Where's the line between struggling with sin and being scrupulous?

[Goodbook]

I think Jesus washed peoples feet rather than their hands, as that was more important.

Eg Peter...and Mary. Mary actually washed Jesus feet with her tears.

Whats with the obssesive hand washing? Is it being afraid of germs? Some ppl carry round hand sanitizers, but I think general rule for most ppl is to wash their hands after using the bathroom, and before eating with your hands and after.

Its good to be clean, but dont need to go overboard.

 

[sparow]

sparow,

1. I am sorry but you need to get out of panin and into the bible.

2. You don't know because you are into panin and not the bible. You say dispensation is not mentioned in the bible. Once again you are wrong; Ephesians 3:2; If ye have heard of the DISPENSATION OF THE GRACE OF GOD WHICH IS GIVEN ME TO YOU-WARD. NOTICE THE WORD DISPENSATION IS IN THERE THOUGH YOU SAID IT WASN'T.
To say God didn't give Paul anything is ludicrous and without warrant. The DISPENSATION OF THE GRACE OF GOD WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY CHRIST. You are wrong again.

3. GRACE IS NOT TRANSLATED TO A DISPENSATION OR A DOCTRINE? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? WHAT BIBLE DO YOU READ AND DID PANIN TELL YOU THAT TOO? Grace is a part of redemption and yes it is a doctrine and it is used in Ephesians 3:2 and the word dispensation means stewardship. Even reformed teachers know that God dealt with men in different ages in different ways according to covenants. They have to agree in a stewardship or an economy is the different ages of time. They may not agree with some things or utilizing it as a system but even I don't agree with everything dispensationalists say just like I am sure there are people in your belief that wouldn't agree with everything you say.

4. Acts 20:24 was Paul's commission just as much as Ephesians 3:2. His commission of the grace of God was mainly to the gentiles because of the jews resistance to his message Acts 28:25-28. Peter's ministry was primarily to the jews but this didn't mean on either Paul's or Peter's that the grace of God was exclusive to one or the other. The grace of God was about the new covenant of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as the basis for salvation. There was grace in every age as well as there was law but under different covenants. The age of law of Moses was a covenant and a dispensation of law. The jews covenant was a theocracy and the law was a covenant and a dispensation. Every age was a dispensation.
The gospel of grace is redemption which was unmerited favor God gave in each age in a different revelation that was gradual.

5. Acts 2:10 were gentiles proselyted into Judaism before Christ died. This is what the jews did in the old testament times. Even the 1st 8-10 years the gentiles were most like and this is why Peter had a hard time understanding the vision of the clean and the unclean. Acts 10. Jews under the old testament law were not to fellowship with gentiles because they were unclean but God told him to not call unclean what he called clean Acts 10:28.
In Revelation 11 it's talking about the gentiles of the Antichrist armies will occupy the outer court. This has nothing to do with the new Jerusalem which is recorded in Revelation 21.

6. Jesus has all authority and power in heaven and earth. Matthew 28:18. This doesn't mean there is no authority figures in the church or anywhere else. It also doesn't mean he is the only teacher or miracle worker but he is our source for all those things for he said greater works we would do than him. Jesus was the greatest teacher but he had a specific mission under the Mosaic law to the jews and that was to fulfill the law of Moses and then it his death would satisfy the penalty for sin and the law of Moses as a rule of life would be abolished for it had some weaknesses and the new covenant had better promises and it was all because of Jesus Christ the great teacher of the Mosaic law, and the sinless sacrificial lamb who gave his life for the world that they might be saved. Don't make Christ so one dimensional for he is the creator of the redemptive plan with the covenants before Abraham and after and during the law and after the law with the new covenant. The one destination to heaven is through the shed blood of Jesus Christ for without the blood there is no remission of sins. Matthew 26-28; John 14:6.

7. I am sorry but panin didn't know what he was talking about and if he believed in once saved, always saved he didn't on that either. I will be glad to look at those books. It doesn't matter how many degrees one has for down through the years preachers with all kinds of degrees on both sides of the issue never agreed. It doesn't matter how educated one is for they can have tunnel vision their whole life if they have the wrong hermeneutics.

8. For the fact you think Paul preached a different message than Jesus to give the perception that the bible is contradictory is ridiculous and it implies that you don't believe the bible is inerrant.
The apostle Paul was a jew and was perfect to the law above most of his peers outside of the fact that he was killing christians despite thinking he was being a God pleaser.
Circumcision was a sign of the old covenant so he knew what he was talking about between the physical and the spiritual.
Paul preached Jesus Christ and him crucified 1 Corinthians 1:17-21; 15:1-4 and 1 Corinthians 1:22-23. If you think preaching Christ crucified is wrong and is not what Jesus told his disciples then you need to read your bible. Luke 24:24-27 tells the disciples what they had to preach that was prophesied in the old testament. It was the same gospel as Paul preached and this is what Peter and the disciples kept getting into trouble in the early church by the jewish leaders who were trying to keep them under the law of Moses and not preaching the death and resurrection message. Acts 4:2.

