#THE TEN COMMANDMENTS STILL STAND!
Susan Williams
non-Catholics should be exterminated, now expound upon the following
article using proof instead of Jesuit psychiatry:
Dear Sir:
After the new Christian Church was established, there appeared
immediately to be a conflict between the new Gentile converts and the
Jews. Among the controversies were the consecration of food to idols
and circumcision.
Since so much controversy was generated because of these subjects,
till it was indeed recorded in the Bible, can you please tell me why
the Jewish objection to the new Christians keeping Sunday (formerly a
pagan day) after the resurrection of Jesus cannot be found there?
I have not witnessed an answer for this yet.
Also, what is the meaning of these words in Matt. 5:17-19:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be
called great in the kingdom of heaven.
It was obvious that Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy.
. . . ." because people were thinking that that was part of His
mission: to destroy the law. And how so? In my estimation a law can be
destroyed when an authoritative person informs others that it is no
longer to be observed. What did Jesus do to make them think that? What
did Jesus do to make the Jews think that He was come to destroy the
law?
Most every time Jesus did something the Jews were apt to charge Him as
a sinner for had something to do with the Sabbath: For healing on the
Sabbath especially. The scripture therefore tells us that "till heaven
and earth pass" (have they passed sir?) "one jot or one tittle shall
in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."
Here however is an interesting question: how do you destroy a law? Is
this question too hard? Jesus said that He is not come to destroy, but
to fulfill. How do you therefore destroy a law?
Our commonsense tells us that to destroy a law, you have to declare
that it doesn't have to be kept. How likely is it therefore that the
scripture can be reworded to come out like the following:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law. I am not come to
destroy, but to tell all that they don't have to keep the law."
This may make sense to many, but I contend that this does not make
sense to God's people.
Ephesians even says:
Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with
promise; -- Eph. 6:2
We can see that the very words are quoted from the Ten
Commandments! Did we not think that the Law was finished? Why would
any of the Apostles quote from the Ten Commandments, when they are
supposed to be acting like so many today in preaching to all that it
is dangerous to keep the law? Do people today not tell us that to
fulfill a law means to destroy it? If you fulfilled the law of
insuring your vehicle, can you then uninsure it since that law is now
no longer in effect?
What therefore does the word "fulfill" mean? The scripture says that
not a jot or tittle--not a dotting of an "I" or a stroking of a "T"
shall be moved till all be fulfilled. Does the word "fulfilled" mean
to destroy or to take out of the way? If that is true, why does Jesus
then say, Whosoever THEREFORE . . . " (here meaning with reference to
what was just said before)
"shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so,
the same shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But
whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in
the kingdom of heaven."
It appears to me that the word "fulfilled" may have some meanings, but
the idea that it means that the law is no longer to be obeyed is quite
obviously ludicrous merely by the words that follow.
Jesus stated that the law is enforced till all be fulfilled. In order
to be crafty, folk are coming in telling us that EVERYTHING had been
fulfilled at the cross. They point to Christ's declaration, "It is
Finished!" on the cross as proof. Isn't it strange that earlier Christ
talked about a prophecy of Daniel in Matthew 24 that had not yet been
fulfilled and was not even till His death? Christ was prophecying
about the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem-something which took
place 40 years after the cross!
Many are also trying to tell us that the all things being fulfilled
that Christ talks about is referring to the very law itself. Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all (all the law) be fulfilled. They are saying
that the law was fulfilled at the death of Christ, and therefore His
statement "till heaven and earth pass" means not a thing.
According to them, Christ made that statement, "Till heaven and earth
pass" only to make sure that what Christ is then stating remains true
for only about a year or two till His death! Were those cataclysmic
words placed there just to guarantee that what Christ says remains
true for only a year or so? They are now therefore saying that Christ
didn't come to destroy the law, but only came that it might be
declared that we no longer have to keep it.
There are ways to see beyond this however, and we can start with the
parallel scripture to this one in order to show whether the
expression, "till all be fulfilled" is referring to the law itself or
is referring to everything involved in human history, including the
fulfillment of all prophecy.
Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one
tittle of the law to fail.
From this we have the expression of heaven and earth passing again and
we therefore have an eternal principle that shows the clear intention
of the Lord upon this matter.
Let's therefore now again take the specific language of the bible so
that we can understand what is happening here. The scripture tells us
that till heaven and earth pass, the law will be in effect. Did heaven
and earth pass at the cross? Did heaven and earth pass yet? The
scriptures tell us plainly how heaven and earth will pass. It says:
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the
which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements
shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are
therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner
of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein
the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall
melt with fervent heat? - 2 Pet. 3:10-12
Did these things happen yet? This is showing how heaven and earth will
pass away. Did this happen at the cross? Is Satan still alive
today? Are there prophecies which state that he shall be
destroyed? Are there prophecies relating to the Antichrist that have
not been fulfilled yet? What then did Christ mean when he stated that
the law will be in effect till all be fulfilled?
Even yet so, people are telling me however that those who break any of
the least of the commandments of God and teach men so would be in
heaven, but that they would just be called the least. Well if that was
true, according to the very wording it is saying thusly: Whosoever
shall contradict what I just said, will be called "the least" in
heaven. He will disobey and contradict me, but he will still be in
heaven anyway. ISN'T THAT WONDERFUL!!
Is there anyone who has an answer for this?
What I am asking for is very simple:
What is the likelihood that an issue such as circumcision (which can
be termed making a mountain out of something very small--if I can be
so facetious) can generate all the controversy, contention and
bitterness as it did in the days of the Apostolic Church, and yet a
much more cataclysmic issue such as a change in the day of worship, or
a change where there is no longer any day of worship since the
sacrifice of Christ, can generate all the silence as it obviously has
and as we can see for ourselves? We can see that today, this issue
generates much literature, bitterness, animosity, etc. What is the
likelihood that the issue of a day of worship which, unlike
circumcision, affects men, women, boys and girls, even strangers
within ones gates, can generate all the silence that it has?
Tis true, you may always remark that Adventists have been stating that
scriptural silence is not proof for anything. You must however
remember that you who have opposed them have always stated that
silence is much proof. Therefore, in the issues presented to you here
now, you have all the proof you would ever need!
When the Scribes and Pharisees brought Jesus before Annas the High
Priest, why is it that they had a hard time finding an accusation
against Him when any simpleton should have known that the Jewish
leaders could put anyone to death on a truthful charge of
sabbath-breaking? It is to my understanding that the Jewish leaders
had power to put people to death on the charge of sabbath-breaking
just so long as they received the sanction of the Roman
government. That was precisely the reason why they brought Jesus to
Pontius Pilate.
Again, another thought to consider:
In Acts chapter 25:8-10, Paul makes an interesting statement to
Festus. At that time it was stated that:
". . .the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and
laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not
prove." -- Acts 25
Here again, is this a marvellous demonstration of the intelligence of
the Jewish people? Why don't they save time and accuse him of being a
Sabbath-breaker. Were they really stupid here? Or was it true that
Christ did not offend by His disregard of the Sabbath. To do so would
be sin, and Christ did no sin. Under Jewish law and allowed by Roman
law, any Jew can be put to death under that charge! Lo and
behold! Apparently it is likely that charge was leveled against
Paul. Yet notice the very crucial statement Paul makes in the very
next verse:
Acts 25:8 While he [Paul] answered for himself, NEITHER AGAINST THE
LAW OF THE JEWS, NEITHER AGAINST THE TEMPLE, NOR YET AGAINST CAESAR,
HAVE I OFFENDED ANY THING AT ALL.
Yet this is not the most striking part of the quotation, for, in
today's movements fulfilling that great falling away which will give
rise to the new "Christ-centered" world leader we know as Antichrist,
most are telling us that they are actually keeping the law because it
is written in their hearts through Christ. So, according to what they
are telling us, they are like Paul. They are actually keeping the
law. It's just that no one can see it outwardly. Under that premise it
is to be understood that they can kill, murder, rape, etc. The law is
still written in their hearts, and though no one can see it outwardly,
it is a private fact inwardly between each individual and the Lord. In
this scheme of things, the inevitable result is always the same: we
actually find such people keeping every inch of the letter of the law
EXCEPT the Sabbath command. Such beating around the bush is necessary
instead of Paul plainly and outrightly coming out and telling us that
all of the Ten Commandments are still in force except the Sabbath
command.
Yet with this whole private in-the-heart tactic most used against the
truth, comes these very shattering words from Paul himself; for, after
he declared that he made no offense against the law of the Jews, the
record continues:
"But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and
said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these
things before me?
Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be
judged: TO THE JEWS HAVE I DONE NO WRONG, AS THOU VERY WELL KNOWEST."
-- Acts 25:9, 10
The problem here is that Paul stated to the heathen dignitary that he
was keeping the law, "AS THOU VERY WELL KNOWEST" meaning that the
dignitary could see for himself with his own eyes that Paul was
observing the law of the Jews.
The conclusion therefore is the following: The righteousness which
Christ gives is genuine: finding its way to the outward actions, and
indeed the entire being. This is confirmed by the Apostle John, who
states a message of warning to his people to prevent them from being
deceived in the way the people of today are being deceived by stating:
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness
is righteous, even as he is righteous." -- 1 John 3:7
It will therefore clearly not be a private matter between the believer
and Jesus, but all will see the good works and glorify the Father
which is in heaven. - Matt. 5:16.
Please answer this for me.
But how can you say Christ ordered us to observe everything written in
the law, and yet you don't keep the ritual law?
We are trying to show you that the term law, really means the entire
Old Testament. In it is contained the Ten Commandments, the ritual
law, the health principles given to the Jews, and even their civil
structure and procedures for war. The descriptions of events given in
the Old Testament modifies and shows situations where some of these
principles cannot be upheld.
Example? What about the principles "an eye for an eye and a tooth for
a tooth?" Must we follow that today or if not we sin? Why did Jesus
contradict that principle here:
Matt. 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye,
and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
How can Jesus tell us that every tittle of the Law, or Old Testament,
stands, and yet He contradicts a major practice of old times in the
law? Sounds like Christ is contradicting Himself here as Jesuits take
advantage of every opportunity they have to fight with us telling us
Ellen White contradicts herself.
The issue of an eye for an eye: why don't we carry that out today?
Well back in those days in the nation of Israel, there was no police
department. What is supposed to happen when someone does you wrong?
The Israelites were a theocracy where they were like a combination of
church and state. Such a combination cannot be attempted today because
the mystery of iniquity is now here with us. Just as soon as that is
attempted, the worst form of persecution and tyranny would follow
under a Christian agenda. But you yourselves can understand why that
principle of the eye for the eye and the tooth for the tooth cannot be
followed today and how it was not followed at times when Israel was in
captivity also.
When Israel went into captivity, they were subject to the nations that
conquered them. At times they could not conduct their principles. They
couldn't perform their rituals. Were they therefore sinning? Remember
Moses with Pharaoh who asked that his people be let go so that they
can sacrifice unto God. At that time and other times, did the Lord
count it a sin against them? Clearly the answer is no.
That's what we're talking about. Even the circumstances in the law, or
Old Testament, would show whether or not certain practices would
remain and others would not. At the time when the Children of Israel
were in bondage or captivity, could they keep their rituals? If not,
did they sin?
At the time of Christ, the Lord worked to acquire the repentance of
the Jewish people. Understanding that ultimately He will be rejected
by them, Christ spoke to Christians, giving them principles that will
match their circumstances. He will not gather them to war as when He
favored Israel as a nation anymore. He will scatter them to all
nations where they will be subject to the civil systems they will
encounter. Those systems will have law enforcement. Christ therefore
told them not to carry out the eye for the eye principle that was
reserved for the self-governing Israelites that went conquering all
nations. This is not saying that Christ is actually challenging the
practice as evil. The practice itself was according to circumstances.
A similar thing happened to the rituals. The rituals pointed to
Christ. Christ died and was The Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the
World! The rituals required appearing at the temple or sanctuary. Is
there one today? You couldn't make your own sanctuary. The Children of
Israel traveled together and were commanded to appear at one
sanctuary. Since those days, that sanctuary was destroyed. But that
sanctuary was also a moveable tabernacle in earlier times. The people
had to appear at that sanctuary! At the death of Christ, the veil of
the temple then built to an edifice was mysteriously torn from top to
bottom. You can see that those principles cannot be followed today!
Would "thou shalt not commit adultery remain always?" Obviously! What
about the prohibitions against lying, cheating and stealing? Do they
remain? Obvously! THOSE ARE MORAL COMMANDMENTS! That's what is meant
by every tittle of the Law, or Old Testament, does indeed stand even
though certain commandments given by God to the Israelites are not to
be followed today.
In His Grace,
Susan
bob
> Let those who have attacked me for exposing people telling us all
> non-Catholics should be exterminated, now expound upon the following
> article using proof instead of Jesuit psychiatry:
>
>
> Dear Sir:
>
> After the new Christian Church was established, there appeared
> immediately to be a conflict between the new Gentile converts and the
> Jews. Among the controversies were the consecration of food to idols
> and circumcision.
And keeping the law - Acts 15v5. The Jerusalem Council ruled that
at the very least, Gentiles did not have to be circumcised or keep
the law.
>
> Since so much controversy was generated because of these subjects,
> till it was indeed recorded in the Bible, can you please tell me why
> the Jewish objection to the new Christians keeping Sunday (formerly a
> pagan day) after the resurrection of Jesus cannot be found there?
The NT believers and apostles met together on many different days. Since
there is no prohibition in the law against people meeting together on
days apart from the sabbath (indeed the law commands one to stay at
home and rest on the sabbath) there is no contention.
>
> I have not witnessed an answer for this yet.
>
There is an answer.
> Also, what is the meaning of these words in Matt. 5:17-19:
>
>
>
> 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
> not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
> 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
> one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
> 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,
> and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
> heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be
> called great in the kingdom of heaven.
>
>
Jesus would fulfill the law by his death. He's saying until that time,
the law will remain fully in effect.
It obviously *cannot* mean that the mean that the 'moral law' will
remain forever and the other laws will pass away sometime after
his death.
>
>
>
> It was obvious that Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy.
> . . . ." because people were thinking that that was part of His
> mission: to destroy the law.
Yes. Actually it was the purpose of his death rather than his coming.
> And how so? In my estimation a law can be
> destroyed when an authoritative person informs others that it is no
> longer to be observed.
Someone like the Apostles being guided by the Holy Spirit you mean?
> What did Jesus do to make them think that?
He taught the Apostles, and guided them to their decisions. Also
he points out that the law eventually will pass away in Matt 5,
and points out the dietary laws will pass away in Mark.
> What
> did Jesus do to make the Jews think that He was come to destroy the
> law?
He kept disobeying, and going out of his way to disobey the 'oral law'.
The pharisees taught that this was given to moses at the same time as
the written law and was of equal or greater authority.
>
> Most every time Jesus did something the Jews were apt to charge Him as
> a sinner for had something to do with the Sabbath: For healing on the
> Sabbath especially. The scripture therefore tells us that "till heaven
> and earth pass" (have they passed sir?) "one jot or one tittle shall
> in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."
>
> Here however is an interesting question: how do you destroy a law?
There is no way that I can do it. God did it, or at least rendered
it inoperative. It is still serving a purpose of convicting people
who do not have faith yet.
> Is
> this question too hard?
No. Fairly basic Christianity 101 stuff really.
> Jesus said that He is not come to destroy, but
> to fulfill. How do you therefore destroy a law?
Isn't that the same question you just asked?
>
> Our commonsense tells us that to destroy a law, you have to declare
> that it doesn't have to be kept.
Like the apostles did at the Jerusalem Council, under the guidance
of the Holy Spirit and the Apostle Paul did over and over and over
again.
> How likely is it therefore that the
> scripture can be reworded to come out like the following:
>
>
>
> "Think not that I am come to destroy the law. I am not come to
> destroy, but to tell all that they don't have to keep the law."
>
No one but you seeks to reword scripture.
>
>
>
> This may make sense to many, but I contend that this does not make
> sense to God's people.
How would you know? Have you ever met any of God's people?
>
> Ephesians even says:
>
>
>
>
> Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with
> promise; -- Eph. 6:2
>
>
>
> We can see that the very words are quoted from the Ten
> Commandments! Did we not think that the Law was finished? Why would
> any of the Apostles quote from the Ten Commandments, when they are
> supposed to be acting like so many today in preaching to all that it
> is dangerous to keep the law? Do people today not tell us that to
> fulfill a law means to destroy it? If you fulfilled the law of
> insuring your vehicle, can you then uninsure it since that law is now
> no longer in effect?
Can you not quote from something that is no longer in effect? Can
one not also say that that command is still to be obeyed?
>
> What therefore does the word "fulfill" mean? The scripture says that
> not a jot or tittle--not a dotting of an "I" or a stroking of a "T"
> shall be moved till all be fulfilled. Does the word "fulfilled" mean
> to destroy or to take out of the way? If that is true, why does Jesus
> then say, Whosoever THEREFORE . . . " (here meaning with reference to
> what was just said before)
>
ok. I'm getting bored of this. This has been covered many times before.
It is *until* it is fulfilled. Thats a sequence of events. It does not
require fulfilled to mean done away with. Do you have a memory problem?
Susan Williams
>Susan Williams wrote:
>> Let those who have attacked me for exposing people telling us all
>> non-Catholics should be exterminated, now expound upon the following
>> article using proof instead of Jesuit psychiatry:
>>
>>
>> Dear Sir:
>>
>> After the new Christian Church was established, there appeared
>> immediately to be a conflict between the new Gentile converts and the
>> Jews. Among the controversies were the consecration of food to idols
>> and circumcision.
>
>And keeping the law - Acts 15v5. The Jerusalem Council ruled that
>at the very least, Gentiles did not have to be circumcised or keep
>the law.
They were dealing with requirements in contention with the new Jewish
Christians and not all the duties of a Christian. When Christ told
the Disciples to go into all the world teaching them whatsoever He had
revealed to them, the issues in Acts 15 were not discussed.
Plus, neither did Christ nor the Acts 15 council believe that all
non-Christians must die, nor in the End Justifies the Means as you
Jesuits do.
>> Since so much controversy was generated because of these subjects,
>> till it was indeed recorded in the Bible, can you please tell me why
>> the Jewish objection to the new Christians keeping Sunday (formerly a
>> pagan day) after the resurrection of Jesus cannot be found there?
>
>The NT believers and apostles met together on many different days. Since
>there is no prohibition in the law against people meeting together on
>days apart from the sabbath (indeed the law commands one to stay at
>home and rest on the sabbath) there is no contention.
This is a lie. If it was found even in the doctrine of the new
Christians that they were teaching there was no more Seventh-day
Sabbath, that would have caused contention. The new Christians were
calling the Jews out of the Jewish faith. Having different days of
worship equates with circumcision done in private? On private parts?
This Jesuit has lied again, but he is proud because he thinks that is
a sign of greater rewards in heaven.
>> I have not witnessed an answer for this yet.
>
>There is an answer.
But the problem is there is no answer. Just Jesuit priestcraft as
shown above.
>> Also, what is the meaning of these words in Matt. 5:17-19:
>> 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
>> not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
>> 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
>> one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
>> 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,
>> and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
>> heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be
>> called great in the kingdom of heaven.
>Jesus would fulfill the law by his death. He's saying until that time,
>the law will remain fully in effect.
In the Jesuit's book that is so. Christ did not make that cataclysmic
statement to expire a year in the future especially with the Jesuit
intentionally leaving out the proof since it doesn't exist anyway.
>It obviously *cannot* mean that the mean that the 'moral law' will
>remain forever and the other laws will pass away sometime after
>his death.
We didn't say that EVERY law now doesn't stand except those that are
moral, but on the website still we show what we mean. There is just a
statement above this reply without any accompanying proof. I've
talked with these Jesiuts about this psychiatrist habit of theirs, but
it is hopeless to reason with centuries killers.
>> It was obvious that Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy.
>> . . . ." because people were thinking that that was part of His
>> mission: to destroy the law.
>
>Yes. Actually it was the purpose of his death rather than his coming.
Actually that's not true just as it is not true all non-Catholics must
die and it is only proper to attack someone who sees others making
this claim as you do.
>> And how so? In my estimation a law can be
>> destroyed when an authoritative person informs others that it is no
>> longer to be observed.
>Someone like the Apostles being guided by the Holy Spirit you mean?
Yes, and the Apostles must not later claim that the everlasting
covernant is in the form of a will that no one can change after the
Testator dies.
>> What did Jesus do to make them think that?
>
>He taught the Apostles, and guided them to their decisions. Also
>he points out that the law eventually will pass away in Matt 5,
>and points out the dietary laws will pass away in Mark.
But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
>> What
>> did Jesus do to make the Jews think that He was come to destroy the
>> law?
>
>He kept disobeying, and going out of his way to disobey the 'oral law'.
>The pharisees taught that this was given to moses at the same time as
>the written law and was of equal or greater authority.
But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
Christ did not sin. He became a sacrifice for sin for us by going out
of His way to break the moral law?
We're displaying for you, dear readers, the horribleness of the
Jesuits.
>> Most every time Jesus did something the Jews were apt to charge Him as
>> a sinner for had something to do with the Sabbath: For healing on the
>> Sabbath especially. The scripture therefore tells us that "till heaven
>> and earth pass" (have they passed sir?) "one jot or one tittle shall
>> in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."
>>
>> Here however is an interesting question: how do you destroy a law?
>
>There is no way that I can do it. God did it, or at least rendered
>it inoperative.
But that didn't happen. It is not true. The Jesuit, as you can see,
is not too proud of his lie.
>It is still serving a purpose of convicting people
>who do not have faith yet.
But that didn't happen. It is not true. The Jesuit, as you can see,
is not too proud of his lie.
>> Is
>> this question too hard?
>
>No. Fairly basic Christianity 101 stuff really.
Alright then, if someone tells us all non-Catholics must die and
another gets upset at him for that, is it good common sense to attack
the one who is upset as you do?
>> Jesus said that He is not come to destroy, but
>> to fulfill. How do you therefore destroy a law?
>
>Isn't that the same question you just asked?
Like why do you people see your friends saying all non-Catholics must
die but you only attack those who are upset about it? I see you
notice when questions are asked and WERE asked!
>> Our commonsense tells us that to destroy a law, you have to declare
>> that it doesn't have to be kept.
>
>Like the apostles did at the Jerusalem Council, under the guidance
>of the Holy Spirit and the Apostle Paul did over and over and over
>again.
But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
>> How likely is it therefore that the
>> scripture can be reworded to come out like the following:
>>
>> "Think not that I am come to destroy the law. I am not come to
>> destroy, but to tell all that they don't have to keep the law."
>No one but you seeks to reword scripture.
What is the rewording? What does it take to destroy a law?
Would others who believe all non-Catholics must die as you do come to
the same conclusion?
>> This may make sense to many, but I contend that this does not make
>> sense to God's people.
>
>How would you know? Have you ever met any of God's people?
Well I believe all non-Catholics should live. Would you know I have
not met any of God's people since you don't believe this?
Off topic.
>> Ephesians even says:
>>
>> Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with
>> promise; -- Eph. 6:2
>> We can see that the very words are quoted from the Ten
>> Commandments! Did we not think that the Law was finished? Why would
>> any of the Apostles quote from the Ten Commandments, when they are
>> supposed to be acting like so many today in preaching to all that it
>> is dangerous to keep the law? Do people today not tell us that to
>> fulfill a law means to destroy it? If you fulfilled the law of
>> insuring your vehicle, can you then uninsure it since that law is now
>> no longer in effect?
>
>Can you not quote from something that is no longer in effect? Can
>one not also say that that command is still to be obeyed?
In the statement above, as the Jesuit knows, Paul is exhorting the
people to obey. If it is not to be obeyed, Paul should join these
Jesuits and make sure right after to tell them what he just quoted
should not be obeyed.
>> What therefore does the word "fulfill" mean? The scripture says that
>> not a jot or tittle--not a dotting of an "I" or a stroking of a "T"
>> shall be moved till all be fulfilled. Does the word "fulfilled" mean
>> to destroy or to take out of the way? If that is true, why does Jesus
>> then say, Whosoever THEREFORE . . . " (here meaning with reference to
>> what was just said before)
>>
>
>ok. I'm getting bored of this.
Since when do Jesuits get bored when their enemies provide evidence
they can't overthrow?
>This has been covered many times before.
OH GOOD! Since we have not received answer from you yet whether or
not if people tell us all non-Catholics must die, and others are upset
about it, we must attack the others. You still keep trailing my posts
though!
>It is *until* it is fulfilled. Thats a sequence of events. It does not
>require fulfilled to mean done away with. Do you have a memory problem?
But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
Naturally, as for centuries, you would know who has cerebral problems!
In His Grace,
Susan
Todd R Jerabek
correct in regard to netiquette.
Please stop.
duke
wrote:
My suggestion is that you reduce your post to 10 lines, 1 subject. I tried to read it and
quickly lost interest.
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
Susan Williams
>On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 13:13:37 -0500, Susan Williams <SWilliams...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>My suggestion is that you reduce your post to 10 lines, 1 subject. I tried to read it and
>quickly lost interest.
