The Gospel often preached by Judaism

[praise_yeshua]

I did not admit that, so you are again falsely trying to put words in my mouth. I have interacted with many Dispensationalists, so I have a sufficient understanding of what they teach, and I oppose much of it.

You said you didn't even know what Hyper Dispensational existed. If you have interacted and actually know what Dispensational is.... then why would you not know "Hyper Dispensationalism"?

It seems no matter how you get "trapped" in your own words, it is never your fault.

The explain why it is false rather than just claiming it. Defining who Jesus considered to be his sheep helps us to correctly understand what he was instructing Peter to do by telling him to feed his sheep. In Matthew 10:5-6, Jesus sent his disciples to go to Jews first by instructing them to God to the lost sheep of Israel and to not go to the Gentiles. Again, this has nothing to do with preferring Jews to Gentiles.

First is preference. When you have a choice, what you do first expresses preference. Like when you want to preach the Gospel you FIRST insist on repentance and a embrace of the law instead of starting with Christ. That is what you prefer.

Jesus Himself didn't send a disciple to Samaria to meet a women at a well. He did it HIMSELF.

I've told you that Christ is Lord and Savior. You really enjoy putting words in my mouth, don't you? This sort of response from you is exactly why I am correct to say that you have a chip on your shoulder.

Devils believe Christ is Lord and tremble. Just making the point. Not saying you're a "devil". Many in that day will say "Lord, Lord"......

The work of God is that man believe in Christ.

Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Contrary to what Jesus said.... You're answer to that question is "keep the law".

Tell me what Christ means to you. How you value Him. Show me that you value Him by putting Him first in your Gospel. Countless people claim Romans 10 for salvation that prefer to talk of how they are keeping the law instead of their intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.

I said nothing about preferring Peter or about not listening to him.

Correct. I did. You don't need to say it. I have witnessed you repeatedly justifying Peter's sin and preferring to quote Peter. I wonder why I asked the question......

 

[Soyeong]

He was a Pharisee. He abandoned being a Pharisee.

Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Php 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Php 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

Paul hated the fact that he has sinned in KILLING BELIEVERS...

Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

There is no doubt you have faith in the law. Paul did too. He abandoned such nonsense.

Again, by the law of the Pharisee Paul killed believers. Paul KILLED believers. Paul KILLED believers. He claimed blamelessness in the law because the law of the Pharisee approved of his actions.

Which is why I asked if you still believe in stoning children who curse father and mother. Thus far, all you have done is deflect from the answer. You want to live by the same law that demands your death.

Paul never stopped identifying as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), so are you accusing him of lying? In Acts 15:5, it says that there were Pharisees among the believers, so becoming a believer is not exclusive with being a Pharisee.

In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so knowing Jesus is the goal of the law. As such, Philippians 3:6-8 should not be interpreted as saying that the law is dung and we just need to focus on knowing Jesus instead, but rather Paul had been going through the motions of obeying the law without being focused on knowing Jesus, so he had been missing the whole goal of the law, and that is what he counted as rubbish.

God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so obedience to it is the way to have faith in God while it is contradictory to think that God is trustworthy, but that His law is not.

Do you think that God was right or wrong to command to stone children who curse their parents? The fact that you don't like my answer does not mean that I did not give one.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Paul never stopped identifying as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), so are you accusing him of lying?

I posted the words where he did. Are you the one that accused him of lying? He CAME from the Pharisees. He knew them. He abandoned them. Read it again.

Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Php 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

You're the one present a lie. Not me. Paul appealed to his history of being a Pharisee. He abandoned the Pharisees.

Just do you think the Pharisees wanted to kill Paul? Because he was still one of them? You're not making any sense whatsoever and your empty theology is falling apart. You're grasping "at air".

 

[Soyeong]

You said you didn't even know what Hyper Dispensational existed. If you have interacted and actually know what Dispensational is.... then why would you not know "Hyper Dispensationalism"?

It seems no matter how you get "trapped" in your own words, it is never your fault.

You can't quote me as saying saying that I didn't even know what Hyper Dispensational existed. It is not trapping me in my own words when you feel free to make up anything that you want and falsely claim that I said it.

First is preference. When you have a choice, what you do first expresses preference. Like when you want to preach the Gospel you FIRST insist on repentance and a embrace of the law instead of starting with Christ. That is what you prefer.

Jesus Himself didn't send a disciple to Samaria to meet a women at a well. He did it HIMSELF.

While I agree that choosing something first can indicate preference, that is not necessarily the case, and is not the case with the selection of Jews first, such as in Romans 2:9-11. Christ is the embodiment of God's word, so teaching people to embody God's word is starting with Christ.