9. I never said there was more than one gospel. I said the gospel was the same concerning redemption about a sacrifice and it was through types and shadows and because of the condition of Israel in Jesus day and because he didn't teach the death, burial and resurrection message directly for them to believe in to be saved the revelation was different.
Isaiah 53 was much plainer about the Messiah growing up as a tender plant and being despised and rejected of men, smitten of God, wounded for our transgressions etc. This is why he had to go back and explain what the law and the prophets said about him and his death and resurrection and this was after he had risen and was fixing to go back to heaven Luke 24:24-27. Read your bible for goodness sakes. The substance of redemption was always about the sacrifice which would be the death and resurrection of Christ but one has to understand gradual revelation and what Christ taught of how a jew was to be saved in his day.
Because you misunderstand the context of John 6:53-70 and Matthew 16:21-23 that is if you understand it at all you would understand that it is the revelation of how to be saved and not the substance of the gospel itself concerning the sacrifice of the savior and the cross. You can't refute this and neither can panin.

10. As far as the sabbath changed to sunday is not necessarily true because everyday can be kept as a sabbath. The reason most say it was changed to sunday is because of the resurrection. That is another subject in itself.

11. The things you are saying and what you are saying that panin says are gross misunderstandings of the scriptures in the big picture. The law was holy and good but it was also considered wrath and not of faith and yet there was faith in the old testament. One has to understand correct exegesis to understand scriptures that sound contradictory which really are paradoxes.

12. To say grace is not in salvation is complete stupidity of a statement. Who do you think requires faith and imparts faith? Jesus Christ.
You can believe whatever you want but you have no ground to stand on biblically and that is why you cannot answer adequately refute it.
Do you understand what context means? If you do tell me and explain the context of 1 Corinthians 15:29 when Paul said, I die daily and give other scriptures that will harmonize with it. Good luck! Jerry kelso

I have two little books by Panin which I only get out when I am dealing with Dispensationalists.

You attacking me is typical and you only do this because deep down you know that Scofield, Gaebelein, Bullinger, Dalby and Anderson were false prophets and you are defending a lost cause.

I am surprised to find the word dispensation used four times in the KJV, Panin, did not link the word to the false religion Dispensationalism; Panin was only concerned with the destruction of the concepts of Gospel and the kingdom.

I believe Dispensationalism has at some stage of it's evolution had 18 Gospels by way of dispensations and always two Gospels, one for Jews and one for gentiles; one the Gospel of Jesus and the other Paul's Gospel to the gentiles.

The Sabbath is the only day God has sanctified and has instructed not to profane, prophesy projects the Law through eternity; the millennium is a Sabbath; the JHW say any day can be kept holy with out God having made it Holy.

The Bible being inerrant appears to be a popular doctrine or teaching but it is false. IN Rev, 22:18 Jesus acknowledges the scriptures may be corrupted and because there is nothing new under the sun this has always been the case. But you probably forget Jesus is the word of God incorruptible.

 

[jerry kelso]

I have two little books by Panin which I only get out when I am dealing with Dispensationalists.

You attacking me is typical and you only do this because deep down you know that Scofield, Gaebelein, Bullinger, Dalby and Anderson were false prophets and you are defending a lost cause.

I am surprised to find the word dispensation used four times in the KJV, Panin, did not link the word to the false religion Dispensationalism; Panin was only concerned with the destruction of the concepts of Gospel and the kingdom.

I believe Dispensationalism has at some stage of it's evolution had 18 Gospels by way of dispensations and always two Gospels, one for Jews and one for gentiles; one the Gospel of Jesus and the other Paul's Gospel to the gentiles.

The Sabbath is the only day God has sanctified and has instructed not to profane, prophesy projects the Law through eternity; the millennium is a Sabbath; the JHW say any day can be kept holy with out God having made it Holy.

The Bible being inerrant appears to be a popular doctrine or teaching but it is false. IN Rev, 22:18 Jesus acknowledges the scriptures may be corrupted and because there is nothing new under the sun this has always been the case. But you probably forget Jesus is the word of God incorruptible.

sparow,

1. I wasn't attacking your doctrine which is not scriptural.
I don't know what your definition of a false prophet is. I could call Panin a false prophet and he came out of gnosticism and could have had excess baggage of thinking or thoughts that put a slant on what he believed just like Augustine who had a father that was a gnostic. So it is a ridiculous accusation.

2. The view I hold about the gospel and the kingdom are both hebraic perspective and true biblical history.

3. Gospel means good news and salvation is not the only good news in its usage and that is probably where you make your mistake just like most christians.

4.The physical KoH reign is the millennial kingdom and the gospel of the kingdom is that Christ will come back to make Israel the head of the nations and conquer all earthly kingdoms. The gospel in this kingdom is the good news as well of the risen savior who saved from sin. Quit trying to muddy up the waters and leave out other contexts.

