THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS

[J. J.]

Jesus very clearly said that these, loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself, were the most important.  I have no idea what either you or pastor think, but Jesus was not asked to summarize the law.  He was asked what the most important, and gave his answer.
Jesus didn't say, "To summarize the law ... "
 

And in his answer Jesus also state that “upon those two hang the entire law”, which means the entire law is predicated (hung) upon those two.   And one gets the same answer, as Paul did, when the law is properly summarized.   

Jesus said, "and the prophets," as well.  He is not saying that this summarizes the law; he is saying that this is basis of the law.  The law and the prophets "hang" on this point.  The law is not encapsulated by these.

Jesus forward engineers the problem and says the Law was predicated upon love; Paul reverse engineers the problem and says the whole law is summarized in love.  They’re arriving at the exact same conclusion!

No reverse engineering.  And I give Jesus more credibility than Paul.

Someone can easily fear God, and believe in a final judgment and not love God.

Which I’ve already stated.  But you cannot love God and not fear Him.  And you cannot love God and ignore his teachings, including his teachings on eternal judgment.

[/quote]

Yet in the context, we do, unless you keep Kosher.  I would also say that you love can be stronger than your fear and Jesus is calling us to love God, in so many words.

You'll note Jesus didn't mention judgment there.

But he mentions judgment, and mentions it repeatedly, in other places.  Are you claiming Jesus is giving you permission to ignore the rest of his teachings?

---

He does not here, when ask what the most important commandment was.

---

Likewise, certainly when Jesus said it, and I would say today, you can fail to keep commandments, but still love your neighbor as yourself.  In the context of the time, someone who didn't follow the dietary laws or an uncircumcised man would not be keeping the commandments, yet that person could still love their neighbor (e.g. the good Samaritan).

Not all commandments have to do with other people (“love your neighbor as yourself”), some are internal and are only between you and God(“love God with all your heart”).  Therefore, you can NOT claim you can simply do one half the commands of God and be saved.

And you can fail at some of those and love your neighbor.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you love your parents and disobey them?










[/quote]

[afleitch]

ignoring your grievances against God, since it is not in context of this thread...maybe you should make your own thread concerning your grievances and how you hate God, instead of trolling the threads of believers...

Sure, if you promise to stop trolling your religious beliefs into every thread where homosexuality is involved.

He even dragged up the gays in here

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ignoring your grievances against God, since it is not in context of this thread...maybe you should make your own thread concerning your grievances and how you hate God, instead of trolling the threads of believers...

Sure, if you promise to stop trolling your religious beliefs into every thread where homosexuality is involved.

For political threads regarding public policy, religious beliefs are inseparable from policy.  But this is NOT a political thread and is not a matter of public policy, so what you're doing is tantamount to me constantly heckling a Muslim who creates religious threads on the religion board.  I do NOT heckle threads of other faiths because I don’t have any commonality with them in order to form a basis of discussion.
This is NOT an “Opinion of Christianity” thread, rather it is a RELIGIOUS THESIS BASED ON RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURE.  If you want to argue the interpretation of it, as J.J. is doing, then you have a reason for being part of the thread.  Otherwise, you are just trolling.

---

your definition of love is twisted.

…

If something is absolutely required for it, it's part of it.  You can't separate the two if it's a requirement, so I stand by what I said.

It is possible to fear God and not love God, wouldn’t you agree?  So, fear is not the definition of love.  
And, as I already explained, those under the love of God have no fear to approach his presence, the only fear is the idea of leaving the protection of his love, therefore the believer strives to remain in his love.  We love Christ because Christ first demonstrated his love to us by allowing us to come into his presence.  You cannot bask in his greatness and holiness and not love him for cleansing you.

Fear is simply a demonstration that you comprehend your responsibility.  And if you don't comprehend your responsibility, then you can't claim to have a relationship with God and therefore can not love Him with all your heart and mind.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ignoring your grievances against God, since it is not in context of this thread...maybe you should make your own thread concerning your grievances and how you hate God, instead of trolling the threads of believers...

