The Love of God and the Mark of the Beast

[armylngst]

It wasn't a prophecy; it was an actual ritual performed by the Hebrew people in accordance with the command of God.

It was a prophecy. A lot of things God had Israel doing served as prophecies. Better put, were prophetic. This was as well.

26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service?
27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD’s passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.
28 And the children of Israel went away, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.
Exodus 12:26–28.

That does not change the fact that it was also prophetic. Consider that Moses getting water from the rock of Horeb was prophetic... both times. Consider that Moses raising the viper on a stake in the wilderness was also prophetic. These were also rituals performed, in this case by Moses, for the Israelites.

As we look back in hindsight, we can now see this service foreshadowed the ministry of Christ, but these things were hidden from the Hebrew people in the day God commanded them to perform these sacrifices. Exodus 12 describes what the children of Israel were to do as a means of protection from death which God was to soon exercise against the Egyptian Gentiles as judgment who were not included in this protection. This "Lord's Passover" was to be done every new year of the Hebrew calendar by the Hebrew people.

It was meant to be prophetic for the future. However, since the Israelites had allegorized the true Messiah away, they failed to recognize Christ in those prophetic instances. Jesus didn't fail to recognize Himself, as He Himself brought up some of these instances. He specifically mentioned and underlined the nature of Moses raising the viper on a stake in the wilderness.
"14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who [e]believes will have eternal life in Him."

God commanded this "Lord's Passover" upon the Hebrew people and not upon Gentiles. It never included Gentiles from the first time these services were done even until years after the last Passover which Jesus Christ Himself was given by God as His lamb that would protect the children of Israel only and not Gentiles. Gentiles were never part of this service then when it was first done while in Egypt with Moses and Gentiles were never part of this service when Jesus came and died on His cross for the children of Israel later. All things pertaining to this "Lord's Passover" were committed to the children of Israel and never to Gentiles. Understanding the "Lord's Passover" as it pertains to Jesus Christ was a sacrifice by God to and for the children of Israel only. Jesus' sacrifice was to and for the children of Israel and never for Gentiles. Thus, Gentiles are not atoned by the Lord's sacrifice and the judgment of death rests upon them as it did for the Egyptians in Moses' day.

Yes, the Passover is for the Hebrews. It is not for the Gentiles. I believe it is mentioned in scripture that no Jews were to participate in the Passover with Gentiles. It is solely for the Jews. It was about the Jews salvation by God, before He made them His chosen people. He already considered them, for the sake of the promises that proceeded the covenant, to be His people. However, it does not pertain to Jesus only being the salvation of the Hebrews. It solely has to do with Israel being God's chosen people. You are sinfully adding to this passage. I am leaving it where it is.

Gentiles were never part of the "Lord's Passover" and as this service eventually came to be known as an atonement for the children of Israel and never for Gentiles. Jesus did not come to destroy the Law nor to change it but to fulfill it and as the lamb of God it is His blood that God used to atone for the sins of the children of Israel and not for Gentiles as Gentiles were never extended protection from sin.

No, this was not an atonement for the children of Israel. That is Yom Kippur. The Passover was meant to be in memoriam of God bringing the Israelites out of Egypt. That is all. I mean that is specifically what God HIMSELF said "It is the sacrifice of the LORD’s passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses."

Why was it called passover? Because God passed over. It speaks to the salvation of the Hebrews from the Egyptians. The beginning of Israels recognition as God's chosen people. Don't sinfully add to this.

24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man. John 2:23–25.

God knew precisely that sin as thief came to steal, kill, and destroy the children of Israel and had not God provided atonement for their sin then the children of Israel would be in the same judgment of death for their sins as Gentiles.

That is not what is being said here. Context is key.
23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name as they observed His signs which He was doing. 24 But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, because He knew all people, 25 and because He did not need anyone to testify about mankind, for He Himself knew what was in mankind.
You have to take scripture as given, not read your beliefs into it. One point made is that signs don't/didn't save anyone. We are saved by the preaching of the gospel. The signs simply certify the one who is preaching. The reason the apostles had gifts was to certify and validate their message by using the gifts to perform miracles. The belief being, in the minds of the people, if one speaks of God and then performs miracles of God, then they must be speaking truth, or God would reject them and... no miracles. These gifts validated the church by validating the church's message.

If God loved Israel, He would save Israel. And by sending Jesus Christ as the lamb of God and sacrificing Him for the sins of the children of Israel shows God's love for this people. Israel is God's Chosen people, they are His Church and Bride, and they are all saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in obedience to God the Father. Gentiles are not atoned by Jesus' sacrifice for since the first Passover in Egypt Gentiles have been outside God's protection and covenants. God never Passed Over the sins of Gentiles and they stand in judgment of God for their sins.

God WILL (future) save Israel. He has prophesied to it. He will be their salvation. Israel is not the church, however, there are Jews in the church. Israel is distinct from the church. That is to say that right now there are two distinct groups. The church, made up of non-Jewish Gentiles and Jews, and the nation of Israel, secular, made up of God rejecting Jesus rejecting Jews who will never be saved, and Jews who have not rejected God, but have not yet accepted Jesus, God's elect in Israel. They are not a part of the church because... they aren't saved yet. They will be a part of the church, and it is of the elect that Peter brings up that God isn't being slack or slow in fulfilling the promise of HIs return. He is patiently waiting for the last of the elect that is to be saved prior to the beginning of the end, to enter the fold. Once they come in, God's promise will be fulfilled, and there isn't a film in Hollywood that could ever hope to outmatch the craziness that is to come. (The Great Tribulation, the war between the beast and Jesus, etc.)

The word "world" is understood in context to the children of Israel for they are a people in covenant with God and have been atoned of their sins.

Sorry, that isn't how language works. It has already been explained by people who understand the language that it speaks to the world. You can be sure because you have Luke's version of the Olivet discourse that speaks to Israel, and then Matthew's version speaks to the world. Joel also speaks to Israel. In Luke, Jesus doesn't speak of the Great tribulation, but says the time of her (Israel's)torment has come. I'm not sure, but that could probably be linked to the time of Jacob's trouble in the Old Testament. That is said to be the worst time for Israel, from the founding of the people of Israel (so back to Moses getting the Law and establishing the covenant). It ends with the Gentiles trampling over Jerusalem until the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled. (Where has something like this been mentioned before? Oh yeah. Paul in Romans. And, he wasn't talking about Jewish Gentiles in Luke, but non-Jewish Gentiles. Paul is the same. Non-Jewish Gentiles. So the Muslims trampled on Jerusalem, the Crusaders really did a job on Jerusalem, etc. However, there will come a time in the future when Israel will once again own Jerusalem. When the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. In Matthew, it says that there is a Great tribulation coming, and does not invoke the history of Israel, but the history of the world. Why? The Great Tribulation will envelope the world. It is both the final tribulation of Israel, but also the whole world, with God pouring out His wrath.

Gentiles were never part of the "Lord's Passover" in Egypt and never part of the "Lord's Passover" today. To teach that God loved Gentiles and atoned them by Jesus' sacrifice, which was made under the Law to save a people under the Law, is to teach a change in the Law of Moses and the Passover that God gave to Israel only. This teaching that Gentiles are saved goes against biblical history for Gentiles were never God's Chosen people nor are Gentiles God's Church or Bride. Gentiles were never part of the "Lord's Passover." You are adding to the Bible things that it does not teach. If God wanted to atone Gentiles, then they would have been part of the first Passover in Egypt and this would defeat the purpose of God from that day forward to our day today. Saul never taught non-Hebrew Gentiles were ever saved by God at any time in the history of the world. The Bible is clear. God gave the Passover to Israel and not to Gentiles - Egyptian or otherwise - Gentiles are not in covenant with God and never a part of the "Lord's Passover" and as such do not have their sins atoned.

The above is not true except the first sentence. However Yom Kippur is NOT the Passover. Gentiles are saved... by faith. Cornelius (who was one who fears God, a term only used for non-Jewish Gentiles.) Someone of dual nationality parents who chooses to follow Judaism and be Jewish is a CONVERT. Not even a proselyte. That is used only for non-Jewish Gentiles. While Jesus sacrifice most certainly atones, it is NOT the same as the sacrifice of atonement, which did not wash away sin, but only served as a covering. And it did not cover sin for everyone. It also did not cover all sin. So, unlike Christ's sacrifice, the sacrifice of atonement Yom Kippur was... imperfect. Hence the need for Christ. By the way, I tell you again, Saul changed his own name to Paul in his writings, which is the non-Jewish Gentile form of his name. HE did it, because he was called by God to bring the gospel to the non-Jewish Gentiles. And he did. I showed it before in scripture. The covenant does not save. We are saved through faith. There is no merit in salvation. There is no boasting. There is no "I'm saved because I'm Jewish". That's boasting. We are saved by faith.

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth
the adoption,
and the glory,
and the covenants,
and the giving of the law,
and the service of God,
and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh
Christ came,
who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Romans 9:4–5.

Where i the context? Why did you cut this out? Is this because you know verse 3 changes everything?
" 3 For I could [a]wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my countrymen, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and daughters, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the temple service, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed [c]forever. Amen.

What comes next?

"6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed." (I can quote mine too). Paul is saying that though it clearlly appears that the word of God has failed Israel, though (key word) it appears that way, that isn't what has happened.

"For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

Wait a minute. They aren't? Why have you never brought this up? (I know you have, but you completely ignored the significance.

7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s [d]descendants,"
Isn't that like saying they aren't all a part of the covenant even though they are Abraham's descendants? Doesn't that mean that it DOESN'T MATTER?

"but: “[e]through Isaac your [f]descendants shall be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh [g]who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as [h]descendants."

So it is not enough to simply be... Jewish. It is not simply enough to be a child of Abraham. (Jesus Himself made that clear.) Even for all your bleating, this is not the case.

Christ died to and for the children of Israel for He is the "Lord's Passover." Saul makes this very clear.

Paul never states it as this. John the Baptist said that He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World. Salvation would go beyond Israel, but it has it's START in Israel, and, by God's great mercy, it will also have it's END in Israel, when Jesus, their Messiah, rescues them from the schemes of Satan, destroying the armies of the beast, and ultimately destroying the beast, and throwing Satan into the lake of fire.

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Galatians 4:3–5.

You ignore Galatians 3
"6 Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. 7 Therefore, recognize that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God [j]would justify the [k]Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed with [l]Abraham, the believer.

would justify the non-Jewish Gentiles. Notice would is future tense. So this is not part of the Old Testament times, but the New Testament, and is in line with the testimony of the New Testament. It doesn't say these non-Jewish Gentiles are saved by the covenant, or by the Law, but by faith. As God had decided. And Paul says that the Old Testament testifies to that in the promise made to Abraham. It does not say they are part of the covenant, but are blessed in Abraham the believer. That is, through the same faith that Abraham showed when he was going to sacrifice Isaac. The same faith that looked forward to Christ, of which Jesus Himself said that Abraham rejoiced to see His day. The saved come out of the world, first from the Jews, then from the Greeks/Gentiles. Salvation is of/from the Jews. If it doesn't go anywhere, as you say, then why does the Bible bother to say this. It should say Salvation is for the Jews, but it does not. It says Salvation is of/from the Jews. A big difference. That is why the prophecies have the Gentiles coming to the Jews in search of knowledge of God and salvation. (I believe that is the Millennial Kingdom, where the world is populated by people who don't know God, due to be born during the millennial kingdom, who seek out God through the Jews.) There are those Gentiles who will know God, but I believe that life continues as it had through the Millennial kingdom for those who survive the Tribulation. Those who accept Christ during the Tribulation and survive.

Gentile were never under the Law and as Saul states, only those under the Law are redeemed. Adding Gentiles after the fact when there is no history in Scripture of any covenant between God and non-Hebrew Gentiles and this means Gentiles are under God's judgment against unatoned sin.

But Saul says that some become a law unto themselves, by practicing the law without knowing the law. He also says something about these Gentiles judging the Jews. That is, by their actions.

The reason why there is suffering in the human race is because of sin. It steals, kills, and destroys. But God has atoned the children of Israel and on the last day Israel shall be saved, Israel shall be redeemed as says the Scripture which is a Hebrew Scripture and record of God's dealing with this people. God has covenant with Israel and God has no covenant with Gentiles. Thus, Gentiles do not have their sins atoned by the "Lord's Passover." On the last day they will be judged by God and in the end be eternlly separated from God in eternity as they have been separated from God in time and in world history. There is no saving relationship between God and non-Hebrew Gentiles. None.

The Gentiles are being saved now, along with individual Jews. Why? Paul says that Israel is facing a partial hardening and blindness from God, until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. And then all Israel will be saved. (I believe that salvation is recorded in Zechariah, and elsewhere.) The passover does not atone sin. That is Yom Kippur. The saving relationship between God and non-Hebrew Gentiles is grace and faith. Ephesians 2:8-9. You really do need to learn. You ignore, twist, and outright deny things God has said. Israel is special, and there is no denying that. Scripture is clear. However, Jesus sacrifice was as Paul said, a propitiation for not only the Jews, but for the whole world. That is, available for the whole world, but only for those who believe in Christ by faith.

The bottom line is God has covenant with Israel and has saved Israel through the "Lord's Passover." Gentiles were never a part of the "Lord's Passover" and as such are not atoned. You are adding to the Bible things not contained in Scripture. You are adding to the Bible Gentiles in the Lord's covenants when Gentiles never had a covenant with God. The "Lord's Passover" was given originally to the children of Israel and every year the children of Israel were atoned by God for their sin. The New Covenant instituted by Jesus Christ at His last Passover in His body and blood was a sacrifice to and for the children of Israel ONLY. Gentiles were never part of the "Lord's Passover." Never.

Apparently you don't know what Yom Kippur is. That is a serious issue. Yom Kippur is the sacrifice of atonement, not the passover.

The Hebrew Scripture of Law, Psalms, and Prophets records God's dealing with Abraham and his seed. It is a record of God's relationship with Israel and Gentiles do not have any covenant with God they can speak of. Gentiles do not have any covenant with God. None.

Again, the Gentiles do not need a covenant with God, for scripture has foreshadowed that God would justify the Gentiles by faith. God wins this one. You lose. Though Peter mentioned something about Jews being saved the same way, by faith. Which happens to be what we see today with Jews joining the church. By faith. (And I mean joining the body of Christ, not becoming Gentiles or acting like Gentiles.)

 

[jeremiah1five]

It was a prophecy. A lot of things God had Israel doing served as prophecies. Better put, were prophetic. This was as well.

That does not change the fact that it was also prophetic. Consider that Moses getting water from the rock of Horeb was prophetic... both times. Consider that Moses raising the viper on a stake in the wilderness was also prophetic. These were also rituals performed, in this case by Moses, for the Israelites.

It was meant to be prophetic for the future. However, since the Israelites had allegorized the true Messiah away, they failed to recognize Christ in those prophetic instances. Jesus didn't fail to recognize Himself, as He Himself brought up some of these instances. He specifically mentioned and underlined the nature of Moses raising the viper on a stake in the wilderness.
"14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who [e]believes will have eternal life in Him."

Yes, the Passover is for the Hebrews. It is not for the Gentiles. I believe it is mentioned in scripture that no Jews were to participate in the Passover with Gentiles. It is solely for the Jews. It was about the Jews salvation by God, before He made them His chosen people. He already considered them, for the sake of the promises that proceeded the covenant, to be His people. However, it does not pertain to Jesus only being the salvation of the Hebrews. It solely has to do with Israel being God's chosen people. You are sinfully adding to this passage. I am leaving it where it is.

