"Your righteousness must exceed the Scribes and Pharisees"

[Shermana]

Either war, to be more rightous then the Phaiseez, then you must follow the commandment stricter then the Pharisees. That would mean to be stricter then the Pharisees, you would need to be stricter then the ultraorthodox.

You got it, like a gangsta.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

<ignore-list> Shermana </ignore-list>

 

[Shermana]

<ignore-list> Shermana </ignore-list>

:sad4:

 

[JacobEzra.]

You got it, like a gangsta.

What's wrong? You don't like it when such contradictions of yours are pointed out?

 

[javajo]

To have Christ's "righteousness imputed" means that the True Believer (True) who accepts his teachings properly will live as obedient to the Commandments as he. Abraham's faith clearly involved a work, you keep ignoring this fact.

The Bible says that ALL have sinned and there is none righteous, we all fall short. So we NEED Christ's righteousness freely imputed unto us so as we, like Abraham believe in God and in him whom he sent:

And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. Rom. 4:22-24.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24

We trust Christ, not our own self-righteousness as it says:

1Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Rom. 10

 

[Shermana]

The Bible says that ALL have sinned and there is none righteous, we all fall short. So we NEED Christ's righteousness freely imputed unto us so as we, like Abraham believe in God and in him whom he sent:

And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. Rom. 4:22-24.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24

We trust Christ, not our own self-righteousness as it says:

1Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Rom. 10

You are further proving my case that Paul clashes with Jesus. Can you possibly justify your Theology WITHOUT Paul's epistles? As for John 5:24, he who hears Yashua's word means he who thoroughly obeys his teachings which includes obedience to the commandments. Try reading 1 John.

Why does Yashua say its better for his own disciples to chop off their hands and feet than to use them in a way which causes them to enter the fire? Why does Yashua say its better to tie a millstone around your neck and cast yourself into the sea than to harm/offend a little one?

 

[Shermana]

What's wrong? You don't like it when such contradictions of yours are pointed out?

Huh? How did you interpret my agreement with you on that issue as DISAGREEMENT. What did you think I meant by that? As for the contradiction, I explained that Jesus compared it to when David was also on the run from the authorities and ate the Holy Shewbread, which no one else is supposed to eat, because it was a special occasion.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Huh? How did you interpret my agreement with you on that issue as DISAGREEMENT. What did you think I meant by that? As for the contradiction, I explained that Jesus compared it to when David was also on the run from the authorities and ate the Holy Shewbread, which no one else is supposed to eat, because it was a special occasion.

Well I thought you disagreed. And that is from another thread, not this. I try to keep threads seperate

So do you observe the torah, stricter then the ultraorthodox?

 

[Shermana]

Well I thought you disagreed. And that is from another thread, not this. I try to keep threads seperate

So do you observe the torah, stricter then the ultraorthodox?

That is for the Father to decide, not me.

 

[javajo]

You are further proving my case that Paul clashes with Jesus. Can you possibly justify your Theology WITHOUT Paul's epistles?

Paul compliments Christ. Jesus was speaking to Jews under the Law, we are in the Church Age, the Age of Grace, of the New Covenant, not the Old. Do you accept 1&2 Peter?

As for John 5:24, he who hears Yashua's word means he who thoroughly obeys his teachings which includes obedience to the commandments. Try reading 1 John.

John 5:24 means when we trust Christ instead of our own self-righteousness, we pass from death to life.

Why does Yashua say its better for his own disciples to chop off their hands and feet than to use them in a way which causes them to enter the fire? Why does Yashua say its better to tie a millstone around your neck and cast yourself into the sea than to harm/offend a little one?

Jesus is warning how serious the consequences of sin are. Thing is, James says if we broke one single law we are guilty of all. So we all need to trust Christ because he took all our sins on himself and trusting him that he paid for our sins is the only way to have them all forgiven. It is because of this that we love him, because he first loved us and died for us.

It is like a bank account. Our sins were transferred from our account and imputed unto his account. His righteousness was transferred from his account and imputed to our account. Understanding this great and wonderful truth sets us free to obey him out of love better than we could have under fear, duty, or guilt which the Law produced. If there were a law unto eternal life, Christ would not have had to die. That's my belief.

 

[Shermana]

Paul compliments Christ.

No he doesn't, as you've proven (and many others who only ever quote Paul), he CLASHES with him.

Jesus was speaking to Jews under the Law, we are in the Church Age, the Age of Grace, of the New Covenant, not the Old

And Jesus himself was under the Law. The "Church Age" still follows the Law. You repeatedly ignore references to 1 John for a reason it seems.

. Do you accept 1&2 Peter?

No, those are nearly universally considered spurious as well. Even the Early Church viewed them in suspicion.

John 5:24 means when we trust Christ instead of our own self-righteousness, we pass from death to life.

That interpretation involves completely ignoring all of Jesus's teachings on behavior.

Jesus is warning how serious the consequences of sin are.

And what are the consequences of sin in your belief? What is "sin"? Does your definition of "Sin" match the one in 1 John 3:4?

Thing is, James says if we broke one single law we are guilty of all.

