Was James confused?

[bbyrd009]

No teh law is not for those in Christ, only for those who are not.

only because those in Christ have gone on to grace, wherein keeping the law is no longer sufficient; it is insufficient, and it fails. There is no law that says you must die for your friends, see. That is strictly the law of Grace.

 

[bbyrd009]

The sinners who desire teh law more than grace and truth.

hmm, i doubt that, and you might be observed to have a couple laws unto yourself too, imo--"they will never learn" is one i guess, the "never" there making that into a "law," "Dismiss the Bible and follow Jesus" is maybe another, of your laws, that you cannot abide anyone breaking, right...see?

 

[bbyrd009]

You really dont get it do you

...said the pot, lol

 

[Richard_oti]

Catholics believe John 5:16-17 is referring to mortal sin.
Protestants don't seem to be sure about what sin that is referring to.

Isn't that rather interesting.

Is it a particular sin or the denying of the Holy Spirit?

"Denying the Holy Spirit" is a rather loose / vague term to me. It has been used as a "catch-all" by some. As a believer, such would serve to also quench the HS, apart from whatever guidance the HS was attempting to impart. As a non-believer, it is possible that such could cover the span of a lifetime until death as you used it below.

As far as the more instruction than just the "10"...what would that be?
Do you mean that there are more laws or do you mean that Jesus moved the law from the mind to the heart -- thus adding to the 10?

May I partake in beastiality? If not, why? The 10 do not forbid such. (Lev 18:23)

I'm good with any usage:
Blaspheming the Holy Spirit: Attributing to the Holy Spirit works of satan, as the Pharisees did...
Mathew 12:24-25

They are in essence the same, imo the usage in Mark is the clearer.

Denying the Holy Spirit thus not accepting God or Jesus as the Son of God.

Which is not the same as blasphemy of the HS. Blasphemy is an instant eternal sin. Once done, it can not be undone. Denying the HS as you use it above, could allow a lifetime of opportunity.

Yes, this is a great post. But very much rejected by many.
I'd say that the bible is a whole thought, but some like to deny the thoughts they don't care for and pick and choose verses that SEEM to say we've nothing left to do since Jesus did it all.

No too different from those who claim we should uphold the law, yet pick and choose that which should or should not be upheld. Let us not be found in hypocrisy.

Leviticus 15:19-27 <snip for brevity>

We are not expected to keep these laws.
It has nothing to do with salvation or exclusion.
The above is a ceremonial law.
Ceremonial law has been abolished, as has the civil law.

Yet, they were given by YHVH. Would this not be a case of one of the "least".

It's the Kingdom of Heaven in the NASB also.
And in the YLT it has "reigns of the heavens".

As I said, the terms K of God and K of heaven are used interchangeably
and it creates a bit of a problem. The meaning has to be gleened from the context.

Which, leaves it rather "subjective" imo. For not everyone is going to see them the same.
However, thank you for pointing out how rusty I am as well as my poor choices in discussion with you.
<snip>

In this case, since Jesus mentions His Father who is in heaven, I believe He is referring to heaven.

At the very least, the kingdom to come.

Please explain. You sound like a Messianic Jew.

The instruction given to His people through ha-Torah Mosheh [the instruction (law) of Moses] goes way beyond the "10" in defining that which is "good", and that which is "sin" unto us. The manner in which Abba has "asked" of His chosen people to live. Let's see where my "beastiality" question goes.

<snip>

 

[GodsGrace]

Isn't that rather interesting.

I do find the Catholic idea of sin interesting.
There is Original Sin and Actual Sin.
Man is born with Original Sin. It's the sin committed by Adam and Eve and has been passed down to us.
There is Actual Sin. ACTual. By act or thought.
Actual sin could be mortal or venial.
Mortal is a grave sin and causes spiritual death. (mortale=death)
Venial sin causes a lessening of the love for God but does not bring to spiritual death.

"Denying the Holy Spirit" is a rather loose / vague term to me. It has been used as a "catch-all" by some. As a believer, such would serve to also quench the HS, apart from whatever guidance the HS was attempting to impart. As a non-believer, it is possible that such could cover the span of a lifetime until death as you used it below.

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit means that we refuse to accept God, to accept His love, we refuse to repent, accept forgiveness and the salvation offered by the sacrifice of Jesus. We thus are denying God.
This is the only unforgiveable sin. Every other sin could be forgiven.
Grieving the Holy Spirit (or quenching) is different.
This is found in Ephesians 4:30. We grieve the Holy Spirit when we sin. Paul goes on to list some sins. This is also found in Isaiah 63:10.

