₦airaland Forum

Maximus69:
(1)
@ Matthew 5:3 Jesus said this set will inherit heaven!

@ Matthew 5:5 Jesus said this set will inherit the earth!

(2)
@ Revelations 14:1 said 144,000 will be on mount Zion!

@ Revelations 14:6 said great crowd that is uncountable will be on earth!


(3)
@ John 14:1-4 Jesus promised to carry this set to heaven!

@ John 10:16 Jesus said he had other sheep which are not of the same fold with the first little flock! Like 12:32

I understand that you people have been taught that all good and bad people will be taken to heaven and hell respectably but that doesn't mean everyone will close their ears to some other religious group saying it's not so!

Maximus69:
It's ok Sir, i was saying all that because the guy of course have nothing to say after knowing he has spewed rubbish about Adam and Eve having access to both Heaven and Earth!

Meanwhile you have your friends who are enjoying fruitless arguments regarding talks talks and talks, my teachers are the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, whether you agree or not know now that Jesus has appointed them to continue feeding his sheep in this last days, and if you're not learning from them there is no way you can have a spiritual family of peace loving brothers and sisters in the Lord like i do, you'll continue to argue and argue and argue everywhere you go with those you claim are your so called brethren!

Jesus said you people will be SCATTERED {Luke 11:23} and it's obvious that even when you guys are worshipping under the same roof, you people are not in agreement on so many issues unlike the true Christians (Jehovah's Witnesses) who have humbled themselves under those APPOINTED by the Chief Connerstone himself! Matthew 24:45

Maximus69:
You're just dragging issues unnecessarily my friend.

Let the other guy respond first, then you can assist if the need be. But jumping to conclusions when the guy never cleared the air on what he meant is presumptuous Sir!

What we were saying is there will be two DESTINATIONS, some people will live forever in Heaven (as spirit beings) while the remaining will be here on Earth to enjoy God's Kingdom.

That's what prompted the guy to say Adam and Eve had access to both Heaven and Earth before they sinned. So it's not a matter of access to God through prayers because all true servants of God had that!

shadeyinka:
And what do you say occur to satan and evil dead people in hell? Isn't it a state of Unconsciousness?

So, as an unconscious personality, is there any iota of hope ?

So, why should I fear the unconscious state caused by God and not fear the unconscious state caused by man?

A little thought will settle this. FYI, time doesn't exist in heaven!

shadeyinka:
If they are gnashing teeth in hell, do unconscious people gnash teeth?

Or you mean that the fire is so slow burning and at low temperatures that those who manage to go to hell will have time to gnash their teeth before they are eventually consumed by fire?

shadeyinka:
Mat 10:28:
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

If killing the body results to Unconsciousness
AND
Killing/destroy both the body and soul results to Unconsciousness

Why should I fear God more than man?

An Unconsciousness is a state of no consciousness. An unconscious person is hopeless!

Jesus described the second death as
Mat 8:12: "But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Mat 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Mat 13:50: "And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

An unconscious person cannot WAIL nor GNASH any teeth!

If I may ask you blueAgent , WHAT is DEATH?

JMAN05:
There seems to be a disconnect here. I do agree that the law delivered us to death. But notice the point here. Paul was talking about the law of a man to his wife. The wife is free if the man dies. When married to a new man, he obeys the new man's laws.

You did well by saying that people have become dead to the law. Now, true Christian are now married by another husband - Christ. We now live by the law of the Christ, not by the law of the Jews which we died to.

Christ used his blood to purchase us to be his own. We now live by his laws.

You did agree that Christ died for us, he paid the old husband, that keep highlighting our sins and demanding our death. He paid him the death penalty for us, and now married us to himself. We are now under his laws. I wonder why you didn't reach that conclusion. That's the analogy Paul was making.



With or without the law code sin has always been around.

Anything not in harmony with God's personality is sin. Anything contrary to his standards, ways, will. Anything that destroys man's relationship with God is sin.

