daniel

[elohiym]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Originally posted by Nineveh

Here is the link.

If you don't want to read it and get the whole story, that's your choice. But I'm not going to debate 1PM with you on this thread.

You had to bring up 1PM on other threads, including this one. If you cannot back up your claims against her, then don't make any claims against her.

Originally posted by Nineveh

"You brood of vipers"
"You belong to your father, the devil"

That sounds pretty judgemental to me. If I said those things to you, you would tell me I'm judging.

He is not judging them; he is describing them. If you said that to me you would not be judging me, but if it were untrue, it would make you a liar.

Originally posted by Nineveh

In context, what does it mean then? Did we go from judging to proper lens care in that paragraph?

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Do not judge means DO NOT JUDGE. Simple. He tells us NOT to judge. Then he asks us why we judge others. He tells us to remove our own stumbling block, then help the other do the same. He is NOT telling you to judge them. Do you understand?

Originally posted by Nineveh

Careful pointing fingers there, it looks like it's you that likes to pick and choose so far.

Nineveh, I have offered you several scriptures that state explicitly not to judge, and have Jesus stating explicitly that he did not come to judge.

Originally posted by Nineveh

When Christ comes back, is he bringing a:

A. Flower
B. Latest Bestseller from Barns & Noble
C. Sword

After you answer, maybe we can decide if Christ judges or not.

The answer is C. And that has nothing to do with Jesus judging anyone. His words judge the wicked. His WORDS judge the wicked. That is the two-edged sword in his mouth, God's word. Get it?

Originally posted by Nineveh

Look, He absolutely judged what the pharisees were doing was wrong. He absolutly judged what the money changers were doing was wrong. If He didn't judge them, He had no business correcting them.

If Jesus judged them, then the Bible is untrue. Jesus stated plainly that he judges no man, and that he did not come to judge. You have offered nothing but speculation to attempt to refute His own words.

Originally posted by Nineveh

When Christ was here He had some things to accomplish. Namely dying for us. At that time, He didn't come to judge us all, but to save us. To take this to mean Christ never judged is simply silly. He did judge while He was here and He is coming back with either a flower, a bestseller or a sword. If it's a sword, it won't be carried in vain.

Again, Jesus stated explicitly that he judges no man, and that he did not come to judge. In the end, according to Jesus, His words will judge the wicked.

Originally posted by Nineveh

I made my position known above. It's you that needs to take Christ out of context to make your point. Both Christ and Paul instructs us to use righteous judgement.

Then how do you explain Jesus and Paul stating explicitly not to judge? Do you deny that that both state such a thing?

Originally posted by Nineveh

You seem to want to skip what He is saying:

"for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."

You seem to want to skip what He is saying:

"for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Now compare that to:

"Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty."

Now all you need to do is figure out what the sharp sword is.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Jesus wasn't saying He is non judgemental, but that the time of judgement wasn't then. But it's coming.

Then why are you judging if the time isn't now?

Originally posted by Nineveh

What I can't do is believe you need to take Christ so far out of context to make your point.

How is "I judge no man" and "I came not to judge" taken out of context. What do you think he was saying?

Originally posted by Nineveh

Only if we misunderstand what Christ says and redefine half a dozen words can we arrive at your conclusion.

Originally posted by Nineveh

And so far, you have some logs you need to get rid of, so you can see clearly to help me with a percieved speck.

Be specific, if you can. Are you capable of helping me get that log out of my eye? You refuse to help me understand what your objection to 1PM is, so I doubt you will listen to Jesus' words in my case.

Originally posted by Nineveh

But select capable men from all the people-men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain-and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.

That's not hatred of a person.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked.

I hate evil, too; but I don't hate ANY people.

Originally posted by Nineveh

To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

See above.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the LORD God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph.

Same as above. Boy you sure like to use OT and law when you think it makes your point.

Originally posted by Nineveh

You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates.

I hate the detestable things, too. Do you hate pork? Sabbath breaking?

Originally posted by Nineveh

God is in darkness, a liar and a murderer? Or is it possible there are things appropriate to hate?

You missed an option: you are simply wrong.

Originally posted by Nineveh

It seems to me you take Christ out of context when it comes to judgement, so I question your judgement. If you want to call being judemental something else, fine, but that only makes you a veiled hypocrite.

Then you should be able to show me where I took his words out of context. Jesus stated that He judged no man, not me. Jesus stated that He did not come to judge, not me. The fact that you will not acknowledge that is telling.

Originally posted by Nineveh

A homosexual who hasn't repented.

Is that a homosexual that has stopped having homosexual sex?

Originally posted by Nineveh

You mean like do I lust for witchcraft? I did right after I repented, but through faith, that lust has gone away.

Ah, a former witch; but you missed my point.

Do you still lust for anything ever?

Originally posted by Nineveh

Yes. It did. Fortunatly, because none of the judgenot "Christians" would.

So you admit that you came to Christ without people judging you. Interesting. :think:

Originally posted by Nineveh

I still hungered for it for a little while. But I practiced my faith and turned to Christ in those times.

Then you are totally cured, right? Nothing you do anymore would have been considered something to hate by God in the OT?

Originally posted by Nineveh

Just so you won't go off on a tangent about me not explaining repentance to you, it means to be sorry for and to turn from.

