PDA

View Full Version : Discussion What is Paul Reinforcing?



manichunter
Apr 17th 2009, 02:34 PM
When Paul wrote the text do not be unevenly yoked with unbelievers, was he just making a good suggestion or echoing a principle in and from the Torah?


For me, I personaly trust that he was speaking from the Torah as Paul often did to add proof to his inspirations. He used Torah to established spiritual principles to reinforce proper behaviour of believers in the NT all the time.


Moses was commanded by God to tell the Israelites not to commune with the heathens. God gave the reasons and consequences for doing so. Then we have Paul saying and conveying the same old message for the same reasons. This is Paul reinforcing a principle founded in Torah. Hence, is Paul not respecting and observing the principles established by the Torah. This means to me, that the spiritual principles of Torah are valid for believers to religously respect and observe if they so choose to learn and honor what could be discover in regards to their understanding and behaviour. This might not be everyone's personal choice, so what, everyone lives and dies to their own Lord.

Vhayes
Apr 17th 2009, 02:45 PM
Mani, I don't think there are many, if any, people here who would disagree with the fact the Law was written as a signpost to Jesus.

It's the same as being "in" the world but not "of" the world.
V

manichunter
Apr 17th 2009, 03:15 PM
Mani, I don't think there are many, if any, people here who would disagree with the fact the Law was written as a signpost to Jesus.

It's the same as being "in" the world but not "of" the world.
V

I could not agree you with anymore than two praise the Lord.

With the exception that it can still keep people pointed towards Jesus (we all have gotten off track and backslided), keep flesh in subjection to the Spirit (who does not find themselves in this bondage at times), and teach people the spiritual principles of love (who does not forget to love and why we should love at times).

Teke
Apr 17th 2009, 08:16 PM
Paul is reinforcing obedience by honoring your mother (church) and Father (God). Paul isn't speaking from book study, he is speaking from living experience.

manichunter
Apr 17th 2009, 08:21 PM
Paul is reinforcing obedience by honoring your mother (church) and Father (God). Paul isn't speaking from book study, he is speaking from living experience.

No suprise that we agree slightly, but I see a little more involved. Paul experiences and knowledge did come from a book and lived out around him daily. His life was surrounded by Scriptural principles and examples.

I personaly do not have a mother Church, for it is not living entity for me.

However, you admit that the Torah says the same thing and establish the same principles, right.

You came to answer the question. Thanks for the communion sister. Much love............

FF want show up........

Teke
Apr 17th 2009, 08:32 PM
No suprise that we agree slightly, but I see a little more involved. Paul experiences and knowledge did come from a book and lived out around him daily. His life was surrounded by Scriptural principles and examples.

I personaly do not have a mother Church, for it is not living entity for me.

However, you admit that the Torah says the same thing and establish the same principles, right.

You came to answer the question. Thanks for the communion sister. Much love............

FF want show up........

Well now, they didn't have books in the 1st century. Paul learned from his parents and then from the Pharisees.

The bible/book we have is part of the church's tradition. IOW part of what our mother wants us to have. However, the fact that we have it doesn't mean that we can read and understand it without her help.

I will pray for you. That God will reveal the church to you. I prayed for many years after my revelation of the Son, for God to reveal the Church to me. As until such a time we are at somewhat of a disadvantage. We all must come out of the womb to behold our mother face to face. :hug:

manichunter
Apr 17th 2009, 09:41 PM
Well now, they didn't have books in the 1st century. Paul learned from his parents and then from the Pharisees.

The bible/book we have is part of the church's tradition. IOW part of what our mother wants us to have. However, the fact that we have it doesn't mean that we can read and understand it without her help.

I will pray for you. That God will reveal the church to you. I prayed for many years after my revelation of the Son, for God to reveal the Church to me. As until such a time we are at somewhat of a disadvantage. We all must come out of the womb to behold our mother face to face. :hug:

He had scrolls, which were books in his day. And he was mentored by Gamaliel, which was a leading Pharisee who highly honored and respect in his day. He was the same one who spared Peter a beating by telling the Sanhedrin to let him go to see if God was working through Peter. He did not know how right he was. I wonder if he ever received Christ.

keck553
Apr 17th 2009, 10:01 PM
I wonder if he ever received Christ.

you and me both. I hope to find out someday....

manichunter
Apr 17th 2009, 10:09 PM
you and me both. I hope to find out someday....


It says in Scripture that some of the Pharisees and Priests came to believe and got saved. Maybe....... he seemed wise............. and earnest in his religion.

Something I just found out doing this Feast of Unleaven Bread is what happened when Jesus went to hell and preached the Gospel to the gentiles in hell............. and took paradise back with him..............

keck553
Apr 17th 2009, 10:17 PM
It says in Scripture that some of the Pharisees and Priests came to believe and got saved. Maybe....... he seemed wise............. and earnest in his religion.

Something I just found out doing this Feast of Unleaven Bread is what happened when Jesus went to hell and preached the Gospel to the gentiles in hell............. and took paradise back with him..............

Is it possible to see an outline of that lesson?

manichunter
Apr 17th 2009, 10:56 PM
Is it possible to see an outline of that lesson?


I will have to scan or type it in. My pastor gave me a copy, better yet I can have him email it, if I cannot find my copy.

Will work on it.

By the way, a lot of people are dodging this NT Torah....... kind of make me go hymn............ going fishing.........

BroRog
Apr 17th 2009, 11:58 PM
When Paul wrote the text do not be unevenly yoked with unbelievers, was he just making a good suggestion or echoing a principle in and from the Torah?


For me, I personaly trust that he was speaking from the Torah as Paul often did to add proof to his inspirations. He used Torah to established spiritual principles to reinforce proper behaviour of believers in the NT all the time.


Moses was commanded by God to tell the Israelites not to commune with the heathens. God gave the reasons and consequences for doing so. Then we have Paul saying and conveying the same old message for the same reasons. This is Paul reinforcing a principle founded in Torah. Hence, is Paul not respecting and observing the principles established by the Torah. This means to me, that the spiritual principles of Torah are valid for believers to religously respect and observe if they so choose to learn and honor what could be discover in regards to their understanding and behaviour. This might not be everyone's personal choice, so what, everyone lives and dies to their own Lord.