View Pauls words from context. He was writing to people who knew the law. During his lifetime, the law has been around. So Paul got to know about sin from the law. He met the law from birth cos he was born a jew.That does not mean that sin is never sin until a law codes comes up. No. Adam and Eve was condemned without the Mosaic law. Cain knew what he did was wrong because God warned him not to kill his brother. Sodom was destroyed and many died in Noah's day even before the Law came on board.

1jhn 5:17 says all unrighteousness is sin. So anything contrary to God personality is sin. Why the law? To make sin more sinful, to expose our weak state and help us to look forward to a ransom. However, many who served God had to Know about what is bad from the law code. Not that it was never sin, it was, but many did it unknown to them that they were sinning.



In that scenario, assume that the man under charge of death is given asylum by another nation, the nation gives another person to die on his behalf. When into the new nation, he follows the new nation's laws. That will make the analogy fit. Read Romans 7:1-3.

Law being out of the way doesn't mean disobedience reigns supreme. We can live by the principles found in the law. Jesus life and speech constitutes the law of the Christ.

JMAN05:
I beg to disagree. And even if we were to go along with your position, you would still have to agree that believing that means that the law is out of the way. Because, if you are bound by the law, you are also condemned by the law if you sin. You cannot be under the law and say you are set free from the penalty. If you are under the law, you must observe every pin of the law. If you discard one, you discard all. You dont cherry-pick the law.

However, I dont see your reason that Paul was talking about the death pronounced by the law. He cant say that cos that is not how the law is practiced. You observe everything. Lets look at the verse again.

Roms 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, because we have died to that which restrained us, in order that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit and not in the old sense by the written code."

Paul was clear as to what he was saying, notice the use of old sense and new sense. He also made reference to written code. So, i dont see how you concluded he was referring to death pronounced by the law.

if we are to see things the way you recommend, it becomes hard to reasonably assemble your point. You said it is only the Ten commandment that was not annulled, yet you are talking about stoning an adulterer, one disobeying the mother, sabbath breaker etc. The ten commandment did not say such persons be stoned. So, why will Paul or anybody on your side of understanding be concerned about death? Was it not the other laws that pronounced stoning? Did the ten commandment pronounce stoning or even killing an adulterer?

It is true that Paul expanded on his point by saying that the Law made sin more sinful, and thus produced death. verses 4-5; "So, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of the Christ, that you might become another’s, the one who was raised up from the dead, so that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were living according to the flesh, the sinful passions that were awakened by the Law were at work in our bodies to produce fruit for death."

So, Paul made his point; That the law made sin to be obvious to those under law, thereby delivering them to death. Now, notice that in verse 6, Paul didnt say that we have been released from the death resulting from sin as made evident by the law. Nope. Rather in verse 6, he said that we have been "released from the law." Why could he not rightly say "released from death of the law?" Because that would make no meaning. The law is a body of rules, you cant choose one and live the other in as much as you are under the law. If you are under it, you have to stick to the punishment stipulated by the law. On the other hand, if you are released from the law, you can still choose what you can apply based on new direction issued by Jesus. So, you can learn that to steal in bad, to commit adultery is bad, in fact, that to even fantasize about the body of someone not your mate is bad too. But can you be stoned? nope. because you are no longer under the law. That covenant that brought the law, that gave it validity has been changed by a new covenant made with Jesus blood. (heb 9:15-19).

heb 7:11-12

If, then, perfection was attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for it was a feature of the Law that was given to the people), what further need would there be for another priest to arise who is said to be in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek and not in the manner of Aaron? 12 For since the priesthood is being changed, it becomes necessary to change the Law as well."

This is certainly not a change in concerning death. Did you notice that because God brought about a change in the priesthood, that necessitated a change in the law? why? the same reason, you cant do something different when you are under the law covenant. You have to follow it to the later.

JMAN05:
Read that chapter well and more carefully. I do understand your position here, and why you reached that conclusion. Paul asked do we abolish law (mosaic law), he answered no, rather we establish law. Some translation say, "we uphold law". It is sort of open to question. However, we cannot dismiss the fact that there is law of faith. verse 27 made that clear. But one would ask, is Paul saying we establish law, how? The law is already established before faith came on board. In fact he cant be stating that law of Moses is established by faith since he drew a contrast from verse 27. A contrast that obviously showed the weakness of the law. How? verse 30 showed that God declared people uncircumcised righteous even though they were not observing the commandment of the law. So the law of faith rules supreme. Not the Mosaic law. So, in verse 31 it will be a contradiction if paul was saying that they are establishing law of the jews. He is apparently saying that we are establishing the law of faith.

