Did Jesus ever tell us that we no longer need to keep the law of Moses?

[Karraster]

The issue was the entire law .... the gentiles were not given the law

Well then, I guess we can do whatever we want, no law, no sin, since sin is transgression of the law. No sin, then I guess we won't die, because didn't sin bring death into the world? Then we must be eternal, guess that makes us god, because doesn't scripture say only He is eternal? Wow, we're little gods, deciding what is right and wrong. wow.

 

[UnderGrace]

Well then, I guess we can do whatever we want, no law, no sin, since sin is transgression of the law. No sin, then I guess we won't die, because didn't sin bring death into the world? Then we must be eternal, guess that makes us god, because doesn't scripture say only He is eternal? Wow, we're little gods, deciding what is right and wrong. wow.

I did not state that now did I? How about we are under grace, the new covenant.

Titus 2:11
11For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men. 12It instructs us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live sensible, upright, and godly lives in the present age,…

 

[UnderGrace]

Well then, I guess we can do whatever we want, no law, no sin, since sin is transgression of the law. No sin, then I guess we won't die, because didn't sin bring death into the world? Then we must be eternal, guess that makes us god, because doesn't scripture say only He is eternal? Wow, we're little gods, deciding what is right and wrong. wow.

The law is not able to sanctify, not because there is something wrong with the law, but because of who we are as humans.

We are new creations in Christ, in Christ we find our freedom from the law and we have love, the love that is produced by God the Holy Spirit as the believer walks in the Spirit

 

[UnderGrace]

Well then, I guess we can do whatever we want, no law, no sin, since sin is transgression of the law. No sin, then I guess we won't die, because didn't sin bring death into the world? Then we must be eternal, guess that makes us god, because doesn't scripture say only He is eternal? Wow, we're little gods, deciding what is right and wrong. wow.

The rule of life is not found in the law but in Christ Jesus only. (Galatians)

 

[Guojing]

uh yeah, agree, so why you doing that to me?

i'm pointing out that you're being obtuse.

look again at the examples i gave you -- schwinn bicycles have two wheels, but not everything that isn't a schwinn isn't a bicycle. all women are human but not everyone who isn't a woman isn't a human. look up de morgan's law and look at the notation i gave for Mark 16:16. look at the diagrams and the proof that shows modus tollens is not applicable to sets which are not mutually proper subsets.

if you think my math is wrong, prove it. prove modus tollens for the sets i diagrammed, if you can. i'm not incapable of mistakes, but i don't see any flaw in what i've shown you. if you find what you think is one, show me. 'modus tollens by fiat!!!!' is not a proof.

i'm going to bed. in the morning, if i have to, i will give a full proof of modus tollens failure. tho i should write something for DeighAnn, too - if i am up early enough, i'll do both in one.

I never said anything negative about you as far as I know. I only take what you said, disagree in those points, state my case, and move on.

As for you, you can re-read this paragraph of yours again

since you have no argument, and your mouth is shut, but you still want to talk, you say 'because this guy didn't waste his time in philosophy classes learning fancy lingo, i win'

wow dude. way to shoot your credibility in the foot.
here i am spitting out all kinds of specialized mathematical jargon - a whole other language - and you think you have some kind of intellectual superiority because you learned some vocabulary word in an easy-A course in the liberal arts department.

You are implying many negative things about your opponent in this paragraph alone.

You can quote me in those points you felt I was negative towards you, if you want.

 

[Dino246]

Then what do you mean when you say No?

You wrote, "That is incredible."

I wrote, "No, it's just logical." Unfortunately, it seems that the humour of it was lost on you.

 

[Guojing]

You wrote, "That is incredible."

I wrote, "No, it's just logical." Unfortunately, it seems that the humour of it was lost on you.

I see, okay. I take it as you are saying it is logical that he will think like that since he has not heard of modus tollens. Thanks.

I usually don't use humor on Internet debate with people that I don't know. Effective humor needs one to listen to the tone of the words.

 

[Dino246]

You are giving the wrong counter example. You are committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

Its no wonder you never heard of modus tollens.

Instead of a subtle implication of ignorance, how about you share your knowledge.

 

[Guojing]

Instead of a subtle implication of ignorance, how about you share your knowledge.

I have already stated the name of the fallacy.

In the age of google, its so easy to search for the meaning of "denying the antecedent".

 

[Dino246]

I think you were being "Gaslighted"...You were wise to back away. You were not confused or confusing, but if you kept up long enough you might have questioned yourself

No, he wasn't being gaslighted at all. They are speaking different languages.

 

[Karraster]

I did not state that now did I? How about we are under grace, the new covenant.

Titus 2:11
11For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men. 12It instructs us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live sensible, upright, and godly lives in the present age,…

What is the new covenant? What's the definition of ungodliness if we are no longer to use the instructions/definitions of love and worship? What about this: John 5 28 do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear His voice 29and come out—those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

How are we to know what is good or what is evil? Is there a standard we will be judged by?

 

[UnderGrace]

How are we to know what is good or what is evil?

Christ Jesus within us is more that able to sanctify us.