The word is "Panton" which means "The whole thing", rather than "all of them individually". It's like a candy bar thief and an axe murderer both being guilty of breaking the "Whole of the law".

So we all need to trust Christ because he took all our sins on himself and trusting him that he paid for our sins is the only way to have them all forgiven.

So what's the consequences of sin then?

It is because of this that we love him, because he first loved us and died for us.

The "us" in question is debatable. Did he die for the ones in Matthew 7:22-23? It seems you think he only died for those who don't believe they have to actually do anything but believe in him, and if you so much as believe his teachings, he rejects you, in your belief.

It is like a bank account. Our sins were transferred from our account and imputed unto his account. His righteousness was transferred from his account and imputed to our account.

Nope. To have his righteousness "imputed", as the New Covenant in Jeremiah (another issue you repeatedly ignore) implies is that one will ACT as righteous as he is. Once again, what is the consequence of sin for a believer? What happens to a believer who deliberately sins?

Understanding this great and wonderful truth sets us free to obey him out of love better than we could have under fear, duty, or guilt which the Law produced. If there were a law unto eternal life, Christ would not have had to die. That's my belief.

At least you say "That's my belief". So what happens if you don't obey him out of love? Do you believe that it makes no difference? Do you believe its just a cherry on top which has no actual effect on your salvation whether you obey all his many teachings as long as you "believe in him"? (Definition of "believe in him being up to debate)

 

[dan p]

Can't say there's any way of showing who was blameless. Jesus did say "I have not come for the righteous" however, so he may have been implying there were some who were blameless like how Job was called blameless.

Are you saying Jesus said it was impossible?

Hi , and Dr Luke says in Luke 1:in verse , that a certain Priest named Zacharias and his wife a daughter of Aaron , and verse 6 says that were both Righteous before God , walking in all the Commandments and Ordinances of the Lord BLAMELESS .

And here is another one in Phil 3:6 , Concerning the zeL , PERSUCTING THE assembly in the Gospels ( which in not Christian ) touching the RIGHTEOUSNESS which nis in the LAW , BLAMELESS , DAN P

 

[not nom]

It's arguable, especially in the language context, but if we have ", for all Thy commandments are RIGHTEOUSNESS" then we can at least conclude that "all thy commandments" are thus righteousness, whether or not the definition. To say that obedience to (all) the commandments is NOT righteousness in scriptural sense, would go against what Psalms is saying, even if its not the entirety of the definition.

fair enough, it definately defines god's words as righteous.

I'm just a fan of righteousness being an attribute of god, but not by definition... that is to say, that god is righteous because what god does is righteous, not because god does it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Explain how David saying that the commandments are righteousness is an example and not a definition.

Well, a definition describes the essential nature of something while an example is a representative of a group. Now, if your example were the definition of righteousness then why does something like Abram believing the Lord, which is counted as righteousness in Gen. 15:6, not in your commandments? Your definition is incomplete which leaves it as an example.

 

[Shermana]

Well, a definition describes the essential nature of something while an example is a representative of a group. Now, if your example were the definition of righteousness then why does something like Abram believing the Lord, which is counted as righteousness in Gen. 15:6, not in your commandments? Your definition is incomplete which leaves it as an example.

You have a point. Abraham's faith (being prepared to sacrifice his son) is an example of obedience to G-d's specific commandment. This proves that G-d's commandmenI ts and obedience to such is thus righteousness. Therefore, one's righteousness is one's obedience. If G-d is called righteous, that means he is "good". If G-d is called "righteous", that means G-d is good and thus not evil. However, if we have an example of the meaning from Psalms saying that the commandments are Righteousness, then we can conclude that they are also part of G-d's direct commands, and thus, adherence to them is righteousness, and Abraham's willingness to go through with his own acts of faith are also righteousness. But this still makes what Jesus said akin to being obedient to what G-d wills greater than the Pharisees for one to enter the Kingdom.

 

[Prophet]

Few things can bring the ego back to bear in an enlightened being like a religious hypocrite. Jesus was quoted mocking them on more than one occasion, this time poking fun at the reverence shown them by the general populace. Understanding Jesus' tone in this light makes perfect sense of a passage which follows closely thereafter where he performs reductio ad absurdum on hypocritical holiness.

"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

Plainly worded, Jesus says that if you think morality is about avoiding evil actions that you want to do to avoid a consequence of hell, it would be wise to cut off any body part you can perform sin with. True morality is about changing what you want by removing yourself from ignorance.

 

[Sleeppy]

True morality is about changing what you want by removing yourself from ignorance.

What do you mean, "changing what you want?"

 

[Prophet]

Most beings lack the clarity to act in the best interest of their own happiness, and instead substitute behaviors which are centered around becoming more comfortable or unconscious of their misery.

 

[Sleeppy]

Most beings lack the clarity to act in the best interest of their own happiness, and instead substitute behaviors which are centered around becoming more comfortable or unconscious of their misery.

Certain happiness-es are learned. They even conflict at times.

 

[Shermana]

Some people find happiness in torturing animals, as well as people.