But of course, one can make a case that the place is talking about the law of the jews. So, there is another way these could be understood. The law aimed at making people righteous. However, because of sin, it couldnt reach that goal, but faith did. it made people not under the law to be declared righteous. So, it upheld the law, it furthered the course of the law,and achieved it. So, it is not against the law in that it took off from where Law stopped and lead to the goal of the law - to make people righteous. (Roms 8:3, 4) This however does not mean that the law continuous effective. It is weak already. A stronger law can help reach it's goal.

The context does not support any establishing of law, in the sense of encouraging its observance. I dont see that conveyed by the context. Since the context suggests that without the law people are declared righteous. So, why observe what has weakness? what has limitations?

JMAN05:
There seems to be a disconnect here. I do agree that the law delivered us to death. But notice the point here. Paul was talking about the law of a man to his wife. The wife is free if the man dies. When married to a new man, he obeys the new man's laws.

You did well by saying that people have become dead to the law. Now, true Christian are now married by another husband - Christ. We now live by the law of the Christ, not by the law of the Jews which we died to.

Christ used his blood to purchase us to be his own. We now live by his laws.

You did agree that Christ died for us, he paid the old husband, that keep highlighting our sins and demanding our death. He paid him the death penalty for us, and now married us to himself. We are now under his laws. I wonder why you didn't reach that conclusion. That's the analogy Paul was making.



With or without the law code sin has always been around.

Anything not in harmony with God's personality is sin. Anything contrary to his standards, ways, will. Anything that destroys man's relationship with God is sin.

View Pauls words from context. He was writing to people who knew the law. During his lifetime, the law has been around. So Paul got to know about sin from the law. He met the law from birth cos he was born a jew.That does not mean that sin is never sin until a law codes comes up. No. Adam and Eve was condemned without the Mosaic law. Cain knew what he did was wrong because God warned him not to kill his brother. Sodom was destroyed and many died in Noah's day even before the Law came on board.

1jhn 5:17 says all unrighteousness is sin. So anything contrary to God personality is sin. Why the law? To make sin more sinful, to expose our weak state and help us to look forward to a ransom. However, many who served God had to Know about what is bad from the law code. Not that it was never sin, it was, but many did it unknown to them that they were sinning.



In that scenario, assume that the man under charge of death is given asylum by another nation, the nation gives another person to die on his behalf. When into the new nation, he follows the new nation's laws. That will make the analogy fit. Read Romans 7:1-3.

Law being out of the way doesn't mean disobedience reigns supreme. We can live by the principles found in the law. Jesus life and speech constitutes the law of the Christ.

JMAN05:
There seems to be a disconnect here. I do agree that the law delivered us to death. But notice the point here. Paul was talking about the law of a man to his wife. The wife is free if the man dies. When married to a new man, he obeys the new man's laws.

You did well by saying that people have become dead to the law. Now, true Christian are now married by another husband - Christ. We now live by the law of the Christ, not by the law of the Jews which we died to.

Christ used his blood to purchase us to be his own. We now live by his laws.

You did agree that Christ died for us, he paid the old husband, that keep highlighting our sins and demanding our death. He paid him the death penalty for us, and now married us to himself. We are now under his laws. I wonder why you didn't reach that conclusion. That's the analogy Paul was making.



With or without the law code sin has always been around.

Anything not in harmony with God's personality is sin. Anything contrary to his standards, ways, will. Anything that destroys man's relationship with God is sin.

View Pauls words from context. He was writing to people who knew the law. During his lifetime, the law has been around. So Paul got to know about sin from the law. He met the law from birth cos he was born a jew.That does not mean that sin is never sin until a law codes comes up. No. Adam and Eve was condemned without the Mosaic law. Cain knew what he did was wrong because God warned him not to kill his brother. Sodom was destroyed and many died in Noah's day even before the Law came on board.

