Law and the Bible say about Homosexuality.

  1. #481
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    959
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 507 Times in 349 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    162268
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    Once again you cannot follow simple ideas and I don't care to waste my time with you. But thanks anyway.
    LOL.... Yeah, right. Since you have no scripture to support your assertions your only choice is to run and hide while claiming I don't understand.... Just in case you don't know, this is a common tactic used by a lot of people when they lose an argument and will not admit they are wrong.

  2. #482
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    18,785
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked 947 Times in 871 Posts

    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    Jacob,
    What does your marriage status have to do with anyone else? I'm married and you're single. So what? Who cares? I certainly don't. I don't know of anyone else who cares about it either. Why on earth would you think that a statement from you on your marriage status is condemning someone who is married, divorced, widowed, or whatever? There is nothing in the Bible that says this. When Paul speaks to this subject he says he speaks from his own thoughts, not from a revelation from God. Your marriage status is completely irrelevant to anyone else's marriage status.

    If you ask me you've gone off the deep end on this. You're making up things to worry about.
    Again, it doesn't have to do with marriage status. It has to do with obeying God. If God wants me to be single, so be it. But that is not the point of what I have been saying.

    I am glad that you are married. In this you are fulfilling God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply. It may not apply to all individuals, but I believe that you are fulfilling it, unless you are unable to have children.

    My being single like Jesus and Paul is not a marriage status thing. It is obedience. When it becomes a marriage status thing is when people ask if you are single or when people ask if you are single or married (or rather, when people ask me this). Because now I wasn't talking about marriage status but now someone else was, in reference to me.

    Not having a relationship before marriage is a matter of righteousness. I do not believe that I am wrong in this, even saying that those who are unmarried and have consensual sex having never been engaged or not being engaged means that they must get married (he must talk to her father about this if her father allows this).

  3. #483
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,615
    Thanks
    641
    Thanked 6,844 Times in 3,639 Posts

    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147774
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    We are talking about a government run by God according to the Law of Moses or New Covenant law. United States Law can be that. Being of Israel I already live that way, accepting anything in line with it.
    Being of Israel?

    And you claim to have not placed yourself under the law.

    You're blind.

    But I accept that if the Law is distant from you it does not relate to the immediacy of salvation or if you are born again. However, preaching the Law to show someone their need for the Savior likely does involve criminal law or God's criminal law system. Unless it involves neither.
    So how can you claim not to be conflating the two and utter the highlighted sentence?

    The third sentence doesn't make a lick of sense, by the way.

    The law is a tutor to bring us to Christ, yes, but WE ARE NOT SAVED BY FOLLOWING THE LAW!
    Under the law you had to do certain things to enter into and maintain a relationship with God. Things that were not optional but REQUIRED. If you refused to do them, you would be cut off, not just from Israel but from God. That is flatly no longer the case. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Your relationship with God has NOTHING to do with what you do or don't do. It is based entirely on your faith in the finished work of Christ at Calvary and only that - period.

    Further, things are not immoral BECAUSE they are in the law but rather it's the other way around! It was wrong to murder long before the Law said "Thou shalt not murder." A very long time before!

    This discussion is nearing an end. I'm repeating myself and you're getting further away.

    A person does not remove themself from under the law.
    Paul sure wasted a lot of time writing Galatians then (and most of the rest of his epistles for that matter).

    If that is what it is then a person must claim that this is what they have done and justify their action. Now, I am not under the Law. I am under grace. But this is because of what God says not because of what I say. Like accepting forgiveness. It is the same. I am forgiven so I am not under the Law. If there is a sense in which I am under the Law if I observe the Law, it is not a Biblical sense.
    You sound drunk. This meandering double talk is unintelligible gibberish. The first sentence makes no sense at all then you went along fine for a few sentences and then you added that last sentence and directly contradicted the previous six.

    There is only one reason a person would observe the law (i.e. perform the religious rituals of the Mosaic Law) and that's if they have placed themselves under the law. That's what it means to place yourself under the law in the first place! The law is of the flesh. Why, if you began by faith, would you seek to be perfected by your flesh? - Sound familiar?

    Jesus was born under the Law. Meaning, He was born an Israelite with God's Law, the Law of Moses, to live by and to govern every aspect of His life not directly governed by God should there be anything else.
    Jesus was born in Israel which did have the Mosaic law somewhat in effect in their government but not entirely. It was Roman law that governed Israel during Jesus' life time, not Moses. The sense in which Jesus was born under the law was religiously - dispensationally. Jesus, for righteousness sake, HAD to observe the religious rites and practices of the Jewish faith (i.e. the Mosaic Law) Jesus did not eat pork, He was circumcised and did get baptized, observed all the sabbaths, etc, etc, etc. If you did that today, you'd be in violation of God's command not to place yourself under the law and would be expected to repent (i.e. remove yourself from under the law).