The maxim that bulls should not be unequally yoked is widely accepted on its own merits and doesn't need divine revelation as proof.

Walstib
Apr 18th 2009, 04:25 AM
By the way, a lot of people are dodging this NT Torah....... kind of make me go hymn............ going fishing.........

Sampson could tell you all about that yolked stuff. ;)


Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. "Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you. "And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me," Says the Lord Almighty. (2Co 6:15-18 NASB)

Next few verses have what, 5 or 6 references to the OT about as direct as you can get and all with deep lessons.

The law and the prophets not just the "Torah" brother. :saint:

Then the creation itself (like uneven oxen, everyday life) witness the precepts recorded in the law and the prophets.

I'm not sure what you are fishing for but the general concept that Paul referenced the OT in his writings is pretty much agreed on around here I would think. Not so hot a topic that way.

Peace,
Joe

bagofseed
Apr 18th 2009, 05:20 AM
When Paul wrote the text do not be unevenly yoked with unbelievers, was he just making a good suggestion or echoing a principle in and from the Torah?


For me, I personaly trust that he was speaking from the Torah as Paul often did to add proof to his inspirations. He used Torah to established spiritual principles to reinforce proper behaviour of believers in the NT all the time.


Moses was commanded by God to tell the Israelites not to commune with the heathens. God gave the reasons and consequences for doing so. Then we have Paul saying and conveying the same old message for the same reasons. This is Paul reinforcing a principle founded in Torah. Hence, is Paul not respecting and observing the principles established by the Torah. This means to me, that the spiritual principles of Torah are valid for believers to religously respect and observe if they so choose to learn and honor what could be discover in regards to their understanding and behaviour. This might not be everyone's personal choice, so what, everyone lives and dies to their own Lord.
Are you saying this in regard to Just Torah or the whole of the Tanakh?
Are you advocating observing it all or just parts?

Please explain what you mean by your statement
"everyone lives and dies to their own Lord."

manichunter
Apr 18th 2009, 07:21 AM
Are you saying this in regard to Just Torah or the whole of the Tanakh?
Are you advocating observing it all or just parts?

Please explain what you mean by your statement
"everyone lives and dies to their own Lord."

What I mean about everyone lives and dies to their own Lord is that we all stand as individual's as Scripture says it to our Lord we stand or fall. Our little dialogues and disagreements mean nothing in the grand scope of things. It is all about individual growth in maturity, understanding and love with our Lord.

Everything else we do is recreational.................. to a degree, at least for me.

manichunter
Apr 18th 2009, 07:29 AM
Are you saying this in regard to Just Torah or the whole of the Tanakh?



I did not know you could segregate any of it. I thought it was all inspired God breathe eternal Scripture given to man for His prosperity and benefit.

Are you saying that certain text are no longer relevant?

I am talking about the God-given precepts and principles that are a part of Scripture.

manichunter
Apr 18th 2009, 07:35 AM
Sampson could tell you all about that yolked stuff. ;)



Next few verses have what, 5 or 6 references to the OT about as direct as you can get and all with deep lessons.

The law and the prophets not just the "Torah" brother. :saint:

Then the creation itself (like uneven oxen, everyday life) witness the precepts recorded in the law and the prophets.

I'm not sure what you are fishing for but the general concept that Paul referenced the OT in his writings is pretty much agreed on around here I would think. Not so hot a topic that way.

Peace,
Joe

The Hebrews were told by commandment to not be unevenly yoked with the gentiles in the OT, then this principle is reinterated by Paul in the NT. Hence, this is a clear example of torah being introduced and reinforced in the NT.

Yes, it sounds like a common sense statement or wise saying. However, that should take away from the fact that it is found as a principle in both the OT and NT. There are a lot of textual statement I could equated to good common sense sayings. That does not mean I should cheapen what God has spoken.

God does not want us to be unevenly yoked with people who have no communion with Him. This is a preceptual command in both NT and OT, hence the crossing over of the Torah into the NT from the OT.

Teke
Apr 18th 2009, 02:02 PM
He had scrolls, which were books in his day. And he was mentored by Gamaliel, which was a leading Pharisee who highly honored and respect in his day. He was the same one who spared Peter a beating by telling the Sanhedrin to let him go to see if God was working through Peter. He did not know how right he was. I wonder if he ever received Christ.

Well I meant that he didn't grow up with a book like we have. And surely he didn't go about with a sack full of scrolls, they were likely at the temple. Many of his OT quotes are paraphrases suited to fit what subject he spoke or wrote on.
I talked with our Jewish board member Fenris on Paul, as Fenris doubted his being an actual Pharisee because of his birth place. Which wasn't close to where the temple and Pharisses were. His parents likely sent him to be schooled when he was old enough. And yes, according to verbal church tradition, Gamaliel was a Christian, and so was his son. They were able to help the Christians from their station/status with the Pharissees.

BroRog
Apr 18th 2009, 04:49 PM
I think it is clear from Paul's writings that he believes the scriptures to be true and a valuable source of wisdom and of God's revelation. And I also think that many of the OT laws, ordinances, and etc. are beneficial, based on sound reason, and many of them describe principles of how to live a good life.

But I am cautious, lest I confuse a "principle", which is "a basic generalization that is accepted as true", and a "Law", which is "a rule that is imposed by an authority." Having grasped this distinction, I become aware of the difference in my motivations. Whereas the good life that results from living according to rational principles is its own reward, those who live under law have no real choice in the matter and obedience is a legal matter, not a matter of personal enrichment.

bagofseed
Apr 19th 2009, 05:49 AM
I did not know you could segregate any of it. I thought it was all inspired God breathe eternal Scripture given to man for His prosperity and benefit.

Are you saying that certain text are no longer relevant?

I am talking about the God-given precepts and principles that are a part of Scripture.
Well you seem to be isolating out the Torah (just the first five books)

If you are also saying we should keep all that is written in the Tanakh, I have to tell you it is not possible.