1jhn 5:17 says all unrighteousness is sin. So anything contrary to God personality is sin. Why the law? To make sin more sinful, to expose our weak state and help us to look forward to a ransom. However, many who served God had to Know about what is bad from the law code. Not that it was never sin, it was, but many did it unknown to them that they were sinning.



In that scenario, assume that the man under charge of death is given asylum by another nation, the nation gives another person to die on his behalf. When into the new nation, he follows the new nation's laws. That will make the analogy fit. Read Romans 7:1-3.

Law being out of the way doesn't mean disobedience reigns supreme. We can live by the principles found in the law. Jesus life and speech constitutes the law of the Christ.

JMAN05:
Read that chapter well and more carefully. I do understand your position here, and why you reached that conclusion. Paul asked do we abolish law (mosaic law), he answered no, rather we establish law. Some translation say, "we uphold law". It is sort of open to question. However, we cannot dismiss the fact that there is law of faith. verse 27 made that clear. But one would ask, is Paul saying we establish law, how? The law is already established before faith came on board. In fact he cant be stating that law of Moses is established by faith since he drew a contrast from verse 27. A contrast that obviously showed the weakness of the law. How? verse 30 showed that God declared people uncircumcised righteous even though they were not observing the commandment of the law. So the law of faith rules supreme. Not the Mosaic law. So, in verse 31 it will be a contradiction if paul was saying that they are establishing law of the jews. He is apparently saying that we are establishing the law of faith.

But of course, one can make a case that the place is talking about the law of the jews. So, there is another way these could be understood. The law aimed at making people righteous. However, because of sin, it couldnt reach that goal, but faith did. it made people not under the law to be declared righteous. So, it upheld the law, it furthered the course of the law,and achieved it. So, it is not against the law in that it took off from where Law stopped and lead to the goal of the law - to make people righteous. (Roms 8:3, 4) This however does not mean that the law continuous effective. It is weak already. A stronger law can help reach it's goal.

The context does not support any establishing of law, in the sense of encouraging its observance. I dont see that conveyed by the context. Since the context suggests that without the law people are declared righteous. So, why observe what has weakness? what has limitations?

JMAN05:
There seems to be a disconnect here. I do agree that the law delivered us to death. But notice the point here. Paul was talking about the law of a man to his wife. The wife is free if the man dies. When married to a new man, he obeys the new man's laws.

You did well by saying that people have become dead to the law. Now, true Christian are now married by another husband - Christ. We now live by the law of the Christ, not by the law of the Jews which we died to.

Christ used his blood to purchase us to be his own. We now live by his laws.

You did agree that Christ died for us, he paid the old husband, that keep highlighting our sins and demanding our death. He paid him the death penalty for us, and now married us to himself. We are now under his laws. I wonder why you didn't reach that conclusion. That's the analogy Paul was making.



With or without the law code sin has always been around.

Anything not in harmony with God's personality is sin. Anything contrary to his standards, ways, will. Anything that destroys man's relationship with God is sin.

View Pauls words from context. He was writing to people who knew the law. During his lifetime, the law has been around. So Paul got to know about sin from the law. He met the law from birth cos he was born a jew.That does not mean that sin is never sin until a law codes comes up. No. Adam and Eve was condemned without the Mosaic law. Cain knew what he did was wrong because God warned him not to kill his brother. Sodom was destroyed and many died in Noah's day even before the Law came on board.

1jhn 5:17 says all unrighteousness is sin. So anything contrary to God personality is sin. Why the law? To make sin more sinful, to expose our weak state and help us to look forward to a ransom. However, many who served God had to Know about what is bad from the law code. Not that it was never sin, it was, but many did it unknown to them that they were sinning.



In that scenario, assume that the man under charge of death is given asylum by another nation, the nation gives another person to die on his behalf. When into the new nation, he follows the new nation's laws. That will make the analogy fit. Read Romans 7:1-3.

Law being out of the way doesn't mean disobedience reigns supreme. We can live by the principles found in the law. Jesus life and speech constitutes the law of the Christ.