    Either sinners or Israel is under the Law.
    Nope. The Law was nailed to that cross at Calvary. You can try to resurrect it all you want but I strongly advise against it.

    But to me this is an unknown of my Biblical interpretation. Being born under the Law is different from being converted under the Law. I am not sure what to make about your statements about dispensations.
    Your blind because of your paradigm. It cannot be known with "your biblical interpretation" because your interpretation is flatly wrong. You are mixing mail written to two groups of people and forcing them to be speaking to one group. The result is permanent confusion.

    The fact is that you are a dispensationalist. Everyone one is. Some simply don't want to admit it and or don't apply the principles consistently.

    It is my belief that God's law does not change.
    I couldn't care less about your belief.

    The bible states otherwise and you couldn't substantiate the claim that it doesn't change anyway - not if your life depended on it.

    Here, I'll smash the concept to dust with a single question...

    Was Cane executed for the crime of murder or did God Himself directly forbid it?


    That His instruction, His Torah, has been from the beginning.
    The Torah did not exist before Moses. There was no Torah while Israel was in Egypt. Noah did not have the Torah and neither did Abraham, Isaac or Jacob nor did anyone else prior to about 1446bc when the Ten Commandment were first uttered by God Himself at Mt. Sinai.

    From the beginning of the Torah, and from before the coming of the Torah.
    This too is false. There was no requirement for anyone to abstain from unclean foods before the Torah. There was no tithing requirement before the Torah. There was no arc of the covenant, no mercy seat, no priest, nor any of a hundred other things before the Torah.

    Paul in Acts 9 was not the beginning of grace. However,
    I did not say that Paul was the beginning of grace, I said that the dispensation of grace began with Paul. (Actually with the conversion of Saul on the Damascus Road).

    Romans 11:6 NASB - 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

    I think I have the right verse here. The point is was it ever by works? If this means the Law of Moses that is different from man's traditions even about it. In other words, it can seem that something was taken out of the way without it being the Word or Law of God.
    Abraham was the father of BOTH groups, Jacob.

    You forget the book of James where James, the brother of Jesus, makes the exact opposite point using the very same person and by quoting the exact same old testament passage!

    James 2:20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

    Go ahead and try to reconcile that passage with being saved by faith apart from works from within a non-dispensational paradigm! (You will fail.)

    You are probably right. But I am not a dispensationalist as you know. I believe that God's law has always been the same. So maybe it was different with Abraham.
    How can it have always been the same AND have been different with Abraham?

    How can you contradict yourself inside of two sentences like that and not notice it?


    Here are your scriptures.

    Ezekiel 31:15 NKJV - 15 "Thus says the Lord GOD: 'In the day when it went down to hell, I caused mourning. I covered the deep because of it. I restrained its rivers, and the great waters were held back. I caused Lebanon to mourn for it, and all the trees of the field wilted because of it.

    Revelation 22:14 NKJV - 14 Blessed [are] those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

    They say nothing of what you have said. So I pointed it out to you. I don't need another or a better argument. I don't believe that you have one to begin with. If you do it is unintelligible to me as the scriptures do not say what you are making it out that they say.
    They completely say what I said! What are you even talking about?

    What do you think Ezekiel 31 is referring to when it says "In the day when it went down to hell"? What do you think the "it" is referring too? Did you bother to check what the antecedent to that "it" was before you posted this? Clearly not! You might want to read the whole chapter of Ezekiel 31. It's all about what happened to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

    And Revelation 22 is talking about people IN THE NEW HEAVEN having "the right to the tree of life". It's sort of hard to exercise such a right if the Tree of Life isn't present, don't you think?
    Further, we are told elsewhere in Revelation that there is a different fruit that comes ripe each month on the Tree of Life IN HEAVEN. To deny that the Tree of Life is present in Heaven is to simply display ignorance of the biblical material.

    Clete
    Last edited by Clete; May 17th, 2019 at 06:53 AM.

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (May 17th, 2019)

  5. #484
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    15,690
    Thanks
    14,084
    Thanked 21,669 Times in 12,242 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147710

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    LOL.... Yeah, right. Since you have no scripture to support your assertions your only choice is to run and hide while claiming I don't understand.... Just in case you don't know, this is a common tactic used by a lot of people when they lose an argument and will not admit they are wrong.
    God did not CREATE His rules about sex to avoid disease. It's about the relationship that we are to have with Christ. Marriage is a PICTURE of our intended relationship with Christ. THAT is why sex outside of marriage is wrong.