Should we study to OT to gain insight into the teachings of the NT, yes.
But it was the teachings of Jesus and the NT that gave the greater understanding, that openly explained the purpose of the Old covenant and the will of God.

Don't you agree that the covenant we have in Jesus is greater in all regards?

Firstfruits
Apr 19th 2009, 01:43 PM
When Paul wrote the text do not be unevenly yoked with unbelievers, was he just making a good suggestion or echoing a principle in and from the Torah?


For me, I personaly trust that he was speaking from the Torah as Paul often did to add proof to his inspirations. He used Torah to established spiritual principles to reinforce proper behaviour of believers in the NT all the time.


Moses was commanded by God to tell the Israelites not to commune with the heathens. God gave the reasons and consequences for doing so. Then we have Paul saying and conveying the same old message for the same reasons. This is Paul reinforcing a principle founded in Torah. Hence, is Paul not respecting and observing the principles established by the Torah. This means to me, that the spiritual principles of Torah are valid for believers to religously respect and observe if they so choose to learn and honor what could be discover in regards to their understanding and behaviour. This might not be everyone's personal choice, so what, everyone lives and dies to their own Lord.

According to the following scripture God showed Paul another way concerning those that we not Jews;

Acts 10:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Paul explains that he is talking about those that claim to be brothers or sisters but do not abide in the truth.

1 Cor 5:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1 Cor 5:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1 Cor 5:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

As Paul said if he was talking about those of the world then we would have to" Go out of this world"

Acts 10:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Acts 11:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

manichunter
Apr 19th 2009, 02:23 PM
Well you seem to be isolating out the Torah (just the first five books)

If you are also saying we should keep all that is written in the Tanakh, I have to tell you it is not possible.

Should we study to OT to gain insight into the teachings of the NT, yes.
But it was the teachings of Jesus and the NT that gave the greater understanding, that openly explained the purpose of the Old covenant and the will of God.

Don't you agree that the covenant we have in Jesus is greater in all regards?

We simply have two different understandings about the cohesion of Scripture and how the OT and NT (which I consider as one and in agreement) relate to one another.

I see what people have labeled as the NT as an escalation and refreshing of the vision, promises, and goodness of God, not something renovated and new. Hence, the OT is the beginning of what God is bringing to past. The NT is the middle. Our glorification will be the finality.

I am coming to see something that is very dangerous that I never really investigated as far as how in error it is and what harm it can do. Dispensations created pockets of understanding that keep people short minded. I do not see the greater covenant of God to redeem mankind from the end to the beginning in dispensations. This is the beginning of our disagreement. We simply are looking from two different perches. Oh well, praise God dear brother for our salvation and continue sanctification that we both be unified in Christ in identity and relationship.

Much love

Walstib
Apr 19th 2009, 02:56 PM
The Hebrews were told by commandment to not be unevenly yoked with the gentiles in the OT, then this principle is reinterated by Paul in the NT. Hence, this is a clear example of torah being introduced and reinforced in the NT.

Yes, it sounds like a common sense statement or wise saying. However, that should take away from the fact that it is found as a principle in both the OT and NT. There are a lot of textual statement I could equated to good common sense sayings. That does not mean I should cheapen what God has spoken.

God does not want us to be unevenly yoked with people who have no communion with Him. This is a preceptual command in both NT and OT, hence the crossing over of the Torah into the NT from the OT.

After reading some other threads I have a better understanding of what you are fishing for....

I could ask what the given commandments in the OT are reinforcing. This to me is the heart of the matter.

This response there seems to be a focus on commandments. It's hard to know when you use the word Torah if you mean the first five books or something referring to God's laws generally. This word just makes things confusing for general for me the way it seems to be used for both by some.

We have stuff like this that is not directly referenced in the NT as well. Like building a guardrail on your rooftop. Yet this is accomplished by loving your neighbor.

Now the consequences of gravity was well known before the law was given through Moses. As was the knowledge of good and evil within man. You put these two together (nature and clean conscience) and you will have agreement wherever or whenever a commandment is given. What other standard would the elders in the desert have judged by before the giving of written law at Sinai?

The tutor is not the teacher is what I'm saying. I can talk now directly with the Teacher, wherever He has reinforced his lessons are not cheap by any means and profitable to understand, but in this one dones need the written law to point at sin. Jesus taught that all this stuff is summed up in the big two.... cumulating in one word LOVE.

Now I know your concern is that we can then just make up whatever we want. Each say they are right with nothing to stand on. While this is what leads to much discord and the like it does not mean the ability is impossible. What is the purpose of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? I look at things and imagine God being grieved He had a need to give us any law when we should know to just follow Him in spirit and truth in love.

I think it is the same tone of voice that the Israelites had when they pleaded for a king to rule over them, the one that seeks out more laws and regulations to judge themselves by, that seeks to give more credit to the written law than it deserves.

In conclusion
All the precepts the law is based upon have been around from the beginning. While it is only due diligence to find a witness in the OT for any given teaching this does not put the OT above the NT the same way the NT is not above the OT. Nor does the existence of agreement between the two show in any way that God can not choose to change the way He deals with the creation through time while remaining unchanged Himself.

Just what you got me thinking of here, not trying to be combative or anything. :)

Peace,
Joe

Studyin'2Show
Apr 19th 2009, 07:17 PM
According to the following scripture God showed Paul another way concerning those that we not Jews;

Acts 10:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Paul explains that he is talking about those that claim to be brothers or sisters but do not abide in the truth.Actually, that was Peter.

bagofseed
Apr 20th 2009, 01:03 AM
We simply have two different understandings about the cohesion of Scripture and how the OT and NT (which I consider as one and in agreement) relate to one another.

I see what people have labeled as the NT as an escalation and refreshing of the vision, promises, and goodness of God, not something renovated and new. Hence, the OT is the beginning of what God is bringing to past. The NT is the middle. Our glorification will be the finality.

