Galatians 4 two opposing covenants.

[Studyman]

I think you think many of us do not understand grace including this aspect of it: Titus2:11-14

As my post said, it’s not that the Pharisees didn’t know “what” Grace is, they were deceived as to the “purpose” of Grace.

The purpose of Grace is not so man can “continue in sin”, as I pointed out Paul’s word which began Romans 6. It’s so we may become willing and obedient as the Christ tells us in HIS Words I also posted.

As Paul says, so we can “Yield ourselves” servants to Obey God, as opposed to professing we k ow Him, but deny Him by out disobedient works.

We then become servants to Gods Righteousness, not our own, like Zacharias, and Abraham and Paul. Members of Gods church, in which the Christ, the Holy One of Israel is the Head.

 

[GDL]

I used Paul’s Words which confirm the Christ of the Bible’s Words, that if Zacharias was willing and obedient, he would eat of the land God was bringing him into.

Zacharias believed God, whose Faith was shown by his works, and it was accounted to him as righteousness.

Of course, this doesn't answer my question about the context of Rom2:13 that adds some detail to the phrase "doers of law."

The Christ arrived from heaven in the beginning with God. You seem to forgetting you own arguments.

Abraham was also justified before the man Jesus was born, and it seems, for the same reasons.

Actually, I think you're displaying more of your lack of understanding of Jesus and the Christ and God.

Just more lack of understanding of John1:1 (as in the other concurrent thread), justification, and now 1John1, and other such issues.

Contexts and certain phrases seem to scare you a bit.

I showed you Gods own Words when He asked a religion who rebelled against His Laws, Despised His Judgement and polluted Hos Sabbaths, “to what purpose do you sacrifice and offer burnt offerings to me”, given they had departed out of the “Way of the Lord”?

Paul is telling us why in Romans and Galatians, “To justify themselves”, not by being willing and obedient as the Lords Christ instructed but as it were, by “works of the Law” of justification, added ”til the Seed should come”.

Actually, most of what you show is how you string together verses that you propose substantiate your theory, invent terminology to make some links seem to work, and still misunderstand works of law as simply applying to goat sacrifices.

Jesus Himself said men would not be persuaded, even if ONE rose from the dead. Once again, His Words are spot on.

To me, Zacharias was justified by the Same Power Abraham was justified by.

Yes, He sure did. And you're free to continue to use His words to justify yourself and your errors. Self-justification seems to be inherent in your thinking.

 

[Clare73]

I used Paul’s Words which confirm the Christ of the Bible’s Words, that if Zacharias was willing and obedient, he would eat of the land God was bringing him into.
Zacharias believed God, whose Faith was shown by his works, and it was accounted to him as righteousness.
I have no reason to doubt His Words, or Luke’s, or the words of Paul.
The Christ arrived from heaven in the beginning with God. You seem to forgetting you own arguments.

In the beginning (creation) was the Word (Heb: dabar, God, Ge 15:1, 4; Gr: logos, reason),
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning (creation). . .
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." (Jn 1:1, Jn 1:14)

Abraham was also justified before the man Jesus was born, and it seems, for the same reasons.

"Justified "(diakioo) is a declaration of acquittal of guilt, of forensic righteousness imputed by faith (Ro 4:2).

Abraham believed in the promise (Ge 15:5, seed; Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16) and it was imputed (credited/reckoned) to him as righteousness. (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:3)

 

[GDL]

In the beginning (creation) was the Word (Heb: dabar, God, Ge 15:1, 4; Gr: logos, reason),
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning (creation). . .
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." (Jn 1:1, Jn 1:14)

"Justified "(diakioo) is a declaration of acquittal of guilt, of forensic righteousness imputed by faith (Ro 4:2).

Abraham believed in the promise (Ge 15:5, seed; Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16) and it was imputed (credited/reckoned) to him as righteousness. (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:3)

FWIW, the verb "was" in John1:1 is one that looks back and can see a line without talking about its beginning or end - like looking back at a video instead of a photo. At times I translate it for myself as "was being/existing" so I can easily identify it in English. It's a Greek imperfect tense.

I think I recall your being averse to this in the past in some sense, but justification is not always forensic which I'm at times referring to as foundational or even initial. This is part of what @Studyman does not see IMO. What you're referring to is certainly forensic and I've seen you argue forensic justification.

 

[pasifika]

That is what the New Covenant and grace is about, right. . .all those being inextricably joined in guardianship. . .in contrast to freedom in Christ?

I see works of law as obeying the Pentateuch as the means of salvation, which again, it and all that it entails is not the New Covenant program.

Yes, works of the law is referring to our own works for salvation as given under the old covenant in Sinai. The New covenant is the opposite which is God own works for our salvation through His Son.

Old covenant : ..."the person who does these things will live by them" Lev 18:5
New covenant :..." I (God) will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts.