So if you are sorry for being wicked, yet do not turn from your wickedness, you're lost, correct?

Originally posted by Nineveh

If you plan on telling me people get to define sin, please skip it. I've heard it before and I choose to believe God's definitions.

Actually, I am telling you that you don't get to define sin. Sabbath breaking is still a sin. Pork eating is still a sin. Not one jot or tittle has changed in the word of God.

Now you are going to redefine sin, watch.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Perhaps at this point I need to ask you which Jesus? The Word Who is part of the One True Triune God or the losely defined pantheon you belive in?

Jesus the Son of God Almighty, the word made flesh.

What's sad is that because you condemn others for believing in a pantheon because they don't believe in the trinity, you actually condemn yourself. God cannot be limited to a trinity since He is an unlimited compound unity.

This is the second time I explained that to you. You didn't object the last time I explained my beliefs of the unity of God. Now you claim "pantheon" because you obviously want lie about me.

Originally posted by Nineveh

You aren't the gate keeper to the Body

Ps 84:10 For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.

Ps 24:9 Lift up your heads, O ye gates; even lift them up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Defining your own righteousness.

That's what you are doing.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Hate is a tool. God uses it. Mockery is a tool. Anger is a tool.

Hate has already been talked about above. God used mockery a few times. Once he sent a dream of bread to an army and it scared them so badly they ran away. (pretty funny if you ask me) And yes, God even gets angry. He got angry with Isreal more than once.

Are you God? Do you get to hate and mock? Show me the verses, please.

Originally posted by Nineveh

I wouldn't define "intimidation", "cruelty" or "rudeness" as tools, although rudeness sometimes comes with mockery. "Intimidation" and "cruelty" can be broadly defined to include even niceness. (and before you disagree, I have been accused of being "mean" even when I was being as nice as humanly possible)

At least you back off from your outrageous statement. Fine.

 

[elohiym]

Gentiles (as symbols of the godless) and sodomites are called "dogs" in the Bible (Mat. 7:6; 15:26; Deut. 23:17-18; Ps. 22:16; 59:5-6; Phil. 3:2; Rev. 22:15). And Jesus was harsh (not only to the Pharisees, as some believers wrongly assume but) to all the unrepentant (see His use of "hypocrite"). Jesus instructs Christians to not "cast your pearls before swine" (Mat. 7:6). Yet the silly dilemma now is, "Who could Christ possibly have meant by that, for we are too loving, tolerant, polite and respectful to refer to any human being by that mean-spirited term."

Do you Gentiles call yourselfs "dogs" still?

 

[drbrumley]

LOL, Im not a gentile. Im a son of God. You?

 

[Nineveh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Originally posted by elohiym

You had to bring up 1PM on other threads, including this one. If you cannot back up your claims against her, then don't make any claims against her.

I said if daniel asked her (or dave miller), she prolly would't agree with him about me not being judgemental. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.

He is not judging them; he is describing them. If you said that to me you would not be judging me, but if it were untrue, it would make you a liar.

He had to judge them to get the right lable.

Do not judge means DO NOT JUDGE.

DO NOT JUDGE, HYPOCRITE, means DON'T JUDGE LIKE A HYPOCRITE, quit commiting the sin you are judging for then you can help your brother. JUDGE WTH RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT.

Simple. He tells us NOT to judge.

Like a hypocrite.

Then he asks us why we judge others. He tells us to remove our own stumbling block, then help the other do the same. He is NOT telling you to judge them. Do you understand?Nineveh, I have offered you several scriptures that state explicitly not to judge, and have Jesus stating explicitly that he did not come to judge.The answer is C. And that has nothing to do with Jesus judging anyone. His words judge the wicked. His WORDS judge the wicked. That is the two-edged sword in his mouth, God's word. Get it?If Jesus judged them, then the Bible is untrue. Jesus stated plainly that he judges no man, and that he did not come to judge. You have offered nothing but speculation to attempt to refute His own words.Again, Jesus stated explicitly that he judges no man, and that he did not come to judge. In the end, according to Jesus, His words will judge the wicked.Then how do you explain Jesus and Paul stating explicitly not to judge? Do you deny that that both state such a thing? You seem to want to skip what He is saying:

"for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Now all you need to do is figure out what the sharp sword is.Then why are you judging if the time isn't now?How is "I judge no man" and "I came not to judge" taken out of context. What do you think he was saying?

Perhaps you need to figure out what the "winepress of the fury of the wrath of God" is.

You still don't want to see what He was saying yet do you? Is it because you are like Jonah and simply refuse to help your neighbor see his sin so he has the chance to repent? Or is it because you have a pet sin you don't wanna give up?

Be specific, if you can. Are you capable of helping me get that log out of my eye? You refuse to help me understand what your objection to 1PM is, so I doubt you will listen to Jesus' words in my case.

No, you refuse to read the thread. I'm not Reader's Digest. Make an effort.

You want help with your log? Here it is.

If you feel you can't get the beam out of your eye, then quit judging because it makes you a hypocrite.

That's not hatred of a person.I hate evil, too; but I don't hate ANY people.

God does.

How do you seperate the sin form the one doing it?

Boy you sure like to use OT and law when you think it makes your point.