I am coming to see something that is very dangerous that I never really investigated as far as how in error it is and what harm it can do. Dispensations created pockets of understanding that keep people short minded. I do not see the greater covenant of God to redeem mankind from the end to the beginning in dispensations. This is the beginning of our disagreement. We simply are looking from two different perches. Oh well, praise God dear brother for our salvation and continue sanctification that we both be unified in Christ in identity and relationship.

Much love

I am sure you tried to answer this one but just so I don't read into what you said could you answer it plainly?

Don't you agree that the covenant we have in Jesus is greater in all regards? (that is to the Levitical covenant)

Or is it that you believe they are one and the same?

Or is it that you believe they are equal in glory (value)?

Or is it that you believe Jesus only added new laws to the old laws, and a new priesthood in addition to the old priesthood?

manichunter
Apr 20th 2009, 05:48 AM
After reading some other threads I have a better understanding of what you are fishing for....

I could ask what the given commandments in the OT are reinforcing. This to me is the heart of the matter.

This response there seems to be a focus on commandments. It's hard to know when you use the word Torah if you mean the first five books or something referring to God's laws generally. This word just makes things confusing for general for me the way it seems to be used for both by some.

We have stuff like this that is not directly referenced in the NT as well. Like building a guardrail on your rooftop. Yet this is accomplished by loving your neighbor.

Now the consequences of gravity was well known before the law was given through Moses. As was the knowledge of good and evil within man. You put these two together (nature and clean conscience) and you will have agreement wherever or whenever a commandment is given. What other standard would the elders in the desert have judged by before the giving of written law at Sinai?

The tutor is not the teacher is what I'm saying. I can talk now directly with the Teacher, wherever He has reinforced his lessons are not cheap by any means and profitable to understand, but in this one dones need the written law to point at sin. Jesus taught that all this stuff is summed up in the big two.... cumulating in one word LOVE.

Now I know your concern is that we can then just make up whatever we want. Each say they are right with nothing to stand on. While this is what leads to much discord and the like it does not mean the ability is impossible. What is the purpose of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? I look at things and imagine God being grieved He had a need to give us any law when we should know to just follow Him in spirit and truth in love.

I think it is the same tone of voice that the Israelites had when they pleaded for a king to rule over them, the one that seeks out more laws and regulations to judge themselves by, that seeks to give more credit to the written law than it deserves.

In conclusion
All the precepts the law is based upon have been around from the beginning. While it is only due diligence to find a witness in the OT for any given teaching this does not put the OT above the NT the same way the NT is not above the OT. Nor does the existence of agreement between the two show in any way that God can not choose to change the way He deals with the creation through time while remaining unchanged Himself.

Just what you got me thinking of here, not trying to be combative or anything. :)

Peace,
Joe

This is some good stuff. I agree with some of your assessments kind sir.

Ain't nothing wrong with honest dialogue.

I do not agree with all you allude to but that is why we both entertain one another, to provock thinging, meditation, and convictions.

It is when we cannot handle the rejection of our beliefs, that we really reveal that it is actually our carnality behind it. I feel your honest spirit behind your words, dear brother. And that matters more than what you and I both say.

Thanks.

manichunter
Apr 20th 2009, 06:04 AM
I am sure you tried to answer this one but just so I don't read into what you said could you answer it plainly?

Don't you agree that the covenant we have in Jesus is greater in all regards? (that is to the Levitical covenant)

Or is it that you believe they are one and the same?

Or is it that you believe they are equal in glory (value)?

Or is it that you believe Jesus only added new laws to the old laws, and a new priesthood in addition to the old priesthood?

I put it this way. There is one marriage, but the vows have been renewed more than once; and the original relationship between the Husband and bride has been further enriched.

I do not see two covenants in the sense of two different covenants, but the stacking of one revelation on top of another revelation. God gave Israel a covenant, then said He would give them another in the prophetic future. Well Paul said that the covenant belong to Israel in agreement with the prophecies in the OT (I call the first manifestation).

The reality is that their is a third part of the vision that most Christians miss, because they are making the same mistakes that most of the Jewish religious leaders made in the past. They believe that they were so special that they were the finish work and God was through was He married them. Well God is not even through with the redemption of this second manifestation of the marriage.

Hence in short. What we see in part is one unified greater marriage covenant to redeem the bride of Yahweh. To compare the value of each revelational glimpse with another glimpse is short sighted and immature because is what got the Jewsish leaders in trouble. They could not accept the new revelation Jesus presented to them.

Moreover, God did not add anything. He, the very lawgiver himself, came in person to explain the true intent and means of obediance to His commandments He had been teaching any seeking man since Adam. Hence, we have another revelation that the first did not see. They were not judged by their motives for obediance, where as we are currently.

Let me know if you want me to continue.......... thanks.

Firstfruits
Apr 20th 2009, 06:54 AM
Actually, that was Peter.

Thanks for the correction S2S,

God bless you!

Firstfruits

bagofseed
Apr 20th 2009, 11:17 PM
Wow, I don't know where to start.
Since you never directly answer my questions I am forced to offer clarifications of what you are teaching.
Feel free to tell me I am wrong and explain why.



The bride of Yahweh?

God divorced Israel in Jer 3 and Isaiah 27
Jesus the only begotten is the only bridegroom now.



To compare the value of each revelation glimpse with another glimpse is short sighted and immature.

So you are saying the NT scriptures are short sighted and immature when they repeatedly and clearly compare the value of the two?

2 Cor 3:7 But if the ministry that produced death – carved in letters on stone tablets – came with glory, so that the Israelites could not keep their eyes fixed on the face of Moses because of the glory of his face 12 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=2Co&chapter=3#n12) (a glory which was made ineffective), 3:8 how much more glorious will the ministry of the Spirit be? 3:9 For if there was glory in the ministry that produced condemnation, how much more does the ministry that produces righteousness excel in glory! 3:10 For indeed, what had been glorious now has no glory because of the tremendously greater glory of what replaced it.


because is what got the Jewsish leaders in trouble. They could not accept the new revelation Jesus presented to them.So then you are saying the NT church is in trouble because we are not willing to accept a new gospel (new revelation)?