Sure, if you promise to stop trolling your religious beliefs into every thread where homosexuality is involved.

He even dragged up the gays in here

no, you dragged yourself in here.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And in his answer Jesus also state that “upon those two hang the entire law”, which means the entire law is predicated (hung) upon those two.   And one gets the same answer, as Paul did, when the law is properly summarized.    

Jesus said, "and the prophets," as well.  He is not saying that this summarizes the law; he is saying that this is basis of the law [/b]

Predicated past participle, past tense of pred•i•cate (Verb)
1. State, affirm, or assert (something) about the subject of a sentence or an argument of proposition: "aggression is predicated of those who act aggressively".
2. Found or base something on.

---

Jesus forward engineers the problem and says the Law was predicated upon love; Paul reverse engineers the problem and says the whole law is summarized in love.  They’re arriving at the exact same conclusion!

No reverse engineering.  And I give Jesus more credibility than Paul.

OK, no big deal.  Maybe you’re just not very smart…  

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which I’ve already stated.  But you cannot love God and not fear Him.  And you cannot love God and ignore his teachings, including his teachings on eternal judgment.

Yet in the context, we do, unless you keep Kosher.  [/quote]

…and you don’t seem to realize you’re not under the Law of Moses.

---

Can you love your parents and disobey them?
 

…and you don’t seem to realize disobedience is NOT an act of love.

So, basically, this conversation is a complete waste of time, which is apparently exactly how you wanted it to be.

[John Dibble]

ignoring your grievances against God, since it is not in context of this thread...maybe you should make your own thread concerning your grievances and how you hate God, instead of trolling the threads of believers...

Sure, if you promise to stop trolling your religious beliefs into every thread where homosexuality is involved.

For political threads regarding public policy, religious beliefs are inseparable from policy.  But this is NOT a political thread and is not a matter of public policy, so what you're doing is tantamount to me constantly heckling a Muslim who creates religious threads on the religion board.  I do NOT heckle threads of other faiths because I don’t have any commonality with them in order to form a basis of discussion.

You've posted about it in threads that didn't have to do with policy, so sorry if I'm not going to take you at your word here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dude, religion largely is a matter of opinion. I'm free to express my opinion of the sermons you post and express why I think they are fundamentally wrong in the first place. If I were to post a thread espousing atheism I'd fully expect theists to come in and express why they feel I'm wrong. It's an open discussion forum. And thus far if I've gone off topic it's only based on things that you've brought up.

Also, Gustaf has asked me to tone it down and take a more serious approach, which I will try to do.

It is possible to fear God and not love God, wouldn’t you agree?  So, fear is not the definition of love.  
And, as I already explained, those under the love of God have no fear to approach his presence, the only fear is the idea of leaving the protection of his love, therefore the believer strives to remain in his love.  We love Christ because Christ first demonstrated his love to us by allowing us to come into his presence.  You cannot bask in his greatness and holiness and not love him for cleansing you.

Fear is simply a demonstration that you comprehend your responsibility.  And if you don't comprehend your responsibility, then you can't claim to have a relationship with God and therefore can not love Him with all your heart and mind.

You can do all the mental gymnastics you like, but you've already stated outright that if you don't fear God then you don't love him. So you have made the fear inseparable - it's an essential part you can't remove. If fear is a necessity for loving God, then that fear must be part of the definition, whatever type of fear it may be.

[-]

4)Gays:  my statements regarding homosexuality are exactly the same as my statements regarding adultery, bestiality, fornication, drunkenness, lying, stealing, greed, etc, etc, etc.  I am not the one that dances around the portions of the bible that are not political correct; to the contrary, it is the cowards who do that.

JamJam, is it possible for me to believe in God but think being gay isn't a bad thing in the eyes of God?

Yes, it is. As a proud Christian, I am opposed to gay marriage (on religious gorunds, but civil unions are fine), but being gay is not like being an alcoholic. Being gay is perfectly normal, some people are like that, and I would advise against making assumptions about others when you have never been in their shoes. Not only are you just plain wrong, but this intolerance and awful treatment of gays is why we see such high suicide rates among gay teens.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is very fundamental difference between fear and love, jmfcst.

never said there wasn't.  You can fear God but not love or obey Him.  