5. You don't understand the difference between the old covenant law and the new covenant of law. You also refuse to address and try to rebut what I said about John 6:53-70 and Matthew 16:21-23 about the jews not understanding the total revelation of Christ being the sacrifice by his death and resurrection.
You keep implying I believe in 2 gospels and I have told you plainly no and have showed you by scripture that is not what I believe and I told you point blank that it is the revelation of how to be saved not the substance of what it was. Now you need to rebut or quit and quit implying I am saying something I am not because it is just your opinion and conjecture and not a statement of fact. Jerry kelso

 

[sparow]

sparow,

1. I wasn't attacking your doctrine which is not scriptural.
I don't know what your definition of a false prophet is. I could call Panin a false prophet and he came out of gnosticism and could have had excess baggage of thinking or thoughts that put a slant on what he believed just like Augustine who had a father that was a gnostic. So it is a ridiculous accusation.

2. The view I hold about the gospel and the kingdom are both hebraic perspective and true biblical history.

3. Gospel means good news and salvation is not the only good news in its usage and that is probably where you make your mistake just like most christians.

4.The physical KoH reign is the millennial kingdom and the gospel of the kingdom is that Christ will come back to make Israel the head of the nations and conquer all earthly kingdoms. The gospel in this kingdom is the good news as well of the risen savior who saved from sin. Quit trying to muddy up the waters and leave out other contexts.

5. You don't understand the difference between the old covenant law and the new covenant of law. You also refuse to address and try to rebut what I said about John 6:53-70 and Matthew 16:21-23 about the jews not understanding the total revelation of Christ being the sacrifice by his death and resurrection.
You keep implying I believe in 2 gospels and I have told you plainly no and have showed you by scripture that is not what I believe and I told you point blank that it is the revelation of how to be saved not the substance of what it was. Now you need to rebut or quit and quit implying I am saying something I am not because it is just your opinion and conjecture and not a statement of fact. Jerry kelso

Communication has completely failed. The real issue is has the Law of God (which you insist on calling the Mosaic Law) ended or does it continue indefinitely. Mat 5:18 There is a lot of confusion for some here; the Law is until all things have come to pass; Jesus fulfilled the Law and the prophets and when he returns he will fulfil the Law and the Prophets again and every prophesy fulfilled is the Law and the Prophets fulfilled including the resurrections. Then there is Mat 25:41 and Luke 13:27. When Jesus said "you feed Me not" was He talking about His church or the world?

 

[jerry kelso]

Communication has completely failed. The real issue is has the Law of God (which you insist on calling the Mosaic Law) ended or does it continue indefinitely. Mat 5:18 There is a lot of confusion for some here; the Law is until all things have come to pass; Jesus fulfilled the Law and the prophets and when he returns he will fulfil the Law and the Prophets again and every prophesy fulfilled is the Law and the Prophets fulfilled including the resurrections. Then there is Mat 25:41 and Luke 13:27. When Jesus said "you feed Me not" was He talking about His church or the world?

sparow,

1. Why don't you tell me if Jesus taught his death, burial and resurrection message directly to the jews as the basis of being saved from their sins and show the scripture that says he did just like he tells us to believe in directly according to Romans 10:9-10? Stick to the scripture. The law of God for new covenant believers is the new covenant which is not the same as the old covenant or are you going to deny Hebrews 8:6-7 that the old covenant was replaced by the new covenant?

2. Matthew 5:18 says; For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

3. Heaven and earth will not pass until the new heaven and the new earth even though it will not be by annihilation. Till all be fulfilled was talking about till the law was fulfilled concerning the Messiah's mission to the jews for that period of time till the old covenant was fulfilled, satisfied and abolished so the new could replace the old. What part of "if the old covenant were faultless there would be need to seek for the new covenant but because the covenant had weaknesses because of the law of sin and death took advantage of the law that was holy and good, the inability of helping the individual to attain to the commandment or save them and because of the priesthood was not eternal and because the carnal ordinances and civil laws that subdued them and the moral laws having a specific curses and on and on do you not understand?

4. You are free to believe whatever doctrine you want but evading the plain statement and context of truth is not very wise. So address John 6:53-70 and Matthew 16:21-23 and Romans 10:9-10 and hebrews 8:6-7. Quit evading the inevitable! Jerry kelso

 

[sparow]

sparow,

1. Why don't you tell me if Jesus taught his death, burial and resurrection message directly to the jews as the basis of being saved from their sins and show the scripture that says he did just like he tells us to believe in directly according to Romans 10:9-10? Stick to the scripture. The law of God for new covenant believers is the new covenant which is not the same as the old covenant or are you going to deny Hebrews 8:6-7 that the old covenant was replaced by the new covenant?

2. Matthew 5:18 says; For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

3. Heaven and earth will not pass until the new heaven and the new earth even though it will not be by annihilation. Till all be fulfilled was talking about till the law was fulfilled concerning the Messiah's mission to the jews for that period of time till the old covenant was fulfilled, satisfied and abolished so the new could replace the old. What part of "if the old covenant were faultless there would be need to seek for the new covenant but because the covenant had weaknesses because of the law of sin and death took advantage of the law that was holy and good, the inability of helping the individual to attain to the commandment or save them and because of the priesthood was not eternal and because the carnal ordinances and civil laws that subdued them and the moral laws having a specific curses and on and on do you not understand?