Why should I listen to that suggestion when professional deceivers
trail my posts to no end? That is not done because they don't
understand or are bored with what I'm saying. It does differ with
their thinking.
In His Grace,
Susan
deluxe
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:16:43 +0000 (UTC), bob <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Susan Williams wrote:
>>
>>>Let those who have attacked me for exposing people telling us all
>>>non-Catholics should be exterminated, now expound upon the following
>>>article using proof instead of Jesuit psychiatry:
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear Sir:
>>>
>>>After the new Christian Church was established, there appeared
>>>immediately to be a conflict between the new Gentile converts and the
>>>Jews. Among the controversies were the consecration of food to idols
>>>and circumcision.
>>
>>And keeping the law - Acts 15v5. The Jerusalem Council ruled that
>>at the very least, Gentiles did not have to be circumcised or keep
>>the law.
>
>
> They were dealing with requirements in contention with the new Jewish
> Christians and not all the duties of a Christian.
We are told precisely what they are dealing with:
Acts 15v5:
"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed,
saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep
the law of Moses."
They are not talking about new Jewish Christians. They
are talking about Gentile Christians. Jewish Christians
would have been circumcised already.
It is true they are not dealing with *all* duties of a Christian.
They are deciding whether it is the duty of Gentile Christians
to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses.
> When Christ told
> the Disciples to go into all the world teaching them whatsoever He had
> revealed to them, the issues in Acts 15 were not discussed.
That's true. Christ did not discuss everything that would happen
and all the rulings and decisions and experiences that the
apostles would have whilst he was physically present on earth.
Note that the decision of the Jerusalem Council seemed good
to the Holy Spirit.
>
> Plus, neither did Christ nor the Acts 15 council believe that all
> non-Christians must die, nor in the End Justifies the Means as you
> Jesuits do.
I do not believe all non-Christians must die.
I do not believe the end justifies the means.
>
>
>>>Since so much controversy was generated because of these subjects,
>>>till it was indeed recorded in the Bible, can you please tell me why
>>>the Jewish objection to the new Christians keeping Sunday (formerly a
>>>pagan day) after the resurrection of Jesus cannot be found there?
>>
>>The NT believers and apostles met together on many different days. Since
>>there is no prohibition in the law against people meeting together on
>>days apart from the sabbath (indeed the law commands one to stay at
>>home and rest on the sabbath) there is no contention.
>
>
> This is a lie.
Which bit is a lie? The statement that NT believers and apostles met
together on many days, or that there is no prohibition in the law
against people meeting together on days other than the sabbath?
> If it was found even in the doctrine of the new
> Christians that they were teaching there was no more Seventh-day
> Sabbath, that would have caused contention.
1) No one taught "there was no more Seventh day sabbath".
That's a different statement to whether it was obligatory
for believers to rest on the sabbath.
2) It's much less likely there would be a contention if
Gentiles sometimes rested on the sabbath, and didn't
say the Jews shouldn't rest on the sabbath. There is
nothing in Christian doctrine saying there is anything
wrong with resting on the sabbath!
3) Even if there were contention on this matter, that doesnt
mean that God considered it important enough to mention
in scripture.
4) The contention you are looking for *is there* in Acts 15.
The Jerusalem Council considered the issue of whether or
not it was needful for Gentiles to keep the law. That
would include resting on the sabbath. They concluded that
it was not needful. The Jewish Christian leaders gave a
decision on the matter, and made no attempt to prevent
Jews resting on the sabbath.
> The new Christians were
> calling the Jews out of the Jewish faith.
No. It was only around 80-90 AD that Jewish Christians
were forced out of Judaism by changes to the worship
service instituted by the rabbis.
You can even see that Christians were not calling Jews
out of the Jewish faith in the verse we are discussing:
Acts 15v5:
"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees
who believed..."
The Pharisees were a sect of Judaism. AND they were
believers. Luke sees no contradiction in writing that.
> Having different days of
> worship equates with circumcision done in private? On private parts?
No one said it did.
>
> This Jesuit has lied again, but he is proud because he thinks that is
> a sign of greater rewards in heaven.
>
???????
>
>>>I have not witnessed an answer for this yet.
>>
>>There is an answer.
>
>
> But the problem is there is no answer. Just Jesuit priestcraft as
> shown above.
>
>
>>>Also, what is the meaning of these words in Matt. 5:17-19:
>
>
>>>17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
>>>not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
>>>18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
>>>one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
>>>19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,
>>>and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
>>>heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be
>>>called great in the kingdom of heaven.
>
>
>>Jesus would fulfill the law by his death. He's saying until that time,
>>the law will remain fully in effect.
>
>
> In the Jesuit's book that is so. Christ did not make that cataclysmic
> statement to expire a year in the future especially with the Jesuit
> intentionally leaving out the proof since it doesn't exist anyway.
Romans 10v4: "For Christ is the end (telos - termination) of
the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth"
>
>
>>It obviously *cannot* mean that the mean that the 'moral law' will
>>remain forever and the other laws will pass away sometime after
>>his death.
>
>
> We didn't say that EVERY law now doesn't stand except those that are
> moral, but on the website still we show what we mean.
There is *no* way you can honestly render 'not a jot or tittle' and
'the least of these commandments. To refer to anything apart from
the whole law. To make it refer to a subset of the whole law
renders the verse meaningless. And it you who are trying to
prove something with Matt 5. Is the only way you can do it
to render the verse meaningless???
> There is just a
> statement above this reply without any accompanying proof.
It's unclear to me which statement you are referring to.
Please make that clear.
> I've
> talked with these Jesiuts about this psychiatrist habit of theirs, but
> it is hopeless to reason with centuries killers.
>
>
>>>It was obvious that Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy.
>>>. . . ." because people were thinking that that was part of His
>>>mission: to destroy the law.
>>
>>Yes. Actually it was the purpose of his death rather than his coming.
>
>
> Actually that's not true
Ephesisans 2v14-16:
"For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down
the middle wall of partition, 15having abolished in his
flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained
in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the
two one new man, so making peace; 16and might reconcile
them both in one body unto God through the cross, having
slain the enmity thereby:"
Christ, through the cross reconciled both Jew and Gentile
into one body by abolishing in his flesh the thing that
seperated them. The law.
> just as it is not true all non-Catholics must
> die and it is only proper to attack someone who sees others making
> this claim as you do.
>
>
>>>And how so? In my estimation a law can be
>>>destroyed when an authoritative person informs others that it is no
>>>longer to be observed.
>
>
>>Someone like the Apostles being guided by the Holy Spirit you mean?
>
>
> Yes, and the Apostles must not later claim that the everlasting
> covernant is in the form of a will that no one can change after the
> Testator dies.
? No one has tried to change it. I take it when you say 'everlasting
covenant' here you are refering to the New Covenant.
>
>
>>>What did Jesus do to make them think that?
>>
>>He taught the Apostles, and guided them to their decisions. Also
>>he points out that the law eventually will pass away in Matt 5,
>>and points out the dietary laws will pass away in Mark.
>
>
> But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
> tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
> for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
>
You seem to have forgotten to attach your answer to your standard
rant.
>
>>>What
>>>did Jesus do to make the Jews think that He was come to destroy the
>>>law?
>>
>>He kept disobeying, and going out of his way to disobey the 'oral law'.
>>The pharisees taught that this was given to moses at the same time as
>>the written law and was of equal or greater authority.
>
>
> But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
> tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
> for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
This seems to be a cut and paste of your standard rant from above.
>
> Christ did not sin. He became a sacrifice for sin for us by going out
> of His way to break the moral law?
In no way did Christ break the law (or whatever you mean by 'the moral
law'). He did go out of his way to break what the Pharisees called the
'oral law' or the mishna.
>
> We're displaying for you, dear readers, the horribleness of the
> Jesuits.
?
>
>
>>>Most every time Jesus did something the Jews were apt to charge Him as
>>>a sinner for had something to do with the Sabbath: For healing on the
>>>Sabbath especially. The scripture therefore tells us that "till heaven
>>>and earth pass" (have they passed sir?) "one jot or one tittle shall
>>>in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."
>>>
>>>Here however is an interesting question: how do you destroy a law?
>>
>>There is no way that I can do it. God did it, or at least rendered
>>it inoperative.
>
>
> But that didn't happen. It is not true. The Jesuit, as you can see,
> is not too proud of his lie.
>
2 Corinthians 3v6-11:
"who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant;
not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth,
but the spirit giveth life. [7] But if the ministration of
death, written, and engraven on stones, came with glory, so
that the children of Israel could not look stedfastly upon
the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory
was passing away: [8] how shall not rather the ministration
of the spirit be with glory? [9] For if the ministration of
condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration
of righteousness exceed in glory. [10] For verily that which
hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this
respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. [11] For if
that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which
remaineth is in glory."
The word rendered 'passeth away' here is the greek 'katargeo'
meaning "to render inoperative".
>
>>It is still serving a purpose of convicting people
>>who do not have faith yet.
>
>
> But that didn't happen. It is not true. The Jesuit, as you can see,
> is not too proud of his lie.
You seem to have cut and pasted this from above.
>
>
>>>Is
>>>this question too hard?
>>
>>No. Fairly basic Christianity 101 stuff really.
>
>
> Alright then, if someone tells us all non-Catholics must die and
> another gets upset at him for that, is it good common sense to attack
> the one who is upset as you do?
I'm attacking no one. I want to talk about theology.
I just wish you'd stick to the bible.
>
>
>>>Jesus said that He is not come to destroy, but
>>>to fulfill. How do you therefore destroy a law?
>>
>>Isn't that the same question you just asked?
>
>
> Like why do you people see your friends saying all non-Catholics must
> die but you only attack those who are upset about it? I see you
> notice when questions are asked and WERE asked!
>
>
>>>Our commonsense tells us that to destroy a law, you have to declare
>>>that it doesn't have to be kept.
>>
>>Like the apostles did at the Jerusalem Council, under the guidance
>>of the Holy Spirit and the Apostle Paul did over and over and over
>>again.
>
>
> But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
> tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
> for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
>
Well talk about where my exegesis is wrong rather than just going
back to your standard rant.
>
>>>How likely is it therefore that the
>>>scripture can be reworded to come out like the following:
>>>
>>>"Think not that I am come to destroy the law. I am not come to
>>>destroy, but to tell all that they don't have to keep the law."
>
>
>>No one but you seeks to reword scripture.
>
>
> What is the rewording? What does it take to destroy a law?
>
I'm happy with the text as it stands. You seem to want to change
'not a jot or a tittle' to '50 percent of the law'.
The fact that Paul exhorts people not to murder and to honour their
parents does not mean that we are still under the law. Paul explicitly
says that neither we, nor he are under the law.
>
>
>>>What therefore does the word "fulfill" mean? The scripture says that
>>>not a jot or tittle--not a dotting of an "I" or a stroking of a "T"
>>>shall be moved till all be fulfilled. Does the word "fulfilled" mean
>>>to destroy or to take out of the way? If that is true, why does Jesus
>>>then say, Whosoever THEREFORE . . . " (here meaning with reference to
>>>what was just said before)
>>>
>>
>>ok. I'm getting bored of this.
>
>
> Since when do Jesuits get bored when their enemies provide evidence
> they can't overthrow?
>
>
>>This has been covered many times before.
>
>
> OH GOOD! Since we have not received answer from you yet whether or
> not if people tell us all non-Catholics must die, and others are upset
> about it, we must attack the others. You still keep trailing my posts
> though!
>
>
>>It is *until* it is fulfilled. Thats a sequence of events. It does not
>>require fulfilled to mean done away with. Do you have a memory problem?
>
>
> But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
> tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
> for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
You're saying that the statement "A won't happen till B" is not making
a statement about a sequence of events?
>
> Naturally, as for centuries, you would know who has cerebral problems!
I think we both know that Susan. So does google.
>
> In His Grace,
>
> Susan
Susan Williams
wrote:
>Susan Williams wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:16:43 +0000 (UTC), bob <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Susan Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>>Let those who have attacked me for exposing people telling us all
>>>>non-Catholics should be exterminated, now expound upon the following
>>>>article using proof instead of Jesuit psychiatry:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dear Sir:
>>>>
>>>>After the new Christian Church was established, there appeared
>>>>immediately to be a conflict between the new Gentile converts and the
>>>>Jews. Among the controversies were the consecration of food to idols
>>>>and circumcision.
>>>
>>>And keeping the law - Acts 15v5. The Jerusalem Council ruled that
>>>at the very least, Gentiles did not have to be circumcised or keep
>>>the law.
>>
>>
>> They were dealing with requirements in contention with the new Jewish
>> Christians and not all the duties of a Christian.
>
>We are told precisely what they are dealing with:
>
>Acts 15v5:
>"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed,
>saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep
>the law of Moses."
Just the term circumcise, shows the discussion was upon issues that
caused contention between Jew and Gentile.
Romans 20 shows that the true religion of Christ was Jewish and that
the Gentiles were grafted in among them. Circumcision was a sign
given by God between Himself and the Jews. Abraham, however, was not
circumcised.
So Christ told His disciples what was required for the Christian, His
life being witness since the Disciples were with him. Christ said in
Matt. 28 for them to go into all the world, teaching all things that
he has commanded.
I need to help out Jesuit Deluxe. Man, it's hard work! Didn't even
convince him yet that non-Catholics should live!
>They are not talking about new Jewish Christians. They
>are talking about Gentile Christians. Jewish Christians
>would have been circumcised already.
>
>>It is true they are not dealing with *all* duties of a Christian.
>>They are deciding whether it is the duty of Gentile Christians
>>to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses.
>
>> When Christ told
>> the Disciples to go into all the world teaching them whatsoever He had
>> revealed to them, the issues in Acts 15 were not discussed.
>
>That's true. Christ did not discuss everything that would happen
>and all the rulings and decisions and experiences that the
>apostles would have whilst he was physically present on earth.
Christ didn't need to. They had the scriptures. Christ constantly
directed his followers there.
>Note that the decision of the Jerusalem Council seemed good
>to the Holy Spirit.
Did the Holy Spirit teach you yet, Jesuit Deluxe, that non-Catholics
should live?
Why would your twisting of the decision of the Jerusalem Council be
good, when Paul himself wrote and declared of the new covenant, that
after the Testator dies, nothing can be added or subtracted from it?
http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com/Covenants.htm
>> Plus, neither did Christ nor the Acts 15 council believe that all
>> non-Christians must die, nor in the End Justifies the Means as you
>> Jesuits do.
>
>I do not believe all non-Christians must die.
>I do not believe the end justifies the means.
But why do you believe all non-Catholics must die? Why did you see me
post your friends telling us all non-Catholics must die, and you only
attack us for it and will not even comment about their words of death?
Why do Jesuits like you always lie? What would you be without it?
What would happen if your kid at his birthday party which you missed,
wished over his birthday cake that for just one day all you Jesuits
cannot tell a lie?
>>>>Since so much controversy was generated because of these subjects,
>>>>till it was indeed recorded in the Bible, can you please tell me why
>>>>the Jewish objection to the new Christians keeping Sunday (formerly a
>>>>pagan day) after the resurrection of Jesus cannot be found there?
>>>
>>>The NT believers and apostles met together on many different days. Since
>>>there is no prohibition in the law against people meeting together on
>>>days apart from the sabbath (indeed the law commands one to stay at
>>>home and rest on the sabbath) there is no contention.
>>
>> This is a lie.
>
>Which bit is a lie? The statement that NT believers and apostles met
>together on many days, or that there is no prohibition in the law
>against people meeting together on days other than the sabbath?
No one is talking about worship any day. I can worship any day.
Worshipping on Sunday and calling it "The Lord's Day," is not
worshipping on any day. This Jesuit is so slick! Still yet only
attack us who exposed his friends telling us all non-Catholics must
die.
>> If it was found even in the doctrine of the new
>> Christians that they were teaching there was no more Seventh-day
>> Sabbath, that would have caused contention.
>
>1) No one taught "there was no more Seventh day sabbath".
> That's a different statement to whether it was obligatory
> for believers to rest on the sabbath.
This is different from what others of the "Lord's Day" ITES were
saying. Naturally in the wrong, there are many different ways to
express the lie. Others supporting "The Lord's Day" as Sunday have
told us there is no more Sabbath day on the Seventh-day.
Christians tell us how the Apostles changed the day merely by
worshipping on Sunday. What happened when they had worship on
Wednesday?
>2) It's much less likely there would be a contention if
> Gentiles sometimes rested on the sabbath, and didn't
> say the Jews shouldn't rest on the sabbath. There is
> nothing in Christian doctrine saying there is anything
> wrong with resting on the sabbath!
They say, "WE REST ON 'THE LORD'S DAY' to comemorate the ressurection
of our Lord." In the word "REST" they are mimicking the actual
command that was instituted for the Seventh-day, even saying that the
Lord's Day (as Sunday) replaces the commanded day of rest.
>3) Even if there were contention on this matter, that doesnt
> mean that God considered it important enough to mention
> in scripture.
It was written on record by the Apostles. The Jesuit says that God
thought circumcision was important, but the actual day of rest was
not. This contention we are talking about is even in recorded Jewish
History. They also forgot to write about the change of the day of
worship even in a secular sense!
It's hard to debate with Jesuits who still don't understand that all
non-Catholics should live!
>4) The contention you are looking for *is there* in Acts 15.
> The Jerusalem Council considered the issue of whether or
> not it was needful for Gentiles to keep the law. That
> would include resting on the sabbath. They concluded that
> it was not needful. The Jewish Christian leaders gave a
> decision on the matter, and made no attempt to prevent
> Jews resting on the sabbath.
But all non-Catholics must live, and therefore if someone posts they
must die, why would Jesuit Deluxe only attack those who oppose and
expose the motion:?
CHRIST, not Paul, told His followers that till heaven and earth pass,
not a jot or tittle shall pass from the law. Whosoever Apostle or
Jerusalem council shall break these least commandments and shall teach
men so, he shall be called least and shall not enter into heaven.
Matt. 5:17-19.
>> The new Christians were
>> calling the Jews out of the Jewish faith.
>
>No. It was only around 80-90 AD that Jewish Christians
>were forced out of Judaism by changes to the worship
>service instituted by the rabbis.
Fine, but the new Christians were calling the Jews out of the Jewish
Faith. They talked about Christ, whom the Sanhedrin leaders killed.
>You can even see that Christians were not calling Jews
>out of the Jewish faith in the verse we are discussing:
>
>Acts 15v5:
>"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees
>who believed..."
>
>The Pharisees were a sect of Judaism. AND they were
>believers. Luke sees no contradiction in writing that.
Will you stop speaking for people, Jesuit! The Pharisees, though
Jews, put their two cents in the matter because the new Christians
were constantly "disputing" with them. The new Christians were
winning the arguments, but the Pharisees endeavored to hold on to
their own.
Still, all non-Catholics should live. I have sense enough to object to
and oppose anyone who says they must die. You have sense enough to
attack anyone who exposes others writing things like that on the
newsgroups.
>> Having different days of
>> worship equates with circumcision done in private? On private parts?
>
>No one said it did.
Jesuit said they weren't together or clearly seen, therefore no
contention. Circumcision is done only once in the life of a man.
That caused contention. The Jesuits tell us the day of worship has
changed. Where was the contention for this even in historical Jewish
literature?
>> This Jesuit has lied again, but he is proud because he thinks that is
>> a sign of greater rewards in heaven.
>
>???????
The Jesuit Oath you keep. Makes you only attack people who expose
your friends telling us all non-Catholics must die.
>>>>I have not witnessed an answer for this yet.
>>>
>>>There is an answer.
Jesuits always have answers, but they never answer.
>> But the problem is there is no answer. Just Jesuit priestcraft as
>> shown above.
>>
>>>>Also, what is the meaning of these words in Matt. 5:17-19:
>>
>>>>17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
>>>>not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
>>>>18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
>>>>one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
>>>>19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,
>>>>and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
>>>>heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be
>>>>called great in the kingdom of heaven.
>>
>>>Jesus would fulfill the law by his death. He's saying until that time,
>>>the law will remain fully in effect.
Jesus did not say till his death. Jesuit did!
Christ did not say those eternal words to last a year. In Jesuit land
He did, and we still cannot teach you to only attack people who post
that all non-Catholics must die. Your logic is to only attack those
who expose people doing this.
>> In the Jesuit's book that is so. Christ did not make that cataclysmic
>> statement to expire a year in the future especially with the Jesuit
>> intentionally leaving out the proof since it doesn't exist anyway.
>
>Romans 10v4: "For Christ is the end (telos - termination) of
>the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth"
Matt. 5:17-19:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am
not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Jesuit believes that fulfilling means "termination", but doesn't mean
destroy!
>>>It obviously *cannot* mean that the mean that the 'moral law' will
>>>remain forever and the other laws will pass away sometime after
>>>his death.
>>
>> We didn't say that EVERY law now doesn't stand except those that are
>> moral, but on the website still we show what we mean.
>
>There is *no* way you can honestly render 'not a jot or tittle' and
>'the least of these commandments. To refer to anything apart from
>the whole law. To make it refer to a subset of the whole law
>renders the verse meaningless. And it you who are trying to
>prove something with Matt 5. Is the only way you can do it
>to render the verse meaningless???
BUT JESUIT I BELIEVE ALL NON-CATHOLICS SHOULD LIVE! People wrote that
they should die. I was upset with them for writing it. You attacked
me for exposing it and opposing it.
The law is the Old Testament. That volume itself shows that under
conditions certain laws stand and others don't. It's explained on the
website: http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com/Matthew5.html
The example of Christ Himself telling us the "eye for an eye" and
"tooth for a tooth" principle found in the law no longer stands.
>> There is just a
>> statement above this reply without any accompanying proof.
>
>It's unclear to me which statement you are referring to.
>Please make that clear.
You mean that all non-Catholics should live and that it is sensible in
case someone writes differently that we should attack that person and
not those who alert others about this as you did?
>> I've
>> talked with these Jesiuts about this psychiatrist habit of theirs, but
>> it is hopeless to reason with centuries killers.
>>
>>>>It was obvious that Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy.
>>>>. . . ." because people were thinking that that was part of His
>>>>mission: to destroy the law.
>>>
>>>Yes. Actually it was the purpose of his death rather than his coming.
Jesus said he came to bind up the broken-hearted and set at liberty
those that are bound. That's the purpose of His coming, and then when
He died, they went back into captivity, Jesuit?
The Jesuit blasphemed. Christ said He didn't come to destroy the law,
but "till heaven and earth pass"... The Jesuit says it was his death
that was to destroy the law.
>> Actually that's not true
>
>Ephesisans 2v14-16:
>
>"For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down
>the middle wall of partition, 15having abolished in his
>flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained
>in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the
>two one new man, so making peace; 16and might reconcile
>them both in one body unto God through the cross, having
>slain the enmity thereby:"
I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill. For verily I say
unto you, till heaven and earth pass...
Just as clear to me as the fact that all non-Catholics should live,
and only Jesuits would attack those who scold others for writing the
opposite.
>Christ, through the cross reconciled both Jew and Gentile
>into one body by abolishing in his flesh the thing that
>seperated them. The law.
It says law and commandments "contained in ordinances." Rituals.
The nature of the rituals, pointing to Christ, shows this can be done.
Still Christ gave Matt. 5:17-19. You need something very powerful and
lost to contradict this. Enter the Jesuits who only attack people
upset that their friends posted how all non-Catholics must die.
>> just as it is not true all non-Catholics must
>> die and it is only proper to attack someone who sees others making
>> this claim as you do.
>>
>>>>And how so? In my estimation a law can be
>>>>destroyed when an authoritative person informs others that it is no
>>>>longer to be observed.
>>
>>>Someone like the Apostles being guided by the Holy Spirit you mean?
After Christ told us till heaven and earth pass it will not be? After
Christ said they were not to think that he has come to destroy the
law? Since when did the Holy Spirit become a Jesuit rebel. Does He
also only attack people who expose your friends telling us all
non-Catholics must die?
>> Yes, and the Apostles must not later claim that the everlasting
>> covernant is in the form of a will that no one can change after the
>> Testator dies.
>
>? No one has tried to change it. I take it when you say 'everlasting
>covenant' here you are refering to the New Covenant.
The Jesuit tells us the Jerusalem council got together and abolished
certain things.
>>>>What did Jesus do to make them think that?
>>>
>>>He taught the Apostles, and guided them to their decisions. Also
>>>he points out that the law eventually will pass away in Matt 5,
>>>and points out the dietary laws will pass away in Mark.
But He didn't do that at all. Christ said till heaven and earth pass,
nothing will change in the law.
The Jesuit is speaking in that lie above. Christ didn't tell us that
if a Jesuit posts on the newsgroups that all non-Catholics must die,
we must only attack those who are upset about this as Jesuit Deluxe.,
>> But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
>> tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
>> for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
>
>You seem to have forgotten to attach your answer to your standard
>rant.