No, this was not an atonement for the children of Israel. That is Yom Kippur. The Passover was meant to be in memoriam of God bringing the Israelites out of Egypt. That is all. I mean that is specifically what God HIMSELF said "It is the sacrifice of the LORD’s passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses."

Why was it called passover? Because God passed over. It speaks to the salvation of the Hebrews from the Egyptians. The beginning of Israels recognition as God's chosen people. Don't sinfully add to this.

That is not what is being said here. Context is key.
23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name as they observed His signs which He was doing. 24 But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, because He knew all people, 25 and because He did not need anyone to testify about mankind, for He Himself knew what was in mankind.
You have to take scripture as given, not read your beliefs into it. One point made is that signs don't/didn't save anyone. We are saved by the preaching of the gospel. The signs simply certify the one who is preaching. The reason the apostles had gifts was to certify and validate their message by using the gifts to perform miracles. The belief being, in the minds of the people, if one speaks of God and then performs miracles of God, then they must be speaking truth, or God would reject them and... no miracles. These gifts validated the church by validating the church's message.

God WILL (future) save Israel. He has prophesied to it. He will be their salvation. Israel is not the church, however, there are Jews in the church. Israel is distinct from the church. That is to say that right now there are two distinct groups. The church, made up of non-Jewish Gentiles and Jews, and the nation of Israel, secular, made up of God rejecting Jesus rejecting Jews who will never be saved, and Jews who have not rejected God, but have not yet accepted Jesus, God's elect in Israel. They are not a part of the church because... they aren't saved yet. They will be a part of the church, and it is of the elect that Peter brings up that God isn't being slack or slow in fulfilling the promise of HIs return. He is patiently waiting for the last of the elect that is to be saved prior to the beginning of the end, to enter the fold. Once they come in, God's promise will be fulfilled, and there isn't a film in Hollywood that could ever hope to outmatch the craziness that is to come. (The Great Tribulation, the war between the beast and Jesus, etc.)

Sorry, that isn't how language works. It has already been explained by people who understand the language that it speaks to the world. You can be sure because you have Luke's version of the Olivet discourse that speaks to Israel, and then Matthew's version speaks to the world. Joel also speaks to Israel. In Luke, Jesus doesn't speak of the Great tribulation, but says the time of her (Israel's)torment has come. I'm not sure, but that could probably be linked to the time of Jacob's trouble in the Old Testament. That is said to be the worst time for Israel, from the founding of the people of Israel (so back to Moses getting the Law and establishing the covenant). It ends with the Gentiles trampling over Jerusalem until the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled. (Where has something like this been mentioned before? Oh yeah. Paul in Romans. And, he wasn't talking about Jewish Gentiles in Luke, but non-Jewish Gentiles. Paul is the same. Non-Jewish Gentiles. So the Muslims trampled on Jerusalem, the Crusaders really did a job on Jerusalem, etc. However, there will come a time in the future when Israel will once again own Jerusalem. When the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. In Matthew, it says that there is a Great tribulation coming, and does not invoke the history of Israel, but the history of the world. Why? The Great Tribulation will envelope the world. It is both the final tribulation of Israel, but also the whole world, with God pouring out His wrath.

The above is not true except the first sentence. However Yom Kippur is NOT the Passover. Gentiles are saved... by faith. Cornelius (who was one who fears God, a term only used for non-Jewish Gentiles.) Someone of dual nationality parents who chooses to follow Judaism and be Jewish is a CONVERT. Not even a proselyte. That is used only for non-Jewish Gentiles. While Jesus sacrifice most certainly atones, it is NOT the same as the sacrifice of atonement, which did not wash away sin, but only served as a covering. And it did not cover sin for everyone. It also did not cover all sin. So, unlike Christ's sacrifice, the sacrifice of atonement Yom Kippur was... imperfect. Hence the need for Christ. By the way, I tell you again, Saul changed his own name to Paul in his writings, which is the non-Jewish Gentile form of his name. HE did it, because he was called by God to bring the gospel to the non-Jewish Gentiles. And he did. I showed it before in scripture. The covenant does not save. We are saved through faith. There is no merit in salvation. There is no boasting. There is no "I'm saved because I'm Jewish". That's boasting. We are saved by faith.

Where i the context? Why did you cut this out? Is this because you know verse 3 changes everything?
" 3 For I could [a]wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my countrymen, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and daughters, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the temple service, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed [c]forever. Amen.

What comes next?

"6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed." (I can quote mine too). Paul is saying that though it clearlly appears that the word of God has failed Israel, though (key word) it appears that way, that isn't what has happened.

"For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

Wait a minute. They aren't? Why have you never brought this up? (I know you have, but you completely ignored the significance.

7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s [d]descendants,"
Isn't that like saying they aren't all a part of the covenant even though they are Abraham's descendants? Doesn't that mean that it DOESN'T MATTER?

"but: “[e]through Isaac your [f]descendants shall be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh [g]who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as [h]descendants."

So it is not enough to simply be... Jewish. It is not simply enough to be a child of Abraham. (Jesus Himself made that clear.) Even for all your bleating, this is not the case.

Paul never states it as this. John the Baptist said that He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World. Salvation would go beyond Israel, but it has it's START in Israel, and, by God's great mercy, it will also have it's END in Israel, when Jesus, their Messiah, rescues them from the schemes of Satan, destroying the armies of the beast, and ultimately destroying the beast, and throwing Satan into the lake of fire.


You ignore Galatians 3
"6 Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. 7 Therefore, recognize that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God [j]would justify the [k]Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed with [l]Abraham, the believer.

would justify the non-Jewish Gentiles. Notice would is future tense. So this is not part of the Old Testament times, but the New Testament, and is in line with the testimony of the New Testament. It doesn't say these non-Jewish Gentiles are saved by the covenant, or by the Law, but by faith. As God had decided. And Paul says that the Old Testament testifies to that in the promise made to Abraham. It does not say they are part of the covenant, but are blessed in Abraham the believer. That is, through the same faith that Abraham showed when he was going to sacrifice Isaac. The same faith that looked forward to Christ, of which Jesus Himself said that Abraham rejoiced to see His day. The saved come out of the world, first from the Jews, then from the Greeks/Gentiles. Salvation is of/from the Jews. If it doesn't go anywhere, as you say, then why does the Bible bother to say this. It should say Salvation is for the Jews, but it does not. It says Salvation is of/from the Jews. A big difference. That is why the prophecies have the Gentiles coming to the Jews in search of knowledge of God and salvation. (I believe that is the Millennial Kingdom, where the world is populated by people who don't know God, due to be born during the millennial kingdom, who seek out God through the Jews.) There are those Gentiles who will know God, but I believe that life continues as it had through the Millennial kingdom for those who survive the Tribulation. Those who accept Christ during the Tribulation and survive.

But Saul says that some become a law unto themselves, by practicing the law without knowing the law. He also says something about these Gentiles judging the Jews. That is, by their actions.

The Gentiles are being saved now, along with individual Jews. Why? Paul says that Israel is facing a partial hardening and blindness from God, until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. And then all Israel will be saved. (I believe that salvation is recorded in Zechariah, and elsewhere.) The passover does not atone sin. That is Yom Kippur. The saving relationship between God and non-Hebrew Gentiles is grace and faith. Ephesians 2:8-9. You really do need to learn. You ignore, twist, and outright deny things God has said. Israel is special, and there is no denying that. Scripture is clear. However, Jesus sacrifice was as Paul said, a propitiation for not only the Jews, but for the whole world. That is, available for the whole world, but only for those who believe in Christ by faith.

Apparently you don't know what Yom Kippur is. That is a serious issue. Yom Kippur is the sacrifice of atonement, not the passover.

Again, the Gentiles do not need a covenant with God, for scripture has foreshadowed that God would justify the Gentiles by faith. God wins this one. You lose. Though Peter mentioned something about Jews being saved the same way, by faith. Which happens to be what we see today with Jews joining the church. By faith. (And I mean joining the body of Christ, not becoming Gentiles or acting like Gentiles.)

Faith is not a prerequisite for salvation in none of the three major covenants between God, Abram the Hebrew and his Hebrew seed.

Faith is not required in the Abrahamic Covenant, it is not required in the Mosaic Covenant, and it is not required in the New Covenant.

The lamb that was sacrificed at the first Passover was to cover the children of Israel while the Angel of Death slay the Egyptian Gentile's firstborn of every house in Egypt.
So, too, in keeping with the command of God Jesus died to "cover" and atone the sins of the children of Israel known as the Hebrew people, and the Egyptian Gentiles were cursed and every firstborn in every house in Egypt was killed by God.

You need to say the same thing as God. Jesus died to atone the sins of the children of Israel ONLY.

 

[armylngst]

Faith is not a prerequisite for salvation in none of the three major covenants between God, Abram the Hebrew and his Hebrew seed.

Actually, Saul is VERY clear that faith is prerequisite. Saul is VERY clear, as is James, and Hebrews. How was Abraham saved? God credited his FAITH as righteousness. And only those who are of faith are the true descendants of Abraham. It is VERY clear.

Faith is not required in the Abrahamic Covenant, it is not required in the Mosaic Covenant, and it is not required in the New Covenant.

Faith was the basis of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, and is the supreme requirement of the New Covenant. And, as Paul said, is a requirement for salvation. 'Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved'. That belief is by faith. For by GRACE you have been saved by faith, and that not of yourself it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man shouldst boast. So why do you keep declaring that salvation is by works?

The lamb that was sacrificed at the first Passover was to cover the children of Israel while the Angel of Death slay the Egyptian Gentile's firstborn of every house in Egypt.

Actually it was a foreshadowing.

So, too, in keeping with the command of God Jesus died to "cover" and atone the sins of the children of Israel known as the Hebrew people, and the Egyptian Gentiles were cursed and every firstborn in every house in Egypt was killed by God.

That isn't what Jesus did according to John in I John. You would have to read it to know it.

You need to say the same thing as God. Jesus died to atone the sins of the children of Israel ONLY.

Jesus was not just the propitiation of our sins (Jews), but for the whole world. John said that. (You know, the beloved disciple, Jesus' favorite.)
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. "

 

[jeremiah1five]

Actually, Saul is VERY clear that faith is prerequisite. Saul is VERY clear, as is James, and Hebrews. How was Abraham saved? God credited his FAITH as righteousness. And only those who are of faith are the true descendants of Abraham. It is VERY clear.

Faith was the basis of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, and is the supreme requirement of the New Covenant. And, as Paul said, is a requirement for salvation. 'Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved'. That belief is by faith. For by GRACE you have been saved by faith, and that not of yourself it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man shouldst boast. So why do you keep declaring that salvation is by works?

Actually it was a foreshadowing.

That isn't what Jesus did according to John in I John. You would have to read it to know it.

Jesus was not just the propitiation of our sins (Jews), but for the whole world. John said that. (You know, the beloved disciple, Jesus' favorite.)
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. "

Saul can make any claims you want to interpret him as saying but when we go to the actual passages in the Bible where the three Hebrew covenants are recorded and search in these covenants for "faith" as part of the terms for covenant there is none.

The Abrahamic Covenant is recorded in Genesis 12, 15, and 17 and there are no claims of faith being required in this covenant. Circumcision, yes; "faith", no.

The Mosaic Covenant is recorded and spread out through Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and where this covenant is recorded in these "books" we find no terms for "faith" being included as terms for this covenant. Obedience, yes; "faith", no.

The New Covenant is prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and there is no mention of "faith" as a requirement in this covenant prophecy. Forgiveness, yes; "faith", no.

Anyone can claim the Bible says this or the Bible says that, but when we peel back the layers of the covenants themselves, we find no mention of "faith" being required in the terms in each covenant.

 

[armylngst]

Saul can make any claims you want to interpret him as saying but when we go to the actual passages in the Bible where the three Hebrew covenants are recorded and search in these covenants for "faith" as part of the terms for covenant there is none.

The Abrahamic Covenant is recorded in Genesis 12, 15, and 17 and there are no claims of faith being required in this covenant. Circumcision, yes; "faith", no.

The Mosaic Covenant is recorded and spread out through Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and where this covenant is recorded in these "books" we find no terms for "faith" being included as terms for this covenant. Obedience, yes; "faith", no.

The New Covenant is prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and there is no mention of "faith" as a requirement in this covenant prophecy. Forgiveness, yes; "faith", no.

Anyone can claim the Bible says this or the Bible says that, but when we peel back the layers of the covenants themselves, we find no mention of "faith" being required in the terms in each covenant.

I notice that you avoid Saul/Paul. You will never find the answer if you avoid Paul. There is a reason why he makes up most of the New Testament. He also was taught personally by God in the wilderness where he did not fellowship/commune with flesh and blood. Why you would completely ignore this is... telling. The problem is that the covenants are dead. There will be a new covenant, but even Saul/Paul and Hebrews speaks of FAITH. And Paul put it right out there with "For by grace we have been saved through faith..." It is right there, point blank.

You ignore salvation. You blatantly deny God's eternal plan. You deny the truth laid out plainly in God's word. You are willfully blind.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I notice that you avoid Saul/Paul. You will never find the answer if you avoid Paul. There is a reason why he makes up most of the New Testament. He also was taught personally by God in the wilderness where he did not fellowship/commune with flesh and blood. Why you would completely ignore this is... telling. The problem is that the covenants are dead. There will be a new covenant, but even Saul/Paul and Hebrews speaks of FAITH. And Paul put it right out there with "For by grace we have been saved through faith..." It is right there, point blank.

You ignore salvation. You blatantly deny God's eternal plan. You deny the truth laid out plainly in God's word. You are willfully blind.

Your first error is you saying Jesus returned to earth to personally teach him what he eventually wrote about. You spiritualize things that are natural and probably naturalize things that are spiritual. Jesus didn't leave the Father and return to earth to personally teach Saul things he learned naturally through study. But let me guess...you interpret this statement from Saul and believe - falsely that Jesus returned to earth a second, third, fourth, fiftieth, hundredth, two hundredth times, etc., and say with Saul and miraculously touched his head with Jesus' hand and POOF! Saul knew things supernaturally. How wrong you are.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:11–12.

Jesus is a man. How can Saul say, "I neither received it of man"? The revelations that Saul experienced as a man who studied anew the Hebrew Scriptures under the anointing was able to claim 'revelations' in what he studied. Saul was a rabbi and a Pharisee. He knew Scripture. He probably had his own copy of the scrolls of the Scripture that he studied under the anointing and came to see and realize things that were before conversion "letter of the Law" and with the anointing could see the Hebrew Scripture with the "spirit of the Law" mindset. I have the same revelations as Saul did, as anyone who studies the Scripture with and through the anointing does.

Saul himself declares that his studies were of the Law and the Prophets. But now that he studied under the anointing, he began to see the Old Testament Scripture with new eyes and was able to understand the Hebrew Scripture from a "spirit of the Law" perspective that was the result of personal study. Saul expressly instructs Timothy:

13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. 2 Timothy 4:12–13.

Ah, so Saul was a bookworm, a student of the Scripture, like me. The "revelations" he says he received came through due diligence and studying the books and the parchments he undoubtedly left in Troas. Well, I receive the same revelations as Saul did when I study under the anointing. Anyone does. Anyone can. Jesus doesn't have to leave the Father in heaven and return constantly every day to personally teach a disciple. He left us a Comforter, like Him, to lead and guide us and bring to remembrance things that are important to our lives/walks. That was the instruction and command of Jesus, right? Yes, that's right.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith", the faith of Jesus Christ whom God honored and by whose faith we are all saved. Saul remained obedient to the Law of Moses. He was identified as a man, rabbi, Pharisee as someone who did not treat the Law as "abolished" or "obsolete", but taught the Law and the Prophets to the synagogues and churches in Jewish homes wherever he went.
Look at what others say of him:

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 21:24.

