What does Jesus want from us?

Originally posted by Rajk999
SO do you believe Dive's statement that 'we' are not under law?

As you are avoiding my last post I'll start again.

Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Can you provide a robust portfolio of scripture that demonstrates that we are under the OT law or that "the law of Christ" which you have brought up as your defence of the use of "being under the law", is not actually the 'law' of grace.?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
The bible does not contradict itself. Never. Rajk is the cherry picker here. He never responds to the ones I post, but I responded to his incorrect interpretations many times.

Compare these two passages:

3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. 5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Matthew 27:3-5 AKJV

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

Acts 1:16-18 AKJV

I'm not suggesting that this should shake anyone's faith, but the two passages clearly contradict one another regarding the disposal of the thirty pieces of silver and the ultimate fate of Judas Iscariot.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Compare these two passages:[quote]3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. 5 And he cast down the pieces o ...[text shortened]... r regarding the disposal of the thirty pieces of silver and the ultimate fate of Judas Iscariot.

Judas Impaled himself with his sword, much like Japanese Samurai's. This was a common form of suicide.
You can see it in Samuel 31:4 where Saul impaled himself on his sword. This also is called hanging because the person was at times hung on his sword, or a pole..
Haman in Esther 7:10; 8:7; 9:13, 14 was "hung" but the typical Assyrian hanging was to impale someone on a high pole to intimidate their enemies.

Originally posted by Rajk999
And the 5 yr old mentality shows up again.

What does the teachings of Christ and the Apostles have to do with who sins or not, 2000 yrs later.

ToO sounds like he takes Christ literally on being set free from sin.
I explained why this cannot be what he meant.
If he says no, he does not sin, than I John says he is a liar.
If he says yes, than my point is made.
Your sarcasm is duly noted, for a so called Christian or follower of Christ.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not sure what to do with this. You seem to have conflated rajk999's posts and mine.

CB claimed that he doesn't pick and choose the verses and passages that support his beliefs and dismiss those that don't. As he keeps showing, he does. Shouldn't he at least be honest about it?

How is anything that I've posted "Rajk's DAISNAID dogma"? For that matte ...[text shortened]... e to twist "this is what the Bible says" into "DAISNAID". Does that really seem rational to you?

No, it doesn't. But he does it anyways. And your posts support him.

Originally posted by Rajk999
And the 5 yr old mentality shows up again.

What does the teachings of Christ and the Apostles have to do with who sins or not, 2000 yrs later.

And yet you just said, "Pretty sure you wont get a coherent answer from her ... she is a nutcase."

Who's got the 5-year-old mentality?

More DAISNAID.

Originally posted by divegeester
As you are avoiding my last post I'll start again.

Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be master over you,[b] for you are not under law but under grace.

Can you provide a robust portfolio of scripture that demonstrates that we are under the OT law or that "the law of Christ" which you have brought up as your defence of the use of "being under the law", is not actually the 'law' of grace.?[/b]

The man doesn't believe in grace. He's all about the "works", even though he will not provide any proof that he even has "works".

More DAISNAID.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm not suggesting that this should shake anyone's faith, but the two passages clearly contradict one another regarding the disposal of the thirty pieces of silver and the ultimate fate of Judas Iscariot.

As to the disposal of the thirty pieces of silver, perhaps you'd like to read more of the same scripture.

Or are you too enamored of your own "cherry-picking"? You stopped too soon, or the question as to the disposal of the silver would have been answered, but you couldn't have that.

"And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me." -- Matthew 27:6-10, KJV

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Judas Impaled himself with his sword, much like Japanese Samurai's. This was a common form of suicide.
You can see it in Samuel 31:4 where Saul impaled himself on his sword. This also is called hanging because the person was at times hung on his sword, or a pole..
Haman in Esther 7:10; 8:7; 9:13, 14 was "hung" but the typical Assyrian hanging was to impale someone on a high pole to intimidate their enemies.

excellent!

Originally posted by checkbaiter
ToO sounds like he takes Christ literally on being set free from sin.
I explained why this cannot be what he meant.
If he says no, he does not sin, than I John says he is a liar.
If he says yes, than my point is made.
Your sarcasm is duly noted, for a so called Christian or follower of Christ.

You note my sacarsm? Did you note you called me 'a fool' a couple days ago?
Not that I care what you think or say... just reminding you.
Your insults is between you and God .. not me.

Originally posted by divegeester
As you are avoiding my last post I'll start again.

Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be master over you,[b] for you are not under law but under grace.

Can you provide a robust portfolio of scripture that demonstrates that we are under the OT law or that "the law of Christ" which you have brought up as your defence of the use of "being under the law", is not actually the 'law' of grace.?[/b]

Your last post had nothing to reply to. Yes there is a catalog of scripture that supports the fact that Christians are under the law of Christ, like you said.

I never said that we are under the OT Law. We are under the law of Christ.

You use the expression 'law of grace'. What exactly is that? It is not a biblical expression. I discuss the Bible not other peoples church dogma [unless I have studied it] so please explain if you can.

Romans 6, you quoted in response to my quote from Romans 2:

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

I dont understand how your Romans 6 nullifies Romans 2. Romans 6 is a lecture on the refraining from sin and living in righteousness. It is saying the same thing as Romans 2 that DOERS are those that refrain from sin and live righteously. HEARERS will continue to live in sin and live unrighteously. Therefore DOERS are just before God.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
ToO sounds like he takes Christ literally on being set free from sin.
I explained why this cannot be what he meant.
If he says no, he does not sin, than I John says he is a liar.
If he says yes, than my point is made.
Your sarcasm is duly noted, for a so called Christian or follower of Christ.

If he says yes, than my point is made.

If any given individual answers "Yes", how exactly does it show that Jesus could not have meant that his true disciples will be set free from committing sin?

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, it doesn't. But he does it anyways. And your posts support him.

No, it doesn't. But he does it anyways.

How exactly is this a rational response to the following?

No idea how you manage to twist "this is what the Bible says" into "DAISNAID". Does that really seem rational to you?

Clearly the above is referring to how YOU "manage to twist 'this is what the Bible says' into 'DAISNAID'". Clearly the above is asking if it is rational for you to do so.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]If he says yes, than my point is made.

If any given individual answers "Yes", how exactly does it show that Jesus could not have meant that his true disciples will be set free from committing sin?[/b]

I think I answered that on page 16 of this thread.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I think I answered that on page 16 of this thread.

I reread all your posts on page 16 and don't see how they answer this specific question:

If any given individual answers "Yes", how exactly does it show that Jesus could not have meant that his true disciples will be set free from committing sin?

Can you please just actually answer this question instead of continuing to prevaricate?