You have not forgotten to be a Jesuit. I reason as a human being, not
a sub-animal Jesuit like you who only attacks people upset that your
friends told us all non-Catholics must die. What reasoning powers and
capabilities for deception do you also have then?
>>>>What
>>>>did Jesus do to make the Jews think that He was come to destroy the
>>>>law?
>>>
>>>He kept disobeying, and going out of his way to disobey the 'oral law'.
>>>The pharisees taught that this was given to moses at the same time as
>>>the written law and was of equal or greater authority.
>>
>> But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
>> tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
>> for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
The Jesuit didn't answer the question as to how the sacrifice for sin,
without blemish to stand in my place, went out of his way to sin.
Standard or wild blasphemy is nothing to a Jesuit!
>This seems to be a cut and paste of your standard rant from above.
Your cult has not changed for centuries! Since your friends told us
all non-Catholics must die, and our objection to it has sparked your
attacks, can you tell us when your Antichrist will ever finally
change?
>> Christ did not sin. He became a sacrifice for sin for us by going out
>> of His way to break the moral law?
>
>In no way did Christ break the law (or whatever you mean by 'the moral
>law'). He did go out of his way to break what the Pharisees called the
>'oral law' or the mishna.
Adventists are talking about the precepts of the scriptures. Matthew
5 is not talking about what this Jesuit is using to deceive us here.
>> We're displaying for you, dear readers, the horribleness of the
>> Jesuits.
>
>?
>>>>Most every time Jesus did something the Jews were apt to charge Him as
>>>>a sinner for had something to do with the Sabbath: For healing on the
>>>>Sabbath especially. The scripture therefore tells us that "till heaven
>>>>and earth pass" (have they passed sir?) "one jot or one tittle shall
>>>>in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."
>>>>
>>>>Here however is an interesting question: how do you destroy a law?
>>>
>>>There is no way that I can do it. God did it, or at least rendered
>>>it inoperative.
Matt. 5:17-19 says exactly the opposite. Have Jesuit brains screwed
like this and would I be surprised that Jesuit Deluxe, witnessing his
friends posting that all non-Catholics must die, only attacks those
who are upset about this?
>> But that didn't happen. It is not true. The Jesuit, as you can see,
>> is not too proud of his lie.
>
>2 Corinthians 3v6-11:
>
>"who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant;
>not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth,
>but the spirit giveth life.
No specific reference here, but there is a warning about wresting the
meaning of Paul's writings. He is talking about the precepts of the
law being on the stone only and not written in the heart.
Paul does not take away from Christ's clear statement in Matt. 5:17-19
no matter what the Jesuit says.
>[7] But if the ministration of
>death, written, and engraven on stones, came with glory, so
>that the children of Israel could not look stedfastly upon
>the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory
>was passing away: [8] how shall not rather the ministration
>of the spirit be with glory?
These are again Paul's writings being wrested as 2 Pet. warns about.
Quiite different from other biblical statements showing even in Psalms
that the law of the Lord is perfect, CONVERTING THE SOUL."
The ministration of the law on Sinai came with glory, BUT IT ALSO CAME
WITH DEATH BECAUSE THE ONLOOKERS WERE SINFUL.
Moses face shown with glory for a time being in the direct presence of
God. There was no alienation nor hostility with Moses and the Lord,
who spoke face to face. Moses kept the law.
>[9] For if the ministration of
>condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration
>of righteousness exceed in glory. [10] For verily that which
>hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this
>respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. [11] For if
>that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which
>remaineth is in glory."
>
>The word rendered 'passeth away' here is the greek 'katargeo'
>meaning "to render inoperative".
When the law was presented on Sinai, the glory therewith did not
remain forever. Nothing is glowing in the same area even now.
Neither did Moses face shine forever.
>>>It is still serving a purpose of convicting people
>>>who do not have faith yet.
Doesn't say the Law only convicts people who don't have faith. All
the language says that the Law speaks against all WHO BREAK IT.
>> But that didn't happen. It is not true. The Jesuit, as you can see,
>> is not too proud of his lie.
>
>You seem to have cut and pasted this from above.
Did your cult change yet? Can non-Catholics live to inspire you to
challenge anyone saying they must die, instead of those upset about
such?
>>>>Is
>>>>this question too hard?
>>>
>>>No. Fairly basic Christianity 101 stuff really.
Should non-Catholics live? If your friends say they must die, as they
did, should Christians copy you by only attacking those who are upset
about it?
>> Alright then, if someone tells us all non-Catholics must die and
>> another gets upset at him for that, is it good common sense to attack
>> the one who is upset as you do?
>
>I'm attacking no one. I want to talk about theology.
>I just wish you'd stick to the bible.
I DON'T CARE. I HAVE COMMON SENSE. You want to just stick to bible
because you support your friends telling us all non-Catholics must
die! You only attacked us who exposed it.
When we exposed your friends posting that non-Catholics must die, you
didn't just stick to theology. YOU ATTACKED US.
>>>>Jesus said that He is not come to destroy, but
>>>>to fulfill. How do you therefore destroy a law?
>>>
>>>Isn't that the same question you just asked?
>>
>> Like why do you people see your friends saying all non-Catholics must
>> die but you only attack those who are upset about it? I see you
>> notice when questions are asked and WERE asked!
>>
>>>>Our commonsense tells us that to destroy a law, you have to declare
>>>>that it doesn't have to be kept.
>>>
>>>Like the apostles did at the Jerusalem Council, under the guidance
>>>of the Holy Spirit and the Apostle Paul did over and over and over
>>>again.
>>
>> But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
>> tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
>> for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
>
>Well talk about where my exegesis is wrong rather than just going
>back to your standard rant.
I'm showing you are a Jesuit: trained in circular arguments,
blasphemy, super-terrorism and deceit. Still have not convinced your
order that non-Catholics must live. How can I convince you of some of
the simplest and basic truths?
>>>>How likely is it therefore that the
>>>>scripture can be reworded to come out like the following:
>>>>
>>>>"Think not that I am come to destroy the law. I am not come to
>>>>destroy, but to tell all that they don't have to keep the law."
>>
>>>No one but you seeks to reword scripture.
>>
>> What is the rewording? What does it take to destroy a law?
>
>I'm happy with the text as it stands. You seem to want to change
>'not a jot or a tittle' to '50 percent of the law'.
No, it is you who wants that. You keep 100 percent of the law?
Christ said that, huh? You object to that? Why don't you keep 100
percent then?
>> Would others who believe all non-Catholics must die as you do come to
>> the same conclusion?
>>
>>>>This may make sense to many, but I contend that this does not make
>>>>sense to God's people.
>>>
>>>How would you know? Have you ever met any of God's people?
But this still won't make sense to any of God's people.
>>> Well I believe all non-Catholics should live. Would you know I have
>>> not met any of God's people since you don't believe this?
>> Off topic.
But I still believe all non-Catholics must live. I'm not a Jesui
trained in super-terrorism, blasphemy and deceit.
>>>>Ephesians even says:
>>>>
>>>>Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with
>>>>promise; -- Eph. 6:2
>>>>We can see that the very words are quoted from the Ten
>>>>Commandments! Did we not think that the Law was finished? Why would
>>>>any of the Apostles quote from the Ten Commandments, when they are
>>>>supposed to be acting like so many today in preaching to all that it
>>>>is dangerous to keep the law? Do people today not tell us that to
>>>>fulfill a law means to destroy it? If you fulfilled the law of
>>>>insuring your vehicle, can you then uninsure it since that law is now
>>>>no longer in effect?
>>>
>>>Can you not quote from something that is no longer in effect? Can
>>>one not also say that that command is still to be obeyed?
>>
>> In the statement above, as the Jesuit knows, Paul is exhorting the
>> people to obey. If it is not to be obeyed, Paul should join these
>> Jesuits and make sure right after to tell them what he just quoted
>> should not be obeyed.
>
>The fact that Paul exhorts people not to murder and to honour their
>parents does not mean that we are still under the law. Paul explicitly
>says that neither we, nor he are under the law.
Again intentionally deceiving. To be "under the law" doesn't mean to
obey it. It means to be under its condemnation for DISOBEYING IT!
So being "under the law" by keeping it, according to the Jesuit, is
dangerous, and yet Paul exhorts people to fulfill its commands... for
their best good!
>>>>What therefore does the word "fulfill" mean? The scripture says that
>>>>not a jot or tittle--not a dotting of an "I" or a stroking of a "T"
>>>>shall be moved till all be fulfilled. Does the word "fulfilled" mean
>>>>to destroy or to take out of the way? If that is true, why does Jesus
>>>>then say, Whosoever THEREFORE . . . " (here meaning with reference to
>>>>what was just said before)
>>>ok. I'm getting bored of this.
>> Since when do Jesuits get bored when their enemies provide evidence
>> they can't overthrow?
>>>This has been covered many times before.
>> OH GOOD! Since we have not received answer from you yet whether or
>> not if people tell us all non-Catholics must die, and others are upset
>> about it, we must attack the others. You still keep trailing my posts
>> though!
>>>It is *until* it is fulfilled. Thats a sequence of events. It does not
>>>require fulfilled to mean done away with. Do you have a memory problem?
>> But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
>> tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
>> for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
>
>You're saying that the statement "A won't happen till B" is not making
>a statement about a sequence of events?
Matt. 5:17-19 says "till heaven and earth pass."
>> Naturally, as for centuries, you would know who has cerebral problems!
>
>I think we both know that Susan. So does google.
Google believes that if your friends tell us all non-Catholics must
die, we must get upset with people who reprove and expose them for
that???
In His Grace,
Susan
deluxe
Yes. The major issue was the law of Moses. It mandated circumcision.
The apostles and elders ruled that the Gentile's did not have to
keep the law.
>
> Romans 20 shows that the true religion of Christ was Jewish and that
> the Gentiles were grafted in among them. Circumcision was a sign
> given by God between Himself and the Jews. Abraham, however, was not
> circumcised.
Romans 20????
Gentiles were not grafted into Israel.
Circumcision was mandated by the law. If the law is
mandatory for believers, circumcision is mandatory
for believers.
You should really get to know your OT better before
making such basic historical errors as 'Abraham was
not circumcised'.
Genesis 17:24:
"And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was
circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin."
>
> So Christ told His disciples what was required for the Christian, His
> life being witness since the Disciples were with him. Christ said in
> Matt. 28 for them to go into all the world, teaching all things that
> he has commanded.
So did he command keeping the law or not? The apostles clearly
thought not.
>
> I need to help out Jesuit Deluxe. Man, it's hard work! Didn't even
> convince him yet that non-Catholics should live!
All non-Catholics should live. Until they die.
If you concentrated on bible study rather than
your Jesuit witch hunt, then perhaps your exegesis
would improve, and you'd get to know your biblical
history better, and not make the kind of simple
mistake you made above.
>
>
>>They are not talking about new Jewish Christians. They
>>are talking about Gentile Christians. Jewish Christians
>>would have been circumcised already.
>>
>>
>>>It is true they are not dealing with *all* duties of a Christian.
>>>They are deciding whether it is the duty of Gentile Christians
>>>to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses.
>>
>>>When Christ told
>>>the Disciples to go into all the world teaching them whatsoever He had
>>>revealed to them, the issues in Acts 15 were not discussed.
>>
>>That's true. Christ did not discuss everything that would happen
>>and all the rulings and decisions and experiences that the
>>apostles would have whilst he was physically present on earth.
>
>
> Christ didn't need to. They had the scriptures. Christ constantly
> directed his followers there.
Agreed. But he also sent the Holy Spirit to guide. And it
was the Holy Spirit to whom the decision of the Jerusalem
Council, that Gentiles do not need to keep the law, seemed
good.
>
>
>>Note that the decision of the Jerusalem Council seemed good
>>to the Holy Spirit.
>
>
> Did the Holy Spirit teach you yet, Jesuit Deluxe, that non-Catholics
> should live?
Sigh :-|
>
> Why would your twisting of the decision of the Jerusalem Council be
> good, when Paul himself wrote and declared of the new covenant, that
> after the Testator dies, nothing can be added or subtracted from it?
Twisting? In what way am I twisting?
Jesus gave the apostles the right to bind and loose.
>
> http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com/Covenants.htm
>
More drivel?
After your debacle defending your interpretation of
Matt 5, you'll have to post the section of that you
refer to.
>
>>>Plus, neither did Christ nor the Acts 15 council believe that all
>>>non-Christians must die, nor in the End Justifies the Means as you
>>>Jesuits do.
>>
>>I do not believe all non-Christians must die.
>>I do not believe the end justifies the means.
>
>
> But why do you believe all non-Catholics must die?
Sigh :-| I do not believe all non-Catholics must die.
> Why did you see me
> post your friends telling us all non-Catholics must die, and you only
> attack us for it and will not even comment about their words of death?
>
> Why do Jesuits like you always lie? What would you be without it?
> What would happen if your kid at his birthday party which you missed,
> wished over his birthday cake that for just one day all you Jesuits
> cannot tell a lie?
>
>
>>>>>Since so much controversy was generated because of these subjects,
>>>>>till it was indeed recorded in the Bible, can you please tell me why
>>>>>the Jewish objection to the new Christians keeping Sunday (formerly a
>>>>>pagan day) after the resurrection of Jesus cannot be found there?
>>>>
>>>>The NT believers and apostles met together on many different days. Since
>>>>there is no prohibition in the law against people meeting together on
>>>>days apart from the sabbath (indeed the law commands one to stay at
>>>>home and rest on the sabbath) there is no contention.
>>>
>>>This is a lie.
>>
>>Which bit is a lie? The statement that NT believers and apostles met
>>together on many days, or that there is no prohibition in the law
>>against people meeting together on days other than the sabbath?
>
>
> No one is talking about worship any day. I can worship any day.
> Worshipping on Sunday and calling it "The Lord's Day," is not
> worshipping on any day.
I don't call Sunday "The Lord's Day". Sunday is not "The Lord's
Day".
> This Jesuit is so slick! Still yet only
> attack us who exposed his friends telling us all non-Catholics must
> die.
>
>
>>>If it was found even in the doctrine of the new
>>>Christians that they were teaching there was no more Seventh-day
>>>Sabbath, that would have caused contention.
>>
>>1) No one taught "there was no more Seventh day sabbath".
>> That's a different statement to whether it was obligatory
>> for believers to rest on the sabbath.
>
>
> This is different from what others of the "Lord's Day" ITES were
> saying. Naturally in the wrong, there are many different ways to
> express the lie. Others supporting "The Lord's Day" as Sunday have
> told us there is no more Sabbath day on the Seventh-day.
>
Sunday is not "The Lord's Day."
> Christians tell us how the Apostles changed the day merely by
> worshipping on Sunday.
1) The sabbath was never commanded as a day of worship. Anywhere.
2) Sunday was never commanded as a day of worship. Anywhere.
I'm not claiming *in any way* that somehow the day of worship
was changed.
> What happened when they had worship on
> Wednesday?
Same thing as when they worshiped on a Sunday probably.
>
>
>>2) It's much less likely there would be a contention if
>> Gentiles sometimes rested on the sabbath, and didn't
>> say the Jews shouldn't rest on the sabbath. There is
>> nothing in Christian doctrine saying there is anything
>> wrong with resting on the sabbath!
>
>
> They say, "WE REST ON 'THE LORD'S DAY' to comemorate the ressurection
> of our Lord."
That's not what *I* say.
> In the word "REST" they are mimicking the actual
> command that was instituted for the Seventh-day, even saying that the
> Lord's Day (as Sunday) replaces the commanded day of rest.
That's not what *I* say.
Don't set up a straw man.
>
>
>>3) Even if there were contention on this matter, that doesnt
>> mean that God considered it important enough to mention
>> in scripture.
>
>
> It was written on record by the Apostles.
What was? That Gentiles did not have to keep the law?
> The Jesuit says that God
> thought circumcision was important, but the actual day of rest was
> not. This contention we are talking about is even in recorded Jewish
> History. They also forgot to write about the change of the day of
> worship even in a secular sense!
I doubt you have *any* knowledge of the talmud or Jewish historical
writings.
>
> It's hard to debate with Jesuits who still don't understand that all
> non-Catholics should live!
>
Sigh :-|
>
>>4) The contention you are looking for *is there* in Acts 15.
>> The Jerusalem Council considered the issue of whether or
>> not it was needful for Gentiles to keep the law. That
>> would include resting on the sabbath. They concluded that
>> it was not needful. The Jewish Christian leaders gave a
>> decision on the matter, and made no attempt to prevent
>> Jews resting on the sabbath.
>
>
> But all non-Catholics must live, and therefore if someone posts they
> must die, why would Jesuit Deluxe only attack those who oppose and
> expose the motion:?
>
> CHRIST, not Paul, told His followers that till heaven and earth pass,
> not a jot or tittle shall pass from the law.
*Till all is fulfilled*. Yet you teach that many things in the law,
such as circumcision have passed. That's inconsistent with your
interpretation here.
> Whosoever Apostle or
> Jerusalem council shall break these least commandments and shall teach
> men so, he shall be called least and shall not enter into heaven.
> Matt. 5:17-19.
And yet you teach that circumcision has passed.
>
>
>>>The new Christians were
>>>calling the Jews out of the Jewish faith.
>>
>>No. It was only around 80-90 AD that Jewish Christians
>>were forced out of Judaism by changes to the worship
>>service instituted by the rabbis.
>
>
> Fine, but the new Christians were calling the Jews out of the Jewish
> Faith.
No. Jewish Christians kept going to synagogue up until about
80-90 AD. Until then Jewish Christians were basically a
branch of Judaism. A branch that believed that Jesus fulfilled
the messianic prophecies.
> They talked about Christ, whom the Sanhedrin leaders killed.
>
>
>>You can even see that Christians were not calling Jews
>>out of the Jewish faith in the verse we are discussing:
>>
>>Acts 15v5:
>>"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees
>>who believed..."
>>
>>The Pharisees were a sect of Judaism. AND they were
>>believers. Luke sees no contradiction in writing that.
>
>
> Will you stop speaking for people, Jesuit! The Pharisees, though
> Jews, put their two cents in the matter because the new Christians
> were constantly "disputing" with them. The new Christians were
> winning the arguments, but the Pharisees endeavored to hold on to
> their own.
Acts 15 calls them believers. That makes them Christians.
Try exegesis rather than fantasy.
>
> Still, all non-Catholics should live. I have sense enough to object to
> and oppose anyone who says they must die. You have sense enough to
> attack anyone who exposes others writing things like that on the
> newsgroups.
>
>
>>>Having different days of
>>>worship equates with circumcision done in private? On private parts?
>>
>>No one said it did.
>
>
> Jesuit said they weren't together or clearly seen, therefore no
> contention. Circumcision is done only once in the life of a man.
> That caused contention. The Jesuits tell us the day of worship has
> changed. Where was the contention for this even in historical Jewish
> literature?
1) The sabbath was never commanded as a day of worship.
2) Sunday was never commanded as the day of worship.
I'm not saying that early Christians met primarily on Sunday.
>
>
>>>This Jesuit has lied again, but he is proud because he thinks that is
>>>a sign of greater rewards in heaven.
>>
>>???????
>
>
> The Jesuit Oath you keep. Makes you only attack people who expose
> your friends telling us all non-Catholics must die.
>
>
>>>>>I have not witnessed an answer for this yet.
>>>>
>>>>There is an answer.
>
>
> Jesuits always have answers, but they never answer.
>
>
>>>But the problem is there is no answer. Just Jesuit priestcraft as
>>>shown above.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Also, what is the meaning of these words in Matt. 5:17-19:
>>>
>>>>>17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
>>>>>not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
>>>>>18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
>>>>>one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
>>>>>19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,
>>>>>and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
>>>>>heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be
>>>>>called great in the kingdom of heaven.
>>>
>>>>Jesus would fulfill the law by his death. He's saying until that time,
>>>>the law will remain fully in effect.
>
>
> Jesus did not say till his death. Jesuit did!
Well, those who don't read Rom10v4 as termination have
to read it as goal. So if you accept the weaker reading,
that still makes Jesus the goal of the law.
Jesus said until *all* [the law] is fulfilled.
>
> Christ did not say those eternal words to last a year.
What exegesis tells you that?
> In Jesuit land
> He did, and we still cannot teach you to only attack people who post
> that all non-Catholics must die. Your logic is to only attack those
> who expose people doing this.
>
>
>>>In the Jesuit's book that is so. Christ did not make that cataclysmic
>>>statement to expire a year in the future especially with the Jesuit
>>>intentionally leaving out the proof since it doesn't exist anyway.
>>
>>Romans 10v4: "For Christ is the end (telos - termination) of
>>the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth"
>
>
> Matt. 5:17-19:
> Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am
> not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
>
> Jesuit believes that fulfilling means "termination", but doesn't mean
> destroy!
That's what the apostles believed and taught.
>
>
>>>>It obviously *cannot* mean that the mean that the 'moral law' will
>>>>remain forever and the other laws will pass away sometime after
>>>>his death.
>>>
>>>We didn't say that EVERY law now doesn't stand except those that are
>>>moral, but on the website still we show what we mean.
>>
>>There is *no* way you can honestly render 'not a jot or tittle' and
>>'the least of these commandments. To refer to anything apart from
>>the whole law. To make it refer to a subset of the whole law
>>renders the verse meaningless. And it you who are trying to
>>prove something with Matt 5. Is the only way you can do it
>>to render the verse meaningless???
>
>
> BUT JESUIT I BELIEVE ALL NON-CATHOLICS SHOULD LIVE! People wrote that
> they should die. I was upset with them for writing it. You attacked
> me for exposing it and opposing it.
>
> The law is the Old Testament.
No. Basic error. The law is a section of the OT.
> That volume itself shows that under
> conditions certain laws stand and others don't. It's explained on the
> website: http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com/Matthew5.html
>
> The example of Christ Himself telling us the "eye for an eye" and
> "tooth for a tooth" principle found in the law no longer stands.
>
That does not show that that commandment of God is no longer in
effect. I've shown you your error on this before.
>
>>> There is just a
>>>statement above this reply without any accompanying proof.
>>
>>It's unclear to me which statement you are referring to.
>>Please make that clear.
>
>
> You mean that all non-Catholics should live and that it is sensible in
> case someone writes differently that we should attack that person and
> not those who alert others about this as you did?
>
Sigh :-|
>
>>>I've
>>>talked with these Jesiuts about this psychiatrist habit of theirs, but
>>>it is hopeless to reason with centuries killers.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>It was obvious that Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy.
>>>>>. . . ." because people were thinking that that was part of His
>>>>>mission: to destroy the law.
>>>>
>>>>Yes. Actually it was the purpose of his death rather than his coming.
>
>
> Jesus said he came to bind up the broken-hearted and set at liberty
> those that are bound. That's the purpose of His coming, and then when
> He died, they went back into captivity, Jesuit?
Indeed the NT says that we were bound under the law. And have been
set at liberty from the law. But there are many purposes for Christ's
coming. Not just the two you quote.
>
> The Jesuit blasphemed. Christ said He didn't come to destroy the law,
> but "till heaven and earth pass"... The Jesuit says it was his death
> that was to destroy the law.
>
>
>>>Actually that's not true
>>
>>Ephesisans 2v14-16:
>>
>>"For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down
>>the middle wall of partition, 15having abolished in his
>>flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained
>>in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the
>>two one new man, so making peace; 16and might reconcile
>>them both in one body unto God through the cross, having
>>slain the enmity thereby:"
>
>
> I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill.
And he *did* fulfill, or do you think he didn't do
what he came to do?
> For verily I say
> unto you, till heaven and earth pass...
>
*Till all is fulfilled*. Did Jesus acomplish what
he came to do? If he didn't and the law is still
in effect, why do you teach against circumcision?
> Just as clear to me as the fact that all non-Catholics should live,
> and only Jesuits would attack those who scold others for writing the
> opposite.
>
>
>>Christ, through the cross reconciled both Jew and Gentile
>>into one body by abolishing in his flesh the thing that
>>seperated them. The law.
>
>
> It says law and commandments "contained in ordinances." Rituals.
That doesn't follow. Commandments refers to more than just rituals.
>
> The nature of the rituals, pointing to Christ, shows this can be done.
>
> Still Christ gave Matt. 5:17-19. You need something very powerful and
> lost to contradict this.
I don't need to contradict it. I accept it just as written. Your
interpretation is inconsistent with your teaching that parts of
the law do not need to be followed.
> Enter the Jesuits who only attack people
> upset that their friends posted how all non-Catholics must die.
>
>
>>>just as it is not true all non-Catholics must
>>>die and it is only proper to attack someone who sees others making
>>>this claim as you do.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>And how so? In my estimation a law can be
>>>>>destroyed when an authoritative person informs others that it is no
>>>>>longer to be observed.
>>>
>>>>Someone like the Apostles being guided by the Holy Spirit you mean?
>
>
> After Christ told us till heaven and earth pass it will not be? After
> Christ said they were not to think that he has come to destroy the
> law? Since when did the Holy Spirit become a Jesuit rebel. Does He
> also only attack people who expose your friends telling us all
> non-Catholics must die?