All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I hate the detestable things, too. Do you hate pork? Sabbath breaking?

Why do you keep trying to put me under the Law?

You missed an option: you are simply wrong.

Or... you could be.

Then you should be able to show me where I took his words out of context.

I already did. You want to make like Jesus didn't judge people, He did. In fact God judges people through the whole Bible. Jesus was telling them His time on earth wasn't the judgement. His time on earth was for salvation. We went over it, you reject it. There is nothing more I can offer you on the issue.

Jesus stated that He judged no man, not me. Jesus stated that He did not come to judge, not me. The fact that you will not acknowledge that is telling.

The fact is, both Jesus and Paul instucts us to judge with righteous judgement, but your theology needs to hang onto that one verse you have taken out of context.

Is that a homosexual that has stopped having homosexual sex?

Stopped because he is sorry? or Stopped because he is dying of AIDS?

Ah, a former witch; but you missed my point.

No, I wasn't a witch, don't assume. I was a garden veriety pagan idolitor that dabbled in the occult including things of witchcraft.

No. I didn't miss your point. I addressed it head on.

Do you still lust for anything ever?

I lust for good things. Lust isn't an evil in and of itself ( IE lusting for your own wife ), it's the misuse of lust that can be sinful ( IE lusting for someone else's wife ).

So you admit that you came to Christ without people judging you. Interesting.

I was convicted of my sin by the Holy Spirit (that's singular btw)

Then you are totally cured, right? Nothing you do anymore would have been considered something to hate by God in the OT?

Obviously not, you've spent all this time judging me for judging.... So obviously you think my judging is a sin.

So if you are sorry for being wicked, yet do not turn from your wickedness, you're lost, correct?

I did turn from tarot cards and the like. But yes, I was sorry for being evil, that's why I repented.

Actually, I am telling you that you don't get to define sin. Sabbath breaking is still a sin. Pork eating is still a sin. Not one jot or tittle has changed in the word of God.

For those under Grace? Surely you jest.

Now you are going to redefine sin, watch.

Nope. I have no need, God's Law is good enough to define sin.

Jesus the Son of God Almighty, the word made flesh.

What's sad is that because you condemn others for believing in a pantheon because they don't believe in the trinity, you actually condemn yourself. God cannot be limited to a trinity since He is an unlimited compound unity.

You sound more like a mormon : shrug :

This is the second time I explained that to you. You didn't object the last time I explained my beliefs of the unity of God. Now you claim "pantheon" because you obviously want lie about me.

How many Holy Spirits you hiding in your version of the Godhead?

Ps 84:10 For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.

Ps 24:9 Lift up your heads, O ye gates; even lift them up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.

That's what you are doing.

Not really, I'm just rejecting what you preach is all.

Are you God?

Nope.

Do you get to hate and mock?

When appropriet.

Show me the verses, please.

God mocking the Midianites with a drem of bread can be found in Judges 7.

Oh... really! You don't recall God getting angry at Israel?! Ok, try locating the part in the Bible where Moses delivers the 10 commandments to the people for starters. Then for more instance... just keep reading.

At least you back off from your outrageous statement. Fine.

Now, if only you would.

 

[elohiym]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Originally posted by Nineveh

You still don't want to see what He was saying yet do you? Is it because you are like Jonah and simply refuse to help your neighbor see his sin so he has the chance to repent? Or is it because you have a pet sin you don't wanna give up?

There is no sin in Christ. Get with the program.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Why do you keep trying to put me under the Law?

See you want to redefine sin by saying that you are not under the law. Well, then nobody else is either. You can eat pork and break the Sabbath, and homosexuals can go to bathhouses. We'll see where you and those homosexual's end up on judgment day, you know, when the wicked are judged (then).

Originally posted by Nineveh

Nope. I have no need, God's Law is good enough to define sin.

God's law defines pork eating and Sabbath breaking as sin. Do you still eat pork? Do you still break the Sabbath?

I don't want to put you under the law. I couldn't even do it if I wanted to. What I want to understand is why you speak out of both sides of your mouth like a hypocrite. My questions and comments were designed to get you to think, but I guess that didn't work.

Nineveh,

I believe you have a serious reading comprehension problem, and you really don't understand the gospel. Needless to say, I am through with our discussion. Let the reader decide which one of us speaks the truth.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Poly

We need a "truthsmack" smilie.

Can this :wave: be Nineveh and this be elohiym?

:wave:

(It's the closest thing I can find to a good smack upside the head)

And here's one for a double truthsmack:

 

[Ninjashadow]

Here's a good one:

 

[Nineveh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Originally posted by elohiym

There is no sin in Christ. Get with the program.
See you want to redefine sin by saying that you are not under the law. Well, then nobody else is either.

Do you just ignore Paul?

You can eat pork and break the Sabbath, and homosexuals can go to bathhouses. We'll see where you and those homosexual's end up on judgment day, you know, when the wicked are judged (then).God's law defines pork eating and Sabbath breaking as sin. Do you still eat pork? Do you still break the Sabbath?

I guess you do ignore Paul.

I don't want to put you under the law. I couldn't even do it if I wanted to. What I want to understand is why you speak out of both sides of your mouth like a hypocrite. My questions and comments were designed to get you to think, but I guess that didn't work.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

I don't expect you to know who said that, it seems you ignore most of what he says anyway.