And look at what Saul says of himself:

14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:13–14.

As rabbi and Pharisee Saul taught Jews and Jewish Christians the Law and the Prophets. That was his specialty. He thrived in the Scripture, the Law and the Prophets, that were "given by inspiration of God and were profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness" so that he and his fellow believers, the Jewish Christians he discipled and taught.

And here some Gentiles claim the Law (and the Prophets) were "abolished" and made "obsolete." If these were abolished and made obsolete, then Saul wouldn't excel greater and further than others his equal. No, Jesus didn't leave heaven, come down to earth, and teach Saul personally. What Saul learned came through diligent study under the anointing the Law and the Prophets - and the Psalms. You should throw away all the false Gentile theology you hold to and embrace the Word of God, the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets.

Saul did.

 

[e v e]

Actually, Saul is VERY clear that faith is prerequisite. Saul is VERY clear, as is James, and Hebrews. How was Abraham saved? God credited his FAITH as righteousness. And only those who are of faith are the true descendants of Abraham. It is VERY clear.

Faith was the basis of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, and is the supreme requirement of the New Covenant. And, as Paul said, is a requirement for salvation. 'Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved'. That belief is by faith. For by GRACE you have been saved by faith, and that not of yourself it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man shouldst boast. So why do you keep declaring that salvation is by works?

Actually it was a foreshadowing.

That isn't what Jesus did according to John in I John. You would have to read it to know it.

Jesus was not just the propitiation of our sins (Jews), but for the whole world. John said that. (You know, the beloved disciple, Jesus' favorite.)
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. "

the evil mystery babylon realm
marks are its own
who belong to its nature,
who never met Him, who were never
in paradise, or intentionally choose it..
rather they choose against Him
on purpose

but God's lil souls
have His signature. And of those
- Jacob - some of these are
His remnant , sealed to Him
in their souls who will
met Christ upon the clouds...

and many of Jacob
not of the remnant
though His but being bullied by pastors
Trained by esaus,
bullied into their (adam and esau's)
corrupt theology
will go through trib. .

so it's silly a bodily mark in a body not made by God, a corrupt physicality after the fall,
for any to imagine the flesh body mark matters
except to the satanic loyalists and esaus
who want mystery babylon's nature
and identify with it.

that is, His desire is that few eden souls
if any reject Him for their Nature is of Him
in their soul ,
even if this flesh nature is the satanic
one whose law hurts us

His souls are to die to that mindset
and follow Him.

most all will return to Him
though not at rapture but after trib
it would sadly seem ...
so stubborn souls are
still so determined to follow
the sealed vision = corrupt scroll

God has His promise
and His signature is upon eden souls
(therefore that means
all of us hebrew souls -
those of us made by Him
our souls being of eden and from Him

and He has His seal upon a remnant of
His ones.

only a soul of Him can enter
His Eden paradise ..

no fleshbody .

 

[armylngst]

Your first error is you saying Jesus returned to earth to personally teach him what he eventually wrote about. You spiritualize things that are natural and probably naturalize things that are spiritual. Jesus didn't leave the Father and return to earth to personally teach Saul things he learned naturally through study. But let me guess...you interpret this statement from Saul and believe - falsely that Jesus returned to earth a second, third, fourth, fiftieth, hundredth, two hundredth times, etc., and say with Saul and miraculously touched his head with Jesus' hand and POOF! Saul knew things supernaturally. How wrong you are.

I never said Jesus returned to Earth to personally teach him. Never said that. He was clear when he said he did not commune with flesh. Just say you don't believe in the Holy Spirit, it would be easier to point out where you are VERY wrong.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:11–12.

Jesus is a man. How can Saul say, "I neither received it of man"? The revelations that Saul experienced as a man who studied anew the Hebrew Scriptures under the anointing was able to claim 'revelations' in what he studied. Saul was a rabbi and a Pharisee. He knew Scripture. He probably had his own copy of the scrolls of the Scripture that he studied under the anointing and came to see and realize things that were before conversion "letter of the Law" and with the anointing could see the Hebrew Scripture with the "spirit of the Law" mindset. I have the same revelations as Saul did, as anyone who studies the Scripture with and through the anointing does.

Ah a unitarian. Thank you for coming right out and saying you are wrong.

Saul himself declares that his studies were of the Law and the Prophets. But now that he studied under the anointing, he began to see the Old Testament Scripture with new eyes and was able to understand the Hebrew Scripture from a "spirit of the Law" perspective that was the result of personal study. Saul expressly instructs Timothy:

13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. 2 Timothy 4:12–13.

Ah, so Saul was a bookworm, a student of the Scripture, like me. The "revelations" he says he received came through due diligence and studying the books and the parchments he undoubtedly left in Troas. Well, I receive the same revelations as Saul did when I study under the anointing. Anyone does. Anyone can. Jesus doesn't have to leave the Father in heaven and return constantly every day to personally teach a disciple. He left us a Comforter, like Him, to lead and guide us and bring to remembrance things that are important to our lives/walks. That was the instruction and command of Jesus, right? Yes, that's right.

Given what you have said, and what Paul has said, it is not the same. Since they are not the same, with Paul teaching FAITH, and you teaching WORKS, (covenant/law), why are you wrong? Where did you go wrong?

"For by grace you have been saved through faith", the faith of Jesus Christ whom God honored and by whose faith we are all saved. Saul remained obedient to the Law of Moses. He was identified as a man, rabbi, Pharisee as someone who did not treat the Law as "abolished" or "obsolete", but taught the Law and the Prophets to the synagogues and churches in Jewish homes wherever he went.
Look at what others say of him:

Now that sounds way outside of orthdoxy, and foreign to scripture. Faith of Jesus? Jesus was God, why would He need faith? John 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was [the] God. What comes next? That WORD which was both with and was God, was made flesh and dwelt among us. (I like the rendering, pitched His tent amongst us, or tabernacled with us.) John also says that NOTHING that has been created was created without Him. (The Word, which we know as God incarnate, named Jesus.) Jesus who was both God and man in one body.

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 21:24.

18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21 and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24 them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

It is pretty clear what is being explained here. The non-Hebrew Gentiles, which are spoke of in verse 25, and that Paul also teaches all the Jews which are among the Gentiles. So again, here we see that they are understood to be Jews among the Gentiles, so it is blatantly obvious that the Gentiles are non-Hebrew/non-Jewish Gentiles. Hence it wasn't Paul who told them they were not under the law, but James and the Jewish church.

And look at what Saul says of himself:

14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:13–14.

What about verse 24?
24 And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.
Felix was not Jewish, yet apparently feared God, knowing "the way".

As rabbi and Pharisee Saul taught Jews and Jewish Christians the Law and the Prophets. That was his specialty. He thrived in the Scripture, the Law and the Prophets, that were "given by inspiration of God and were profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness" so that he and his fellow believers, the Jewish Christians he discipled and taught.

Paul himself said that he was called by God to go to the Gentiles. He said this more than once. So not even the Jews amongst the Gentiles. However, he spoke to BOTH.

And here some Gentiles claim the Law (and the Prophets) were "abolished" and made "obsolete." If these were abolished and made obsolete, then Saul wouldn't excel greater and further than others his equal. No, Jesus didn't leave heaven, come down to earth, and teach Saul personally. What Saul learned came through diligent study under the anointing the Law and the Prophets - and the Psalms. You should throw away all the false Gentile theology you hold to and embrace the Word of God, the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets.

They were fulfilled. And I don't know if Jesus taught Paul personally, but since you apparently do not bevieve that "Jesus came in the flesh", then you wouldn't understand. Why is that phrase so important coming from John? John is the one who said Jesus is God in the flesh. If you don't believe that then
I John 1
'22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."
I John 4
"2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. "

I John was written partly because the belief in gnosticism was up and coming, and John was battling false teachers. There was also dualism, but that was Marcion. Jesus is God in the flesh, the Logos that was with God and was God made flesh. Jesus never spoke of Himself having faith, He spoke to the faith of others, and scripture says that he didn't perform many/any miracles where unbelief reigned. Where there was no/little faith. The woman with the issue of blood wasn't preying on Jesus' faith. Jesus said it was HER faith that healed her. The same for the paralyzed man dropped through the cieling. The faith of his friends not only healed their friend, but Jesus forgave his sins point blank. Only GOD can do that. Since the Father didn't strike Jesus dead for blasphemy, but then allowed Jesus to heal the man... Jesus gave that as proof that He had the right/power to forgive sin, which only God has. And Jesus specifically stated that.

Luke 5
"17 And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judæa, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them. 18 And, behold, men brought in a bed a man which was taken with a palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before him. 19 And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus. 20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? 22 But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts? 23 Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk? 24 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house. 25 And immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own house, glorifying God. 26 And they were all amazed, and they glorified God, and were filled with fear, saying, We have seen strange things to day.

The pharisees were not wrong. Only God can forgive sins, because it is God we have offended. You have said over and over that God shares His glory with no one. His alone.

Saul did.

Saul was not unitarian.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I never said Jesus returned to Earth to personally teach him. Never said that. He was clear when he said he did not commune with flesh. Just say you don't believe in the Holy Spirit, it would be easier to point out where you are VERY wrong.

Ah a unitarian. Thank you for coming right out and saying you are wrong.

Given what you have said, and what Paul has said, it is not the same. Since they are not the same, with Paul teaching FAITH, and you teaching WORKS, (covenant/law), why are you wrong? Where did you go wrong?

Now that sounds way outside of orthdoxy, and foreign to scripture. Faith of Jesus? Jesus was God, why would He need faith? John 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was [the] God. What comes next? That WORD which was both with and was God, was made flesh and dwelt among us. (I like the rendering, pitched His tent amongst us, or tabernacled with us.) John also says that NOTHING that has been created was created without Him. (The Word, which we know as God incarnate, named Jesus.) Jesus who was both God and man in one body.

18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21 and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24 them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

It is pretty clear what is being explained here. The non-Hebrew Gentiles, which are spoke of in verse 25, and that Paul also teaches all the Jews which are among the Gentiles. So again, here we see that they are understood to be Jews among the Gentiles, so it is blatantly obvious that the Gentiles are non-Hebrew/non-Jewish Gentiles. Hence it wasn't Paul who told them they were not under the law, but James and the Jewish church.

What about verse 24?
24 And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.
Felix was not Jewish, yet apparently feared God, knowing "the way".

Paul himself said that he was called by God to go to the Gentiles. He said this more than once. So not even the Jews amongst the Gentiles. However, he spoke to BOTH.

They were fulfilled. And I don't know if Jesus taught Paul personally, but since you apparently do not bevieve that "Jesus came in the flesh", then you wouldn't understand. Why is that phrase so important coming from John? John is the one who said Jesus is God in the flesh. If you don't believe that then
I John 1
'22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."
I John 4
"2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. "

I John was written partly because the belief in gnosticism was up and coming, and John was battling false teachers. There was also dualism, but that was Marcion. Jesus is God in the flesh, the Logos that was with God and was God made flesh. Jesus never spoke of Himself having faith, He spoke to the faith of others, and scripture says that he didn't perform many/any miracles where unbelief reigned. Where there was no/little faith. The woman with the issue of blood wasn't preying on Jesus' faith. Jesus said it was HER faith that healed her. The same for the paralyzed man dropped through the cieling. The faith of his friends not only healed their friend, but Jesus forgave his sins point blank. Only GOD can do that. Since the Father didn't strike Jesus dead for blasphemy, but then allowed Jesus to heal the man... Jesus gave that as proof that He had the right/power to forgive sin, which only God has. And Jesus specifically stated that.

Luke 5
"17 And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judæa, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them. 18 And, behold, men brought in a bed a man which was taken with a palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before him. 19 And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus. 20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? 22 But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts? 23 Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk? 24 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house. 25 And immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own house, glorifying God. 26 And they were all amazed, and they glorified God, and were filled with fear, saying, We have seen strange things to day.

The pharisees were not wrong. Only God can forgive sins, because it is God we have offended. You have said over and over that God shares His glory with no one. His alone.

Saul was not unitarian.

Saul was a believer who practiced the Law and the Prophets as did every decent Jew who was under the Law of Moses.

14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:14.

 

[e v e]

The pharisees were not wrong.

Many things to say but
for now , only this ,

pharisees represent esaus and serpent souls... a type...
to which God's hebrew souls (=eden souls) are in enmity...

they murdered christ... they altered God's words
they twisted every eden concept to their own
earthly goals

just look at the apostles and prophets..
where almost half were murdered by these monsters
for listening to God..
and who of the people listened..
few..
they were busy been spelled by the same
pharisees who built a gold statue ,
murdered christ etc .

could some pharisee or other
scribe be an exception , sure..
but in general they were Bad news
and NOT hebrew eden souls
but rather , wolves

and the same today ... esaus
teaching pastors every insanity ,
having rule over academia ..
being sycophantically followed as
if they themselves due to a few
biblical phds were gods
rather than simply deranged corrupt egos.

 

[armylngst]

Saul was a believer who practiced the Law and the Prophets as did every decent Jew who was under the Law of Moses.

14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:14.

I see you agree with the unitarian label. That would mean we don't have much to discuss, since you believe Jesus was only a man. (And you may come out to say that you are trinitarian, however, you bertay your true belief when you speak of Jesus, who is God, having faith.)

 

[jeremiah1five]

I see you agree with the unitarian label. That would mean we don't have much to discuss, since you believe Jesus was only a man. (And you may come out to say that you are trinitarian, however, you bertay your true belief when you speak of Jesus, who is God, having faith.)

When discussing Jesus, He was both God and man. It was Jesus the man who was tested in the desert.
It was Jesus the man who was hungered, weary, and it was Jesus of whom He said this as a man:

38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
Matthew 26:38.

You can't kill God. But the man, He died. His was a sacrifice as a man to atone the sins of men called the children of Israel.
Jesus walked the Holy Land as a man. He relied on God for everything. Praying with faith (trust) is and was typical of Jesus the man in everything He prayed. He came to His Father's will, not His own. He was submitted to God His Father in everything, showing us the path of righteous living as a man, not as God.
As a man He lived under the Law. It was the Holy Spirit that rested on His shoulder that performed every miracle and every prayed deed asked in faith to God.

When you take away or weaken His humanity you take away from Jesus the man. Jesus can only live from birth to death as a man, not as God. His Divinity was "under" His humanity.
Study this:

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:5–11.

Kenosis. It's Greek.

Jesus is His human name. [יֵשׁוּעַ (Yēšūaʿ)], a later form of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yəhôšūaʿ), which is the same origin as the English name Joshua.

It is His human name that every knee bows to. But there is something that is exalted 'above' the Name of Jesus:

2 I will worship toward thy holy temple,
And praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth:
For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Ps 138:2.

10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. Luke 12:10.

The name of the Son of man is "Jesus" the man. "You" can talk 'crap' about Jesus the man. But the Word: Christ, the Holy Spirit, who Authored the Word (of Scripture) and IS the Word, speak 'crap' about Him and it is never forgiven.
Why is that?
And the question of all time: can a true, born of God Christian commit this sin?

(and why or why not)?

 

[armylngst]

When discussing Jesus, He was both God and man. It was Jesus the man who was tested in the desert.
It was Jesus the man who was hungered, weary, and it was Jesus of whom He said this as a man:

Yes, because Jesus is/was the second Adam. So He had to be like Adam. And given what you have told us in the past, that means Jesus was born a sinner, since Adam was a sinner before he ever sinned. Just because he is flesh. Jesus came in the flesh, so... Jesus humanity must have been sinful, right? You can make it easy on yourself by recognizing that Adam and Jesus were the same at the beginning. Adam was sinless until... sin was found in him. Jesus was sinless... for all eternity and will always be. Jesus never sinned as a human in the flesh, and thus REMAINED sinless, where Adam did not. (Because God determined that Adam would sin.)