    There is plenty of scripture to support this. If I get the time I will point you to a few, but you should already know what they are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    Clete (May 17th, 2019),JudgeRightly (May 17th, 2019)

  7. #485
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,615
    Thanks
    641
    Thanked 6,844 Times in 3,639 Posts

    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147774
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    God did not CREATE His rules about sex to avoid disease. It's about the relationship that we are to have with Christ. Marriage is a PICTURE of our intended relationship with Christ. THAT is why sex outside of marriage is wrong.

    There is plenty of scripture to support this. If I get the time I will point you to a few, but you should already know what they are.
    I don't disagree with this entirely but it seems that the avoidence of disease is likely to be at least part of the reason why God would have laws against sexual immorality.

    Things that are morally wrong are so because they lead to death and there are plenty of people who have died because of sexual immorality. Not always because of disease but that's certainly a significant percentage of it. (Romans 1:26-27)



    And for the record, I haven't been following your discussion on this so if my comments are out of joint with the discussion just ignore me here.

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (May 17th, 2019)

  9. #486
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    15,690
    Thanks
    14,084
    Thanked 21,669 Times in 12,242 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147710

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    I don't disagree with this entirely but it seems that the avoidence of disease is likely to be at least part of the reason why God would have laws against sexual immorality.
    It's certainly a benefit, but not His reason for the creation of the exclusive sexual union in a marriage between one man and one woman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Things that are morally wrong are so because they lead to death and there are plenty of people who have died because of sexual immorality. Not always because of disease but that's certainly a significant percentage of it. (Romans 1:26-27)
    Not before the fall when God first defined marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    And for the record, I haven't been following your discussion on this so if my comments are out of joint with the discussion just ignore me here.
    Always appreciate your input.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    Clete (May 18th, 2019),JudgeRightly (May 17th, 2019)

  11. #487
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    959
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 507 Times in 349 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    162268
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    God did not CREATE His rules about sex to avoid disease. It's about the relationship that we are to have with Christ. Marriage is a PICTURE of our intended relationship with Christ. THAT is why sex outside of marriage is wrong.

    There is plenty of scripture to support this. If I get the time I will point you to a few, but you should already know what they are.
    I have never said God had only one reason for creating the laws concerning sexual conduct. You're the one making that statement. And I'll show you once again my scriptural evidence, which you have ignored twice already, that at least part of the reason God gave His laws was for the prevention of disease. He said, paraphrasing Him, obey me and you won't suffer from the diseases the Egyptians had/have.... But, you'll just ignore scripture once again....

    Exodus 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee.
    And I'm supposed to go find scripture to support your bald-faced assertions? LOL. You definitely have nerve. You've had a couple of days already to think of your scriptures and you still can't do a software search and find your scripture and copy and paste it into a post..... Like I said, your assertions are worthless without scriptural support. I don't accept assertions without scriptural evidence.

    I very much doubt you'll never find any scripture that says God gave His laws concerning sexual conduct for one reason and one reason only. No scripture like that exists to my knowledge and I'm familiar with both Old and New Testaments. I study them both and have done so for decades.

  12. #488
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    959
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 507 Times in 349 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    162268
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    Again, it doesn't have to do with marriage status. It has to do with obeying God. If God wants me to be single, so be it. But that is not the point of what I have been saying.

    I am glad that you are married. In this you are fulfilling God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply. It may not apply to all individuals, but I believe that you are fulfilling it, unless you are unable to have children.

    My being single like Jesus and Paul is not a marriage status thing. It is obedience. When it becomes a marriage status thing is when people ask if you are single or when people ask if you are single or married (or rather, when people ask me this). Because now I wasn't talking about marriage status but now someone else was, in reference to me.

    Not having a relationship before marriage is a matter of righteousness. I do not believe that I am wrong in this, even saying that those who are unmarried and have consensual sex having never been engaged or not being engaged means that they must get married (he must talk to her father about this if her father allows this).
    Huh? Jacob, you once again lost me. Did God make Eve so Adam could have a wife? Yes or no? Did God say it is not good for a man to be alone? Yes or no?

    Who said remaining single is God's command? Where is that command? God told Adam and Eve to go forth and populate the earth. God also told Noah and his family to be "fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth". Genesis 9:1 As God has made it very clear fornication and adultery are both very wrong, so God could have only given the survivors of the flood that command if marriage between a man and a woman was right in His eyes. Could Noah's sons and daughter-in-laws have obeyed God and NOT gone forth and had children?

    You're off on a tangent that is no where close to being scriptural.

  13. #489
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    15,690
    Thanks
    14,084
    Thanked 21,669 Times in 12,242 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147710

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    I have never said God had only one reason for creating the laws concerning sexual conduct.
    I didn't say that you did.