I believe you have a serious reading comprehension problem, and you really don't understand the gospel.

Same back 'atcha

Needless to say, I am through with our discussion. Let the reader decide which one of us speaks the truth.

Until next time lol ....


YEAH! Maybe now daniel will will feel free to take part in his thread!

 

[cattyfan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Originally posted by elohiym
God's law defines pork eating and Sabbath breaking as sin.

God's Law is the Ten Commandments...He expects us to follow those. Christ's arrival didn't cancel out God's expectations.

 

[godrulz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Originally posted by cattyfan

God's Law is the Ten Commandments...He expects us to follow those. Christ's arrival didn't cancel out God's expectations.

Pork is not in the Decalogue. Are you a Sabbatarian?

 

[elohiym]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Originally posted by cattyfan

God's Law is the Ten Commandments...He expects us to follow those. Christ's arrival didn't cancel out God's expectations.

Do you keep the seventh-day Sabbath?

 

[elohiym]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Originally posted by Nineveh

Do you just ignore Paul? I guess you do ignore Paul.

Paul stated the Sabbath is a shadow of things to come (future tense). Paul kept the Sabbath and taught both Jew and Gentile on the Sabbath. Paul nowhere states not to keep the Sabbath, but he does state to not let anyone judge you for keeping the Sabbath, because it is a shadow of things to come (future tense). Jesus, speaking of the future said to pray you flight isn't on the Sabbath. Furthermore, Isaiah 66 describes the Sabbath being kept on the new earth (future). The early church kept the Sabbath, and evidence of that can be found in the Apostolic Constitution (200-300AD).

Rather than ignoring Paul's words, you have chosen to twist them, just as Peter said people wanted to do to their own destruction.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

You seem to want to put some people under the law, implying that they put themselves under it by breaking it; yet you claim to not be under the law even though you are breaking it presently. You try and use Paul's words to justify your position. That is double-minded, and it expalins why you appear unstable in your reasoning.

Next you'll tell me that Peter's vision from God meant that pork is no longer unclean for Christians, even though he understood the vision to mean "call no man unclean". How does that fit into your dispensational view of Peter still being under the law?

You have not let God's word define sin for you; but you have twisted Paul's words to define sin for yourself. You are a legalist, Nineveh. And the sad thing is that you cannot see it.

 

[godrulz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Originally posted by elohiym


You have not let God's word define sin for you; but you have twisted Paul's words to define sin for yourself. You are a legalist, Nineveh. And the sad thing is that you cannot see it.

Is this the proverbial pot calling the kettle black?

 

[Nineveh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Originally posted by elohiym

Needless to say, I am through with our discussion.

lol guess that was a fib, huh?

Paul stated the Sabbath is a shadow of things to come (future tense). Paul kept the Sabbath and taught both Jew and Gentile on the Sabbath. Paul nowhere states not to keep the Sabbath, but he does state to not let anyone judge you for keeping the Sabbath, because it is a shadow of things to come (future tense).

This is what Paul said about Sabbaths:

"One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Looks like he just said we (those under Grace) are free from Sabbath Law.

Jesus, speaking of the future said to pray you flight isn't on the Sabbath. Furthermore, Isaiah 66 describes the Sabbath being kept on the new earth (future). The early church kept the Sabbath, and evidence of that can be found in the Apostolic Constitution (200-300AD).

If you insist on keeping the Law for your righteousness, you will fail. But who am I to stand in your way

Rather than ignoring Paul's words, you have chosen to twist them, just as Peter said people wanted to do to their own destruction.

Um... nope. Paul taught us we (those under Grace) are saved by Grace, not by the Law.

You seem to want to put some people under the law,

Some are under the Law, Paul said so. Do you know who those people might be?

implying that they put themselves under it by breaking it;

Nope, that's your belief. I never said anything of the sort.

yet you claim to not be under the law even though you are breaking it presently.

I am? How so? By not agreeing with you? Or by calling you a hypocrite for judging me for judging?

You try and use Paul's words to justify your position. That is double-minded, and it expalins why you appear unstable in your reasoning.

Not only do you misunderstand what Christ and Paul have said, you seem to need to twist what I say so you will have a leg to stand on. You aren't being honest, perhaps you should have quit replying when you had some semblance of respect as a debate partner.

Next you'll tell me that Peter's vision from God meant that pork is no longer unclean for Christians, even though he understood the vision to mean "call no man unclean". How does that fit into your dispensational view of Peter still being under the law?

Don't even offer a false hope whatever I would say on the issue might have some bearing on your twisted theology. It's obvious you need to keep the Law. So, as a weaker one ( see Paul for the definition ), have at it.

You have not let God's word define sin for you;

BIG words from the sodomite supporter.

but you have twisted Paul's words to define sin for yourself. You are a legalist, Nineveh. And the sad thing is that you cannot see it.

Me a legalist? :darwinsm: If I am, it's only because you keep trying to put me under the Law with you. No thanks. I have Grace

 

[elohiym]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Originally posted by Nineveh

lol guess that was a fib, huh?

