Commandments in John

[BibleOnly]

Just a casual reading of the scriptures shows that Christ came to magnify and elaborate the golden rule, not replace it.

It's laughable at best when people try to make the words of Christ snuff out the Ten Commandments. Sheer lunacy of the highest order. lol.

[12tribes]

12 Tribes, Have you ever heard of a thing called context? Are you suggesting that Jesus suddenly tells his disciples that they must obey the Decalogue in order to be saved?

Have you ever heard of a thing called reading properly? Where is the word save in the verses I quoted?

[Hansen]

12 tribes, You make a very good point, What I should have said was "Are you suggesting that Jesus suddenly blurts out, "If you love me, keep the Decalogue," when the immediate context concerns his teachings?

The fact remains that there is no legitimate reason to associate the term "commandments," in the writings of John, with the Decalogue.

John himself explains what the commandments are. They are not the Decalogue. He uses the term for commandment/s 9 times in his gospel. Not once is it talking about the Decalogue. The word is used 13 times in his epistles. Again, no direct reference to the Decalogue.

[Gerr]

BO - so 1 Cor 14 is not biblical ? Why does Paul say that the tongues speaker is only understood by God ? Why is interpretation by inspiration of God and not through knowing the language ? Why does the tongues speaker speak only to himself and God, if there is no-one to interpret ? All of this makes no sense if your reading of Acts 2 and the purpose of tongues is in fact true.

There's nothing unbiblical what Paul says in 1 Cor 14. What is unbiblical is your understanding of it that puts it in opposition to what Paul says in ch 12 & 13! In ch 14 you claim that every believer has the gift of prophecy or tongues when Paul makes it perfectly clear in ch 12 that such is NOT the case!

Quote:

Gerry : Are you free to transgress any of the commandments because we are not under law but under grace?

BO - Of course not. I've said that, over and over. I don't break the Sabbath, you do. Because in the NT, the Sabbath is rest in God through the Holy Spirit, not a day of legalism.

Again, your reasoning totally baffles me. You say that I break the Sabbath while I'm trying to observe it, while you disregard it and you claim to be resting in God's rest? You call it legalism that I try to obey 10/10c but you are not a legalist because you obey only 9/10c? Totally absurd!!!

Quote:

BO - I've done this, over and over. Paul does it, in fact. In the church, tongues is of benefit because it is interpreted. Paul says if there is no interpreter, one who wants to speak in tongues should wait and speak to himself and God. So, tongues is never to be used to speak to people of other languages, nor can it be, according to 1 Cor 14:2. The SDA basically says 'a version of tongues that we invented still exists sometimes in far away places, but the one in the Bible does not exist and never

I'm sorry if you have to repeat yourself. But that's because you are not making sense to me. As I said above, you logic totally baffles. Yes, tongues, for instance, benefited the Hispanic congregation when I spoke to them because someone interpreted. But for what reason/benefit would I speak in tongues to my English-speaking congregation only to have it interpreted/translated back into English? Would it not be of more benefit to just speak to them directly in the language we all use and understand?

Quote:

BO - Yes, it's clear what happened that day. 14:2 is the verse that makes clear what happens when tongues are spoken in general. Acts 2 is an account of a specific event. 14:2 is a definition of all events where no specifics are given that might contradict it.

With that kind of convoluted logic, I give up. Acts 2 specifically says that the tongues spoken were human languages, and now you are saying there are "no specifics given that might contradict it?"

Quote:

1Cr 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

So when you talk to yourself in tongues, do you understand what you are saying to yourself?

[Gerr]

12 tribes, You make a very good point, What I should have said was "Are you suggesting that Jesus suddenly blurts out, "If you love me, keep the Decalogue," when the immediate context concerns his teachings?

The fact remains that there is no legitimate reason to associate the term "commandments," in the writings of John, with the Decalogue.

John himself explains what the commandments are. They are not the Decalogue. He uses the term for commandment/s 9 times in his gospel. Not once is it talking about the Decalogue. The word is used 13 times in his epistles. Again, no direct reference to the Decalogue.

John doesn't have to. To Jews reading his gospel, that would be a given. And why single out John to say that when Jesus is talking about commandments, it has nothing to do with the 10c? Why don't you check out the other gospels whether Jesus also had in mind the 10c when He was using the word "commandments?" Or check out what Paul means when he uses the word? Or Moses as understood by the translators of the LXX? When you do, it will become obvious that your proposition does not hold water.

[Gerr]

Gerry - So you define the known by what is [unknown]? The straight with the convoluted? That's bizarre to say the least!

BO - I have no idea what you mean, but, the known IS defined by the unknown, just as sin is defined by what is right, because there's a division created that defines both. But, that's semantic. It doesn't change the fact that 1 Cor 14 says that no man understands tongues.

By what possible logic do you define something that is clear/understood, by something that is not clear or understood or at best controversial?

[Tom Wetmore]

OK. As moderator I get the last word in this thread for now. It is locked. Several of you seem unable to not take or make the topic personal. Enough personal sniping. I am serious. Stop. Now.

[Tom Wetmore]