38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
Matthew 26:38.

You can't kill God. But the man, He died. His was a sacrifice as a man to atone the sins of men called the children of Israel.

Everything was good until the end. God through John says that Jesus was not only the propitiation for our sin (Jews, since John was writing about himself to Jews), but also the sins of the WHOLE WORLD.

Jesus walked the Holy Land as a man. He relied on God for everything. Praying with faith (trust) is and was typical of Jesus the man in everything He prayed. He came to His Father's will, not His own. He was submitted to God His Father in everything, showing us the path of righteous living as a man, not as God.

Jesus walked the Holy Land as God in the flesh. He did not rely on God for everything, for that assumes the possibility that God could/would fail Jesus. (I mean, really?) HE did not pray with faith (trust) because Jesus Himself is the focus of all faith. Faith is assurance of things hoped for (Jesus), and the evidence of things not seen. (Jesus is the visible representation of the Father.) That means that faith has Jesus at its core. Jesus wasn't praying that He would save Himself.

Consider Jesus and the demons. (And yes, they existed.) The disciples basically had to ask the demons in Jesus name to leave. All Jesus had to do was say "OUT!!" Authority. An authority no one on Earth, no human has. Where the disciples failed, and were told much fasting and prayer were needed to cast out a demon, Jesus evicted with a word. Authority.

As a man He lived under the Law. It was the Holy Spirit that rested on His shoulder that performed every miracle and every prayed deed asked in faith to God.

If Jesus lived under the Law, why did He, according to the Jewish leaders, keep breaking the Law over and over? He ate with tax collectors and sinners. He, according to the Jewish leaders, blasphemed God. (He did not, and as a Gentile, I do consider myself an authority on that, because I can read the Bible, and point it out.) Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law. If He fulfilled the Law, why does anyone have to live under it? He did so for us. Hence the object of our faith and salvation is Christ.

When you take away or weaken His humanity you take away from Jesus the man. Jesus can only live from birth to death as a man, not as God. His Divinity was "under" His humanity.

His humanity was underneath His Divinity. Hence He could walk on water, silence the seas, etc. Why? He created it. (John 1.) As Creator, He had the authority. Peter's faith in Christ as he stepped on the water faltered, and Peter faltered. His eyes moved off Christ, to the water around him. He lost sight, and with that his faith faltered.

Study this:

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:5–11.

If you read the whole chapter you will find why Paul even brings this up. He wasn't happy with the Philippians, and was telling them that they need to be humble, and Paul showed Jesus as the supreme example of humility. He then said, let this mind be in you. Let the humility that Christ had, in His thought process, in His being, be present in you. This reinforces the idea that those who are humble will be exalted, because Christ as humbled, and the Father exalted Him above everything.

Kenosis. It's Greek.

I know.

Jesus is His human name. [יֵשׁוּעַ (Yēšūaʿ)], a later form of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yəhôšūaʿ), which is the same origin as the English name Joshua.

So? We have names, so He needed one. And names have their own power. (It is weird to us, but names shape who we are.) Hence Simon received the name Rock/Pebble from Jesus. Probably for his stubbornness. (Going with what Jesus said next, it was for Peter's faith.) On this rock, He will build His church. Upon the faith of Peter that said that Jesus is the Christ, Son of God, is the church built. Not on the covenant. The church is different then Israel. Israel was born by covenant, the church, by faith.

It is His human name that every knee bows to. But there is something that is exalted 'above' the Name of Jesus:

2 I will worship toward thy holy temple,
And praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth:
For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Ps 138:2.

You need something better then that. It makes no sense in context. (Psalm 138).

10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. Luke 12:10.

Use the whole definition:
Matthew 12
"22 Then one was brought to Him who was demon-possessed, blind and mute; and He healed him, so that the [d]blind and mute man both spoke and saw. 23 And all the multitudes were amazed and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”
24 Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by [e]Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.”
25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad."

Lessons learned. Demons exist. Jesus cast out demons, and not once stopped the Jewish leaders to say, hey, all I did was readjust their attitude. He didn't say that Beelzebub wasn't the ruler of demons, since demons don't exist. He recognized exactly who they meant by Beelzebub. He says that he is the adversary, Satan. He even takes it to their level by saying that if He casts out demons in the name of Beelzebub, what about your sons? By whom are they casting out demons.

"31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

Every sin and blasphemy (that is committed against God) will be forgiven. The only sin that will not be forgiven, no matter what, is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is telling these religious leaders that they have blasphemed the Holy Spirit. However, this runs contrary to your belief that all Jews will be saved. What about these who blasphemed the Holy Spirit? Will their sin be forgiven in this age or the age to come?

The name of the Son of man is "Jesus" the man. "You" can talk 'crap' about Jesus the man. But the Word: Christ, the Holy Spirit, who Authored the Word (of Scripture) and IS the Word, speak 'crap' about Him and it is never forgiven.
Why is that?
And the question of all time: can a true, born of God Christian commit this sin?

No. Simple answer. Eternal security and all, because salvation is of God, not of man. Jude 24,25. A doxology of a God who can do something, and I believe WILL do it. God will not fail.

"24 Now to Him who is able to keep [a]you from stumbling,
And to present you faultless
Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,
25 To God our Savior,
[c]Who alone is wise,
Be glory and majesty,
Dominion and [d]power,
Both now and forever.
Amen.

However, to one who is not a believer in Christ, that statement about all sins being forgiven does not stand. For those who believe in Christ by faith, all sins are forgiven except for the one. So either one can never be saved, so your question makes no sense, or once they are saved, they will be incapable of this sin. Considering Jesus isn't on Earth performing miracles by which one can literally blaspheme the Holy Spirit, some say no, not for today. The extension is that since the Holy Spirit plays the main role in salvation, dying without Salvation is considered having blasphemed the Holy Spirit. (Or why would you reject?)

 

[jeremiah1five]

Yes, because Jesus is/was the second Adam. So He had to be like Adam. And given what you have told us in the past, that means Jesus was born a sinner, since Adam was a sinner before he ever sinned. Just because he is flesh. Jesus came in the flesh, so... Jesus humanity must have been sinful, right? You can make it easy on yourself by recognizing that Adam and Jesus were the same at the beginning. Adam was sinless until... sin was found in him. Jesus was sinless... for all eternity and will always be. Jesus never sinned as a human in the flesh, and thus REMAINED sinless, where Adam did not. (Because God determined that Adam would sin.)

Are you making conclusions for me or did I actually say Jesus was born sinful?
Nope. Adam was created sinful and Jesus was born sinless.
Unless you want to say as you do that God reduplicated Himself in Adam, in which case now in your reasoning there are two Gods. God shared, gave, copied, His Sinlessness in created matter: dirt, something Isaiah says is impossible.

There is only ONE God, there is NONE like Him, and He gives His glory (Holiness, Sinlessness, Eternalness, Omniscient, Omnipotent, etc.) to NO ONE.

Everything was good until the end. God through John says that Jesus was not only the propitiation for our sin (Jews, since John was writing about himself to Jews), but also the sins of the WHOLE WORLD.

Who was John referring when he said "our" sin? I'm sure he was referring to himself and the small fellowship John wrote his letter to. And if only Jews were atoned in the small group John was referring to in his letter, he also applied it to all Jews. The Greek word "kosmos" doesn't only mean planet, does it? Did Jesus die for the planet or for the Jews who worshiped according to the Law of Moses which sacrifice was commanded by God to be offered to atone for the sins of the children of Israel. Unless you can show me a Scripture in the Pentateuch that the animal sacrificed under the Law of Moses was also to atone for the sins of Gentiles, too. Can you show me such a Scripture that God commanded Gentiles be atoned under the Law?

Jesus walked the Holy Land as God in the flesh. He did not rely on God for everything, for that assumes the possibility that God could/would fail Jesus. (I mean, really?) HE did not pray with faith (trust) because Jesus Himself is the focus of all faith. Faith is assurance of things hoped for (Jesus), and the evidence of things not seen. (Jesus is the visible representation of the Father.) That means that faith has Jesus at its core. Jesus wasn't praying that He would save Himself.

So, Jesus was God and NOT man since you say Jesus was the visible representation of the Father who is God and not man? Hmmm...interesting. If Jesus was ONLY God as you say, then "life is in the blood" means Jesus as God died on th cross and that Jesus was never a man, or a visible representation "in the flesh" of the Father - which means to us that you believe the Father died on the cross. I forget the heresy that taught that in the first century. What was it? Modalism/Sabellianism? So, you're a Oneness Pentecostal? Got it. That explains a great deal.

Consider Jesus and the demons. (And yes, they existed.) The disciples basically had to ask the demons in Jesus name to leave. All Jesus had to do was say "OUT!!" Authority. An authority no one on Earth, no human has. Where the disciples failed, and were told much fasting and prayer were needed to cast out a demon, Jesus evicted with a word. Authority.

There are three spirits the gift of the discerning of spirits discerns:
1. the spirit of angels.
2. the spirit of man.
3. the Spirit of God.

Now, if demons are fallen angels why not use the Hebrew "malek" or the Greek "angelos"? Why did they need to coin a new Greek word to refer to angels?

No, demons are the attitudes of and in man. Sometimes good attitudes and sometimes evil attitudes. Good spirits and evil spirits. Having a good attitude goes far in the worship of God. Having an evil attitude or spirit means the person wouldn't want to worship God. Either the person would be the center of attention or some idol.

If Jesus lived under the Law, why did He, according to the Jewish leaders, keep breaking the Law over and over? He ate with tax collectors and sinners. He, according to the Jewish leaders, blasphemed God. (He did not, and as a Gentile, I do consider myself an authority on that, because I can read the Bible, and point it out.) Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law. If He fulfilled the Law, why does anyone have to live under it? He did so for us. Hence the object of our faith and salvation is Christ.

You're going to have to provide the Scripture to support your claims. Jesus never blasphemed God nor is eating with anyone a sin.
If you believe we don't have to live/obey the Law anymore then why did born-again Jews and Saul and the apostles after being born-again continue in obeying the Law?

This is what Saul said of himself:

14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.
17 Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings. Acts 24:14–17.

And this is what others said about Saul:

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 21:23–24.

And this is what Saul told others to do:

16 All scripture (the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Ti 3:16–17.

You're wrong again. The Jewish Christians continued to obey the command under the Law to "not have other gods before them[selves]," and "to worship the One True God" excluding all others and obey the command under the Law to "not take the Name of the LORD in vain." They continued to obey the Law even AFTER they became born-again.
We are also under those same Laws/Commands.
Aren't you?

His humanity was underneath His Divinity. Hence He could walk on water, silence the seas, etc. Why? He created it. (John 1.) As Creator, He had the authority. Peter's faith in Christ as he stepped on the water faltered, and Peter faltered. His eyes moved off Christ, to the water around him. He lost sight, and with that his faith faltered.

You got it backwards. It was His Divinity that was under His humanity.
He was God in the flesh; NOT flesh in God.
You're all mixed up.

If you read the whole chapter you will find why Paul even brings this up. He wasn't happy with the Philippians, and was telling them that they need to be humble, and Paul showed Jesus as the supreme example of humility. He then said, let this mind be in you. Let the humility that Christ had, in His thought process, in His being, be present in you. This reinforces the idea that those who are humble will be exalted, because Christ as humbled, and the Father exalted Him above everything.

Nope. Not everything. Christ was not exalted above "everything." You are wrong again.

I know.

So? We have names, so He needed one. And names have their own power. (It is weird to us, but names shape who we are.) Hence Simon received the name Rock/Pebble from Jesus. Probably for his stubbornness. (Going with what Jesus said next, it was for Peter's faith.) On this rock, He will build His church. Upon the faith of Peter that said that Jesus is the Christ, Son of God, is the church built. Not on the covenant. The church is different then Israel. Israel was born by covenant, the church, by faith.

Backwards again. Peter is not the rock, Jesus is. Upon Jesus (Christ) will build His Church.

You need something better then that. It makes no sense in context. (Psalm 138).

Use the whole definition:
Matthew 12
"22 Then one was brought to Him who was demon-possessed, blind and mute; and He healed him, so that the [d]blind and mute man both spoke and saw. 23 And all the multitudes were amazed and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”
24 Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by [e]Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.”
25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad."

Lessons learned. Demons exist. Jesus cast out demons, and not once stopped the Jewish leaders to say, hey, all I did was readjust their attitude. He didn't say that Beelzebub wasn't the ruler of demons, since demons don't exist. He recognized exactly who they meant by Beelzebub. He says that he is the adversary, Satan. He even takes it to their level by saying that if He casts out demons in the name of Beelzebub, what about your sons? By whom are they casting out demons.

"31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

Every sin and blasphemy (that is committed against God) will be forgiven. The only sin that will not be forgiven, no matter what, is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is telling these religious leaders that they have blasphemed the Holy Spirit. However, this runs contrary to your belief that all Jews will be saved. What about these who blasphemed the Holy Spirit? Will their sin be forgiven in this age or the age to come?

No. Simple answer. Eternal security and all, because salvation is of God, not of man. Jude 24,25. A doxology of a God who can do something, and I believe WILL do it. God will not fail.

"24 Now to Him who is able to keep [a]you from stumbling,
And to present you faultless
Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,
25 To God our Savior,
[c]Who alone is wise,
Be glory and majesty,
Dominion and [d]power,
Both now and forever.
Amen.

However, to one who is not a believer in Christ, that statement about all sins being forgiven does not stand. For those who believe in Christ by faith, all sins are forgiven except for the one. So either one can never be saved, so your question makes no sense, or once they are saved, they will be incapable of this sin. Considering Jesus isn't on Earth performing miracles by which one can literally blaspheme the Holy Spirit, some say no, not for today. The extension is that since the Holy Spirit plays the main role in salvation, dying without Salvation is considered having blasphemed the Holy Spirit. (Or why would you reject?)

Three-strikes you're out.
I keep having to correct you with Scripture and even with Scripture you refuse to believe God.
You're a Oneness Pentecostal and will always be a Oneness Pentecostal.
I can't help you with that. You are free to follow doctrines of demons. As for me and my house we will serve the LORD.

 

[armylngst]

Are you making conclusions for me or did I actually say Jesus was born sinful?
Nope. Adam was created sinful and Jesus was born sinless.
Unless you want to say as you do that God reduplicated Himself in Adam, in which case now in your reasoning there are two Gods. God shared, gave, copied, His Sinlessness in created matter: dirt, something Isaiah says is impossible.

Please, just say you don't know what you are talking about. God is sinless. Just what is that word... sinless? It speaks to an absence. As such, it is not a part of God's nature, but is what He is. Just what does that mean? Sinless means that there is no sin. Well what is "sin"? It is an archery term that means to miss the standard. So, if someone has not missed the standard, that would mean they are sinless. For God, it is part of His nature simply because He is the standard being spoken about. He cannot miss the standard when whatever He does IS the standard. God not only defines the bullseye, He IS the bullseye.

God created Adam in His image and likeness. His words, not mine. If you look up those words in Hebrew, you will see that they have nothing to do with reduplication or spitting image. Likeness is in the passage to give form to the word image. The image is a likeness only. Adam was created in God's image and likeness. That means there are aspects of God's nature found in Adam in part, not whole. It is a LIKENESS. However, where you jump off the rails so easily is the understanding of Adam's condition. Adam was created sinless. That is, if Adam had a column in his status, somewhere under Race: human, it would say Sin: 0. The title associated with that would be sinless, meaning he has ZERO sin. He has not even picked up a bow to fire an arrow at the target in order to be able to sin. Matter is not evil. Matter is ammoral, neither good (righteous) or evil. That is what we had at creation. However, the capability of man, the one given dominion over the creation by God, UNDER God, was the one who had the burden of choosing which way creation would go. Would Adam choose NOT to sin, which would change the whole course and nature of creation, or would he sin, changing the whole course and nature of creation.