JMAN05:
Read that chapter well and more carefully. I do understand your position here, and why you reached that conclusion. Paul asked do we abolish law (mosaic law), he answered no, rather we establish law. Some translation say, "we uphold law". It is sort of open to question. However, we cannot dismiss the fact that there is law of faith. verse 27 made that clear. But one would ask, is Paul saying we establish law, how? The law is already established before faith came on board. In fact he cant be stating that law of Moses is established by faith since he drew a contrast from verse 27. A contrast that obviously showed the weakness of the law. How? verse 30 showed that God declared people uncircumcised righteous even though they were not observing the commandment of the law. So the law of faith rules supreme. Not the Mosaic law. So, in verse 31 it will be a contradiction if paul was saying that they are establishing law of the jews. He is apparently saying that we are establishing the law of faith.

But of course, one can make a case that the place is talking about the law of the jews. So, there is another way these could be understood. The law aimed at making people righteous. However, because of sin, it couldnt reach that goal, but faith did. it made people not under the law to be declared righteous. So, it upheld the law, it furthered the course of the law,and achieved it. So, it is not against the law in that it took off from where Law stopped and lead to the goal of the law - to make people righteous. (Roms 8:3, 4) This however does not mean that the law continuous effective. It is weak already. A stronger law can help reach it's goal.

The context does not support any establishing of law, in the sense of encouraging its observance. I dont see that conveyed by the context. Since the context suggests that without the law people are declared righteous. So, why observe what has weakness? what has limitations?

cr7lomo:
Messi himself will b ashamed with what u posted ....even chrisantus has under 17 world cup ... Look at the nonsense u posted as achievements... Hide ur face in shame

JMAN05:
I beg to disagree. And even if we were to go along with your position, you would still have to agree that believing that means that the law is out of the way. Because, if you are bound by the law, you are also condemned by the law if you sin. You cannot be under the law and say you are set free from the penalty. If you are under the law, you must observe every pin of the law. If you discard one, you discard all. You dont cherry-pick the law.

However, I dont see your reason that Paul was talking about the death pronounced by the law. He cant say that cos that is not how the law is practiced. You observe everything. Lets look at the verse again.

Roms 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, because we have died to that which restrained us, in order that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit and not in the old sense by the written code."

Paul was clear as to what he was saying, notice the use of old sense and new sense. He also made reference to written code. So, i dont see how you concluded he was referring to death pronounced by the law.

if we are to see things the way you recommend, it becomes hard to reasonably assemble your point. You said it is only the Ten commandment that was not annulled, yet you are talking about stoning an adulterer, one disobeying the mother, sabbath breaker etc. The ten commandment did not say such persons be stoned. So, why will Paul or anybody on your side of understanding be concerned about death? Was it not the other laws that pronounced stoning? Did the ten commandment pronounce stoning or even killing an adulterer?

It is true that Paul expanded on his point by saying that the Law made sin more sinful, and thus produced death. verses 4-5; "So, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of the Christ, that you might become another’s, the one who was raised up from the dead, so that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were living according to the flesh, the sinful passions that were awakened by the Law were at work in our bodies to produce fruit for death."

So, Paul made his point; That the law made sin to be obvious to those under law, thereby delivering them to death. Now, notice that in verse 6, Paul didnt say that we have been released from the death resulting from sin as made evident by the law. Nope. Rather in verse 6, he said that we have been "released from the law." Why could he not rightly say "released from death of the law?" Because that would make no meaning. The law is a body of rules, you cant choose one and live the other in as much as you are under the law. If you are under it, you have to stick to the punishment stipulated by the law. On the other hand, if you are released from the law, you can still choose what you can apply based on new direction issued by Jesus. So, you can learn that to steal in bad, to commit adultery is bad, in fact, that to even fantasize about the body of someone not your mate is bad too. But can you be stoned? nope. because you are no longer under the law. That covenant that brought the law, that gave it validity has been changed by a new covenant made with Jesus blood. (heb 9:15-19).

heb 7:11-12

If, then, perfection was attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for it was a feature of the Law that was given to the people), what further need would there be for another priest to arise who is said to be in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek and not in the manner of Aaron? 12 For since the priesthood is being changed, it becomes necessary to change the Law as well."