So you're saying that Luke was satanically inspired when he reported
the decision of the Jerusalem Council?
>
>
>>>Yes, and the Apostles must not later claim that the everlasting
>>>covernant is in the form of a will that no one can change after the
>>>Testator dies.
>>
>>? No one has tried to change it. I take it when you say 'everlasting
>>covenant' here you are refering to the New Covenant.
>
>
> The Jesuit tells us the Jerusalem council got together and abolished
> certain things.
No. They recognised the abolition that had already happened. And
their decision was binding. And it's not *me* who tells you. It
is The Holy Spirit. Through Luke.
>
>
>>>>>What did Jesus do to make them think that?
>>>>
>>>>He taught the Apostles, and guided them to their decisions. Also
>>>>he points out that the law eventually will pass away in Matt 5,
>>>>and points out the dietary laws will pass away in Mark.
>
>
> But He didn't do that at all. Christ said till heaven and earth pass,
> nothing will change in the law.
*Till all is fulfilled*. The presence of the word *till* implies that
there will be an ending.
>
> The Jesuit is speaking in that lie above. Christ didn't tell us that
> if a Jesuit posts on the newsgroups that all non-Catholics must die,
> we must only attack those who are upset about this as Jesuit Deluxe.,
>
>
>>>But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
>>>tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
>>>for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
>>
>>You seem to have forgotten to attach your answer to your standard
>>rant.
>
>
> You have not forgotten to be a Jesuit. I reason as a human being, not
> a sub-animal Jesuit like you who only attacks people upset that your
> friends told us all non-Catholics must die. What reasoning powers and
> capabilities for deception do you also have then?
>
>
>>>>>What
>>>>>did Jesus do to make the Jews think that He was come to destroy the
>>>>>law?
>>>>
>>>>He kept disobeying, and going out of his way to disobey the 'oral law'.
>>>>The pharisees taught that this was given to moses at the same time as
>>>>the written law and was of equal or greater authority.
>>>
>>>But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
>>>tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
>>>for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
>
>
> The Jesuit didn't answer the question as to how the sacrifice for sin,
> without blemish to stand in my place, went out of his way to sin.
IT IS NOT SIN TO BREAK THE *ORAL LAW* SINCE IT WAS NOT GIVEN BY GOD!
> Standard or wild blasphemy is nothing to a Jesuit!
>
>
>>This seems to be a cut and paste of your standard rant from above.
>
>
> Your cult has not changed for centuries! Since your friends told us
> all non-Catholics must die, and our objection to it has sparked your
> attacks, can you tell us when your Antichrist will ever finally
> change?
>
>
>>>Christ did not sin. He became a sacrifice for sin for us by going out
>>>of His way to break the moral law?
>>
>>In no way did Christ break the law (or whatever you mean by 'the moral
>>law'). He did go out of his way to break what the Pharisees called the
>>'oral law' or the mishna.
>
>
> Adventists are talking about the precepts of the scriptures. Matthew
> 5 is not talking about what this Jesuit is using to deceive us here.
Interesting assertion not backed up by any exegesis. Am I surprised?
No.
>
>
>>>We're displaying for you, dear readers, the horribleness of the
>>>Jesuits.
>>
>>?
>
>
>>>>>Most every time Jesus did something the Jews were apt to charge Him as
>>>>>a sinner for had something to do with the Sabbath: For healing on the
>>>>>Sabbath especially. The scripture therefore tells us that "till heaven
>>>>>and earth pass" (have they passed sir?) "one jot or one tittle shall
>>>>>in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."
>>>>>
>>>>>Here however is an interesting question: how do you destroy a law?
>>>>
>>>>There is no way that I can do it. God did it, or at least rendered
>>>>it inoperative.
>
>
> Matt. 5:17-19 says exactly the opposite.
It does not. And your own interpretation is inconsistent with your
own teaching.
You teach both that *not a jot or tittle shall be removed* *and* that
Christ removed the eye for an eye law.
> Have Jesuit brains screwed
> like this and would I be surprised that Jesuit Deluxe, witnessing his
> friends posting that all non-Catholics must die, only attacks those
> who are upset about this?
>
>
>>>But that didn't happen. It is not true. The Jesuit, as you can see,
>>>is not too proud of his lie.
>>
>>2 Corinthians 3v6-11:
>>
>>"who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant;
>>not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth,
>>but the spirit giveth life.
>
>
> No specific reference here, but there is a warning about wresting the
> meaning of Paul's writings. He is talking about the precepts of the
> law being on the stone only and not written in the heart.
Lol. If you wan't to try exegesis, join the "Ministration of death"
thread about this very verse.
>
> Paul does not take away from Christ's clear statement in Matt. 5:17-19
> no matter what the Jesuit says.
>
Sigh :-|
>
>>[7] But if the ministration of
>>death, written, and engraven on stones, came with glory, so
>>that the children of Israel could not look stedfastly upon
>>the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory
>>was passing away: [8] how shall not rather the ministration
>>of the spirit be with glory?
>
>
> These are again Paul's writings being wrested as 2 Pet. warns about.
> Quiite different from other biblical statements showing even in Psalms
> that the law of the Lord is perfect, CONVERTING THE SOUL."
>
> The ministration of the law on Sinai came with glory, BUT IT ALSO CAME
> WITH DEATH BECAUSE THE ONLOOKERS WERE SINFUL.
>
> Moses face shown with glory for a time being in the direct presence of
> God. There was no alienation nor hostility with Moses and the Lord,
> who spoke face to face. Moses kept the law.
>
>
Read the verse. The ministration of death is what was written
and engraven on stones. Not the result of breaking what that
said.
>>[9] For if the ministration of
>>condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration
>>of righteousness exceed in glory. [10] For verily that which
>>hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this
>>respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. [11] For if
>>that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which
>>remaineth is in glory."
>>
>>The word rendered 'passeth away' here is the greek 'katargeo'
>>meaning "to render inoperative".
>
>
> When the law was presented on Sinai, the glory therewith did not
> remain forever. Nothing is glowing in the same area even now.
> Neither did Moses face shine forever.
>
And the ministration of death has passed away.
>
>>>>It is still serving a purpose of convicting people
>>>>who do not have faith yet.
>
>
> Doesn't say the Law only convicts people who don't have faith. All
> the language says that the Law speaks against all WHO BREAK IT.
>
Other scripture tells us that.
>
>>>But that didn't happen. It is not true. The Jesuit, as you can see,
>>>is not too proud of his lie.
>>
>>You seem to have cut and pasted this from above.
>
>
> Did your cult change yet? Can non-Catholics live to inspire you to
> challenge anyone saying they must die, instead of those upset about
> such?
>
Sigh :-|
>
>>>>>Is
>>>>>this question too hard?
>>>>
>>>>No. Fairly basic Christianity 101 stuff really.
>
>
> Should non-Catholics live? If your friends say they must die, as they
> did, should Christians copy you by only attacking those who are upset
> about it?
>
>
>>>Alright then, if someone tells us all non-Catholics must die and
>>>another gets upset at him for that, is it good common sense to attack
>>>the one who is upset as you do?
>>
>>I'm attacking no one. I want to talk about theology.
>>I just wish you'd stick to the bible.
>
>
> I DON'T CARE. I HAVE COMMON SENSE. You want to just stick to bible
> because you support your friends telling us all non-Catholics must
> die! You only attacked us who exposed it.
>
You imply that your common sense overrides what the bible says.
I am not surprised.
> When we exposed your friends posting that non-Catholics must die, you
> didn't just stick to theology. YOU ATTACKED US.
>
>
>>>>>Jesus said that He is not come to destroy, but
>>>>>to fulfill. How do you therefore destroy a law?
>>>>
>>>>Isn't that the same question you just asked?
>>>
>>>Like why do you people see your friends saying all non-Catholics must
>>>die but you only attack those who are upset about it? I see you
>>>notice when questions are asked and WERE asked!
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Our commonsense tells us that to destroy a law, you have to declare
>>>>>that it doesn't have to be kept.
>>>>
>>>>Like the apostles did at the Jerusalem Council, under the guidance
>>>>of the Holy Spirit and the Apostle Paul did over and over and over
>>>>again.
>>>
>>>But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
>>>tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
>>>for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
>>
>>Well talk about where my exegesis is wrong rather than just going
>>back to your standard rant.
>
>
> I'm showing you are a Jesuit: trained in circular arguments,
> blasphemy, super-terrorism and deceit. Still have not convinced your
> order that non-Catholics must live. How can I convince you of some of
> the simplest and basic truths?
>
Exegesis?
>
>>>>>How likely is it therefore that the
>>>>>scripture can be reworded to come out like the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Think not that I am come to destroy the law. I am not come to
>>>>>destroy, but to tell all that they don't have to keep the law."
>>>
>
>>>>No one but you seeks to reword scripture.
>>>
>>>What is the rewording? What does it take to destroy a law?
>>
>>I'm happy with the text as it stands. You seem to want to change
>>'not a jot or a tittle' to '50 percent of the law'.
>
>
> No, it is you who wants that. You keep 100 percent of the law?
> Christ said that, huh? You object to that? Why don't you keep 100
> percent then?
I keep 0% of the law.
You keep less than 50% and condemn me, even though
your interpretation of Matt.5 is inconsistent with
your actions.
>
>
>>>Would others who believe all non-Catholics must die as you do come to
>>>the same conclusion?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>This may make sense to many, but I contend that this does not make
>>>>>sense to God's people.
>>>>
>>>>How would you know? Have you ever met any of God's people?
>
>
> But this still won't make sense to any of God's people.
>
It seems unlikely that you know any of God's people.
That interpretation leads to internal inconsistency, just like your
interpretation of Matt.5.
Paul wrote that Christ was born under the law.
Your interpretation renders that as Christ was born under the
condemnation of the the law for DISOBEYING IT!
>
> So being "under the law" by keeping it, according to the Jesuit, is
> dangerous, and yet Paul exhorts people to fulfill its commands... for
> their best good!
Try some exegesis.
>
>
>>>>>What therefore does the word "fulfill" mean? The scripture says that
>>>>>not a jot or tittle--not a dotting of an "I" or a stroking of a "T"
>>>>>shall be moved till all be fulfilled. Does the word "fulfilled" mean
>>>>>to destroy or to take out of the way? If that is true, why does Jesus
>>>>>then say, Whosoever THEREFORE . . . " (here meaning with reference to
>>>>>what was just said before)
>
>
>>>>ok. I'm getting bored of this.
>
>
>>>Since when do Jesuits get bored when their enemies provide evidence
>>>they can't overthrow?
>
>
>>>>This has been covered many times before.
>
>
>>>OH GOOD! Since we have not received answer from you yet whether or
>>>not if people tell us all non-Catholics must die, and others are upset
>>>about it, we must attack the others. You still keep trailing my posts
>>>though!
>
>
>>>>It is *until* it is fulfilled. Thats a sequence of events. It does not
>>>>require fulfilled to mean done away with. Do you have a memory problem?
>
>
>>>But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
>>>tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
>>>for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
>>
>>You're saying that the statement "A won't happen till B" is not making
>>a statement about a sequence of events?
>
>
> Matt. 5:17-19 says "till heaven and earth pass."
And it says "till all is fulfilled". He came to fulfill.
>
>
>>>Naturally, as for centuries, you would know who has cerebral problems!
>>
>>I think we both know that Susan. So does google.
>
>
> Google believes that if your friends tell us all non-Catholics must
> die, we must get upset with people who reprove and expose them for
> that???
Yes. Google is part of the Jesuit conspiracy.
>
> In His Grace,
>
>
> Susan
Susan Williams
wrote:
But Jesuit, CHRIST said that the law does not fail "till heaven and
earth pass" in Matt. 5:17-19. If you use your Jesuit talents to
confuse and to show that Christ's words conflict with the Apostles, we
will go along with you and say that we give Christ the benefit of the
doubt.
You, as a Jesuit, know that the expression "law" can mean several
things according to the context. It can mean the OT, the ritual law,
the Ten Commandments, etc.
The Jerusalem council met to address contention. Circumcision was a
contention. The weekly Sabbath was not.
>> Romans 20 shows that the true religion of Christ was Jewish and that
>> the Gentiles were grafted in among them. Circumcision was a sign
>> given by God between Himself and the Jews. Abraham, however, was not
>> circumcised.
>
>Romans 20????
>Gentiles were not grafted into Israel.
>Circumcision was mandated by the law. If the law is
>mandatory for believers, circumcision is mandatory
>for believers.
The term law can mean many different things. Christ said the law
stands "till heaven and earth pass." I'm a Christian. You come with
glee claiming to be a Jersalem Councilite. According to your
deception you claim we are not to keep the law, and it is talking
about the same law Christ said stands forever.
You're a Jesuit!
>You should really get to know your OT better before
>making such basic historical errors as 'Abraham was
>not circumcised'.
>
>Genesis 17:24:
>"And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was
>circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin."
Jesuit, was Abraham finally saved at 99 years?
>> So Christ told His disciples what was required for the Christian, His
>> life being witness since the Disciples were with him. Christ said in
>> Matt. 28 for them to go into all the world, teaching all things that
>> he has commanded.
>
>So did he command keeping the law or not? The apostles clearly
>thought not.
But Jesuit, Christ said the law stands. It's like trying to argue
with you that non-Catholics should live. Did your Pope agree to that
yet? Christ says it stands, your God says it doesn't. Obviously they
don't mean the same "law."
>> I need to help out Jesuit Deluxe. Man, it's hard work! Didn't even
>> convince him yet that non-Catholics should live!
>
>All non-Catholics should live. Until they die.
Some posted they must die. I was upset with that and posted my
objections. You objected to me and only attacked me.
You're a Jesuit!
>If you concentrated on bible study rather than
>your Jesuit witch hunt, then perhaps your exegesis
>would improve, and you'd get to know your biblical
>history better, and not make the kind of simple
>mistake you made above.
I saw a fellow killer like yourself post that all non-Catholics must
die. I NATURALLY objected since I have conscience, soul, candidacy
for heaven. You come in upset with me to attack me. I don't care if
you call my natural reaction a Jesuit-hunt!
>>>They are not talking about new Jewish Christians. They
>>>are talking about Gentile Christians. Jewish Christians
>>>would have been circumcised already.
>>>
>>>>It is true they are not dealing with *all* duties of a Christian.
>>>>They are deciding whether it is the duty of Gentile Christians
>>>>to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses.
>>>
>>>>When Christ told
>>>>the Disciples to go into all the world teaching them whatsoever He had
>>>>revealed to them, the issues in Acts 15 were not discussed.
>>>
>>>That's true. Christ did not discuss everything that would happen
>>>and all the rulings and decisions and experiences that the
>>>apostles would have whilst he was physically present on earth.
>>
>> Christ didn't need to. They had the scriptures. Christ constantly
>> directed his followers there.
>
>Agreed. But he also sent the Holy Spirit to guide. And it
>was the Holy Spirit to whom the decision of the Jerusalem
>Council, that Gentiles do not need to keep the law, seemed
>good.
The terrm "law" can mean the Torah, the OT, the ritual law, the civil
laws of the Jews, the Ten Commandments, etc. You know this, but
you're a Jesuit.
Christ said the law stands, "Till heaven and earth pass." One says
one thing, another says another. It is your mission to deceive
everyone into thinking they're talking about the same thing.
Problem is that Christ said the law stands, "Till heaven and earth
pass." Matt. 5:17-19. See, I'm not a Jesuit! If someone posts that
all non-Catholics must die, I would object to that person and not
someone upset that the person posted that.
>>>Note that the decision of the Jerusalem Council seemed good
>>>to the Holy Spirit.
>>
>> Did the Holy Spirit teach you yet, Jesuit Deluxe, that non-Catholics
>> should live?
>
>Sigh :-|
Sigh! JUST SEVER YOUR REAR QUARTERS FROM THE CULT!
I have greater sense. Christ says the law stands. Your God says it
does not, according to you. I happen to know they are not referring
to the same thing. It is your mission to deceive people into thinking
they are.
I have greater sense. Your friends posted that all non-Catholics must
die. My natural reaction at being upset at this was different from
yours. You are upset that your friends were opposed and rebuked.
>> Why would your twisting of the decision of the Jerusalem Council be
>> good, when Paul himself wrote and declared of the new covenant, that
>> after the Testator dies, nothing can be added or subtracted from it?
>
>Twisting? In what way am I twisting?
>Jesus gave the apostles the right to bind and loose.
BUT JESUS HIMSELF USED HIS PROPHETIC FORESIGHT AND SAID THAT "TILL
HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS" THE LAW STANDS!
>> http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com/Covenants.htm
>>
>
>More drivel?
Like your disagreement with the fact that all non-Catholics must live?
>After your debacle defending your interpretation of
>Matt 5, you'll have to post the section of that you
>refer to.
Like my debacle claiming that if your friends post that all
non-Catholics must die, they should be attacked in contradiction to
your claim that only those who attack your friends who posted that
must be attacked, Jesuit?
>>>>Plus, neither did Christ nor the Acts 15 council believe that all
>>>>non-Christians must die, nor in the End Justifies the Means as you
>>>>Jesuits do.
>>>
>>>I do not believe all non-Christians must die.
>>>I do not believe the end justifies the means.
>>
>>
>> But why do you believe all non-Catholics must die?
>
>Sigh :-| I do not believe all non-Catholics must die.
Why do you believe all non-Catholics must die, to the point that when
people post this and others get upset about it, you join the host of
your friends ONLY CONDEMNING THOSE WHO ARE UPSET ABOUT IT?
Just like I said. Simple questions but the Jesuit uses his Jesuit
training to go around in circles just like his scriptural arguments.
>> Why did you see me
>> post your friends telling us all non-Catholics must die, and you only
>> attack us for it and will not even comment about their words of death?
>>
>> Why do Jesuits like you always lie? What would you be without it?
>> What would happen if your kid at his birthday party which you missed,
>> wished over his birthday cake that for just one day all you Jesuits
>> cannot tell a lie?
>>
>>>>>>Since so much controversy was generated because of these subjects,
>>>>>>till it was indeed recorded in the Bible, can you please tell me why
>>>>>>the Jewish objection to the new Christians keeping Sunday (formerly a
>>>>>>pagan day) after the resurrection of Jesus cannot be found there?
>>>>>
>>>>>The NT believers and apostles met together on many different days. Since
>>>>>there is no prohibition in the law against people meeting together on
>>>>>days apart from the sabbath (indeed the law commands one to stay at
>>>>>home and rest on the sabbath) there is no contention.
>>>>
>>>>This is a lie.
>>>
>>>Which bit is a lie? The statement that NT believers and apostles met
>>>together on many days, or that there is no prohibition in the law
>>>against people meeting together on days other than the sabbath?
>>
>> No one is talking about worship any day. I can worship any day.
>> Worshipping on Sunday and calling it "The Lord's Day," is not
>> worshipping on any day.
>
>I don't call Sunday "The Lord's Day". Sunday is not "The Lord's
>Day".
Something changed that didn't cause a contention among Jew and
Gentile, while circumcision did.
>> This Jesuit is so slick! Still yet only
>> attack us who exposed his friends telling us all non-Catholics must
>> die.
>>
>>>>If it was found even in the doctrine of the new
>>>>Christians that they were teaching there was no more Seventh-day
>>>>Sabbath, that would have caused contention.
>>>
>>>1) No one taught "there was no more Seventh day sabbath".
>>> That's a different statement to whether it was obligatory
>>> for believers to rest on the sabbath.
>>
>> This is different from what others of the "Lord's Day" ITES were
>> saying. Naturally in the wrong, there are many different ways to
>> express the lie. Others supporting "The Lord's Day" as Sunday have
>> told us there is no more Sabbath day on the Seventh-day.
>
>Sunday is not "The Lord's Day."
Then what changed that gave no contention between Jew and Gentile
about the Sabbath, but did about circumcision!
>> Christians tell us how the Apostles changed the day merely by
>> worshipping on Sunday.
>
>1) The sabbath was never commanded as a day of worship. Anywhere.
>2) Sunday was never commanded as a day of worship. Anywhere.
>
>I'm not claiming *in any way* that somehow the day of worship
>was changed.
When not proud of the lie, leave out the proof. If the Christians
taught this, there would be no contention between them and the Jews???
>> What happened when they had worship on
>> Wednesday?
>
>Same thing as when they worshiped on a Sunday probably.
Then what changed that gave no contention between Jew and Gentile
about the Sabbath, but did about circumcision!
>>>2) It's much less likely there would be a contention if
>>> Gentiles sometimes rested on the sabbath, and didn't
>>> say the Jews shouldn't rest on the sabbath. There is
>>> nothing in Christian doctrine saying there is anything
>>> wrong with resting on the sabbath!
>>
>> They say, "WE REST ON 'THE LORD'S DAY' to comemorate the ressurection
>> of our Lord."
>
>That's not what *I* say.
Then what changed that gave no contention between Jew and Gentile
about the Sabbath, but did about circumcision! The Jerusalem Council
you claim made a great change, but the record shows circumcision was
in contention but the Sabbath was not??
>> In the word "REST" they are mimicking the actual
>> command that was instituted for the Seventh-day, even saying that the
>> Lord's Day (as Sunday) replaces the commanded day of rest.
>
>That's not what *I* say.
>Don't set up a straw man.
Then what changed that gave no contention between Jew and Gentile
about the Sabbath, but did about circumcision! The Jerusalem Council
you claim made a great change, but the record shows circumcision was
in contention but the Sabbath was not??
>>>3) Even if there were contention on this matter, that doesnt
>>> mean that God considered it important enough to mention
>>> in scripture.
>>
>> It was written on record by the Apostles.
>
>What was? That Gentiles did not have to keep the law?
Like it was written by Christ that the law stands, "Till heaven and
earth pass?"
Where is it written, as you support, that if your friends post that
all non-Catholics must die, all Christians are to only attack those
who challenge that statement?
>> The Jesuit says that God
>> thought circumcision was important, but the actual day of rest was
>> not. This contention we are talking about is even in recorded Jewish
>> History. They also forgot to write about the change of the day of
>> worship even in a secular sense!
>
>I doubt you have *any* knowledge of the talmud or Jewish historical
>writings.
Yeah, I believe all non-Catholics must live, but you would only attack
people who oppose others saying such things!
>> It's hard to debate with Jesuits who still don't understand that all
>> non-Catholics should live!
>
>Sigh :-|
Don't sigh, O Servant of the Antichrist! Tell us now that you repent,
and that you will no longer only attack people who object to your
friends posting that all non-Catholics must die!
Give yourself a rest then and stop sighing. We waited centuries for
your cult to change, and we sighed and sighed, but in VAIN!
>>>4) The contention you are looking for *is there* in Acts 15.
>>> The Jerusalem Council considered the issue of whether or
>>> not it was needful for Gentiles to keep the law. That
>>> would include resting on the sabbath. They concluded that
>>> it was not needful. The Jewish Christian leaders gave a
>>> decision on the matter, and made no attempt to prevent
>>> Jews resting on the sabbath.
>>
>> But all non-Catholics must live, and therefore if someone posts they
>> must die, why would Jesuit Deluxe only attack those who oppose and
>> expose the motion:?
>>
>> CHRIST, not Paul, told His followers that till heaven and earth pass,
>> not a jot or tittle shall pass from the law.
>
>*Till all is fulfilled*. Yet you teach that many things in the law,
>such as circumcision have passed. That's inconsistent with your
>interpretation here.
I've explained the position even from the scriptures, and even from
Christ saying it must all stand and then telling us the eye for an eye
rule does not!
Being a Jesuit, you continue this accusation and then fault us again
and again.
>> Whosoever Apostle or
>> Jerusalem council shall break these least commandments and shall teach
>> men so, he shall be called least and shall not enter into heaven.
>> Matt. 5:17-19.
>
>And yet you teach that circumcision has passed.
You claim to be a Christian and yet you support the idea that all
non-Catholics must die.
Christ teaches it must all stand, and then Christ tells us the eye for
an eye rule does not stand. You don't go into this issue. It is
explained on the website that the law, or OT scripture modifies and
shows what specific codes are still standing. The OT however stands
completely in that it modifies and shows which rules are moral,
ceremonial, for health, for war, etc.
>>>>The new Christians were
>>>>calling the Jews out of the Jewish faith.
>>>
>>>No. It was only around 80-90 AD that Jewish Christians
>>>were forced out of Judaism by changes to the worship
>>>service instituted by the rabbis.
>>
>> Fine, but the new Christians were calling the Jews out of the Jewish
>> Faith.
>
>No. Jewish Christians kept going to synagogue up until about
>80-90 AD. Until then Jewish Christians were basically a
>branch of Judaism. A branch that believed that Jesus fulfilled
>the messianic prophecies.
Where is the promise that He came to destroy the law?
The Christians were calling people out of the Jewish faith after their
Master was killed and then Stephen was killed. True there were some
Jews who did not eject them.
>> They talked about Christ, whom the Sanhedrin leaders killed.