    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    You're the one making that statement.
    I'm saying that disease avoidance is a side-effect of following God's rules about sex and NOT one of the reason for the creation of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    And I'll show you once again my scriptural evidence, which you have ignored twice already, that at least part of the reason God gave His laws was for the prevention of disease. He said, paraphrasing Him, obey me and you won't suffer from the diseases the Egyptians had/have.... But, you'll just ignore scripture once again....
    Your scripture simply shows the beneficial side-effects.

    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    And I'm supposed to go find scripture to support your bald-faced assertions? LOL. You definitely have nerve. You've had a couple of days already to think of your scriptures and you still can't do a software search and find your scripture and copy and paste it into a post..... Like I said, your assertions are worthless without scriptural support. I don't accept assertions without scriptural evidence.
    The intimate sexual relationship in a marriage is shown throughout scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    I very much doubt you'll never find any scripture that says God gave His laws concerning sexual conduct for one reason and one reason only. No scripture like that exists to my knowledge and I'm familiar with both Old and New Testaments. I study them both and have done so for decades.
    Good for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (May 18th, 2019)

  15. #490
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    18,785
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked 947 Times in 871 Posts

    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    @Clete

    I am doing a combination of typing from the computer and posting with my phone because the computer will not allow me to login.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post

    We are talking about a government run by God according to the Law of Moses or New Covenant law. United States Law can be that. Being of Israel I already live that way, accepting anything in line with it.

    Being of Israel?



    And you claim to have not placed yourself under the law.



    You're blind.
    As a child I may have accepted the covenant before understanding the new covenant for the house of Israel and the house of Judah. I do not know to be certain. I may have first accepted Jesus into my heart. Then would I need to new covenant without the old covenant? I later learned that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. When I say that I am of Israel I am telling you that I observe the Torah including wearing tzitzit and eating kosher, etcÖ. If these things are not a part of the new covenant I donít know what to say.



    But I accept that if the Law is distant from you it does not relate to the immediacy of salvation or if you are born again. However, preaching the Law to show someone their need for the Savior likely does involve criminal law or God's criminal law system. Unless it involves neither.

    So how can you claim not to be conflating the two and utter the highlighted sentence?
    I mentioned both because you have mentioned both but I recently saw you mention the one without God by itself. If we accept Godís Law would we also accept manís law?

    The third sentence doesn't make a lick of sense, by the way.



    The law is a tutor to bring us to Christ, yes, but WE ARE NOT SAVED BY FOLLOWING THE LAW!

    Under the law you had to do certain things to enter into and maintain a relationship with God. Things that were not optional but REQUIRED. If you refused to do them, you would be cut off, not just from Israel but from God. That is flatly no longer the case. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Your relationship with God has NOTHING to do with what you do or don't do. It is based entirely on your faith in the finished work of Christ at Calvary and only that - period.
    Well I am a transgressor, but I see doing the right thing as what I should be doing. If I am not already cut off I donít want to be cut off. I donít know if there are second chances or becoming a part of Israel again.

    Deuteronomy 10:19 NASB - 19 "So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.



    Exodus 22:20 Jewish Torah is

    Exodus 22:21 NASB - 21 "You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
    Further, things are not immoral BECAUSE they are in the law but rather it's the other way around! It was wrong to murder long before the Law said "Thou shalt not murder." A very long time before!
    It was wrong because God said that it is wrong.


    This discussion is nearing an end. I'm repeating myself and you're getting further away.
    I do not know what you mean by saying that I am getting further away. I am still typing from a computer or my phone.


    A person does not remove themself from under the law.

    Paul sure wasted a lot of time writing Galatians then (and most of the rest of his epistles for that matter).
    It has to do with your words. It is not something that can be done.

    If that is what it is then a person must claim that this is what they have done and justify their action. Now, I am not under the Law. I am under grace. But this is because of what God says not because of what I say. Like accepting forgiveness. It is the same. I am forgiven so I am not under the Law. If there is a sense in which I am under the Law if I observe the Law, it is not a Biblical sense.

    You sound drunk. This meandering double talk is unintelligible gibberish. The first sentence makes no sense at all then you went along fine for a few sentences and then you added that last sentence and directly contradicted the previous six.
    There is a good sense of being under the Law and a bad sense. So it matters what sense is being talked about or discussed.


    There is only one reason a person would observe the law (i.e. perform the religious rituals of the Mosaic Law) and that's if they have placed themselves under the law. That's what it means to place yourself under the law in the first place! The law is of the flesh. Why, if you began by faith, would you seek to be perfected by your flesh? - Sound familiar?
    Placing oneself under the law? And how would a person ever do that? I suppose if someone says that they are under the law you would ask how they got there. As for being perfected by the flesh, it is impossible.