But it is impossible to love and obey God without fearing Him.

If there is one thing that is consistently shown through the entire Bible, it is that those who seek God via the path of fear fail to do so.  Their fears cause them to feel unworthy of God's love and so they fall away from the path of love and thus from God.  In a fundamental sense, Jesus' main role was to remind us than we who were made in the image of God are worthy of God's love, if we are but willing to accept it.

One thing far too many fundamentalists and atheists share in common is the belief that people are unworthy of God's love.

[John Dibble]

Can you love your parents and disobey them?
 

…and you don’t seem to realize disobedience is NOT an act of love.

I can't help but notice that this isn't an answer to the question.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Can you love your parents and disobey them?
 

…and you don’t seem to realize disobedience is NOT an act of love.

I can't help but notice that this isn't an answer to the question.

obviously, the answer is no.  you can not act in an unloving way towards someone and claim you are loving them the way God wants you to love them.  We are, afterall, commanded to obey our parents.  So how can a Christian claim to have a godly love towards their parents if they disobey them.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

There is very fundamental difference between fear and love, jmfcst.

never said there wasn't.  You can fear God but not love or obey Him.  

But it is impossible to love and obey God without fearing Him.

If there is one thing that is consistently shown through the entire Bible, it is that those who seek God via the path of fear fail to do so.  Their fears cause them to feel unworthy of God's love and so they fall away from the path of love and thus from God.  In a fundamental sense, Jesus' main role was to remind us than we who were made in the image of God are worthy of God's love, if we are but willing to accept it.

One thing far too many fundamentalists and atheists share in common is the belief that people are unworthy of God's love.

show me a SINGLE example of a human in the bible who obeyed God and did NOT have a fear of God!  are you not aware that fear of God is repeatedly preached throughout the bible, including the New Testament?

[-]

There is very fundamental difference between fear and love, jmfcst.

never said there wasn't.  You can fear God but not love or obey Him.  

But it is impossible to love and obey God without fearing Him.

If there is one thing that is consistently shown through the entire Bible, it is that those who seek God via the path of fear fail to do so.  Their fears cause them to feel unworthy of God's love and so they fall away from the path of love and thus from God.  In a fundamental sense, Jesus' main role was to remind us than we who were made in the image of God are worthy of God's love, if we are but willing to accept it.

One thing far too many fundamentalists and atheists share in common is the belief that people are unworthy of God's love.

show me a SINGLE example of a human in the bible who obeyed God and did NOT have a fear of God!  are you not aware that fear of God is repeatedly preached throughout the bible, including the New Testament?

Where in the New Testament?

[J. J.]

And in his answer Jesus also state that “upon those two hang the entire law”, which means the entire law is predicated (hung) upon those two.   And one gets the same answer, as Paul did, when the law is properly summarized.    

Jesus said, "and the prophets," as well.  He is not saying that this summarizes the law; he is saying that this is basis of the law [/b]

Predicated past participle, past tense of pred•i•cate (Verb)
1. State, affirm, or assert (something) about the subject of a sentence or an argument of proposition: "aggression is predicated of those who act aggressively".
2. Found or base something on.

--

Non responsive answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No reverse engineering.  And I give Jesus more credibility than Paul.[/quote]

OK, no big deal.  Maybe you’re just not very smart…  

---
[/quote]

You are more than welcome to deify Paul.  I'd prefer not to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which I’ve already stated.  But you cannot love God and not fear Him.  And you cannot love God and ignore his teachings, including his teachings on eternal judgment.

The commandment is, however, to love God, which implies more to fear God.

…and you don’t seem to realize you’re not under the Law of Moses.

---

You don't seem to realize that the laws of the Jews were the laws Jesus was referring to in the passage.

Can you love your parents and disobey them?
 

…and you don’t seem to realize disobedience is NOT an act of love.
[/quote]

But yet, can disobey your parents and still love them.  Just like, you can disobey your pastor, and still love him.

