Thou Shalts and Thou Shalnts

No we haven't.Look at the prepositions: Jesus was speaking to a specific group of people, but He was speaking about "everybody". Paul was also speaking to a specific group of people, but where does it say he was speaking about "everybody"? Yes it does, and that's what I've been asking you to do. If you can find a "whosoever" or an "anybody" (in the appropriate context) in Romans, I'll be glad to hear about it. You're speculating on why Paul didn't say the same thing to the Galatians as he said to the Romans?Fact is, he didn't say it. No evidence of universality. Absolutely. If Jesus didn't say, "It's complicated," why should I conclude that it's complicated?I said:

quote:

---

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.

---

to which you replied: In case it has escaped your notice, Jesus is God and Paul was not.We are assuming (for the purpose of this discussion ) that the words of Jesus and the words of Paul have both been represented accurately in the Bible. But that doesn't mean that the words themselves are of equal value. It doesn't mean that what they were talking about was of equal importance - or equally universal.Jesus' words are more important than Paul's. Period. Sigh. Why do I have to keep repeating this? The debate is for the benefit of the audience, not the debators. If you give references, most readers won't - or can't - look then up. If you paste a quote, they'll read it.For example: If you had pasted it instead of referring to an "earlier" reference, I would have known you meant Romans.But, since you mention it, let's compare Jesus and Paul once again:

quote:

---

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
Rom 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures,)
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Rom 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name;

---

Nice concise piece of writing there, Paul (and that's only the front half of the sentence ).And actually, I quoted Matthew 24, not Matthew 5, about apostleship:

quote:

---

Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

---

Simple. And universal. Jesus said that "the end will come" after the gospel has been preached to "all nations". The end has not come yet, has it? Therefore, the preaching of the gospel is not finished yet (iano still doesn't get it ). Therefore, the injuction, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" was not directed only at those present or even at those then living.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

You quoted:

quote:

---

Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable O man, whosoever thou art that judgest...
Romans 2: 6 "who will render to every man according to his deeds"

---

which contains the word "whosoever" - but in what context?"Whosoever thou art that judgest" doesn't sound like a universal declaration to all mankind, does it? It's hardly on a par with Jesus' "whosoever hearesth my words", is it? I think no. But we're not talking about "the gospel". I asked you where Paul said to the Galatians, etc. anything about condemnation under the law. That's the topic - remember? I say that Paul's message which you quoted way, way back was intended for the Romans and only the Romans. I have asked you many times now to show that the message of condemnation was universal in all of his epistles. You have not done that. Exactly. He said nether simple nor complicated.Have you ever heard of Rube Goldberg? In your work as a mechanical engineer, do you delberately put in needless complications? If a customer doesn't say to you, "I want this that and the other bells and whistles", do you put them in? Or do you design the simplest possible machine that will do the job?Point being: simple is the default condition. If Jesus didn't specify complications, it's safe to conclude that there aren't any.I said:

quote:

---

In case it has escaped your notice, Jesus is God and Paul was not.

---

to which you replied: You're still not getting it, are you? Read my lips: We are assuming that Jesus' words are accurate and that Paul's words are accurate. We are not assuming that every word in the Bible is of equal importance.What's more important: what Homer Simpson says or what Moe the bartender says? Hint: Homer is the star of the show. He gets all the best lines. He's in every scene.Similarly, God/Jesus is the star of the Bible. He has all the best lines. He's in every scene. Everybody else is just a "staight-man", feeding God/Jesus lines to riff on.What Jesus says is more important than what Paul said. Learn that.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Sigh. I'll explain it one more time:Jesus: speaking to a specific group of people, says "whosoever heareth these sayings...." He doesn't limit that to the people present. Iano has heard his sayings. Ringo has heard His sayings. What He is saying is universal.Paul: speaking to a specific group of people, says "whosoever judgeth...." He might as well be saying "whosoever weareth brown shoes...." It does not clearly refer to everybody.(I know you're going tp say that everybody judges, but that's a whole other topic. My point is that Jesus is clearly speaking universally. Paul's "universality" has not been established.)I said:

quote:

---

I asked you where Paul said to the Galatians, etc. anything about condemnation under the law.

---

to which you finally responded:

quote:

---

Galatians 10 "cursedis everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them"

​

Galatians 13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law.."

