Still a non answer I see. Just as expected. So you refuse to answer a question I've asked you several times by responding with questions addressed to me. You are more than welcome to explain what you do and don't follow of the Old testament in your answer to my question if you wish. Or if you reject it all together if you wish. Stop deflecting.
You still not hearing me so let me simplify it further. I do not need to keep the old covenant because I’m not Under the Old Covenant, I’m under the new covenant.
But there are parts of the law or old covenant that are still binding those parts are called the moral law. They existed before the law and they are included in the New Testament So yes, those parts of the law are binding We are called to obey them commanded to Submit to them. No one does this perfectly, which is why we need the grace of God and the blood of Jesus to cover our sins.
But you have to understand the purpose and scope of the law or else you become an antinomian, which means anti-law. I am not anti-law. I am not saying that the law was destroyed. I am saying like Jesus that the law was fulfilled in Jesus. The purposes of the law were the following;
a . to preserve the nation of Israel,
b. govern the nation of Israel,
c. To reveal sin so that man might have the knowledge of sin and repent.
d. To reveal the holiness and love of God so that men could Have the knowledge of sin and provision of Grace God provides and believe and be saved,
e. To point forward to Christ and what he would do. He is the Provision of Grace. (Many of the things included in the law, our types and shadows of the anti-type,Jesus),
Thanks for the reply. I don't actually disagree with you as much as you may have thought I would. I do however think we may feel a bit differently about the very scripture you posted. “I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it."
Which I would agree with you does do away for animal sacrifice. His blood was a replacement for that. However that does bring up some interesting points.
I don't think we can parse the Ten Commandments. I think you take them as a whole or discard them. The Sabbath is a commandment. I don't think you can take God's anointed Holy Days and replace them with man made holidays that incorporate pagan customs by wrapping them up in Christianity.
I think most Christians agree that even though we're human and can never be perfect like Jesus did just as you described, he was sent here as an example for man to try their best to emulate.
As such he told of keeping the Sabbath over and over again throughout the New Testament. And I've heard people use the rationalization that was because Jesus was Jewish. But that in no way addresses the way Jesus describes it. He said he was keeping the Sabbath of his father. We all know his father wasn't Joseph who was Jewish but rather his father, God. He described keeping the Sabbath as his custom. He explained that the very description of a Christmas tree was a heathen custom.
I'm not sure how people can justify these things were simply done away with when it was Jesus himself who promoted keeping the sabbath and pointed out that heathen customs are something we should never adopt as our own.
If Jesus was actually sent here as an example to man why would people make excuses to ignore these things? I just believe we may see what Jesus said about “I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it." a bit differently.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
So trashing threads with a personal vendetta is now you M.O. Consider me shocked.
Trashing thread is all most of the people have been doing the whole time. It just shows you are not allowed to talk about certain issues without Consequences. Which is fair enough
Being questioned and people trying to expand the topic are not consequences. Who has told you that you're "not allowed to talk about certain issues"? and why do you consider people having differnt points of views than your own "consequences"?
Actually if you review the thread it has been you that has tried to limit what people are and are not allowed to respond with.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Being questioned and people trying to expand the topic are not consequences. Who has told you that you're "not allowed to talk about certain issues"? and why do you consider people having differnt points of views than your own "consequences"?
Actually if you review the thread it has been you that has tried to limit what people are and are not allowed to respond with.
You said my post were an affront to everybody so you can’t talk about certain subjects without offending people Being called names and such. That would be a consequence. Not that I don’t expect it. Jesus said it would happen
So are you happy with my answer on Whether I keep the torah yet? I think I gave a very clear answer in the last post I posted before the one you’re replying to.
I tried to keep post on topic and failed to do so which is why you got confused and other people got confused about what was being said several times (because the topic changed from the OP question to every other thing under the Sun causing confusion.)