 

[Clare73]

FWIW, the verb "was" in John1:1 is one that looks back and can see a line without talking about its beginning or end - like looking back at a video instead of a photo. At times I translate it for myself as "was being/existing" so I can easily identify it in English. It's a Greek imperfect tense.

I think I recall your being averse to this in the past in some sense, but justification is not always forensic which I'm at times referring to as foundational or even initial. This is part of what @Studyman does not see IMO. What you're referring to is certainly forensic and I've seen you argue forensic justification.

Love it!. . .because I see God as without beginning, always was.
And which absolutely blows my brain circuits. . .I can't get my mind around that.

"In the beginning (creation) was the Word," already in existence, without beginning.

 

[Studyman]

In the beginning (creation) was the Word (Heb: dabar, God, Ge 15:1, 4; Gr: logos, reason),
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning (creation). . .
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." (Jn 1:1, Jn 1:14)

He dwelled with Noah and Abraham as well, just not in the flesh.

"Justified "(diakioo) is a declaration of acquittal of guilt, of forensic righteousness imputed by faith (Ro 4:2).

Abraham believed in the promise (Ge 15:5, seed; Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16) and it was imputed (credited/reckoned) to him as righteousness. (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:3)

Zacharias did the exact same thing.

 

[Studyman]

Of course, this doesn't answer my question about the context of Rom2:13 that adds some detail to the phrase "doers of law."

It answers your question, it just doesn't justify the religious philosophy you are promoting. Therefore you must, again, deflect from even acknowledging the scriptures posted.

Actually, I think you're displaying more of your lack of understanding of Jesus and the Christ and God.

Perhaps if you believed every Word the Jesus of the bible used to define Himself, both before and after He came in the flesh, your understanding would align itself with His Words.

Just more lack of understanding of John1:1 (as in the other concurrent thread), justification, and now 1John1, and other such issues.

Of course, you can't actually discuss the Scriptures, you must discredit the one who is quoting them. That's OK. Popular religious philosophy and traditions of men are a powerful influence, especially from men who call Jesus Lord, Lord.

Contexts and certain phrases seem to scare you a bit.

Men who go around preaching to the world that the Pharisees were "living by the Law of Moses", most certainly shouldn't be trusted to provide context. I know you mean well, but you exalt yourself.

Actually, most of what you show is how you string together verses that you propose substantiate your theory, invent terminology to make some links seem to work, and still misunderstand works of law as simply applying to goat sacrifices.

I have demonstrated from your own Bible what "Works of the Law" the Pharisees, and their fathers were promoting, even asking you questions that the Holy one of Israel asked. But instead of answering His question, or even discuss His words, you continue to deflect from any discussion which might bring your religious theory into question. And try instead to demean the poor slob who showed you. It's OK, this has been going on since Cain and Abel.

Yes, He sure did. And you're free to continue to use His words to justify yourself and your errors. Self-justification seems to be inherent in your thinking.

MATTHEW 4:4 KJV But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth...

Matthew 4:4 KJV: But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

 

[Clare73]

He dwelled with Noah and Abraham as well, just not in the flesh.

Zacharias did the exact same thing.

Yes. . .but God became flesh and dwelt among us as God/man Jesus of Nazareth (Jn 1:1, Jn 1:14).

 

[GDL]

Perhaps if you believed every Word the Jesus of the bible used to define Himself, both before and after He came in the flesh, your understanding would align itself with His Words.

NKJ John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The way this is written in Greek, the verb could be translated "was continually." Based upon some other nuances, "the Word was God" could even be translated "the Word was fully God."

In my own words, which I see no reason to avoid using, Jesus Christ - the Word of God - is God - fully God - and always was. Because He is God and was with God, He can speak about Himself and about God the Father with all authority.

I too have paid much attention to how much God the Son speaks of and glorifies God the Father in NC Scripture. It's something many miss IMO.

Similarly, I've always found the research and analysis of this verse fun to review: NKJ John 3:13 "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

• Much work has been done by those religious men - whom you speak of derogatorily - in analyzing manuscripts to see if this ending is real, because it looks like it has Jesus on earth saying He is in Heaven. Obviously, this has led to discussions of omnipresence and such, but this may be a religious word you find offensive.

I can see why you wouldn't want to explain in your own words what John1:1 says. IMO this reveals quite a bit about you. You certainly have no problem putting other Scriptural statements in your own words and even making up terminology to suit your self-made religion.

In closing our discussions for now, a past experience keeps coming to mind. When I was in Seminary mainly learning Greek and not being young attending for a degree so I could get a job in ministry, I had the luxury to tailor my learning to suit my sense of what I was personally there for. Theological training is many times based in reviewing commentaries and writing papers footnoting such works. I told my professor I wasn't going to partake of the practice because I just wanted to learn to analyze the Text and didn't want a lot of influences. He shared with me his appreciation for my chosen course and told me his practices with commentaries had turned into reading them mainly to see what they got wrong. That solidified my decision even more.