May I partake in beastiality? If not, why? The 10 do not forbid such. (Lev 18:23)

I see what you mean. Yes, the 10 do not cover everything. Nothing there about taking drugs either.
Why? We follow general rules that cover a lot.
If we treat our bodies like temples, this covers many sins.

They are in essence the same, imo the usage in Mark is the clearer.

This refers to blaspheming. OK.

Which is not the same as blasphemy of the HS. Blasphemy is an instant eternal sin. Once done, it can not be undone. Denying the HS as you use it above, could allow a lifetime of opportunity.

What do you understand blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to be?
According to Mathew 12:31 you would be correct.
It does say that if one speaks against the Holy Spirit (a one time event, as you said) it will not be forgiven him.

I just looked up a couple of links and will post this one. It explains blaspheming the way I understand it and have been taught by two different large denominational churches.

Well here is what it is NOT:
vs. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: So it’s NOT talking against Jesus! Accusing Him of all manner of sin and crimes, calling Him a drunk and a glutton, accusing Him of healing and deliverance through the power of Satan … According to this that’s even forgivable. So even blasphemy against Jesus is forgivable.

Here is what it is…
but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
Wow! That is rough! But what does that mean, “speaking against the Holy Spirit”?

Well it’s really pretty simple. “Blasphemy” is something slanderous and/or injurious to one’s good name. And the Greek word for “against” can mean “according to the case against” or “to the charge of” which is legal language. So what I believe this is saying is that “speaking blasphemy against” the Holy Spirit is like when someone one knowingly and deliberately as a legal witness attributes the works, operations and/or gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Devil or attributes the works, operations of the Devil to the Holy Spirit.

The Pharisees did this when Jesus was casting out demons by the power of the Holy Spirit. They proclaimed: “He cast out demon spirits by the power of Beelzebub!”
Jesus stopped their mouths right then and there and straightened them out.

Now Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is NOT someone that is just parroting someone else or speaking out of ignorance. Paul in 1Tim 1:12-13 said that He had even blasphemed the Holy Spirit, but that he had done this out of ignorance.

This is also NOT just something stupid that someone casually says once or twice. This is something that is said deliberately – in abundance – from the heart. How do we know that? We know that from the context of the rest of this passage.

vs. 33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit
vs. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth
speaketh.
vs. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
vs. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
vs. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

source:
What is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost?

No too different from those who claim we should uphold the law, yet pick and choose that which should or should not be upheld. Let us not be found in hypocrisy.

We were speaking here of a verse which does not matter at this point.
I just want to say that I don't believe I'm being hypocritical because, as I stated, in Christianity we learn that Jesus had abolished the ceremonial and civil laws but the moral law is not abolished.

Yet, they were given by YHVH. Would this not be a case of one of the "least".

We were discussing Leviticus 15 and you asked if this was not one of the least of the commandments.
No. Not for Christians. If I recall correctly, this was a ceremonial law and is abolished.

Yet they were given by YHVH you say.
Can we truly believe that GOD gave ALL the laws in Leviticus, for example? Maybe some were helped along by man?
Even Jesus corrected some of the laws...
"You have heard it said...
But I say to you..."
He was correcting with these words laws that were in the Torah.

Which, leaves it rather "subjective" imo. For not everyone is going to see them the same.
However, thank you for pointing out how rusty I am as well as my poor choices in discussion with you.

The terms K of God and K of heaven are not so subjective.
Theologians can determine if HEAVEN is being spoken of OR
the K of God here on earth right now, OR in the future when the New Earth will be established at the end of time.

<snip>

The instruction given to His people through ha-Torah Mosheh [the instruction (law) of Moses] goes way beyond the "10" in defining that which is "good", and that which is "sin" unto us. The manner in which Abba has "asked" of His chosen people to live. Let's see where my "beastiality" question goes.

Here is where Jesus two Great Commandments come into use.
Mathew 22:37-39
Love God
Love Yourself as Your Neighbor

These two commandments cover all the rest.
If our conscience is correctly formed, it will help us to know right from wrong. The Holy Spirit of God will help us to understand right from wrong. Jesus called the Holy Spirit our helper.
John 16:7

 

[Richard_oti]

Part 1

I do find the Catholic idea of sin interesting.

As do I. <snip this part for brevity>

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit means that we refuse to accept God, to accept His love, we refuse to repent, accept forgiveness and the salvation offered by the sacrifice of Jesus. We thus are denying God.
This is the only unforgiveable sin. Every other sin could be forgiven.