So, basically, this conversation is a complete waste of time, which is apparently exactly how you wanted it to be.

If you think talking about the Great Commandments as given by Jesus is a "waste of time," you are free to.  I don't.  I just believe in that more than I believe your pastor.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is very fundamental difference between fear and love, jmfcst.

never said there wasn't.  You can fear God but not love or obey Him.  

But it is impossible to love and obey God without fearing Him.

If there is one thing that is consistently shown through the entire Bible, it is that those who seek God via the path of fear fail to do so.  Their fears cause them to feel unworthy of God's love and so they fall away from the path of love and thus from God.  In a fundamental sense, Jesus' main role was to remind us than we who were made in the image of God are worthy of God's love, if we are but willing to accept it.

One thing far too many fundamentalists and atheists share in common is the belief that people are unworthy of God's love.

show me a SINGLE example of a human in the bible who obeyed God and did NOT have a fear of God!  are you not aware that fear of God is repeatedly preached throughout the bible, including the New Testament?

Did I say that there were those who did not fear God?  Fear of God is common to both saint and sinner in the Bible.  The Bible is filled with numerous examples of people who despite their fear of God could not embrace the love of God, beginning with the story of Eve and Adam in the Garden of Eden.  What I said was that "those who seek God via the path of fear fail to do so".

Consider the parable that mentions the eye of a needle.  The rich young man who came to Jesus desiring eternal life was surely fearful of God.  Yet when commanded to abandon his earthly riches in return for heavenly reward, he was unable to place his trust in the love in God.

[John Dibble]

Can you love your parents and disobey them?
 

…and you don’t seem to realize disobedience is NOT an act of love.

I can't help but notice that this isn't an answer to the question.

obviously, the answer is no.  you can not act in an unloving way towards someone and claim you are loving them the way God wants you to love them.  We are, afterall, commanded to obey our parents.  So how can a Christian claim to have a godly love towards their parents if they disobey them.

So if your parents ordered you to give them all of your money and possessions, you would have to or that means you don't love them?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

show me a SINGLE example of a human in the bible who obeyed God and did NOT have a fear of God!  are you not aware that fear of God is repeatedly preached throughout the bible, including the New Testament?

Where in the New Testament?

Luke 1:50; 12:5; 18:2; 23:40; Acts 2:5; 7:32; 9:31; 10:22; 10:35; 13:26; 13:50; 17:4: 17:17; Rom 3:18; 13:3; 2Cor 5:11; Phil 2:12; Heb 11:7; 1Pet 2:17; Rev 14:7; 15:4; 19:5

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And in his answer Jesus also state that “upon those two hang the entire law”, which means the entire law is predicated (hung) upon those two.   And one gets the same answer, as Paul did, when the law is properly summarized.    

Jesus said, "and the prophets," as well.  He is not saying that this summarizes the law; he is saying that this is basis of the law [/b]

Predicated past participle, past tense of pred•i•cate (Verb)
1. State, affirm, or assert (something) about the subject of a sentence or an argument of proposition: "aggression is predicated of those who act aggressively".
2. Found or base something on.

--

Non responsive answer.

Me:  Jesus said the law was predicated on love
You:  no, Jesus said the law was based on love
Dictionary:  predicated = based on

I have used many examples in attempting to explain you are arguing semantics.  But the reason you are still creating straw man arguments out of semantics, is because that’s the only argument you have.  

---

You are more than welcome to deify Paul.  I'd prefer not to.

You seem to be the only human on earth who finds a contradiction between Jesus saying the law is predicated upon love and Paul saying the law is summarized in love.  I mean, its not exactly like Jesus is saying “the law is based on abc” and Paul is saying “no, the law is based on xyz”

Again, this is simply another straw man argument (Paul is not contradicting Jesus) because you have no real argument.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which I’ve already stated.  But you cannot love God and not fear Him.  And you cannot love God and ignore his teachings, including his teachings on eternal judgment.

Yet in the context, we do, unless you keep Kosher.  