Although I began discussion with you seeing a few things of interest, the main thing I've come away with is seeing the things you have wrong that interestingly got me back into a few areas of the Text which I now may even see a bit more clearly than I did before. That clarity takes me even further away from your self-made religion in regard to the points we've discussed than where we were when we began discussions.

Too bad. Anyone who has a handle on God's Eternal Law AKA God's Law AKA Moral Law (per some) is someone I'd like to discuss this topic with. But those discussions would also soon end up in looking at context and other such important things when reading the works of others to take from those works what the author actually means versus inserting our own thoughts into His works. I personally find you doing way too much of the latter.

 

[Clare73]

NKJ John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The way this is written in Greek, the verb could be translated "was continually." Based upon some other nuances, "the Word was God" could even be translated "the Word was fully God."

In my own words, which I see no reason to avoid using, Jesus Christ - the Word of God - is God - fully God - and always was. Because He is God and was with God, He can speak about Himself and about God the Father with all authority.

I too have paid much attention to how much God the Son speaks of and glorifies God the Father in NC Scripture. It's something many miss IMO.

Similarly, I've always found the research and analysis of this verse fun to review: NKJ John 3:13 "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

• Much work has been done by those religious men - whom you speak of derogatorily - in analyzing manuscripts to see if this ending is real, because it looks like it has Jesus on earth saying He is in Heaven. Obviously, this has led to discussions of omnipresence and such, but this may be a religious word you find offensive.

I can see why you wouldn't want to explain in your own words what John1:1 says. IMO this reveals quite a bit about you. You certainly have no problem putting other Scriptural statements in your own words and even making up terminology to suit your self-made religion.

Yes, and it was disappointing. . .I expected so much more.

In closing our discussions for now, a past experience keeps coming to mind. When I was in Seminary mainly learning Greek and not being young attending for a degree so I could get a job in ministry, I had the luxury to tailor my learning to suit my sense of what I was personally there for. Theological training is many times based in reviewing commentaries and writing papers footnoting such works. I told my professor I wasn't going to partake of the practice because I just wanted to learn to analyze the Text and didn't want a lot of influences. He shared with me his appreciation for my chosen course and told me his practices with commentaries had turned into reading them mainly to see what they got wrong. That solidified my decision even more.

Although I began discussion with you seeing a few things of interest, the main thing I've come away with is seeing the things you have wrong that interestingly got me back into a few areas of the Text which I now may even see a bit more clearly than I did before. That clarity takes me even further away from your self-made religion in regard to the points we've discussed than where we were when we began discussions.

Too bad. Anyone who has a handle on God's Eternal Law AKA God's Law AKA Moral Law (per some) is someone I'd like to discuss this topic with. But those discussions would also soon end up in looking at context and other such important things when reading the works of others to take from those works what the author actually means versus inserting our own thoughts into His works. I personally find you doing way too much of the latter.

 

[GDL]

Yes, and it was disappointing. . .I expected so much more.

I'm always looking for any truth I may not have seen yet. As I said at the beginning of the discussion, I'm fine with wherever I learn what the Truth actually says and means and however He determines to make me listen (Num22:28). But as you clearly know very well, our job is to test spirits (1John4:1) and to verify with Scripture what we hear and read (Acts17:11). As I said, there are simply way too many interpretational problems being evidenced here.

IMO what's disappointing and beyond is whenever from whomever we encounter what may seem to be a dance around what "the Word was [continually] God" and other such truths about Jesus Christ mean.

 

[Studyman]

NKJ John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The way this is written in Greek, the verb could be translated "was continually." Based upon some other nuances, "the Word was God" could even be translated "the Word was fully God."

In my own words, which I see no reason to avoid using, Jesus Christ - the Word of God - is God - fully God - and always was. Because He is God and was with God, He can speak about Himself and about God the Father with all authority.

Authority given to Him by the One True God. It seems the Jesus of the Bible wasn't afraid or embarrassed to let People know who His God is, and where HIS Words came from, and whose Laws He respected and walked in.

I too have paid much attention to how much God the Son speaks of and glorifies God the Father in NC Scripture. It's something many miss IMO.

Similarly, I've always found the research and analysis of this verse fun to review: NKJ John 3:13 "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

• Much work has been done by those religious men - whom you speak of derogatorily - in analyzing manuscripts to see if this ending is real, because it looks like it has Jesus on earth saying He is in Heaven. Obviously, this has led to discussions of omnipresence and such, but this may be a religious word you find offensive.

I can see why you wouldn't want to explain in your own words what John1:1 says. IMO this reveals quite a bit about you. You certainly have no problem putting other Scriptural statements in your own words and even making up terminology to suit your self-made religion.