Devils believe Christ is Lord and tremble. Just making the point. Not saying you're a "devil". Many in that day will say "Lord, Lord"......

In Luke 6:46, Jesus asked why people said "Lord, Lord" but did not do what he said and I am the one defending the position that followers of God should follow the law that God has commanded in accordance with what Christ taught by word and by example.

The work of God is that man believe in Christ.

Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Contrary to what Jesus said.... You're answer to that question is "keep the law".

God's word is His instructions for how to believe in God's word made flesh, which is why there are many verses that connect our faith in God with our obedience to him, such as in Romans 14:12, those who kept God's commandments are the same as those who kept faith in Christ. Likewise, this is also way there are many verses that say that the way to eternal eternal life is by believing in Jesus/obeying God's commandments.

Tell me what Christ means to you. How you value Him. Show me that you value Him by putting Him first in your Gospel. Countless people claim Romans 10 for salvation that prefer to talk of how they are keeping the law instead of their intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.

Christ is my Lord and Savior, which is why I do put him first in my Gospel, which is the same as the Gospel that he taught. The Mosaic Covenant is often described in terms of being a marriage covenant between God and Israel, so the purpose of the Mosaic Law is to teach us how to have an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.

Correct. I did. You don't need to say it. I have witnessed you repeatedly justifying Peter's sin and preferring to quote Peter. I wonder why I asked the question......

I don't need to say it, you just feel free to make things up and falsely attribute them to me. I've said nothing to justify Peter's actions and I quote him just as readily as I quote the rest of the Bible.

 

[Soyeong]

I posted the words where he did. Are you the one that accused him of lying? He CAME from the Pharisees. He knew them. He abandoned them. Read it again.

Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Php 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

You're the one present a lie. Not me. Paul appealed to his history of being a Pharisee. He abandoned the Pharisees.

Just do you think the Pharisees wanted to kill Paul? Because he was still one of them? You're not making any sense whatsoever and your empty theology is falling apart. You're grasping "at air".

In Acts 23:6, Paul did not say that he was a Pharisee, but that he is a Pharisee. Do you think that he told the truth in this verse or that he lied?

Nothing in Philippians 3:6-8 says that Paul abandoned being a Pharisee.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You can't quote me as saying saying that I didn't even know what Hyper Dispensational existed. It is not trapping me in my own words when you feel free to make up anything that you want and falsely claim that I said it.

"existed"... "was"... expression that within context mean the same thing. Have you ever heard the phrase "a distinction with no meaning difference"?

I know what you said. I don't need to go search for the quote.

Christ is my Lord and Savior, which is why I do put him first in my Gospel, which is the same as the Gospel that he taught. The Mosaic Covenant is often described in terms of being a marriage covenant between God and Israel, so the purpose of the Mosaic Law is to teach us how to have an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.

The mediator of that law was Moses. Not God. Why are you conflating such nonsense. Moses had his way.

Do anyone else see this nonsense? "the law of Moses" is the means to an intimate relationship with God? Can someone else here tell this person that they are destroying the very reason Jesus Christ died? You're making the death of Christ meaningless. If the law gave you this, then Christ didn't need to die.

I don't need to say it, you just feel free to make things up and falsely attribute them to me. I've said nothing to justify Peter's actions and I quote him just as readily as I quote the rest of the Bible.

You've fabricated a false theology that false claims Peter opened the Kingdom of God to the Gentiles. Same thing.

 

[Soyeong]

"existed"... "was"... expression that within context mean the same thing. Have you ever heard the phrase "a distinction with no meaning difference"?

I know what you said. I don't need to go search for the quote.

It is easy possible to know that a concept exists without knowing what it means, so there is a difference in meaning. I had previously read about what Hyper Dispensationalism is, so I knew that it existed, but it had been a while since I had read about it, so looked up an article to refresh my memory.

The mediator of that law was Moses. Not God. Why are you conflating such nonsense. Moses had his way.

I didn't say that God was.

Do anyone else see this nonsense? "the law of Moses" is the means to an intimate relationship with God? Can someone else here tell this person that they are destroying the very reason Jesus Christ died? You're making the death of Christ meaningless. If the law gave you this, then Christ didn't need to die.

Do you think that the Israelites knew how to have an intimate relationship with God or that they had no idea how to do that?

I've said nothing to destroy the very reason Jesus died or to make his death meaningless, or about him not needing to die, so you're making things up again.

You've fabricated a false theology that false claims Peter opened the Kingdom of God to the Gentiles. Same thing.

Please stop making things up and address what I've actually said instead.