Faith without works and the error of grace

originally posted by: Heresiarch
Because he definitely says the Law is a curse. Not just a burden, A CURSE.

I'm going to tell you again, trying to use words of one syllable.

Let us start, once again, with "the speech of the President".
Can you see that this phrase means "the President made a speech"?
You''re not going to suggest any absurd interpretation like "The President IS a speech"?
So far, so good. (Phew, this is hard going).

Now then, let us apply this simple principle to "the curse of the Law".
Can you see that this phrase means "the Law speaks a curse"?
It does not mean the Law IS a curse.
And you know very well that the Law does announce that curse, because you have quoted it yourself.
So what exactly is the problem with Paul saying so?

a reply to: DISRAELI

You are not going to explain away what I already know is a pack of lies told by a false prophet.

Just saying that he didn't mean the words that he wrote is not strengthening your already flimsy argument. That's just as good as saying he is a liar.

Which I have already demonstrated to be the case with Paul, that he is a liar. Thanks for confirming what I already know.

But maybe you should try another way of making him not look like a complete fool. Try lying, it worked for him.

Even IF you could salvage what Paul said by saying that he didn't mean what he said, there is always going to remain the fact that he prefaced his letters with oaths in God's name, doing exactly what Jesus called " of the evil one."

So you are never going to win.

originally posted by: Heresiarch
Just saying that he didn't mean the words that he wrote is not strengthening your already flimsy argument. That's just as good as saying he is a liar.

No, I'm only saying that you don't understand the words that he wrote.
You are the kind of person who thinks that "the speech of the President" means "the President IS a speech".

You're never going to understand what the Bible is trying to say to you, until you learn to put a little more diligence into grasping the real meaning of people's words.
But then you don't really want to understand, do you?

Thank you "Heresiarch" for the entertainment. It is obvious that you are here to live up to your username. You have done an excellent job. If you are an energy vampire...your tactics are very effective and I commend you for them.

It is obvious to anyone not too caught up in arguing with you. That you jump on whichever side of the fence suits your purpose ( generate negative feelings )best.

As an example...you are currently arguing that the law is not a curse. You made another thread about a man being killed for breaking the law. In that thread you elaborated on the injustice of god for upholding the law...now in this thread you are upholding the law and how it is applicable to our current experience.

I won't waste anymore time trying to share my views with someone who's agenda is anything but trying to ascertain the truth of the matter.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I don't think that at all, and understand just fine. Saying God's Law is a curse is just an entirely different scenario.

No matter how you interpret it, he said those exact words.

"The curse that is the Law"

Can not misinterpret that if I tried. He is saying that the Law is a curse. Curse that IS the Law. He is talking about a specific curse, specifically, the CURSE that is the LAW.

If he doesn't think the Law is a curse he has a strange way of showing it. Because he says that it is a curse and that curse IS the Law. Curse is Law, Law is curse.

You are just factually incorrect.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
Thank you "Heresiarch" for the entertainment. It is obvious that you are here to live up to your username. You have done an excellent job. If you are an energy vampire...your tactics are very effective and I commend you for them.

It is obvious to anyone not too caught up in arguing with you. That you jump on whichever side of the fence suits your purpose ( generate negative feelings )best.

As an example...you are currently arguing that the law is not a curse. You made another thread about a man being killed for breaking the law. In that thread you elaborated on the injustice of god for upholding the law...now in this thread you are upholding the law and how it is applicable to our current experience.

I won't waste anymore time trying to share my views with someone who's agenda is anything but trying to ascertain the truth of the matter.

You have made claims that are untrue. I have never switched sides, not once.

What I have done is prove that Paul was a false prophet, this upsets you because you are a follower of Paul. But you can't refute me on one single point, which is why you make false accusations that are merely your opinion.

I have been using scripture to prove my points, you can't do that because you will be proven wrong, so you don't.

Thanks for not wasting anyone's time and admitting defeat.

originally posted by: Heresiarch
No matter how you interpret it, he said those exact words.
"The curse that is the Law"

Now you have taken to making up your own scripture quotations, because you did not, I think, get "those exact words" from any of the standard translations of Galatians ch3 v13.

Even the Authorised Version, which sometimes misleads modern readers, says "the curse OF the law".
The RSV and the Jerusalem Bible both say "the curse OF the law".
The Greek text says EK TES KATARAS TOU NOMOU, which means "out of the curse OF the law".

If you are having to invent scripture in order to prove your point, then you have lost it.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Actually, that is word for word from the NRSV. That is what it says and that is what I typed.

You are really desperate when you have to nitpick one quote from the Bible to even have a hope of having a somewhat plausible explanation.

But I have plenty of arguments I could shift to at any time that will defeat your argument. That is only the biggest lie Paul tells. But there are more that you can't begin to refute, and even this one you can't refute. You resorted to saying that I am being dishonest but I am not. I have other translations that say the same thing.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Heresiarch
No matter how you interpret it, he said those exact words.
"The curse that is the Law"

Now you have taken to making up your own scripture quotations, because you did not, I think, get "those exact words" from any of the standard translations of Galatians ch3 v13.

Even the Authorised Version, which sometimes misleads modern readers, says "the curse OF the law".
The RSV and the Jerusalem Bible both say "the curse OF the law".
The Greek text says EK TES KATARAS TOU NOMOU, which means "out of the curse OF the law".

