The 10 Commandments are FOREVER

[1stCenturyLady]

Hello,

Help me out here. You said that the brother can remarry; the wife cannot. But the passage you provided says that she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes.

Mary

ONLY if he dies, but then ONLY in the Lord. Whereas before Paul allowed both the man and the woman to remarry if their unsaved spouse left. Neither was "bound."

Bottom line is a Christian cannot initiate the divorce.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

a person who keeps himself perfectly consecrated at all times can completely overcome all sin

I think everyone on here but me believes exactly that, so don't take this personally. That it is all up to us. That is not to say that we have no responsibility in walking in the Spirit. We must keep ourselves, and purify ourselves. 1 John 5:18; 1 John 3:3. But Jesus takes away our sin nature in order for us to accomplish our part. Most people fail to give Him credit for anything, except taking away our punishment. They believe sanctification is a lifetime process of US overcoming sin. Wrong!

 

[BarneyFife]

Well, since Colossians 2 LITERALLY says do not let anyone condemn you in matters of.... sabbaths then I would say that it does refer to the 4th commandment which talks of the sabbath.

The context suggests ceremonial feast sabbaths.

Sabbath days. Gr. sabbata. This may represent either a genuine plural of the Gr. sabbaton or a transliteration of the Aramaic shabbata’, a singular form. Hence sabbata, though grammatically plural in form, may and often does represent a singular (Matt. 28:1; etc.). Either form may be adopted here, for the interpretation of the passage does not depend upon whether the reading is “sabbath days,” or “a sabbath.” The type of sabbath under consideration is shown by the phrase “which are a shadow of things to come” (Col. 2:17). The weekly Sabbath is a memorial of an event at the beginning of earth’s history (Gen. 2:2, 3; Ex. 20:8–11; PP 48). Hence, the “sabbath days” Paul declares to be shadows pointing to Christ cannot refer to the weekly Sabbath designated by the fourth commandment, but must indicate the ceremonial rest days that reach their realization in Christ and His kingdom (see Lev. 23:6–8, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 37, 38).

17. Which are a shadow. This phrase is the key to the understanding of v. 16. All the items the apostle lists in v. 16 are “shadows,” or types, symbolizing the reality that is Christ. A shadow has no substance; it is cast by something substantial. Compare the use of the word “shadow” in Heb. 8:5 and 10:1. The Jewish ceremonies were shadows cast by heavenly realities. Christ’s life, ministry, and kingdom are the reality. The portrayal of this in the ceremonial law was only the shadow.

On this passage Albert Barnes, Presbyterian commentator, well observes: “There is no evidence from this passage that he [Paul] would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. … He had his eye on the great number of days which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as a part of their ceremonial and typical law, and not to the moral law, or the ten commandments. No part of the moral law—no one of the ten commandments could be spoken of as ‘a shadow of good things to come.’ These commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of perpetual and universal application.”

No, The Church does not hold to "the observance of the venerable day of the Sun"! It holds to the venerable day of the Son.

Hi, Mary :)

In a treatise specifically addressed to the pagan population of the Roman Empire, Tertullian' (about A.D. 200) complains that some even of the more cultured "think the Sun is the god of the Christians, because it is known that we pray toward the east and make a festivity on the day of the Sun. Do you do less? Do not most of you, in affectation of worshiping the heavenly bodies, at times move your lips toward the sunrising? You certainly are the ones who also received the Sun into the register of the seven days, and from among the days preferred it, on which day you leave off the bath, or you may defer it until the evening, or you may devote it [the day] to idleness and eating." Ad Nationes, book I, chap. 13.

This passage from Tertullian shows

(a) that the sun-worshiping population of the Roman Empire had a calendar, or "register," in which a week of "seven days" played a role;

(b) that one of those seven days was called "the day of the sun";

(c) that the heathen "preferred" Sunday above the other days of the week;

(d) that the devotees of the sun made "a festivity" on Sunday, which was similar to that then observed by Sundaykeeping Christians;

(e) that some of the heathen did not deem it proper to take a bath on Sunday;

(f) that some of them devoted Sunday "to idleness," which implies that there was some cessation from regular work on their part;

(g) and that some devoted the day to "eating," which implies that it was to them a day of recreation and pleasure.