If Adam chose not to sin, he would remain sinless. He'd still be a human and not God. He wouldn't all of a sudden become omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience, etc. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that Adam was that. Again, we have what God said, Adam created in God's image and likeness, and we know the end result. Adam was not omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. As so defined, your argument is uncalled for, and demeaning of God. So what happened with Adam? Adam was sinless (sin stat=0) until he broke God's command (sin stat=1) and was no longer sinless. And the way he spoke to God made the counter go up. However, it took only one sin for Adam to go from sinless to sinful. One sin to go from not having sin, to having sin. Or, as Paul basically put it, Adam was sinless until sin was found in him.

Jesus was sinless for two reasons. One, just born and born without an earthly father, thus no sin nature. He was in Adam's position. Sinless due to lack of sin/sin nature. The second reason was, Jesus is God. However there is the balance. Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. Fully integrated, two natures in one body, with both natures fully "conscious", in perfect and full communion/fellowship. One voice. It's still called a mystery because we can't truly understand it. No one on Earth has ever had such an existence. Jesus was sinless, faced temptation (like Adam, by Satan himself), but without sin. Jesus remained sinless. As such, He became, as the New Testament says, a new Adam. (I notice how it doesn't say, a new Abraham...) No, it goes back to the beginning and encompasses all mankind. Jesus is the second Adam. The progenitor of those of faith.

There is only ONE God, there is NONE like Him, and He gives His glory (Holiness, Sinlessness, Eternalness, Omniscient, Omnipotent, etc.) to NO ONE.

Amen. The fact that I fully agree, and rationally believe what I believe, should tell you that you are not understanding. Also, if you look up the definition of glory, you will not find even one of those words mentioned. Why not? Those have nothing to do with glory.

Who was John referring when he said "our" sin? I'm sure he was referring to himself and the small fellowship John wrote his letter to.

To Jews right? I mean that is what you believe. So, it is a big deal that he attaches that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the world. I have a correction to make for what I said in the past. As the chosen people of God, Israel, the Jews, are the wife of Jehovah. The church, non-Jewish Gentiles and Jews, are the bride of Christ.

And if only Jews were atoned in the small group John was referring to in his letter, he also applied it to all Jews. The Greek word "kosmos" doesn't only mean planet, does it? Did Jesus die for the planet or for the Jews who worshiped according to the Law of Moses which sacrifice was commanded by God to be offered to atone for the sins of the children of Israel. Unless you can show me a Scripture in the Pentateuch that the animal sacrificed under the Law of Moses was also to atone for the sins of Gentiles, too. Can you show me such a Scripture that God commanded Gentiles be atoned under the Law?

Jesus died for the world, kosmos, which obviously doesn't mean universe since there is no one out there. And there is only one race on Earth, which includes everyone. Again, Israel is the wife of Jehovah, and the church is the bride of Christ.

So, Jesus was God and NOT man since you say Jesus was the visible representation of the Father who is God and not man?

Um... you are hallucinating again. Paul said that Jesus put aside His position of equality with God to take on the form of a servant in the form of man. I have alsom multiple times said that Jesus is 100% God AND 100% man.

Hmmm...interesting. If Jesus was ONLY God as you say, then "life is in the blood" means Jesus as God died on th cross and that Jesus was never a man, or a visible representation "in the flesh" of the Father - which means to us that you believe the Father died on the cross. I forget the heresy that taught that in the first century. What was it? Modalism/Sabellianism? So, you're a Oneness Pentecostal? Got it. That explains a great deal.

What I find interesting is how you say Jesus is only a man, but a sinless one. (I can do the same thing you do, right, or are you all about double standards?) Jesus died on the cross, and once He died His spirit was made alive, scripture says. It's interesting reading. You know, the Bible. You should try it. The dead spirit speaks to the MAN Jesus that had borne sin to His death. (He died for our sins). Now, free of that sin, His spirit was made alive again. Peter then says that He went and preached to those in captivity in tarturus. Basically, with the translation of the greek word for preach here, Jesus went proclaiming his victory to those spirits (demons/fallen angels) imprisoned from the days of Noah, who attempted to pollute God's creation that God not be able to redeem it. Those who stepped outside of their nature, and went after strange flesh. If I recall, the Bible says it was the same sin as Sodom, where ALL the men of Sodom tried to rape the angels that came to save Lot.

There are three spirits the gift of the discerning of spirits discerns:
1. the spirit of angels.
2. the spirit of man.
3. the Spirit of God.

I recall that John speaks only of two in his epistles. The spirit that is of God, and the spirit that is not of God, also known as the antichrist.

Now, if demons are fallen angels why not use the Hebrew "malek" or the Greek "angelos"? Why did they need to coin a new Greek word to refer to angels?

Well, one would have to look at the etymology of the word demon, would they not? Why do we talk about dinosaurs, but if you went back before the 1820s (I believe, perhaps the 1840s) no one would have a clue what you were talking about? The also say devils. Just who is Beelzebub, who apparently exists since the Jewish leaders spoke of him, and Jesus knew exactly who they meant? Did Jesus lie when He spoke of Beezelbub?

No, demons are the attitudes of and in man. Sometimes good attitudes and sometimes evil attitudes. Good spirits and evil spirits. Having a good attitude goes far in the worship of God. Having an evil attitude or spirit means the person wouldn't want to worship God. Either the person would be the center of attention or some idol.

So Jesus lied. I got it. I understand. Jesus used other terms, properly translated, that show that demons (what we call them) are a thing. It even speaks of unclean spirits. Jesus described what happens to the spirits after they are cast out. Considering you don't believe Jesus cast any out, wouldn't that make that all a lie? And apparently there are levels of evil associated with these spirits, as Jesus says they go and they come back to the person they left, and see the house cleaned up and in order, so the go out and find other spirits more wicked then they. This is Jesus talking. I think we can believe what He says, even if you don't.

You're going to have to provide the Scripture to support your claims. Jesus never blasphemed God nor is eating with anyone a sin.
If you believe we don't have to live/obey the Law anymore then why did born-again Jews and Saul and the apostles after being born-again continue in obeying the Law?

Jesus did not blaspheme, but He did eat with sinners. So, if Jesus is sinless, and yet is eating with sinners, what does that mean? Well, obviously, that means it isn't a sin to eat with sinners. That is a man made "sin", and I already said that it is God who is the standard. What did Jesus say when they accused him of this manmade sin of eating with sinners? Basically, he said the sick need a Physician. So basically, what good is it for Jesus to come to the world to save sinners, if He doesn't go to the sinners? What good is a Doctor if he only goes and treats healthy people? Jesus went to the sinners. He didn't sin with them. The reasons we are given not to associate with sinners... wait we have no such thing. We are only told not to associate with those who claim they are of the faith, and are false teachers. Why? So we aren't deceived and fall away from the faith, and so that if another weaker brother sees us with a heretic or false teacher, they don't associate that with the beleiif that that means they aren't heretics/false teachers, and what they teach is truth. Jesus doesn't have this problem. He knows the truth, and the only people affected by Jesus eating with sinners were the self-righteous hell bound religious leaders, of whom Jesus had nothing good to say, other then telling the disciples to stay away and not to "listen" to them. (Beware the leaven of the pharisees.)

This is what Saul said of himself:

14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.
17 Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings. Acts 24:14–17.

Apparently you have missed the point of scripture. The Gentiles are told that as believers they do not have to follow the law, because that is the burden of the Jews. They give the Gentiles a list of things they should not do, and say that if they follow that, then things will be well with them. Nowhere does the scripture give the idea that the Jews lose their identity. What we see is that the non-Jewish Gentile believers are not required to pick up that identity for themselves. It's not that difficult to understand.

And this is what others said about Saul:

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 21:23–24.

Yes. What they were telling Paul is that you are now amongst the Jews. Make like a Jew. Didn't Paul say he would be all things to all people? This is why he had no issue, besides the fact that he is a Jew. Anything he needed to do (outside of sin) that would further the gospel.

And this is what Saul told others to do:

16 All scripture (the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Ti 3:16–17.

Did you just add to the Bible? First of all it says all scripture, so that includes the New Testament, which is instructive. Without the New Testament you don't have much doctrine. And Paul spent a lot of time instructing in righteousness. But Paul is not telling anyone to do anything here. He is making a STATEMENT that says that the Bible/All scripture is from God to man (and elsewhere, through man) and as such is perfect, profitable for all these things. If you read it, THEN you may be perfect, being thoroughly furnished unto good works. So Saul is not telling anyone to do anything. A reminder/an instruction on what the Bible is, etc. (While perhaps not completely full of all scripture (a lot of Paul's writings and the writings of others are gone), it is pretty close to the Old Testament, and the New Testament. Some/all of those other books, such as found in the Catholic BIble, are not inspired, however they have been considered good reading, just not on the level of scripture. Some are commentaries, and some contain history that is useful.

You're wrong again. The Jewish Christians continued to obey the command under the Law to "not have other gods before them[selves]," and "to worship the One True God" excluding all others and obey the command under the Law to "not take the Name of the LORD in vain." They continued to obey the Law even AFTER they became born-again.
We are also under those same Laws/Commands.
Aren't you?

Well sure. However, it is possible they weren't following that law prior to salvation. A lot of Jews weren't. Baal, Ashteroth, etc. Coming to salvation, they left all that behind and embraced their Lord God and King. I'm rather sure they didn't take the Lord's name in vain, and most Americans (I have seen) know this even if they don't follow it. (Nothing funnier (in a depressing way) then entering a church with a bunch of military people. Even they understand the sanctity, even if they just hold to it in a church. At least the have that much respect for a God they don't know. What does that say about someone who says they are a believer and know God yet they still take the Lord's name in vain?)

You got it backwards. It was His Divinity that was under His humanity.
He was God in the flesh; NOT flesh in God.
You're all mixed up

Apparently you don't understand order. The higher level always comes first. So if He was GOD (divinity) in the flesh (humanity), the the order is divinity first then humanity. However, that isn't right because, as already stated, Jesus was 100% God and 100% humanity. There was no humanity above divinity, or divinity above humanity. They are equal in Christ.

Nope. Not everything. Christ was not exalted above "everything." You are wrong again.

"9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

The language would go back to Corinthians where it says that everything was subject to the Son, except, obviously the one who subjected everything to Him. Since I think that is what you are aiming at, all I can say is, troll.

Ephesians 1:
"20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."

However, since you don't seem to believe Jesus is God, I could give you that.

Backwards again. Peter is not the rock, Jesus is. Upon Jesus (Christ) will build His Church.

So you didn't even understand the passage. Peter is not the rock. The rock is the FAITH Peter showed. And no, it doesn't have to be Peter showing it. The rock upon which the church is built (not so much a foundation, but the floor), is faith in Christ, where Christ is the foundation of the church. It is by that faith that the people come into the church, which is "building the church", since the church is the people, not some building. It always goes back to FAITH. That rock is the base layer of faith upon which all else is built. The lowest level of faith, the ground floor, the entry level of faith into the church is... Christ. Our faith in Christ being the Son of the Most High God, which Jesus told Peter that neither flesh nor blood had revealed to him, but the Father.

Three-strikes you're out.
I keep having to correct you with Scripture and even with Scripture you refuse to believe God.
You're a Oneness Pentecostal and will always be a Oneness Pentecostal.
I can't help you with that. You are free to follow doctrines of demons. As for me and my house we will serve the LORD.

The definition (top level) I hold to is that God is One BEING, made up of three coexisting, coeternal PERSONS, known as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are distinct in that it isn't one person wearing a different name tag depending on the day of the week. They are three... in one. Not one in three. Jesus is God (Son of God, to include title) who became flesh to live amongst His creation. (John 1 says nothing was created except that the Logos (the Word we know by the name Jesus) created it.) Both God and man in one body. That is divinity and flesh, the Word become flesh. The Father in heaven, the Holy Spirit upon Christ (shown visibly at the baptism of John the Baptist), and Jesus doing the work of the Father by the power of the Spirit. It's amazing that while salvation is by Christ, all three were involved.

God has always had a triune nature, but as God (The one Being), He introduced Himself solely as God to Israel, not as His triune nature. However there must be a reason why He kept harping on the Lord God being One. Teaching them from the beginning that the Son of God, while distinct, is God, just as the Father is God. They just didn't understand. There is way too much to this, so this is barely a bare bones showing.

However, if you can explain to me how that is a doctrine of demons which you say don't exist (so where did that come from anyway), I could perhaps join you in not being trinitarian. You will find that incredibly difficult. I am set solid in my belief of the triune God. But that's generally because you have to start out with an understanding of who God is, and work your way from there. If you start from yourself, as you seem to have done, you are going to louse everything up. First, learn who God is, then learn about His sovereignty, then how that relates to the creation, then how that relates to us. How we relate to God is moving in the wrong direction. You start with GOD then work your way down. By getting all of that, you know your position, and you know WHY that's your position.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Please, just say you don't know what you are talking about. God is sinless. Just what is that word... sinless? It speaks to an absence. As such, it is not a part of God's nature, but is what He is. Just what does that mean? Sinless means that there is no sin. Well what is "sin"? It is an archery term that means to miss the standard. So, if someone has not missed the standard, that would mean they are sinless. For God, it is part of His nature simply because He is the standard being spoken about. He cannot miss the standard when whatever He does IS the standard. God not only defines the bullseye, He IS the bullseye.

So, God is the bullseye? You also believe Adam was a bullseye, too, to claim he was sinless in his creation. But the word sin does mean "[to] miss the mark]" as in archery (Strong's.) And that is what Adam was in his creation. I agree God is the standard. Everything and everyone are judged in light of God's standard. But here's something many - including you - fail to understand. If Adam was created sinless, then in order to make or meet God's standard he would also have to possess the other Deific Attributes and Nature of God or he would "miss the mark." He would fall short of God's glory, or standard. There are only two Persons that can stand blameless before a Holy, Sinless, Righteous, Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent God and they are the Holy Son and the Holy Spirit. In order to stand blameless before God who is the standard Adam would have to possess ALL the other deific Attributes and Nature of God or Adam would fall short since God Himself is the standard. So, if Adam was sinless but not eternal he falls short of God's standard. If Adam was sinless but not Omniscient, All-powerful, All-wise, Righteous, etc., then he falls short of the standard or glory of God and I am right again.

God created Adam in His image and likeness. His words, not mine. If you look up those words in Hebrew, you will see that they have nothing to do with reduplication or spitting image. Likeness is in the passage to give form to the word image. The image is a likeness only. Adam was created in God's image and likeness. That means there are aspects of God's nature found in Adam in part, not whole. It is a LIKENESS. However, where you jump off the rails so easily is the understanding of Adam's condition. Adam was created sinless. That is, if Adam had a column in his status, somewhere under Race: human, it would say Sin: 0. The title associated with that would be sinless, meaning he has ZERO sin. He has not even picked up a bow to fire an arrow at the target in order to be able to sin. Matter is not evil. Matter is ammoral, neither good (righteous) or evil. That is what we had at creation. However, the capability of man, the one given dominion over the creation by God, UNDER God, was the one who had the burden of choosing which way creation would go. Would Adam choose NOT to sin, which would change the whole course and nature of creation, or would he sin, changing the whole course and nature of creation.