---

First of all, it would help if you would cite chapter and verse. Since Galatians only has six chapters, your citation could be confusing to some .Second, it could be argued that a "curse" is not the same as "condemnation". For example, women talk of menstruation as "the curse", but it is also a great blessing.Third, as Goldfinger said, "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence...." Perhaps the Romans and the Galatians had similar problems. What about the Ephesians, the Colossians, the Thessalonians, the Philippians? You have yet to establish something resembling universality in Paul's epistles (though that is probably a topic in itself). "Love thy neighbour as thyself." Pretty simple. (And if you say it is impossible to do that 100%, show us where the Bible requires 100% success.) But you haven't shown that that is the purpose of the law. You said, way, way back, that the "sole purpose" of the law was to make us feel condemned. I've been saying that the main purpose of the law is to guide us in living our lives. We may sometimes feel condemned by the law, but that is not it's purpose. So far, you haven't been able to show that even Paul said otherwise. Actually, Jesus said "love". (You really need to spend more time in the gospels .)And it's not that odious a "command", is it? Loving is kind of fun. No no no no.... You're the one who claims that the "sole purpose" of the law is to condemn us, to be impossible to fulfil. You show us Biblically where 100% success is required.Once again, "the best you can do" is the default condition. As jar has been trying to show you, only a stupid and/or vindictive God would demand that we do more than we can do. Please have a little respect for God. Ironic, considering how hard it is to get a Bible quote out of you. I never said that Paul isn't "permissible". But Paul has to be taken in context. There's a reason why the epistle to the Romans is addressed "to the Romans" and not to "whosoever heareth my sayings".Until you can demonstrate that what Paul said to the Romans was universal, what he said is of no value in this discussion.(By the way, if your position does make sense, why can't you establish it using only the words of Jesus?)

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Hark! What's that I "hear"? Sounds mighty like straws being clutched at.Surely you're not so much of a literalist as to insist that "hears" means only "hears". I think it reasonably applies to people who "hear" the same words spoken by an apostle or a priest or a pastor. And I think it reasonably applies to people who "hear" the words via radio or television. And I think it reasonably applies to people who read the words - whether in the Bible or on a billboard. And I think it reasonably applies to blind people who read the words in Braille and to deaf people who "read" the words in sign language.Universal enough for you?So stop splitting hairs, eh? Like I said before, the universality of "judging" is not a road you want to go down, especially if you don't want a detailed debate.Let's make this simple for you: show us that what Paul said to the Romans was universal. Show us that he said the same things about condemnation (or "the curse") to the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Colossians, the Thessalonians and the Philippians. Even if you could show that he said the same thing to a majority of those churches, it would strengthen your case for universality.Until you can do that, Paul's words are specific and don't count here.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

No. I said the debate on judging is not one that we want to get into here. Start an appropriate topic.It is abundantly clear that Jesus' "whosoever heareth my sayings" was intended to be universal. Have you forgotten this?

quote:

---

Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

---

We have until "the end" comes for everybody to hear. Or are you suggesting that Jesus' message isn't universal?On the other hand, you have yet to show us that Paul's message was universal even among his own epistles. Show us what Paul said about condemnation under the law to the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Colossians....

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

The keyword there is "some" authority.I've been trying to make the point with iano that Jesus' message about loving thy neighbour is universal - and that Paul's message of condemnation under the law was not (necessarily) universal. I am not suggesting that nothing that Paul said was universal - I am referring only to the current topic.Hence the subtitle: since iano thinks Paul sent a universal message of condemnation to all the early churches, I've been asking him to back that up. (Feel free to chime in. )Let me recap my train of thought here. The OP says:

quote:

---

It seems that the Thou Shall Nots are very well defined. You definitely know if you are violating it. However, the Thou Shalls are in a big old gray area.

---

to which I replied in Message 3:

quote:

---

I would have thought that "Love thy neighbour as thyself" was a pretty straight-forward "thou shalt". Unfortunately, for many professing Christians, it does seem to be a gray area.

---

Iano is doing an admirable job of confirming that thought, with his searching for complications behind every bush. He replied in Message 6:

quote:

---

The law is there to condemn you. It's sole purpose is to make you feel condemned.

---

It is that "sole purpose" which I have been trying to get iano to back up Biblically. So far, all he has come up with is one or two quotes from Paul - hence the meta-debate on whether or not Paul's epistles are universally applicable.So... what I'm asking is not whether any word that proceedeth out of the mouth of Paul is universally applicable. What I'm asking is for Biblical confirmation of the "sole purpose" idea.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Good point. I was just taking a more mundane viewpoint - that the law is a guide to our everyday lives. Agreed. We can not maintain the law 100% because we are not perfect. As you say, the law compares us to God.That is not a condemnation, as iano claims, but a blessing - in that we can strive to be more like God.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

You quoted:

quote:

---

Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

---

Let's look at the very next verse:

quote:

---

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

---

"For by the law is the knowledge of sin".You claimed, in Message 6: But Paul himself said that the law is for knowledge of sin - i.e. so we know how to live our lives. Paul himself did not claim that the "sole purpose" of the law was condemnation.That's all I've been saying. We can take the meta-debate about Paul's universality elsewhere. Universal or not, Paul did not support your point.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