10. Roman Catholic tradition declares that in the time of Miltiades, bishop of Rome from A.D. 311 to 314, the heathen observed Thursdays and Sundays somewhat "as a "sacred fast." We are not specifically told just what the nature of this abstinence was.

 

[Marymog]

10. Roman Catholic tradition declares that in the time of Miltiades, bishop of Rome from A.D. 311 to 314, the heathen observed Thursdays and Sundays somewhat "as a "sacred fast." We are not specifically told just what the nature of this abstinence was.

So you quote as fact a writer from Ministry Magazine.com and think it is true? Do you have any historical evidence to support your accusation?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

The context suggests ceremonial feast sabbaths.

Sabbath days. Gr. sabbata. This may represent either a genuine plural of the Gr. sabbaton or a transliteration of the Aramaic shabbata’, a singular form. Hence sabbata, though grammatically plural in form, may and often does represent a singular (Matt. 28:1; etc.). Either form may be adopted here, for the interpretation of the passage does not depend upon whether the reading is “sabbath days,” or “a sabbath.” The type of sabbath under consideration is shown by the phrase “which are a shadow of things to come” (Col. 2:17). The weekly Sabbath is a memorial of an event at the beginning of earth’s history (Gen. 2:2, 3; Ex. 20:8–11; PP 48). Hence, the “sabbath days” Paul declares to be shadows pointing to Christ cannot refer to the weekly Sabbath designated by the fourth commandment, but must indicate the ceremonial rest days that reach their realization in Christ and His kingdom (see Lev. 23:6–8, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 37, 38).

17. Which are a shadow. This phrase is the key to the understanding of v. 16. All the items the apostle lists in v. 16 are “shadows,” or types, symbolizing the reality that is Christ. A shadow has no substance; it is cast by something substantial. Compare the use of the word “shadow” in Heb. 8:5 and 10:1. The Jewish ceremonies were shadows cast by heavenly realities. Christ’s life, ministry, and kingdom are the reality. The portrayal of this in the ceremonial law was only the shadow.

On this passage Albert Barnes, Presbyterian commentator, well observes: “There is no evidence from this passage that he [Paul] would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. … He had his eye on the great number of days which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as a part of their ceremonial and typical law, and not to the moral law, or the ten commandments. No part of the moral law—no one of the ten commandments could be spoken of as ‘a shadow of good things to come.’ These commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of perpetual and universal application.”....

No, the context does not suggest that. That is what you have been taught by your men.

If Paul did not mean the sabbath and only meant ceremonial feast sabbaths in that passage then why did he ask for his disciples to have ready "On the first day of every week,... a sum of money" if he just gathered with them for church services on the sabbath? Why didn't he just ask them to have it ready on the sabbath?

What you have been taught by your men, who make up less than .1% of Christianity, is bizarre.

 

[Marymog]

ONLY if he dies, but then ONLY in the Lord. Whereas before Paul allowed both the man and the woman to remarry if their unsaved spouse left. Neither was "bound."

Bottom line is a Christian cannot initiate the divorce.

Got it, I see now. Thanks for clarifying. I missed that part

Mary

 

[Brakelite]

So you quote as fact a writer from Ministry Magazine.com and think it is true? Do you have any historical evidence to support your accusation?

Curious Mary

Accusation? Barney accusing someone of something? Surely you jest.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

The context suggests ceremonial feast sabbaths.

Sabbath days. Gr. sabbata. This may represent either a genuine plural of the Gr. sabbaton or a transliteration of the Aramaic shabbata’, a singular form. Hence sabbata, though grammatically plural in form, may and often does represent a singular (Matt. 28:1; etc.). Either form may be adopted here, for the interpretation of the passage does not depend upon whether the reading is “sabbath days,” or “a sabbath.” The type of sabbath under consideration is shown by the phrase “which are a shadow of things to come” (Col. 2:17). The weekly Sabbath is a memorial of an event at the beginning of earth’s history (Gen. 2:2, 3; Ex. 20:8–11; PP 48). Hence, the “sabbath days” Paul declares to be shadows pointing to Christ cannot refer to the weekly Sabbath designated by the fourth commandment, but must indicate the ceremonial rest days that reach their realization in Christ and His kingdom (see Lev. 23:6–8, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 37, 38).