4. You are free to believe whatever doctrine you want but evading the plain statement and context of truth is not very wise. So address John 6:53-70 and Matthew 16:21-23 and Romans 10:9-10 and hebrews 8:6-7. Quit evading the inevitable! Jerry kelso

1. I rely mostly on memory these days, if I have verses to check out I check them out. One reason I never told you what you ask is I don't believe it; Jesus gave His resurrection after a prescribed time as proof that before Abraham He was and to people who were killing Him and were them who Jesus would not cast pearls before; salvation was not an option for those people. Also to his followers had proof that the resurrection of the righteous was a reality.

What do you call scripture and what authority do you use? Technically any prose or script is scripture but when talking about the word of God then scripture is God talking not men. Acts is not God talking it is merely a history lesson, the Gospels are mainly God talking but sometimes the apostle expresses his opinion. I don't use the epistles of Paul except when someone like you quotes him. Paul does not support you views of the Law; I know this from studying with other people. In addition Paul kept the Law fastidiously as well as all the Holy days and feasts and this can be derived from his own epistles; if he were to teach you differently he would be a hypocrite. The writer of Hebrews was not God taking and he refers to the same new covenant that Jeremiah spoke of; were the Law is written on the heart and the mind and one does not have to learn it; but under the covenant this is one of God' tasks and clearly hasn't happened yet; the righteous will be resurrected with the Law written on their heart.

2. The reason Jesus spoke in parables was not only to fulfil prophesy but also so legalists could not do what you are doing with his words. When I read Mathew 5:18 I understand what He meant, not what the words or the translator/interpreters meant.

3. Your rhetoric is a belief you have it is not fact. The Law universal is for the benefit of mankind, it's fulfilment cannot be a one off event; If the Law finished with Jesus there can be no further judgement; Everybody is to be judged by the Law/covenant even the Atheists. There was one Law that required to be fulfilled once and that was the shedding of blood for the remission if sin, but it's companion, repentance, is not one off.

4. The way I understand you, you have forsaken the covenant of God for the Covenant of men, which Jesus calls a covenant with death; if this were true Jn 6:53-70 wont apply to you.

 

[jerry kelso]

1. I rely mostly on memory these days, if I have verses to check out I check them out. One reason I never told you what you ask is I don't believe it; Jesus gave His resurrection after a prescribed time as proof that before Abraham He was and to people who were killing Him and were them who Jesus would not cast pearls before; salvation was not an option for those people. Also to his followers had proof that the resurrection of the righteous was a reality.

What do you call scripture and what authority do you use? Technically any prose or script is scripture but when talking about the word of God then scripture is God talking not men. Acts is not God talking it is merely a history lesson, the Gospels are mainly God talking but sometimes the apostle expresses his opinion. I don't use the epistles of Paul except when someone like you quotes him. Paul does not support you views of the Law; I know this from studying with other people. In addition Paul kept the Law fastidiously as well as all the Holy days and feasts and this can be derived from his own epistles; if he were to teach you differently he would be a hypocrite. The writer of Hebrews was not God taking and he refers to the same new covenant that Jeremiah spoke of; were the Law is written on the heart and the mind and one does not have to learn it; but under the covenant this is one of God' tasks and clearly hasn't happened yet; the righteous will be resurrected with the Law written on their heart.

2. The reason Jesus spoke in parables was not only to fulfil prophesy but also so legalists could not do what you are doing with his words. When I read Mathew 5:18 I understand what He meant, not what the words or the translator/interpreters meant.

3. Your rhetoric is a belief you have it is not fact. The Law universal is for the benefit of mankind, it's fulfilment cannot be a one off event; If the Law finished with Jesus there can be no further judgement; Everybody is to be judged by the Law/covenant even the Atheists. There was one Law that required to be fulfilled once and that was the shedding of blood for the remission if sin, but it's companion, repentance, is not one off.

4. The way I understand you, you have forsaken the covenant of God for the Covenant of men, which Jesus calls a covenant with death; if this were true Jn 6:53-70 wont apply to you.

sparow,


1. You can accuse and give your opinion but you have not addressed the context of John 6:53-70 and Matthew 16:21-23.

2. You said stick to the scripture and I have but you haven't. That is called not practicing by what you preach.

3. Jesus was born of a woman made under the law Galatians 4:4 which Peter and Paul said was the yoke of bondage Acts 15:10 and Galatians 5:2. They were both talking about the keeping of the commandments according to the Mosaic law and the weaknesses of the law not just commandments of men. Circumcision was a sign of the law of Moses and that was the discussion and if you try to be justified by the law like physical circumcision which was the proper thing and had to be done otherwise they broke the commandment then they would be fallen from grace under the new covenant.

4. The context of John 6:53-70 was to eat his body and drink his blood and they had no clue that this was about his death, and resurrection. Matthew 16:21-23 Peter said he would not let anyone kill Jesus and Jesus said, get behind me Satan for thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. This was in Jesus beginning to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third. Beginning right then after the jews had already rejected him Matthew 23:37-39. So it was the revelation of his death and resurrection and him being the sacrifice. Jesus didn't preach that in his 3 years of ministry. If you can't understand that the revelation in coming to him directly about his death, and resurrection and his teaching to believe in him alone that he was the Messiah and he would forgive their sins you would understand the difference between what he said under the KoH and the KoG message and the death, burial, and resurrection of himself.