…and you don’t seem to realize you’re not under the Law of Moses.

You don't seem to realize that the laws of the Jews were the laws Jesus was referring to in the passage.[/quote]

No, the context Jesus gave was “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Mat 22:40) The “Law and the Prophets” is the entire Old Testament, and encompasses thousands of years of laws prior to the Law of Moses.  So Jesus is NOT saying simply that the Law of Moses is based upon those two commands, but rather the ENTIRE scripture is based upon them, which is why Jesus' statement is applicable even to us.

---

Can you love your parents and disobey them?
 

…and you don’t seem to realize disobedience is NOT an act of love.

So, basically, this conversation is a complete waste of time, which is apparently exactly how you wanted it to be.

If you think talking about the Great Commandments as given by Jesus is a "waste of time," you are free to.  I don't.  I just believe in that more than I believe your pastor.

Again, another straw man argument, for that is not what I said at all (I said your straw man arguments are a waste of time, I didn't say Jesus' words are a waste of time).  When you’re willing to put aside these argumentative games, I will respect you and treat you like a man, but until then you’re choosing to be treated like a joke.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ignoring your grievances against God, since it is not in context of this thread...maybe you should make your own thread concerning your grievances and how you hate God, instead of trolling the threads of believers...

Sure, if you promise to stop trolling your religious beliefs into every thread where homosexuality is involved.

He even dragged up the gays in here

no, you dragged yourself in here.

Andrew, I have given you every opportunity to explain your baseless innuendos against my pastor: 1) you claimed that his dad spanking him for repeatedly crawling up under a car that was on jack stands on a gravel driveway meant that he had a poor father-son relationship, and 2) you claimed that the fact he feared his drugged-up heavily armed American comrades in Vietnam was a sign of some character flaw of his.

But you have refused to respond and have chosen to leave your nonsensical and baseless accusations posted for all to see, so I took liberty to ascribe to you a motive for your nonsensical innuendoes:
1)   Fact - you’re homosexual
2)   Fact - my pastor preachers against homosexuality
3)   Fact - being homosexual and having someone preach against homosexuality offends you
4)   Theory - because you find his preaching offensive, you are determined to smear and find fault with my pastor, even if that means you have to use baseless nonsensical innuendoes.

Now, since you’re unwilling to explain your accusations against my pastor, maybe you’ll find time to find fault with my theory concerning your motive.

Also, there is no reason to smear my pastor, for if you want to find fault with my pastor, all you have to do is give him a call.  He’s more than willing to admit to his failures.  Then you can come back to this thread and announce them to the world.  At least then you would be dealing with facts and truth, not baseless innuendoes.

[afleitch]

no, you dragged yourself in here.

ignoring your grievances against God, since it is not in context of this thread...maybe you should make your own thread concerning your grievances and how you hate God, instead of trolling the threads of believers...

Sure, if you promise to stop trolling your religious beliefs into every thread where homosexuality is involved.

He even dragged up the gays in here

no, you dragged yourself in here.

Andrew, I have given you every opportunity to explain your baseless innuendos against my pastor: 1) you claimed that his dad spanking him for repeatedly crawling up under a car that was on jack stands on a gravel driveway meant that he had a poor father-son relationship, and 2) you claimed that the fact he feared his drugged-up heavily armed American comrades in Vietnam was a sign of some character flaw of his.

But you have refused to respond and have chosen to leave your nonsensical and baseless accusations posted for all to see, so I took liberty to ascribe to you a motive for your nonsensical innuendoes:
1)   Fact - you’re homosexual
2)   Fact - my pastor preachers against homosexuality
3)   Fact - being homosexual and having someone preach against homosexuality offends you
4)   Theory - because you find his preaching offensive, you are determined to smear and find fault with my pastor, even if that means you have to use baseless nonsensical innuendoes.

Now, since you’re unwilling to explain your accusations against my pastor, maybe you’ll find time to find fault with my theory concerning your motive.

Also, there is no reason to smear my pastor, for if you want to find fault with my pastor, all you have to do is give him a call.  He’s more than willing to admit to his failures.  Then you can come back to this thread and announce them to the world.  At least then you would be dealing with facts and truth, not baseless innuendoes.