This is certainly not a change in concerning death. Did you notice that because God brought about a change in the priesthood, that necessitated a change in the law? why? the same reason, you cant do something different when you are under the law covenant. You have to follow it to the later.

JMAN05:
I beg to disagree. And even if we were to go along with your position, you would still have to agree that believing that means that the law is out of the way. Because, if you are bound by the law, you are also condemned by the law if you sin. You cannot be under the law and say you are set free from the penalty. If you are under the law, you must observe every pin of the law. If you discard one, you discard all. You dont cherry-pick the law.

However, I dont see your reason that Paul was talking about the death pronounced by the law. He cant say that cos that is not how the law is practiced. You observe everything. Lets look at the verse again.

Roms 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, because we have died to that which restrained us, in order that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit and not in the old sense by the written code."

Paul was clear as to what he was saying, notice the use of old sense and new sense. He also made reference to written code. So, i dont see how you concluded he was referring to death pronounced by the law.

if we are to see things the way you recommend, it becomes hard to reasonably assemble your point. You said it is only the Ten commandment that was not annulled, yet you are talking about stoning an adulterer, one disobeying the mother, sabbath breaker etc. The ten commandment did not say such persons be stoned. So, why will Paul or anybody on your side of understanding be concerned about death? Was it not the other laws that pronounced stoning? Did the ten commandment pronounce stoning or even killing an adulterer?

It is true that Paul expanded on his point by saying that the Law made sin more sinful, and thus produced death. verses 4-5; "So, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of the Christ, that you might become another’s, the one who was raised up from the dead, so that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were living according to the flesh, the sinful passions that were awakened by the Law were at work in our bodies to produce fruit for death."

So, Paul made his point; That the law made sin to be obvious to those under law, thereby delivering them to death. Now, notice that in verse 6, Paul didnt say that we have been released from the death resulting from sin as made evident by the law. Nope. Rather in verse 6, he said that we have been "released from the law." Why could he not rightly say "released from death of the law?" Because that would make no meaning. The law is a body of rules, you cant choose one and live the other in as much as you are under the law. If you are under it, you have to stick to the punishment stipulated by the law. On the other hand, if you are released from the law, you can still choose what you can apply based on new direction issued by Jesus. So, you can learn that to steal in bad, to commit adultery is bad, in fact, that to even fantasize about the body of someone not your mate is bad too. But can you be stoned? nope. because you are no longer under the law. That covenant that brought the law, that gave it validity has been changed by a new covenant made with Jesus blood. (heb 9:15-19).

heb 7:11-12

If, then, perfection was attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for it was a feature of the Law that was given to the people), what further need would there be for another priest to arise who is said to be in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek and not in the manner of Aaron? 12 For since the priesthood is being changed, it becomes necessary to change the Law as well."

This is certainly not a change in concerning death. Did you notice that because God brought about a change in the priesthood, that necessitated a change in the law? why? the same reason, you cant do something different when you are under the law covenant. You have to follow it to the later.

JMAN05:
I beg to disagree. And even if we were to go along with your position, you would still have to agree that believing that means that the law is out of the way. Because, if you are bound by the law, you are also condemned by the law if you sin. You cannot be under the law and say you are set free from the penalty. If you are under the law, you must observe every pin of the law. If you discard one, you discard all. You dont cherry-pick the law.

However, I dont see your reason that Paul was talking about the death pronounced by the law. He cant say that cos that is not how the law is practiced. You observe everything. Lets look at the verse again.

Roms 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, because we have died to that which restrained us, in order that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit and not in the old sense by the written code."

Paul was clear as to what he was saying, notice the use of old sense and new sense. He also made reference to written code. So, i dont see how you concluded he was referring to death pronounced by the law.

if we are to see things the way you recommend, it becomes hard to reasonably assemble your point. You said it is only the Ten commandment that was not annulled, yet you are talking about stoning an adulterer, one disobeying the mother, sabbath breaker etc. The ten commandment did not say such persons be stoned. So, why will Paul or anybody on your side of understanding be concerned about death? Was it not the other laws that pronounced stoning? Did the ten commandment pronounce stoning or even killing an adulterer?