17. Which are a shadow. This phrase is the key to the understanding of v. 16. All the items the apostle lists in v. 16 are “shadows,” or types, symbolizing the reality that is Christ. A shadow has no substance; it is cast by something substantial. Compare the use of the word “shadow” in Heb. 8:5 and 10:1. The Jewish ceremonies were shadows cast by heavenly realities. Christ’s life, ministry, and kingdom are the reality. The portrayal of this in the ceremonial law was only the shadow.

On this passage Albert Barnes, Presbyterian commentator, well observes: “There is no evidence from this passage that he [Paul] would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. … He had his eye on the great number of days which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as a part of their ceremonial and typical law, and not to the moral law, or the ten commandments. No part of the moral law—no one of the ten commandments could be spoken of as ‘a shadow of good things to come.’ These commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of perpetual and universal application.”



Hi, Mary :)

In a treatise specifically addressed to the pagan population of the Roman Empire, Tertullian' (about A.D. 200) complains that some even of the more cultured "think the Sun is the god of the Christians, because it is known that we pray toward the east and make a festivity on the day of the Sun. Do you do less? Do not most of you, in affectation of worshiping the heavenly bodies, at times move your lips toward the sunrising? You certainly are the ones who also received the Sun into the register of the seven days, and from among the days preferred it, on which day you leave off the bath, or you may defer it until the evening, or you may devote it [the day] to idleness and eating." Ad Nationes, book I, chap. 13.

This passage from Tertullian shows

(a) that the sun-worshiping population of the Roman Empire had a calendar, or "register," in which a week of "seven days" played a role;

(b) that one of those seven days was called "the day of the sun";

(c) that the heathen "preferred" Sunday above the other days of the week;

(d) that the devotees of the sun made "a festivity" on Sunday, which was similar to that then observed by Sundaykeeping Christians;

(e) that some of the heathen did not deem it proper to take a bath on Sunday;

(f) that some of them devoted Sunday "to idleness," which implies that there was some cessation from regular work on their part;

(g) and that some devoted the day to "eating," which implies that it was to them a day of recreation and pleasure.

10. Roman Catholic tradition declares that in the time of Miltiades, bishop of Rome from A.D. 311 to 314, the heathen observed Thursdays and Sundays somewhat "as a "sacred fast." We are not specifically told just what the nature of this abstinence was.

Barn! Remember me telling you that the accusation of sun-worship is just as absurd as worshiping Saturn? What are you doing??? :

Also the "day" was in honor of the Creator, until the Creator came to earth, died for us, rose again, left earth to come back in the form of Spirit to abide inside of us. All holy convocation of Leviticus 23 are to be fulfilled in Christ.

 

[BarneyFife]

Barn! Remember me telling you that the accusation of sun-worship is just as absurd as worshiping Saturn?

I probably shouldn't have used the term as I did. Do you take everything I tell you as truth, 1CL? We don't agree on this point. That's okay, isn't it? The practice of assuming solemnity of the first day of the week has its roots in heathen sun worship--not the resurrection of Christ. The fact that people believe so today does not make this any less true. Most reference to Saturn worship today, even in a historical context is based on fringe group anti-Semitism. :)

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I probably shouldn't have used the term as I did. Do you take everything I tell you as truth, 1CL? We don't agree on this point. That's okay, isn't it? The practice of assuming solemnity of the first day of the week has its roots in heathen sun worship--not the resurrection of Christ. The fact that people believe so today does not make this any less true. Most reference to Saturn worship today, even in a historical context is based on fringe group anti-Semitism. :)

"Your truth" yes. IOW what you believe, and in this case accuse. It's hurtful.