If you are having to invent scripture in order to prove your point, then you have lost it.

Ok. Well go with "curse of the Law." for the sake of fairness. That is still SAYING that the Law brings A CURSE. If this curse is "of the Law." That is no better and does not make your argument any stronger.

God's Law does not bring a curse that could be of it. It is a blessing and not a curse.

Use whatever translation you want, my point remains proven.

originally posted by: Heresiarch
Well go with "curse of the Law." for the sake of fairness. That is still SAYING that the Law brings A CURSE. If this curse is "of the Law." That is no better and does not make your argument any stronger.

Specifically, it brings a curse on all those who do not do not obey all its commands.
The whole argument follows on from that statement (made a few verses earlier), and you agree with it. As I have already observed, you quoted the same curse yourself.

If you and Paul agree in making the same statement about what the Law says and does, that can hardly make Paul a bad man unless it makes you a bad man at the same time.


P.S. The NRSV has inserted words which are not in the Greek text;
EK TES KATARAS TOU NOMOU.
The genitive case; "OF the law".
Thank you for the warning that those translators might do that kind of thing.

originally posted by: Heresiarch
a reply to: yuppa

I am not interested in a link. I do my own interpretations. The fact that you can look at this evidence and not care, still follow Paul makes me not take you seriously.

Is this you acting good, is this arrogance on your part a requirement for your acting good policy.

Are you not doing the same thing that your accusing Paul of doing?

It's the teaching of a malevolent narcissist, who was frustrated with the followers of Christ

a reply to: DISRAELI

There is no such thing as "curse of the Law"

That is an insult to God. The Law is a blessing, it is not ever a curse. Blasphemy.

If you don't follow the Law you are not cursed. Judgement is not a curse. The only curse is in Paul's imagination, Jesus simplified the Law down to 2 commandments that are so easy you would have to be a moron to break it. That's not being cursed, just stupid.

As is not loving God and leaving out the GREATEST commandment.

originally posted by: Heresiarch
There is no such thing as "curse of the Law"

There is such a thing as "the curse which is pronounced by the law".
You can read it for yourself in Deuteronomy ch27.
That is what Paul is talking about, and you know it is there because you have cited it yourself.

If you don't follow the Law you are not cursed.

Deuteronomy says you are cursed if you don't follow the law, and you said so yourself a little while back.
Shall I quote you again?

originally posted by: Heresiarch
But the only curse is in NOT obeying God's Law...

That is the curse which Paul is talking about.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I don't know about that. It isn't even the case. I mistakenly typed it wrong, I already moved passed the difference between is and of the Law and makes no difference either way it is blasphemy.

But don't blame the NRSV for my error, that is just a hail Mary. It was a one word error, unintentional and not their fault.

Get over it.

a reply to: DISRAELI


And I learned from my miniscule scribal error that you are an an "If all else fails blame the Bible" kind of guy, and that you pretended that the translators made intentional errors in that case which you couldn't possibly know because it is not true. You would have been better off accusing me because I forgot to type in "of"

Weak.

a reply to: Heresiarch
No, the mistake I noticed was that you ADDED the words "that is".

originally posted by: Heresiarch
No matter how you interpret it, he said those exact words.
"The curse that is the Law"

You can leave things out accidentally, adding them accidentally is more difficult.

a reply to: DISRAELI

You have no reason, I have never intentionally misquoted scripture. You have a good eye for catching it and I will grant you that. You haven't accused me either so you are still a gentleman as far as I am concerned

But it was unintentional and lucky for me still true in the correct translation. It doesn't do any harm to my argument or help yours, it is inconsequential. The Law brings no such curse, there is no curse of the Law. Those are the words of a well documented liar and hypocrite.

a reply to: Heresiarch
OK, don't take Paul's word for it.
Pick up your Bible and go straight to Deuteronomy.
There you will find the words;
"Cursed be he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them. And all the people shall say Amen"- Deuteronomy ch27 v26.
That is what Paul means by "the curse of the law". That is to say, the curse which the Law pronounces.
He is quoting the Old Testament. All you have to do is read it for yourself and see that he is right.

a reply to: DISRAELI


Exactly. That verse is talking about a curse of NOT the Law. The Law itself is not the source of any curse. It is anti-Law that is the curse. That's fundamental because Paul has you believe that because of the Law there was a curse. It's a very subtle and diabolical lie. It is literally the not keeping the Law that is the source of the curse. And you have bought the lie and don't understand it is the EXACT opposite of what Paul is saying that is the truth. Good luck with that.

originally posted by: Heresiarch
The Law itself is not the source of any curse. It is anti-Law that is the curse. That's fundamental because Paul has you believe that because of the Law there was a curse.

But the curse itself is one of the statements of the Law.
The whole book of Deuteronomy is part of the law.
If Deuteronomy says it, then the Law has said it.

The curse is a statement made by the law.
The Law itself has pronounced that curse. You have just had the chance of reading the words for yourself and confirming the fact.
That is what Paul means.

I don't see how I can put it any simpler.
The Law contains the statement of the curse.
The only way you can find the curse is to read it in the Law.
Therfore the Law is the source of the curse.