Again jmfcst I would appreciate it if you read peoples comments before you commented on them in return. It is your pastor who when talking about his 'relationship of fear' with god brought up his father. That, in my mind is not a healthy father-son relationship and indeed as some religious posters are arguing, is not a healthy relationship between someone and their god. I did say however that this may be more reflective of the times in which he was brought up (i'm assuming say the 1950's) and that as a result he may have issues which you consider a slight against his name. My dad was brought up in the 1950's with a strict father; he still has issues. It happens.

You then drag my homosexuality into the topic. Why? What on earth has that got to do anything. Then you suggest it's brought up simply because I 'showed up', a pithy comment I wouldn't even have expected from some of the more junior members of the forum. You could have brought up my Scottishmess, a far more unique trait on this forum, or the fact I'm a Tory (even more unique... :/ ) No, you drag up the fact I'm gay as if you've played a trump card. No one gives a damn jmfcst.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

show me a SINGLE example of a human in the bible who obeyed God and did NOT have a fear of God!  are you not aware that fear of God is repeatedly preached throughout the bible, including the New Testament?

Where in the New Testament?

Luke 1:50; 12:5; 18:2; 23:40; Acts 2:5; 7:32; 9:31; 10:22; 10:35; 13:26; 13:50; 17:4: 17:17; Rom 3:18; 13:3; 2Cor 5:11; Phil 2:12; Heb 11:7; 1Pet 2:17; Rev 14:7; 15:4; 19:5

Looking over those cites you provide served to remind me once again that there is a difference between biblical English and everyday English which can lead to confusion when using a word with different meanings in the two contexts.  In this case it stems from the reasonable desire to have a consistent translation for "φοβέω" and its derivations.  The problem is while "fear" is a perfectly reasonable translation for the meaning of "dread or terror", in the Greek original "φοβέω" is also used in the sense of "awe".  There is no word in everyday English that encompasses both meanings.

I'll only bother to go over the cites you gave where the context makes it clear that "dread" rather than "awe" is what is meant by "fear" or where the "fear of God" is referred to in a manner that makes it clear that said fear is insufficient to find the true path.

Luke 12:4-7 is the most problematic verse you mention for my thesis, but even there, the emphasis is on the need to reject one's dread of what happens in this life.

Luke 18:1-8 goes directly against your point, as Jesus refers to someone who does not fear God but is motivated to eventually do the just thing because of his dread of what another person might do to him.  Then he goes on to say that the justice that comes from God will be swifter than that which comes from dread.

In Luke 23:39-43, we have two criminals one of whom dreads death for he dreads what God will do to him once he has died as he does not accept that God could love him and this reviles Jesus for not acting to save them in this life.  In contrast the other offers compassion to the innocent Jesus for having to suffer the same sentence the two criminals have justly earned. By accepting the love of God despite his grave sins, he thereby gains the kingdom of Heaven.

Acts 2:5-13 is another direct contradiction to the idea that fear leads one to God.  In that scene we have a group of Jews, all of whom are God-fearing, and yet only some comprehended the truth.

Acts 7:32  is a reference to Moses, who trembled with dread before he took up the commission that the Lord gave him, yet he showed no such signs of dread once he placed his faith in Him.  Indeed, Moses became downright remonstrative with the Lord when Moses thought that the Hebrews were suffering added tribulations for no purpose.

In Acts 13 we have the Jewish leaders of Pisidian Antioch stirring up the God-fearing populace to expel Paul and Barnabas, making the references to fear in Acts 13:26 and 13:50 examples where fear of God led people astray.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Luke 1:50; 12:5; 18:2; 23:40; Acts 2:5; 7:32; 9:31; 10:22; 10:35; 13:26; 13:50; 17:4: 17:17; Rom 3:18; 13:3; 2Cor 5:11; Phil 2:12; Heb 11:7; 1Pet 2:17; Rev 14:7; 15:4; 19:5

Looking over those cites you provide served to remind me once again that there is a difference between biblical English and everyday English which can lead to confusion when using a word with different meanings in the two contexts.  In this case it stems from the reasonable desire to have a consistent translation for "φοβέω" and its derivations.  The problem is while "fear" is a perfectly reasonable translation for the meaning of "dread or terror", in the Greek original "φοβέω" is also used in the sense of "awe".  There is no word in everyday English that encompasses both meanings.