I do not see two covenants in the sense of two different covenants, but the stacking of one revelation on top of another revelation.

Apples and oranges.
A covenant and a revelation are two totally different things.
One is a promise the other is about an increase in knowledge.



The reality is that their is a third part of the vision that most Christians miss, because they are making the same mistakes that most of the Jewish religious leaders made in the past. They believe that they were so special that they (the gospel church) were the finish work and God was through was He married them.
??? you are not making sense but from what I can read you are saying there is a third work of God outside or other then the church and Jesus (the only mediator between God and man)

OK, what additional gospel other then believing in Jesus for redemption, sanctification, and glorification do you bring? What other way to God for some other group then the bride (church) are you suggesting?


Well God is not even through with the redemption of this second manifestation of the marriage.

So now you are saying that Jesus blood shed on the cross was not antiquate to redeem fully.



I put it this way. There is one marriage, but the vows have been renewed more than once; and the original relationship between the Husband and bride has been further enriched.

Gross.

The original relationship between the Father and Israel ended in divorce because she prostituted her self out to other gods.
Now you portray a renewal of vows by having the Son of God marry His fathers divorced wife, who some might even considered to be Jesus own mother?


Moreover, God did not add anything. He, the very lawgiver himself, came in person to explain the true intent and means of obediance to His commandments He had been teaching any seeking man since Adam. Hence, we have another revelation that the first did not see. They were not judged by their motives for obedience, where as we are currently.

Make up your mind, choose.
In one sentence you said God added nothing, referring to the new covenant through the blood of His Son Jesus.
In the next you say we are no longer judged by our motives.

May God have mercy on your soul!

manichunter
Apr 21st 2009, 12:06 AM
Wow, I don't know where to start.
Since you never directly answer my questions I am forced to offer clarifications of what you are teaching.
Feel free to tell me I am wrong and explain why.


God divorced Israel in Jer 3 and Isaiah 27
Jesus the only begotten is the only bridegroom now.


So you are saying the NT scriptures are short sighted and immature when they repeatedly and clearly compare the value of the two?

2 Cor 3:7 But if the ministry that produced death – carved in letters on stone tablets – came with glory, so that the Israelites could not keep their eyes fixed on the face of Moses because of the glory of his face 12 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=2Co&chapter=3#n12) (a glory which was made ineffective), 3:8 how much more glorious will the ministry of the Spirit be? 3:9 For if there was glory in the ministry that produced condemnation, how much more does the ministry that produces righteousness excel in glory! 3:10 For indeed, what had been glorious now has no glory because of the tremendously greater glory of what replaced it.

So then you are saying the NT church is in trouble because we are not willing to accept a new gospel (new revelation)?



Apples and oranges.
A covenant and a revelation are two totally different things.
One is a promise the other is about an increase in knowledge.


??? you are not making sense but from what I can read you are saying there is a third work of God outside or other then the church and Jesus (the only mediator between God and man)

OK, what additional gospel other then believing in Jesus for redemption, sanctification, and glorification do you bring? What other way to God for some other group then the bride (church) are you suggesting?


So now you are saying that Jesus blood shed on the cross was not antiquate to redeem fully.



Gross.

The original relationship between the Father and Israel ended in divorce because she prostituted her self out to other gods.
Now you portray a renewal of vows by having the Son of God marry His fathers divorced wife, who some might even considered to be Jesus own mother?


Make up your mind, choose.
In one sentence you said God added nothing, referring to the new covenant through the blood of His Son Jesus.
In the next you say we are no longer judged by our motives.

May God have mercy on your soul!


Oh my gosh, you have a lot of love oozing from you, and yes I meant that sarcastically. Your response is mean spirited and wrong towards a brother saint. We might agree, but you do not have to get all carnal on me.

Who are you to question another person's convictions. You have made several accusations that are unfounded. I answered your question directly in a dialogue and friendly manner as to display more than information, but fellowship as well, and then you slap me, oh my, all is forgiven, but I will cease conversing on this topic with you after this reply.

Regarding the covenants- Yahweh promised to make a new covenant with the houses of Israel and Judah and no one else in the OT. Paul reinterated this more than three times in the NT. The gentiles have been grafted into this same covenant. Hence, He fulfilled His promise and is still married to Israel. (Replacement theology at its worse)

Jer 31:31 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=jer+31:31&translation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
Heb 8:8 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=heb+8:8&translation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
Regarding the NT- I never said that the NT Scripture were immature. Wrong. Go back and see that I said when people do not see that they are one and the same, that is an immature prospective.

2Ti 3:16 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=2ti+3:16&translation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Regarding the new Gospel- I never alluded or spoke of a new gospel. I said the continuation of the revelation of the gospel is not finished yet, since somethings are yet revealed. That prophecies are still being revealed and manifested regarding our redemption.

1Co 13:12 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1co+13:12&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Regarding a third mediator- no there is only one between Yahweh and mankind. I bet you do not even know that it is not Emmanuel, but Emmanuel in another fashion (yes this is riddle).

I will let you find this Scripture.

What type of Sacrifice was the Cross? Was is it a sacrifice for the remission of sin or scape goat which allowed us to return back to fellowship with Yahweh.

I will save the rest to reject my anger towards your post and the bad attitude that was directed towards me.

You speak of the law being fulfilled and probaly believe that all you have to do is love your neighbor and Yahweh. However, you betray this and sin by your treatment of more than a neighbor but a brother. Our difference of knowledge, experiences, and revelations should not be a means of separation unless we consider our carnality. This is not something I will consider, you are my brother if you are indeed a member of the same house of Yeshua.

bagofseed
Apr 21st 2009, 02:38 AM
Oh my gosh, you have a lot of love oozing from you, and yes I meant that sarcastically. Your response is mean spirited and wrong towards a brother saint. We might agree, but you do not have to get all carnal on me.

Yes like God I get angry at false teachings which lead his children astray.
If you don't understand that this is real love, then you don't understand love.

