01 Sep 09
2 edits
Originally posted by duecerThanks but the point of all of this is he clearly said that Pauls words were to be disregarded as part of the Bible. Right? Did I misunderstand that?
okay I've read both of your posts, and I think I have a handle on what's happening. Galveston: ToO never claimed to quit sinning, his was a rhetoric argument (I'll get to that later).
ToO: Galveston asked you a legitimate question in the other thread ( so stop asking it here Galveston). I see no harm in him asking that question as the resulting answers and d he gift of God, achievable only after the death and ressurection.
Does this help?
And for someone to now put himself on God's level and to decide that part of the Bible should be disregared and not inspired anymore is being very Satanic. No other name for that.
And to quote in the same thread that he is basically above that part of the Bible and then to say what Jesus said about not sinning because of this chosen group that is standing with Jesus, it did not sound good.... He never said he did not sin but it implys that. Sorry but that's my opinon. I have a right to one.
01 Sep 09
Originally posted by galveston75No I don't think you misunderstood that part, hence my explanation on Grace. I think we feel similarly about God's word, though we tend to interpret differently as we are entitled to. Just because we don't like what one book or chapter syays doesn't mean we get to disregard it. If there is an apparent contradiction, I think we need to do our best in understanding the contradiction; as in this case, there really was no contradiction, but a failure to understand God's progressive revelation.
Thanks but the point of all of this is he clearly said that Pauls words were to be disregarded as part of the Bible. Right? Did I misunderstand that?
And for someone to now put himself on God's level and to decide that part of the Bible should be disregared and not inspired anymore is being very Satanic. No other name for that.
And to quote in the sa ...[text shortened]... ver said he did not sin but it implys that. Sorry but that's my opinon. I have a right to one.
01 Sep 09
Originally posted by duecerThanks...
No I don't think you misunderstood that part, hence my explanation on Grace. I think we feel similarly about God's word, though we tend to interpret differently as we are entitled to. Just because we don't like what one book or chapter syays doesn't mean we get to disregard it. If there is an apparent contradiction, I think we need to do our best in understan ...[text shortened]... here really was no contradiction, but a failure to understand God's progressive revelation.
02 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerOn the matter of the dispute between Christ's words and Paul's words: Noah was a good man for sure, but really only in comparison to the rest of the world, another subtext to that discussion has to do with geebers and isn't relevant to the plot here. Romans says that none are worthy, no not one. Paul is not contradicting Jesus. Jesus could not make the claim for salvation by Grace until the atonement was made at the cross, so what you are arguing is apples and oranges, one is the concept of salvation through personal perfection (impossible to achieve), and the other is salvation through Grace by the gift of God, achievable only after the death and ressurection. Does this help?
okay I've read both of your posts, and I think I have a handle on what's happening. Galveston: ToO never claimed to quit sinning, his was a rhetoric argument (I'll get to that later).
ToO: Galveston asked you a legitimate question in the other thread ( so stop asking it here Galveston). I see no harm in him asking that question as the resulting answers and d he gift of God, achievable only after the death and ressurection.
Does this help?
Well, I don't see how this really addresses what Jesus taught.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. ...If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven....you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
In the first passage, Jesus speaks of His true disciples being made free from committing sin.
In the second passage, Jesus speaks to the level of righteousness required to enter the kingdom of heaven.
What do you make of Jesus saying these things?
02 Sep 09
3 edits
Originally posted by galveston75He never said he did not sin but it implys that.
Thanks but the point of all of this is he clearly said that Pauls words were to be disregarded as part of the Bible. Right? Did I misunderstand that?
And for someone to now put himself on God's level and to decide that part of the Bible should be disregared and not inspired anymore is being very Satanic. No other name for that.
And to quote in the sa ...[text shortened]... ver said he did not sin but it implys that. Sorry but that's my opinon. I have a right to one.
That's right I never said that. For you to say that I claimed I that I did say it is a lie.
It doesn't even imply that. You don't even really believe that it does. If you truly believed that it did, why did you ask, "So are you one of these non sinning humans?". If you believed there was a clear implication, there is no reason to ask the question.
What if you said that you read a book where a doctor says that if you follow his series of exercises, you will be able to hold your breath for an hour?
If someone read this and then said that you claimed that you could hold your breath for an hour, this would be a lie.
If you corrected him, yet he insisted that you made the claim, this would be another lie. Not only that, but by his insistence he would be painting you as a liar.
If you repeatedly corrected him and he kept insisting that you made the claim, he'd be lying all the more.
Maybe he'd even go so far as to try to claim that your statement implied that you claimed you could hold your breath for an hour. Would this make any sense?
Do you really not know right from wrong?
Did not your parents teach you right from wrong?
Did not the JWs teach you right from wrong?
Did not Jesus teach you right from wrong?
Don't you think your old enough to where you know right from wrong?
02 Sep 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThinkOfOne...... Move on to something else why don't you???? Or does Think Of One mean this is all you can think about?
[b]He never said he did not sin but it implys that.
That's right I never said that. For you to say that I claimed I that I did say it is a lie.
It doesn't even imply that. You don't even really believe that it does. If you truly believed that it did, why did you ask, "So are you one of these non sinning humans?". If you believed there was a clea ...[text shortened]...
Did not the JWs teach you right from wrong?
Did not Jesus teach you right from wrong?[/b]
02 Sep 09
4 edits
Originally posted by galveston75Do you believe that it's okay for you to lie about another person?
ThinkOfOne...... Move on to something else why don't you???? Or does Think Of One mean this is all you can think about?
To lie about your neighbor?
To not only lie but to refuse to admit it and apologize?
Is this what your brand of Christianity is really about?
Is this really how you think you should witness?
02 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneVery, very strange... 🙄
Do you believe that it's okay for you to lie about another person?
To lie about your neighbor?
To not only lie but to refuse to admit it and apologize?
Is this what your brand of Christianity is really about?
Is this really what you think this is how you should witness?
02 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Actually my friend, thinkofone makes it a speciality of trying to exasperate persons, for example he will not honestly answer your question, yet accuses you of lying. Fess up thinkofone, are you a sinner or are you not? then we can talk about honesty.
Very, very strange... 🙄
02 Sep 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHey R.C. I'm a sinner I admit it.
Actually my friend, thinkofone makes it a speciality of trying to exasperate persons, for example he will not honestly answer your question, yet accuses you of lying. Fess up thinkofone, are you a sinner or are you not? then we can talk about honesty.
Manny
02 Sep 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is interesting.
Actually my friend, thinkofone makes it a speciality of trying to exasperate persons, for example he will not honestly answer your question, yet accuses you of lying. Fess up thinkofone, are you a sinner or are you not? then we can talk about honesty.
On one side of your mouth, you try to portray me as not being honest because I will not say whether or not I sin.
On the other side of your mouth, you speak of galveston75's assertion that I claimed that I do not sin as an "accusation". As if there is some question as to whether or not galveston75's assertion was true or not.
So with one side of your mouth you acknowledge that I made no such claim and with the other you try to paint it as if you do not know if I made the claim.
Seems like the reality is that you know galveston75 lied. Is there something in the JW code that prevents you from speaking the truth about a fellow member?
02 Sep 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneFess up !
This is interesting.
On one side of your mouth, you try to portray me as not being honest because I will not say whether or not I sin.
On the other side of your mouth, you speak of galveston75's assertion that I claimed that I do not sin as an "accusation". As if there is some question as to whether or not galveston75's assertion was true or not.
...[text shortened]... re something in the JW code that prevents you from speaking the truth about a fellow member?