But I'm not having an issue with a "smart person." This is a discussion forum. I'm challenging some of the statements you made, which appear to be in error, which appear to be a misinterpretation of some of Paul's statements.
By all means challenge them, but most of Paul's statement are clear and do not require wild interpretations.
You haven't corrected anything I've said, except that I was unable to put together your aberrant statements with the fact you claim to be conservative and spiritual.
I have in fact corrected a good part of what you said.
But that is between you and God. I'm just trying to get past your talk about yourself to get to the issues.
I have not talked myself into issues, I have been responding to you.
You see, you're not really very appreciative of "spiritual things,
Since my favorite churches are Holy Ghost churches, I cannot see how you would come to that opinion.
Again, you give curt statements about your beliefs, when I asked for how your particular theology of the Law evolved.
I have told you before my beliefs come from NT scriptures....Well because, I am a Christion.
I started out explaining how sects in Christianity evolved *before* dealing with the specifics of any particular issue. You have said very little up to now.
I have said a lot up to now, mostly to correct you. Where are the scriptures that back you up.
You said I should "talk first." So you've proven nothing to date, and have only given Scriptures which can be interpreted different ways.
You can twist the scriptures but can I say you have twisted them....you have not produced enough to know for sure.
All I really know is that you've misinterpreted Paul's statement that the Law is deficient.
Prove me wrong.
God Himself defended the Law, while it was in effect. And it remains as a witness to the character of God. You tend to use the Law to trash God's character. That's the notion that you need to correct or own up to.
I quote scripture and you do not like that.
You really have a chip on your shoulder, don't you?
Not at all.
What you're doing is equating cultural values with divine morality. God's tolerance of the fallen human condition was imperative if God was ever to instruct them in righteousness. Dealing with them as they were was not a statement of God's ideal from the beginning, but a concession to the need to deal with human beings in their fallen condition in order to redeem them.
I think Christ handled that very efficiently.
Slavery was a product of sin, but was not sin itself.
Slavery was part of the Mosaic Law and not condemned in any way in the OT or the NT.
So God tolerated a condition He did not originally want
Scripture please.
The fact we will be reconstituted in new glorious bodies indicates that God does *not* like conditions as they presently are
Scripture please. I am thinking that the new glorious bodies has to do with the spiritual environment of heaven....
hat is positively contradicted by the fact God gave *all* of Israel the Law.
I did not say, He did not give all of Israel the Law.
That is, He expected *all* of them to follow the Law. He could not have expected that they could not follow the Law if He gave it to them at all!
New Testament scripture please.
Ah, so now I know what I believe to be your problem. You think the Old Covenant is still in effect for the Jews? For the record, I believe that is completely contrary to NT teaching.
Do you want to match up scriptures. At this point I am wondering if your beliefs are based on scriptures.
You just got ideas that you like.
None of this is too big for me. I've been dealing with it, little by little, for a long time. If you weren't so arrogant, I could perhaps assist you in learning how to piece things together properly. After all, revelation comes to those who humbly submit to it, in any way God desires to do this--not to the arrogant who claim they already have it intrinsically.
Happy to get into that with you.
That is the standard explanation, which is also true. However, to fully understand this, you should also understand the positives about the Law. After all, King David wrote a huge Psalm dedicating virtually every verse to a praise of the Law.
Those who separate the Law and Grace into two categories are correct to do so, but often fail to understand also how they are related. If you can come down a little off of your high horse, I might be able to help you with this. I'm not claiming superiority over you--I just have a breadth of knowledge about it, having dedicated my life to it. And it has cost me dearly. It, more than anything, costs us our pride. So begin by dropping that. These things should not be issues between brothers of the same faith.
The issue between you and I, are that you want to mix Judaism with Christianity. That is explicitly forbidden by Christ and Paul, with devastating affects. You cannot be in two Covenants.