Rom 3:18 (Paul quoting Psa 36:1) "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
So, are both the Greek AND Hebrew translators wrong?  Again, some people think they know more than the translators even when all translations are all in agreement.

---

I'll only bother to go over the cites you gave where the context makes it clear that "dread" rather than "awe" is what is meant by "fear" or where the "fear of God" is referred to in a manner that makes it clear that said fear is insufficient to find the true path.

Luke 12:4-7 is the most problematic verse you mention for my thesis, but even there, the emphasis is on the need to reject one's dread of what happens in this life.

You’ve got a lot more problems than simply Luke 12:4-7

---

Luke 18:1-8 goes directly against your point, as Jesus refers to someone who does not fear God but is motivated to eventually do the just thing because of his dread of what another person might do to him.  Then he goes on to say that the justice that comes from God will be swifter than that which comes from dread.

Complete hack of an interpretation since the non-God-fearing judge was NOT being lifted up by Christ, rather Jesus called the non-God-fearing judge “unrighteous”!!! It was the person who kept pleading to the unrighteous judge that Jesus was using as the positive example, teaching believers to continue to pray for if even an ungodly judge gives to the pleas of the righteous, surely a God will answer their prayers.

---

In Luke 23:39-43, we have two criminals one of whom dreads death for he dreads what God will do to him once he has died as he does not accept that God could love him and this reviles Jesus for not acting to save them in this life.  In contrast the other offers compassion to the innocent Jesus for having to suffer the same sentence the two criminals have justly earned. By accepting the love of God despite his grave sins, he thereby gains the kingdom of Heaven.

Are you trying to win the idiot of the week award?! 

 Luke 23:39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”  40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”  42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”

The one who did NOT fear God rejected Jesus.  The one who did fear God accepted Jesus. 

---

Acts 2:5-13 is another direct contradiction to the idea that fear leads one to God.  In that scene we have a group of Jews, all of whom are God-fearing, and yet only some comprehended the truth.

Straw man – no one ever said that fear of God automatically leads to belief in Christ.

---

Acts 7:32  is a reference to Moses, who trembled with dread before he took up the commission that the Lord gave him, yet he showed no such signs of dread once he placed his faith in Him.  Indeed, Moses became downright remonstrative with the Lord when Moses thought that the Hebrews were suffering added tribulations for no purpose.

Dude, Moses didn’t stop fearing God after receiving his commission:

Deut 9:19 “I feared the anger and wrath of the LORD”

And Moses taught the people to fear God:

Exo 20:20 “the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.”

Lev19:14 “Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the LORD.”

Lev 25:16 “Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the LORD your God.”

Deut 6:24 “The LORD commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the LORD our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today.”

Deut 10:12,20: And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to him, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul

Etc, etc, etc….

--

In Acts 13 we have the Jewish leaders of Pisidian Antioch stirring up the God-fearing populace to expel Paul and Barnabas, making the references to fear in Acts 13:26 and 13:50 examples where fear of God led people astray.

Dude, bottom line, the early church taught the fear of God and lived in fear of God:

Acts 9:31 “Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace and was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers.”

If you think you know more than the heroes of the bible, then you’re basically on the same page as Derek, and it is no surprise neither of you can interpret your way out of a paper bag.  Maybe if you would learn to fear God, God would start to open your eyes:

Pro 1:7 “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”

[Јas]

Are you trying to win the idiot of the week award?! 

Jesus would be proud.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Are you trying to win the idiot of the week award?! 

Jesus would be proud.

you obviously haven't read Jesus' statements, for he called those who opposed the truth a lot worse.

[J. J.]