When a person is born-again, they are now in the image of Christ. Christian also means "Christ-like." We are justified (declared "Not Guilty!") and before God we are sinless, Holy, Righteous. Not before. When God said "Let us make man in our own image" He had the new man in mind, not the old man. Old things have passed away. We are being conformed into the image of Christ, and this is our sanctification. There was nothing in Adam that God saw as "His [God's] image." Or God could have referred to the future Jesus the Christ/Messiah who is definitely in God's perfect image. And here is the proof:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Colossians 1:14–15.

Jesus Christ is the image of God the Father and when we become born-again we are becoming conformed into the image of Christ.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Romans 8:29.

So, I am right again.

If Adam chose not to sin, he would remain sinless. He'd still be a human and not God. He wouldn't all of a sudden become omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience, etc. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that Adam was that. Again, we have what God said, Adam created in God's image and likeness, and we know the end result. Adam was not omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. As so defined, your argument is uncalled for, and demeaning of God. So what happened with Adam? Adam was sinless (sin stat=0) until he broke God's command (sin stat=1) and was no longer sinless. And the way he spoke to God made the counter go up. However, it took only one sin for Adam to go from sinless to sinful. One sin to go from not having sin, to having sin. Or, as Paul basically put it, Adam was sinless until sin was found in him.

Adam had no choice to not sin. He behaved according to his sinful nature as Christ behaved according to His Righteous Nature. A leopard cannot change its spots. Adam sinned because he was a sinner. He is not a sinner because he sinned. It is the first statement that is true not the second. Because if Adam became a sinner because he sinned then the sin moves from his nature to his act of sin, which in his case is disobedience. This would destroy the Doctrine of Imputation for this doctrine explains and reveals a "nature-swap." Christ takes our sin nature, and we take His Righteous Nature. Peter alludes to us being divine having received Christ's Divine Nature. Do you need the Scripture? No? OK, here it is:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 2 Peter 1:4.

THIS is the imputation of Christ's Righteous Nature and He takes our sin nature. A "nature-swap."

You said, "Adam is sinless." Having one Deific Attribute of God (sinlessness) and not others or ALL of them leaves Adam "missing the mark." The word is "sin." He falls short. The word for that is also "sin." Christ is in the image of God and He did not sin, so it seems that sin does not and cannot come from someone who is actually Sinless - as Christ is. Sin comes from sinful. Sin does not come from sinless. This is very easy to understand but you "miss the mark" and fall short of God's standard.

Jesus was sinless for two reasons. One, just born and born without an earthly father, thus no sin nature. He was in Adam's position. Sinless due to lack of sin/sin nature. The second reason was, Jesus is God. However there is the balance. Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. Fully integrated, two natures in one body, with both natures fully "conscious", in perfect and full communion/fellowship. One voice. It's still called a mystery because we can't truly understand it. No one on Earth has ever had such an existence. Jesus was sinless, faced temptation (like Adam, by Satan himself), but without sin. Jesus remained sinless. As such, He became, as the New Testament says, a new Adam. (I notice how it doesn't say, a new Abraham...) No, it goes back to the beginning and encompasses all mankind. Jesus is the second Adam. The progenitor of those of faith.

There are not two ways to being tempted, only one. According to Peter the angels that sinned were cast down reserved in darkness and awaiting judgment. He was 'locked up.' So, Satan/Lucifer was not the one who was tempting Him. Jesus' temptation came from within Him, not without Him.

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James 1:14.

It says, "every man." Jesus is a man. This includes Him. Jesus was hungry and the temptation was the ability to turn stones into bread. But He passed that test. You see, if Satan broke out of his jail and was personally involved in Jesus' temptation then Jesus cannot be our Mediator and Intercessor for, He would not know what it's like to be tempted from within as "EVERY MAN" is tempted.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15.

If Satan was the one tempting Him then Jesus was not tempted "in all points like as we are" because Satan doesn't tempt the everyday man. He can be in only one place at a time and men endure temptation by the billions every moment of the day. So, I am right again.

Amen. The fact that I fully agree, and rationally believe what I believe, should tell you that you are not understanding. Also, if you look up the definition of glory, you will not find even one of those words mentioned. Why not? Those have nothing to do with glory.

To Jews right? I mean that is what you believe. So, it is a big deal that he attaches that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the world. I have a correction to make for what I said in the past. As the chosen people of God, Israel, the Jews, are the wife of Jehovah. The church, non-Jewish Gentiles and Jews, are the bride of Christ.

He is the propitiation for "our sins" (John and the one he wrote to) but for "the whole world" refers to the whole world of Jews. The world was not atoned by Jesus' sacrifice. They were not even under the Law.

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Galatians 4:3–5.

Who's the "we" in this verse? The whole world? WRONG! It refers to those who were under the Law meaning the children of Israel. If Jesus atoned the "whole world" then why are the atoned an enemy of God? And such an enemy that God warns us about?

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 1 John 2:15–16.

Well, bust my buttons! And John is NOT being redundant either. He is not saying, "Love not the [things] in the world" and then say it again "nor the things in the world." John is in the first part referring to people who are NOT atoned such as Gentiles because as Saul says in Galatians 4:4-5 Jesus came to "redeem those under the Law" - JEWS, NOT Gentiles, because Gentiles were never under the Law. So, I am right again. Perfect score. I haven't "missed the mark" at all but all my statements are BULLSEYE! I and my Father are ONE! LOL. I am perfect, sinless, I quote the Scripture and apply it accordingly and I keep being right. I keep hitting the mark!

Jesus died for the world, kosmos, which obviously doesn't mean universe since there is no one out there. And there is only one race on Earth, which includes everyone. Again, Israel is the wife of Jehovah, and the church is the bride of Christ.

Why doesn't it mean "universe."? I know. It means the planet. Right? "God so loved the planet that He gave..."
You are so very confused. The word can also mean "inhabitants" and in this verse it does. John says, "Love NOT the planet," right? No, he means the unsaved, unatoned, uncircumcised, non-covenant Gentiles. He says don't love them. And he is right. In Scripture Israel is represented by a woman. (Rev. 12.) But Gentiles also are represented by a woman - the whore of Babylon (Rev. 18.) Hosea says that God says to Israel, "I will betroth thee unto me." which means Israel is the Bride and there is a Marriage Supper to attend. So, if a woman represents Israel, and a woman represents Gentiles, and you say God loves the world of Gentiles, then tell me - what is it called when a husband loves another woman in the same way as his marital bride? It's called "Adultery" and your belief that God loves another woman called Gentiles makes God and Christ ADULTERERS! Yup, that's what you teach and it is wrong again. God loves only Israel and He is betrothed to Israel as His Bride, and when it all is said and done believers will attend a Marriage Supper in which there must have been a wedding. God is Faithful. He does not love two women the same. He loves ONLY Israel and He died for Israel as Saul says in Galatians 4:4-5 (see above.)
I am right again!

Um... you are hallucinating again. Paul said that Jesus put aside His position of equality with God to take on the form of a servant in the form of man. I have alsom multiple times said that Jesus is 100% God AND 100% man.

If you stop right there then we are in agreement. But you mess that up when you say God loves the world (inhabitants) and He died for the world (inhabitants.) ALL inhabitants. Now you venture into Universalism. God is not a Universalist. He doesn't love Hebrews and then turns to say He loves non-Hebrews (the world.) God loves only Israel and Israel is His Bride and He is betothed to her (Israel.)
I am right again.

What I find interesting is how you say Jesus is only a man, but a sinless one. (I can do the same thing you do, right, or are you all about double standards?) Jesus died on the cross, and once He died His spirit was made alive, scripture says. It's interesting reading. You know, the Bible. You should try it. The dead spirit speaks to the MAN Jesus that had borne sin to His death. (He died for our sins). Now, free of that sin, His spirit was made alive again. Peter then says that He went and preached to those in captivity in tarturus. Basically, with the translation of the greek word for preach here, Jesus went proclaiming his victory to those spirits (demons/fallen angels) imprisoned from the days of Noah, who attempted to pollute God's creation that God not be able to redeem it. Those who stepped outside of their nature, and went after strange flesh. If I recall, the Bible says it was the same sin as Sodom, where ALL the men of Sodom tried to rape the angels that came to save Lot.

"His spirit was made alive"???
NEWS FLASH! Jesus as a man His spirit - human spirit - was already alive. Like Adam, who was created a trichotomy (body, soul, human spirit), Jesus was born trichotomy (body, soul, human spirit.) Except when Adam sinned, he "died in the day he ate from the tree" meaning his human spirit died. Jesus remained a trichotomy forever. Because Christ rules the spirit-realm Adam sinned and his human spirit died, and he became a dichotomy (body and soul - no human spirit.) Adam could not pass in his genes a human spirit to his children and so from Adam all humans except Jesus are born body and soul - no human spirit. When we become born-again God creates a new human spirit in us and we are restored to a trichotomy while the unsaved and unatoned remain body and soul - no human spirit.

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Ephesians 4:24.

I am right again!

I recall that John speaks only of two in his epistles. The spirit that is of God, and the spirit that is not of God, also known as the antichrist.

That's the "spirit" or "attitude" of antichrist and antichristian. Even the antichrist is born a dichotomy (body and soul - no human spirit.) It's like the "spirit of Christmas" and the like. The "spirit of this world" and other ungodly "attitudes" unsaved men have.

Well, one would have to look at the etymology of the word demon, would they not? Why do we talk about dinosaurs, but if you went back before the 1820s (I believe, perhaps the 1840s) no one would have a clue what you were talking about? The also say devils. Just who is Beelzebub, who apparently exists since the Jewish leaders spoke of him, and Jesus knew exactly who they meant? Did Jesus lie when He spoke of Beezelbub?

That's where real bible study is found without ADDING to the Bible.
The word is an adjective when it is used. And if a noun then it's not talking about Satan or Lucifer. Jesus said, [Judas] was a "devil" meaning "traducer" which means "someone who impugns the character of another" or simply, "liar."
He wasn't calling Judas the actual Lucifer" or "Satan."
I am right again!

So Jesus lied. I got it. I understand. Jesus used other terms, properly translated, that show that demons (what we call them) are a thing. It even speaks of unclean spirits. Jesus described what happens to the spirits after they are cast out. Considering you don't believe Jesus cast any out, wouldn't that make that all a lie? And apparently there are levels of evil associated with these spirits, as Jesus says they go and they come back to the person they left, and see the house cleaned up and in order, so the go out and find other spirits more wicked then they. This is Jesus talking. I think we can believe what He says, even if you don't.

Ever heard of "attitude adjustment." A lot of that takes place in the military. Drill sergeants cast out wrong attitudes everyday with recruits. Have you ever had your attitude adjusted by someone? I have. I went from a prideful man, was schooled, and became humble in that moment and learned an important lesson in life. One time my ex-girlfriend called me a "jerk." Boy, that adjusted my attitude to no end. I was checked and never was a jerk with her again. Same thing.
I am right again.

Jesus did not blaspheme, but He did eat with sinners. So, if Jesus is sinless, and yet is eating with sinners, what does that mean? Well, obviously, that means it isn't a sin to eat with sinners. That is a man made "sin", and I already said that it is God who is the standard. What did Jesus say when they accused him of this manmade sin of eating with sinners? Basically, he said the sick need a Physician. So basically, what good is it for Jesus to come to the world to save sinners, if He doesn't go to the sinners? What good is a Doctor if he only goes and treats healthy people? Jesus went to the sinners. He didn't sin with them. The reasons we are given not to associate with sinners... wait we have no such thing. We are only told not to associate with those who claim they are of the faith, and are false teachers. Why? So we aren't deceived and fall away from the faith, and so that if another weaker brother sees us with a heretic or false teacher, they don't associate that with the beleiif that that means they aren't heretics/false teachers, and what they teach is truth. Jesus doesn't have this problem. He knows the truth, and the only people affected by Jesus eating with sinners were the self-righteous hell bound religious leaders, of whom Jesus had nothing good to say, other then telling the disciples to stay away and not to "listen" to them. (Beware the leaven of the pharisees.)

Pharisees are sinners and they ate with each other. TO THE GALLOWS!! Get a rope! In Scripture there are two perspectives to be aware of. From God's eternal perspective the justified are holy, sinless, righteous. But from our perspective in time, I am a sinner in need of a Savior! Both are true.

Apparently you have missed the point of scripture. The Gentiles are told that as believers they do not have to follow the law, because that is the burden of the Jews. They give the Gentiles a list of things they should not do, and say that if they follow that, then things will be well with them. Nowhere does the scripture give the idea that the Jews lose their identity. What we see is that the non-Jewish Gentile believers are not required to pick up that identity for themselves. It's not that difficult to understand.

The Law according to God who wrote it is "instruction in righteousness so that we may be throughly furnished unto all good works."
So, no, the Law is not "abolished" or "obsolete." We must still obey the command in the Law to not have other gods before us, right?
RIGHT!
I am right again.

Yes. What they were telling Paul is that you are now amongst the Jews. Make like a Jew. Didn't Paul say he would be all things to all people? This is why he had no issue, besides the fact that he is a Jew. Anything he needed to do (outside of sin) that would further the gospel.

Context. Follow the context. Being all things to all people takes knowledge, a little initiative, and a jack of all trades.
I am right again!

Did you just add to the Bible? First of all it says all scripture, so that includes the New Testament, which is instructive. Without the New Testament you don't have much doctrine. And Paul spent a lot of time instructing in righteousness. But Paul is not telling anyone to do anything here. He is making a STATEMENT that says that the Bible/All scripture is from God to man (and elsewhere, through man) and as such is perfect, profitable for all these things. If you read it, THEN you may be perfect, being thoroughly furnished unto good works. So Saul is not telling anyone to do anything. A reminder/an instruction on what the Bible is, etc. (While perhaps not completely full of all scripture (a lot of Paul's writings and the writings of others are gone), it is pretty close to the Old Testament, and the New Testament. Some/all of those other books, such as found in the Catholic BIble, are not inspired, however they have been considered good reading, just not on the level of scripture. Some are commentaries, and some contain history that is useful.

The New Testament wasn't even written yet. Otherwise, we have to exclude John's Revelation prophecy. He wrote it in AD 90-100. We'd have to exclude Acts and other letters. "All Scripture" refers to the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets:

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:25–27.

To Jesus Moses and the Prophets is Scripture - ALL Scripture. The same Scripture Saul declared He obeyed:

14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:14.

Saul didn't say, "New Testament." Jesus didn't say, "New Testament."
I am right again!

Well sure. However, it is possible they weren't following that law prior to salvation. A lot of Jews weren't. Baal, Ashteroth, etc. Coming to salvation, they left all that behind and embraced their Lord God and King. I'm rather sure they didn't take the Lord's name in vain, and most Americans (I have seen) know this even if they don't follow it. (Nothing funnier (in a depressing way) then entering a church with a bunch of military people. Even they understand the sanctity, even if they just hold to it in a church. At least the have that much respect for a God they don't know. What does that say about someone who says they are a believer and know God yet they still take the Lord's name in vain?)

Apparently you don't understand order. The higher level always comes first. So if He was GOD (divinity) in the flesh (humanity), the the order is divinity first then humanity. However, that isn't right because, as already stated, Jesus was 100% God and 100% humanity. There was no humanity above divinity, or divinity above humanity. They are equal in Christ.

Jesus 'was' a man. Jesus is still a man. He was "God in the flesh" NOT "flesh in the God."

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16.

God was manifest in the flesh, NOT "the flesh was manifested in God."
I am right again.

"9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

The language would go back to Corinthians where it says that everything was subject to the Son, except, obviously the one who subjected everything to Him. Since I think that is what you are aiming at, all I can say is, troll.

Ephesians 1:
"20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."

However, since you don't seem to believe Jesus is God, I could give you that.