>>
>>>You can even see that Christians were not calling Jews
>>>out of the Jewish faith in the verse we are discussing:
>>>
>>>Acts 15v5:
>>>"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees
>>>who believed..."
>>>
>>>The Pharisees were a sect of Judaism. AND they were
>>>believers. Luke sees no contradiction in writing that.
>>
>> Will you stop speaking for people, Jesuit! The Pharisees, though
>> Jews, put their two cents in the matter because the new Christians
>> were constantly "disputing" with them. The new Christians were
>> winning the arguments, but the Pharisees endeavored to hold on to
>> their own.
>
>Acts 15 calls them believers. That makes them Christians.
>Try exegesis rather than fantasy.
Try severing your ties to the Jesuit order!
I believe that if your friends post that all non-Catholics must die,
which they did, it is appropriate to be upset with them for that,
rather than upset at people who oppose them.
>> Still, all non-Catholics should live. I have sense enough to object to
>> and oppose anyone who says they must die. You have sense enough to
>> attack anyone who exposes others writing things like that on the
>> newsgroups.
>>
>>>>Having different days of
>>>>worship equates with circumcision done in private? On private parts?
>>>
>>>No one said it did.
>>
>> Jesuit said they weren't together or clearly seen, therefore no
>> contention. Circumcision is done only once in the life of a man.
>> That caused contention. The Jesuits tell us the day of worship has
>> changed. Where was the contention for this even in historical Jewish
>> literature?
>
>1) The sabbath was never commanded as a day of worship.
Matt. 24: pray that your flight be not in the Winter, nor upon the
Sabbath day.
Matt. 5:17-19: Till heaven and earth pass, not a jot or tittle of the
law shall fail.
>2) Sunday was never commanded as the day of worship.
TRUE!
>I'm not saying that early Christians met primarily on Sunday.
Then what changed that gave no contention between Jew and Gentile
about the Sabbath, but did about circumcision! The Jerusalem Council
you claim made a great change, but the record shows circumcision was
in contention but the Sabbath was not??
But how can you have Christ when He himself said the law stands till
heaven and earth pass, but you preach differently with your belief
that all non-Catholics must die?
>Jesus said until *all* [the law] is fulfilled.
Jesus said till heaven and earth pass!
>> Christ did not say those eternal words to last a year.
>
>What exegesis tells you that?
The same that makes me upset that your friends posted all
non-Catholics must die and that made me upset, and your exegesis made
you upset that I opposed it!
>> In Jesuit land
>> He did, and we still cannot teach you to only attack people who post
>> that all non-Catholics must die. Your logic is to only attack those
>> who expose people doing this.
>>
>>>>In the Jesuit's book that is so. Christ did not make that cataclysmic
>>>>statement to expire a year in the future especially with the Jesuit
>>>>intentionally leaving out the proof since it doesn't exist anyway.
>>>
>>>Romans 10v4: "For Christ is the end (telos - termination) of
>>>the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth"
Christ said in Matt. 5:17-19 that the law stands, "till heaven and
earth pass." Again how can I convince a super-terrorist cult member
of this when centuries has not convinced you guys that all
non-Catholics must live?
>> Matt. 5:17-19:
>> Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am
>> not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
>>
>> Jesuit believes that fulfilling means "termination", but doesn't mean
>> destroy!
>
>That's what the apostles believed and taught.
What worshipper are you then? Paulian, Petrian, Lukite?
I'm a Christian! Christ's words were plain and colored red in my
bible. Paul's words were described in 2 Pet. as "hard to be
understood," and can be easily wrested out of its meaning as you do.
>>>>>It obviously *cannot* mean that the mean that the 'moral law' will
>>>>>remain forever and the other laws will pass away sometime after
>>>>>his death.
>>>>
>>>>We didn't say that EVERY law now doesn't stand except those that are
>>>>moral, but on the website still we show what we mean.
>>>
>>>There is *no* way you can honestly render 'not a jot or tittle' and
>>>'the least of these commandments. To refer to anything apart from
>>>the whole law. To make it refer to a subset of the whole law
>>>renders the verse meaningless. And it you who are trying to
>>>prove something with Matt 5. Is the only way you can do it
>>>to render the verse meaningless???
>>
>> BUT JESUIT I BELIEVE ALL NON-CATHOLICS SHOULD LIVE! People wrote that
>> they should die. I was upset with them for writing it. You attacked
>> me for exposing it and opposing it.
>>
>> The law is the Old Testament.
>
>No. Basic error. The law is a section of the OT.
The whole OT can also be referred to as the law. At times Christ
Himself called it "law," and at other times he called it,
"scriptures."
>> That volume itself shows that under
>> conditions certain laws stand and others don't. It's explained on the
>> website: http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com/Matthew5.html
>>
>> The example of Christ Himself telling us the "eye for an eye" and
>
>That does not show that that commandment of God is no longer in
>effect. I've shown you your error on this before.
Good people have shown your cult for centuries that all non-Catholics
must live. Explain for us the progress of your learning abilities
since then!
You have explained nothing. You did not even comment on Christ saying
not a jot or tittle of the law shall pass till heaven and earth pass,
and He then yet went to tell us that the eye for an eye rule must not
be kept. You have to evade this issue obviously!
>>>> There is just a
>>>>statement above this reply without any accompanying proof.
>>>
>>>It's unclear to me which statement you are referring to.
>>>Please make that clear.
>>
>> You mean that all non-Catholics should live and that it is sensible in
>> case someone writes differently that we should attack that person and
>> not those who alert others about this as you did?
>
>Sigh :-|
Come out of your cult boy and change your belief that all
non-Catholics must die! Don't waste your time sighing! Christ will
fry you for your doctrine that His people must die!
But then He died and that was then reversed, according to the Jesuit!
>> I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill.
>
>And he *did* fulfill, or do you think he didn't do
>what he came to do?
And Christ said He didn't come to destroy the law! The Jesuit said
that Christ fulfilled it and therefore the law no longer stands. Just
as much sense as his belief that all non-Catholics must die!
>> For verily I say
>> unto you, till heaven and earth pass...
>
>*Till all is fulfilled*. Did Jesus acomplish what
>he came to do? If he didn't and the law is still
>in effect, why do you teach against circumcision?
Jesuit, listen. Circumcision is not the Ten Commandments, and even
the rules for the Jews on what to do with their slaves is not. You
know this, but you're a Jesuit!
Christ said,"verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass..."
That is perfectly clear and not with the Jesuit fulfilled that makes
Christ tell us the law stands till a year or two from His declaration.
What did Christ say we must do when your friends post or say that all
non-Catholics must die? I say they must be opposed and rebuked if not
reported to Homeland Security. What do you say? Answer the question
please!
>> Just as clear to me as the fact that all non-Catholics should live,
>> and only Jesuits would attack those who scold others for writing the
>> opposite.
>>
>>>Christ, through the cross reconciled both Jew and Gentile
>>>into one body by abolishing in his flesh the thing that
>>>seperated them. The law.
On the other hand, in Matt. 5:17-19 Christ said till heaven and earth
pass the law stands. In Luke 16:17 He says that it is easier for
heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle of the law to fail.
Now study the Jesuit order so you can figure out this Deluxe one!
>> It says law and commandments "contained in ordinances." Rituals.
>
>That doesn't follow. Commandments refers to more than just rituals.
Rituals were COMMANDED to be followed that pointed to Christ.
Matt. 5:17-19 makes it final and clear.
>> The nature of the rituals, pointing to Christ, shows this can be done.
>>
>> Still Christ gave Matt. 5:17-19. You need something very powerful and
>> lost to contradict this.
>
>I don't need to contradict it. I accept it just as written. Your
>interpretation is inconsistent with your teaching that parts of
>the law do not need to be followed.
Like Christ telling us every tittle of the law stands and then tells
us the eye for an eye rule doesn't? You and I know you have to evade
this issue with all your Jesuit talent! You claim I'm inconsistent
here. I Christ consisten here?
>> Enter the Jesuits who only attack people
>> upset that their friends posted how all non-Catholics must die.
>>
>>>>just as it is not true all non-Catholics must
>>>>die and it is only proper to attack someone who sees others making
>>>>this claim as you do.
>>>>
>>>>>>And how so? In my estimation a law can be
>>>>>>destroyed when an authoritative person informs others that it is no
>>>>>>longer to be observed.
>>>>
>>>>>Someone like the Apostles being guided by the Holy Spirit you mean?
>>
>> After Christ told us till heaven and earth pass it will not be? After
>> Christ said they were not to think that he has come to destroy the
>> law? Since when did the Holy Spirit become a Jesuit rebel. Does He
>> also only attack people who expose your friends telling us all
>> non-Catholics must die?
>
>So you're saying that Luke was satanically inspired when he reported
>the decision of the Jerusalem Council?
So you're saying Christ is satanically inspired for saying till heaven
and earth pass not a jot or tittle of the law shall fail? Did the
Jerusalem Council teach as you believe that all non-Christians must
die?
>>>>Yes, and the Apostles must not later claim that the everlasting
>>>>covernant is in the form of a will that no one can change after the
>>>>Testator dies.
>>>
>>>? No one has tried to change it. I take it when you say 'everlasting
>>>covenant' here you are refering to the New Covenant.
>>
>> The Jesuit tells us the Jerusalem council got together and abolished
>> certain things.
>
>No. They recognised the abolition that had already happened. And
>their decision was binding. And it's not *me* who tells you. It
>is The Holy Spirit. Through Luke.
Where did Christ say this in Matt. 5:17-19?
>>>>>>What did Jesus do to make them think that?
>>>>>
>>>>>He taught the Apostles, and guided them to their decisions. Also
>>>>>he points out that the law eventually will pass away in Matt 5,
>>>>>and points out the dietary laws will pass away in Mark.
After Christ already said in Matt. 5:17-19, using His foresight of the
future that TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS NOT A JOT OR TITTLE OF THE LAW
SHALL FAIL??
>> But He didn't do that at all. Christ said till heaven and earth pass,
>> nothing will change in the law.
>
>*Till all is fulfilled*. The presence of the word *till* implies that
>there will be an ending.
Repetivie Jesuit! Folks, do you know that the Jesuit Oath mandates
this poster to RELENTLESS warfare against his enemies?
Christ said "till all is fulfilled." What did He mean? His reference
to the words, "Till heaven and earth pass," shows what He meant. I
went over this with this Jesuit often enough for him to evade it.
Again, it's like trying to convince him that all non-Catholics should
live!
>> The Jesuit is speaking in that lie above. Christ didn't tell us that
>> if a Jesuit posts on the newsgroups that all non-Catholics must die,
>> we must only attack those who are upset about this as Jesuit Deluxe.,
>>
>>>>But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
>>>>tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
>>>>for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
>>>
>>>You seem to have forgotten to attach your answer to your standard
>>>rant.
>>
>> You have not forgotten to be a Jesuit. I reason as a human being, not
>> a sub-animal Jesuit like you who only attacks people upset that your
>> friends told us all non-Catholics must die. What reasoning powers and
>> capabilities for deception do you also have then?
>>
>>>>>>What
>>>>>>did Jesus do to make the Jews think that He was come to destroy the
>>>>>>law?
>>>>>
>>>>>He kept disobeying, and going out of his way to disobey the 'oral law'.
>>>>>The pharisees taught that this was given to moses at the same time as
>>>>>the written law and was of equal or greater authority.
>>>>
>>>>But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
>>>>tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
>>>>for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
>>
>> The Jesuit didn't answer the question as to how the sacrifice for sin,
>> without blemish to stand in my place, went out of his way to sin.
>
>IT IS NOT SIN TO BREAK THE *ORAL LAW* SINCE IT WAS NOT GIVEN BY GOD!
Christ didn't get circumcised!
>> Standard or wild blasphemy is nothing to a Jesuit!
>>
>>>This seems to be a cut and paste of your standard rant from above.
Let it continue just as much as your belief that if your friends post
that all non-Catholics must die, anyone who opposes it must be
attacked!
>> Your cult has not changed for centuries! Since your friends told us
>> all non-Catholics must die, and our objection to it has sparked your
>> attacks, can you tell us when your Antichrist will ever finally
>> change?
>>
>>>>Christ did not sin. He became a sacrifice for sin for us by going out
>>>>of His way to break the moral law?
>>>
>>>In no way did Christ break the law (or whatever you mean by 'the moral
>>>law'). He did go out of his way to break what the Pharisees called the
>>>'oral law' or the mishna.
>>
>> Adventists are talking about the precepts of the scriptures. Matthew
>> 5 is not talking about what this Jesuit is using to deceive us here.
>
>Interesting assertion not backed up by any exegesis. Am I surprised?
>No.
You mean that I object to your friends posting that all non-Catholics
must die, as they did, and I am upset with them for posting it, and
you are upset with me for opposing it?
>>>>We're displaying for you, dear readers, the horribleness of the
>>>>Jesuits.
>>>
>>>?
>>
>>
>>>>>>Most every time Jesus did something the Jews were apt to charge Him as
>>>>>>a sinner for had something to do with the Sabbath: For healing on the
>>>>>>Sabbath especially. The scripture therefore tells us that "till heaven
>>>>>>and earth pass" (have they passed sir?) "one jot or one tittle shall
>>>>>>in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here however is an interesting question: how do you destroy a law?
>>>>>
>>>>>There is no way that I can do it. God did it, or at least rendered
>>>>>it inoperative.
>>
>> Matt. 5:17-19 says exactly the opposite.
>
>It does not. And your own interpretation is inconsistent with your
>own teaching.
>
>You teach both that *not a jot or tittle shall be removed* *and* that
>Christ removed the eye for an eye law.
Repetitive Jesuit! Christ in Matt. 5:17-19 says that it all stands,
yet in Matt. 5 earlier he says that the eye for an eye rule no longer
stands. THIS IS EXPLAINED IN THE WEBSITE
http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com/Matthew5.html
and the Jesuit knows this. He intentionally does not comment about
the inconsistency of Christ in this matter.
>> Have Jesuit brains screwed
>> like this and would I be surprised that Jesuit Deluxe, witnessing his
>> friends posting that all non-Catholics must die, only attacks those
>> who are upset about this?
>>
>>>>But that didn't happen. It is not true. The Jesuit, as you can see,
>>>>is not too proud of his lie.
>>>
>>>2 Corinthians 3v6-11:
>>>
>>>"who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant;
>>>not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth,
>>>but the spirit giveth life.
Again misapplying the words of Paul for his agenda.
Christ said in Matt. 5:17-19 that TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS, not a
jot or tittle of the law shall pass.
Again, it's like trying to convince this Jesuit that if his friends
post that all non-Catholics must die, we must only be upset with and
attack those who object to the statement.
>> No specific reference here, but there is a warning about wresting the
>> meaning of Paul's writings. He is talking about the precepts of the
>> law being on the stone only and not written in the heart.
>
>Lol. If you wan't to try exegesis, join the "Ministration of death"
>thread about this very verse.
Show me where that ministration of death thread to all non-Catholics
exists!
>> Paul does not take away from Christ's clear statement in Matt. 5:17-19
>> no matter what the Jesuit says.
>
>Sigh :-|
And all non-Catholics must live! It is appropriate if we see your
friends posting that all non-Catholics must die, to be upset with them
for posting it and not at those who oppose it as you are.
>>>[7] But if the ministration of
>>>death, written, and engraven on stones, came with glory, so
>>>that the children of Israel could not look stedfastly upon
>>>the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory
>>>was passing away: [8] how shall not rather the ministration
>>>of the spirit be with glory?
>>
>> These are again Paul's writings being wrested as 2 Pet. warns about.
>> Quiite different from other biblical statements showing even in Psalms
>> that the law of the Lord is perfect, CONVERTING THE SOUL."
>>
>> The ministration of the law on Sinai came with glory, BUT IT ALSO CAME
>> WITH DEATH BECAUSE THE ONLOOKERS WERE SINFUL.
>>
>> Moses face shown with glory for a time being in the direct presence of
>> God. There was no alienation nor hostility with Moses and the Lord,
>> who spoke face to face. Moses kept the law.
>
>Read the verse. The ministration of death is what was written
>and engraven on stones. Not the result of breaking what that
>said.
Read Matt. 5:17-19. It says that TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS, not a
jot or tittle of the law shall fail.
You are a Jesuit even trying to show that the scriptures are useless
in the hands of people who believe all non-Catholics must live.
The Ten Commandments are not the ministration of death because of its
existence. It is that because IF YOU BREAK IT YOU ARE SENTENCED TO
DIE. Romans says the wages of sin is death. That is what it means.
Anyone under the law or its condemnation will need a savior.
Read this verse that if your friends post that all non-Catholics must
die, we must get upset with them for posting it and not at those who
oppose them.
>>>[9] For if the ministration of
>>>condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration
>>>of righteousness exceed in glory. [10] For verily that which
>>>hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this
>>>respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. [11] For if
>>>that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which
>>>remaineth is in glory."
>>>
>>>The word rendered 'passeth away' here is the greek 'katargeo'
>>>meaning "to render inoperative".
>>
>> When the law was presented on Sinai, the glory therewith did not
>> remain forever. Nothing is glowing in the same area even now.
>> Neither did Moses face shine forever.
>
>And the ministration of death has passed away.
Through Christ, yes. We are freed from the law condemning us because
we broke it. We are freed from the penalty as if we were let out of
the penalty that put us in jail. What should we do once we are freed?
>>>>>It is still serving a purpose of convicting people
>>>>>who do not have faith yet.
>>
>> Doesn't say the Law only convicts people who don't have faith. All
>> the language says that the Law speaks against all WHO BREAK IT.
>
>Other scripture tells us that.
Forgot to post it just like you forget to attack those who post all
non-Catholics must die, but remember to attack those who are upset at
those words?
>>>>But that didn't happen. It is not true. The Jesuit, as you can see,
>>>>is not too proud of his lie.
>>>
>>>You seem to have cut and pasted this from above.
>>
>> Did your cult change yet? Can non-Catholics live to inspire you to
>> challenge anyone saying they must die, instead of those upset about
>> such?
>
>Sigh :-|
Sever from your cult boy, so that you don't keep sighing your way to
hell! Change your beliefs of super-terrorism and death to all not of
your religion!
>>>>>>Is
>>>>>>this question too hard?
>>>>>
>>>>>No. Fairly basic Christianity 101 stuff really.
>>
>> Should non-Catholics live? If your friends say they must die, as they
>> did, should Christians copy you by only attacking those who are upset
>> about it?
>>
>>>>Alright then, if someone tells us all non-Catholics must die and
>>>>another gets upset at him for that, is it good common sense to attack
>>>>the one who is upset as you do?
>>>
>>>I'm attacking no one. I want to talk about theology.
>>>I just wish you'd stick to the bible.
But you're a Jesuit trained in deceit, evasion, diversion and circular
reasoning. I'm demonstrating why the truth is intentionally made hard
for the people to find.
>> I DON'T CARE. I HAVE COMMON SENSE. You want to just stick to bible
>> because you support your friends telling us all non-Catholics must
>> die! You only attacked us who exposed it.
>
>You imply that your common sense overrides what the bible says.
>I am not surprised.
You mean that all non-Catholics really should die, as you claim?
Is that why you believe all non-Catholics must die and you are a
super-terrorist? Just how much of a percent you claim Christ said to
keep?
>You keep less than 50% and condemn me, even though
>your interpretation of Matt.5 is inconsistent with
>your actions.
Christ said till not a jot or tittle of the law shall fail and yet
says the eye for an eye rule no longer stands. You have deliberately
evaded the point to call me inconsistent and avoid doing the same to
Christ.
>>>>Would others who believe all non-Catholics must die as you do come to
>>>>the same conclusion?
>>>>
>>>>>>This may make sense to many, but I contend that this does not make
>>>>>>sense to God's people.
>>>>>
>>>>>How would you know? Have you ever met any of God's people?
>>
>> But this still won't make sense to any of God's people.
>
>It seems unlikely that you know any of God's people.
The bible shows millions of them have been exterminated. Your friends
posted that all non-Catholics must die. I objected to this, and you,
naturally, attacked us for objecting to it.
>>>>>Well I believe all non-Catholics should live. Would you know I have
>>>>>not met any of God's people since you don't believe this?
>>
>>>>Off topic.
>>
>> But I still believe all non-Catholics must live. I'm not a Jesui
>> trained in super-terrorism, blasphemy and deceit.
>>
>>>>>>Ephesians even says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with
>>>>>>promise; -- Eph. 6:2
>>
>>>>>>We can see that the very words are quoted from the Ten
>>>>>>Commandments! Did we not think that the Law was finished? Why would
>>>>>>any of the Apostles quote from the Ten Commandments, when they are
>>>>>>supposed to be acting like so many today in preaching to all that it
>>>>>>is dangerous to keep the law? Do people today not tell us that to
>>>>>>fulfill a law means to destroy it? If you fulfilled the law of
>>>>>>insuring your vehicle, can you then uninsure it since that law is now
>>>>>>no longer in effect?
>>>>>
>>>>>Can you not quote from something that is no longer in effect? Can
>>>>>one not also say that that command is still to be obeyed?
>>>>
>>>>In the statement above, as the Jesuit knows, Paul is exhorting the
>>>>people to obey. If it is not to be obeyed, Paul should join these
>>>>Jesuits and make sure right after to tell them what he just quoted
>>>>should not be obeyed.
They claim Paul teaches the law is ended and shouldn't be obeyed. In
common sense, Paul can quote the words of that law he himself no
longer stands, but you can't catch these Jesuits today quoting it
since they believe it is destroyed!
>>>The fact that Paul exhorts people not to murder and to honour their
>>>parents does not mean that we are still under the law. Paul explicitly
>>>says that neither we, nor he are under the law.
>>
>> Again intentionally deceiving. To be "under the law" doesn't mean to
>> obey it. It means to be under its condemnation for DISOBEYING IT!
>
>That interpretation leads to internal inconsistency, just like your
>interpretation of Matt.5.
Like Christ telling us every jot stands till the end of time, but the
eye for an eye rule no longer stands?
But I don't believe that all non-Catholics must die nor attack people
who are upset at your friends telling us all non-Catholics must die as
you do!
>Paul wrote that Christ was born under the law.
>
>Your interpretation renders that as Christ was born under the
>condemnation of the the law for DISOBEYING IT!
The scripture says Christ was MADE under the law that He may lift us
up out from under it.
Christ didn't disobey it, but was accounted as if He had in our
behalf.
And yet more, all non-Catholics should live. I don't care what you
say!
>> So being "under the law" by keeping it, according to the Jesuit, is
>> dangerous, and yet Paul exhorts people to fulfill its commands... for
>> their best good!
>
>Try some exegesis.
You mean all non-Catholics finally must live! I'M HAPPY FOR YOU!!
LET'S HAVE A BIRTHDAY CAKE!
>>>>>>What therefore does the word "fulfill" mean? The scripture says that
>>>>>>not a jot or tittle--not a dotting of an "I" or a stroking of a "T"
>>>>>>shall be moved till all be fulfilled. Does the word "fulfilled" mean
>>>>>>to destroy or to take out of the way? If that is true, why does Jesus
>>>>>>then say, Whosoever THEREFORE . . . " (here meaning with reference to
>>>>>>what was just said before)
>>
>>>>>ok. I'm getting bored of this.
The Jesuit Oath tells you to be "bored?" or does it tell you to make
RELENTLESS WAR!
>>>>Since when do Jesuits get bored when their enemies provide evidence
>>>>they can't overthrow?
>>
>>>>>This has been covered many times before.
>>
>>>>OH GOOD! Since we have not received answer from you yet whether or
>>>>not if people tell us all non-Catholics must die, and others are upset
>>>>about it, we must attack the others. You still keep trailing my posts
>>>>though!
>>
>>>>>It is *until* it is fulfilled. Thats a sequence of events. It does not
>>>>>require fulfilled to mean done away with. Do you have a memory problem?
>>
>>>>But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
>>>>tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
>>>>for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
>>>
>>>You're saying that the statement "A won't happen till B" is not making
>>>a statement about a sequence of events?
>>
>> Matt. 5:17-19 says "till heaven and earth pass."
>
>And it says "till all is fulfilled". He came to fulfill.
He said till heaven and earth pass. I assure you it is probably your
belief that all non-Catholics must die that clouds up your brains.
>>>>Naturally, as for centuries, you would know who has cerebral problems!
>>>
>>>I think we both know that Susan. So does google.
Show me where Google believes all non-Catholics must die and that if
your friends post that they must, people should only attack others who
object to that. The ball is in your court!
Google was given complaints by you Jesuits. Still, if even Google
sees you guys posting that all non-Catholics must die, they should
have reported your to Homeland Security.
>> Google believes that if your friends tell us all non-Catholics must
>> die, we must get upset with people who reprove and expose them for
>> that???
>
>Yes. Google is part of the Jesuit conspiracy.
Show me where they believe, as you do, that if your friends post that
all non-Catholics must die, and others are upset about it, we must
only attack those who are upset about it.
In His Grace,
Susan
deluxe
law'.
>>>>>>The pharisees taught that this was given to moses at the same time as
>>>>>>the written law and was of equal or greater authority.