I would have abandoned our strenuous interaction long back if it wasn't for love for Him, you and them.

But I also noticed that you have not abandoned the struggle either, this along with what looked like humility gave me hope for something good.


Who are you to question another person's convictions.

Biblical answer:
Jud (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Jud&chapter=1#3) 1:3 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Jud&chapter=1&verse=3)http://net.bible.org/images/advanced.gif
Dear friends, although I have been eager to write to you about our common salvation, I now feel compelled instead to write to encourage you to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.


You have made several accusations that are unfounded. I answered your question directly in a dialogue and friendly manner as to display more than information, but fellowship as well, and then you slap me, oh my, all is forgiven, but I will cease conversing on this topic with you after this reply.

I made no accusation, rather I tried to withhold any charges of false teachings. I tried to distill your teachings into statements that clearly represented the error I see in them.
I also asked you openly to correct me and explain why your teachings can not result in those conclusions.


When you say OT covenant I am thinking the law of sin and death.
Is that the covenant you are talking about, because covenant is also promise and there are many promises apart from the law of sin and death in the tanakh. For example the promise regarding the seed of the woman.


Regarding the covenants- Yahweh promised to make a new covenant with the houses of Israel and Judah and no one else in the OT. Paul reinterated this more than three times in the NT. The gentiles have been grafted into this same covenant. Hence, He fulfilled His promise and is still married to Israel. (Replacement theology at its worse)


Jesus is the vine, not the laws written on stone tablets.

One needs to decern the difference between Physical Israel, and Spiritual Israel.

Who is Israel, who are Abraham's true descendants?

Romans 9:6 It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel, 9:7 nor are all the children Abraham’s true descendants; rather “through Isaac will your descendants be counted.” 9:8 This means it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God; rather, the children of promise are counted as descendants.

Abraham's a physical father to the nation Israel, the spiritual father to a multitude of nations?
Gen (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Gen&chapter=17#5) 17:5 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Gen&chapter=17&verse=5)http://net.bible.org/images/advanced.gif
No longer will your name be Abram. Instead, your name will be Abraham because I will make you the father of a multitude of nations.

I do believe that physical Israel can also and should be the Spiritual Israel, but they must come by faith in Yeshua, just like us.



Regarding the new Gospel- I never alluded or spoke of a new gospel. I said the continuation of the revelation of the gospel is not finished yet, since somethings are yet revealed. That prophecies are still being revealed and manifested regarding our redemption.

This is my main problem, some of your teachings imply that the gospel is not final.
What new prophecies (changes or addition) concerning the gospel are you willing you accept?
Hasn't the faith been reveled once for all to the saints?

I agree we are still seeing it played out in time, but I believe it was manifested in full through Jesus.


1Co 13:12 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1co+13:12&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Now we are talking about glorification the completion of the work of salvation.
1Jo (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=1Jo&chapter=3#2) 3:2 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=1Jo&chapter=3&verse=2)http://net.bible.org/images/advanced.gif
Dear friends, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know that whenever it is revealed we will be like him, because we will see him just as he is.



Regarding a third mediator- no there is only one between Yahweh and mankind. I bet you do not even know that it is not Emmanuel, but Emmanuel in another fashion (yes this is riddle).


We are all called as ambassadors in Christ Jesus.


What type of Sacrifice was the Cross? Was is it a sacrifice for the remission of sin or scape goat which allowed us to return back to fellowship with Yahweh.

The redemption work of the cross (purchase price was death) was in order to satisfy justice and the law. All who sin must die, the law perfectly fulfilled in death.

The scape goat is speaking to the removal of sin, a symbol of the sanctification work of the Holy Spirit.

The work of the Holy Spirit would not be considered redemption which is the context of your discussion, and also why I challenged you.
Redemption is about the purchase price that was paid at the cross which is complete in my understanding.


I will save the rest to reject my anger towards your post and the bad attitude that was directed towards me.

I find it best not to fight to defend my self personally but rather defend the truth and others.
As I have said previously I am fighting both with you and for you.


You speak of the law being fulfilled and probaly believe that all you have to do is love your neighbor and Yahweh.

This is as the scriptures say.
Love does no wrong, so love is the fulfillment of the law.


However, you betray this and sin by your treatment of more than a neighbor but a brother. Our difference of knowledge, experiences, and revelations should not be a means of separation unless we consider our carnality. This is not something I will consider, you are my brother if you are indeed a member of the same house of Yeshua.
It is love to fight for the truth, to fight for your brothers freedom from deception.

That said, because of the type of questions raised by your teachings, or poor communication of your teachings:

Jesus work of redemption at the cross not being sufficient.

The gospel being incomplete and awaiting an additional third revelation.

Causes you being a brother to be in question.

These kind of questions are more likely associated with a wolf rather then sheep.

My hope and expectation is that you reject both of the above, and that it was never your intention to teach such.

But, because of the language used I say that these things could be seen by others as what you are teaching.

manichunter
Apr 21st 2009, 03:23 AM
Yes like God I get angry at false teachings which lead his children astray.
If you don't understand that this is real love, then you don't understand love.

I would have abandoned our strenuous interaction long back if it wasn't for love for Him, you and them.

But I also noticed that you have not abandoned the struggle either, this along with what looked like humility gave me hope for something good.


Biblical answer:
Jud (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Jud&chapter=1#3) 1:3 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Jud&chapter=1&verse=3)http://net.bible.org/images/advanced.gif
Dear friends, although I have been eager to write to you about our common salvation, I now feel compelled instead to write to encourage you to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.


I made no accusation, rather I tried to withhold any charges of false teachings. I tried to distill your teachings into statements that clearly represented the error I see in them.
I also asked you openly to correct me and explain why your teachings can not result in those conclusions.


When you say OT covenant I am thinking the law of sin and death.
Is that the covenant you are talking about, because covenant is also promise and there are many promises apart from the law of sin and death in the tanakh. For example the promise regarding the seed of the woman.



Jesus is the vine, not the laws written on stone tablets.

One needs to decern the difference between Physical Israel, and Spiritual Israel.

