Why "LAW" =/= "OLD COVENANT"

[ScottA]

He who says he knows, does not
so i guess Scripture is one of the naysayers lol
this is also revealed imo when you (one) attempts to state any "truth" from Scripture, which imo cannot be done; or at least i've been looking for a couple years now. Scripture is not the Book of Truth iow, as Scripture even 'splains

As long as you only quote half-truths...it's anything goes. But you have only deceived yourself.

 

[bbyrd009]

As long as you only quote half-truths...it's anything goes. But you have only deceived yourself.

but one has not stated a truth to test it though, right
and one isn't going to either i guess
so we can make this about me then, if you like

 

[ScottA]

but one has not stated a truth to test it though, right
and one isn't going to either i guess
so we can make this about me then, if you like

You made it about you when you spoke against me speaking the truth (which was not my truth, but God's). And it is obvious that you do so because you reject God's M.O. of speaking through some and not through all. So you complain to me instead of Him. But, not to worry. He hears all.

 

[bbyrd009]

You made it about you when you spoke against me speaking the truth

Scott, i only asked you to state a truth, i did not say that you couldn't. Go ahead and state one now if you think you can

 

[ScottA]

Scott, i only asked you to state a truth, i did not say that you couldn't. Go ahead and state one now if you think you can

Here is what you said regarding my claim of knowing the truth:

He who says he knows, does not

And here is scripture from Jesus who was accused of the same thing that you have now accused me of:

John 3:11
"Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness."

This is God's method of operation...and you speak against it as if your idea of another scripture, which you have not actually produced, somehow makes it void. But it does not, and now you have us off in the weeds totally off the original point of the discussion - and why? Because you have a problem with me and with God's methods. Therefore, I will not entertain you in this way in the future, but simply state what I know and have seen. Whether you receive my witness or not, is up to you. So far, you have not, and I have even told you why.

 

[bbyrd009]

you are not Jesus, Scott, sorry

 

[bbyrd009]

and you might note that Jesus sought to portray Himself as Son of Man, just another guy,
but you seek to portray yourself as Christ?

which don't get me wrong that is a great goal, and possibly even attainable in some measure for a few, but at that pt they certainly won't be doing that right
absent some compelling reason anyway. i'll leave you the last word here, maybe you could say what that reason is

 

[BobRyan]

and you might note that Jesus sought to portray Himself as Son of Man, just another guy,
but you seek to portray yourself as Christ?

you make good points but that part about the "son of man" you might want to rethink it because in Daniel 7 was see "the Son of Man" coming to the "Ancient of Days" - with the "Clouds of heaven". So Jesus' use of that term might have been a higher claim than just "another guy"

 

[BobRyan]

If the old covenant and the law where both fulfilled by Christ (which they were), then if we are in Him, both were and are established regardless of their passing. If we are in Christ, and He in us, it is finished in us. To live is Christ.

And "still" it is a "sin to take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 even for Christians... even in the NT.

 

[bbyrd009]

you make good points but that part about the "son of man" you might want to rethink it because in Daniel 7 was see "the Son of Man" coming to the "Ancient of Days" - with the "Clouds of heaven". So Jesus' use of that term might have been a higher claim than just "another guy"

ya, i'm fam with that arg, imo it mostly manifests from our overwhelming desire to make Jesus into God, to legitimize our beliefs; but of course Jesus was One with God, Christ is One with God, so the limitations of language starts intruding imo. Regardless of the interpretation we take away from this, even reflecting upon the Daniel passage--the common interp of which becomes circular and self-reinforcing, imo--the phrase "Son of Man" seems self-defining to me? This assertion that "Daniel was referring to Jesus when he wrote Son of Man, and Jesus referred to Himself as Son of Man bc Daniel wrote that, ergo Son of Man must mean Jesus and only Jesus" strikes me as kind of like a refusal to even confront the phrase on its own merits? "Son of Man?"

so i'm not disagreeing that Jesus had a higher claim, but that He would ever actually claim that is subtly different imo. "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father" notwithstanding imo, as He is indicating "perceptions" there, and also in "so you say." Iow a way to indicate that what they were saying--be it "are you the king of the Jews" or whatever--was a perception. One that He could not disagree with per se either, bc it contains a shade of truth; yet "why do you call Me good? No one is good except the Father" is kind of being obscured?

fwiw you might search "Jesus of Nazareth effectively means John Doe out of Nowhere" and
"in a world where academic credentials were everything, the Messiah turned out to be John Doe."
also "Someone from Nazareth was no one, and could not possibly have any insight in Scriptures worth of note."
which might be the best primer for that, the last one

 

[ScottA]

And "still" it is a "sin to take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 even for Christians... even in the NT.