It is true that Paul expanded on his point by saying that the Law made sin more sinful, and thus produced death. verses 4-5; "So, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of the Christ, that you might become another’s, the one who was raised up from the dead, so that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were living according to the flesh, the sinful passions that were awakened by the Law were at work in our bodies to produce fruit for death."

So, Paul made his point; That the law made sin to be obvious to those under law, thereby delivering them to death. Now, notice that in verse 6, Paul didnt say that we have been released from the death resulting from sin as made evident by the law. Nope. Rather in verse 6, he said that we have been "released from the law." Why could he not rightly say "released from death of the law?" Because that would make no meaning. The law is a body of rules, you cant choose one and live the other in as much as you are under the law. If you are under it, you have to stick to the punishment stipulated by the law. On the other hand, if you are released from the law, you can still choose what you can apply based on new direction issued by Jesus. So, you can learn that to steal in bad, to commit adultery is bad, in fact, that to even fantasize about the body of someone not your mate is bad too. But can you be stoned? nope. because you are no longer under the law. That covenant that brought the law, that gave it validity has been changed by a new covenant made with Jesus blood. (heb 9:15-19).

heb 7:11-12

If, then, perfection was attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for it was a feature of the Law that was given to the people), what further need would there be for another priest to arise who is said to be in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek and not in the manner of Aaron? 12 For since the priesthood is being changed, it becomes necessary to change the Law as well."

This is certainly not a change in concerning death. Did you notice that because God brought about a change in the priesthood, that necessitated a change in the law? why? the same reason, you cant do something different when you are under the law covenant. You have to follow it to the later.

Even the new covenant Jesus made still has the same Law in it.

Hebrews 10:16
“This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, says the LORD: I will put My
laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will
write them,”

Which law is that?

JMAN05:
I beg to disagree. And even if we were to go along with your position, you would still have to agree that believing that means that the law is out of the way. Because, if you are bound by the law, you are also condemned by the law if you sin. You cannot be under the law and say you are set free from the penalty. If you are under the law, you must observe every pin of the law. If you discard one, you discard all. You dont cherry-pick the law.

However, I dont see your reason that Paul was talking about the death pronounced by the law. He cant say that cos that is not how the law is practiced. You observe everything. Lets look at the verse again.

Roms 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, because we have died to that which restrained us, in order that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit and not in the old sense by the written code."

Paul was clear as to what he was saying, notice the use of old sense and new sense. He also made reference to written code. So, i dont see how you concluded he was referring to death pronounced by the law.

if we are to see things the way you recommend, it becomes hard to reasonably assemble your point. You said it is only the Ten commandment that was not annulled, yet you are talking about stoning an adulterer, one disobeying the mother, sabbath breaker etc. The ten commandment did not say such persons be stoned. So, why will Paul or anybody on your side of understanding be concerned about death? Was it not the other laws that pronounced stoning? Did the ten commandment pronounce stoning or even killing an adulterer?

It is true that Paul expanded on his point by saying that the Law made sin more sinful, and thus produced death. verses 4-5; "So, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of the Christ, that you might become another’s, the one who was raised up from the dead, so that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were living according to the flesh, the sinful passions that were awakened by the Law were at work in our bodies to produce fruit for death."

So, Paul made his point; That the law made sin to be obvious to those under law, thereby delivering them to death. Now, notice that in verse 6, Paul didnt say that we have been released from the death resulting from sin as made evident by the law. Nope. Rather in verse 6, he said that we have been "released from the law." Why could he not rightly say "released from death of the law?" Because that would make no meaning. The law is a body of rules, you cant choose one and live the other in as much as you are under the law. If you are under it, you have to stick to the punishment stipulated by the law. On the other hand, if you are released from the law, you can still choose what you can apply based on new direction issued by Jesus. So, you can learn that to steal in bad, to commit adultery is bad, in fact, that to even fantasize about the body of someone not your mate is bad too. But can you be stoned? nope. because you are no longer under the law. That covenant that brought the law, that gave it validity has been changed by a new covenant made with Jesus blood. (heb 9:15-19).

heb 7:11-12

If, then, perfection was attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for it was a feature of the Law that was given to the people), what further need would there be for another priest to arise who is said to be in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek and not in the manner of Aaron? 12 For since the priesthood is being changed, it becomes necessary to change the Law as well."