>>>>>
>>>>>But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
>>>>>tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
>>>>>for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
>>>
>>>The Jesuit didn't answer the question as to how the sacrifice for sin,
>>>without blemish to stand in my place, went out of his way to sin.
>>
>>IT IS NOT SIN TO BREAK THE *ORAL LAW* SINCE IT WAS NOT GIVEN BY GOD!
>
>
> Christ didn't get circumcised!
>
WHAT??????
Not only did you make that blatent mistake about Abraham, saying
that Abraham was never circumcised, now you say Christ was never
circumcised.
Luke 2v21: "And when eight days were accomplished for
the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS,
which was so named of the angel before he was conceived
in the womb."
Such biblical ignorance in someone so verciferous about her
beliefs. Don't you think it is a better method to read the
bible *before* reaching your theology?
deluxe
>>> mean to obey it. It means to be under its condemnation
>>> for DISOBEYING IT!
>>
>>Your interpretation renders that as Christ was born under the
>>condemnation of the the law for DISOBEYING IT!
>
>
> up out from under it.
>
> Christ didn't disobey it, but was accounted as if He had in our
> behalf.
>
> And yet more, all non-Catholics should live. I don't care what you
> say!
>
Galations 4v4 says:
"but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of
a woman, born under the law,"
If you say that to be "under the law" means to be under its condemnation
for disobeying it, the Galations 4v4 says that Christ was born under
the condemnation of the law for disobeying it.
Since you disavow that interpretation, you can't believe in your
definition of "under the law"
deluxe
He also said till all is fulfilled. At the same time he said that
he came to fulfill.
There is nothing ambiguous about the ruling of the apostles. The
only problem here is your inconsistent exegesis.
>
> You, as a Jesuit, know that the expression "law" can mean several
> things according to the context.
> It can mean the OT, the ritual law,
> the Ten Commandments, etc.
It almost always refers to the mosaic law. All of it. Just like it
does in conteporary Jewish literature. *Unless* there is something
in context to tell you it refers to something else.
If you are going to try and claim that 'the law' is an ambiguous
term, which it patently isn't, then why do you take it as unambiguous
in Matt 5?
>
> The Jerusalem council met to address contention. Circumcision was a
> contention. The weekly Sabbath was not.
Keeping the sabbath was part of the law. That was what they ruled on.
To take another position is to impose your preconceived theology onto
the bible, rather than to read what the bible says and derive your
theology from that.
>
>
>>>Romans 20 shows that the true religion of Christ was Jewish and that
>>>the Gentiles were grafted in among them. Circumcision was a sign
>>>given by God between Himself and the Jews. Abraham, however, was not
>>>circumcised.
>>
>>Romans 20????
>>Gentiles were not grafted into Israel.
>>Circumcision was mandated by the law. If the law is
>>mandatory for believers, circumcision is mandatory
>>for believers.
>
>
> The term law can mean many different things. Christ said the law
> stands "till heaven and earth pass." I'm a Christian. You come with
> glee claiming to be a Jersalem Councilite. According to your
> deception you claim we are not to keep the law, and it is talking
> about the same law Christ said stands forever.
Christ did not say it stands forever.
He said *Until* twice.
Specifically he said both that it stands *until* it is fulfilled
*and* that he came to fulfill it.
Why do you take 'the law' as ambiguous in Acts 15, but unambiguous
in Matt 5?
>
> You're a Jesuit!
>
>
>>You should really get to know your OT better before
>>making such basic historical errors as 'Abraham was
>>not circumcised'.
>>
>>Genesis 17:24:
>>"And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was
>>circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin."
>
>
> Jesuit, was Abraham finally saved at 99 years?
>
No. Abraham was save by grace through faith the moment
he believed.
That can't change you ignorance of the historical fact
that Abraham was circumcised.
>
>>>So Christ told His disciples what was required for the Christian, His
>>>life being witness since the Disciples were with him. Christ said in
>>>Matt. 28 for them to go into all the world, teaching all things that
>>>he has commanded.
>>
>>So did he command keeping the law or not? The apostles clearly
>>thought not.
>
>
> But Jesuit, Christ said the law stands.
At the time Christ spoke the law was standing, since
he hadn't fulfilled it.
> It's like trying to argue
> with you that non-Catholics should live.
You don't have to argue that, since I believe it.
> Did your Pope agree to that
> yet?
What Pope? I recognise no pope.
> Christ says it stands, your God says it doesn't. Obviously they
> don't mean the same "law."
>
>
>>>I need to help out Jesuit Deluxe. Man, it's hard work! Didn't even
>>>convince him yet that non-Catholics should live!
>>
>>All non-Catholics should live. Until they die.
>
>
> Some posted they must die.
Eventually, all non-Catholics must die.
I pray that it is peacfully,painlessly through
natural causes. Same as I would pray for
Catholics, who hold such ridiculous doctrines
it's not even funny.
> I was upset with that and posted my
> objections. You objected to me and only attacked me.
>
> You're a Jesuit!
>
:-|
It almost exclusively means the law of Moses. You know this. You
know it so well that that's how you render it in Matt 5.
Just read through the mishna and see what phrase they use to
reference the law of Moses. Just read Josephus and see what
term he uses. Read *any* contemporary Jewish writing and see
what phrase they use.
"law" is a reference to law in general. "The law" is a reference
to a specific body of law. In the Jewish context, there was only
one such body of law that was being refered to.
You're not looking at the verse in Acts 15 and saying "what does
the term 'the law' mean". You're looking at my conclusion from
what the term 'the law' obviously means, and because you don't
like the conclusion, you're seeking some way to fault it. Sadly
the only thing you can do is attach the meaning of a term that
obviously means the law of Moses.
That's not exegesis Susan. That's denial.
> You know this, but
> you're a Jesuit.
>
> Christ said the law stands, "Till heaven and earth pass." One says
> one thing, another says another.
You also teach that things in the law have passed.
You cannot honestly take this reading of Matt 5 and
teach what you teach.
> It is your mission to deceive
> everyone into thinking they're talking about the same thing.
>
They are.
> Problem is that Christ said the law stands, "Till heaven and earth
> pass." Matt. 5:17-19.
He also said until all is fulfilled, and that he came to fulfill it.
> See, I'm not a Jesuit! If someone posts that
> all non-Catholics must die, I would object to that person and not
> someone upset that the person posted that.
>
>
>>>>Note that the decision of the Jerusalem Council seemed good
>>>>to the Holy Spirit.
>>>
>>>Did the Holy Spirit teach you yet, Jesuit Deluxe, that non-Catholics
>>>should live?
>>
>>Sigh :-|
>
>
> Sigh! JUST SEVER YOUR REAR QUARTERS FROM THE CULT!
>
> I have greater sense. Christ says the law stands. Your God says it
> does not, according to you. I happen to know they are not referring
> to the same thing. It is your mission to deceive people into thinking
> they are.
>
> I have greater sense. Your friends posted that all non-Catholics must
> die. My natural reaction at being upset at this was different from
> yours. You are upset that your friends were opposed and rebuked.
>
>
>>>Why would your twisting of the decision of the Jerusalem Council be
>>>good, when Paul himself wrote and declared of the new covenant, that
>>>after the Testator dies, nothing can be added or subtracted from it?
>>
>>Twisting? In what way am I twisting?
>>Jesus gave the apostles the right to bind and loose.
>
>
> BUT JESUS HIMSELF USED HIS PROPHETIC FORESIGHT AND SAID THAT "TILL
> HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS" THE LAW STANDS!
Yet your teaching is inconsistent with this interpretation.
Jesus also said till all is fulfilled, and that he came to
fulfill. Did he fail to fulfill it?
>
>
>>>http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com/Covenants.htm
>>>
>>
>>More drivel?
>
>
> Like your disagreement with the fact that all non-Catholics must live?
>
I don't disagree.
>
>>After your debacle defending your interpretation of
>>Matt 5, you'll have to post the section of that you
>>refer to.
>
>
> Like my debacle claiming that if your friends post that all
> non-Catholics must die, they should be attacked in contradiction to
> your claim that only those who attack your friends who posted that
> must be attacked, Jesuit?
>
:-)
Funny you don't want to defend that exegesis...
I wonder why?
Nope. And Gentiles keeping the law (including resting on the
sabbath) caused contention. Recorded (amongst other places)
in Acts 15.
>
>>>This Jesuit is so slick! Still yet only
>>>attack us who exposed his friends telling us all non-Catholics must
>>>die.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>If it was found even in the doctrine of the new
>>>>>Christians that they were teaching there was no more Seventh-day
>>>>>Sabbath, that would have caused contention.
>>>>
>>>>1) No one taught "there was no more Seventh day sabbath".
>>>> That's a different statement to whether it was obligatory
>>>> for believers to rest on the sabbath.
>>>
>>>This is different from what others of the "Lord's Day" ITES were
>>>saying. Naturally in the wrong, there are many different ways to
>>>express the lie. Others supporting "The Lord's Day" as Sunday have
>>>told us there is no more Sabbath day on the Seventh-day.
>>
>>Sunday is not "The Lord's Day."
>
>
> Then what changed that gave no contention between Jew and Gentile
> about the Sabbath, but did about circumcision!
>
There was contention about other things.
>
>>>Christians tell us how the Apostles changed the day merely by
>>>worshipping on Sunday.
>>
>>1) The sabbath was never commanded as a day of worship. Anywhere.
>>2) Sunday was never commanded as a day of worship. Anywhere.
>>
>>I'm not claiming *in any way* that somehow the day of worship
>>was changed.
>
>
> When not proud of the lie, leave out the proof.
It's not my lie.
> If the Christians
> taught this, there would be no contention between them and the Jews???
>
>
>>>What happened when they had worship on
>>>Wednesday?
>>
>>Same thing as when they worshiped on a Sunday probably.
>
>
> Then what changed that gave no contention between Jew and Gentile
> about the Sabbath, but did about circumcision!
>
There was contention about other things. Keeping the law.
>
>>>>2) It's much less likely there would be a contention if
>>>> Gentiles sometimes rested on the sabbath, and didn't
>>>> say the Jews shouldn't rest on the sabbath. There is
>>>> nothing in Christian doctrine saying there is anything
>>>> wrong with resting on the sabbath!
>>>
>>>They say, "WE REST ON 'THE LORD'S DAY' to comemorate the ressurection
>>>of our Lord."
>>
>>That's not what *I* say.
>
>
> Then what changed that gave no contention between Jew and Gentile
> about the Sabbath, but did about circumcision! The Jerusalem Council
> you claim made a great change, but the record shows circumcision was
> in contention but the Sabbath was not??
There was contention about other things.
>
>
>>>In the word "REST" they are mimicking the actual
>>>command that was instituted for the Seventh-day, even saying that the
>>>Lord's Day (as Sunday) replaces the commanded day of rest.
>>
>>That's not what *I* say.
>>Don't set up a straw man.
>
>
> Then what changed that gave no contention between Jew and Gentile
> about the Sabbath, but did about circumcision! The Jerusalem Council
> you claim made a great change, but the record shows circumcision was
> in contention but the Sabbath was not??
>
There was contention about other things. See Acts 15. Contention
about keeping the law.
>
>>>>3) Even if there were contention on this matter, that doesnt
>>>> mean that God considered it important enough to mention
>>>> in scripture.
>>>
>>>It was written on record by the Apostles.
>>
>>What was? That Gentiles did not have to keep the law?
>
>
> Like it was written by Christ that the law stands, "Till heaven and
> earth pass?"
Still not defending this exegesis as consistent are you?
>
> Where is it written, as you support, that if your friends post that
> all non-Catholics must die, all Christians are to only attack those
> who challenge that statement?
>
>
>>> The Jesuit says that God
>>>thought circumcision was important, but the actual day of rest was
>>>not. This contention we are talking about is even in recorded Jewish
>>>History. They also forgot to write about the change of the day of
>>>worship even in a secular sense!
>>
>>I doubt you have *any* knowledge of the talmud or Jewish historical
>>writings.
>
>
> Yeah, I believe all non-Catholics must live, but you would only attack
> people who oppose others saying such things!
>
:-|
>
>>>It's hard to debate with Jesuits who still don't understand that all
>>>non-Catholics should live!
>>
>>Sigh :-|
>
>
> Don't sigh, O Servant of the Antichrist!
I am a servant of Christ.
> Tell us now that you repent,
> and that you will no longer only attack people who object to your
> friends posting that all non-Catholics must die!
>
> Give yourself a rest then and stop sighing. We waited centuries for
> your cult to change, and we sighed and sighed, but in VAIN!
>
>
>>>>4) The contention you are looking for *is there* in Acts 15.
>>>> The Jerusalem Council considered the issue of whether or
>>>> not it was needful for Gentiles to keep the law. That
>>>> would include resting on the sabbath. They concluded that
>>>> it was not needful. The Jewish Christian leaders gave a
>>>> decision on the matter, and made no attempt to prevent
>>>> Jews resting on the sabbath.
>>>
>>>But all non-Catholics must live, and therefore if someone posts they
>>>must die, why would Jesuit Deluxe only attack those who oppose and
>>>expose the motion:?
>>>
>>>CHRIST, not Paul, told His followers that till heaven and earth pass,
>>>not a jot or tittle shall pass from the law.
>>
>>*Till all is fulfilled*. Yet you teach that many things in the law,
>>such as circumcision have passed. That's inconsistent with your
>>interpretation here.
>
>
> I've explained the position even from the scriptures, and even from
> Christ saying it must all stand and then telling us the eye for an eye
> rule does not!
Then you render the words of Christ inconsistent. It is inconsistent
to say *both* all the law stands *and* that one law has passed.
Christ was not inconsistent. It is your exegesis that is inconsistent.
>
> Being a Jesuit, you continue this accusation and then fault us again
> and again.
>
>
>>>Whosoever Apostle or
>>>Jerusalem council shall break these least commandments and shall teach
>>>men so, he shall be called least and shall not enter into heaven.
>>>Matt. 5:17-19.
>>
>>And yet you teach that circumcision has passed.
>
>
> You claim to be a Christian and yet you support the idea that all
> non-Catholics must die.
>
> Christ teaches it must all stand, and then Christ tells us the eye for
> an eye rule does not stand. You don't go into this issue.
*I* don't need to, since I believe it has all passed. But as
it happens, I have told you about the eye for an eye comment,
which would let you escape from your inconsistency with Matt 5,
but you won't even accept that.
> It is
> explained on the website that the law, or OT scripture modifies and
> shows what specific codes are still standing. The OT however stands
> completely in that it modifies and shows which rules are moral,
> ceremonial, for health, for war, etc.
>
That is *SO* funny.
You say that Matt 5 says it all stands.
Then you say lots of it has 'changed' and
that most of it (which you call ceremonial,
for health, for war etc) has passed.
*AT THE SAME TIME* you interpret Matt 5 as saying it all stands.
That's not consistent Susan.
>
>>>>>The new Christians were
>>>>>calling the Jews out of the Jewish faith.
>>>>
>>>>No. It was only around 80-90 AD that Jewish Christians
>>>>were forced out of Judaism by changes to the worship
>>>>service instituted by the rabbis.
>>>
>>>Fine, but the new Christians were calling the Jews out of the Jewish
>>>Faith.
>>
>>No. Jewish Christians kept going to synagogue up until about
>>80-90 AD. Until then Jewish Christians were basically a
>>branch of Judaism. A branch that believed that Jesus fulfilled
>>the messianic prophecies.
>
>
> Where is the promise that He came to destroy the law?
He did not come to destroy the law.
Try to keep up Susan.
He said specifically he did not come
to destroy it, but to fulfill it.
>
> The Christians were calling people out of the Jewish faith after their
> Master was killed and then Stephen was killed. True there were some
> Jews who did not eject them.
>
Most Jews did not eject them. Indeed, they were never actually
ejected per se, the Jews just changed the synagogue service to
include things that Christians couldn't say in good conscience.
>
>>>They talked about Christ, whom the Sanhedrin leaders killed.
>>>
>>>
>>>>You can even see that Christians were not calling Jews
>>>>out of the Jewish faith in the verse we are discussing:
>>>>
>>>>Acts 15v5:
>>>>"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees
>>>>who believed..."
>>>>
>>>>The Pharisees were a sect of Judaism. AND they were
>>>>believers. Luke sees no contradiction in writing that.
>>>
>>>Will you stop speaking for people, Jesuit! The Pharisees, though
>>>Jews, put their two cents in the matter because the new Christians
>>>were constantly "disputing" with them. The new Christians were
>>>winning the arguments, but the Pharisees endeavored to hold on to
>>>their own.
>>
>>Acts 15 calls them believers. That makes them Christians.
>>Try exegesis rather than fantasy.
>
>
> Try severing your ties to the Jesuit order!
>
I have no ties to any Jesuit or Jesuit order.
How about answering the question now?
If Acts 15 calls them believers, who are you to
say they are not believers?
> I believe that if your friends post that all non-Catholics must die,
> which they did, it is appropriate to be upset with them for that,
> rather than upset at people who oppose them.
>
>
>>>Still, all non-Catholics should live. I have sense enough to object to
>>>and oppose anyone who says they must die. You have sense enough to
>>>attack anyone who exposes others writing things like that on the
>>>newsgroups.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Having different days of
>>>>>worship equates with circumcision done in private? On private parts?
>>>>
>>>>No one said it did.
>>>
>>>Jesuit said they weren't together or clearly seen, therefore no
>>>contention. Circumcision is done only once in the life of a man.
>>>That caused contention. The Jesuits tell us the day of worship has
>>>changed. Where was the contention for this even in historical Jewish
>>>literature?
>>
>>1) The sabbath was never commanded as a day of worship.
>
>
> Matt. 24: pray that your flight be not in the Winter, nor upon the
> Sabbath day.
>
> Matt. 5:17-19: Till heaven and earth pass, not a jot or tittle of the
> law shall fail.
>
1) The sabbath was never commanded as a day of worship.
>
>>2) Sunday was never commanded as the day of worship.
>
>
> TRUE!
>
As was (1), which you chose not to comment on.
>
>>I'm not saying that early Christians met primarily on Sunday.
>
>
> Then what changed that gave no contention between Jew and Gentile
> about the Sabbath, but did about circumcision! The Jerusalem Council
> you claim made a great change, but the record shows circumcision was
> in contention but the Sabbath was not??
The record shows the sabbath was, since it was commanded under the law.
*AND* till all is fulfilled.
>
>>>Christ did not say those eternal words to last a year.
>>
>>What exegesis tells you that?
>
>
> The same that makes me upset that your friends posted all
> non-Catholics must die and that made me upset, and your exegesis made
> you upset that I opposed it!
>
IE *no* exegesis.
>
>>>In Jesuit land
>>>He did, and we still cannot teach you to only attack people who post
>>>that all non-Catholics must die. Your logic is to only attack those
>>>who expose people doing this.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>In the Jesuit's book that is so. Christ did not make that cataclysmic
>>>>>statement to expire a year in the future especially with the Jesuit
>>>>>intentionally leaving out the proof since it doesn't exist anyway.
>>>>
>>>>Romans 10v4: "For Christ is the end (telos - termination) of
>>>>the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth"
>
>
> Christ said in Matt. 5:17-19 that the law stands, "till heaven and
> earth pass." Again how can I convince a super-terrorist cult member
> of this when centuries has not convinced you guys that all
> non-Catholics must live?
>
Till all is fulfilled.
>
>>>Matt. 5:17-19:
>>>Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am
>>>not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
>>>
>>>Jesuit believes that fulfilling means "termination", but doesn't mean
>>>destroy!
>>
>>That's what the apostles believed and taught.
>
>
> What worshipper are you then? Paulian, Petrian, Lukite?
>
> I'm a Christian! Christ's words were plain and colored red in my
> bible.
What is coloured red in your bible is what was reported as the
words of Chirst. What is recorded as the words of Christ is no
more inspired than the authors were. If you don't believe the
apostles, how can you believe what they recorded as Christs
words? They saw no conflict between what Christ said and what
they ruled at the Jerusalem Council, why do you?
> Paul's words were described in 2 Pet. as "hard to be
> understood," and can be easily wrested out of its meaning as you do.
>
Show us the true reading then Susan, why don't you try some exegesis
rather than just going on about Jesuit conspiracies all the time?
I've commented on that *many* times.
Christ is not commenting on the OT rule for judges determining a
punishment for a criminal. That's obvious both from the contexts,
and from the fact that Jesus does not say "it is written", but
"it was said of old".
There are multiple purposes for the coming of Christ.
>
>
>>>The Jesuit blasphemed. Christ said He didn't come to destroy the law,
>>>but "till heaven and earth pass"... The Jesuit says it was his death
>>>that was to destroy the law.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Actually that's not true
>>>>
>>>>Ephesisans 2v14-16:
>>>>
>>>>"For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down
>>>>the middle wall of partition, 15having abolished in his
>>>>flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained
>>>>in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the
>>>>two one new man, so making peace; 16and might reconcile
>>>>them both in one body unto God through the cross, having
>>>>slain the enmity thereby:"
>
>
> But then He died and that was then reversed, according to the Jesuit!
>
No. That's written after Christ's death. Christ abolished
in his flesh the emnity, even the law of commandments
contained in ordinances.
>
>>>I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill.
>>
>>And he *did* fulfill, or do you think he didn't do
>>what he came to do?
>
>
> And Christ said He didn't come to destroy the law! The Jesuit said
> that Christ fulfilled it and therefore the law no longer stands. Just
> as much sense as his belief that all non-Catholics must die!
>
He didn't destroy it, he fulfilled it.
>
>>>For verily I say
>>>unto you, till heaven and earth pass...
>>
>>*Till all is fulfilled*. Did Jesus acomplish what
>>he came to do? If he didn't and the law is still
>>in effect, why do you teach against circumcision?
>
>
> Jesuit, listen. Circumcision is not the Ten Commandments, and even
> the rules for the Jews on what to do with their slaves is not. You
> know this, but you're a Jesuit!
>
> Christ said,"verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass..."
>
> That is perfectly clear and not with the Jesuit fulfilled that makes
> Christ tell us the law stands till a year or two from His declaration.
>
> What did Christ say we must do when your friends post or say that all
> non-Catholics must die? I say they must be opposed and rebuked if not
> reported to Homeland Security. What do you say? Answer the question
> please!
>
Try answering a question at least once in your life. Do you believe
that Matt 5 refers only to the ten commandments? What context leads you
to believe that? Did Jesus accomplish what he came to do?
>
>>>Just as clear to me as the fact that all non-Catholics should live,
>>>and only Jesuits would attack those who scold others for writing the
>>>opposite.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Christ, through the cross reconciled both Jew and Gentile
>>>>into one body by abolishing in his flesh the thing that
>>>>seperated them. The law.
>
>
> On the other hand, in Matt. 5:17-19 Christ said till heaven and earth
> pass the law stands. In Luke 16:17 He says that it is easier for
> heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle of the law to fail.
>
> Now study the Jesuit order so you can figure out this Deluxe one!
>
Since you say that most of the law has failed, how can you at the
same time say that heaven and earth haven't passed?
>
>>>It says law and commandments "contained in ordinances." Rituals.
>>
>>That doesn't follow. Commandments refers to more than just rituals.
>
>
> Rituals were COMMANDED to be followed that pointed to Christ.
>
> Matt. 5:17-19 makes it final and clear.
Eh?
The law as a whole points to Christ, and Christ fulfilled the law,
yet you teach we must keep the law. Yet at the same time, you teach
that since rituals pointed to Christ, we don't have to follow them.
You are so inconsistent it is difficult to follow you.
>
>
>>>The nature of the rituals, pointing to Christ, shows this can be done.
>>>
>>>Still Christ gave Matt. 5:17-19. You need something very powerful and
>>>lost to contradict this.
>>
>>I don't need to contradict it. I accept it just as written. Your
>>interpretation is inconsistent with your teaching that parts of
>>the law do not need to be followed.
>
>
> Like Christ telling us every tittle of the law stands and then tells
> us the eye for an eye rule doesn't? You and I know you have to evade
> this issue with all your Jesuit talent! You claim I'm inconsistent
> here. I Christ consisten here?
>
Christ didn't say that that rule doesn't apply. I've told you
this many times before, but you seem to lack an ability to understand.
>
>>>Enter the Jesuits who only attack people
>>>upset that their friends posted how all non-Catholics must die.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>just as it is not true all non-Catholics must
>>>>>die and it is only proper to attack someone who sees others making
>>>>>this claim as you do.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>And how so? In my estimation a law can be
>>>>>>>destroyed when an authoritative person informs others that it is no
>>>>>>>longer to be observed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Someone like the Apostles being guided by the Holy Spirit you mean?
>>>
>>>After Christ told us till heaven and earth pass it will not be? After
>>>Christ said they were not to think that he has come to destroy the
>>>law? Since when did the Holy Spirit become a Jesuit rebel. Does He
>>>also only attack people who expose your friends telling us all
>>>non-Catholics must die?
>>
>>So you're saying that Luke was satanically inspired when he reported
>>the decision of the Jerusalem Council?