So sayeth iano. And yet Jesus said:

quote:

---

Mat 22:37 ... Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

---

Loving thy neighbour is the fulfilment of the law. Nothing you have said changes that.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

No. Forget about universality. That's just a side issue. It has no impact on my point. One "purpose of the law" in your own quote in Message 158:

quote:

---

Romans 3:19-20
"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, (in order) that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God
Therefore (as a result of what I have been saying) by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is a knowledge of sin"

---

is knowledge of sin.How can guilt/condemnation be the "sole purpose" of the law, as you claimed in Message 6?Remember the topic in the OP:

quote:

---

It seems that the Thou Shall Nots are very well defined. You definitely know if you are violating it. However, the Thou Shalls are in a big old gray area.

---

The "thou shalls" are a gray area to you because you refuse to accept what Jesus said: ALL the law hangeth on loving thy neighbour. NONE of the law hangeth on feeling guilty.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Paul's words do not hold equal weight to Jesus' words. I'm sorry, but that's a given. If you think it's up for discussion, then you need to take it to an appropriate topic. And I have not agreed that all of God's words (transmitted by man) are of equal importance. You can stop pretending that I have. Take it to another thread. Been there. Done that. A more detailed discussion of that belongs in a different topic.In any case, even Paul's writings do not confirm that the "sole purpose" of the law is condemnation. Exactly what I've been saying. Have you switched sides? The law is for our salvation. If salvation is a symphony, then so is the law. It is not a solo. It does not have a "sole purpose".(Maybe this is what's confusing you: I have not said that condemnation is not one purpose of the law. I have said that it is not the only purpose.) The law is "love God/love thy neighbour". Nothing remarkable about it. The second commandment is a symptom of the first. If you love God you will love your neighbour. If you don't demonstrate a love for your neighbour, then you don't really love God. Simple.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I said:

quote:

---

Paul's words do not hold equal weight to Jesus' words... that's a given.

---

to which you replied: But you ignored my next sentence, even though you quoted it:

quote:

---

If you think it's up for discussion, then you need to take it to an appropriate topic.

---

For this topic, we have agreed that the words spoken by Jesus and Paul have been conveyed accurately. We have not agreed that they are of equal value. Arachnophilia has also told you in another topic that Jesus > Paul. For any Christian, that certainly ought to be a given. Nonsense. Surely you can't suggest that every word spoken by God is of equal "weight or import".A simple example:

quote:

---

Exo 20:1 And God spoke all these words, saying...
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...
Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain...
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:12 Honor thy father and thy mother...
Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

---

quote:

---

Exo 25:1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying...
Exo 25:10 And they shall make an ark of shittim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof.

---

Are you seriously suggesting that the Ten Commandments and the dimensions of the ark are of equal "weight and import"? If you are, take it to an appropriate topic.Now, if we can actually get to the topic, I said:

quote:

---

In any case, even Paul's writings do not confirm that the "sole purpose" of the law is condemnation.

---

to which you replied: But I showed it - in your own quote from Paul:

quote:

---

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

---

Isn't Paul saying that the law is also for knowledge of sin? Knowledge is not condemnation.
(Afterthought: to a creationist, I suppose knowledge is a bad thing. ) On the contrary. Your own investigation - Romans 3:19-20 - doesn't back up your idea of condemnation being the "sole purpose" of the law. I don't think we have. I think you're going in directions which have barriers, but you're ignoring the other directions which I have suggested:1. The universality and/or relative value of Paul's words would be moot if you could show where Jesus said that the sole purpose of the law was condemnation.2. The universality and/or relative value of Paul's words would be moot if you could show where Paul said that the sole purpose of the law was condemnation.Don't give up until you've examined those two issues. If you do, it looks like you're deliberately looking for barriers.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Not to be pushy , but allow me to reiterate:

quote:

---

1. The universality and/or relative value of Paul's words would be moot if you could show where Jesus said that the sole purpose of the law was condemnation.

​

2. The universality and/or relative value of Paul's words would be moot if you could show where Paul said that the sole purpose of the law was condemnation.

---

I don't see why discussion can't take place on those points.We can't have "knowledge and understanding through discussion" if you back out every time the discussion doesn't go your way.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Nice tapdance, but you're avoiding the issue.You don't have to find the word "sole" in Paul's writings. All I want you to do is show that Paul thought the only purpose of the law was condemnation.And you're still ignoring Jesus. Show us where Jesus said the purpose of the law was condemnation.Those are very simple points. Stop the meta-debate and address the issue.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Others who are reading this don't care whether I accept your findings or not.If you can show that Paul thought that condemnation was the only purpose of the law, then show it.If you can show that Jesus thought that condemnation was the only purpose of the law, then show it.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.