Yes, there were also religious men in Jesus Time and before that also "analyzing manuscripts", and created a religion. Gamaliel was one such famous religious philosopher. Those who followed his teaching, which was the established religion of Jesus' Time, murdered the Prophets God sent to them, and taught for doctrines the commandments of men. Jesus said Moses gave them God's Law, but they didn't live by, AKA "Keep" them.

Today we also have many religious men, as you point out, who also work hard to "analyzing manuscripts" and are responsible for this worlds established religions including their high days, sabbaths, judgments and manmade doctrines. As it turns out, Moses gave then the Law as well, but they also don't "keep" them. (As their fathers did, so do they)

What I advocate for, is for men to place their trust in God, and the Scriptures Paul said were profitable for "Doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness", as opposed to placing their trust in this world's religious men who work to "analyzing manuscripts", not for the purpose of establishing Biblical truth, but for the purpose of furthering establishment religion, like those preachers in Jesus time did.

Of course, if it ever gets out that God can reveal Himself to men through His Holy Scriptures, without the doctrines, traditions, judgments and high days of establishment religion, created by those religious men who worked to "analyzing manuscripts", then how can religions make money? How would they fill the seats of their manmade shrines of worship? What would become of all the massive businesses and wealth amassed by so many who chose a business career of preaching the doctrines, high days, philosophies created by the Gamaliel's of this world, who come in Christ's Name?

In Jesus and Stephen's time they just killed the messenger. Today they just work to discredit and marginalize those who would dare open the Scriptures and challenge the religious powers of the world God placed us in..

In closing our discussions for now, a past experience keeps coming to mind. When I was in Seminary mainly learning Greek and not being young attending for a degree so I could get a job in ministry, I had the luxury to tailor my learning to suit my sense of what I was personally there for. Theological training is many times based in reviewing commentaries and writing papers footnoting such works. I told my professor I wasn't going to partake of the practice because I just wanted to learn to analyze the Text and didn't want a lot of influences. He shared with me his appreciation for my chosen course and told me his practices with commentaries had turned into reading them mainly to see what they got wrong. That solidified my decision even more.

Although I began discussion with you seeing a few things of interest, the main thing I've come away with is seeing the things you have wrong that interestingly got me back into a few areas of the Text which I now may even see a bit more clearly than I did before. That clarity takes me even further away from your self-made religion in regard to the points we've discussed than where we were when we began discussions.

It is certainly true that you are here to preserve this world's established religion. In doing so, you must convince others of the myth that the Pharisees were "living by the Law of Moses". To become part of your religion, I am required to believe this ancient myth, in spite of scriptures, and consume all the doctrines which are the result of believing this myth.

I can't do this, because I have yielded myself a servant to obey God, rather than men, as the Scriptures clearly teach. Therefore, contention exists between us.

Too bad. Anyone who has a handle on God's Eternal Law AKA God's Law AKA Moral Law (per some) is someone I'd like to discuss this topic with.

That means anyone who questions some your religious philosophy, is not someone you would like to discuss "Moral" Law with.

But those discussions would also soon end up in looking at context and other such important things when reading the works of others to take from those works what the author actually means versus inserting our own thoughts into His works. I personally find you doing way too much of the latter.

I know many have excluded themselves from the warnings of the Christ of the bible, since they have been convinced of the authority of this world's religions and convinced "they shall surely not die". Nevertheless, it seems prudent to post them anyway.

Matt. 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many.

I have always found this fascinating. Jesus could have warned against Islam, Buddhism, Atheists, etc. But HE didn't. Of all the things HE could have warned about, HE chose to warn the Body of Christ of the future, about "Christianity". That is, men who call Jesus Lord, Lord, who come in His Name. Deceive means to promote something that isn't true. This worlds preachers are promoting the popular religious theory, that the Pharisees "were living by the Law of Moses".

The entire Bible teaches the exact opposite. This false teaching is founded on the belief that the "Works of the Law" the Jews were promoting, was Love God with all your heart, and Love your neighbor as thyself, and all that hangs on these two Greatest commandments of God. When the Bible teaches they rebelled against and omitted these commandments, despised His judgments, polluted His sabbaths and killed those who God sent to them. And then offered sacrifices and burnt offerings to Him for justification.

“But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.”

Wherefore? Because they sought it (Law of Righteousness) not by faith (belief/Obedience), but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

The Lamb of God.

Thank you for the opportunity to make these valid points and the Scriptures which showed me.

 

[GDL]

I have always found this fascinating. Jesus could have warned against Islam, Buddhism, Atheists, etc. But HE didn't. Of all the things HE could have warned about, HE chose to warn the Body of Christ of the future, about "Christianity". That is, men who call Jesus Lord, Lord, who come in His Name. Deceive means to promote something that isn't true.