Usually if you stay on topic, it avoids confusion like when you thought I was using Genesis 11 to argue for the OP when that wasn’t the case at all. You were confused because the thread had become a mess of a hodgepodge of different topics Unrelated to the OP
If we were in a formal debate, your rebuttals would have to be limited to the topic, and your rebels would have to be based on my argument. And there’s a reason why they do this!!!😀
I think I want to say it again because it it’s worth repeating. If we were in a formal debate, your replies would have to be relevant to the topic and your rebuttals Would have Be rebuttals to my actual argument or question. I’m not saying I just wanted to debate or wanted to control the discussion , but there is a very clear reason why these rules are in place in a debate format; they best facilitate a good discussion. Maybe keep that in mind next time. You can talk about anything you want but if you wanna have a good discussion, you have to follow the rules of good discussions which no one did except for maybe two or three people.
So some people were correct this was not a debate because no one followed the rules of a real debate. It was a free for all. That’s fine I enjoyed it. I learned some things I was. I was intellectually challenged by one or two people and I was strengthened in my faith just talking about the subjects but it’s not the best way to have a discussion.
And failing to answer a question in a debate is ceding the point. Failure to answer the OP is ceding by Failing to present any Relevant argument at all. So being prevented from having a decent discussion because of people that wanted to hijack the thread is a consequence too.
I hope my last answer to your Torah question was sufficient this time. If not let me know but first be sure to actually scroll up to it and actually read it before you say it is insufficient.
You attempted to keep it confined to a subtopic. In debate you can't keep something confined to a subtopic and disallow the entire topic to be discussed.
Quote
You said my post were an affront to everybody so you can’t talk about certain subjects without offending people Being called names and such. That would be a consequence. Not that I don’t expect it. Jesus said it would happen
Yes, Jesus prophesied that people would disagree with you on a message board over religion. Do you even hear yourself?
The Torah is not a part of the Christian Bible. They are two different books. And the Torah isn't the only book the Jewish religion teaches. Actually the Jews teach from the Tanakh which is derived from three separate sets of books.
For some strange reason you feel as if why people believe as they do has nothing to do with the topic and anyone who posts outside of your designated subtopic are the problem here.
A single question s not a topic.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
You attempted to keep it confined to a subtopic. In debate you can't keep something confined to a subtopic and disallow the entire topic to be discussed.
Quote
You said my post were an affront to everybody so you can’t talk about certain subjects without offending people Being called names and such. That would be a consequence. Not that I don’t expect it. Jesus said it would happen
Yes, Jesus prophesied that people would disagree with you on a message board over religion. Do you even hear yourself?
The Torah is not a part of the Christian Bible. They are two different books. And the Torah isn't the only book the Jewish religion teaches. Actually the Jews teach from the Tanakh which is derived from three separate sets of books.
For some strange reason you feel as if why people believe as they do has nothing to do with the topic and anyone who posts outside of your designated subtopic are the problem here.
A single question s not a topic.
No, I tried to keep it on the OP. In the debate there is one question or one topic that is debated not 20 and for your information, the Torah is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Almost forgot Numbers. And the reason why the tour was mentioned was twofold first of all Jesus clearly taught that the tour was the word of gods so that is relevant to his teachings right and secondly someone brought up unrelated subject that led to Genesis one and interpretation. Just wanted to get that out of the way because I know you’re probably gonna say “why did yon bring up the Torah again?
As far as your last sentence, I think it is more appropriate to 1st state Your belief on the subject before you state the reason why you believe that way. Maybe that’s just me. Maybe people with post-modernist worldview debate differently Yet that’s kind of like putting the Before before the horse. And you never actually even answered DOP you said “what does it matter what we believe”. You may not think what we believe is important, That’s not the position that Jesus held when they asked them question about the resurrection from the dead he didn’t say “ Well, it doesn’t matter. God’s are bunch of object failures anyways, huck, huck!”