You believe what you like about us. But in our defense I'll show you some ancient writings that show it has nothing to do with the Sun, but the Son. We can't help how the days were named, anymore than you can regarding worshiping Saturn, therefore, "so what"? (I had to google these to find them, not because they were ever part of Christianity so know them by heart and the scriptures they relate to):

Sunday - the sun
Monday - the moon
Tuesday - Mars/Tyr
Wednesday - Mercury/Odin/'Woden'
Thursday - Jupiter/Thor
Friday - Venus/Frigg
Saturday - Saturn

Ancient writings:

Justin Martyr: 100 AD to 165 AD
Weekly worship of the Christians

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things (Baptism and the consecration of the Eucharist) And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

The Epistle of Barnabas (first century before 60 AD, or up to 130 AD at the latest according to "scholars") Read in all the churches, and chosen to be part of the canon on 6 lists of book candidates)

Barnabas 15:1
Moreover concerning the Sabbath likewise it is written in the Ten
Words, in which He spake to Moses face to face on Mount Sinai; And
ye shall hallow the Sabbath of the Lord with pure hands and with a
pure heart.

Barnabas 15:2
And in another place He saith; If my sons observe the Sabbath then
I will bestow My mercy upon them.

Barnabas 15:3
Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation; And
God made the works of His hands in six days, and He ended on the
seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.

Barnabas 15:4
Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days. He
meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all
things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years;
and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of
the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six
days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.

Barnabas 15:5
And He rested on the seventh day. this He meaneth; when His Son
shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shall
judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and the
stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh day.

Barnabas 15:6
Yea and furthermore He saith; Thou shalt hallow it with pure hands
and with a pure heart. If therefore a man is able now to hallow
the day which God hallowed, though he be pure in heart, we have gone
utterly astray.

Barnabas 15:7
But if after all then and not till then shall we truly rest and
hallow it, when we shall ourselves be able to do so after being
justified and receiving the promise, when iniquity is no more and all
things have been made new by the Lord, we shall be able to hallow it
then, because we ourselves shall have been hallowed first.

Barnabas 15:8
Finally He saith to them; Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot
away with. Ye see what is His meaning ; it is not your present
Sabbaths that are acceptable [unto Me], but the Sabbath which I have
made, in the which, when I have set all things at rest, I will make
the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another
world.

Barnabas 15:9
Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which
also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended
into the heavens.

 

[BarneyFife]

Actually, the only thing we have no rest from is temptation. We are capable of sinning, no doubt. Though, a person who keeps himself perfectly consecrated at all times can completely overcome all sin. The Bible says there is no temptation that is without means of escape. I believe what the Bible says, as I'm sure you do. Enoch apparently did it. :)

@1stCenturyLady and @Ferris Bueller

I knew you guys would like this. - lol

​

 

[BarneyFife]

"Your truth" yes. IOW what you believe, and in this case accuse. It's hurtful.

You believe what you like about us.

Who's "us?" I didn't know you had any skin in the Sunday game. I thought Sabbath-keeping was strictly spiritual for you. So are you saying that my saying Sunday-keeping has its origins in heathen sun worship is hurtful to you? Accusing whom? A bunch of pagan folk who've been dead for thousands of years? I'm pretty confused here, Sis. _O

 

[BarneyFife]

 

[GEN2REV]

Actually, the only thing we have no rest from is temptation. We are capable of sinning, no doubt. Though, a person who keeps himself perfectly consecrated at all times can completely overcome all sin. The Bible says there is no temptation that is without means of escape. I believe what the Bible says, as I'm sure you do. Enoch apparently did it. :)

For whatever reason, this argument has been making its way around the boards lately. It seems that there is some strange new push to make temptation the evil, and the danger, and not sin. As if to say 'sin is not the danger, temptation is.'

Behold is a big proponent of this new dogma that is not Biblical.

The problem with that is that temptation is not a sin. We can all be tempted without sin, just as Jesus was. Sin is the sin. The breaking of God's Commandments is the sin, not the temptation to.

... a person who keeps himself perfectly consecrated at all times can completely overcome all sin.

Yes, but this is not a permanent state. You don't reach that level of consecration and then rest as if you've overcome a precipice and can lie down there a while and take a break. Keeping oneself perfectly consecrated is a moment to moment, never-ending, discipline (that involves the Holy Spirit of course). That's why James mentions that we all stumble (offend the Holy Spirit) often. James 3:2 We are not very capable of fully overcoming sin in the body; and as far as I know, the only people who ever have are Jesus and Enoch. BUT, it is what we are expected to strive for.