Who is Israel, who are Abraham's true descendants?

Romans 9:6 It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel, 9:7 nor are all the children Abraham’s true descendants; rather “through Isaac will your descendants be counted.” 9:8 This means it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God; rather, the children of promise are counted as descendants.

Abraham's a physical father to the nation Israel, the spiritual father to a multitude of nations?
Gen (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Gen&chapter=17#5) 17:5 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Gen&chapter=17&verse=5)http://net.bible.org/images/advanced.gif
No longer will your name be Abram. Instead, your name will be Abraham because I will make you the father of a multitude of nations.

I do believe that physical Israel can also and should be the Spiritual Israel, but they must come by faith in Yeshua, just like us.



This is my main problem, some of your teachings imply that the gospel is not final.
What new prophecies (changes or addition) concerning the gospel are you willing you accept?
Hasn't the faith been reveled once for all to the saints?

I agree we are still seeing it played out in time, but I believe it was manifested in full through Jesus.


Now we are talking about glorification the completion of the work of salvation.
[URL="http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=1Jo&chapter=3#2"]1Jo (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1co+13:12&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) 3:2 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=1Jo&chapter=3&verse=2)http://net.bible.org/images/advanced.gif
Dear friends, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know that whenever it is revealed we will be like him, because we will see him just as he is.




We are all called as ambassadors in Christ Jesus.


The redemption work of the cross (purchase price was death) was in order to satisfy justice and the law. All who sin must die, the law perfectly fulfilled in death.

The scape goat is speaking to the removal of sin, a symbol of the sanctification work of the Holy Spirit.

The work of the Holy Spirit would not be considered redemption which is the context of your discussion, and also why I challenged you.
Redemption is about the purchase price that was paid at the cross which is complete in my understanding.


I find it best not to fight to defend my self personally but rather defend the truth and others.
As I have said previously I am fighting both with you and for you.


This is as the scriptures say.
Love does no wrong, so love is the fulfillment of the law.


It is love to fight for the truth, to fight for your brothers freedom from deception.

That said, because of the type of questions raised by your teachings, or poor communication of your teachings:

Jesus work of redemption at the cross not being sufficient.

The gospel being incomplete and awaiting an additional third revelation.

Causes you being a brother to be in question.

These kind of questions are more likely associated with a wolf rather then sheep.

My hope and expectation is that you reject both of the above, and that it was never your intention to teach such.

But, because of the language used I say that these things could be seen by others as what you are teaching.

I respond simply with an okay to your ascertains.

The only difference between me and you are the roads I have travelled and what we have learned on these roads.

I cannot help you understand my travels on this journey of learning.

I feel for you, that you are hesitant to refer to me as your brother because you do not agree with me.

I actually agree with some of the things you say, however, some of the things I use to agree with on. But my discoveries have changed some of my prospectives and views. Not so much a change as in someone new, but a adding to something that is already there. Hence I do reject most of what you say. I have simply attempted to add to my foundation of the things I learned upon our common foundations.

My questions to are.

Do you think you know everything? If you say no, then I could possible be onto somethings you have yet to learn or experience.

Do you think your personal theology is without error and is perfect? If you say no, then you should still have questions and examinations to exercise yourself upon your own theology. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with test all things to see if they be of God. Gamaliel had it right not because he knew better, but because he was willing to see and investigate if Peter was of God.

You come off as a you are either with us or against facist. Our personal theologies do not have to completely match, for we have our own walks of God down the journey of learning according to our callings.
If only you have tried to discover me and why I do what I do, then more could be learned from one another.

But oh well......... Our flesh just has to endeavor to play God and correct others and not pray that the Holy Spirit do its job.

bagofseed
Apr 22nd 2009, 02:56 AM
I respond simply with an okay to your ascertains.

I charge you with two very serious false teachings and all you say is OK.
1) Jesus work of redemption at the cross not being sufficient.

2) The gospel being incomplete and awaiting an additional third revelation.

That's very evasive of you.

OK can be seen to mean many things.
It only forces me to conclude that you want to hide your true teachings and not admit to them openly.

If you simply profess that they are both false teachings and not what you meant to communicate then I would be happy to be wrong about you and call you brother.

Every good Shepard must be vigilant for wolves in sheep's clothing.


The only difference between me and you are the roads I have travelled and what we have learned on these roads.

I cannot help you understand my travels on this journey of learning.

I feel for you, that you are hesitant to refer to me as your brother because you do not agree with me.

I call no man brother who does not profess salvation in Jesus Christ alone.
When I gave you the option too, you chose to be evasive.


I actually agree with some of the things you say,

A little leaven of false teaching is all that is needed to corrupt the whole.
The most skillful lies stay hidden behind as much truth as they can.


however, some of the things I use to agree with on. But my discoveries have changed some of my prospectives and views. Not so much a change as in someone new, but a adding to something that is already there. Hence I do reject most of what you say. I have simply attempted to add to my foundation of the things I learned upon our common foundations.

1Co (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=1Co&chapter=3#11) 3:11 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=1Co&chapter=3&verse=11)http://net.bible.org/images/advanced.gif
For no one can lay any foundation other than what is being laid, which is Jesus Christ.




My questions to are.

Do you think you know everything? If you say no, then I could possible be onto somethings you have yet to learn or experience.


Do you think your personal theology is without error and is perfect? If you say no, then you should still have questions and examinations to exercise yourself upon your own theology. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with test all things to see if they be of God. Gamaliel had it right not because he knew better, but because he was willing to see and investigate if Peter was of God.

You come off as a you are either with us or against facist. Our personal theologies do not have to completely match, for we have our own walks of God down the journey of learning according to our callings.
If only you have tried to discover me and why I do what I do, then more could be learned from one another.

But oh well......... Our flesh just has to endeavor to play God and correct others and not pray that the Holy Spirit do its job.