So what do you wanna do now? Do you wanna keep talking about silly things? Like the proper rules of debate? Or do you want to talk about your question about the Torah which testament? In case you didn’t read the last paragraph or do you want to just stop here I’ll let you decide. You can have the last word Or whatever just don’t answer your question because if you do, I will reply again. I’ll state it simply. Tell No lies and I won’t reply
Earlier you claimed the bible does not contain anything that can be interpreted in different ways. You claimed/inferred that the Bible's word and meaning is precisely understood by yourself.
But in answer to "Do you follow the Old Testament or not" - suddenly there is a vagueness and evasion that means you are lost for words and instead post a video?
Or am I not following along? It would seem to be a yes or no answer. Sure you might want to expand on your answer to say 'yes and ....' or 'no, but ...' --- Just seems beyond odd that everything was black and white in your eyes, until now.
The following post will demonstrate why his question needs some foundation before it could be answered. It’s obvious from the question that that foundation has not been laid For me to answer the question would be for me to try Teach someone to read before I taught them the alphabet
The Bible is not vague or ambiguous in anyway. The problem is people don’t read it with understanding because they either come to it with their mind already made up or they failed to use the basic rules of reading, which is happening here in this thread by the way. I mean, I said I would answer the question by posting a video and you guys ignored that so it seems that people read carelessly and misinterpreting things and that’s what they do with the Bible. There’s nothing big or ambiguous about the Bible you just need Use basic reading skills like context. If you just pull over from here or there, of course you’re gonna get it wrong.
Now here’s my Answer to the question.
The way that God has dealt with mankind through history has been through a series of covenants. A covenant can be conditional or unconditional. That is it might be conditional, which would mean a set of promises with conditions promises of reward for meeting these conditions and threats of punishment for disobeying the conditions. Unconditional covenant would mean a covenant that is unconditional there are no strings attached it’s gonna happen even if you don’t obey the stipulations of the covenant. There are various covenants the covenant with Noah, which is unconditional the covenant with Abraham which is unconditional the old covenant or the mosaic law which is conditional , the covenant with David which is unconditional the land covenant which is unconditional, but contains disciplines of losing a lot of the land for a season if disobeyed, the new covenant
The two main covenants are the old covenant and the new covenant. They are also called the old Testament and the new Testament the first 39 books of the Bible compose the old Testament. The last 27 are the New Covenant. The old covenant is temporary and preparatory, the new covenant is eternal. The old covenant is conditional. The new covenant is unconditional. The old covenant is temporary and preparatory, the new covenant is eternal. The old covenant is conditional. The new covenant is unconditional. The old covenant is based on what man does the old covenant says the Man, who does these things will live. The new covenant says requires faith. The old covenant was given to Israel. The new covenant was given to the world.
Any questions so far?
We had friends over today - I've enjoyed several glasses of some exceptional wine. Maybe that has caused some slowness on my part .... but is your answer a "Yes" or a "No"? - I can't tell and I do remember that was the question.... yes or no. And I can read that you state there is no ambiguity - so this should be very simple. There's a popular saying - something about if you can't explain it simply then you don't really understand it.... so humor me and give me a one word answer as requested. Or explain it in a single sentence --- or I shall be left to believe you don't really understand this topic yourself.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
I thought you Were against trying to control the conversation. 😀
Its been fully answered. Read on. My phone malfunctioned and I had to complete my thoughts in a second post. Then there were a couple other posts where he wasn’t content with the answer. So I answered with the same answer but using different words. He couldn’t grasp what I was saying because he does not have a biblical foundation. He doesn’t even know that the Torah is part of the old Testament, Well, he might know now since I told him
I have answered the question, but I will answer it briefly again, knowing that you will have follow up objections or questions, knowing that you probably don’t have a biblical foundation either.
In order to answer the question briefly, I need to ask a question of clarification Which part of the Torah are you referring to?
Terrifying Halloween viewing. So many freaks amongst us.
Re-quoting because I think this might have gotten overlooked which is a tragedy of epic proportions....
Yes, yes, and I Can lump all Democrats into the same category as the white, largely Democrat rioters who burned down black businesses and entire cities and others who opposed the equal rights amendment, And it would be just as valid as Lumping all professed Christians together like you do🤣Those videos wers a good example of faulty generalization fallacy, as it lumped a whole lot of people together with a fringe part of the group that Trump has actually condemned 15 times or more. Dishonest.