I believe sin can be overcome with constant focused intent, via the Holy Spirit's power of course, but I, personally, don't feel we ever get "rest" from it until it's no longer a threat at all.

I don't believe that happens until we die. -Or are taken up to God.

Remember 1 Peter 5:8.

The enemy doesn't ever let up until we are out of his territory completely.

It is not a sin for us to be tempted by the devil; it is a sin when we give in to those temptations.

 

[BarneyFife]

For whatever reason, this argument has been making its way around the boards lately. It seems that there is some strange new push to make temptation the evil, and the danger, and not sin. As if to say 'sin is not the danger, temptation is.'

Behold is a big proponent of this new dogma that is not Biblical.

The problem with that is that temptation is not a sin. We can all be tempted without sin, just as Jesus was. Sin is the sin. The breaking of God's Commandments are the sin, not the temptation to.

Yes, but this is not a permanent state. You don't reach that level of consecration and then rest as if you've overcome a precipice and can lie down there a while and take a break. Keeping oneself perfectly consecrated is a moment to moment, never-ending, discipline (that involves the Holy Spirit of course). That's why James mentions that we all stumble (offend the Holy Spirit) often. James 3:2 We are not very capable of fully overcoming sin in the body; and as far as I know, the only people who ever have are Jesus and Enoch. BUT, it is what we are expected to strive for.

I believe sin can be overcome with constant focused intent, via the Holy Spirit's power of course, but I, personally, don't feel we ever get "rest" from it until it's no longer a threat at all.

I don't believe that happens until we die. -Or are taken up to God.

Remember 1 Peter 5:8.

The enemy doesn't ever let up until we are out of his territory completely.

It is not a sin for us to be tempted by the devil; it is a sin when we give in to those temptations.

Without going into detail, while assuring you that I say this with all charity and good will, you seem to be both preaching to the choir here and, most likely, inadvertently erecting a straw man.

I don't believe temptation is sin, but I believe they are both very dangerous.

And I couldn't agree more that we are lousy at fully overcoming sin in the body. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it cannot be done. Allowing for the possibility of semantics getting in the way of agreement, fully overcoming sin can only be done in the Spirit! I do not mean in the commonly-held, Hellenistic, dualist ("I sin, but my spirit doesn't") sort of way but in the wholistic manner of Romans 8:1-17 and 1 Corinthians 9:27.

I do believe, however, that the last generation of saints alive at the coming of Jesus will have just previously reached the point where they would rather die than sin against God, and will be sealed by the words of Jesus:

Revelation 22:11 KJV: He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Revelation 22:12 KJV: And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

:)
.

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

I think everyone on here but me believes exactly that, so don't take this personally. That it is all up to us. That is not to say that we have no responsibility in walking in the Spirit. We must keep ourselves, and purify ourselves. 1 John 5:18; 1 John 3:3. But Jesus takes away our sin nature in order for us to accomplish our part. Most people fail to give Him credit for anything, except taking away our punishment. They believe sanctification is a lifetime process of US overcoming sin. Wrong!

Jesus does not magically eliminate someone's capacity to sin upon conversion, because Paul spent a whole chapter in Romans describing his own struggle with sin after his conversion. According to your hilariously flawed logic, Paul was wrong, even though he was a handpicked apostle of God whose writings make up at least half of the NT. The sole fact that Paul had to rebuke the Galatians for returning to the pagan customs that they kept before their conversion alone proves your theology is a lie.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Who's "us?" I didn't know you had any skin in the Sunday game. I thought Sabbath-keeping was strictly spiritual for you. So are you saying that my saying Sunday-keeping has its origins in heathen sun worship is hurtful to you? Accusing whom? A bunch of pagan folk who've been dead for thousands of years? I'm pretty confused here, Sis. _O

