Search results

And yet I am making the argument for God's standard. I think you're trolling me here. ;) Good day. :)

As demonstrated, your position still remains subjective. I prefer to have the Word's standard of morality attached to it to make it explicit. Jesus is the Word of God (The law and the prophets) manifested in the flesh, so it is only natural that He would teach to keep the law even within the...

That doesn't make sense to me. Because if that is the case, then I would argue it best that God never gave mankind the standard of morality, so that we can plead ignorance to it. But Canaan demonstrates that this isn't the case. They were judged by the laws God now gave to Israel, and He told...

Okay, then why aren't you rejecting Paul then? I mean, if the interpretations of his writings are infallibly accurate, and he is contradicting the Word of God, why aren't we treating his writings as we do the Qur'an, or any false writings?

I mean this with respect, but making a statement like that on its own merit is too subjective on the definition of what it is to love. For example, by using that statement, we can conclude, for example, a close family having sex with each other is okay as long as they love God and love their...

The "pre-incarnet" Jesus is the Word of God Moses was teaching the people, which he received from Jehovah. Jehovah would have explicitly told Israel all Moses told them, but they were too scared.

I don't understand? Are you proposing that morality - as defined by the law - only come to be once the law was given?

1. First and foremost, appeal the stone fallacy, or you're just lazy. 2. My "original premise" is known as the moral argument from William Lane Craig in arguing for the existence of God. Are you an atheist? 3. Let's grant I am a teacher of the law. And seeing that the law, or standard, being...

It may not be all inclusive in detail, yet Moses said what he gave is the standard of morality and that it is objective, not subjective. If Jesus is the Word of God (law and the testimony) manifested in the flesh, and the Word of God is the standard of morality, then to be freed unto...

If we grant that the interpretation of Paul's writings is correct, and that Paul's writings contradicts the law and the prophets (Word of God/Jesus), why should we then not treat it as we ought to - like we do with any writing that does the same thing -, but, instead, treat it as if it is...

Isn't claiming the impossibility that a sinner can stop sinning vindicating Satan's accusation that morality according to Jehovah (objective morality) is unjust because it is impossible to abide by?

Isn't it evil to declare one self indifferrent to morality because of Jesus? Perhaps I am misunderstanding, I see no freedom to being indifferent to morality. I see no conundrum here. Letter: "Remember to keep the Sabbath day holy." Spirit: "If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from...

Thank you.

Isn't this a false dichotomy because Jesus is the Word of God manifested in the flesh[1]? This means that the Word of God is a Person. Also, if you say Jesus plus nothing, do you mean "you don't need to repent, you don't need to pick up your cross and follow Him, you don't need to give up your...

No, I don't mean that. I mean this: Letter: "Thou shalt not murder." Spirit: "Do not hate your brother in your heart." Letter: "Do not commit adultery." Spirit: "Do not look at a woman in lust for her." Letter: "Do not eat pork." Spirit: "Take care of your temple." By keeping to the Spirit of...

To suppose one is saved by works is nonsensical: the convicted murderer is presented to the judge, and pleads, "But your honor, look at all the people I did not murder," and the judge responds, "Very well. Your works has justified you." Just because you can fix a broken window doesn't undo the...

Let me grant your take here for a moment. Is it your position that the Sabbath law is made void lawfully because of this exception? That's a very dangerous route, don't you think? An exception doesn't make a law void. Or else it becomes, a "loop-hole" so to speak. What I mean by the tradition...

Understood. I merely enjoy a good debate, and welcome contrary views to my own. My arguments aren't about teaching, but really to strengthen my own arguments; if that makes sense. I don't entertain the idea of teaching that doesn't seek to be taught. But, if one is welcome to learn from another...

Thank you for your response! I believe that Jesus was dismissing the concept of keeping the law out of obligation, but rather, because one wants to out of love.

Jesus Christ explicitly says the priests in the temple profane/desecrate/break the sabbath without guilt. moreover, that this is found in the law itself. To argue that Jesus was renouncing the validity of the Sabbath in Matthew 12:3-7 is to, at the same time, side with the Jews who were...