Nope. I didn't say I wasn't going to respond if you said something silly. You did. You claimed that I don't listen to Paul; but in reality, it is you who are not listening to Paul or Jesus.

Originally posted by Nineveh

This is what Paul said about Sabbaths:

"One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Really? Did Paul tell you he was talking about the Sabbath in that verse? I don't see the Sabbath mentioned there at all. I think you assume too much, and don't consider that Paul could have been talking about other days in Roman culture, especially since there is nothing in the law about having to eat vegetables as opposed to meat. So to assume it is the Sabbath law he is talking about is a stretch, to say the least.

Here is what Paul said about the Sabbath:

Col. 2:14 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

The Sabbath was/is a shadow of something in the future, like the Passover lamb was a shadow of Jesus. Could one have eliminated the lamb from Passover observance before Jesus was crucified? No. Neither would Paul be implying not to keep the Sabbath, since it was stiil a shadow yet to come (future). Here is the Sabbath pictured in the future...

Isaiah 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Now unless you don't plan to be on the new earth, you will observe the Sabbath then.

Furthermore, where is the controversy over Paul supposedly teaching Christians shouldn't observe the Sabbath? Had he really taught that, it would have created a controversy like when his views on circumcision did. The absence of any controversy also suggests that Paul never told anyone not to observe the Sabbath.

BUT... Paul clearly stated I shoudn't let anyone judge me for observing the Sabbath, NOT for not observing the Sabbath.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Looks like he just said we (those under Grace) are free from Sabbath Law.

Those under grace are not under any law, but that has zip to do with observing the Sabbath. Are you under the law when you refrain from adultery, murder, or idol worship? No. And neither is anyone for observing the seventh-day Sabbath under grace.

Originally posted by Nineveh

If you insist on keeping the Law for your righteousness, you will fail. But who am I to stand in your way

Well, if I was keeping the law for righteousness, I would hope that you would stand in my way to help me; but I don't and can't keep any laws for righteousness, so your assertion that I "insist on keeping the Law" for my righteousness is rediculous.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Some are under the Law, Paul said so. Do you know who those people might be?

You?

Let's see why I think you are a legalist...

I said about you: "...implying that they put themselves under it by breaking it..." To which you answered:

Originally posted by Nineveh

Nope, that's your belief. I never said anything of the sort.

Oh, but you certainly implied it, like I said. Let's review a key part of our dialogue...

Nin: "God accepts an unrepentant homosexual?"

(It appears you are asking me if God will accept an unrepentant homosexual. So to clarify what you mean by unrepentant I ask...)

Elo: "What is an unrepentant homosexual?"

Nin: "A homosexual who hasn't repented."

(Sarcastic and evasive, but why? I rephrased it for clarity. So I asked if a repentant homosexual can be defined as follows...)

Elo: "Is that a homosexual that has stopped having homosexual sex?"

Nin: "Stopped because he is sorry? or Stopped because he is dying of AIDS?"

(Sarcastic and evasive again, yet you must have known what I was asking.)

So what am I to understand from that dialogue? Simple, you expect a homosexual to repent by ceasing from his homosexuality. You want him to stop because he is sorry, and that is how you define repentance for the homosexual.

But what law is the homosexual under if the homosexual is a Christian like you. As a Christian, you break the Sabbath and eat pork (I assume), yet you did not stop breaking those laws, and you apparently aren't even sorry for breaking those laws. Still, you get grace and freedom from the law.

However, you still want the homosexual to be sorry and stop his law breaking in order for him to be repentant. Thus, you have either used grace as a license to sin for yourself, or you are putting a homosexual under the law to earn grace. You may be doing both. That is legalism, my dear. Plain and simple. You can cry all you want that it isn't legalism, but it is.

Originally posted by Nineveh

I am? How so? By not agreeing with you? Or by calling you a hypocrite for judging me for judging?

I just explained why I believe you are a legalist. As for me judging you, and being a hypocrit because I am supposedly judging you for judging is a straw man. Call me what you want. I know I haven't judged you, nor have I judged you for judging. I have been rebuking you for sniping at my wife, misrepresenting Jesus in relationship to his judgement, suggesting that cruelty, hate, etc., are tools for ministry, and for being double minded, but nowhere have I judged you. Get a clue.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Not only do you misunderstand what Christ and Paul have said, you seem to need to twist what I say so you will have a leg to stand on. You aren't being honest, perhaps you should have quit replying when you had some semblance of respect as a debate partner.

I had some semblance of respect as a debate partner? :crackup:

Well, maybe I still do then, because I wasn't and haven't been being dishonest. I have been very honest with you, and I have once again put myself out there to be abused while I try to help you. And perhaps one day, if not today, maybe you will understand exactly what I was trying to communicate to you and why.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Don't even offer a false hope whatever I would say on the issue might have some bearing on your twisted theology.

Oh, then I guess you aren't a dispensationalist. Several of them have told me it is because Peter's vision that pork is now clean meat. Ironically, they also tell me Peter remained under the law as part of Israel. So it would seem that Paul should have had the vision instead of Peter if the vision was about pork suddenly being clean meat for Gentiles, especially since pork still wasn't clean for Peter after his vision. Hey, but if you're not a dispy, then forget that point.

Originally posted by Nineveh

It's obvious you need to keep the Law. So, as a weaker one ( see Paul for the definition ), have at it.