    Jesus was born under the Law. Meaning, He was born an Israelite with God's Law, the Law of Moses, to live by and to govern every aspect of His life not directly governed by God should there be anything else.

    Jesus was born in Israel which did have the Mosaic law somewhat in effect in their government but not entirely. It was Roman law that governed Israel during Jesus' life time, not Moses. The sense in which Jesus was born under the law was religiously - dispensationally. Jesus, for righteousness sake, HAD to observe the religious rites and practices of the Jewish faith (i.e. the Mosaic Law) Jesus did not eat pork, He was circumcised and did get baptized, observed all the sabbaths, etc, etc, etc. If you did that today, you'd be in violation of God's command not to place yourself under the law and would be expected to repent (i.e. remove yourself from under the law).
    Incorrect. Jesus was born under the Law of Israel not Rome.

    Either sinners or Israel is under the Law.

    Nope. The Law was nailed to that cross at Calvary. You can try to resurrect it all you want but I strongly advise against it.
    Incorrect. I am talking about interpreting somewhere in the Bible other than Colossians. In other words, we must accept that either sinners are under the Law or Israel is under the Law. We are all under sin. Then are we all under the Law? For by it all are held accountable to God.

    But to me this is an unknown of my Biblical interpretation. Being born under the Law is different from being converted under the Law. I am not sure what to make about your statements about dispensations.

    Your blind because of your paradigm. It cannot be known with "your biblical interpretation" because your interpretation is flatly wrong. You are mixing mail written to two groups of people and forcing them to be speaking to one group. The result is permanent confusion.
    The Scriptures, including letters that you are thinking of, can apply to any believer.


    The fact is that you are a dispensationalist. Everyone one is. Some simply don't want to admit it and or don't apply the principles consistently.
    Some people believe in two dispensations or covenants, rather than seven. A Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace. I simply believe that the Law has been from the beginning and that it has not been abolished. However, the enmity, that is the law of commandments contained in ordinances, has been abolished, whatever it, or whatever that, is.


    It is my belief that God's law does not change.

    I couldn't care less about your belief.



    The bible states otherwise and you couldn't substantiate the claim that it doesn't change anyway - not if your life depended on it.
    The way in which I cannot substantiate it is that Adam and Eveís children married each other which in the Law of Moses it is incest.

    Here, I'll smash the concept to dust with a single question...



    Was Cane executed for the crime of murder or did God Himself directly forbid it?
    Cain was allowed to live is what you said.


    That His instruction, His Torah, has been from the beginning.

    The Torah did not exist before Moses. There was no Torah while Israel was in Egypt. Noah did not have the Torah and neither did Abraham, Isaac or Jacob nor did anyone else prior to about 1446bc when the Ten Commandment were first uttered by God Himself at Mt. Sinai.
    The word Torah means Instruction, Direction, Teaching, Law. It can mean any of these. It most certainly was there before the coming of the Written Torah with the Law of Moses, etcÖ. Did Abraham know Godís Law? Adam and Eve? Noah?


    From the beginning of the Torah, and from before the coming of the Torah.

    This too is false. There was no requirement for anyone to abstain from unclean foods before the Torah. There was no tithing requirement before the Torah. There was no arc of the covenant, no mercy seat, no priest, nor any of a hundred other things before the Torah.
    Animals were known to be clean or unclean before the coming of the Torah, such as with Noah.


    Paul in Acts 9 was not the beginning of grace. However,

    I did not say that Paul was the beginning of grace, I said that the dispensation of grace began with Paul. (Actually with the conversion of Saul on the Damascus Road).
    Okay. I donít know what we are wrangling over.


    Romans 11:6 NASB - 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.



    I think I have the right verse here. The point is was it ever by works? If this means the Law of Moses that is different from man's traditions even about it. In other words, it can seem that something was taken out of the way without it being the Word or Law of God.

    Abraham was the father of BOTH groups, Jacob.
    Correct!


    You forget the book of James where James, the brother of Jesus, makes the exact opposite point using the very same person and by quoting the exact same old testament passage!



    James 2:20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ďAbraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.Ē And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.



    Go ahead and try to reconcile that passage with being saved by faith apart from works from within a non-dispensational paradigm! (You will fail.)
    I am not even attempting to do whatever it is that you are asking me to do.


    You are probably right. But I am not a dispensationalist as you know. I believe that God's law has always been the same. So maybe it was different with Abraham.

    How can it have always been the same AND have been different with Abraham?
    Because did Abraham know Godís Law?


    How can you contradict yourself inside of two sentences like that and not notice it?





    Here are your scriptures.



    Ezekiel 31:15 NKJV - 15 "Thus says the Lord GOD: 'In the day when it went down to hell, I caused mourning. I covered the deep because of it. I restrained its rivers, and the great waters were held back. I caused Lebanon to mourn for it, and all the trees of the field wilted because of it.