Why would God take his own name in vain? If we are One with Christ and Christ One with God...that stuff is all past. We are One.

Such law therefore, is only for those who are not in Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

Why would God take his own name in vain?

Why would God abolish his own Commandments?
Why would God abolish his own creation-memorial Sabbath when He Himself states it will continue on for all eternity after the cross "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" Isaiah 66:23

My argument is not that God wants the saints to take His name in vain.

My argument is that the little "fluff rules" that man "invents" to prop up excuses for ignoring the Commandments of God are not very solid at all - they are hay stubble and straw forms of "fluff". They mean nothing. They have no substance.

The fact that Jesus never quotes Exodus 20:7 does not "delete it". Jesus never said "all of scripture is now deleted... just quote me and whatever I saw is your new Bible".

 

[ScottA]

Why would God abolish his own Commandments?
Why would God abolish his own creation-memorial Sabbath when He Himself states it will continue on for all eternity after the cross "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" Isaiah 66:23

My argument is not that God wants the saints to take His name in vain.

My argument is that the little "fluff rules" that man "invents" to prop up excuses for ignoring the Commandments of God are not very solid at all - they are hay stubble and straw forms of "fluff". They mean nothing. They have no substance.

The fact that Jesus never quotes Exodus 20:7 does not "delete it". Jesus never said "all of scripture is now deleted... just quote me and whatever I saw is your new Bible".

You are missing the point...and it is because you see claims of things being "abolished", when there are no such claims. On the contrary, all is not "abolished", but "fulfilled."

Therefore, no one "in Christ" (whom is God) could ever take His name in vain...because they are One. It is no longer they who live, but Christ who lives in them. It is finished.

 

[Phoneman777]

God save us from those who insist they know the truth

Higher Criticism gets a bad rap because it demands the critic possess two inseparably bound attributes - experienced scholarship and simplicity of child-like faith. Too often, the critic believes himself to possess the former while ignorantly being in complete want of the latter, which leads to ridiculous statements such as the one above.

 

[bbyrd009]

Higher Criticism gets a bad rap because it demands the critic possess two inseparably bound attributes - experienced scholarship and simplicity of child-like faith. Too often, the critic believes himself to possess the former while ignorantly being in complete want of the latter, which leads to ridiculous statements such as the one above.

ah, well fwiw i don't claim either one, and for all i know you are right

he who says he knows does not yet know as he ought

 

[Phoneman777]

he who says he knows does not yet know as he ought

Is that Biblical? If so, I'm interested to know the text. If not, I would caution you not to co-mingle in your mind the infallible wisdom of God with the foolish wisdom secular minded philosophers.

 

[amadeus]

ah, well fwiw i don't claim either one, and for all i know you are right

he who says he knows does not yet know as he ought

Is that Biblical? If so, I'm interested to know the text. If not, I would caution you not to co-mingle in your mind the infallible wisdom of God with the foolish wisdom secular minded philosophers.

"And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know." I Cor 8:2

 

[GodsGrace]

"And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know." I Cor 8:2

I know what I know and I know what I don't know and the more I know, the more I know I don't know.

 

[amadeus]

I know what I know and I know what I don't know and the more I know, the more I know I don't know.

And knowledge, is it preferred to faith?

"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." John 20:29

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." I Cor 13:2

"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." Rom 1:17

 

[GodsGrace]

And knowledge, is it preferred to faith?

"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." John 20:29

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." I Cor 13:2

"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." Rom 1:17

I'm not a gnostic.
But YOU are always posting scripture,,,so you must know.
If witnessing, should you know? So many questions to answer.

But, to answer,,,,faith is more important.