Nin, you know that's not true. I'm under grace, not under the law. Everything I have said is to point out your legalism to you. I removed that log a while ago, and now I am trying to help you with your rather large speck.

Originally posted by Nineveh

BIG words from the sodomite supporter.

Do you mean homosexual supporter? Sodomite has come to mean several things, none of which is supported by the biblical understanding of the sins of sodom. If you are implying a sodomite is some that engages in sodomy, then that could be either a homosexual or heterosexual. So are you claiming I am supporting specific sexual acts, specific persons who are homosexual, or what?

And your statement is just another straw man. BIG words from the legalist.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Me a legalist? :darwinsm:

Yes. That's how I see it, Nin..

Originally posted by Nineveh

If I am, it's only because you keep trying to put me under the Law with you. No thanks. I have Grace

I have not even attempted to put you under the law. That would require me saying (like you did for the homosexual) that you must be sorry and stop breaking the Sabbath, and stop eating pork TO OBTAIN RIGHTEOUSNESS. Since I don't believe that, and never said that, your understanding of the matter is retarded, to say the least.

Now if you want to let this discussion die, then by all means do so; or feel free to explain your position without making unsubstantiated accusations against me. If you do it without misrepresenting me again, I will actually let you have the last word (maybe).

 

[Nineveh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: daniel

Originally posted by elohiym

Nope. I didn't say I wasn't going to respond if you said something silly. You did. You claimed that I don't listen to Paul; but in reality, it is you who are not listening to Paul or Jesus.

What a crock lol

You seem to like to only focus on one verse out of context, so let's see what you really. Let's look at your whole "verse":

"Needless to say, I am through with our discussion. Let the reader decide which one of us speaks the truth."

So, instead of admitting your fib, you make it worse lol

Really? Did Paul tell you he was talking about the Sabbath in that verse?

Why yes, it appears he is talking about the sabbath, and to be quite frank, other Law too.

I don't see the Sabbath mentioned there at all.

I'm not surprized at that. Like dave miller, you see everything as sin but what God calls sin.

I think you assume too much, and don't consider that Paul could have been talking about other days in Roman culture, especially since there is nothing in the law about having to eat vegetables as opposed to meat. So to assume it is the Sabbath law he is talking about is a stretch, to say the least.

I know it's hard for you to live under Grace, weaker one.

Here is what Paul said about the Sabbath:The Sabbath was/is a shadow of something in the future, like the Passover lamb was a shadow of Jesus.

Share the verse so we can look at it in context.

Could one have eliminated the lamb from Passover observance before Jesus was crucified? No. Neither would Paul be implying not to keep the Sabbath, since it was stiil a shadow yet to come (future).

But he did. And when you judge me for holding all days the same, you are violating what Paul was teaching here. See....

When you keep the Law for righeousness sake, you wind up being "puffed up" because you think, "Look at me! See what I can do? And look at these less than "Christians", who aren't as good as me." To be quite frank, that's exactly the attitude you have, too. Christ saves, not Christ + the Law (any part of it). That's why Paul got angry over circumcision being taught to his converts, and Peter agreed with him.

Here is the Sabbath pictured in the future...Now unless you don't plan to be on the new earth, you will observe the Sabbath then.

I am free of the Law, I am dead to the Law. If you want to live under the Law, that's your choice. But as I said earlier, for your righteousness sake, you will fail.

Furthermore, where is the controversy over Paul supposedly teaching Christians shouldn't observe the Sabbath? Had he really taught that, it would have created a controversy like when his views on circumcision did. The absence of any controversy also suggests that Paul never told anyone not to observe the Sabbath.

No, the problem comes in because the Law is your source of righteousness and you are terrified to give it up for the better Way of Grace. You think there is just one thing or a whole host of things you can do to make yourself righteous.

That makes you self- righteous, I feel sorry for you come Judgement Day.

BUT... Paul clearly stated I shoudn't let anyone judge me for observing the Sabbath, NOT for not observing the Sabbath.

Ohhhhhhh

So he was talking about the sabbath then? LOL

Yes, he was, but only when it suits your purpose?

*MARKED*: You are being dishonest.

The funny thing is, I'm not judging you for keeping the sabbath, weaker one. You are judging me for not keeping it.

Those under grace are not under any law, but that has zip to do with observing the Sabbath.

Wow...

Ok, so Grace has nothing to do with the Law, except that one.

Are you under the law when you refrain from adultery, murder, or idol worship? No. And neither is anyone for observing the seventh-day Sabbath under grace.

How many times have I said, if you need to cling to that Law, feel free, weaker one.

Well, if I was keeping the law for righteousness, I would hope that you would stand in my way to help me; but I don't and can't keep any laws for righteousness, so your assertion that I "insist on keeping the Law" for my righteousness is rediculous. You?

Me? I'm not required to hold one day as holy, I am firmly convinced in my own mind I would rather hold all days in the same esteem. So quit judging me about it

Let's see why I think you are a legalist...

I don't really care what you think

I said about you: "...implying that they put themselves under it by breaking it..." To which you answered:

Nope, that's your belief. I never said anything of the sort.

Oh, but you certainly implied it, like I said. Let's review a key part of our dialogue...