And in his answer Jesus also state that “upon those two hang the entire law”, which means the entire law is predicated (hung) upon those two.   And one gets the same answer, as Paul did, when the law is properly summarized.    

Jesus said, "and the prophets," as well.  He is not saying that this summarizes the law; he is saying that this is basis of the law [/b]

Predicated past participle, past tense of pred•i•cate (Verb)
1. State, affirm, or assert (something) about the subject of a sentence or an argument of proposition: "aggression is predicated of those who act aggressively".
2. Found or base something on.

--

Non responsive answer.

Me:  Jesus said the law was predicated on love
You:  no, Jesus said the law was based on love
Dictionary:  predicated = based on

I have used many examples in attempting to explain you are arguing semantics.  But the reason you are still creating straw man arguments out of semantics, is because that’s the only argument you have.  

---

You are more than welcome to deify Paul.  I'd prefer not to.

You seem to be the only human on earth who finds a contradiction between Jesus saying the law is predicated upon love and Paul saying the law is summarized in love.  I mean, its not exactly like Jesus is saying “the law is based on abc” and Paul is saying “no, the law is based on xyz”

Again, this is simply another straw man argument (Paul is not contradicting Jesus) because you have no real argument.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which I’ve already stated.  But you cannot love God and not fear Him.  And you cannot love God and ignore his teachings, including his teachings on eternal judgment.

Yet in the context, we do, unless you keep Kosher.  

…and you don’t seem to realize you’re not under the Law of Moses.

You don't seem to realize that the laws of the Jews were the laws Jesus was referring to in the passage.

No, the context Jesus gave was “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Mat 22:40) The “Law and the Prophets” is the entire Old Testament, and encompasses thousands of years of laws prior to the Law of Moses.  So Jesus is NOT saying simply that the Law of Moses is based upon those two commands, but rather the ENTIRE scripture is based upon them, which is why Jesus' statement is applicable even to us.

---

Can you love your parents and disobey them?
 

…and you don’t seem to realize disobedience is NOT an act of love.

So, basically, this conversation is a complete waste of time, which is apparently exactly how you wanted it to be.

If you think talking about the Great Commandments as given by Jesus is a "waste of time," you are free to.  I don't.  I just believe in that more than I believe your pastor.

Again, another straw man argument, for that is not what I said at all (I said your straw man arguments are a waste of time, I didn't say Jesus' words are a waste of time).  When you’re willing to put aside these argumentative games, I will respect you and treat you like a man, but until then you’re choosing to be treated like a joke.

[/quote]

Not on based on but the most important.

As for St. Paul, I think there have been others, even here, that say the same thing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In Luke 23:39-43, we have two criminals one of whom dreads death for he dreads what God will do to him once he has died as he does not accept that God could love him and this reviles Jesus for not acting to save them in this life.  In contrast the other offers compassion to the innocent Jesus for having to suffer the same sentence the two criminals have justly earned. By accepting the love of God despite his grave sins, he thereby gains the kingdom of Heaven.

Are you trying to win the idiot of the week award?! 

 Luke 23:39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”  40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”  42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”

The one who did NOT fear God rejected Jesus.  The one who did fear God accepted Jesus.

You look at the words and fail to understand.

We are all under the sentence of death.  Some people demand that God save them from it and refuse to accept He who does not do as they command is God.  The Old Testament is replete with examples of the Hebrews falling away from God when He fails to do as humans command.  In their vanity, they turned to what they thought were gods they could command.  But God is not ours to command, whether by the ancient Hebrews, a criminal on a cross, or by a modern day preacher making the invocation before a NASCAR race.  The point that is being made here is not that the criminal who reviled Jesus did not fear God, tho that may have been the case.  Rather it is that he rejected that Jesus was God because Jesus did not do either as the man wanted, or as he expected that God would act.  He had no comprehension of God's love either for mankind in general or for himself.

Perhaps fear is the appropriate English word, but if so, it is not fear in the sense of abject terror that is the usual meaning in modern English,  but rather fear in the sense of a realization that there is something powerful that has taken notice of us and is beyond our ability to control.