>
>
> So you're saying Christ is satanically inspired for saying till heaven
> and earth pass not a jot or tittle of the law shall fail? Did the
> Jerusalem Council teach as you believe that all non-Christians must
> die?
>
No. I accept Matt 5. You don't accept Acts 15. You are the person
who doesn't accept the bible.
>
>>>>>Yes, and the Apostles must not later claim that the everlasting
>>>>>covernant is in the form of a will that no one can change after the
>>>>>Testator dies.
>>>>
>>>>? No one has tried to change it. I take it when you say 'everlasting
>>>>covenant' here you are refering to the New Covenant.
>>>
>>>The Jesuit tells us the Jerusalem council got together and abolished
>>>certain things.
>>
>>No. They recognised the abolition that had already happened. And
>>their decision was binding. And it's not *me* who tells you. It
>>is The Holy Spirit. Through Luke.
>
>
> Where did Christ say this in Matt. 5:17-19?
>
He said that nothing could pass from the law until
he had fulfilled it, which he also said he would do.
>
>>>>>>>What did Jesus do to make them think that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He taught the Apostles, and guided them to their decisions. Also
>>>>>>he points out that the law eventually will pass away in Matt 5,
>>>>>>and points out the dietary laws will pass away in Mark.
>
>
> After Christ already said in Matt. 5:17-19, using His foresight of the
> future that TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS NOT A JOT OR TITTLE OF THE LAW
> SHALL FAIL??
>
That same foresight that let him say *until* he had fulfilled it.
>
>>>But He didn't do that at all. Christ said till heaven and earth pass,
>>>nothing will change in the law.
>>
>>*Till all is fulfilled*. The presence of the word *till* implies that
>>there will be an ending.
>
>
> Repetivie Jesuit! Folks, do you know that the Jesuit Oath mandates
> this poster to RELENTLESS warfare against his enemies?
>
> Christ said "till all is fulfilled." What did He mean? His reference
> to the words, "Till heaven and earth pass," shows what He meant.
Lol.
Whenever you make a did into exegesis, you make me laugh out loud
Susan. Christ has just said that he had come to fulfill the law.
One verse later, when he says "till all is fulfilled" you assert
that the fulfillment cannot be talking about what he said he had
come to fulfill, but must be talking about "heaven and earth passing".
It's such a comical interpretation.
Are you *really* serious?
> I
> went over this with this Jesuit often enough for him to evade it.
>
I evade nothing. That's why I've gone over and over this with you.
WHAT??????
Not only did you make that blatent mistake about Abraham, saying
that Abraham was never circumcised, now you say Christ was never
circumcised.
Luke 2v21: "And when eight days were accomplished for
the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS,
which was so named of the angel before he was conceived
in the womb."
Such biblical ignorance in someone so verciferous about her
beliefs. Don't you think it is a better method to read the
bible *before* reaching your theology?
>
That's a contradicition in your theology Susan.
>
> and the Jesuit knows this. He intentionally does not comment about
> the inconsistency of Christ in this matter.
>
Christ is not inconsistent. Only your exegesis is inconsistent.
>
>>>Have Jesuit brains screwed
>>>like this and would I be surprised that Jesuit Deluxe, witnessing his
>>>friends posting that all non-Catholics must die, only attacks those
>>>who are upset about this?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>But that didn't happen. It is not true. The Jesuit, as you can see,
>>>>>is not too proud of his lie.
>>>>
>>>>2 Corinthians 3v6-11:
>>>>
>>>>"who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant;
>>>>not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth,
>>>>but the spirit giveth life.
>
>
> Again misapplying the words of Paul for his agenda.
>
> Christ said in Matt. 5:17-19 that TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS, not a
> jot or tittle of the law shall pass.
Till all that he came to fulfill was fulfilled.
>
> Again, it's like trying to convince this Jesuit that if his friends
> post that all non-Catholics must die, we must only be upset with and
> attack those who object to the statement.
>
>
>>>No specific reference here, but there is a warning about wresting the
>>>meaning of Paul's writings. He is talking about the precepts of the
>>>law being on the stone only and not written in the heart.
>>
>>Lol. If you wan't to try exegesis, join the "Ministration of death"
>>thread about this very verse.
>
>
> Show me where that ministration of death thread to all non-Catholics
> exists!
>
The law was a ministration of death. You say it applies to all
non-catholics, so it is you who want to impose that death
mandate susan.
Till all that he had come to fulfill was fulfilled.
Your own exegesis is inconsistent with your teaching.
Try some consistency Susan. It's refreshing.
> You are a Jesuit even trying to show that the scriptures are useless
> in the hands of people who believe all non-Catholics must live.
>
> The Ten Commandments are not the ministration of death because of its
> existence.
The verse specifically calls them part of the ministration of death.
All your protestations about what you say isn't so, can't change
what the Apostle wrote about the ten commandments.
> It is that because IF YOU BREAK IT YOU ARE SENTENCED TO
> DIE. Romans says the wages of sin is death. That is what it means.
>
It means what the verse says it means. Not what you say it means.
> Anyone under the law or its condemnation will need a savior.
>
> Read this verse that if your friends post that all non-Catholics must
> die, we must get upset with them for posting it and not at those who
> oppose them.
>
>
>>>>[9] For if the ministration of
>>>>condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration
>>>>of righteousness exceed in glory. [10] For verily that which
>>>>hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this
>>>>respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. [11] For if
>>>>that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which
>>>>remaineth is in glory."
>>>>
>>>>The word rendered 'passeth away' here is the greek 'katargeo'
>>>>meaning "to render inoperative".
>>>
>>>When the law was presented on Sinai, the glory therewith did not
>>>remain forever. Nothing is glowing in the same area even now.
>>>Neither did Moses face shine forever.
>>
>>And the ministration of death has passed away.
>
>
> Through Christ, yes. We are freed from the law condemning us because
> we broke it. We are freed from the penalty as if we were let out of
> the penalty that put us in jail. What should we do once we are freed?
>
Try reading the verse, then exegeting it, then talking about what the
verse talks about, rather than what you wished it talked about.
Your truth is laced with internal inconsistency and historical error.
You don't even know basic Biblical history.
You've made *TWO* basic historical errors in this thread alone.
>
>
>>>I DON'T CARE. I HAVE COMMON SENSE. You want to just stick to bible
>>>because you support your friends telling us all non-Catholics must
>>>die! You only attacked us who exposed it.
>>
>>You imply that your common sense overrides what the bible says.
>>I am not surprised.
>
>
> You mean that all non-Catholics really should die, as you claim?
>
I don't claim that.
That's not exegesis Susan.
>
>>>>>>>How likely is it therefore that the
>>>>>>>scripture can be reworded to come out like the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Think not that I am come to destroy the law. I am not come to
>>>>>>>destroy, but to tell all that they don't have to keep the law."
>>>
>>>>>>No one but you seeks to reword scripture.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is the rewording? What does it take to destroy a law?
>>>>
>>>>I'm happy with the text as it stands. You seem to want to change
>>>>'not a jot or a tittle' to '50 percent of the law'.
>>>
>>>No, it is you who wants that. You keep 100 percent of the law?
>>>Christ said that, huh? You object to that? Why don't you keep 100
>>>percent then?
>>
>>I keep 0% of the law.
>
>
> Is that why you believe all non-Catholics must die and you are a
> super-terrorist? Just how much of a percent you claim Christ said to
> keep?
>
:-|
>
>>You keep less than 50% and condemn me, even though
>>your interpretation of Matt.5 is inconsistent with
>>your actions.
>
>
> Christ said till not a jot or tittle of the law shall fail and yet
> says the eye for an eye rule no longer stands. You have deliberately
> evaded the point to call me inconsistent and avoid doing the same to
> Christ.
Your exegesis of "an eye for an eye" is flawed. That's why you think
that Christ is inconsistent. *EVEN* if Christ were inconsistent, which
he wasn't, since he didn't remove the commandment of an eye for an
eye with the verse you quote, *YOUR CLAIM THAT CHRIST IS INCONSISTENT
DOES NOT FREE **YOU** FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY TO BE CONSISTENT*.
Needn't be obeyed. Not shouldn't. He's not teaching that we *should*
disobey it.
> In
> common sense, Paul can quote the words of that law he himself no
> longer stands, but you can't catch these Jesuits today quoting it
> since they believe it is destroyed!
>
I quote it all the time.
Paul quoted from the law all the time. True.
Because Christ fulfilled the law. Paul went
around showing this to Jews *all the time*.
>
>>>>The fact that Paul exhorts people not to murder and to honour their
>>>>parents does not mean that we are still under the law. Paul explicitly
>>>>says that neither we, nor he are under the law.
>>>
>>>Again intentionally deceiving. To be "under the law" doesn't mean to
>>>obey it. It means to be under its condemnation for DISOBEYING IT!
>>
>>That interpretation leads to internal inconsistency, just like your
>>interpretation of Matt.5.
>
>
> Like Christ telling us every jot stands till the end of time, but the
> eye for an eye rule no longer stands?
Christ is not inconsistent.
And what you claim is Christ's inconsistency does not excuse your own.
>
> But I don't believe that all non-Catholics must die nor attack people
> who are upset at your friends telling us all non-Catholics must die as
> you do!
>
>
>>> Again intentionally deceiving. To be "under the law" doesn't
>>> mean to obey it. It means to be under its condemnation
>>> for DISOBEYING IT!
>>Paul wrote that Christ was born under the law.
>>
>>Your interpretation renders that as Christ was born under the
>>condemnation of the the law for DISOBEYING IT!
>
>
> The scripture says Christ was MADE under the law that He may lift us
> up out from under it.
>
> Christ didn't disobey it, but was accounted as if He had in our
> behalf.
>
> And yet more, all non-Catholics should live. I don't care what you
> say!
>
Galations 4v4 says:
"but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of
a woman, born under the law,"
If you say that to be "under the law" means to be under its condemnation
for disobeying it, the Galations 4v4 says that Christ was born under
the condemnation of the law for disobeying it.
Since you disavow that interpretation, you can't believe in your
definition of "under the law"
>
*AND* till all is fulfilled.
> I assure you it is probably your
> belief that all non-Catholics must die that clouds up your brains.
>
>
>>>>>Naturally, as for centuries, you would know who has cerebral problems!
>>>>
>>>>I think we both know that Susan. So does google.
>
>
> Show me where Google believes all non-Catholics must die and that if
> your friends post that they must, people should only attack others who
> object to that. The ball is in your court!
>
> Google was given complaints by you Jesuits. Still, if even Google
> sees you guys posting that all non-Catholics must die, they should
> have reported your to Homeland Security.
>
Clearly google is in league with the Antichrist.
Susan Williams
wrote:
> >>>>>>He kept disobeying, and going out of his way to disobey the 'oral
>law'.
> >>>>>>The pharisees taught that this was given to moses at the same time as
> >>>>>>the written law and was of equal or greater authority.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
> >>>>>tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
> >>>>>for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
> >>>
> >>>The Jesuit didn't answer the question as to how the sacrifice for sin,
> >>>without blemish to stand in my place, went out of his way to sin.
> >>
> >>IT IS NOT SIN TO BREAK THE *ORAL LAW* SINCE IT WAS NOT GIVEN BY GOD!
> >
> >
> > Christ didn't get circumcised!
> >
>
>WHAT??????
>
>Not only did you make that blatent mistake about Abraham, saying
>that Abraham was never circumcised, now you say Christ was never
>circumcised.
I never wrote that. But since you, being a Jesuit, know what blatant
is:...
Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
must die, and others object to that, you must not just attack those
who objected to it as you do?
<><><><><>
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:59:04 +0100, deluxe <del...@alwaysme.com>
wrote:
>Susan Williams wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 01:50:47 +0000 (UTC), deluxe <del...@alwaysme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"deluxe" <del...@alwaysme.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The fact that Romans 10v4 uses a word that primarily
>>>>>means 'end' in the sense of termination, rather than
>>>>>'end' in the sense of goal does not *prove* that
>>>>>the law has been terminated,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but it is -not- the primary definition. Ninety percent of the NT usage is as "goal."
>>>>Strong's #5056, *telos* primary meaning is, "the point aimed at; result." It is used 42
>>>>times in the NT. The majority of the time it means..."goal, purpose, outcome, result."
>>>>...as in 1Peter 1:9, "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls"
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>It means "cessation, finish, termination" only about 4 or 5 of the 42 times in the NT.
>>>
>>>Let's quote Strong's in full shall we?
>>>
>>>05056:
>>> 5056 telos tel'-os from a primary tello (to set out for a definite
>>>point or goal); properly, the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. (by
>>>implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination (literally,
>>>figuratively or indefinitely), result (immediate, ultimate or
>>>prophetic), purpose); specially, an impost or levy (as paid):--+
>>>continual, custom, end(-ing), finally, uttermost. Compare 5411. see
>>>GREEK for 5411
>>>
>>>So that is:
>>>
>>>"the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. (by implication) the conclusion
>>>of an act or state(termination (literally, figuratively or
>>>indefinitely)."
>>
>>
>> What does Matt. 5:17-19, where Christ said think not that I am come to
>> destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to
>> fulfill mean.
>>
>> How do you destroy a law?
>
>Christ said he came to fulfill. He then says nothing will be removed
>*until* he fulfills it all. He did fulfill, and since he fulfilled,
>now the law has been removed.
For the millionth time Jesuit: Christ said, "till heaven and earth
pass." Have you figured out that if your friends post that all
non-Catholics must die, and others object to that, you must not just
attack those who objected to it as you do?
>Christ differentiates between fulfillment and destruction. He fulfilled
>it by being the only person ever to keep it. I have no problem accepting
>the difference between fulfillment and destruction.
Christ said "till heaven and earth pass." Have you figured out that
if your friends post that all non-Catholics must die, and others
object to that, you must not just attack those who objected to it as
you do?
>Jesus said that he had not come to destroy the law, since there were
>people going around saying that Jesus was teaching that you did not
>have to keep the law of Moses.
Not talking about the law of Moses. You know this. Have you figured
out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics must die, and
others object to that, you must not just attack those who objected to
it as you do?
>They were saying that because Jesus
>deliberately went out of his way to *break* the 'oral law', which
>the pharisees taught was given to Moses at the same time as the
>written law.
Not talking about your oral law. Have you figured out that if your
friends post that all non-Catholics must die, and others object to
that, you must not just attack those who objected to it as you do?
>Christ did not teach that you did not have to keep the law of Moses.
>Christ repudiates what they were teaching about him.
>Believers had to keep the law of Moses until the death of
>Christ, which is the point at which Christ fulfilled the law,
>as he said he would in Matt 5. As he also said in Matt 5, once
>it was fulfilled, it could be removed.
Why lie, Jesuit? Where is the statement that once it is fulfilled
"till heaven and earth pass," it can be removed? Did your Pope tell
you this?
Jesuit, you are a babbling despot, writing much without the proof.
Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
must die, and others object to that, you must not just attack those
who objected to it as you do?
>It would have been destruction of the law for Jesus to teach
>that the law did not have to be kept whilst he was still alive.
>And yet, you teach exactly that with your 'eye for an eye'
>interpretation of his teaching.
>
>Your theology is inconsistent Susan.
Why is Christ inconsistent Jesuit as I have asked you to comment over
and over on the fact that Christ taught exactly as me. He said not a
jot or tittle of the law shall pass "till heaven and earth pass" and
yet he said the eye for an eye rule doesn't stand.
Your comment please, Jesuit? By the way...
Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
must die, and others object to that, you must not just attack those
who objected to it as you do?
>>>I have termination as number 1 in my own (randomly chosen) lexicon
>>>(I mentioned it before, but don't have it with me). It's also
>>>number 1 in Thayer's and number 1 in Arndt an Gingrich.
>>
>>
>> What about a greater authority? Matt. 5:17-19 says Christ did not
>> come to destroy the law. Then He made reference that not a jot or
>> tittle shall pass "till heaven and earth pass."
>
>And *till all is fulfilled*, which was what he said he had come for.
He said "till heaven and earth pass." When did that happen?
>Your interpretation leads to an inconsistent theology. If you
>truly believed your interpretation of Matt 5, there would be
>little to differentiate you from an orthodox Jew.
Why is Christ inconsistent Jesuit as I have asked you to comment over
and over on the fact that Christ taught exactly as me. He said not a
jot or tittle of the law shall pass "till heaven and earth pass" and
yet he said the eye for an eye rule doesn't stand.
Your comment please, Jesuit? By the way...
Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
must die, and others object to that, you must not just attack those
who objected to it as you do?
>> That's just as plain as if one of your friends post that all
>> non-Catholics must die, naturally we are supposed to attack that
>> person and not those upset about the posting.
>>
>> What do you think, Jesuit? You've evaded this question also for so
>> long!
>
>I answer the question ever time you ask it.
But why do you not answer the question Jesuit? See how many times you
make me repeat? Why not repeat the answer?
Why is Christ inconsistent Jesuit as I have asked you to comment over
and over on the fact that Christ taught exactly as me. He said not a
jot or tittle of the law shall pass "till heaven and earth pass" and
yet he said the eye for an eye rule doesn't stand.
Your comment please, Jesuit? By the way...
Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
must die, and others object to that, you must not just attack those
who objected to it as you do?
>And every time I answer it, you refuse to
>defend your inconsistent exegesis.
Why is Christ inconsistent Jesuit as I have asked you to comment over
and over on the fact that Christ taught exactly as me. He said not a
jot or tittle of the law shall pass "till heaven and earth pass" and
yet he said the eye for an eye rule doesn't stand.
Your comment please, Jesuit? By the way...
Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
must die, and others object to that, you must not just attack those
who objected to it as you do?
In His Grace,
Susan
>Luke 2v21: "And when eight days were accomplished for
>the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS,
>which was so named of the angel before he was conceived
>in the womb."
>
>Such biblical ignorance in someone so verciferous about her
>beliefs. Don't you think it is a better method to read the
>bible *before* reaching your theology?
I never said that Christ was not circumcised.
WHY WHEN I BRING UP THE SUBJECT OF YOUR BELIEFS THAT ALL NON-CATHOLICS
MUST DIE SHOWN BY YOUR EXCLUSIVE ATTACKS UPON THOSE WHO OBJECT TO YOUR
FRIENDS POSTING THAT, YOU THEN DON'T KNOW WHAT IS BLATANT?
Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
must die, and others object to that, you must not just attack those
who objected to it as you do?
You're a Jesuit! Biblical case CLOSED!
In His Grace,
Susan
Susan Williams
wrote:
Being "under the law" means being under its condemnation for
disobeying it. Christ disobeyed it only in terms of Him taking our
liabiities.
Funny you deliberately keep ignoring the following question. But I
can understand. I'm not a super-terrorist Jesuit:
Susan Williams
wrote:
>Christ said he came to fulfill. He then says nothing will be removed
>*until* he fulfills it all. He did fulfill, and since he fulfilled,
>now the law has been removed.
For the millionth time Jesuit: Christ said, "till heaven and earth
pass." Have you figured out that if your friends post that all
non-Catholics must die, and others object to that, you must not just
attack those who objected to it as you do?
>Christ differentiates between fulfillment and destruction. He fulfilled
>it by being the only person ever to keep it. I have no problem accepting
>the difference between fulfillment and destruction.
Christ said "till heaven and earth pass." Have you figured out that
if your friends post that all non-Catholics must die, and others
object to that, you must not just attack those who objected to it as
you do?
>Jesus said that he had not come to destroy the law, since there were
>people going around saying that Jesus was teaching that you did not
>have to keep the law of Moses.
Not talking about the law of Moses. You know this. Have you figured
out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics must die, and
others object to that, you must not just attack those who objected to
it as you do?
>They were saying that because Jesus
>deliberately went out of his way to *break* the 'oral law', which
>the pharisees taught was given to Moses at the same time as the
>written law.
Not talking about your oral law. Have you figured out that if your
friends post that all non-Catholics must die, and others object to
that, you must not just attack those who objected to it as you do?
>Christ did not teach that you did not have to keep the law of Moses.
>Christ repudiates what they were teaching about him.
>Believers had to keep the law of Moses until the death of
>Christ, which is the point at which Christ fulfilled the law,
>as he said he would in Matt 5. As he also said in Matt 5, once
>it was fulfilled, it could be removed.
Why lie, Jesuit? Where is the statement that once it is fulfilled
"till heaven and earth pass," it can be removed? Did your Pope tell
you this?
Jesuit, you are a babbling despot, writing much without the proof.
Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
must die, and others object to that, you must not just attack those
who objected to it as you do?
>It would have been destruction of the law for Jesus to teach
>that the law did not have to be kept whilst he was still alive.
>And yet, you teach exactly that with your 'eye for an eye'
>interpretation of his teaching.
>
>Your theology is inconsistent Susan.
Why is Christ inconsistent Jesuit as I have asked you to comment over
and over on the fact that Christ taught exactly as me. He said not a
jot or tittle of the law shall pass "till heaven and earth pass" and
yet he said the eye for an eye rule doesn't stand.
Your comment please, Jesuit? By the way...
Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
must die, and others object to that, you must not just attack those
who objected to it as you do?
>>>I have termination as number 1 in my own (randomly chosen) lexicon
>>>(I mentioned it before, but don't have it with me). It's also
>>>number 1 in Thayer's and number 1 in Arndt an Gingrich.
>>
>>
>> What about a greater authority? Matt. 5:17-19 says Christ did not
>> come to destroy the law. Then He made reference that not a jot or
>> tittle shall pass "till heaven and earth pass."
>
>And *till all is fulfilled*, which was what he said he had come for.
He said "till heaven and earth pass." When did that happen?
>Your interpretation leads to an inconsistent theology. If you
>truly believed your interpretation of Matt 5, there would be
>little to differentiate you from an orthodox Jew.
Why is Christ inconsistent Jesuit as I have asked you to comment over
and over on the fact that Christ taught exactly as me. He said not a
jot or tittle of the law shall pass "till heaven and earth pass" and
yet he said the eye for an eye rule doesn't stand.
Your comment please, Jesuit? By the way...
Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
must die, and others object to that, you must not just attack those
who objected to it as you do?
>> That's just as plain as if one of your friends post that all
>> non-Catholics must die, naturally we are supposed to attack that
>> person and not those upset about the posting.
>>
>> What do you think, Jesuit? You've evaded this question also for so
>> long!
>
>I answer the question ever time you ask it.
But why do you not answer the question Jesuit? See how many times you
make me repeat? Why not repeat the answer?
Why is Christ inconsistent Jesuit as I have asked you to comment over
and over on the fact that Christ taught exactly as me. He said not a
jot or tittle of the law shall pass "till heaven and earth pass" and
yet he said the eye for an eye rule doesn't stand.
Your comment please, Jesuit? By the way...
Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
must die, and others object to that, you must not just attack those
who objected to it as you do?
>And every time I answer it, you refuse to
>defend your inconsistent exegesis.
Why is Christ inconsistent Jesuit as I have asked you to comment over
and over on the fact that Christ taught exactly as me. He said not a
jot or tittle of the law shall pass "till heaven and earth pass" and
yet he said the eye for an eye rule doesn't stand.
Your comment please, Jesuit? By the way...
Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
deluxe
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:04:18 +0100, deluxe <del...@alwaysme.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>He kept disobeying, and going out of his way to disobey the 'oral
>>
>>law'.
>>
>>>>>>>>The pharisees taught that this was given to moses at the same time as
>>>>>>>>the written law and was of equal or greater authority.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
>>>>>>>tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
>>>>>>>for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Jesuit didn't answer the question as to how the sacrifice for sin,
>>>>>without blemish to stand in my place, went out of his way to sin.
>>>>
>>>>IT IS NOT SIN TO BREAK THE *ORAL LAW* SINCE IT WAS NOT GIVEN BY GOD!
>>>
>>>
>>>Christ didn't get circumcised!
>>>
>>
>>WHAT??????
>>
>>Not only did you make that blatent mistake about Abraham, saying
>>that Abraham was never circumcised, now you say Christ was never
>>circumcised.
>
>
> I never wrote that. But since you, being a Jesuit, know what blatant
> is:...
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f2q8d0pt8atdnoa69fbesk1tqq7c95ud91%404ax.com&output=gplain
Gee. It certainly looks like you.
Perhaps this is part of the global google Jesuit consipracy?
deluxe
And he did that at birth did he?
deluxe
Please see other post.
>
>
>>Christ differentiates between fulfillment and destruction. He fulfilled
>>it by being the only person ever to keep it. I have no problem accepting
>>the difference between fulfillment and destruction.
>
>
> Christ said "till heaven and earth pass." Have you figured out that
> if your friends post that all non-Catholics must die, and others
> object to that, you must not just attack those who objected to it as
> you do?
Please see other post.
>
>
>>Jesus said that he had not come to destroy the law, since there were
>>people going around saying that Jesus was teaching that you did not
>>have to keep the law of Moses.
>
>
> Not talking about the law of Moses. You know this. Have you figured
> out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics must die, and
> others object to that, you must not just attack those who objected to
> it as you do?