Nin: "God accepts an unrepentant homosexual?"

I can't help what you want to read into my reply so you can uphold sodomites as holy.

(It appears you are asking me if God will accept an unrepentant homosexual. So to clarify what you mean by unrepentant I ask...)

Elo: "What is an unrepentant homosexual?"

Nin: "A homosexual who hasn't repented."

(Sarcastic and evasive, but why? I rephrased it for clarity. So I asked if a repentant homosexual can be defined as follows...)

Elo: "Is that a homosexual that has stopped having homosexual sex?"

Nin: "Stopped because he is sorry? or Stopped because he is dying of AIDS?"

(Sarcastic and evasive again, yet you must have known what I was asking.)

No, what I see is you trying to offer Grace to those who have not repented of their sins. In so doing, you try to force me to say something I don't believe.

So what am I to understand from that dialogue? Simple, you expect a homosexual to repent by ceasing from his homosexuality. You want him to stop because he is sorry, and that is how you define repentance for the homosexual.

Why should a homo be any different than the rest of the world?

Are you trying to give them a free pass because it's a sin you hold close to your own heart?

But what law is the homosexual under if the homosexual is a Christian like you. As a Christian, you break the Sabbath and eat pork (I assume), yet you did not stop breaking those laws, and you apparently aren't even sorry for breaking those laws. Still, you get grace and freedom from the law.

Once again,weaker one, you need to cling to the Law, not me. Is this the root of your clinging to the Sabbath? If there is just one Law you need to follow, you can warp that into cleansing a sodomite of sodomy?

Even the sodomites must repent of their sins.

However, you still want the homosexual to be sorry and stop his law breaking in order for him to be repentant.

Changing the definiton of repentance?

Thus, you have either used grace as a license to sin for yourself, or you are putting a homosexual under the law to earn grace.

And Paul said:

What the Law says, it says to those under the Law.

Do you not grasp that concept?

You may be doing both. That is legalism, my dear.

Personally I see the difference between Law and Grace. It's you that seems to stumble, keeping the few you feel you need to cling to, weaker one.

Plain and simple. You can cry all you want that it isn't legalism, but it is.

I'm not the one throwing a fit lol So you can cry all you want that I'm a legalist, but you should save it for when you keep your next Sabbath

I just explained why I believe you are a legalist. As for me judging you, and being a hypocrit because I am supposedly judging you for judging is a straw man.

I've noticed here at TOL, the ones who proclaim themselves to be the least judgmental are the biggest hypocrites of all. You are no different. In fact, you rank #2 right after sybel101 and right above wickwoman.

Call me what you want. I know I haven't judged you, nor have I judged you for judging.

Right lol

You keep the Sabbath and I am what for not keeping the Sabbath?

I have been rebuking you for sniping at my wife,

*MARKED* You are being dishonest.

Firstly you refuse to read the thread. Secondly you have to judge to determine if someone needs rebuked. And lastly, the only thing you said was for me to "get my husband, because you had nothing to say to me".

The last being another obvious fib.

Instead of being decietful, why not start another thread and you and I will go over Gerald's "miracle" thread. It's obvious you want to say something (to me, instead of my husband) about it lol

misrepresenting Jesus in relationship to his judgement,

Same back 'atcha.

suggesting that cruelty, hate, etc., are tools for ministry,

*MARKED* You are being dishonest. We went over this.

and for being double minded,

... so much for being "non judgemental". Hypocrite. You even provide a list of your judgements.

but nowhere have I judged you.

:darwinsm:

Hypocrite.

Get a clue.I had some semblance of respect as a debate partner? :crackup:

You are right, you don't.

But I did try to think you were respectful enough to debate. Thanks for clearly showing, and admitting you have no respect.

Well, maybe I still do then, because I wasn't and haven't been being dishonest.

:crackup:

BWAHAHAHAHAHahahahahaha

I have been very honest with you, and I have once again put myself out there to be abused while I try to help you.

Physician, heal thyself.

And perhaps one day, if not today, maybe you will understand exactly what I was trying to communicate to you and why.

Here's what I get so far:

Everyone but homos need to repent and keep only the Sabbath and food law about pork.

Oh, then I guess you aren't a dispensationalist.

Yes, I am. But thanks for asking lol

Several of them have told me it is because Peter's vision that pork is now clean meat. Ironically, they also tell me Peter remained under the law as part of Israel.

Obviously, you aren't a dispy.

So it would seem that Paul should have had the vision instead of Peter if the vision was about pork suddenly being clean meat for Gentiles, especially since pork still wasn't clean for Peter after his vision.

Paul already knew Gentiles were in, it was Peter having trouble with the concept.

Hey, but if you're not a dispy, then forget that point.Nin, you know that's not true.

I think your ignorance is a fine marker to judge where I am getting things right

I'm under grace, not under the law.

Except the Sabbath.....

Everything I have said is to point out your legalism to you.

And if I start keeping the Sabbath Law, I'm fine in your book? lol

I removed that log a while ago, and now I am trying to help you with your rather large speck.

Weaker one, I don't want to be put back under the Law, not even the parts you feel are necessary for you to keep.

Do you mean homosexual supporter? Sodomite has come to mean several things, none of which is supported by the biblical understanding of the sins of sodom.