PS, if you want to save time and getting an answer to Pit’s Question on whether I follow the old Testament, Just keep reading our following exchange and the last answer I give at least should be easy enough to understand.
Bro I’m flattered but you still have me quoted incorrectly in your sig. When you going to fix that?
Is it against the rules? If it is I’ll remove it right away. I follow rules, unlike you who is so talented at breaking rules that you can break two rules in one sentence And then turn around and threaten a person who said something much less offensive than you did. I thought it was kind of funny
Still a non answer I see. Just as expected. So you refuse to answer a question I've asked you several times by responding with questions addressed to me. You are more than welcome to explain what you do and don't follow of the Old testament in your answer to my question if you wish. Or if you reject it all together if you wish. Stop deflecting.
Edited because microphone made first post unreadable.
Okay, I guess we laid as much of a foundation as we can so now I will give the answer to the question. I strive to keep the moral Law, though like anyone else I’m imperfect and do not keep it perfectly, which is why I need The saviour Jesus who gives me grace every day
As far as the rest the ceremonial law of the dietary law, the separation laws et cetera I am not commanded to keep them and it is not possible for me to keep them. It is not necessary because Paul said those were given to the The chosen ones until the seed should come who is Christ and then once the seed comes there is no more need for laws of separation or sacrifices as Jesus said “I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.
And fulfill it He did. He lived a perfect life and in our place he died a guiltless death so that we could be declared righteous before God. he removed the wall separation between Jews anc non-Jews.He fulfilled All the sacrificial laws through His death, He took away the division and separation between Jew And gentle nations.
But the moral Law is eternal. It existed before the OT and it is repeated in the New. 😀
Originally Posted by Stiffarm
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Still a non answer I see. Just as expected. So you refuse to answer a question I've asked you several times by responding with questions addressed to me. You are more than welcome to explain what you do and don't follow of the Old testament in your answer to my question if you wish. Or if you reject it all together if you wish. Stop deflecting.
Edited because microphone made first post unreadable.
Okay, I guess we laid as much of a foundation as we can so now I will give the answer to the question. I strive to keep the moral Law, though like anyone else I’m imperfect and do not keep it perfectly, which is why I need The saviour Jesus who gives me grace every day
As far as the rest the ceremonial law of the dietary law, the separation laws et cetera I am not commanded to keep them and it is not possible for me to keep them. It is not necessary because Paul said those were given to the The chosen ones until the seed should come who is Christ and then once the seed comes there is no more need for laws of separation or sacrifices as Jesus said “I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.
And fulfill it He did. He lived a perfect life and in our place he died a guiltless death so that we could be declared righteous before God. he removed the wall separation between Jews anc non-Jews.He fulfilled All the sacrificial laws through His death, He took away the division and separation between Jew And gentle nations.
But the moral Law is eternal. It existed before the OT and it is repeated in the New. 😀
Pitt and MGH. What part of this answer ABOVE did you not understand.
The Torah.
A. Moral law is eternal. It doesn’t change. But B. There are also Civil Laws that were to govern the nation of Israel. C. There are also Ceremonial Laws, the purpose of which is to point people to Jesus who would be the final perfect sacrifice by giving Himself for us. They are INSTRUCTIVE in nature. D. There are separation laws, the purpose of which was to preserve the nation of Israel by placing a protective barrier between Israel and the nations (to protect from pagan influences ) until Christ came. E. The Law (Torah) was a schoolmaster or guardian to bring us to Christ, according to Paul F. Because Christ has come, believers are no longer under the law G. Because Christ is the end (purpose, aim) of the Law and He fulfilled all of it. H. Yet the moral law of the Torah is repeated in the New Testament and is therefore binding.
Do you see why I say it’s not a simple yes or no question? Not every question can be explained or answered in three characters
Bro I’m flattered but you still have me quoted incorrectly in your sig. When you going to fix that?
Is it against the rules? If it is I’ll remove it right away. I follow rules, unlike you who is so talented at breaking rules that you can break two rules in one sentence And then turn around and threaten a person who said something much less offensive than you did. I thought it was kind of funny
Pitt, your accusation that I wanted to inflict (I assume you meant “force”) my beliefs on others was false. The post below was the THIRD post on page 1 of this thread.
[=Stiffarm]Thank you for the reply. So I assume that you would choose the second option I listed. I would agree that you cannot impose your beliefs on others...[/quote] partial quote.
I repeated the same fact numerous times in the thread.
Bro I’m flattered but you still have me quoted incorrectly in your sig. When you going to fix that?
Is it against the rules? If it is I’ll remove it right away. I follow rules, unlike you who is so talented at breaking rules that you can break two rules in one sentence And then turn around and threaten a person who said something much less offensive than you did. I thought it was kind of funny
Bro I’m flattered but you still have me quoted incorrectly in your sig. When you going to fix that?
Is it against the rules? If it is I’ll remove it right away. I follow rules, unlike you who is so talented at breaking rules that you can break two rules in one sentence And then turn around and threaten a person who said something much less offensive than you did. I thought it was kind of funny
Yes you did. And now that you deleted it you lie about it. From a professed Christian. Shame on you. Pffft trolls.
Here ya go, gaslighter.
Bless your heart. Go vote for Trump like all the other uneducated ass hats, and tax evading billionaires. He needs your vote and support to pay for his lawyers on inciting violence on Jan 6th and other high crimes and misdemeanors. He’s a convicted criminal. This isn’t a court room and you’re not swaying anyone by your lies including conservatives here.
I have a question for For Christians and professed Christians.
Do you believe that Jesus was incorrect About gender and marriage. (Two gender, Monogamous, Heterosexual marriage) or do you believe he was correct But that in a democracy People have the freedom to choose views And practices that are contrary to His Teaching
You afforded people two choices in answering your question in the OP. Now let me ask you, if one does not believe that the part in bold is the correct answer, the only choice left available is to inflict your Christian beliefs on the rest of society.
None of that is complicated.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I have a question for For Christians and professed Christians.
Do you believe that Jesus was incorrect About gender and marriage. (Two gender, Monogamous, Heterosexual marriage) or do you believe he was correct But that in a democracy People have the freedom to choose views And practices that are contrary to His Teaching
You afforded people two choices in answering your question in the OP. Now let me ask you, if one does not believe that the part in bold is the correct answer, the only choice left available is to inflict your Christian beliefs on the rest of society.
None of that is complicated.
Read the third post on page one VERY SLOWLY. It’s even less complicated than your convoluted nonsense.
Once again that’s not completely what you quoted in your sig line. Stop lying.
Maybe a ref should intervene here and post exactly what you posted. Until then I’m done with your trolling.
Why don’t you tell me how I misquoted you?
I’ll ask a ref if they can clarify.
If I misquoted you, I will apologize, because it would not be intentional. As you can see by the fact that I first tried to put my sig in profile comments TWICE, I’m not very good with the tools here.
All you've done throughout this entire thread is whine about how people aren't addressing and sticking with what was posted in the OP. Now I clearly lay out what you posted in the OP. It clearly gives you one of two choices. There are only two choices offered in that OP. Now you are saying the OP doesn't mean what it says? That somehow I should ignore it and keep reading further down?
Your reply is what convoluted nonsense looks like.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
All you've done throughout this entire thread is whine about how people aren't addressing and sticking with what was posted in the OP. Now I clearly lay out what you posted in the OP. It clearly gives you one of two choices. There are only two choices offered in that OP. Now you are saying the OP doesn't mean what it says? That somehow I should ignore it and keep reading further down?
Your reply is what convoluted nonsense looks like.
That’s a lie. I talked about covenants, Genesis 1, Christopher Hitchens, Christian Nationalists, Tulsa massacre, and many other things.
