|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Thou Shalts and Thou Shalnts | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
In Message 117, I said:
quote: and you quote-mined me:
..who hears His sayings, from whatever source. I used the word "everybody" because Jesus used the word "whosoever":
quote: Whoseover = everybody. That's why I included the word. Don't leave it out when you quote me. Jesus clearly said that His message was directed at everybody.
Why is Jesus not repeating himself and Paul not repeating himself seen as different. Because Jesus made a general statement that He specifically said applied to everybody. Paul was making specific satements that he specifically said were directed to specific people - e.g. to the church at Rome. Since you seem reluctant to answer my question, I'll given our loyal readers a hint: You quoted Paul talking to the Romans about condemnation, but Paul seems to have very little to say to the other churches about condemnation. He mentions it to the Corinthians, and to some of his individual correspondents - e.g. Timothy - but (to my knowledge) nothing to the Galatians, Ephesians, etc. If condemnation is the "sole purpose" of the law, as you claim, and if the message was as universal as you claim, why was Paul himself so silent about it in much of his writing?
He never said it was simple. He never said it was hard. He just said "do". If anyone want to imply 'simple' or that he meant 'try' then by all means make a (biblical) case The mere fact that Jesus didn't mention any complications is a Biblical case for simplicity.
You haven't addressed the issue. Both are the word of God. The deliverer in one case is Matthew, in the other Paul. How do you rank one word of God over another? But that isn't the issue. The issue here is whether or not the "sole purpose" of the law is to condemn. You claim that it is, using one or two specific references to the Romans as your evidence. I'm saying that the first-hand words of Jesus (to everybody) ought to be our primary source, not the second-hand words of Paul to somebody else.
Also could you address the God-decreed "all nations" aspect of the apostleship when they weren't going to get to all nations in their lifetimes? Do you mean:
quote: (It would help our readers if you would quote the Bible - i.e. cut and paste. Not everybody has the ability or the inclination to do it for you. ) Notice that Jesus was speaking privately to the eleven disciples - not Paul. Also notice that "the end" has not come yet, 2000 years later. Clearly, Jesus expected the Gospel to be spread by others - including Paul - not just the disciples or the "apostles" who had met Him personally. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
iano writes: So how does one live up to this command. Note it is a command. There is no "try" in here. Asked and answered: Any command to an imperfect human being is predicated on the human being trying to do the best that he/she can. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Speaking of seed. Any of all this landing on fertile soil?
Legend and Ringo316 are both making more sense than you are.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Ringo writes: I used the word "everybody" because Jesus used the word "whosoever": Yeah I know he did, but we've establised that at the time he was addressing limited group of people as Paul was addressing a limited group of people. You've made Jesus words universal on the basis of a word: "whosoever". Whosoever, according to you, transcends the immediate addressees. If I can find a ' whosoever' or an 'everybody' or and 'anybody' in Pauls writings does that imply universality too? And if not why not?
He mentions it to the Corinthians, and to some of his individual correspondents - e.g. Timothy - but (to my knowledge) nothing to the Galatians, Ephesians, etc. If condemnation is the "sole purpose" of the law, as you claim, and if the message was as universal as you claim, why was Paul himself so silent about it in much of his writing? Did you miss what I said about eg: Galatians? That he was writing a letter to people who he had already been with personally. He had (as the bollicking he gave them demonstrates) explained the gospel to them when he was there. Why would he repeat the whole lot when there was just specific issues to be dealt with? He explained the gospel to the Romans because he had not been there yet. They hadn't heard it explained.
iano writes: He never said it was simple. He never said it was hard. He just said "do". If anyone want to imply 'simple' or that he meant 'try' then by all means make a (biblical) case
Ringo writes: the mere fact that Jesus didn't mention any complications is a Biblical case for simplicity. You are drawing a conclusion from something someone *didn't* say?? When I asked for a biblical case for try/simple to be made I meant biblical not "a biblical case for simplicity" (whatever that means)
iano writes: You haven't addressed the issue. Both are the word of God. The deliverer in one case is Matthew, in the other Paul. How do you rank one word of God over another?
]-->ringo or should that be wrongo < !--UB writes: -->
Do Nothing Button Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved Version 4.2 |