5. Redemption has always been about the sacrifice and him bruising Satan's heel at Calvary in Genesis 3:15. 1 Gospel but 2 different revelations because of the difference in the covenants of the old vs. the new that Jesus taught the jews and the jews and gentiles in the early church.

6. It is neither here or there who you have studied with because it is not scriptural and your misconception and misinterpretation is grossly wrong and you cannot prove the point I have said according to the plain scripture and the full context about not told by Christ to directly accept him because of his death and resurrection.

7. You are not proving anything and what you believe is just redundant and to the extreme and wrong. And yet, you want to make out like I don't stick to the scripture and am not showing the true plain statement and context and the difference of what he taught under the law of Moses and the new covenant. Try for at least one time to prove that the difference I have showed of what Jesus taught the jews in his earthly ministry and right before he went to be killed and raise again. You haven't tried because you can't. Go ahead and try! Jerry kelso

 

[crunchihuahua]

We will all sin at times, we shouldn't live in it and wallow in it, please don't get too caught up in trying too hard to make yourself acceptable to God because you wont do it, Christ done it all for you.
Look at it this way, you know your son or daughter is not perfect, and you don't expect them to be and love them a bunch anyway, and so does The Lord knew you from before the foundation was laid for the Earth, He knew every sin you have done or will do and He still loves you and wants your whole heart, He does NOT want you running around in fear you will commit a sin that has been paid for but He does want you to rest in His peace and mercy.

I hope this helps.

 

[sparow]

sparow,


1. You can accuse and give your opinion but you have not addressed the context of John 6:53-70 and Matthew 16:21-23.

2. You said stick to the scripture and I have but you haven't. That is called not practicing by what you preach.

3. Jesus was born of a woman made under the law Galatians 4:4 which Peter and Paul said was the yoke of bondage Acts 15:10 and Galatians 5:2. They were both talking about the keeping of the commandments according to the Mosaic law and the weaknesses of the law not just commandments of men. Circumcision was a sign of the law of Moses and that was the discussion and if you try to be justified by the law like physical circumcision which was the proper thing and had to be done otherwise they broke the commandment then they would be fallen from grace under the new covenant.

4. The context of John 6:53-70 was to eat his body and drink his blood and they had no clue that this was about his death, and resurrection. Matthew 16:21-23 Peter said he would not let anyone kill Jesus and Jesus said, get behind me Satan for thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. This was in Jesus beginning to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third. Beginning right then after the jews had already rejected him Matthew 23:37-39. So it was the revelation of his death and resurrection and him being the sacrifice. Jesus didn't preach that in his 3 years of ministry. If you can't understand that the revelation in coming to him directly about his death, and resurrection and his teaching to believe in him alone that he was the Messiah and he would forgive their sins you would understand the difference between what he said under the KoH and the KoG message and the death, burial, and resurrection of himself.

5. Redemption has always been about the sacrifice and him bruising Satan's heel at Calvary in Genesis 3:15. 1 Gospel but 2 different revelations because of the difference in the covenants of the old vs. the new that Jesus taught the jews and the jews and gentiles in the early church.

6. It is neither here or there who you have studied with because it is not scriptural and your misconception and misinterpretation is grossly wrong and you cannot prove the point I have said according to the plain scripture and the full context about not told by Christ to directly accept him because of his death and resurrection.

7. You are not proving anything and what you believe is just redundant and to the extreme and wrong. And yet, you want to make out like I don't stick to the scripture and am not showing the true plain statement and context and the difference of what he taught under the law of Moses and the new covenant. Try for at least one time to prove that the difference I have showed of what Jesus taught the jews in his earthly ministry and right before he went to be killed and raise again. You haven't tried because you can't. Go ahead and try! Jerry kelso

I don't accuse you personally I only address what is on the screen and form an opinion of the person behind it. If I were to express this opinion it would be: you are a highly paid troll who recites scripture but doesn't understand it and is here to cause trouble. If things were proved from scripture it would put the Holy Spirit out of work.

Circumcision was a sign that a person was owned by God and it preceded Moses by 24 generations I think.

There is no difference between the old covenant and the new covenant except the time of it and the people it is made with, who is the High Priest and who are the other priests and it is only doctrines of men in place of what God has given that says differently.

 

[sparow]

We will all sin at times, we shouldn't live in it and wallow in it, please don't get too caught up in trying too hard to make yourself acceptable to God because you wont do it, Christ done it all for you.
Look at it this way, you know your son or daughter is not perfect, and you don't expect them to be and love them a bunch anyway, and so does The Lord knew you from before the foundation was laid for the Earth, He knew every sin you have done or will do and He still loves you and wants your whole heart, He does NOT want you running around in fear you will commit a sin that has been paid for but He does want you to rest in His peace and mercy.

I hope this helps.

Some of this sort of worries me; God does not forgive sin he forgives the person but only in accordance with due process; one has to be in covenant with Him and one has to repent.

"For God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world", this is true but what us usually not noted is the world into which He was sent was already condemned, except for those who gain a reprieve. Christianity is saturated with false doctrine; salvation by works vs salvation by faith is a red herring. In the messages to the seven churches five of the churches have to over come in order to be saved. one cannot sit back and wait one needs to seek God earnestly.