At this point I'm just skimming quickly through your posts to see if something might be of any interest whatsoever. Maybe I noted the above because I reached the end so quickly.

Re: the above quote, this is why God made mirrors.

And you would again be quite wrong that God did not warn or speak about idolatry and false gods & atheism (if there even is such a thing based upon Rom1). Again, you're making things up to suit your personal narrative. If you do a little historical homework, I've seen studies that show and conclude that most of the world's religions came into existence during the time of God's silence before He sent His Son - God the Son - in the fullness of time (Gal4:4).

Why are you who will not put into his own words what John1:1 means attempting to school others on false-Christs?

 

[Studyman]

At this point I'm just skimming quickly through your posts to see if something might be of any interest whatsoever. Maybe I noted the above because I reached the end so quickly.

Re: the above quote, this is why God made mirrors.

And you would again be quite wrong that God did not warn or speak about idolatry and false gods & atheism (if there even is such a thing based upon Rom1).

Again, you attribute to my post, what doesn't exist. I never said God didn't warn about these things. I simply pointed out the Jesus of the Bibles Words when asked about the future.

The point of the Christ's Words that I posted, isn't that there aren't Atheists, or false gods and idolators in the world God placed us in, certainly there is and has been. But a believer won't be or is less likely to be deceived or influenced by an Atheist or a gold statue of Budda. But someone who "professes to know Him", these are men to take heed of. Jesus is warning His people to "Take Heed" of religious men who teach that HE is truly the Christ, but promote falsehoods about God (Deceive). Paul warns of the same thing.

2 Cor. 11: 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

And of a truth this was the theme throughout the bible. Even in Jesus' Life. It was men who professed to know God, that killed the Prophets God sent to them. Not the Pagans. It was Jesus' own Disciple that betrayed Him, not the Romans. It was the mainstream preachers of Jesus Time who claimed to know God, that called for His Son's death, not Pagan religions. So it's perfectly in line with all Scriptures to "prove all things", but to "beware", and "Take heed" especially of men who profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

In your zeal to discredit me, you are missing these important Biblical truths.

Again, you're making things up to suit your personal narrative. If you do a little historical homework, I've seen studies that show and conclude that most of the world's religions came into existence during the time of God's silence before He sent His Son - God the Son - in the fullness of time (Gal4:4).

Why are you who will not put into his own words what John1:1 means attempting to school others on false-Christs?

For the record, I'm not preaching to others the religious myth that the Pharisees were "Living by the Law of Moses". That is your doctrine, not the Jesus of the bibles, and not mine. I get that you don't want to speak to this particular myth, as it is central to the religious philosophy you are promoting.

Jesus and Paul were not warning of "False Christs" in the Scriptures I posted. They specifically warn about listening to "Men" who claim to know Him, may call Him Lord, Lord, and preach in His Name, but He doesn't know them.

So I am not "Schooling others" regarding false Christs, just pointing out the Jesus of the Bible's own Words about who His people are to "take Heed of". "By their fruits (doctrines, traditions, who they yield themselves servants to obey, etc.) we will know them".

 

[GDL]

In your zeal to discredit me, you are missing these important Biblical truths.

OK, so this one is a bit shorter, so I'll skim it less quickly.

You should not play the victim. I have no zeal to discredit you. There's no need to. Many of your interpretations discredit you. Where I think you are somehow exegeting Scripture and explaining it correctly, I've voiced my agreement with you. Where I disagree with you, I've voiced that also. Where I think you're dodging explaining a verse that seems clearly to state that Jesus Christ is eternal God [the Son], I share the concern of others that there's something amiss with you.

You just explained in your own many words what you think some Scripture says. Yet you would not explain in your own words what a few words in one Scripture about Jesus Christ mean. When I've pointed out context in a few Scriptural matters you've fallen back to asserting the religious world thinks that so its clearly wrong. Your own practices discredit you. And any assertion that I do not understand and agree with some of the things you say also discredits you.

For the record, I'm not preaching to others the religious myth that the Pharisees were "Living by the Law of Moses". That is your doctrine, not the Jesus of the bibles, and not mine. I get that you don't want to speak to this particular myth, as it is central to the religious philosophy you are promoting.

Would you care to go back to where you think I said this? Be aware that I'm going to look at the context of our discussion at that time. I know you don't like context, so this is just a heads up.

Was it in regard to what Paul said in Philippians3:4-6 and more specifically to his saying that he, a Pharisee, was blameless according to the righteousness which is in the law (which would be the Law of Moses BTW)? Did you note that Nicodemus was of the Pharisees? You are clearly trying to make some big case against me that I cannot see Christ's opposition to the religious leadership of the time. This is just more nonsense.

