What does 'Do unto others' mean?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ok then, i dont believe the Law failed to do what it was intended to do,

Rom 8:3-4 KJV For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Heb 8:7-8 KJV For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

[mfblume]

Shazeep, here is my actual answer since I was unaware of what you were asking in the other thread.

So please replace your claim of my words with this:

But to deal with that statement alone, He simply was telling us to do what the law tried and failed to get us to do.... do everything to others you hoped someone would do to you.

As a side thought, I added:

That is what Law tried to instill, but failed.

Well? Again, for the umpteenth time, getting no response to so many things I ask of you.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Rom 8:3-4 KJV For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Heb 8:7-8 KJV For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

yes, i think we are having a semantics discussion there, and i'm sure you would agree that the Law succeeded in showing the need for Grace; people failed the Law, the Law did not fail the people, God was not surprised when the Law was deemed inadequate, etc. I just took "failed" too literally there.

[shazeep]

ok, after reading your last post, perhaps not. My perspective is that the Law succeeded, fabulously, in revealing why the Law is inadequate, if that makes any sense. If the Law was destined to fail, can you rightly say it failed? I get you, and perhaps i am just being too touchy about God's will "failing" here; it is my perspective that God knew the Law was inadequate from the beginning, and did not expect any to come to Grace through the Law.

But i'm not sure this has much bearing upon the reading of the Golden Rule, even though they are related in the manner you describe, and i certainly doubt that I am the odd man out in my perception of the Golden Rule, as was directly stated, regardless of the outcome of this poll. You cannot prove that Christ is not providing a salvational path here, regardless of any Paul that you might hold dear, my lawyer friend, and it is Paul that must be reconciled with Christ, and not Christ with Paul. Imo.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ok, after reading your last post, perhaps not. My perspective is that the Law succeeded, fabulously, in revealing why the Law is inadequate, if that makes any sense.

I believe that.

In fact, I was going to say God knew Law couldn't cut it, but gave law for men to realize an important truth. Man cannot save himself.

But i'm not sure this has much bearing upon the reading of the Golden Rule, even though they are related in the manner you describe, and i certainly doubt that I am the odd man out in my perception of the Golden Rule, as was directly stated, regardless of the outcome of this poll. You cannot prove that Christ is not providing a salvational path here, regardless of any Paul that you might hold dear, my lawyer friend, and it is Paul that must be reconciled with Christ, and not Christ with Paul. Imo.

Again lawyers are experts IN LAW. LAWyer, Get it? And you just noted what LAW is. A futile attempt to save yourself. So, a lawyer can never be someone who stands on the work of the cross, since Jesus, Himself, distnguished grace from law in John 1.

So, you forever are getting law, lawyer, legalism totally wrong. And I have stated this many times, and you talk past it and around it and never respond to that note.

And you are still putting Christ's words and Paul's words on different levels, when CHRIST SPOKE BOTH.

I thought more about what you said when you claimed if we think there is a difference between something Paul said and Christ said, we must stick to Christ and eventually realize Paul's words are reconciled with Christ's. That is not true. Since Christ spoke both through His incarnation (which you deny since you feel Christ is not God), and through Paul, one is no more above the other.

Here is what you should believe and say: If either Paul's or Christ's words are DIFFICULT to understand, and it matters whose words are the issue of being difficult, and the other's words are SIMPLE and barely require an interpretation they're so plain, stick to the SIMPLE version, whether it is Christ's Or Paul's, and the OTHER'S will be reconciled to those simpler words in time through prayer and reading on more of a contextual basis.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

yes, i think we are having a semantics discussion there, and i'm sure you would agree that the Law succeeded in showing the need for Grace; people failed the Law, the Law did not fail the people, God was not surprised when the Law was deemed inadequate, etc. I just took "failed" too literally there.

Yes, Law did succeed in showing the need for grace. But it did it by being unable to accomplish what it, in itself, could.

[mfblume]

Shazeep,


More questions that remain unanswered:

What is the root word of Lawyer?

And what is the position that the root word holds in contrast to grace?

What is legalism?

[shazeep]

So, a lawyer can never be someone who stands on the work of the cross, since Jesus, Himself, distnguished grace from law in John 1.

"Many will cry 'Lord, Lord.'" standing on something is different from repeating it, iow. The concept of "Jesus cult" as opposed to faith in Christ comes into play here, and it is instructive to understand the indicators of a "Jesus cult" here imo.

So, you forever are getting law, lawyer, legalism totally wrong. And I have stated this many times, and you talk past it and around it and never respond to that note.

well, what would be the point? I might forever be getting it right, negating your pontifex instruction to me on the matter, too. Regardless, i think both of our positions have been stated on the matter; i characterize you as a lawyer, while you command that i comply with some law that you have made up, or otherwise indicate my perceived deficiency in some manner, no doubt convinced that you are "being very patient with me." yikes

Here is what you should believe and say...



(this is legalism, imo)

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

So, a lawyer can never be someone who stands on the work of the cross, since Jesus, Himself, distnguished grace from law in John 1.

"Many will cry 'Lord, Lord.'" standing on something is different from repeating it, iow. The concept of "Jesus cult" as opposed to faith in Christ comes into play here, and it is instructive to understand the indicators of a "Jesus cult" here imo.

So, you forever are getting law, lawyer, legalism totally wrong. And I have stated this many times, and you talk past it and around it and never respond to that note.

well, what would be the point? I might forever be getting it right, negating your pontifex instruction to me on the matter, too. Regardless, i think both of our positions have been stated on the matter; i characterize you as a lawyer, while you command that i comply with some law that you have made up, or otherwise indicate my perceived deficiency in some manner, no doubt convinced that you are "being very patient with me." yikes

Here is what you should believe and say...



(this is legalism, imo)

Well, that alone proves you do not know what legalism is. So let's get a secular dictionary and show us all:

Simple GOOGLE dictionary definition that pops up when you type "LEGALISM DEFINITION".

THEOLOGY
dependence on moral law rather than on personal religious faith.

Got it now?

[mfblume]

So, aside from your personal definition, what does the bible mean by LAW and LAWYER?