No, I believe Jesus is God. But not everything is subjected to Christ.

So you didn't even understand the passage. Peter is not the rock. The rock is the FAITH Peter showed. And no, it doesn't have to be Peter showing it. The rock upon which the church is built (not so much a foundation, but the floor), is faith in Christ, where Christ is the foundation of the church. It is by that faith that the people come into the church, which is "building the church", since the church is the people, not some building. It always goes back to FAITH. That rock is the base layer of faith upon which all else is built. The lowest level of faith, the ground floor, the entry level of faith into the church is... Christ. Our faith in Christ being the Son of the Most High God, which Jesus told Peter that neither flesh nor blood had revealed to him, but the Father.

Are you getting 'sharpened'? All these statements - if they were all true - you'd get sharpened. But Iron cannot sharpen clay!

The definition (top level) I hold to is that God is One BEING, made up of three coexisting, coeternal PERSONS, known as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are distinct in that it isn't one person wearing a different name tag depending on the day of the week. They are three... in one. Not one in three. Jesus is God (Son of God, to include title) who became flesh to live amongst His creation. (John 1 says nothing was created except that the Logos (the Word we know by the name Jesus) created it.) Both God and man in one body. That is divinity and flesh, the Word become flesh. The Father in heaven, the Holy Spirit upon Christ (shown visibly at the baptism of John the Baptist), and Jesus doing the work of the Father by the power of the Spirit. It's amazing that while salvation is by Christ, all three were involved.

God has always had a triune nature, but as God (The one Being), He introduced Himself solely as God to Israel, not as His triune nature. However there must be a reason why He kept harping on the Lord God being One. Teaching them from the beginning that the Son of God, while distinct, is God, just as the Father is God. They just didn't understand. There is way too much to this, so this is barely a bare bones showing.

However, if you can explain to me how that is a doctrine of demons which you say don't exist (so where did that come from anyway), I could perhaps join you in not being trinitarian. You will find that incredibly difficult. I am set solid in my belief of the triune God. But that's generally because you have to start out with an understanding of who God is, and work your way from there. If you start from yourself, as you seem to have done, you are going to louse everything up. First, learn who God is, then learn about His sovereignty, then how that relates to the creation, then how that relates to us. How we relate to God is moving in the wrong direction. You start with GOD then work your way down. By getting all of that, you know your position, and you know WHY that's your position.

Doctrine of demons is any doctrine that is not Bible. Such as the teaching widely held in the Gentile "church" that Gentiles were under the Law and Jesus died for Gentiles.
Not only is that a doctrine of demons but it is also the very delusion God said He was going to send upon the earth.
We can only hope the two Revelation witnesses (chapter 11) address that false doctrine and clear up the false Constantinian Gentile theology that's in the world today.
The Bride is Israel; the Church is Israel; and only Israel are the redeemed of God.
Only Israel.
I am right again.

 

[armylngst]

So, God is the bullseye? You also believe Adam was a bullseye, too, to claim he was sinless in his creation.

Wisdom chases after you, but you have always been faster. God is the bullseye. That is, the law that God set down, that is in keeping with who He is, is the bullseye. When Adam was created, God did not sin. God did not miss the mark. Adam was sinless. God perfect creation (simply meaning... God DID NOT SCREW UP.) Everything is by God's design. Adam was sinless, that is, Adam did not miss God's standard UNTIL HE MISSED GOD'S STANDARD.

But the word sin does mean "[to] miss the mark]" as in archery (Strong's.) And that is what Adam was in his creation.

So God screwed up? God missed the mark with His creation, and thus ceased to exist?

I agree God is the standard. Everything and everyone are judged in light of God's standard. But here's something many - including you - fail to understand. If Adam was created sinless, then in order to make or meet God's standard he would also have to possess the other Deific Attributes and Nature of God or he would "miss the mark."

What are you babbling about? God is the standard of right and wrong. His deific attributes have nothing to do with that. Are you telling me that to fulfill the Law, Jesus had to be omnipresent when on Earth? Why wasn't He? Did He miss the mark? The standard God set was to do what God said. As long as Adam did what God said, he did not miss the mark. He was sinless in that regard, because he had no sin nature, and was completely innocent. Like when God said that those under 20 when Israel rebelled against God on the way to the promised land would not die because they didn't know the difference between good and evil. He wasn't holding them accountable for what the parents did. They didn't know.

He would fall short of God's glory, or standard. There are only two Persons that can stand blameless before a Holy, Sinless, Righteous, Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent God and they are the Holy Son and the Holy Spirit.

So you believe in three Gods, with two beholden to and required to stand blameless before God?

In order to stand blameless before God who is the standard Adam would have to possess ALL the other deific Attributes and Nature of God or Adam would fall short since God Himself is the standard. So, if Adam was sinless but not eternal he falls short of God's standard. If Adam was sinless but not Omniscient, All-powerful, All-wise, Righteous, etc., then he falls short of the standard or glory of God and I am right again.

I have not idea where you got your view from, but I want to say heresy. Then standard has nothing to do with God's glory, or His nature/being. God created Adam in His likeness. It wasn't a spitting image. It never was intended to be. God created man for a purpose, and in that, Adam lived up to that purpose, that standard, until he didn't. Paul did not say that God created Adam with sin in him. Adam was without sin UNTIL sin was found in him. Was that sin that he couldn't do his homework, play games, eat food, and all of that in different places at the same time? (Omnipresence). No. He ate a fruit God told him not to eat. What does that have to do with the nature of God? NOTHING. God set a standard. Do not eat that fruit. What did Adam do? He ate that fruit. SIN. Paul also didn't say that not being omnipresent brought sin to life. Not even not being omniscient. It was when God gave the law, when God gave the standard that it became possible to miss the standard.

When a person is born-again, they are now in the image of Christ. Christian also means "Christ-like." We are justified (declared "Not Guilty!") and before God we are sinless, Holy, Righteous. Not before. When God said "Let us make man in our own image" He had the new man in mind, not the old man. Old things have passed away. We are being conformed into the image of Christ, and this is our sanctification. There was nothing in Adam that God saw as "His [God's] image." Or God could have referred to the future Jesus the Christ/Messiah who is definitely in God's perfect image. And here is the proof:

Again, I don't know where you got the false teaching from, but you need to fix it. God did not have the new man in mind. The man he created was already perfect. That is, as far as being human, Adam was perfect. No flaws. Unblemished. Man was sinless for a very short period of time. That is to say, man was exactly what God wanted man to be. Man met the standard God set. When we say God is the standard, it isn't speaking of His nature, that is omniscience, omnipresent, etc. It is speaking as to what God has told us of Himself in His law. The 10 commandments. The laws given to Israel. We know God is pure, so He demands that we be pure. We know just how perfect God wants us to be in the law He has given. If you murder someone, you aren't supposed to go to jail. God's justice says you are to die. There can be mercy, but that is extra. The whole idea of redemption to the point of calling it redemption is that man was one way, then he wasn't, and God is going to bring man BACK to that point. This is why Jesus is compared to Adam, as Adam is the beginning of humanity. In Adam humanity started with God, then sinned. Jesus is, as far as humanity is concerned, an Adam remake. Jesus didn't sin, so Jesus, in a philosophical existential view, takes Adam's place for humanity.

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Colossians 1:14–15.

Jesus Christ is the image of God the Father and when we become born-again we are becoming conformed into the image of Christ.

That image that Jesus is in says that Jesus is the same substance, which means Jesus is God. Jesus came in the flesh, in the form of a man, which is why He is the acceptable sacrifice for the sins of mankind.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Romans 8:29.

So, I am right again.

No.

Adam had no choice to not sin.

He had a choice. God determined what the end result would be, but Adam had the choice. It was always going to be, but Adam had a choice. He could have chosen not to sin. What you need to understand is that the existence of a choice does not automatically mean he could have chosen differently. It just removes excuse. You COULD HAVE chosen not to sin Adam. That possibility was there. There is not reason why God wouldn't put the possibility there, since He determined the outcome.

He behaved according to his sinful nature as Christ behaved according to His Righteous Nature.

Adam didn't have a sin nature until he sinned. He didn't even know what sin was.

A leopard cannot change its spots. Adam sinned because he was a sinner.

You really need to stop butchering scripture. If God created a sinner (which is what you are saying) we have to go with your determination, which is that that makes God a sinner. Like you said, evil can only come from one who is evil, therefore sin (Adam in his creation) only comes from one who sins. Adam was not a sinner until sin was found in him. Stop making it complicated. It really is that simple.

He is not a sinner because he sinned. It is the first statement that is true not the second. Because if Adam became a sinner because he sinned then the sin moves from his nature to his act of sin, which in his case is disobedience.

And that is how it was. It was an action. That action corrupted his nature. Since you completely butchered scripture you can't see that. It was no isolated incident. Adam and Eve ate the fruit, and there were cascading affects that show that it was the action of them eating the fruit that changed everything. They went from innocent and sinless to sinners. They ate the fruit, and as scripture says, there eyes were open and they realized they were naked. Technically they were not naked. That is, it didn't mean anything to them, like it doesn't to animals. However, the sin of the eating the fruit corrupted their nature, and now, immorality became a thing. Now they were naked. It meant nothing to them before.

This would destroy the Doctrine of Imputation for this doctrine explains and reveals a "nature-swap." Christ takes our sin nature, and we take His Righteous Nature. Peter alludes to us being divine having received Christ's Divine Nature. Do you need the Scripture? No? OK, here it is:

If you want to put it in terms of Paul, Adam and Eve were free at the beginning. Neither slaves of sin, or slaves of righteousness. Innocent and free. No sin nature, no chains, no nothing. And then, they sinned, and sin showed up, chained them up, and dragged them away as slaves. It BECAME their nature. Jesus came to make humanity (those who believe in Him) free again. However, that isn't the proper way to put it. He came to make us His slaves. Slaves of righteousness.

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 2 Peter 1:4.

THIS is the imputation of Christ's Righteous Nature and He takes our sin nature. A "nature-swap."

We have one because of Adam. Adam did not have a nature to sin until he sinned and sold humanity into slavery to sin.

You said, "Adam is sinless." Having one Deific Attribute of God (sinlessness) and not others or ALL of them leaves Adam "missing the mark."

Sinless is not a deific attribute. It can't be. God isn't shooting archery with us. He is the judge. The judge does not partake, except that Jesus stepped down and joined us for a short while.

The word is "sin." He falls short. The word for that is also "sin." Christ is in the image of God and He did not sin, so it seems that sin does not and cannot come from someone who is actually Sinless - as Christ is. Sin comes from sinful. Sin does not come from sinless. This is very easy to understand but you "miss the mark" and fall short of God's standard.

There is a reason why Satan, who tempted Adam either in the form of a serpent, or possessed a serpent, also tempted Christ. Jesus, technically, for the purpose of His reason for coming, could have sinned. Again, it is one of those, while it is there doesn't mean it would/could happen. The difference is Adam was created sinless BECAUSE he was created innocent. Jesus was sinless because He is God in the form of a man. And He remained sinless because He was not "innocent" like Adam, but He was God in human form. He knew God's word because He is God's Word. (Do with that what you want. Jesus was the Logos.)

There are not two ways to being tempted, only one. According to Peter the angels that sinned were cast down reserved in darkness and awaiting judgment. He was 'locked up.' So, Satan/Lucifer was not the one who was tempting Him. Jesus' temptation came from within Him, not without Him.

Wow. Um, it was Satan. And the way that the religious leaders, Jesus, Peter, etc spoke of Satan, he is not locked up. He is the prince of the power of the air. The system of sin that prevails over the world has Satan at its head. God has given him a time to be, but his judgment is coming. Those angels that sinned sinned in the time of Noah. Satan sinned LONG BEFORE THAT.

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James 1:14.

That is true. However there is more to it. Why else does scripture say that if we draw near to God, Satan flees? Why?

It says, "every man." Jesus is a man. This includes Him. Jesus was hungry and the temptation was the ability to turn stones into bread. But He passed that test. You see, if Satan broke out of his jail and was personally involved in Jesus' temptation then Jesus cannot be our Mediator and Intercessor for, He would not know what it's like to be tempted from within as "EVERY MAN" is tempted.

Satan is not in jail. He isn't imprisoned until the millennial kingdom. The dragon that scripture keeps speaking of, that is free every time it is spoken of EXCEPT for during the millennial kingdom, is Satan. Here is the problem you seem to have. If your belief runs contrary to the spoken words of Jesus Himself, you go with your beliefs and add/remove from what Jesus Himself said. The Bible being the written word of God, you add/remove from what God has said. What does Peter say about Satan? Does he say that Satan is in prison, or did he say that he is like a lion seeking those he might devour?

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15.

That yet without sin is important. And why does it talk about all points? I mean, was He tested to see if He was omnipresent? Perhaps omniscient? Omnipotent? I mean, you already said that that is part of what makes us sinners. Not being omnipresent, as Jesus wasn't omnipresent. Or omniscient, as Jesus wasn't omniscient. He veiled His deity while on Earth. He put that all aside when He took on the form of a man. Based on what you say, that means He became a sinner, right? NO. And we clearly have in evidence with His time with a completely free Satan (your butchering of scripture nothwithstanding) that it is all based on action. What did Jesus DO. He did not sin, that is what He did. Except you say that sin is what we ARE, not what we do, and that is our humanity. So what about Jesus humanity?

If Satan was the one tempting Him then Jesus was not tempted "in all points like as we are" because Satan doesn't tempt the everyday man.

That makes absolutely NO SENSE. Scripture tells us three categories of sin. Three points as it were, and Satan hit all three. The lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. Start with the lust of the flesh. Jesus was hungry, and could have satisfied these urges of the flesh by making food out of stones and eating it, instead of trusting God. Let the desires of the flesh win out over the desires of the spirit. Harness the desires of the flesh, and act on them. Jesus did not. How about the pride of life? No one knew who Jesus was, and it caused Jesus great suffering. They insulted Him, denied Him at every step, etc. However, Satan gave Him a way to get back at them. Jump off this high place, and everyone will know who they were insulting, who they weren't listening to, the moment angels show up in mass to keep His feet from striking the ground. I mean, it presents Jesus as completely stuck up that He wouldn't even want the ground to touch His Godly feet in a fall. Such pride, that Jesus did not have. And the lust of the eyes. Satan offered Jesus the whole world, all that he could see (metaphorically apparently, though he saw a lot), no need to suffer on the cross, just bow to Satan. All of it could be His. No pain. No suffering. No Garden of Gethsemane. Just worship Satan.

Jesus was tempted on all points that we are tempted. It isn't speaking to HOW Satan tempts. You have a really corrupt mind. Is there anything left in their that hasn't been corrupted? Satan doesn't tempt the everyday man, and one of the most important reason as to why not? He isn't omnipresent. That's what demons are for. As God as His angels as messengers, Satan has the fallen angels who are his messengers. If you look at how the Jews considered demons, you would understand.

He can be in only one place at a time and men endure temptation by the billions every moment of the day. So, I am right again.

That's no victory. Even elementary school kids know Satan isn't omnipresent, and that demons tempt us. We are drawn by our lusts, however, what catches the attention of our lust?

He is the propitiation for "our sins" (John and the one he wrote to) but for "the whole world" refers to the whole world of Jews. The world was not atoned by Jesus' sacrifice. They were not even under the Law.

No. It speaks to the whole world. Else John would not have said the whole world. Again, Paul said that to be under the Law is DEATH. How many times do I have to tell you this until you get it? Salvation is by faith. The Jews have the covenant, which is their inheritance of the land of Israel, and all the land promised to Abraham. There was no promise of salvation in the covenant, but that it would come out of the covenant, and would be the salvation of the world. Israel is the wife of Jehovah, the church is the bride of Christ. Unless you want to start talking about adultery.

