OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 05:49:30 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
 51 
 on: Today at 12:51:01 AM 
Started by yeshuaisiam - Last post by yeshuaisiam
I think this one is a tough one Mor.   And possibly for many Christians.

I look at this only in a way that I can.

First we have to understand that Jesus did not abolish the law.  He said he didn't come to do that, but to fulfill the law.

OK.

Quote
He was put on the spot by the Pharisees, "Our law says..." - "what do you say"
"I say who ever is without sin let him be the one to cast the first stone at her".

OK.

Quote
He either would have abolished (or broke/done away with), or fulfilled the law.

OK.  But you need to define what you think it means "to fulfill".  You have already done this with "abolish".  You need to do it with "fulfill".  So far, it's like you can't find it, and so through process of elimination, you find the one thing you don't really understand and think "Well, this must be the fulfillment because I understand everything else and how it fits together".  That may be correct, but you don't understand it even if it is, and so your argument suffers.  But I'm not even certain you're right.  

Quote
So you have to ask yourself, did Christ lie when he said he didn't come to abolish the law?  If Christ didn't lie, then what did he do when asked about the law?

I asked you.

Quote
Well he never told them not to stone her whatsoever.  In fact, he gave his permission for those without sin to cast the first stone.

But the law makes no such stipulation.  It doesn't say that only the sinless can perform the execution.  That ought to trouble you if you are so insistent on the law.    

Quote
No, I am not saying Jesus was a sinner because he didn't cast a stone.  Jewish law has witnesses to condemn somebody.   The Torah says (Deuteronomy 19:15): "One witness shall not arise against a man for any sin or guilt that he may commit; according to two witnesses or according to three witnesses a matter shall stand." Thus, two witnesses provide conclusive proof of reality, but one witness does not.

There were no more witnesses to condemn her.  "Where are they that condemn you" - "No where sir" - "Then neither do I condemn you".

Nice try, but they had already furnished a town full of witnesses when they brought her to Jesus.  If they weren't so insistent on trying to trap him, they would've likely passed him by as he was drawing in the sand and would've killed her themselves.  But their egos got in the way.  Plus, if Jesus, according to you, allowed the execution to proceed, he had already accepted their testimony as true.      

Quote
Romans 1-2 does show sins.
 

Like what?  What do you get out of those two chapters?

Quote
I'm sure I'll start a thread on Paul later at some point.  I think the problem here is the obvious which is why people keep quoting Paul.  If you recognize sins within the Torah (which are not in the NT), then you are following Torah law.  If the Torah is out, these sins wold not apply.
 

Not exactly.  Not necessarily.  You are conflating "laws".  

Quote
1 John 3:4 directly shows that St. John believed sin was breaking the Law (or Torah).

No, YiM.  "Law" and "Torah" are not the same.  All Torah is Law, but not all Law is Torah.  

Quote
It DOES create a quagmire... I know.   See if we recognize sins in the Torah (law), then it creates a paradox.  

Maybe for you.  I'm just fine.  

Quote
What about anywhere in the New Testament about taking the Lord's name in vain?  This is written in the law (Torah) not to.  If the law is no longer applies, is taking his name in vain still a sin?  

Again, you are conflating "laws".  Your problem is that you think "Honour your father and mother" has equal weight when compared with "Do not boil a kid in its mother's milk".  You can believe that if you want, but neither Christ nor the Twelve believed or taught any such thing.    

Mor, I bolded your quote above:

The Jews said to him "Our law says she should be stoned to death, what do you say?"
Jesus said "I say whoever is without sin, let him be he first to throw a stone at her."

Do you believe Jesus Christ abolished or fulfilled the law here?


 52 
 on: Today at 12:50:22 AM 
Started by Raylight - Last post by methodius
....- as to saying; no, praying the Lord's Prayer once, twice or seven times a day; one may think, to start with, that one is just 'repeating' but no! we are obeying the Lord's command "Lord, teach us to pray." "When you pray, pray thus..."

 53 
 on: Today at 12:46:08 AM 
Started by yeshuaisiam - Last post by Mor Ephrem
Yesh, what does St. Paul mean when he refers to "the law of the Spirit", and "the law of Christ" in the NT?