    Revelation 22:14 NKJV - 14 Blessed [are] those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.



    They say nothing of what you have said. So I pointed it out to you. I don't need another or a better argument. I don't believe that you have one to begin with. If you do it is unintelligible to me as the scriptures do not say what you are making it out that they say.

    They completely say what I said! What are you even talking about?



    What do you think Ezekiel 31 is referring to when it says "In the day when it went down to hell"? What do you think the "it" is referring too? Did you bother to check what the antecedent to that "it" was before you posted this? Clearly not! You might want to read the whole chapter of Ezekiel 31. It's all about what happened to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.



    And Revelation 22 is talking about people IN THE NEW HEAVEN having "the right to the tree of life". It's sort of hard to exercise such a right if the Tree of Life isn't present, don't you think?

    Further, we are told elsewhere in Revelation that there is a different fruit that comes ripe each month on the Tree of Life IN HEAVEN. To deny that the Tree of Life is present in Heaven is to simply display ignorance of the biblical material.



    Clete
    I have now read these two chapters. I still donít see it. As for the new heavens, it is a new heaven and a new earth in the chapter prior.



    Shalom!



    Jacob

  16. #491
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    18,785
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked 947 Times in 871 Posts

    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    Huh? Jacob, you once again lost me. Did God make Eve so Adam could have a wife? Yes or no? Did God say it is not good for a man to be alone? Yes or no?

    Who said remaining single is God's command? Where is that command? God told Adam and Eve to go forth and populate the earth. God also told Noah and his family to be "fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth". Genesis 9:1 As God has made it very clear fornication and adultery are both very wrong, so God could have only given the survivors of the flood that command if marriage between a man and a woman was right in His eyes. Could Noah's sons and daughter-in-laws have obeyed God and NOT gone forth and had children?

    You're off on a tangent that is no where close to being scriptural.
    Have you read 1 Corinthians 7? That should help. Remember, some people forbid marriage and I do not.

  17. #492
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,615
    Thanks
    641
    Thanked 6,844 Times in 3,639 Posts

    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147774
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    @Clete

    I am doing a combination of typing from the computer and posting with my phone because the computer will not allow me to login.
    No one cares.

    As a child I may have accepted the covenant before understanding the new covenant for the house of Israel and the house of Judah. I do not know to be certain. I may have first accepted Jesus into my heart. Then would I need to new covenant without the old covenant? I later learned that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. When I say that I am of Israel I am telling you that I observe the Torah including wearing tzitzit and eating kosher, etc…. If these things are not a part of the new covenant I don’t know what to say.
    What do you mean, "IF"? Paul directly states that Christ is the end of the law and he wrote the book of Galatians, including chapter three of that book, not to mention the book of Romans!

    And, you could say this...

    "I'm sorry Lord for having not understood your word and that my lack of understanding has caused me to trust in my flesh rather than in your righteousness and in your finished work which you did for me at Calvary. Help me to crucify my flesh and to beleive what your word says concerning the law and how it applies only to my flesh which has been crucified by the Law in You and that therefore I no longer must follow a list of rules or worry about what foods I eat because in You, I am clean, pure and perfect and food cannot make me unclean nor can the fringes of my clothing make me faithful. Help me Lord to learn the lesson that You taught the whole world through Israel's lack of faith and failure, that the Law does not produce faith but rather it puffs up my flesh and causes me to stumble, that with the Law there is only death and condemnation but with You and only You, there is faith and life eternal."

    I mentioned both because you have mentioned both but I recently saw you mention the one without God by itself. If we accept God’s Law would we also accept man’s law?



    Well I am a transgressor, but I see doing the right thing as what I should be doing. If I am not already cut off I don’t want to be cut off. I don’t know if there are second chances or becoming a part of Israel again.

    Deuteronomy 10:19 NASB - 19 "So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.



    Exodus 22:20 Jewish Torah is

    Exodus 22:21 NASB - 21 "You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
    It's like talking to a brick wall.

    None of this is responsive to what I said. It neither acknowledges the veracity of what I said nor refutes a syllable of it. You just state this as if I hadn't said a word. What do you want me to do, just repeat myself endlessly while you find more and more mostly unrelated things to say in response?

    It was wrong because God said that it is wrong.
    This truly makes me angry, Jacob. Think that statement through for just half a second and you ought to be able to see that it is snuggled right up against blasphemy.

    Murder is not wrong because God said so! God said it was wrong BECAUSE IT IS WRONG! It was wrong before God ssid it.

    If murder was wrong BECAUSE God said so then God could say the opposite and suddenly murder would be right. I FEEL FILTHY FOR EVEN HAVING HAD TO TYPE SUCH A SENTENCE!!!

