Religious Cults & False Prophets~ Discussions and DebatesPaul and the LawI will come back to the first statement you've made. Hebrews does state the law also changes. Maybe I've not done a good job of conveying what I'm saying. When I say that law has not changed. I'm saying that it remains the same. If you will be honest, you will acknowledge that I have said that the focus was shifted to the spirit, rather than the letter. So it still remains the same. I will give an example as I respond to your next statement. Here is my example; As with the Passover, according to the letter, we are to eat unleavened bread for seven days among other ritualistic things. Yet, Christ is our passover now and our spiritual bread. I am speaking according to the spirit of the law and not the letter. But you are focusing on the letter, which is why I've stated you're thinking carnally. You see, it did not change in the sense I'm speaking of, they observed passover and ate bread literally (according to the letter) but we observe it in Christ and eat from the bread of life, who is none other than God Himself. It is still the same, the focus is just shifted to the spirit. You said: I am not showing my ignorance of the law. You are showing your ability to ignore what I'm saying and also ignoring the scriptural reasons, I'm saying it although they are in your face. I said: This is Peter talking here and he says it and not I. Also, if you notice, I said according to their traditions. Jesus spoke of their traditions. How they made God's word of none effect. And you speaking of how they are supposed to treat a stranger in their land, only proves their traditions did so. It does not show "my ignorance" of the law. Also, why did you leave out the scripture that also says the Jew is not supposed to keep company with one of another nation, remember it was Peter saying this and it was also Peter who removed himself from the gentile brethren when the Jews came. You said: Yes I read it and if you want, let's use your version. 1 John 3:4 - Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. Where is the distinction in this? It says everyone and not every Christian or Non-Christain. You're still adding. It say what sin is and not whether one who practices sin is Christian or Not. You're still adding. Your version says sin is lawlessness. What is lawlessness? If I am without a law, am I not lawless? As you claim to be under no law, you proclaim lawlessness, though you are not aware of it. David sinned, but was He lawless? Solomon sinned, but was He lawless? You see while sin is lawlessness, people can sin even if they are under the law and not lawless. Conversely, If you're arguing that lawlessness is activity which is not permitted by law, I would agree with that and that agrees with the KJV's translation of the text. You say: No. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who does not speak the truth is not taught by God. And it is not I who am a cult member. There is no private interpretation of scripture. So how do you assume that the father's of your doctrines and traditions have private interpretation and that how they have interpreted it, it is? You are the one who banned me from the Christian forum as a cult member b/c I don't agree with your teacher's private interpretations of scripture. Yet you argue I judge those who disagree with me as such and such. And you've called me a hypocrite so many times it is a shame. You said: Notice from your own mouth you've said, "He writes HIS LAW in our hearts, which the Holy Spirit then uses TO CONVICT US OF SIN." You've just confessed that the law is what tells us what sin is. You said the Spirit uses what? The LAW to convict us of sin. You are partially wrong this time, the Judaisers were hung up on the law and their traditions that were passed down to them by their fathers, just as you defend the traditions of your synagogues. And Christ said their traditions made the Word of God (The Law) of none effect. It was the traditions and not the law that was the problem. As with the example he gave of, Honor thy Mother and Father v.s. their doctrine of "corban." Christ was not against the law. Ezekiel 36:27 - And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. Is not His spirit the Holy Spirit? It says ye shall keep my judgements and do them and walk in my statutes. The spirit of the law is not contrary to the law, but it establishes it, as fulfilled by Christ in us. You said: and this: This is what I'm talking about, the spirit of the law. Christ being our passover for example is the spirit of the law. Him being our tabernacle and bread is the spirit of the law. We still eat the unleavened bread (follow the law) it is just that Christ is our bread (according to the spirit of the law) rather than actual bread (according to the letter of the law) The spirit of the law (grace) is not contrary to the letter. This is the overall point that I'm making when I say that the law has not changed. That the spirit of the law is not contrary to the letter of the law. IF they speak not according to the law and the testimony, there is no light in them. That is because if you speak of the spirit of the law (testimony) it is not contrary to the law, but it establishes it, as Paul confirms Rom 3:31. Just as Hebrews confrims that Christ fulfilled the Temple and Levitical system, and that He is not in the holy place made with hands (temple buildings, church buildings, mosques, etc.) but he is found without the camp (outside of such things), where we go to Him without the camp, bearing His reproach. He was truly rejected by the religious leaders of His day. And His true followers are still rejected by them today. As it was then, so shall it be. Love Always, |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame