|
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| xfrodobagginsx |
Yes, the bible does say that we are no longer under the law.
Ro 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
As I said before, the law was there to show us that we are sinners. We are not justified by the law.
Ro 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Ro 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Ga 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Ro 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Ro 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Ro 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
 |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by xfrodobagginsx
Ro 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Ro 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Ro 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Ro 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. |
Wow, nice quote mining. Perhaps you should have read to the end of the chapter?
| quote: | | 27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. |
Romans 3:27-31
If you want to understand the relationship between Jesus and the Jewish law in Paul's theology, you need only read the earliest of his letters, the one to the Galatians:
| quote: | | 10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."[c] 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."[e] 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[f] 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. |
Galatians 3:10-15
| quote: | 21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. |
Galatians 3:21-25
Paul's argument is that mere adherence to the old Jewish laws is insufficient, in in itself, to win God's favour - this is also the message to be taken from the passages in Romans 3 you posted earlier. We are all in sin and the path out of sin is through the grace of divine spirit (Paul, remember was almost docetistic - his interest was in Jesus as spirit (1 Cor 2:2) not in his earthly teachings, on which Paul is almost completely silent). His argument, however, is not that the Jewish laws are no longer relevent (he quotes liberally from Jewish law when outlining his morality in 1 Corinthians, for instance) but rather that the fastidious adherence to the laws alone will not be sufficient to win God's favour. He still says that "keeping God's commandments is what counts" (1 Cor 7:20) but that this in itself is not sufficient: even in adherence to the law, we supposedly remain in sin (hence the "curse" of the law he speaks of in Gal 3:10).
I feel almost dirty for having written all of that, but my point is that - as a Christian - you cannot just ingore the questionable morality of the OT, or pick and choose which parts you find relevent. If you are forming your opinions from scripture rather than just making them up off the top of your head, then the morality of the OT remains an integral part of the overall Christian theology. Therefore for you to argue that "those are not true Christians because the bible is against what those people did" - as though the Bible does not call for people to incite violence in the same way that the Qu'ran does - is completely disingenuous. |
|
|
| xfrodobagginsx |
| What that passege is saying is this. First of all, we cannot keep the law because we are sinners. Second of all, the law was written to let us know that we are sinners. Third of all, because we cannot keep the law, we are damned. The good news is that because Jesus Christ kept the law to the letter, we can put our faith in His righteousness and in God's eyes, we have kept the law and are perfect. That's what the passege is saying. It isn't saying that we are still under the law. We are currently under grace. You can ask any bible scholar, preacher or preist, we are not under the law. |
|
|
| tathi |
| quote: | Originally posted by xfrodobagginsx
First of all, we cannot keep the law because we are sinners. Second of all, the law was written to let us know that we are sinners. |
There's quite a few errors and contradictions in your gods legislation, you should tell her that she should proof read all that she writes in the future so she doesn't confuse herself and everyone else ;) |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by xfrodobagginsx
What that passege is saying is this. First of all, we cannot keep the law because we are sinners. Second of all, the law was written to let us know that we are sinners. Third of all, because we cannot keep the law, we are damned. The good news is that because Jesus Christ kept the law to the letter, we can put our faith in His righteousness and in God's eyes, we have kept the law and are perfect. That's what the passege is saying. It isn't saying that we are still under the law. We are currently under grace. You can ask any bible scholar, preacher or preist, we are not under the law. |
We're not asking any bible scholar, preacher, or priest, we're asking you. If you want to back up your point with arguments from a scholar, preacher, or priest than you do your own research. Why don't you do a line by line critique like Renegade did and explain why your interpretation is right whereas his is wrong? Furthermore, why don't you address his arguments from Paul's letters? It's pretty ing pathetic that an atheist is doing a far better job of interpreting the bible, and backing his argument up with evidence from the bible than a theist who supposedly lives by the bible. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Dangit, how'd I miss Nellie's fierce comeback?
As fun as these usually are, I'll sit this one out and throw some peanuts from the gallery up top. Of course I'm pretty sure how this one will play out. The storyline usually goes:
1. Occ/Renegade/anyone-with-a-neuron-firing-in-their-craniums will continue taking apart our dear Frodo's arguments one by one.
2. Frodo will not answer one single refutation, or if he/she does he/she won't answer directly in the slightest.
3. Occ/Renegade/anyone-with-a-neuron-firing-in-their-craniums will point out the dodging and misunderstandings of our dear Frodo.
4. Frodo will either continue failing to understand how to argue and counterargue effectively in a debate OR will deliberately avoid such arguments in hopes to divert attention away from those unanswered counterarguments.
5. Occ/Renegade/anyone-with-a-neuron-firing-in-their-craniums will get mad.
6. Frodo will continue down his/her road of preaching The Good Albeit Contradictory Word
7. Neo will eventually get forced into closing down the thread to stop the silly preaching before Occ/Renegade/anyone-with-a-neuron-firing-in-their-craniums have an aneurism.
8. I giggle.
So far we're at step 3, moving dangerously closer to step 4. I brought the cheesey popcorn and a few Red Stripes..... |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
There's quite a few errors and contradictions in your gods legislation, you should tell her that she should proof read all that she writes in the future so she doesn't confuse herself and everyone else ;) |
You are going to Hell!!! To burn in the eternal lake of fire, you sinner!!! :D |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
You are going to Hell!!! To burn in the eternal lake of fire, you sinner!!! :D |
From what ive seen in South Park (and i dont have any reason to belive that the bibile is right and South Park is wrong regarding this) hell isnt actualy that bad of a place to live. Surfing the lava waves, its never cold, outdoor picnicks with the big man and since all sinners go to hell there are bound to be some sluts around. The more you think about it the more hell seems like a nice place to be.
| quote: | | What that passege is saying is this. First of all, we cannot keep the law because we are sinners. Second of all, the law was written to let us know that we are sinners. Third of all, because we cannot keep the law, we are damned. The good news is that because Jesus Christ kept the law to the letter, we can put our faith in His righteousness and in God's eyes, we have kept the law and are perfect. That's what the passege is saying. It isn't saying that we are still under the law. We are currently under grace. You can ask any bible scholar, preacher or preist, we are not under the law. |
One with his head in the clouds one with his feet on the ground. You say we cannot keep the law becouse we are sinners (Please note that english is not my primary language so i might wrongly interpret some things that are said here). I would disagree on that. Maybe my logic and reasoning are flawed, and my knowledge of the bible is poor at best but i would say with some certanty that the bible (or god for that matter) doesnt strickly prohibit you driving 250km/h the wrong way on the highway but you still dont do it do you? Being a sinner doesnt stop you from upholding that part of the law does it? Even though technicaly its not a sin.
Second of all the law is written becouse it wroks better that the teachings of the bible. Its all good that it says dont kill dont steal and stuff like that, but we both know (well i do at least, dont know about you) that simply a fear of god wont stop anyone from actualy doing that. Why dont you go aout and kill someone? Right becouse its a sin, but as much as i understand god is wery forgiving, im sure if you were really sorry he would still let you go to heaven. Since eternal damnation in hell isnt a problem what is stopping you.
Thirld of all, i know may people that have no problem keeping the law at all (ok so some of them are sort of heavy on the gas pedal but as i said i dont remember that being a sin so they are ok in gods eyes). Bad news though. Agan i must point out that my knowledge of the bible is poor at best but i know that jesus was arrested, sentanced to death and then executed. You dont do that to a completely innocent person (ok maybe you do but still). And you see i just cant put my faith into someone that was executed, i just cant buy it that he did nothing wrong.
And as far as bible scholars go. Some of thse nutjobs will tell you that earth is flat and only 6000 or so years old. You should see whay a sane person would have trouble trusting anything they have to say.
P.S.
Thursday morning drunk posts FTW :wtf: I should be at school right now but there was this huge party last night, im still too drunk to actualy move more than a metre which is the distance from my bed to my computer :crazy: How much do i love being a student right now :p |
|
|
| Wicked Neo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Dangit, how'd I miss Nellie's fierce comeback?
As fun as these usually are, I'll sit this one out and throw some peanuts from the gallery up top. Of course I'm pretty sure how this one will play out. The storyline usually goes:
1. Occ/Renegade/anyone-with-a-neuron-firing-in-their-craniums will continue taking apart our dear Frodo's arguments one by one.
2. Frodo will not answer one single refutation, or if he/she does he/she won't answer directly in the slightest.
3. Occ/Renegade/anyone-with-a-neuron-firing-in-their-craniums will point out the dodging and misunderstandings of our dear Frodo.
4. Frodo will either continue failing to understand how to argue and counterargue effectively in a debate OR will deliberately avoid such arguments in hopes to divert attention away from those unanswered counterarguments.
5. Occ/Renegade/anyone-with-a-neuron-firing-in-their-craniums will get mad.
6. Frodo will continue down his/her road of preaching The Good Albeit Contradictory Word
7. Neo will eventually get forced into closing down the thread to stop the silly preaching before Occ/Renegade/anyone-with-a-neuron-firing-in-their-craniums have an aneurism.
8. I giggle.
So far we're at step 3, moving dangerously closer to step 4. I brought the cheesey popcorn and a few Red Stripes..... |
I've already finished my cheesy popcorn and drunk far too many Red Stripes but that has not clouded my judgement when i say that i think your prediction is going to prove 100% accurate.
was also just wondering, as i have 'ultimate' power here in the PDD does that make me the God of PDD?
If so best you lot start praying and getting some virgin maidens in here pretty damn quick :p |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by xfrodobagginsx
What that passege is saying is this. First of all, we cannot keep the law because we are sinners. |
Yep.
| quote: | | Second of all, the law was written to let us know that we are sinners. |
Er... perhaps, yep.
| quote: | | Third of all, because we cannot keep the law, we are damned. |
Yep.
| quote: | | The good news is that because Jesus Christ kept the law to the letter, we can put our faith in His righteousness and in God's eyes, we have kept the law and are perfect. That's what the passege is saying. It isn't saying that we are still under the law. We are currently under grace. |
Nope. It's not saying that those under grace are no longer compelled to obey the law at all: to quote from Rom 3:31, the upholding of the law is not "nullified" by faith, but merely renders it insufficient, in itself, to win you "justification" in the eyes of God. "Grace", in Pauline theology, is the path to God, but Paul doesn't use the concept of grace in the licentious sense you're referring to: he is not saying that the mere acceptance of the spirit of Christ will render irrelvent the concept of sin with regards to personal action. He is arguing, rather, that grace is the path by which we may come to avoid sinning in the first place (that is, to avoid the breaking of God's commandments - there is no concept of transcendent sin within Paul's Jewish theology) not that it is a path by which we may come to obviate the law altogether.
From Romans again:
| quote: | 5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. |
Romans 8:5-9
In other words, acceptance of the Spirit, according to Paul, will deliver one from sin not because there is all of sudden no concept of sin or because there is no existent law to sin against, but rather because those under the power of the spirit will have no inclination to sin in the first place. That is, there are still unequivocally impermissible actions (how could one sin otherwise?) but those who are filled with the spirit will be freed from them (not in the abstract, metaphysical sense that you are talking about, but rather in a quite literal sense - they won't be compelled to sin to begin with). The sinful mind on the other hand will refuse to submit to "God's law" in the same way and thus will continue to live in sin (note here, again, that the concept of "sin", for Paul is very much bound up with the notion of God's - specifically YHWH's - law: there is no notion of original or a priori sin here. The idea of sin is still very much tied in with the breaking of God's commandments).
I'm not sure what denomination you'd consider yourself, but you seem to be offering a pseudo-Catholic position here: namely that one may commit sin but still find "justification" in God so long as one repents and accepts the divinity of Christ. This, however, is a contrivance of the church and is not a doctrine that you will find much support for in scripture. Jesus and Paul were both Jews and both advocated the following of certain commandments from Jewish law, if not the majority of them. Paul, for instance, seems to argue that the dietary laws and the need for circumcision no longer apply, but he is very particular about the upholding of the law in other areas, like sexuality and the role of women. Jesus on the other hand - the man who Christianity is supposed to be founded upon - is far less equivocal. Would you mind telling me how the passage from Matthew chapter 5 that I posted earlier fits in with your theology about how adherence to the law is no longer necessary?
| quote: | | You can ask any bible scholar, preacher or preist, we are not under the law. |
I think Occrider beat me to it: I'm not interested in what the theologians think, I'm interested in what the words of the Bible actually say. If you think I'm wrong in any of my interpretations, prove me wrong with scripture not with the opinions of preachers... |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Dangit, how'd I miss Nellie's fierce comeback?
As fun as these usually are, I'll sit this one out and throw some peanuts from the gallery up top. Of course I'm pretty sure how this one will play out. The storyline usually goes:
1. Occ/Renegade/anyone-with-a-neuron-firing-in-their-craniums will continue taking apart our dear Frodo's arguments one by one.
2. Frodo will not answer one single refutation, or if he/she does he/she won't answer directly in the slightest.
3. Occ/Renegade/anyone-with-a-neuron-firing-in-their-craniums will point out the dodging and misunderstandings of our dear Frodo.
4. Frodo will either continue failing to understand how to argue and counterargue effectively in a debate OR will deliberately avoid such arguments in hopes to divert attention away from those unanswered counterarguments.
5. Occ/Renegade/anyone-with-a-neuron-firing-in-their-craniums will get mad.
6. Frodo will continue down his/her road of preaching The Good Albeit Contradictory Word
7. Neo will eventually get forced into closing down the thread to stop the silly preaching before Occ/Renegade/anyone-with-a-neuron-firing-in-their-craniums have an aneurism.
8. I giggle.
So far we're at step 3, moving dangerously closer to step 4. I brought the cheesey popcorn and a few Red Stripes..... |
Haha, too true. :stongue:
I think in between step 6 and 7 there is another step though, where they abandon any pretext of "debate" whatsoever and just start quoting large slabs of texts from apologist websites, even when the material they're quoting has already been refuted and / or has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic being discussed. To frodo's credit he hasn't plumbed these depths yet, so I'm still holding out some hope for him here. |
|
|
|
|