I go to church on Sunday, not because of any commandment, but because that is the day Christians have always gotten together to worship Jesus. Hebrews 10:25. But NO CHRISTIAN goes to church on Sunday because of pagan gods or the sun, not even in the beginning. It has ALWAYS been because Jesus chose to raise from the dead on Sunday (His fulfillment of the feast of First Fruits Romans 8:29), and 50 days later to come back in the form of the Holy Spirit to start HIS OWN NEW COVENANT AND CHURCH on Sunday, which was the anniversary of the giving of The Ten Commandments that are now written on our hearts by His blood - the cup being the sign of the New Covenant. (The Sabbath that pointed to Jesus as the Creator and hidden in the Old Covenant as its sign, was now constantly present and abiding in each follower by the blood of Jesus so that we can be like God with a divine nature.) Can't you see how absurd that accusation is and how untrue any of those accusations by Adventists are to any denomination, starting with the Roman Catholic Church? And another thing you've been taught - Constantine didn't have anything to do with choosing Sunday. It had already been established before Constantine was even born, and all Constantine did was stop the killing of Christians and made Christianity legal, instead of a death sentence. He also allowed Christian slaves to not have to work on Sunday. Those were good things. He didn't deserve the hatred I learned against him as a child. But even as a child I never bought into the sun worshiping accusation. Don't forget Saturn - just as absurd, to say nothing of bearing false witness. It hurts that you could be duped like that.

Galatians was written because Judaizers told them they had to keep all Jewish laws to be saved.

Galatians 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Jesus does not magically eliminate someone's capacity to sin upon conversion, because Paul spent a whole chapter in Romans describing his own struggle with sin after his conversion. According to your hilariously flawed logic, Paul was wrong, even though he was a handpicked apostle of God whose writings make up at least half of the NT. The sole fact that Paul had to rebuke the Galatians for returning to the pagan customs that they kept before their conversion alone proves your theology is a lie.

Who to you that rubbage that it describes him AFTER his conversion? It was under the Law of Moses as a Pharisee. Why can't you people read the whole chapter to see the context. In fact read 6, 7 and 8.

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

Who to you that rubbage that it describes him AFTER his conversion? It was under the Law of Moses as a Pharisee. Why can't you people read the whole chapter to see the context. In fact read 6, 7 and 8.

Paul made statements such as "i am sold under sin", "for what i am doing i don't understand", and "what i will to do, that i do not practice". You are trying to accuse me of taking his words out of context, but you lack the basic sense and the reading comprehension skills to realize Paul was using present tense verbs. A person does not use present tense verbs to describe past actions, as any English teacher would tell you.

It also makes no logical sense whatsoever to claim that Paul was simply alluding to his past as a Pharisee because Paul continued to identify himself as a Pharisee after his conversion:

"But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!” - Acts 23:6

As usual, you are confidently speaking about matters you don't understand. If Christians can't possibly sin, then explain John saying Christ is their Mediator when they sin, not if they sin. People who can't sin wouldn't logically need Christ to be a Mediator for them, would they?

So where, pray tell, is the logic in your assumption that Paul was incapable of sinning when Rom. 7:21 clearly shows Paul saying that the law of sin continued to exist in him? If the law of sin continued to exist in him as he clearly stated, that means Jesus didn't magically erase his capacity to sin, now did He?

 

[BarneyFife]

Without going into detail, while assuring you that I say this with all charity and good will, you seem to be both preaching to the choir here and, most likely, inadvertently erecting a straw man.

I don't believe temptation is sin, but I believe they are both very dangerous.

And I couldn't agree more that we are lousy at fully overcoming sin in the body. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it cannot be done. Allowing for the possibility of semantics getting in the way of agreement, fully overcoming sin can only be done in the Spirit! I do not mean in the commonly-held, Hellenistic, dualist ("I sin, but my spirit doesn't") sort of way but in the wholistic manner of Romans 8:1-17 and 1 Corinthians 9:27.

I do believe, however, that the last generation of saints alive at the coming of Jesus will have just previously reached the point where they would rather die than sin against God, and will be sealed by the words of Jesus:

Revelation 22:11 KJV: He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Revelation 22:12 KJV: And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

:)
.

@GEN2REV

I can't tell you how glad I am that you received this post in the spirit in which it was intended. That's become a problem around here lately. :)