That's for a future Paul thread. Smiley  I'm just trying to figure out how we can still sin certain sins (according to many Christian churches), when the law is gone and the NT has nothing written about those sins.

See, I disagree. I think it's for this thread. You keep asserting there is no law without the Torah, and I don't think that's true. So I'm asking you, what do you think St. Paul means when he refers to "the law of the Spirit" and "the law of Christ"? It's directly relevant.

Really, I won't say anything here about Paul and his eradication of "law" except for one thing.  Every time Paul said "law" he didn't always mean Torah.   Paul spoke of 7 laws.
1. The Law of Christ.  1 Corinthians 9:21
2. The Law of Sin & Death.   Romans 8:2
3. The Law of Righteousness. Romans 9:31
4. The Law of The Spirit of Life.  Also in Roman 8:2
5. The Law of Faith.  Romans 3:27
6. The Law of Sin.  Romans 7:23-25
7. The Law of God.  Romans 3:31  - Romans 7:22-25  and Romans 8:7

There is the thing to research. Smiley  Paul debate hungry folks here!!!  Peter said his writings were difficult!
This has nothing to do with this thread though.  It also has nothing to do with Paul.


How do you know what sins are sins if there is not a law that defines them?  

No, YiM.  I've repeatedly contended that you are conflating types of law, and here you list seven types of law (!) and say they are irrelevant to the discussion.  On the contrary, it is directly relevant (as ZZ said) because you don't seem to understand any of them.  This thread isn't going to go anywhere until we get that squared away. 

 54 
 on: Today at 12:43:46 AM 
Started by Raylight - Last post by primuspilus
Specific
Authentic

 55 
 on: Today at 12:42:35 AM 
Started by yeshuaisiam - Last post by yeshuaisiam
Yesh, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about.  Are you saying that if one does not have a law to punish adulterers, he is condoning adultery?  Or that we should not punish any sinner because we are sinners?

It's like I'm seeing a paradox.

If we call taking the Lord's name in vain a sin, yet have done away with the law, there is nothing in the New Covenant condemning it.

It's not really about "what we should or shouldn't do".  It's a question of paradox.  If we recognize taking the name in vain, the only thing condemning it is Torah (law) - yet people claim it no longer applies.

 56 
 on: Today at 12:41:42 AM 
Started by yeshuaisiam - Last post by Mor Ephrem
I think this one is a tough one Mor.   And possibly for many Christians.

I look at this only in a way that I can.

First we have to understand that Jesus did not abolish the law.  He said he didn't come to do that, but to fulfill the law.

OK.

Quote
He was put on the spot by the Pharisees, "Our law says..." - "what do you say"
"I say who ever is without sin let him be the one to cast the first stone at her".

OK.

Quote
He either would have abolished (or broke/done away with), or fulfilled the law.

OK.  But you need to define what you think it means "to fulfill".  You have already done this with "abolish".  You need to do it with "fulfill".  So far, it's like you can't find it, and so through process of elimination, you find the one thing you don't really understand and think "Well, this must be the fulfillment because I understand everything else and how it fits together".  That may be correct, but you don't understand it even if it is, and so your argument suffers.  But I'm not even certain you're right.  

Quote
So you have to ask yourself, did Christ lie when he said he didn't come to abolish the law?  If Christ didn't lie, then what did he do when asked about the law?

I asked you.

Quote
Well he never told them not to stone her whatsoever.  In fact, he gave his permission for those without sin to cast the first stone.

But the law makes no such stipulation.  It doesn't say that only the sinless can perform the execution.  That ought to trouble you if you are so insistent on the law.    

Quote
No, I am not saying Jesus was a sinner because he didn't cast a stone.  Jewish law has witnesses to condemn somebody.   The Torah says (Deuteronomy 19:15): "One witness shall not arise against a man for any sin or guilt that he may commit; according to two witnesses or according to three witnesses a matter shall stand." Thus, two witnesses provide conclusive proof of reality, but one witness does not.

There were no more witnesses to condemn her.  "Where are they that condemn you" - "No where sir" - "Then neither do I condemn you".

Nice try, but they had already furnished a town full of witnesses when they brought her to Jesus.  If they weren't so insistent on trying to trap him, they would've likely passed him by as he was drawing in the sand and would've killed her themselves.  But their egos got in the way.  Plus, if Jesus, according to you, allowed the execution to proceed, he had already accepted their testimony as true.      