The info from the link you posted does not support that which you write above. However, to address what you wrote: That would not be a one time occurrence, but rather a lifetimes accumulation of refusing and dying in said state. Which, if given the fact have having heard, makes a case for refusing / denying. Given someone who had never heard, that is an entirely different matter. And no, Paul's verse regarding creation (Rom 1:20) does not work here, for Paul spoke of those "knowing God".

Since this is not the time before Noah, there is no preaching to the spirits in prison again (cf 1 Peter 3:19-20) imo. So while theoretically we can include this, it is not the same type of scenario as Matthew 12 and Mark 3.

Grieving the Holy Spirit (or quenching) is different.

Fully concur. Though as above, when taken to the extreme, results in the same only worse.

Heb 10:29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Mat 12:43 But the unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man, passeth through waterless places, seeking rest, and findeth it not. 44 Then he saith, I will return into my house whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. 45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first. ... (also Luke 11)

2 Pet 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the last state is become worse with them than the first. 21 For it were better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

<snip for brevity>

I see what you mean. Yes, the 10 do not cover everything.

There is much to be learned within ha-Torah (the Instruction (law)).

Nothing there about taking drugs either.
Why? We follow general rules that cover a lot.
If we treat our bodies like temples, this covers many sins.

Let's say I treat my body perfectly, but I am desperately in love with another man, may I lay with him? Yes, I know that Paul speaks of this, but from where does Paul pull from with regard to this.

In 1 Thessalonians 5:3, Paul writes "peace and safety", do you know from where Paul was speaking? (Hint: Yirmeyahu 23) The more you learn of both ha-Torah and ha-Nevi'im (the Instruction and the Prophets), the deeper the meaning of Paul's writings shall be to you.

However, let me ask you: Does treating our body like the temple of YHVH, allow us to eat that which He has stated is "unclean"? I mean, after all, it was an "unclean" animal that was involved in the first "abomination of desolation".

<small snip>

What do you understand blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to be?
According to Mathew 12:31 you would be correct.
It does say that if one speaks against the Holy Spirit (a one
time event, as you said) it will not be forgiven him.

I understand it according to Matthew 12 and Mark 3, as attributing Ruakh ha-Qodesh (The Holy Spirit) itself as being as evil / unclean spirit, and / or attributing the workings of Ruakh ha-Qodesh as being that of an unclean / evil spirit.

That is where I stop. A one time event, unforgivable.
As in the beginning of your post: You can "refuse to accept God, to accept His love, we refuse to repent, accept forgiveness and the salvation offered by the sacrifice of Jesus" all of your life over and over and over ad infinitum, yet repent after decades of such and that is still forgivable. There is no repentance for "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit". I once knew a man, he came the closest to "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" that I have ever seen.

I just looked up a couple of links and will post this one. It explains blaspheming the way I understand it and have been taught by two different large denominational churches.

I am going to snip to the chase and only address one point:

<snip>

Paul in 1Tim 1:12-13 said that He had even blasphemed the Holy Spirit, but that he had done this out of ignorance.

Oy vey! This is stretching it, not all blasphemy is against Ruakh ha-Qodesh. I am snipping the rest as ignorance.

<snip ignorance>

We were speaking here of a verse which does not matter at this point.
I just want to say that I don't believe I'm being hypocritical

I didn't say that you were. You are acting according to your level of knowledge. You have a zeal, that I shall never have that level of again in this life. It has been refreshing, but needs tempering.



Sorry, I had to break this reply in two. I got an error message as it is over 10,000 characters.
To be continued.

 

[Richard_oti]

Part 2

because, as I stated, in Christianity we learn that Jesus had abolished the ceremonial and civil laws but the moral law is not abolished.

So, from where in "Christianity" did you learn of this? It sounds vaguely reminiscent of a discussion that I had with an SDA Pastor, but not quite the same.

The Instruction with regard to ha-Kohen (the priesthood) obviously is not applicable. The Instruction to sojourn to the place in which YHVH has placed Shemo (His Name) is not applicable, as there is no one physical place.

So I ask, how do determine what is "ceremonial", "civil" and "moral"?

In the case of "beastiality", that is obviously something to still be upheld. When I mentioned "hypocrisy" in my last reply, it was not directed toward you. But rather, the many I have come across that attempt to excuse large chunks of the Instruction in such manner. IMSO: As those who would uphold ha-Torah, we must do our utmost, for such as myself have come under close scrutiny for that way of life.