Mat (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Mat&chapter=12#30) 12:30 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Mat&chapter=12&verse=30)http://net.bible.org/images/advanced.gif
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. - (Jesus)

Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are following a different gospel – 1:7 not that there really is another gospel, but there are some who are disturbing you and wanting to distort the gospel of Christ. 1:8 But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell! 1:9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be condemned to hell! 1:10 Am I now trying to gain the approval of people, or of God?

2 John 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not remain in the teaching of Christ does not have God.The one who remains in this teaching has both the Father and the Son. 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house and do not give him any greeting, 1:11 because the person who gives him a greeting shares in his evil deeds.

I consider you a false teacher and unless something changes I will no longer interact with you.

May God have mercy, on all of us!

Walstib
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:53 AM
Last post that far off topic. Everybody.

Easily closed.

manichunter
Apr 22nd 2009, 11:19 AM
I charge you with two very serious false teachings and all you say is OK.
1) Jesus work of redemption at the cross not being sufficient.

2) The gospel being incomplete and awaiting an additional third revelation.

That's very evasive of you.

OK can be seen to mean many things.
It only forces me to conclude that you want to hide your true teachings and not admit to them openly.

If you simply profess that they are both false teachings and not what you meant to communicate then I would be happy to be wrong about you and call you brother.

Every good Shepard must be vigilant for wolves in sheep's clothing.


I call no man brother who does not profess salvation in Jesus Christ alone.
When I gave you the option too, you chose to be evasive.


A little leaven of false teaching is all that is needed to corrupt the whole.
The most skillful lies stay hidden behind as much truth as they can.


1Co (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=1Co&chapter=3#11) 3:11 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=1Co&chapter=3&verse=11)http://net.bible.org/images/advanced.gif
For no one can lay any foundation other than what is being laid, which is Jesus Christ.




Mat (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Mat&chapter=12#30) 12:30 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Mat&chapter=12&verse=30)http://net.bible.org/images/advanced.gif
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. - (Jesus)

Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are following a different gospel – 1:7 not that there really is another gospel, but there are some who are disturbing you and wanting to distort the gospel of Christ. 1:8 But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell! 1:9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be condemned to hell! 1:10 Am I now trying to gain the approval of people, or of God?

2 John 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not remain in the teaching of Christ does not have God.The one who remains in this teaching has both the Father and the Son. 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house and do not give him any greeting, 1:11 because the person who gives him a greeting shares in his evil deeds.

I consider you a false teacher and unless something changes I will no longer interact with you.

May God have mercy, on all of us!

Okay. "GOD", you have been granted rights to charge me or anyone else with anything. That by itself is wrong and false teaching.

I am not being evasive, but yet you precieve me as so.

If this is the best you can treat me despite your ill opinion, then you need to check your own heart. Love does not excuse itself because it does not like words on a thread as you do.

One thing I have recently learned is that doctrine means nothing if it is not supported by good character. Behind bad character lies the power of carnality not the gospel.

The funny thing is that you consider us so different, when I actually say things that agree with you, but I explain them differently from a different prospective, with more technical information, and more in depth in nature, but you pass it off because of your trained mind. All I can say is okay to rejection and resistance when this happens. My strength is not my own.

You know what would be the greatest sin in this whole matter. Not that you or I would be teaching false doctrine, but that one brother would be outcasting and demeaning another brother. That is to far, and I will not go there with you. So I agree with your determination to end conversing with you until either the real Lord distributes justice or one of us repents for a lack of love.

Walstib
Apr 22nd 2009, 12:36 PM
I can understand wanting to post that last one. I think I may have ignored me as well under the same circumstances ;)

That said there are better places to resolve this level of personal difference than this forum (Bible Chat). We can help out with finding a place even, resolution is good, encouraged, but this thread is not the place.

Please.

manichunter
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:50 PM
I can understand wanting to post that last one. I think I may have ignored me as well under the same circumstances ;)

That said there are better places to resolve this level of personal difference than this forum (Bible Chat). We can help out with finding a place even, resolution is good, encouraged, but this thread is not the place.

Please.


My bad brother, I am just kind of knocked off my foot with this situation.

I do not like this kind of thing between brothers as well. I wish for something different as well. I am stuck between wanting to defend myself and just ignoring it, but your kind and wise words have picked at my conscience. Hence, there is nothing to resolve on a personal level.

The guy and I do not know one another. There has been no strong attempt to know one another's heart which is essential to the relationships of fellow believers. I do endeavor to know all of my brother's heart before I treat them as any thing common.

Hence, I do not see this as likely between him and I right now. I have connected with a great many just by each person exercising brotherly love, patience, and wisdom, like yourself. I will continue to follow that example.

Thanks brother for the input and words, and my prayer is for your blessing.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 23rd 2009, 12:33 AM
It often surprises me when another who claims the blood of Messiah treats me as an outsider or even a heathen because our interpretations disagree, but unfortunately, it happens. As I say often, I don't agree with my natural brother much of the time and yet I love him ALL of the time! ;) I can say the same for my spiritual brothers and sisters as well. Here's some food for thought.

Matthew 5:19-20
19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Yeshua speaks of those who teach others to break commandments. That should be a pretty bad lot, right? He says they will be least, but where will they be least? Yep. In heaven! How could teachers of sin be in heaven? Especially when the very next verse says how great your righteousness must be to enter the kingdom. So, again, how could these 'false teachers' who teach men to sin be in heaven? I believe it's because they have accepted the blood of Messiah and His righteousness. Because, yes, Messiah's blood is just THAT powerful! :pp

In retrospect, whether manichunter is right or whether bagofseed is right, if they have both accepted the blood of Messiah and His righteousness, then the gates of hell and even their own possible ignorance will by no means keep them from their place in heaven! :saint: Whether their place ends up being with the least or with the greatest, I guess, will be based on how much they teach men to break God's commands. :dunno:

God Bless!
Denise

bagofseed
Apr 23rd 2009, 03:39 AM
If it where just about minor issues of interpretation I would let it slide.
But it is a very subtle and skillful attack on the foundations of the Gospel.
One that love can not let go unchallenged.

9Marksfan
Apr 23rd 2009, 09:40 AM
I think this thread has run its course now. Closing it.

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77