 

[jerry kelso]

I don't accuse you personally I only address what is on the screen and form an opinion of the person behind it. If I were to express this opinion it would be: you are a highly paid troll who recites scripture but doesn't understand it and is here to cause trouble. If things were proved from scripture it would put the Holy Spirit out of work.

Circumcision was a sign that a person was owned by God and it preceded Moses by 24 generations I think.

There is no difference between the old covenant and the new covenant except the time of it and the people it is made with, who is the High Priest and who are the other priests and it is only doctrines of men in place of what God has given that says differently.

sparow,

1. You accuse me of being a highly paid troll. I have never had anyone call me anything close to being a troll and I sure don't get paid. LOL!.

2. You say I recite the scripture but don't understand it and yet I have rebutted everything you have said by the scripture and I have challenged you to give the context of John 6:53-70 and Matthew 16:21-23 and you won't even go near to try and explain what it means and how they could be the same revelation as Christ had under the KoH and KoG message in his earthly ministry and his death, burial , and resurrection message after the jews rejected him and he was ready to go to the cross.

3. It is plain for anyone to see that you are not being forthright at all. You need to try and rebut these scriptures if you are going to try and prove your theory. After that you need to try to tell me the context of 1 Corinthians 15:29 that says I die daily and tell me what scripture outside that chapter fits the real description of that phrase; "I DIE DAILY". THIS WILL SHOW WHETHER OR NOT YOU UNDERSTAND CONTEXT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PLAIN STATEMENT AS FAR AS WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK. I'LL BE WAITING!. JERRY KELSO

 

[jerry kelso]

sparow,

1. You accuse me of being a highly paid troll. I have never had anyone call me anything close to being a troll and I sure don't get paid. LOL!.

2. You say I recite the scripture but don't understand it and yet I have rebutted everything you have said by the scripture and I have challenged you to give the context of John 6:53-70 and Matthew 16:21-23 and you won't even go near to try and explain what it means and how they could be the same revelation as Christ had under the KoH and KoG message in his earthly ministry and his death, burial , and resurrection message after the jews rejected him and he was ready to go to the cross.

3. It is plain for anyone to see that you are not being forthright at all. You need to try and rebut these scriptures if you are going to try and prove your theory. After that you need to try to tell me the context of 1 Corinthians 15:29 that says I die daily and tell me what scripture outside that chapter fits the real description of that phrase; "I DIE DAILY". THIS WILL SHOW WHETHER OR NOT YOU UNDERSTAND CONTEXT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PLAIN STATEMENT AS FAR AS WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK. I'LL BE WAITING!. JERRY KELSO

 

[sparow]

sparow,

1. You accuse me of being a highly paid troll. I have never had anyone call me anything close to being a troll and I sure don't get paid. LOL!.

2. You say I recite the scripture but don't understand it and yet I have rebutted everything you have said by the scripture and I have challenged you to give the context of John 6:53-70 and Matthew 16:21-23 and you won't even go near to try and explain what it means and how they could be the same revelation as Christ had under the KoH and KoG message in his earthly ministry and his death, burial , and resurrection message after the jews rejected him and he was ready to go to the cross.

3. It is plain for anyone to see that you are not being forthright at all. You need to try and rebut these scriptures if you are going to try and prove your theory. After that you need to try to tell me the context of 1 Corinthians 15:29 that says I die daily and tell me what scripture outside that chapter fits the real description of that phrase; "I DIE DAILY". THIS WILL SHOW WHETHER OR NOT YOU UNDERSTAND CONTEXT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PLAIN STATEMENT AS FAR AS WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK. I'LL BE WAITING!. JERRY KELSO

I have already told you I do not use Paul, neither do I use Santa Clause? In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul must be talking to people who do not believe in the resurrection and he concludes that because Christ was resurrected so will those who are in Christ be resurrected; I didn't spot Paul saying he dies daily; would that mean he was resurrected daily?

I didn't recognise your question as a question, I thought it was a statement, and I am still having difficulty.

The context of Jn 53: Galilee country side, He feeds five thousand, walks on water, Jesus uses the "I am" a number of time which brings the Pharisees to take Him.

The context of Mat 16:21-unts23: here Jesus is talking to the disciples not mentioned by John. John and Mathew give different but not contradictory accounts; you want a reason for the difference, I would be concerned if they were the same. You are trying to say something with your question and I don't know what, but there is no difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Heaven save possibly grammar and semantics.

 

[jerry kelso]

I have already told you I do not use Paul, neither do I use Santa Clause? In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul must be talking to people who do not believe in the resurrection and he concludes that because Christ was resurrected so will those who are in Christ be resurrected; I didn't spot Paul saying he dies daily; would that mean he was resurrected daily?

I didn't recognise your question as a question, I thought it was a statement, and I am still having difficulty.

The context of Jn 53: Galilee country side, He feeds five thousand, walks on water, Jesus uses the "I am" a number of time which brings the Pharisees to take Him.