As soon as you add law to grace you have destroyed grace (Rom. 11:6)

"And now, little children, ABIDE IN HIM; that, when He shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before Him at his coming" (1 John 2:28).

 

[Dino246]

Well then, I guess we can do whatever we want, no law, no sin, since sin is transgression of the law. No sin, then I guess we won't die, because didn't sin bring death into the world? Then we must be eternal, guess that makes us god, because doesn't scripture say only He is eternal? Wow, we're little gods, deciding what is right and wrong. wow.

Fallacy: straw man.

 

[Dino246]

I have already stated the name of the fallacy.

In the age of google, its so easy to search for the meaning of "denying the antecedent".

It's also easy to provide a simple definition or example for a Latin phrase ("modus tollens") that is probably unfamiliar to anyone who has not studied logic... or Latin.

 

[Karraster]

Christ Jesus within us is more that able to sanctify us.

As soon as you add law to grace you have destroyed grace (Rom. 11:6)

"And now, little children, ABIDE IN HIM; that, when He shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before Him at his coming" (1 John 2:28).

When the books are opened...when we are judged...you imply there is no standard .you skipped this

Fallacy: straw man.

How so? You can't have it both ways, either the law is valid or it is not valid.

 

[Dino246]

When the books are opened...when we are judged...you imply there is no standard .you skipped this

How so? You can't have it both ways, either the law is valid or it is not valid.

Straw man fallacy: a simplified and distorted misrepresentation of the position that another holds, intended to minimize, criticize, or insult the other person or show that their position is ridiculous.

 

[Karraster]

Straw man fallacy: a simplified and distorted misrepresentation of the position that another holds, intended to minimize, criticize, or insult the other person or show that their position is ridiculous.

Have you ever asked God to write His laws on your heart?

 

[Guojing]

No, he wasn't being gaslighted at all. They are speaking different languages.

I understand why he used the term gaslighted.

I think in this forum, and I am definitely not the first to notice this, there is a group of participants who share very similar doctrinal views. They tend to gang up against anyone who offers a different perspective thru using negative words like "baseless, you are preaching a false doctrine, I am not sure you are really saved", and so on and so forth. They also tend to like one another's post.

In the end, this forum sometimes feels like an echo chamber, and I understand that can be discouraging to others who want to share different viewpoints.

 

[NayborBear]

This aught to be good. Let me get my popcorn out while you prove this accusation, Name one place where I have made this point, or declaired what you just accused me off.

I will be waiting patiently.


You just proved once again you have utterly no idea what I believe, so how are you going to convince or pursuade me I am wrong?

New flash, You have to KNOW what a person teaches in order to get any idea if what they teach is wrong first.. Saying they are wrong based on false assumptions just makes you look bad.




Yes, And I have ALWAYS taught we are not only Called. But we are chosen (based on foreknowledge)

The fact you claim I do not just PROVES you have no idea what I believe.

Now are you willing to confess your sin? In the meantime, I am eating my popcorn in the midst of my laughing while waiting for you to back up your silly accusations.

I can see by your reply you have no idea of the difference/s between being "called" and being "chosen."
Not being chosen, doesn't mean one is not saved!
But, being "called", and believing and teaching that the one is the same as the other? Are the reason/s why that that which you see as "works for, and/or maintaining of one's salvation", is just so much "futile effort/s", or "folly" in your eyes, and opinions, and teaching/s. and, the reason/s why we will never see eye to eye concerning this.
As far as confessing sin? The only sin I may have committed, and I don't really consider it a sin, is in the admonishing you in your postings concerning "works for. or in the maintenance of one's salvation."

Reckon the only sin I may have committed is being away from my computer, in not replying more promptly.
I confess! I was out of town for the weekend.

You may have a good and thorough knowledge concerning Jesus of Nazareth. And becoming saved. But, from your replies and teachings, it seems fairly evident, you really don't have much an understanding concerning the "government" (of the Kingdom of God, and Kingdom of Light) that is on Christ's shoulders.
Nor the responsibilities, nor obligations that come with, and are in said government. Elst, you would not be teaching as you do.

 

[FollowHisSteps]

oh? is it the language that informs you of that?
Paul uses two men as examples of what he is talking about here: Abraham and David
did neither of them do works out of love? did they both work as though for wages?
no, Abraham did nothing but believe, and it was credited as righteousness. and David said, blessed is the man against whom the Lord does not count his wrongs - his sin was removed; it was not because he offered any sacrifice for absolution.

we love, because He first loved us

Abraham did a lot more than just believe. Have you read Genesis. This is what it says of Abraham.

4 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed,
5 because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws."
Gen 26

Now if you want to say, no Abraham only believed and did not obey or follow Gods ways then one
is not reading the text. What God is declaring is obedience does not make us righteous, but our
faith, and because of our faith or relationship we obey.

David equally obeyed Gods commands and rejoiced in doing righteous things, dwelling on them
constantly

8 The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever. The ordinances of the LORD are sure and altogether righteous.
10 They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the comb.
Psalm 19

God loved David because He understood faith and obedience alongside repentance and grace.