This is certainly not a change in concerning death. Did you notice that because God brought about a change in the priesthood, that necessitated a change in the law? why? the same reason, you cant do something different when you are under the law covenant. You have to follow it to the later.


You are just confusing and contradicting yourself.

Paul was reffering to the Levitical law and not the ten commandments.
We have been released from the penalty of the law which required stoning of those who transgressed it.
Here is Paul on the law.


Romans 2:12
For as many as have sinned without law will also
perish without law, and as many as have sinned
in the law will be judged by the law

brownemmanuel43:
baba na u talk am ohhhh. bcs dem go cum for ur head now, just watch out. dat invisible human being u wan compare with another person.

shadeyinka:
It seems you do not understand my question.

I said:

If angels are spirits (life giving force) , what is their spirit giving life since they don't have a body?
(Note: At least it could make sense to say that the life giving force of a man gives life to his physical body)

The spirit of man is supposed to give life to his body:
What does the spirit of an angel give life to?

shadeyinka:
So, human spirit is the same as human soul?

shadeyinka:
It seems you do not understand my question.

I said:

If angels are spirits (life giving force) , what is their spirit giving life since they don't have a body?
(Note: At least it could make sense to say that the life giving force of a man gives life to his physical body)

The spirit of man is supposed to give life to his body:
What does the spirit of an angel give life to?

shadeyinka:
Human spirit is different from human mind!

BTW, I was referring to a JW of which you are not. The items 1-4 was meant for a JW who see the human spirit as an inanimate thing (a life force)

From your (JW) response:
1. God's spirit is alive (supernatural being)
2. Angel's spirits are alive (supernatural beings)
3. Demon's spirits are alive (supernatural beings)
BUT
4. Human spirit is NOT alive: it is simply a life force!

Do you think the last conclusion (4) represent your view?

How come every other spirit is living and only man's spirit is non living life force?

The above is my question to the JW

shadeyinka:
Annihilate is just one out of seven synonyms. It therefore cannot be the only definition for devour!

A human being is a body, a soul and a spirit.
If angels are spirit and soul yet conscious
What make you think that a human being devoid of only his body is unconscious?

Mat 22:32:
"I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

What do you think Jesus was teaching with the scripture below?
Luk 16:23:
"And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."

For it looks like Jesus believe in continuous existence after death.

If God is a God of justice, should he judge satan for rebelling against Him and sowing great evil in the universe?

cr7lomo:
He will outplay any opposition on earth or mars but has not featured in a CL final in half a decade... Hasn't even won an international trophy... U guys get mental health problems

JMAN05:
The Bible.

JMAN05:
Do you keep all the law?

Maximus69:
In the beginning, neither Adam nor Even need access to heaven because JEHOVAH often visit them from time to time. Genesis 3:8

Everything they needed was here on Earth with them, the only reason why most people are eager to have access to another place (heaven) today is because they're tired of the conditions we have here.

But that wasn't how it started, in the beginning everything here was perfect! Genesis 1:31

cr7lomo:
Sometimes I wonder if people like u have a functional brain .. how can say he destroyed EPL teams in the CL , so therefore, he will do same if he joins the epl... Like he will join epl with the whole Barca squad... Besides , do u think CL is league??

brownemmanuel43:
That's one problem with we naija, always bias in almost everything. Some will say let him go to another club and prove himself, he has played the top teams in EPL and always emerged as the best.

shadeyinka:
Thank you Mr Janosky for coming to bail out your friend Peacefullove. Unfortunately, you did not answer the question. You have only objected to the use of life giving force and you claim it should be life force . I do not intend the assert the similarity or differences so, the question again


I asked you again:
If angels are spirits (life giving force) , what is their spirit giving life since they don't have a body?
(Note: At least it could make sense to say that the life giving force of a man gives life to his physical body)


So, the offensive word has been removed. If the life force of a man give life to the physical body, what does the life force of a spirit give life?

Thanks for your understanding