Even a "naval" orange, can be a item of accusation from those looking to condemn and to justify their own beliefs.

We were discussing Leviticus 15 and you asked if this was not one of the least of the commandments.
No. Not for Christians. If I recall correctly, this was a ceremonial law and is abolished.

And "beastiality" is in VaYiqra' (Lev) 18, just a few short chapters away. In VaYiqra' 14, it speaks with regard to a plague upon a house. Here in the western US, there are some serious mold issues, which require in effect, that prescribed within VaYiqra' 14.

Yes, I am using more and more transliterated Hebrew with you. For it strikes me there shall be a day when it comes of value to you.

Yet they were given by YHVH you say.

VaYiqra' 15:1 Va-yedaber YHVH 'el_Mosheh v-'el_'Aharon le-'mor: And He spoke YHVH to Mosheh and to Aharon to say:

Take a look at VaYiqra' 11:1, 12:1, 13:1, 14:1, 15:1, 16:1, etc..

BTW: VaYiqra' means; and He called.

Can we truly believe that GOD gave ALL the laws in Leviticus, for example? Maybe some were helped along by man?

<soft kind chuckle> Listen to yourself. Shall we make for ourselves a "Jefferson Bible"? Taking only the snippets that we did decide and devise unto and for ourselves are correct? Shall we fall into the error of Jeroboam this easily? Deciding to what to except and do as we devise of our own hearts? (cf 1 Kings 12:32-33)

I truly hope you fall in love with the Instruction as David did. For it will deepen and increase your knowledge and appreciation of the NT so much.

Even Jesus corrected some of the laws...
"You have heard it said...
But I say to you..."
He was correcting with these words laws that were in the Torah.

Or, he was simply bringing out the fullness of it.

<snip>

Here is where Jesus two Great Commandments come into use.
Mathew 22:37-39
Love God
Love Yourself as Your Neighbor

These two commandments cover all the rest.

Which come from Devarim 6:5 and VaYiqra' 19:18 (Deuteronomy and Leviticus respectively).

Isn't it funny, the second of the great commands is just 4 chapters after Leviticus 15 and begins:
19:1 Va-yedaber YHVH 'el_Mosheh le-'mor: And-he-spoke YHVH to_Mosheh to say:

If you are so willing, give Tehillim (Psalms) 119 a read.

If our conscience is correctly formed, it will help us to know right from wrong.

Now you are verging on sounding like those who reply to you when you speak of the Decalogue.

The Holy Spirit of God will help us to understand right from wrong. Jesus called the Holy Spirit our helper.
John 16:7

Indubitably! Now trust Him.

Pro 3:1 My son, forget not my law; But let thy heart keep my commandments: ... 5 Trust in YHVH with all thy heart, And lean not upon thine own understanding: 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, And he will direct thy paths. 7 Be not wise in thine own eyes; Fear YHVH, and depart from evil:

Thanks for the reply and the discussion. My apologies for the length, I did not realize this was getting that long.

 

[GodsGrace]

Part 1

The info from the link you posted does not support that which you write above. However, to address what you wrote: That would not be a one time occurrence, but rather a lifetimes accumulation of refusing and dying in said state. Which, if given the fact have having heard, makes a case for refusing / denying. Given someone who had never heard, that is an entirely different matter. And no, Paul's verse regarding creation (Rom 1:20) does not work here, for Paul spoke of those "knowing God".

Can't go back and check. Did it not address how the pharisees accused Jesus of exorcising demons by the power of satan, thus attributing that to the Holy Spirit?
The above is also true. But that is denying the Holy Spirit.

Romans 1:20 about the Holy Spirit? I must have misquoted. Again, can't go back to the original. It would need to much time...

Since this is not the time before Noah, there is no preaching to the spirits in prison again (cf 1 Peter 3:19-20) imo. So while theoretically we can include this, it is not the same type of scenario as Matthew 12 and Mark 3.

I'm having difficulty answering you. I'm sorry.
If I don't have my full statement in front of me, I can't really remember what I wrote!

Preaching to the spirits in prison was done one time --- but I don't know why you bring this up...

Fully concur. Though as above, when taken to the extreme, results in the same only worse.

Heb 10:29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Mat 12:43 But the unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man, passeth through waterless places, seeking rest, and findeth it not. 44 Then he saith, I will return into my house whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. 45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first. ... (also Luke 11)

2 Pet 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the last state is become worse with them than the first. 21 For it were better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

I get much resistance from the above.
They're explained all sorts of ways ---
Scripture is to be understood simply, as it is written and not embellished or added to.

