XPost: alt.christnet.christianlife, alt.messianic, alt.religion.   
   hristian.east-orthodox   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   On Tue, 04 Jun 2019 23:46:05 -0700, Robert  wrote:   
      
   >On Jun 4, 2019, Steve Hayes wrote   
   >(in article):   
   >   
   >> On Mon, 03 Jun 2019 21:37:54 -0700, Robert  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > On Jun 3, 2019, Steve Hayes wrote   
   >> > (in article):   
   >> >   
   >> > > On Sun, 02 Jun 2019 10:48:02 -0700, Robert  wrote:   
   >> > >   
   >> > > > On Jun 2, 2019, Steve Hayes wrote   
   >> > > > (in article):   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > > On Fri, 31 May 2019 23:31:36 -0700, Robert  wrote:   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > > On May 31, 2019, Steve Hayes wrote   
   >> > > > > > (in article):   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > On Thu, 30 May 2019 11:58:15 -0700, Robert  wrote:   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > I just listened to this yesterday, it is totally awesome. He   
   teaches   
   >> > > > > > > > from   
   >> > > > > > > > the   
   >> > > > > > > > Bible on how God dealt with sin and the human race from Adam   
   until   
   >> > > > > > > > now.   
   >> > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > This should open the eyes of understanding for many whose   
   religion   
   >> > > > > > > > puts   
   >> > > > > > > > them   
   >> > > > > > > > under the law of God. It tied up a few loose ends for me, and   
   it   
   >> > > > > > > > seemed   
   >> > > > > > > > to   
   >> > > > > > > > fly by in 15 minutes, although the entire teaching is 50   
   minutes long.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > I don't do podcasts and videos as they waste too much   
   bandwidth, but   
   >> > > > > > > that's not a problem because I do have a Bible so I can see how   
   sin is   
   >> > > > > > > defined biblically without listening to man-made definitions   
   from some   
   >> > > > > > > electronic voice.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > So if you want to know how sin is defined biblically, see:   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of   
   God;   
   >> > > > > > > Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that   
   is in   
   >> > > > > > > Christ Jesus:   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > Sin is missing the mark, like an arrow that falls short of the   
   target.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > And what is the target?   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > The target is the glory of God.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > And what is the remedy for sin?   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > God picks us up from where we have fallen short, and puts us   
   back on   
   >> > > > > > > track.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > And the track is Orthodoxy, the straight (orthos) path to glory   
   >> > > > > > > (doxa).   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > Glory to God!   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > Were you aware then that we are not under the Mosaic Law? That   
   sin is   
   >> > > > > > not   
   >> > > > > > imputed to the account of a believer in Jesus Christ. That in the   
   >> > > > > > beginning   
   >> > > > > > sin was not imputed to man from Adam up until the time of Moses?   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > Oh dear, another legalist!   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > Tiptoe through the TULIPs.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > Please clarify, I cannot see how this is being a legalist. As an   
   example,   
   >> > > > would you call someone who believes and holds true the statement of   
   Jesus   
   >> > > > that, “you must be born again” and that this has to be satisfied   
   in   
   >> > > > order   
   >> > > > to be saved, that it is being a legalist?   
   >> > >   
   >> > > You brought in the Mosaic law, which, as far as I am aware, says   
   >> > > nothing about being born again.   
   >> >   
   >> > Is there something wrong with bringing up some of the subjects that were   
   >> > dealt with and how they tied into the workings of God with men? Was it   
   wrong   
   >> > to mention how that many churches still tie in the Mosaic Law as part of   
   >> > their must do precepts? And that the teaching of this fellow showed how   
   that   
   >> > was out of order for any Church to subscribe to?   
   >>   
   >> If you want to have a coherent discussion, yes, there is something   
   >> wrong with it. If you want to discuss the Mosaic Law, start a new   
   >> thread on it, with a new subject line, and those who are interested in   
   >> it can pursue it.   
   >   
   >I suspected that this is where you were headed in order to avoid answering   
   >the question. I suppose it is best to just accept the party line as nickk   
   >posted it just recently. And I quote,..   
      
   From Strong's concordance:   
      
   G264   
   ??????????   
   hamartano?   
   ham-ar-tan'-o   
   Perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the base of G3313;   
   properly to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), that is,   
   (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin: - for your faults,   
   offend, sin, trespass.   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.   
   Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?   
   A: Top-posting.   
   Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)