The context of Mat 16:21-unts23: here Jesus is talking to the disciples not mentioned by John. John and Mathew give different but not contradictory accounts; you want a reason for the difference, I would be concerned if they were the same. You are trying to say something with your question and I don't know what, but there is no difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Heaven save possibly grammar and semantics.

bobryan,

Stick with 1 Corinthians 15 to understand the context. Other scriptures have to harmonize with the immediate context.
You are correct that he was talking to people who didn't believe in the physical resurrection in verse 12 to be exact. Read your bible instead of trying to think of off the top of your head.
It wasn't about Christ being resurrected and so other people would be resurrected when they got saved even though that is what happens when one gets saved. Verse 31 is the actual verse of which Paul says, I die daily. Verse 29 gives the reason to why he said this statement but is not the whole reason.
You tell me whether or not you think a person can be resurrected physically every day. Try again. Jerry kelso

 

[sparow]

bobryan,

Stick with 1 Corinthians 15 to understand the context. Other scriptures have to harmonize with the immediate context.
You are correct that he was talking to people who didn't believe in the physical resurrection in verse 12 to be exact. Read your bible instead of trying to think of off the top of your head.
It wasn't about Christ being resurrected and so other people would be resurrected when they got saved even though that is what happens when one gets saved. Verse 31 is the actual verse of which Paul says, I die daily. Verse 29 gives the reason to why he said this statement but is not the whole reason.
You tell me whether or not you think a person can be resurrected physically every day. Try again. Jerry kelso

How do you explain your dependence on Paul to explain the teaching of Christ? Does this mean that Christ and the Holy Spirit are inadequate or does it mean you are inadequate?

 

[jerry kelso]

How do you explain your dependence on Paul to explain the teaching of Christ? Does this mean that Christ and the Holy Spirit are inadequate or does it mean you are inadequate?

sparow,

1. Why do you not want to accept the truth?
The disciples in Jesus day did not teach the death, burial, and resurrection message because Jesus didn't teach it to them.

2. Matthew 10:1; Jesus gave his disciples power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Jesus sent them out to proclaim the KoH message to jews only Matthew 10:5-6 not the gentiles. They were to proclaim the kingdom was at hand. The condition for the kingdom to come to fruition was repent Matthew 4:17; Repent for the KoH is at hand. It was about repentance and recognizing the Messiah because John baptized Jesus to manifest him to Israel John 1:31.
3. There is nothing implied or said that they witnessed about the death, burial, and resurrection like in Romans 10:9-10. John 6:53-70 and Matthew 16:21-23 show that they didn't have a clue what Jesus was saying about him dying and rising from the dead all throughout his earthly ministry. The old covenant had to be done away with because the old covenant believers could not be perfected until Calvary with us new covenant believers after the cross. Hebrews 11:40. Hebrews 5:9; And being made PERFECT, he became the AUTHOR OF ETERNAL SALVATION UNTO ALL THEM THAT OBEY HIM.

4. Being perfected for the old covenant believer is the fact that the blood of bulls and goats could only cover sins. Jesus could forgive sins himself and he did but until Christ died and rose again they could not be complete in being saved because it took the blood to be shed for remission of sins Matthew 26:28. Hebrews 9:16-17; FOR WHERE A TESTAMENT IS, THERE MUST ALSO OF NECESSITY BE THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR. FOR A TESTAMENT IS OF FORCE AFGTER MEN ARE DEAD: OTHERWISE IT IS OF NO STRENGTH AT ALL WHILE THE TESTATOR LIVETH.

5. JESUS WAS THE TESTATOR WHO HAD TO DIE FOR THE NEW COVENANT TO COMPLETE REDEMPTION SO ALL MEN COULD BE OFFICIALLY SAVED BOTH OLD COVENANT BELIEVERS AND NEW COVENANT BELIEVERS AND THERE IS NO REMISSION WITHOUT THE BLOOD.

6. JESUS DIDN'T REQUIRE THAT AFTER THE CROSS EVERYBODY HAD TO LIVE JUDAISM WITH ITS 630 LAWS THEY HAD TO OBEY OR BE CURSED SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE BLESSING AND CURSING SYSTEM. JUDAISM WAS THE OLD COVENANT.

7. PAUL PREACHED THE LAW OF CHRIST TO THE DEATH, BURIAL AND RESURRECTION JUST LIKE THE DISCIPLES DID.

8. GALATIANS 15:5 THE PHARISEES THOUGHT IT NEEDFUL TO CIRCUMCISE AND TO COMMAND THEM TO KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES AND THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS CAME TOGETHER FOR TO CONSIDER OF THIS MATTER. PETER SAID NO THEY WERE NOT TO LIVE THE LAW OF MOSES. PAUL TOLD THE GENTILES AND GOD TOLD HIM WHOEVER IS JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW WHICH WAS OF MOSES WOULD BE FALLEN FROM GRACE.

9. JESUS CONFIRMED HIS MESSAGE OF HIS DEATH WAS THE CORRECT MESSAGE AS THE GOSPEL WHICH ALL THE APOSTLES TAUGHT WHICH WAS NOT THE SAME MESSAGE TO COME TO CHRIST.
Explain I die daily in 1 Corinthians 15. Jerry Kelso

 

[sparow]

sparow,

1. Why do you not want to accept the truth?
The disciples in Jesus day did not teach the death, burial, and resurrection message because Jesus didn't teach it to them.