    Something is wrong because it leads to death, not because of some arbitrary declaration that God made.

    I do not know what you mean by saying that I am getting further away.
    Well think it through, Jacob. What in the world could I mean?

    It has to do with your words. It is not something that can be done.
    The book of Galatians directly contradicts you. Which was the point I made in my previous post to which you've responded by simply restating the same mindless, baseless, indefensible assertion.


    There is a good sense of being under the Law and a bad sense. So it matters what sense is being talked about or discussed.
    IN WHAT UNIVERSE IS THIS COMMENT HELPFUL IN ANY WAY?

    Why you would say this and then not explain what you mean? In what sense is being under the law good and in what sense is it bad?

    Depending on just what you mean, we might actually agree here. I doubt it, but it is possible. But the point is that I cannot tell because you would rather waste my time typing one sentence where five or six is called for.

    If you don't have the time or simply don't want to spend the time it takes to write something worthwhile, do me a favor and go find a hobby that you are passionate about enough to spend the time to do right.

    Placing oneself under the law? And how would a person ever do that? I suppose if someone says that they are under the law you would ask how they got there. As for being perfected by the flesh, it is impossible.
    I directly answered this question. Did you ignore it or are you stupid or are you intentionally wasting my time trying to just make me repeat things over and over and over and over again?

    Incorrect. Jesus was born under the Law of Israel not Rome.
    You're either a liar or you are stupid.

    ------
    Skipped a lot of wasted time...
    ......

    I have now read these two chapters. I still don’t see it. As for the new heavens, it is a new heaven and a new earth in the chapter prior.
    Okay, that's it! I'm not going any further. I'm done having my time wasted by someone who is either stupid or intentionally and aggressively ignorant.

    Believe whatever you want. I haven't the faintest idea why you even bother reading the bible. It seems to have no effect on what you choose to say, believe or practice.


    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (May 20th, 2019)

  19. #493
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    959
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 507 Times in 349 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    162268
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    Have you read 1 Corinthians 7? That should help. Remember, some people forbid marriage and I do not.
    Jacob,

    If you're going to point me to scripture to try to present evidence for your position you really ought to understand what you're pointing towards.

    1Corinthians 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
    7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
    8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
    9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
    10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
    11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
    12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:
    You are telling me I am to accept Paul's personal opinions as the commandments of God when Paul says his statements are not commandments from God. Your reading comprehension seems to be really lacking as you're pointing me to a passage of scripture that Paul says a lot of is his opinion.

    Now what did God say about marriage:
    Genesis 2:18 ∂And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
    God said man needed a woman even before sin entered the earth so how much more, in the isolation created by sin, does man need a woman's companionship? That is pretty much incalculable for our need for a companion for life is far greater now than before sin.

    What else does the Bible say about marriage being a good thing?
    Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
    What else does the Bible say about marriage? It compares Christ's second coming to marriage.
    Revelation 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
    That doesn't even come close to implying there is anything less than wonderful about marriage. In fact it implies exactly the opposite for it compares marriage to Jesus revealing Himself, personally and physically, to the redeemed from earth, and taking them home to heaven.

  20. #494
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    18,785
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked 947 Times in 871 Posts

    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    No one cares.
    You say you don't care by saying this. I do care.

    What do you mean, "IF"? Paul directly states that Christ is the end of the law and he wrote the book of Galatians, including chapter three of that book, not to mention the book of Romans!
    I mean that if you have a way of looking at it that you would like to explain you are free to do so. Otherwise I stay with what I know. God has His law for us in the new covenant for the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
    And, you could say this...

    "I'm sorry Lord for having not understood your word and that my lack of understanding has caused me to trust in my flesh rather than in your righteousness and in your finished work which you did for me at Calvary. Help me to crucify my flesh and to beleive what your word says concerning the law and how it applies only to my flesh which has been crucified by the Law in You and that therefore I no longer must follow a list of rules or worry about what foods I eat because in You, I am clean, pure and perfect and food cannot make me unclean nor can the fringes of my clothing make me faithful. Help me Lord to learn the lesson that You taught the whole world through Israel's lack of faith and failure, that the Law does not produce faith but rather it puffs up my flesh and causes me to stumble, that with the Law there is only death and condemnation but with You and only You, there is faith and life eternal."
    I don't believe that observing God's commandments is a matter of the flesh. In other words, I don't work in my flesh to keep commandments. I either obey or I don't. If I choose to do anything I choose to obey. Otherwise I just do the commandments by not not doing them.

    It's like talking to a brick wall.
    My apologies.