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Galatians 4:3–5.

Salvation is OF the Jews. That is, it comes FROM the Jews. It's their fault. Considering what is their fault (salvation for the world), it isn't an insult. However, Gentiles do not partake in the land promises to Israel. Their portion is Christ. No land promises for the Gentiles, because that covenant was made with Israel. However, their is A LOT more land to Earth then what was promised to Israel.

Who's the "we" in this verse? The whole world? WRONG! It refers to those who were under the Law meaning the children of Israel. If Jesus atoned the "whole world" then why are the atoned an enemy of God? And such an enemy that God warns us about?

Yes, Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of those under the law, but not only for those under the law, but for the whole world. Again, it isn't that difficult to understand. And I believe there is a verse written to believers that said they were once enemies with God, but no more.

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 1 John 2:15–16.

There is sin in a nutshell. the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. Now, why isn't lack of omnipresence, the lack of omniscience, the lack of omnipotence, etc. not listed here?

Well, bust my buttons! And John is NOT being redundant either. He is not saying, "Love not the [things] in the world" and then say it again "nor the things in the world." John is in the first part referring to people who are NOT atoned such as Gentiles because as Saul says in Galatians 4:4-5 Jesus came to "redeem those under the Law" - JEWS, NOT Gentiles, because Gentiles were never under the Law. So, I am right again. Perfect score. I haven't "missed the mark" at all but all my statements are BULLSEYE! I and my Father are ONE! LOL. I am perfect, sinless, I quote the Scripture and apply it accordingly and I keep being right. I keep hitting the mark!

You are so wrong that you think you are right. You missed the mark in a big way. In fact, you shot at the wrong target. You shred the plan of redemption which is not just Jews, but the whole world. The promise made to EVE. Consider Melchizedek. Melchizedek was, essentially, a non-Hebrew Gentile who was the High Priest of almighty God. And one to whom Jesus HIMSELF was directly connected to. Jesus, of the line of Melchizedek and King David. There is so much you miss. You butcher scripture regularly. I mean, I am far from perfect, but next to you... I may not need to study ever again.

Why doesn't it mean "universe."? I know. It means the planet. Right? "God so loved the planet that He gave..."

You are right, it means planet, and as such, as a symbol speaks universally of mankind. God so loved all mankind that He gave His only begotten Son that those who believe in Him by faith may not perish, but have everlasting life. The King James butchered this verse by saying whosoever. That isn't present in the verse. It speaks more to those who are in the action of believing in Jesus [by faith] will not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world. Why would John be saying this if the Jews already knew this? Jesus was sent as a human, so it is saying that Jesus didn't come to condemn humanity as a whole, but that it might be saved in Him. It first came to Israel, then and then, from Israel spread to the world.

You are so very confused. The word can also mean "inhabitants" and in this verse it does.

Then why doesn't anybody else say so. I mean, even the scholars are clear on this.

John says, "Love NOT the planet," right? No, he means the unsaved, unatoned, uncircumcised, non-covenant Gentiles.

That is not what he means. He means not to love the system of the world. Satan's system. Satan's kingdom. Also, do not love the things that are in the world because of the system of the world. The lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life.

He says don't love them. And he is right. In Scripture Israel is represented by a woman. (Rev. 12.) But Gentiles also are represented by a woman - the whore of Babylon (Rev. 18.)

Wow, you need help.

Hosea says that God says to Israel, "I will betroth thee unto me." which means Israel is the Bride and there is a Marriage Supper to attend.

Actually, Israel is the wife of Jehovah, but the Marriage Supper is for the Lamb (the Son, Jesus) and His bride. Are you connecting God to adultery? Is The Father stealing His Son's bride? Just what are you insinuating?

So, if a woman represents Israel, and a woman represents Gentiles, and you say God loves the world of Gentiles, then tell me - what is it called when a husband loves another woman in the same way as his marital bride? It's called "Adultery" and your belief that God loves another woman called Gentiles makes God and Christ ADULTERERS! Yup, that's what you teach and it is wrong again. God loves only Israel and He is betrothed to Israel as His Bride, and when it all is said and done believers will attend a Marriage Supper in which there must have been a wedding. God is Faithful. He does not love two women the same. He loves ONLY Israel and He died for Israel as Saul says in Galatians 4:4-5 (see above.)
I am right again!

No. That women does not speak to Gentiles as you say. And yes, I guess you are outing yourself for having the Father forsake His wife and go after His Son's bride? Read the Old testament. Israel is not the bride of God, but the unfaithful, sinful wife. Playing the prostitute with the nations of the world. Which is why it is a big deal when he has the prophet Obadiah I believe, marry a prostitute and then whenver she is unfaithful, he takes her back. The image of God and His prostitute wife Israel. It won't remain that way. God will redeem her.

If you stop right there then we are in agreement. But you mess that up when you say God loves the world (inhabitants) and He died for the world (inhabitants.) ALL inhabitants. Now you venture into Universalism. God is not a Universalist. He doesn't love Hebrews and then turns to say He loves non-Hebrews (the world.) God loves only Israel and Israel is His Bride and He is betothed to her (Israel.)
I am right again.

God loves the world. He created it. He died for the world. He died for ALL the inhabitants and yet we have limited atonement. He died for those who would believe in Him, and nothing more. Jew and Gentile. All who would believe in Him by faith. Those religious leaders (Jewish) who blasphemed the Holy Spirit... they are damned. They will not inherit the kingdom no matter what you say. Jesus did not lie.

"His spirit was made alive"???
NEWS FLASH! Jesus as a man His spirit - human spirit - was already alive.

You don't get it. Jesus spirit, human spirit, was dead because it bore the sins of the world. (What exactly that means has probably been debated forever). However, once He "died", that sin was paid for. The sacrifice made. The sin was gone. His spirit (human) was made alive. (That is how I CONSIDER it. However, the Bible isn't completely clear, so it is best to stop there, or invite in false teaching.) Stop where the Bible stops. Discuss, but nothing determinate except for what is present in scripture.

Like Adam, who was created a trichotomy (body, soul, human spirit), Jesus was born trichotomy (body, soul, human spirit.) Except when Adam sinned, he "died in the day he ate from the tree" meaning his human spirit died. Jesus remained a trichotomy forever. Because Christ rules the spirit-realm Adam sinned and his human spirit died, and he became a dichotomy (body and soul - no human spirit.) Adam could not pass in his genes a human spirit to his children and so from Adam all humans except Jesus are born body and soul - no human spirit. When we become born-again God creates a new human spirit in us and we are restored to a trichotomy while the unsaved and unatoned remain body and soul - no human spirit.

Wow, so Jesus never died. That means the cross means nothing. That also means He didn't rise again (resurrection), for that requires death. Jesus had to die for our sins. Obviously the divine nature did not die, but His human nature did. However, I consider that death, behind the scenes, was His taking the sin of the world. The spiritual death that Adam died, except that Jesus was innocent. So in death, His spirit, innocent of sin, was made alive. God does not create a new human spirit in us. The human spirit that is dead in sin, God has resurrection within us. Calvin refers to it as regeneration. Psalm 51:10 "
"Create in me a clean heart, O God;
and renew a right spirit within me."

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Ephesians 4:24.

I am right again!

Nope. At least you are on the same planet as the ballpark with this one, but the old man died, and the new man is come. If you look at it philosphically, both are one person. With the resurrection of the spirit, the old way, that old man is cast away. Who we once were. And the Holy Spirit is totally involved in that renewal/recreation.

That's the "spirit" or "attitude" of antichrist and antichristian. Even the antichrist is born a dichotomy (body and soul - no human spirit.) It's like the "spirit of Christmas" and the like. The "spirit of this world" and other ungodly "attitudes" unsaved men have.

That's where real bible study is found without ADDING to the Bible.

All you have been doing is adding to the Bible.

The word is an adjective when it is used. And if a noun then it's not talking about Satan or Lucifer. Jesus said, [Judas] was a "devil" meaning "traducer" which means "someone who impugns the character of another" or simply, "liar."
He wasn't calling Judas the actual Lucifer" or "Satan."
I am right again!

He spoke to the evil that is Judas. Called him A devil. (Which is basically a messenger of Satan, when you look into all the beliefs of what a demon/devil is.) And the word used in scripture is directly translated to demon. However, it became what we know today over time.

Ever heard of "attitude adjustment." A lot of that takes place in the military. Drill sergeants cast out wrong attitudes everyday with recruits. Have you ever had your attitude adjusted by someone? I have. I went from a prideful man, was schooled, and became humble in that moment and learned an important lesson in life. One time my ex-girlfriend called me a "jerk." Boy, that adjusted my attitude to no end. I was checked and never was a jerk with her again. Same thing.
I am right again.

You "I am right again" is pride. Woeful pride. I don't think I am "right", but I know when you are wrong. I don't discuss so much right and wrong, but like to do "for consideration". However, you are just wrong. You can be right. It wouldn't be my fault if you became right. That would be all you.

Pharisees are sinners and they ate with each other. TO THE GALLOWS!! Get a rope! In Scripture there are two perspectives to be aware of. From God's eternal perspective the justified are holy, sinless, righteous. But from our perspective in time, I am a sinner in need of a Savior! Both are true.

However, you allow one to overrule the other. You cannot. God, of course, can, but you are not God. You can be aware of, but you let it reign above all else, and it has corrupted your thought process.

The Law according to God who wrote it is "instruction in righteousness so that we may be throughly furnished unto all good works."
So, no, the Law is not "abolished" or "obsolete." We must still obey the command in the Law to not have other gods before us, right?
RIGHT!
I am right again.

Um, where are you getting the idea that the Law is abolished or obsolete. You do know that if the law was abolished or obsolete, it means that sin stopped being sin right? Jesus said He did not come into the world to remove/destroy sin, such as taking the law, putting into a book form and say, here is the law, and then burn it. No, the law remains. However, we cannot fulfill it. No one can. That is why Paul says to follow the Law is death. You break one, you broke the whole. There is no following the Law once you have broken it. You are guilty. Jesus did not come to remove sin, or invalidate sin. He didn't come to say that God has simply pardoned us all. No. God says there is a price to pay, and that is it. Jesus fulfilled the Law in Himself by never sinning. Adam broke the Law, which in this case was the single command God gave, but was the gateway to a world of sin, and sold all humanity into slavery. Jesus basically says, you are sinners, but I have fulfilled the Law for you. All you have to do is believe in faith, and accept, not reject, Him. And then He takes that sin on Himself, and clothes you in His righteousness. It is by faith. It is not by following the Law. We can't. Again, once you break one, you are done. You have just sentenced yourself to death. However, in Christ, we find salvation from the Law. The Law was a tutor that pointed the way to salvation, which is Christ.

Context. Follow the context. Being all things to all people takes knowledge, a little initiative, and a jack of all trades.
I am right again!

You lost the whole meaning...

The New Testament wasn't even written yet. Otherwise, we have to exclude John's Revelation prophecy. He wrote it in AD 90-100. We'd have to exclude Acts and other letters. "All Scripture" refers to the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets:

Ahem. It was written by Lazarus around 60AD. (Sorry, I am interjecting someone else's belief, not my own.) I agree. Revelation was written around 95AD. He was freed from exile by the Roman Senate who sought to undo all the emperor had done.

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:25–27.

This shows that Peter and the apostles did not fully understand everything going on. Such as, the Pentecost is not the fulfillment of Joel, however, it appeared to be for an apostle (Peter) who was expecting Jesus to bring about the kingdom quickly. However, Joel and the prophets speak to horrible things happening to Israel that ends when God pours out the spirit on Israel. So while it appears to be like Joel, that prophecy speaks to when Jesus rescues Israel before the millennial kingdom, and pours out a spirit of regeneration upon all Israel, that they look upon Him whom they have pierced, and mourn for Him. (Zechariah.)

To Jesus Moses and the Prophets is Scripture - ALL Scripture. The same Scripture Saul declared He obeyed:

14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:14.

We should believe all those things, because they are true. That doesn't mean follow. (And by saying not follow, I don't mean break them.)

Saul didn't say, "New Testament." Jesus didn't say, "New Testament."
I am right again!

The New Testament is part of the scriptures. Or are you going to destroy you argument by removing the New Testament from the equation. I mean, that would only remove Jesus, right? Are you saying that God didn't know there would be a New Testament, and so He didn't mean that when He had Paul write those words? You spoke of two views of the world, God, who knows everything and knows it as done, and our view, where we are all sinners until we are saved.

Jesus 'was' a man. Jesus is still a man. He was "God in the flesh" NOT "flesh in the God."

This makes even less sense then the first time you said it, if that is even possible.

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16.

Preached unto whom?

God was manifest in the flesh, NOT "the flesh was manifested in God."
I am right again.

No. What you Bible says is correct, but that is not what you have been saying.

No, I believe Jesus is God. But not everything is subjected to Christ.

Wow. Big words. You need to read I Corinthians again. Everything is subject to Christ, but I guess Paul guess that you personally would be somewhere in the crowd, added except for the one who placed everything in subjection to Him. Paul was ridiculing someone because he spoke of it as, well, that's just common sense. Obviously the one who put everything in subjection to Christ would not be subjected to Christ. I mean, common sense.

Are you getting 'sharpened'? All these statements - if they were all true - you'd get sharpened. But Iron cannot sharpen clay!

You are still crumbling.

Doctrine of demons is any doctrine that is not Bible. Such as the teaching widely held in the Gentile "church" that Gentiles were under the Law and Jesus died for Gentiles.

I would say that is not true. I would say that a "doctrine of demons" better fits heresy. Outright heresy and blasphemy. I have never said that the Gentiles were under the law, and even Peter himself said that the Gentile believers were not under the law. (Except you claim that they are Jewish which means they are, and since God told Peter to write it, what did you just make God do?) Gentiles are savedy by FAITH, as are Jews. However, the Jews are the apple of God's eye. The Gentiles are not the chosen nation of God, that is Israel. However, none of that has anything to do with Christ. In His body, the church, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. Outside the church, that is a whole other matter. And what does Paul say? He says that Jesus put that hatred, that emnity, that existed between the Gentiles and Jews, and put it to death in His body.

Not only is that a doctrine of demons but it is also the very delusion God said He was going to send upon the earth.

Wow. You are delusional.

We can only hope the two Revelation witnesses (chapter 11) address that false doctrine and clear up the false Constantinian Gentile theology that's in the world today.

You don't even know what those two Revelation witnesses do. They are on Earth as missionaries of a sort. More like prophets. They are thorns in the side of the beast and his people. And, I think you somehow have true Christians confused with Catholics.

The Bride is Israel; the Church is Israel; and only Israel are the redeemed of God.
Only Israel.
I am right again.

The Bride is the church. The church is NOT Israel. Replacement theology is a doctrine of demons, as I consider it rank heresy. Israel is the wife of Jehovah. The Bible is clear. The church is the bride of Christ. Even Paul said that the existence of the church was unknown in the Old Testament. It was a mystery. It's revelation is what even Peter missed. Consider the disciples believed that with Jesus death and resurrection, the world was basically over. They asked Him "Will you now restore the kingdom to Israel". Why? They still didn't get it. They missed Jesus first coming, to the point that Jesus spent 40 days teaching them before He left. They were confused about the coming end. They missed the whole "times of the Gentiles". The church is during that time, and includes Jews and Gentiles. Not all Jews, not all Gentiles. Those who believe in Christ by faith. Israel has their inheritance in God/Jehovah/the Father. The church has its inheritance in Christ. Israel has a land inheritance promised by covenant with Abraham. Gentiles do not. Again, their part is in Christ.