>
Please see other post.
>
>>They were saying that because Jesus
>>deliberately went out of his way to *break* the 'oral law', which
>>the pharisees taught was given to Moses at the same time as the
>>written law.
>
>
> Not talking about your oral law. Have you figured out that if your
> friends post that all non-Catholics must die, and others object to
> that, you must not just attack those who objected to it as you do?
Please see other post.
>
>
>>Christ did not teach that you did not have to keep the law of Moses.
>>Christ repudiates what they were teaching about him.
>>Believers had to keep the law of Moses until the death of
>>Christ, which is the point at which Christ fulfilled the law,
>>as he said he would in Matt 5. As he also said in Matt 5, once
>>it was fulfilled, it could be removed.
>
>
> Why lie, Jesuit? Where is the statement that once it is fulfilled
> "till heaven and earth pass," it can be removed? Did your Pope tell
> you this?
>
> Jesuit, you are a babbling despot, writing much without the proof.
> Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
> must die, and others object to that, you must not just attack those
> who objected to it as you do?
>
Please see other post.
>
>>It would have been destruction of the law for Jesus to teach
>>that the law did not have to be kept whilst he was still alive.
>>And yet, you teach exactly that with your 'eye for an eye'
>>interpretation of his teaching.
>>
>>Your theology is inconsistent Susan.
>
>
> Why is Christ inconsistent Jesuit as I have asked you to comment over
> and over on the fact that Christ taught exactly as me. He said not a
> jot or tittle of the law shall pass "till heaven and earth pass" and
> yet he said the eye for an eye rule doesn't stand.
>
> Your comment please, Jesuit? By the way...
Please see other post.
>
> Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
> must die, and others object to that, you must not just attack those
> who objected to it as you do?
>
>
>>>>I have termination as number 1 in my own (randomly chosen) lexicon
>>>>(I mentioned it before, but don't have it with me). It's also
>>>>number 1 in Thayer's and number 1 in Arndt an Gingrich.
>>>
>>>
>>>What about a greater authority? Matt. 5:17-19 says Christ did not
>>>come to destroy the law. Then He made reference that not a jot or
>>>tittle shall pass "till heaven and earth pass."
>>
>>And *till all is fulfilled*, which was what he said he had come for.
>
>
> He said "till heaven and earth pass." When did that happen?
>
Please see other post.
>
>>Your interpretation leads to an inconsistent theology. If you
>>truly believed your interpretation of Matt 5, there would be
>>little to differentiate you from an orthodox Jew.
>
>
> Why is Christ inconsistent Jesuit as I have asked you to comment over
> and over on the fact that Christ taught exactly as me. He said not a
> jot or tittle of the law shall pass "till heaven and earth pass" and
> yet he said the eye for an eye rule doesn't stand.
>
> Your comment please, Jesuit? By the way...
>
Please see other post.
> Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
> must die, and others object to that, you must not just attack those
> who objected to it as you do?
>
>
>>>That's just as plain as if one of your friends post that all
>>>non-Catholics must die, naturally we are supposed to attack that
>>>person and not those upset about the posting.
>>>
>>>What do you think, Jesuit? You've evaded this question also for so
>>>long!
>>
>>I answer the question ever time you ask it.
>
>
> But why do you not answer the question Jesuit? See how many times you
> make me repeat? Why not repeat the answer?
Please see other post.
>
> Why is Christ inconsistent Jesuit as I have asked you to comment over
> and over on the fact that Christ taught exactly as me. He said not a
> jot or tittle of the law shall pass "till heaven and earth pass" and
> yet he said the eye for an eye rule doesn't stand.
>
> Your comment please, Jesuit? By the way...
>
Please see other post.
Susan Williams
wrote:
>Susan Williams wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:04:18 +0100, deluxe <del...@alwaysme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>He kept disobeying, and going out of his way to disobey the 'oral
>>>
>>>law'.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>The pharisees taught that this was given to moses at the same time as
>>>>>>>>>the written law and was of equal or greater authority.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
>>>>>>>>tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
>>>>>>>>for that, we must attack the one who is upset.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The Jesuit didn't answer the question as to how the sacrifice for sin,
>>>>>>without blemish to stand in my place, went out of his way to sin.
>>>>>
>>>>>IT IS NOT SIN TO BREAK THE *ORAL LAW* SINCE IT WAS NOT GIVEN BY GOD!
>>>>
>>>>Christ didn't get circumcised!
>>>>
>>>WHAT??????
>>>
>>>Not only did you make that blatent mistake about Abraham, saying
>>>that Abraham was never circumcised, now you say Christ was never
>>>circumcised.
>>
>> I never wrote that. But since you, being a Jesuit, know what blatant
>> is:...
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f2q8d0pt8atdnoa69fbesk1tqq7c95ud91%404ax.com&output=gplain
>
>Gee. It certainly looks like you.
>
>Perhaps this is part of the global google Jesuit consipracy?
Don't get paranoid Jesuit! In your crusades for disagreement, you
Jesuits seem very paranoid about people knowing about your global
treason and terrorism!
I mean is it every day that people viewing posters on the internet
telling us all non-Catholics must die? Is it every day we meet Deluxe
Jesuits who then attack us for being upset with such posters?
Must be your commitment to the global Jesuit conspiracy!
I mean how can this question be answered with anything other than,
"Hee hee hee heeee! Conspiracies!!"
Alright, what's the answer then?? No wonder we need our "meds,"
right, Jesuit??
In His Grace,
Susan
Susan Williams
wrote:
That's what he was born for!
Must all non-Catholics die? If someone posts that all non-Catholics
must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
who are upset as you do?
Simple question, Jesuit!
Susan Williams
wrote:
What does it say? Why repeat "see other posts" to whom you call a
child? You are still doing work! Why not just post the answer again
to show I don't know what I'm talkin about?
Must all non-Catholics die? If someone posts that all non-Catholics
must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
who are upset as you do?
Simple question, Jesuit!
>>>Christ differentiates between fulfillment and destruction. He fulfilled
>>>it by being the only person ever to keep it. I have no problem accepting
>>>the difference between fulfillment and destruction.
>>
>>
>> Christ said "till heaven and earth pass." Have you figured out that
>> if your friends post that all non-Catholics must die, and others
>> object to that, you must not just attack those who objected to it as
>> you do?
>
>Please see other post.
What does it say? Why repeat "see other posts" to whom you call a
child? You are still doing work! Why not just post the answer again
to show I don't know what I'm talkin about?
Must all non-Catholics die? If someone posts that all non-Catholics
must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
who are upset as you do?
Simple question, Jesuit!
>>>Jesus said that he had not come to destroy the law, since there were
>>>people going around saying that Jesus was teaching that you did not
>>>have to keep the law of Moses.
>>
>> Not talking about the law of Moses. You know this. Have you figured
>> out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics must die, and
>> others object to that, you must not just attack those who objected to
>> it as you do?
>>
>Please see other post.
What does it say? Why repeat "see other posts" to whom you call a
child? You are still doing work! Why not just post the answer again
to show I don't know what I'm talkin about?
Must all non-Catholics die? If someone posts that all non-Catholics
must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
who are upset as you do?
Simple question, Jesuit!
>>>They were saying that because Jesus
>>>deliberately went out of his way to *break* the 'oral law', which
>>>the pharisees taught was given to Moses at the same time as the
>>>written law.
>>
>> Not talking about your oral law. Have you figured out that if your
>> friends post that all non-Catholics must die, and others object to
>> that, you must not just attack those who objected to it as you do?
>
>Please see other post.
What does it say? Why repeat "see other posts" to whom you call a
child? You are still doing work! Why not just post the answer again
to show I don't know what I'm talkin about?
Must all non-Catholics die? If someone posts that all non-Catholics
must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
who are upset as you do?
Simple question, Jesuit!
>>>Christ did not teach that you did not have to keep the law of Moses.
>>>Christ repudiates what they were teaching about him.
>>>Believers had to keep the law of Moses until the death of
>>>Christ, which is the point at which Christ fulfilled the law,
>>>as he said he would in Matt 5. As he also said in Matt 5, once
>>>it was fulfilled, it could be removed.
>>
>> Why lie, Jesuit? Where is the statement that once it is fulfilled
>> "till heaven and earth pass," it can be removed? Did your Pope tell
>> you this?
>>
>> Jesuit, you are a babbling despot, writing much without the proof.
>> Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
>> must die, and others object to that, you must not just attack those
>> who objected to it as you do?
>
>Please see other post.
What does it say? Why repeat "see other posts" to whom you call a
child? You are still doing work! Why not just post the answer again
to show I don't know what I'm talkin about?
Must all non-Catholics die? If someone posts that all non-Catholics
must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
who are upset as you do?
Simple question, Jesuit!
>>>It would have been destruction of the law for Jesus to teach
>>>that the law did not have to be kept whilst he was still alive.
>>>And yet, you teach exactly that with your 'eye for an eye'
>>>interpretation of his teaching.
>>>
>>>Your theology is inconsistent Susan.
>>
>> Why is Christ inconsistent Jesuit as I have asked you to comment over
>> and over on the fact that Christ taught exactly as me. He said not a
>> jot or tittle of the law shall pass "till heaven and earth pass" and
>> yet he said the eye for an eye rule doesn't stand.
>>
>> Your comment please, Jesuit? By the way...
>
>Please see other post.
What does it say? Why repeat "see other posts" to whom you call a
child? You are still doing work! Why not just post the answer again
to show I don't know what I'm talkin about?
Must all non-Catholics die? If someone posts that all non-Catholics
must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
who are upset as you do?
Simple question, Jesuit!
>> Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
>> must die, and others object to that, you must not just attack those
>> who objected to it as you do?
>>
>>>>>I have termination as number 1 in my own (randomly chosen) lexicon
>>>>>(I mentioned it before, but don't have it with me). It's also
>>>>>number 1 in Thayer's and number 1 in Arndt an Gingrich.
>>>>
>>>>What about a greater authority? Matt. 5:17-19 says Christ did not
>>>>come to destroy the law. Then He made reference that not a jot or
>>>>tittle shall pass "till heaven and earth pass."
>>>
>>>And *till all is fulfilled*, which was what he said he had come for.
>>
>> He said "till heaven and earth pass." When did that happen?
>
>Please see other post.
What does it say? Why repeat "see other posts" to whom you call a
child? You are still doing work! Why not just post the answer again
to show I don't know what I'm talkin about?
Must all non-Catholics die? If someone posts that all non-Catholics
must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
who are upset as you do?
Simple question, Jesuit!
>>>Your interpretation leads to an inconsistent theology. If you
>>>truly believed your interpretation of Matt 5, there would be
>>>little to differentiate you from an orthodox Jew.
>>
>> Why is Christ inconsistent Jesuit as I have asked you to comment over
>> and over on the fact that Christ taught exactly as me. He said not a
>> jot or tittle of the law shall pass "till heaven and earth pass" and
>> yet he said the eye for an eye rule doesn't stand.
>>
>> Your comment please, Jesuit? By the way...
>
>Please see other post.
What does it say? Why repeat "see other posts" to whom you call a
child? You are still doing work! Why not just post the answer again
to show I don't know what I'm talkin about?
Must all non-Catholics die? If someone posts that all non-Catholics
must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
who are upset as you do?
Simple question, Jesuit!
>> Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
>> must die, and others object to that, you must not just attack those
>> who objected to it as you do?
>>
>>>>That's just as plain as if one of your friends post that all
>>>>non-Catholics must die, naturally we are supposed to attack that
>>>>person and not those upset about the posting.
>>>>
>>>>What do you think, Jesuit? You've evaded this question also for so
>>>>long!
>>>
>>>I answer the question ever time you ask it.
>>
>> But why do you not answer the question Jesuit? See how many times you
>> make me repeat? Why not repeat the answer?
>
>Please see other post.
What does it say? Why repeat "see other posts" to whom you call a
child? You are still doing work! Why not just post the answer again
to show I don't know what I'm talkin about?
Must all non-Catholics die? If someone posts that all non-Catholics
must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
who are upset as you do?
Simple question, Jesuit!
>> Why is Christ inconsistent Jesuit as I have asked you to comment over
>> and over on the fact that Christ taught exactly as me. He said not a
>> jot or tittle of the law shall pass "till heaven and earth pass" and
>> yet he said the eye for an eye rule doesn't stand.
>>
>> Your comment please, Jesuit? By the way...
>
>Please see other post.
What does it say? Why repeat "see other posts" to whom you call a
child? You are still doing work! Why not just post the answer again
to show I don't know what I'm talkin about?
Must all non-Catholics die? If someone posts that all non-Catholics
must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
who are upset as you do?
Simple question, Jesuit!
>> Have you figured out that if your friends post that all non-Catholics
deluxe
Susan. You can't hide the fact that you posted that Jesus was not
circumcised. That is plain ignorance of the simple Gospel. I
suggest you attend Sunday school before trying your hand at
theology.
deluxe
>>>>
>>>>Galations 4v4 says:
>>>>"but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of
>>>>a woman, born under the law,"
>>>>
>>>>If you say that to be "under the law" means to be under its condemnation
>>>>for disobeying it, the Galations 4v4 says that Christ was born under
>>>>the condemnation of the law for disobeying it.
>>>>
>>>>Since you disavow that interpretation, you can't believe in your
>>>>definition of "under the law"
>>>
>>>
>>>Being "under the law" means being under its condemnation for
>>>disobeying it. Christ disobeyed it only in terms of Him taking our
>>>liabiities.
>>
>>And he did that at birth did he?
>
>
> That's what he was born for!
That's not what the verse says. The verse says he was born under the
law. If "under the law" means what you say it means, "under the
condemnation of the law for disobeying it", then Gal 4v4 means that
he was he had disobeyed the law at birth and stood under its
condemnation.
Since neither of us believe that, your definition of "under the law"
(plucked out of thin air I might add) is incorrect.
deluxe
Susan Williams
wrote:
>Susan Williams wrote:
>
>> Don't get paranoid Jesuit! In your crusades for disagreement, you
>> Jesuits seem very paranoid about people knowing about your global
>> treason and terrorism!
>>
>
>Susan. You can't hide the fact that you posted that Jesus was not
>circumcised. That is plain ignorance of the simple Gospel. I
>suggest you attend Sunday school before trying your hand at
>theology.
Jesuit, how much more when you believe all non-Catholics must die???
In your atomic-damned world, a person would be more condemned for
making an error about circumcision, than you only attacking people
upset that your friends told us all non-Catholics must die!
I saw the post and that was clearly a typographical error.
Will the Jesuit jump on this instead of answering the simple question:
Must all non-Catholics die? If someone posts that all non-Catholics
must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
who are upset as you do?
Simple question, Jesuit!
>> I mean is it every day that people viewing posters on the internet
Susan Williams
<SWilliams...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Christ didn't get circumcised!
This was a typographical error! I always knew Christ was circumcised
as a baby!
Also, if people post that all non-Catholics must die, I would get
upset about it, since Jesuit Deluxe is talking about credibility. I
wont only get upset at anyone upset about it! Jesuit Deluxe does!
Clearly he is a Jesuit!
In His Grace,
Susan
Susan Williams
wrote:
>Stop playing these stupid games Susan.
Must all non-Catholics die? If someone posts that all non-Catholics
must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
who are upset as you do?
Simple question, Jesuit!
What games are being played with a simple question like this you
cannot afford to answer? I have no problem answering for my self!...
ALL NON-CATHOLICS MUST LIVE, AND IF ANYONE POSTS THEY MUST DIE, I WILL
BE UPSET AT THAT PERSON WHO MAKES SUCH A POST!
Now you! It's simple for everyone except a Jesuit... Deluxe!
In His Grace,
Susan
deluxe
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:25:09 +0100, deluxe <del...@alwaysme.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Susan Williams wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don't get paranoid Jesuit! In your crusades for disagreement, you
>>>Jesuits seem very paranoid about people knowing about your global
>>>treason and terrorism!
>>>
>>
>>Susan. You can't hide the fact that you posted that Jesus was not
>>circumcised. That is plain ignorance of the simple Gospel. I
>>suggest you attend Sunday school before trying your hand at
>>theology.
>
>
> Jesuit, how much more when you believe all non-Catholics must die???
> In your atomic-damned world, a person would be more condemned for
> making an error about circumcision, than you only attacking people
> upset that your friends told us all non-Catholics must die!
>
> I saw the post and that was clearly a typographical error.
>
Typographical error?
Twice?
Which bit exactly was the typo?
deluxe
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:43:24 -0500, Susan Williams
> <SWilliams...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Christ didn't get circumcised!
>
>
> This was a typographical error! I always knew Christ was circumcised
> as a baby!
First you claimed you didn't say it.
Now you claim it was a typo.
Exactly what was the typo getting from
what you wrote to what you wanted to say?
How come you made the same error about
Abraham. Seems pretty straightforward
ignorance to me.
deluxe
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:28:50 +0100, deluxe <del...@alwaysme.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Stop playing these stupid games Susan.
>
>
> Must all non-Catholics die? If someone posts that all non-Catholics
> must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
> who are upset as you do?
>
> Simple question, Jesuit!
No.
Simple answer.
Susan Williams
wrote:
>Susan Williams wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:25:09 +0100, deluxe <del...@alwaysme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Susan Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>>Don't get paranoid Jesuit! In your crusades for disagreement, you
>>>>Jesuits seem very paranoid about people knowing about your global
>>>>treason and terrorism!
>>>
>>>Susan. You can't hide the fact that you posted that Jesus was not
>>>circumcised.
Jesuit, can you hide the fact that you believe all non-Catholics must
die? Why did you only attack us for objecting to your friends telling
us they must die?
>That is plain ignorance of the simple Gospel.
That was a typographical error. Where in the Gospel does it say that
all non-Catholics must die, as you believe?
>>>I
>>>suggest you attend Sunday school before trying your hand at
>>>theology.
I suggest you attend the worst maximum security prison so that they
can teach you that all non-Catholics must live. How would they teach
you? Most in there are probably non-Catholics!
>> Jesuit, how much more when you believe all non-Catholics must die???
>> In your atomic-damned world, a person would be more condemned for
>> making an error about circumcision, than you only attacking people
>> upset that your friends told us all non-Catholics must die!
>>
>> I saw the post and that was clearly a typographical error.
>
>Typographical error?
>Twice?
Okay then answer the following question clearly JUST ONCE!!...
Must all non-Catholics die? If someone posts that all non-Catholics
must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
who are upset as you do?
Simple question, Jesuit!
>Which bit exactly was the typo?
Here...
Must all non-Catholics die? If someone posts that all non-Catholics
must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
who are upset as you do?
Simple question, Jesuit!
In His Grace,
Susan
deluxe
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:50:15 +0100, deluxe <del...@alwaysme.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Susan Williams wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:25:09 +0100, deluxe <del...@alwaysme.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Susan Williams wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Don't get paranoid Jesuit! In your crusades for disagreement, you
>>>>>Jesuits seem very paranoid about people knowing about your global
>>>>>treason and terrorism!
>>>>
>>>>Susan. You can't hide the fact that you posted that Jesus was not
>>>>circumcised.
>
>
> Jesuit, can you hide the fact that you believe all non-Catholics must
> die? Why did you only attack us for objecting to your friends telling
> us they must die?
>
>
>>That is plain ignorance of the simple Gospel.
>
>
> That was a typographical error.
Please.
Both the Abraham ignorance, and in a seperate post
the ignorance of Chist? What exactly did you mean
to say when you typed what you typed?
> Where in the Gospel does it say that
> all non-Catholics must die, as you believe?
>
>
>>>>I
>>>>suggest you attend Sunday school before trying your hand at
>>>>theology.
>>>
>>>I saw the post and that was clearly a typographical error.
>>
>>Typographical error?
>>Twice?
>
>
> Okay then answer the following question clearly JUST ONCE!!...
>
> Must all non-Catholics die?
No.
> If someone posts that all non-Catholics
> must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
> who are upset as you do?
No.
>
> Simple question, Jesuit!
>
Simple answer. I am not a Jesuit.
>
>>Which bit exactly was the typo?
>
>
> Here...
LOL.
I wish I didn't have to go through 20 posts of this
crap to get you to answer simple questions.
Which bit exactly was the typo?
>
Susan Williams
wrote:
>Susan Williams wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:50:15 +0100, deluxe <del...@alwaysme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Susan Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:25:09 +0100, deluxe <del...@alwaysme.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Susan Williams wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't get paranoid Jesuit! In your crusades for disagreement, you
>>>>>>Jesuits seem very paranoid about people knowing about your global
>>>>>>treason and terrorism!
>>>>>
>>>>>Susan. You can't hide the fact that you posted that Jesus was not
>>>>>circumcised.
>>
>>
>> Jesuit, can you hide the fact that you believe all non-Catholics must
>> die? Why did you only attack us for objecting to your friends telling
>> us they must die?
>>
>>
>>>That is plain ignorance of the simple Gospel.
>>
>>
>> That was a typographical error.
>
>Please.
>Both the Abraham ignorance, and in a seperate post
>the ignorance of Chist? What exactly did you mean
>to say when you typed what you typed?
Please,
When I posted whether or not all non-Catholics must die and you said
no, but then didn't answer when I asked why you only attack those who
are upset that your friends have posted this, what was your reply?
>> Where in the Gospel does it say that
>> all non-Catholics must die, as you believe?
>>
>>>>>I
>>>>>suggest you attend Sunday school before trying your hand at
>>>>>theology.
>>>>
>>>>I saw the post and that was clearly a typographical error.
>>>
>>>Typographical error?
>>>Twice?
>>
>> Okay then answer the following question clearly JUST ONCE!!...
>>
>> Must all non-Catholics die?
>
>No.
Why do you only attack those who are upset at your friends telling us
all non-Catholics must die? Why are only we upset about this?
>> If someone posts that all non-Catholics
>> must die, and other are upset about that, must we attack the people
>> who are upset as you do?
>
>No.
Why then have you done this? Why then have you not reacted to what
was done?
>> Simple question, Jesuit!
>
>Simple answer. I am not a Jesuit.
But Jesuit, now you know that your friends posted that all
non-Catholics must die. Your reaction does seem just a little
different from mine to be facetious!
>>>Which bit exactly was the typo?
>>
>> Here...
>
>LOL.
Will laughing raise up all the non-Catholics you believe must die?
You now know that people posted this. Is this the age of terrorism,
Jesuit?
>I wish I didn't have to go through 20 posts of this
>crap to get you to answer simple questions.
You don't have to, especially when you said I was a child and didn't
know what I was talking about. You joined the Jesuit clan to trail my
posts for the emergency!
I don't get upset at people who are horrified others posted that all
non-Catholics must die. Upon learning of the event, I react and am
horrified.
You naturally appear to be different!
>Which bit exactly was the typo?
That Christ didn't get circumcised. How would you react after you
acknowledged that people posted here that all non-Catholics must die?
deluxe
>
>>Which bit exactly was the typo?
>
>
> That Christ didn't get circumcised.
The whole sentence was a typo?
LOL
Susan Williams
wrote:
Jesuit.
I saw people posting that all non-Catholics must die. I am upset
about it. Something appears to be wrong with you.
Which part of Homeland Security is a typo?
LOL!!
I proved something with LOL!!
In His Grace,
Susan
deluxe
You claim a whole sentence was a typo. LOL
And just like you claimed you didn't say what
you said about Jesus' circumcision, now you
claim you didn't say what you said about
Abrahams.
LOL.
Was that a typo too?
>
> In His Grace,
>
>
> Susan
Susan Williams
wrote:
>Susan Williams wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 02:01:47 +0100, deluxe <del...@alwaysme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Susan Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Which bit exactly was the typo?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That Christ didn't get circumcised.
>>>
>>>The whole sentence was a typo?
>>>
>>>LOL
>>
>>
>>
>> Jesuit.
>>
>> I saw people posting that all non-Catholics must die. I am upset
>> about it. Something appears to be wrong with you.
>>
>> Which part of Homeland Security is a typo?
>>
>> LOL!!
>>
>> I proved something with LOL!!
>>
>
>You claim a whole sentence was a typo. LOL
>And just like you claimed you didn't say what
>you said about Jesus' circumcision, now you
>claim you didn't say what you said about
>Abrahams.
>
>LOL.
Okay, a mistatement.
I'm not a Jesuit. I don't prove lies with LOLs.
Wha more do you want? I believe Christ was circumcised as I always
did. What now?
You finally believe Catholics should live?
In His Grace,
Susan
deluxe
Nothing now.
You've made two historical errors, and we now all
know the extent of your biblical knowledge.
Susan Williams
wrote:
You mean you're not all inflamed and concerned with a mistatement
along with the death mandates that weren't important until they were
attacked??
>You've made two historical errors, and we now all
>know the extent of your biblical knowledge.
Jesuit Deluxe still only attacks people who post all non-Catholics
must die, and thus we now know he is a super-terrorist Jesuit.
He said he doesn't give a smack about the death mandates, and this
must be because we are ini the climate of 911.
He knows my biblical knowlege is so bad and I'm so insane that these
damned Jesuits still crawl up the wall and trail my posts.