Quote
Romans 1-2 does show sins.
 

Like what?  What do you get out of those two chapters?

Quote
I'm sure I'll start a thread on Paul later at some point.  I think the problem here is the obvious which is why people keep quoting Paul.  If you recognize sins within the Torah (which are not in the NT), then you are following Torah law.  If the Torah is out, these sins wold not apply.
 

Not exactly.  Not necessarily.  You are conflating "laws".  

Quote
1 John 3:4 directly shows that St. John believed sin was breaking the Law (or Torah).

No, YiM.  "Law" and "Torah" are not the same.  All Torah is Law, but not all Law is Torah.  

Quote
It DOES create a quagmire... I know.   See if we recognize sins in the Torah (law), then it creates a paradox.  

Maybe for you.  I'm just fine.  

Quote
What about anywhere in the New Testament about taking the Lord's name in vain?  This is written in the law (Torah) not to.  If the law is no longer applies, is taking his name in vain still a sin?  

Again, you are conflating "laws".  Your problem is that you think "Honour your father and mother" has equal weight when compared with "Do not boil a kid in its mother's milk".  You can believe that if you want, but neither Christ nor the Twelve believed or taught any such thing.    

 57 
 on: Today at 12:41:12 AM 
Started by Raylight - Last post by methodius
"Lord have mercy" is repeated 40 times at one point in the 3rd and/or 6th hours - and perhaps during grand Vespers as well.
I've been told that it prepares the mind to follow St.Paul's injunction to 'pray constantly.'
 When I first heard it, the prayer repeated, I thought 'what's going on here?' but now I feel comfortable with it. It helps to develop an awareness of God, it and the use of the prayer rope and the Jesus prayer - very similar, in fact.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner.
or in Greek, kyrie eleison, the words which are identical to Lord have mercy.
It focuses one's attention on God; it is penitential [as said by the thief on the cross.]

 58 
 on: Today at 12:39:14 AM 
Started by yeshuaisiam - Last post by yeshuaisiam
Yesh, what does St. Paul mean when he refers to "the law of the Spirit", and "the law of Christ" in the NT?

That's for a future Paul thread. Smiley  I'm just trying to figure out how we can still sin certain sins (according to many Christian churches), when the law is gone and the NT has nothing written about those sins.

See, I disagree. I think it's for this thread. You keep asserting there is no law without the Torah, and I don't think that's true. So I'm asking you, what do you think St. Paul means when he refers to "the law of the Spirit" and "the law of Christ"? It's directly relevant.

Really, I won't say anything here about Paul and his eradication of "law" except for one thing.  Every time Paul said "law" he didn't always mean Torah.   Paul spoke of 7 laws.
1. The Law of Christ.  1 Corinthians 9:21
2. The Law of Sin & Death.   Romans 8:2
3. The Law of Righteousness. Romans 9:31
4. The Law of The Spirit of Life.  Also in Roman 8:2
5. The Law of Faith.  Romans 3:27
6. The Law of Sin.  Romans 7:23-25
7. The Law of God.  Romans 3:31  - Romans 7:22-25  and Romans 8:7

There is the thing to research. Smiley  Paul debate hungry folks here!!!  Peter said his writings were difficult!
This has nothing to do with this thread though.  It also has nothing to do with Paul.


How do you know what sins are sins if there is not a law that defines them?  

 59 
 on: Today at 12:37:29 AM 
Started by Raylight - Last post by CopticDeacon
Specific

 60 
 on: Today at 12:35:56 AM 
Started by yeshuaisiam - Last post by LBK
I'm just trying to figure out how we can still sin certain sins (according to many Christian churches), when the law is gone and the NT has nothing written about those sins.

What sorts of sins did you have in mind? You mentioned homosexuality earlier, what others?

Also things like taking the Lord's name in vain.  If Torah (law) is gone, and we know it is still considered a sin, it was not proclaimed by Christ to be one.  The only way for it to be sinful is to recognize Torah (law) as authority.

Your approach is not only sola scriptura, but even narrower, basing it on whether Christ did or didn't say something.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.054 seconds with 17 queries.