There is much to be learned within ha-Torah (the Instruction (law)).

Let's say I treat my body perfectly, but I am desperately in love with another man, may I lay with him? Yes, I know that Paul speaks of this, but from where does Paul pull from with regard to this.

There is much to learn from the O.T. I agree. Paul pulled this from
Leviticus 18:23
We were discussing verse 22 yesterday.

ALL scripture is useful and God-breathed.
2 Timothy 3:16

The O.T. was the scripture Jesus referred to.

In 1 Thessalonians 5:3, Paul writes "peace and safety", do you know from where Paul was speaking? (Hint: Yirmeyahu 23) The more you learn of both ha-Torah and ha-Nevi'im (the Instruction and the Prophets), the deeper the meaning of Paul's writings shall be to you.

Although I claim no superior knowledge, I have read the O.T.
As I've said, I don't believe all the laws were given by God.
This could be a separate discussion, if you wish.
The book of Mathew is totally for the Jewish people.
He mentions the O.T. more than any of the other writers.

However, let me ask you: Does treating our body like the temple of YHVH, allow us to eat that which He has stated is "unclean"? I mean, after all, it was an "unclean" animal that was involved in the first "abomination of desolation".

You are again asking about a law that has been abolished.
Not only is it a ceremonial law but Paul spoke specifically to it as did Jesus. It is not what goes into a person's mouth that defiles, but that which comes out...
Mathew 15:11

I understand it according to Matthew 12 and Mark 3, as attributing Ruakh ha-Qodesh (The Holy Spirit) itself as being as evil / unclean spirit, and / or attributing the workings of Ruakh ha-Qodesh as being that of an unclean / evil spirit.

That is where I stop. A one time event, unforgivable.
As in the beginning of your post: You can "refuse to accept God, to accept His love, we refuse to repent, accept forgiveness and the salvation offered by the sacrifice of Jesus" all of your life over and over and over ad infinitum, yet repent after decades of such and that is still forgivable. There is no repentance for "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit". I once knew a man, he came the closest to "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" that I have ever seen.

The above speaks to the link I had posted.
I agree with you. Yes. One is forgiveable and one is not.

I am going to snip to the chase and only address one point:
Oy vey! This is stretching it, not all blasphemy is against Ruakh ha-Qodesh. I am snipping the rest as ignorance.

<snip ignorance>

??
Oy Vey has a biblical meaning but I can't remember it.
It was interesting when I learned of it.

I didn't say that you were. You are acting according to your level of knowledge. You have a zeal, that I shall never have that level of again in this life. It has been refreshing, but needs tempering.

How to temper??



Sorry, I had to break this reply in two. I got an error message as it is over 10,000 characters.
To be continued.[/QUOTE]

No problem.
Will do part II after dinner.

 

[Richard_oti]

Re: Part 1

Will do part II after dinner.

I am glad to see you didn't get to part 2. I owe you several replies in the "Did God Create Evil Thread as well as this one. My apologies, I just can't get to them tonight, I need to eat and sleep, tomorrow is an early day. Hopefully I will have time tomorrow evening and get to these.

 

[bbyrd009]

Man is born with Original Sin.

only you were told that by some guy, who cannot quote it from Scripture. Hmm.

Actual sin could be mortal or venial.
Mortal is a grave sin and causes spiritual death. (mortale=death)
Venial sin causes a lessening of the love for God but does not bring to spiritual death.

neither can this

 

[GodsGrace]

Re: Part 1



I am glad to see you didn't get to part 2. I owe you several replies in the "Did God Create Evil Thread as well as this one. My apologies, I just can't get to them tonight, I need to eat and sleep, tomorrow is an early day. Hopefully I will have time tomorrow evening and get to these.

LOL
You eat and sleep?
Anyway, I FORGOT!
Will wait then.

 

[GodsGrace]

only you were told that by some guy, who cannot quote it from Scripture. Hmm.

neither can this

Take it easy bb.
We're discussing Catholicism here.
They see sin differently.
As far as Original Sin..
Call it what you will,
it still happened.
original=the first.

 

[bbyrd009]

Take it easy bb.
We're discussing Catholicism here.
They see sin differently.
As far as Original Sin..
Call it what you will,
it still happened.
original=the first.

ha, a teeny, tiny little difference, that makes a huge difference in the end imo