Ben Masada
New member
Well, I am all ears. It does not help any thing to say that each of the verses in the quote I gave you against resurrection has a context. Go ahead and tell me about those contexts. Otherwise, I'll take you are bluffing.
Your opinion on God’s Law.
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Well, I am all ears. It does not help any thing to say that each of the verses in the quote I gave you against resurrection has a context. Go ahead and tell me about those contexts. Otherwise, I'll take you are bluffing.
It is a principle of Bible study to always read things in context. This is not unique to passages about resurrection.
Ben Masada
New member
What is the difference between salvation as you have in mind and to get saved from hell-fire? To Christians it must be the same. To me, hell-fire does not exist. That's why Jesus had to use it in a parable to go into those symbols. The point anyway was not hell-fire but that the Law is the same and has never changed.
Ben Masada
New member
I am all ears. Please, show me how I could be out of context in the reading of this parable.
You are correct that the Law is the same and has never changed.
The lake of fire is spoken of in scripture, as is hell.
The word hell is an English word found in translations from Hebrew (sheol) and Greek (gehenna, tartarus, hades).
In Revelation, it is hades that is spoken of.
Revelation 20:14 NASB - 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
The following verses may be something like what you say hell fire.
Mark 9:43 NASB - 43 "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,
James 3:6 NASB - 6 And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell.
The KJV has these verses.
Matthew 5:22 KJV - 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Matthew 18:9 KJV - 9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
Mark 9:47 KJV - 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
Luke 16:29-31 NKJV - 29 "Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' 30 "And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 "But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' "
When it says "but if one goes to them from the dead" and "neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead", in regard to resurrection it simply does not say this is not possible just that if it were to happen they still would not be persuaded.
Derf
Well-known member
I just don't see where you've shown Paul to be lying anywhere. Maybe that's because of my preconceived notions, but you indicated it was obvious, and you haven't shown why it's so obvious.
Ben Masada
New member
All right. Let's work on an example of such an occasion when Paul lied blatantly. Jesus had clearly declared that he had not come to abolish the Law and the Prophet. (Mat. 5:17-19) Then, later Paul came and declared that the Law had been abolished on the cross. (Ephesians 2:15) It is obvious that Paul was talking about Jesus as having abolished the Law. Now, you tell us, who was lying, Jesus or Paul? Obviously Paul. You could not afford to say Jesus. On another occasion Jesus was talking about salvation from hell-fire when he said we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31) Then in his letter to the Romans Paul said that Jesus had been the end of the Law.{Mat. 10:4) How could Jesus have been the end of the Law when he was still using the Law as the means to achieve salvation? And so forth, there are many more occasions when Paul was lying.
That the enmity between Jew and Gentile has been abolished on account of the Law is true. That is, even a Gentile can believe and have faith in God. He does not need to observe all of the Law of Moses to do so. It is not a requirement, if it ever was.
Derf
Well-known member
[MENTION=10340]Ben Masada[/MENTION]-good questioning! [MENTION=5582]Jacob[/MENTION]-good answer!
Last edited:
Epoisses
New member
Jews are not required to keep the law anymore either. But faith in Christ goes over like a lead brick in those circles!
I don't know why you say this.
Epoisses
New member
Was Paul a Jew?
He spoke of his countrymen. He was a Hebrew of Hebrews. He was of the tribe of Benjamin. He was a Pharisee.
Epoisses
New member
He counted his ethnicity as dung compared to the knowledge of Jesus Christ. You could learn something from him.
I have learned a lot from him.
Epoisses
New member
You've learned nothing because you are a legalist.
I believe I am to obey God. I say this as a saved born again Christian. Legalism and obedience are not the same.
Epoisses
New member
You are to live by the faith of Jesus and the love of God. The Law was a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ and we are not under the schoolmaster anymore and actually for the last 2000 years.
I know I am to live by faith and obey God. God's commands are about love of God and love of your neighbor. This is what Jesus taught.