I framed the second part the way I did because I do not advocate anti-LGBT legislation. Either I didn’t communicate clearly or you misunderstood. But the third post on page one clarified the issue before you brought it up.
It shows a complete failure on your part to admit you misunderstood, whether the fault was mine or yours.
I clarified it in my first reply, page one, post three.
Deal with it and go cook and eat your red herring with your friends and leave me out. 😀
What part of you kept complaining nobody was sticking with the theme and question posed in the OP are you missing here? It's prevalent throughout the entire thread.
Now that you've been confronted with what the choices were that your question poses you dodge it like the plague. So you're finally owning up to the fact that the OP is a red herring now?
Originally Posted by Stiffarm
I have a question for For Christians and professed Christians.
Do you believe that Jesus was incorrect About gender and marriage. (Two gender, Monogamous, Heterosexual marriage) or do you believe he was correct But that in a democracy People have the freedom to choose views And practices that are contrary to His Teaching
You afforded people two choices in answering your question in the OP. Now let me ask you, if one does not believe that the part in bold is the correct answer, the only choice left available is to inflict your Christian beliefs on the rest of society.
None of that is complicated.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
FOR clarification... POST 3 PAGE 1 Thank you for the reply. So I assume that you would choose the second option I listed. I would agree that you cannot impose your beliefs on others, and that we are to love everyone regardless of who they are or what they do because God loves them and Christ died for them so I agree with you on those points. I also agree that love always acts with respect and speaks truthfully
But if we agree with Jesus on marriage and gender, how can we accept the claims of People who say there is more than two genders, and Christians who say God CREATES people gay, et cetera, unless we think Jesus was incorrect? (Which I don’t).
I’m not talking anbout accepting or loving the people. That should automatic. I’m talking about the issue of an accepting or not accepting claims.
Why did my other thread get deleted, I wonder? Well, since we all decided to have an open forum, Pit claimed in the other thread that Trump said he would use the military and National guard against his opponents. Let's see what was actually said, along with context. Please note bolded underlined portions, which we will discuss.
BARTIROMO: I'm just wondering if these outside agitators will start up on Election Day. Let's say you win, I mean let's remember, you've got 50,000 Chinese nationals in this country in the last couple of years, you have people on the terrorist watchlist, 350 in the last couple of years. You've got — like you said — 13,000 murderers and 15,000 rapists. What are you expecting? Joe Biden said he doesn't think it's going to be a peaceful Election Day.
TRUMP: Well, he doesn't have any idea what's happening in all fairness. He spends most of his day sleeping. I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within, not even the people that have come and… and destroying our country and, by the way, totally destroying our country. The towns and villages, they're being inundated. But I don't think they're the problem in terms of Election Day. I think the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical-left lunatics. And I think… and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or if really necessary by the military, because they can't let that happen. [b][/b][/u][u][u][/u]
The question is IMPORTANT context. (CAPS for emphasis) Notice a few things here.
a. The question was about agitators, not opponents. b. The question was about election day Trump will not have the power to use military or national guard on election day c. There was a mention of it possibly not being a peaceful election day, so contextually the question is asking about if Trump expects violent agitators or not. d. Trump never said "go after" or "round up" opponents. e. In fact, the word Opponent is is not in the text.
So you mean that throughout this tread you have continually claimed people weren't sticking to the actual OP and now that I have you want to walk back what it states by pointing out something you posted on page three? You didn't ask that question in your OP.
So what would the opposite of "or do you believe he was correct But that in a democracy People have the freedom to choose views And practices that are contrary to His Teaching" mean exactly? Are you trying to say that you agreeing people have the right to live as they so choose means you accept or promote their choices or claims?
I believe that everyone has a right to live and choose as they see fit as long as it causes no ham to anyone else. That has nothing to do with whether I agree with them, whether I accept what they choose to do or promote their actions. All it means is that how they choose to live their life is none of my damned business.
Now you're waving a false flag.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