So I am not "Schooling others" regarding false Christs, just pointing out the Jesus of the Bible's own Words about who His people are to "take Heed of". "By their fruits (doctrines, traditions, who they yield themselves servants to obey, etc.) we will know them".

When you point out the Bible's own Words, you frequently disregard context and make up connections that do not exist. I simply do not trust how you use Scripture. The more Scripture you post in defense of some erroneous theory, the more I skip through what you reference. But I've told you this several times and have attempted to take you back to context to discuss Scriptures. You simply don't get it.

If I misunderstood what you were saying about false christs, it was based upon your posted verse reference and statements:

I know many have excluded themselves from the warnings of the Christ of the bible, since they have been convinced of the authority of this world's religions and convinced "they shall surely not die". Nevertheless, it seems prudent to post them anyway.

Matt. 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many.

I have always found this fascinating. Jesus could have warned against Islam, Buddhism, Atheists, etc. But HE didn't. Of all the things HE could have warned about, HE chose to warn the Body of Christ of the future, about "Christianity". That is, men who call Jesus Lord, Lord, who come in His Name. Deceive means to promote something that isn't true. This worlds preachers are promoting the popular religious theory, that the Pharisees "were living by the Law of Moses".

You seem to have equated men who come in His name saying I am Christ (so false christs) to men who call Jesus Lord, Lord. I probably should have asked you why you posted Matt24:4 in the middle of these 2 paragraphs and what exactly it applies to. Also, there's that issue of context again since this area of Scripture speaks of false christs arising in an eschatological context that most argue about since eschatology is very heavily and aggressively debated. But for you it's just normal practice to tie this to other verses that speak mainly of disobedience to Christ and then to the world's preachers who are promoting a religious theory about living under the law of Moses.

Honestly, you're just all over the place, so what's your point here? Honestly again, it doesn't really matter at this point. Your theory is always the world's preachers disagree with you and every verse of Scripture testifies for your theory no matter its context.

 

[Studyman]

OK, so this one is a bit shorter, so I'll skim it less quickly.

You should not play the victim. I have no zeal to discredit you. There's no need to. Many of your interpretations discredit you. Where I think you are somehow exegeting Scripture and explaining it correctly, I've voiced my agreement with you. Where I disagree with you, I've voiced that also. Where I think you're dodging explaining a verse that seems clearly to state that Jesus Christ is eternal God [the Son], I share the concern of others that there's something amiss with you.

You just explained in your own many words what you think some Scripture says. Yet you would not explain in your own words what a few words in one Scripture about Jesus Christ mean. When I've pointed out context in a few Scriptural matters you've fallen back to asserting the religious world thinks that so its clearly wrong. Your own practices discredit you. And any assertion that I do not understand and agree with some of the things you say also discredits you.

Are these not my words?

"Here is God, in the beginning, sending His Son, the Light of all men, who created the "Way which we should go", the very WORD of God, to the earth. This, along with "Every Word which proceeds from the mouth of God", teaches me about God the Father, and His Son, my savior and redeemer."

Yet in your zeal to discredit me, you missed them. This study tactic/practice of skimming the text being read, searching for something that can be used to promote religious opinions or traditions or justify self, is a popular study tactic employed by this world's religious philosophers since even before Gamaliel. IMO This learned study practice you employ, has caused you to misrepresent the Words of the Holy scriptures, as well as my posts.

I advocate for the study practice Paul employed, which considered Scriptures "all over the place". Not because I don't love or respect you, but because I do.

Would you care to go back to where you think I said this? Be aware that I'm going to look at the context of our discussion at that time. I know you don't like context, so this is just a heads up.

Was it in regard to what Paul said in Philippians3:4-6 and more specifically to his saying that he, a Pharisee, was blameless according to the righteousness which is in the law (which would be the Law of Moses BTW)?

Obviously you are convinced that "the Pharisees were living by the Law of Moses", I don't have to go back any further than these last statements of yours to know the context of your theory.

According to the Holy scriptures, Paul explained the "Jews religion" he used to partake of, 2 times, once to the Galatians and once to the Philippians.

I wasn't taught to engage in the study methods you employ, that is, to separate one scripture from the rest of the Bible, and then create doctrine based on the understanding you inject. Rather, I was taught by Jesus and His Disciples to consider Every Word, which proceeds from the mouth of God, like Paul did. So in the Spirit of reasoning with you in Scriptures, let's see what Paul actually teaches, using the study method he himself employed. What harm is there in that?

Ph. 3: 2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. 3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

So Paul and I are in agreement regarding the One True God, "And" His Son, the Jesus of the Bible, who this God sent.

4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

What "Law" did the Pharisees/Jews live by and promote which made them Blameless? Blameless before who? The same God Zacharias was Blameless before? If I employ your study method of separating this verse from Every other word of Paul, or Jesus or the entire Holy scriptures, I can inject whatever law fits whatever agenda or philosophy I'm trying to preserve and promote.

But I don't do that. Paul just told me the Law he was zealous for as a Pharisee, was the Pharisees Law. "as touching the Law, a Pharisee". How can I know what the Pharisees LAW is if I don't consider other Scriptures which define it? When a person does this, they "Find a Law".

John 19: 6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. 7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

It appears that in their Law, Stephen was to die as well, and the Prophets of old. And Gentiles were "without God and without Hope in the world". And you couldn't take a walk on the sabbath and pick a raspberry to eat along the way. And you couldn't eat unless you washed your hands a certain way. But you are omitting these Biblical Truths, skimming the scriptures in search of something to justify your own religious theory, "the Pharisees were living by the Law of Moses". I know you have been taught not to answer the questions of those unwashed, unlearned men who may question you. But it does seem prudent to ask you, "who taught you that the Law of Moses condemned Jesus, Stephen, or the Prophets of old to death"? And if the "Law of Moses" didn't condemn them, then whose Law did?

What does Jesus say about the Law of the Pharisees?

Matt. 15: 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mark 7: 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

John 7: 9 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

Matt. 23: For they (Pharisees, not Moses) bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

But maybe Paul understood differently than Jesus, let's hear his other words.

Rom. 10: 1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, "and going about to establish their own righteousness", have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

I could keep going and going and going. Of course the "Jews religion" had some aspects of God's Law, and they did "Profess to know Him", but what does that prove. The serpent also quoted "Some" of God's Word to deceive Eve.

As it is written;

Jer. 9: 23 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: 24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

25 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;

26 Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.

The Biblical Truth is that the Pharisees were not "Living by the Law of Moses". Zacharias, the Wise men, Simeon, Anna, these Faithful members of the Church of God truly lived by the Law of Moses, as did their Savior when HE became a man. These members of the Church of God the Pharisees persecuted were "Christlike". David in the Spirit of Christ speaks to these very Pharisees.

Ps. 14:4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD. 5 There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.

Your adopted religious theory, though popular in the religions of this world God placed me in, is a Myth just the same. And if you were interested in "Truth" instead of religious dogma, you would at least engage in an honest examination of Scripture which defines the Jews religion, and not just skim the post looking for a way to deflect from the questions posed therein. It is still my hope that you will.

 

[Studyman]

Did you note that Nicodemus was of the Pharisees?

He makes my point. John The Baptist told these "Rulers of the Jews" to Repent and Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

These were men who professed to know God, but by their works denied Him. I'm surprised not more preachers considered His Word's. But these men were trained by the wisest religious philosopher of that time. They were convinced they were "heirs to the promise". They had walked in the same religious traditions of their fathers for centuries. To have a nobody, a carpenter's son they believed was from Galilee, tell them they were promoting false doctrines and preaching the commandments of men, that was hard to take given the profitable business they had created selling forgiveness. As is my custom, let's look at the actual scriptures.

John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

How can a Pharisee, "living by the Law of Moses", not know about repentance? The Law and Prophets certainly teaches it. I know you won't answer my questions, but what did your study teach you the significance was, of placing the blood of the unblemished Passover Lamb on the door posts and Lintel?

Ez. 18: 30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Zacharias knew, but the Pharisees didn't.

Rom. 2: 23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. 25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

You are clearly trying to make some big case against me that I cannot see Christ's opposition to the religious leadership of the time.

No, once again, because you just skim over Scriptures, and also my posts regarding them, you misrepresent them. Namely, that the Pharisees were "living by the Law of Moses".

My case isn't against you. It's against the religious doctrines and traditions of men you are furthering. Traditions and doctrines we were warned of.

This is just more nonsense.When you point out the Bible's own Words, you frequently disregard context and make up connections that do not exist.

You have been indoctrinated and trained differently than I have. I avoid the tradition of having to choose which popular religious philosopher to believe and adopt, or which religious franchise or sect to join. I believe the Holy Scriptures flow together like a river of living water. And that God created them for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works, in this time when HE is silent. That God's Laws, even the least of them, were written, as Paul teaches " For our sakes, no doubt", and the Israelites were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. And that the things that happened to those men in the Law and Prophets, happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. So that men seeking the Truth of God can find it. Not having to purchase it from a seminary, or trust others who have purchased it. But by having Faith in God to reveal Himself apart from the Gamaliel's and self-proclaimed "ministers of righteousness" of our time.

I simply do not trust how you use Scripture. The more Scripture you post in defense of some erroneous theory, the more I skip through what you reference.

What erroneous theory is that? That the children of the devil in Jesus' time were not "living by the Law of Moses"?

But I've told you this several times and have attempted to take you back to context to discuss Scriptures. You simply don't get it.