    None of this is responsive to what I said. It neither acknowledges the veracity of what I said nor refutes a syllable of it. You just state this as if I hadn't said a word. What do you want me to do, just repeat myself endlessly while you find more and more mostly unrelated things to say in response?
    I am sorry. I am doing the best I can to just respond naturally. I don't work up responses trying to get out of something. I am genuinely concerned for your welfare. If you feel that you can't learn from me, okay.
    This truly makes me angry, Jacob. Think that statement through for just half a second and you ought to be able to see that it is snuggled right up against blasphemy.

    Murder is not wrong because God said so! God said it was wrong BECAUSE IT IS WRONG! It was wrong before God ssid it.

    If murder was wrong BECAUSE God said so then God could say the opposite and suddenly murder would be right. I FEEL FILTHY FOR EVEN HAVING HAD TO TYPE SUCH A SENTENCE!!!

    Something is wrong because it leads to death, not because of some arbitrary declaration that God made.
    Incorrect. It is also wrong because it is wrong. But human reasoning won't help you and God's Word will. I refuse to give up God's Word for man's reasoning as is so often the case with people wanting to prove something without God's Word.
    Well think it through, Jacob. What in the world could I mean?
    I have no idea. It is up to you to tell me. How would I know what you are thinking anyway? I don't know why you think that I might.
    The book of Galatians directly contradicts you. Which was the point I made in my previous post to which you've responded by simply restating the same mindless, baseless, indefensible assertion.
    I have no problem with the book of Galatians, so you know. I think you may be answering a different point or something.
    IN WHAT UNIVERSE IS THIS COMMENT HELPFUL IN ANY WAY?
    I have no idea what you are talking about. With the bold I don't know why I should look to find out. You are getting all worked up over something for a reason that I don't know I believe. It escapes me. Universe? How many do you think that there are? Olam. Cosmos.
    Why you would say this and then not explain what you mean? In what sense is being under the law good and in what sense is it bad?

    Depending on just what you mean, we might actually agree here. I doubt it, but it is possible. But the point is that I cannot tell because you would rather waste my time typing one sentence where five or six is called for.
    I am sorry that I did not expound, but if my answer was sufficient there was no need to do so. Thank you for letting me know that I fell short in communicating to you here. I don't have five or six, but I can help.

    To obey the Law is not to be under it. To be under the Law can refer to condemnation or be a statement about being a Law abiding citizen. Different kinds of statements.
    If you don't have the time or simply don't want to spend the time it takes to write something worthwhile, do me a favor and go find a hobby that you are passionate about enough to spend the time to do right.
    You don't need to be telling me what to do here. I am here for you. I don't have any hobbies. I play chess occasionally but I am not into games because there are more important things in life.
    I directly answered this question. Did you ignore it or are you stupid or are you intentionally wasting my time trying to just make me repeat things over and over and over and over again?
    None of the above. I don't know why you would dare to make these kind of statements or insinuate these kinds of things in this way. If you answered the question let it go.
    You're either a liar or you are stupid.

    ------
    Skipped a lot of wasted time...
    ......


    Okay, that's it! I'm not going any further. I'm done having my time wasted by someone who is either stupid or intentionally and aggressively ignorant.
    Neither.

    He was born under the Law to redeem those under the Law. This is about the nation of Israel and God's Law not about being born of Israel and not observing God's Law or something.
    Believe whatever you want. I haven't the faintest idea why you even bother reading the bible. It seems to have no effect on what you choose to say, believe or practice.
    Why you say these kind of things escapes me (I don't know is what I am trying to say).
    Shalom.

    It has been good communicating with you. Shalom.

    Jacob

  21. #495
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    18,785
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked 947 Times in 871 Posts

    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    Jacob,

    If you're going to point me to scripture to try to present evidence for your position you really ought to understand what you're pointing towards.



    You are telling me I am to accept Paul's personal opinions as the commandments of God when Paul says his statements are not commandments from God. Your reading comprehension seems to be really lacking as you're pointing me to a passage of scripture that Paul says a lot of is his opinion.

    Now what did God say about marriage:

    God said man needed a woman even before sin entered the earth so how much more, in the isolation created by sin, does man need a woman's companionship? That is pretty much incalculable for our need for a companion for life is far greater now than before sin.

    What else does the Bible say about marriage being a good thing?

    What else does the Bible say about marriage? It compares Christ's second coming to marriage.
    That doesn't even come close to implying there is anything less than wonderful about marriage. In fact it implies exactly the opposite for it compares marriage to Jesus revealing Himself, personally and physically, to the redeemed from earth, and taking them home to heaven.
    It is not a restraint. Interesting post. Again, I have nothing against you being married. Thank you for posting well.

    1 Corinthians 7:7, 26-28, 32-35 NASB - 7 Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. ... 26 I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. ... 32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and [his interests] are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and [to secure] undistracted devotion to the Lord.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us