Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | John 13:34 "I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, so you too are to love one another. |
Subject: You are saying that our command to...? |
Bible Note: Whoa now, EdB. Stultis did not, at any time, say we did not need Jesus. He's talking about Christian lifestyle, and how, according to scripture, to live up to the standard the Lord has set for us. He has been asking you for an example of a commandment that is not summed up by "Love your neighbor as yourself," as according to Romans 13:8-10. You are saying that there are commandments that are not summed up by "Love your neighbor as yourself" in direct conflict with the scripture. Now, I saw what Stultis saw. He points out that Paul says "Love your neighbor as yourself" fulfills the law. You said that it does not, but is simply an emotion, and equated his stance on Roman 13:8-10 as being "All you need is love," which you then equated to being the same "junk" John Lennon got from his Guru. Romans 13:8-10 says that in your Christian life, love fulfills the law, because there is no commandment we have that is not summed up by the statement "Love your neighbor as yourself." You are saying that that statement is equivalent to John Lennon's "Junk." If I am not understanding, please clarify, but I do not think he has twisted anything. Your statements were clear, as were your correlations. The commandment of Christ was to "love one another as he loved us," and Romans mirrors this commandment, giving us the further information that it is all we need in our Christian walk. If you are saying that Stultis' stance is humanism, which he took from Paul, then you are saying that Paul's stance is humanism, which HE got from Christ. Hence, you are calling the commandment of Christ "junk" and humanism. Again, if I am misunderstanding what you are trying to express, then please accept my sincerest apologies, and by all means explain. If, however, I have properly understood what you were trying to express, then you need to stop being nasty to Stultis if the mistake was your own. He is plenty Christian. His knowledge of scripture that I have been able to observe speaks to his dedication, and despite some hasty responses made to him in anger or indignation, his responses have not seemed to me to be loveless. He's trying to have a discussion, and nothing more. With all intended best intentions, Xerxes |