Except the part where "all the men both young and old" wanted to "have sex" with the male visitors of Lot.

If you are implying a sodomite is some that engages in sodomy,

Sodomite.... sodomy.... I'm seeing a relation there....

then that could be either a homosexual or heterosexual. So are you claiming I am supporting specific sexual acts, specific persons who are homosexual, or what?

If you wanna be a rube, who am I to stand in your way?

And your statement is just another straw man.

Do you even know what that term means?

BIG words from the legalist.

Remeber that on your Sabbath keeping day

Yes. That's how I see it, Nin..

Judge all ya want

I'm still gunna stick with Grace.

I have not even attempted to put you under the law.

Well.....

Except when you outright said I was breaking the Law:
"yet you claim to not be under the law even though you are breaking it presently"

And when you have accused me of being a "pork eater". And how wrong I am for holding all days the same instead of keeping the Sabbath Law....

All except for those instances lol

That would require me saying (like you did for the homosexual) that you must be sorry and stop breaking the Sabbath, and stop eating pork TO OBTAIN RIGHTEOUSNESS. Since I don't believe that, and never said that, your understanding of the matter is retarded, to say the least.

I can't break a Law that I'm dead to. WHAT THE LAW SAYS IT SAYS TO THOSE UNDER THE LAW. Get it yet? Talk about retarded.

Now if you want to let this discussion die,

Another fib?

then by all means do so; or feel free to explain your position without making unsubstantiated accusations against me. If you do it without misrepresenting me again, I will actually let you have the last word (maybe).

All I can say to you is, you have 3 fingers pointing back at your right now. You have to option to quit pointing any time you want.

 

[elohiym]

Nineveh,

You totally misrepresented me, again. My last post was very clear and straight forward. If you still don't get what I have been attempting to communicate to you, so be it.

...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Never have I put you under the law! If you claim homosexuals are breaking the law, while you break the law by not keeping the Sabbath, then you are under the law, and you are double-minded--YOU put yourself under the law, and I am pointing out to you that you have done so.

Plenty of people don't rest on the Sabbath, but are not under the law, since they don't put other people under the law to judge and condemn them. You have double standards, and are twisting Paul's words to perfect a license to sin and judge others. That's your choice, but Jesus' words will judge you on the Day of the Lord.

Again, no person can keep the law for righteousness, not me, not you, not a homosexual. You can't keep the Sabbath for righteousness, and a homosexual can't cease from homosexuality for righteousness. Sabbath breaking is a capital offense, like murder. Jesus said he would not change one jot or tittle from the law, so Paul couldn't change, mitigate, or abolish the Sabbath law.

You ought to pray about this, and factor in that your fellow dispys have told me that a homosexual can become a Christian and fall back to homosexual sex and still retain his salvation. More legalism. Now who supports homosexuality? :down:

Anyway, you've been exposed as a legalist, Nin. Take care!

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by elohiym

You totally misrepresented me, again. My last post was very clear and straight forward. If you still don't get what I have been attempting to communicate to you, so be it.

I've noticed you say something, then before you hit the period at the end of your sentence, you deny saying it lol

Never have I put you under the law!

Repeatedly. So, If you can repeat yourself, so can I

"Well.....

Except when you outright said I was breaking the Law:
"yet you claim to not be under the law even though you are breaking it presently"

And when you have accused me of being a "pork eater". And how wrong I am for holding all days the same instead of keeping the Sabbath Law...."

All except for those instances lol"

If you claim homosexuals are breaking the law, while you break the law by not keeping the Sabbath, then you are under the law, and you are double-minded--YOU put yourself under the law, and I am pointing out to you that you have done so.

I

am

under

Grace.

Not

the

Law.

What

the

Law

says,

it

says

to

those

under

the

Law.

Was that slow enough for you to grab onto it that time?

Plenty of people don't rest on the Sabbath, but are not under the law, since they don't put other people under the law to judge and condemn them.

But you seem to be doing just that. So quit.

You have double standards, and are twisting Paul's words to perfect a license to sin and judge others. That's your choice, but Jesus' words will judge you on the Day of the Lord.

This is the second time you have accused me of sinning. Name it or hush your foolish tongue.

Again, no person can keep the law for righteousness, not me, not you, not a homosexual. You can't keep the Sabbath for righteousness, and a homosexual can't cease from homosexuality for righteousness. Sabbath breaking is a capital offense, like murder. Jesus said he would not change one jot or tittle from the law, so Paul couldn't change, mitigate, or abolish the Sabbath law.

It seems to me you keep accusing me of what you do.

You want to liberate a homo from his need to repent like the rest of the world. It appears you desire people continue in their sin so that Grace may abound. Know what Paul had to say about that?

You ought to pray about this,

Why do I need to pray to know that sodomy is a sin? OT & NT both support the need for sodomites to repent.

and factor in that your fellow dispys have told me that a homosexual can become a Christian and fall back to homosexual sex and still retain his salvation. More legalism. Now who supports homosexuality? :down:

Stuggles in the flesh can't take away salvation any more than works can attain it.

Anyway, you've been exposed as a legalist, Nin. Take care!

I've pointed to Grace how many times?

How many times have you pointed back to Sabbath keeping and "pork" rules?