It's not that I don't "Get" this world's religious philosophy you are promoting, I just have found it is not wrought in God.

If I misunderstood what you were saying about false christs, it was based upon your posted verse reference and statements:

Kenneth Copeland and Jim Bakker are not "False Christs", or men claiming to be Christ. They are deceivers who come in Christ's Name, who preach that Jesus is the Christ. This is what the Jesus of the bible is warning about, in my view.

You seem to have equated men who come in His name saying I am Christ (so false christs) to men who call Jesus Lord, Lord. I probably should have asked you why you posted Matt24:4 in the middle of these 2 paragraphs and what exactly it applies to.

They all speak of the same danger from the same men.

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ."

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

All warning of the same things.

Also, there's that issue of context again since this area of Scripture speaks of false christs arising in an eschatological context that most argue about since eschatology is very heavily and aggressively debated.

Yes, I'm sure the Gamaliel's and the Valentinus' and the Calvins, and the Russel's, and the Husses and the Whites of this world debate and argue and debate again.

But for you it's just normal practice to tie this to other verses that speak mainly of disobedience to Christ and then to the world's preachers who are promoting a religious theory about living under the law of Moses.

As the Jesus of the Bible teaches "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

Honestly, you're just all over the place, so what's your point here? Honestly again, it doesn't really matter at this point. Your theory is always the world's preachers disagree with you and every verse of Scripture testifies for your theory no matter its context.

At the end of the day, all this contention is because I dared to question and bring to light through Scriptures, the difference between your religious philosophy, and the actual Words of the Christ both spoken and Inspired.

It's perfectly natural for you to get defensive, and work to preserve a belief, even if the Scriptures expose it as not wrought in God. As far as this "worlds preachers", Jesus said;

"The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."

What does HE mean by "world" here? Do you think the grass and trees hated Jesus because Jesus testified that the work's of the grass and trees were Evil?? Did the birds and animals hate Jesus because HE testified that their works were Evil??

Or is HE talking about those religious men who "profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."

Certainly a valid question, and pertinent to this discussion.

 

[GDL]

This study tactic/practice of skimming the text being read

I skim your lengthy posts because I've seen too many errors and too much nonsense from you.

Are these not my words?

"Here is God, in the beginning, sending His Son, the Light of all men, who created the "Way which we should go", the very WORD of God, to the earth. This, along with "Every Word which proceeds from the mouth of God", teaches me about God the Father, and His Son, my savior and redeemer."

I don't know if they are your previous words because you didn't include a reference. I'll assume they are.

Is Jesus God (John1:1, et. al.)

I advocate for the study practice Paul employed, which considered Scriptures "all over the place".

I do as well. But I first work to understand the context of Paul's statements, so I understand the point he is making when he is referencing other Scripture. Context is vital and you seem to ignore it.

OK, too much to read again. So, ending here on this one because you're already talking nonsense and avoiding John1:1 again.

Suggestion: Pick one verse or phrase that we have discussed, tell me in your own words what you think it means in context, and starting there, let's discuss. If you don't like this suggestion, how about just switching to the topic of God's Eternal Law and picking a commandment you'd like to discuss.

Other than doing this, I've lost interest in your religious theory.

 

[Studyman]

I skim your lengthy posts because I've seen too many errors and too much nonsense from you.

I don't know if they are your previous words because you didn't include a reference. I'll assume they are.

Is Jesus God (John1:1, et. al.)

I do as well. But I first work to understand the context of Paul's statements, so I understand the point he is making when he is referencing other Scripture. Context is vital and you seem to ignore it.

The point is that the Pharisees were "NOT" living by the Law of Moses. At least according to the Jesus of the Bible, and also Paul's words.

OK, too much to read again. So, ending here on this one because you're already talking nonsense and avoiding John1:1 again.

Honesty from the heart is important. Several times in this thread you have made statements about my posts that you know are falsehoods, like accusing me of avoiding any Scripture, including John 1:1. It's OK to disagree. Not OK to make up fairy tales as to why. You are free to employ this religious practice, but it reveals your motive.

Suggestion: Pick one verse or phrase that we have discussed, tell me in your own words what you think it means in context, and starting there, let's discuss. If you don't like this suggestion, how about just switching to the topic of God's Eternal Law and picking a commandment you'd like to discuss.

I have found after this encounter, that what you "say" you are interested in, doesn't align with what you actually "do". You "say" you are interested in "discussion" but you refuse to answer any questions. You feign that you are interested in scripture, but you ignore and refuse to even acknowledge them, unless they can be used to promote your philosophy. I was hoping for something different given what you "said" in the beginning.

Other than doing this, I've lost interest in your religious theory.

Again, as I already asked once, and you refused to answer, what religious theory is that? That the children of the devil in Jesus Time were "NOT" living by God's Laws HE gave them through Moses? But Zacharias was?