2. Matthew 10:1; Jesus gave his disciples power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Jesus sent them out to proclaim the KoH message to jews only Matthew 10:5-6 not the gentiles. They were to proclaim the kingdom was at hand. The condition for the kingdom to come to fruition was repent Matthew 4:17; Repent for the KoH is at hand. It was about repentance and recognizing the Messiah because John baptized Jesus to manifest him to Israel John 1:31.
3. There is nothing implied or said that they witnessed about the death, burial, and resurrection like in Romans 10:9-10. John 6:53-70 and Matthew 16:21-23 show that they didn't have a clue what Jesus was saying about him dying and rising from the dead all throughout his earthly ministry. The old covenant had to be done away with because the old covenant believers could not be perfected until Calvary with us new covenant believers after the cross. Hebrews 11:40. Hebrews 5:9; And being made PERFECT, he became the AUTHOR OF ETERNAL SALVATION UNTO ALL THEM THAT OBEY HIM.

4. Being perfected for the old covenant believer is the fact that the blood of bulls and goats could only cover sins. Jesus could forgive sins himself and he did but until Christ died and rose again they could not be complete in being saved because it took the blood to be shed for remission of sins Matthew 26:28. Hebrews 9:16-17; FOR WHERE A TESTAMENT IS, THERE MUST ALSO OF NECESSITY BE THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR. FOR A TESTAMENT IS OF FORCE AFGTER MEN ARE DEAD: OTHERWISE IT IS OF NO STRENGTH AT ALL WHILE THE TESTATOR LIVETH.

5. JESUS WAS THE TESTATOR WHO HAD TO DIE FOR THE NEW COVENANT TO COMPLETE REDEMPTION SO ALL MEN COULD BE OFFICIALLY SAVED BOTH OLD COVENANT BELIEVERS AND NEW COVENANT BELIEVERS AND THERE IS NO REMISSION WITHOUT THE BLOOD.

6. JESUS DIDN'T REQUIRE THAT AFTER THE CROSS EVERYBODY HAD TO LIVE JUDAISM WITH ITS 630 LAWS THEY HAD TO OBEY OR BE CURSED SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE BLESSING AND CURSING SYSTEM. JUDAISM WAS THE OLD COVENANT.

7. PAUL PREACHED THE LAW OF CHRIST TO THE DEATH, BURIAL AND RESURRECTION JUST LIKE THE DISCIPLES DID.

8. GALATIANS 15:5 THE PHARISEES THOUGHT IT NEEDFUL TO CIRCUMCISE AND TO COMMAND THEM TO KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES AND THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS CAME TOGETHER FOR TO CONSIDER OF THIS MATTER. PETER SAID NO THEY WERE NOT TO LIVE THE LAW OF MOSES. PAUL TOLD THE GENTILES AND GOD TOLD HIM WHOEVER IS JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW WHICH WAS OF MOSES WOULD BE FALLEN FROM GRACE.

9. JESUS CONFIRMED HIS MESSAGE OF HIS DEATH WAS THE CORRECT MESSAGE AS THE GOSPEL WHICH ALL THE APOSTLES TAUGHT WHICH WAS NOT THE SAME MESSAGE TO COME TO CHRIST.
Explain I die daily in 1 Corinthians 15. Jerry Kelso

I really do not know what is wrong with you; I presume that this rhetoric is your answer to my question.

1. I do not accept what you call truth; not that some of it is untrue but the way you use truth it becomes vanity.

Lets look at this: "The disciples in Jesus day did not teach the death, burial, and resurrection message because Jesus didn't teach it to them." When Jesus taught this to the Jews in John chapter 6 the apostles were present and in Mat 16:21-23 he does teach the apostles specifically, even if the wordage here doesn't suit your specific false doctrine.

2. What are you rambling on about here:

"Matthew 10:1; Jesus gave his disciples power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Jesus sent them out to proclaim the KoH message to jews only Matthew 10:5-6 not the gentiles. They were to proclaim the kingdom was at hand. The condition for the kingdom to come to fruition was repent Matthew 4:17; Repent for the KoH is at hand. It was about repentance and recognizing the Messiah because John baptized Jesus to manifest him to Israel John 1:31."

Lets suppose you are saying the KoH is for the Old Covenant and the CoG is for the New Covenant; then you are mistaken. Mat 5:20 kingdom of heaven.
Mat 6:10, Thy Kingdom come.
Mat 6:33 His kingdom- the Kingdom of God; Jesus uses both terms, interchangeably while talking to the same people.

3. This is an Atheist argument, it is just short of saying prove Jesus exists":

"There is nothing implied or said that they witnessed about the death, burial, and resurrection like in Romans 10:9-10. John 6:53-70 and Matthew 16:21-23 show that they didn't have a clue what Jesus was saying about him dying and rising from the dead all throughout his earthly ministry. The old covenant had to be done away with because the old covenant believers could not be perfected until Calvary with us new covenant believers after the cross. Hebrews 11:40. Hebrews 5:9; And being made PERFECT, he became the AUTHOR OF ETERNAL SALVATION UNTO ALL THEM THAT OBEY HIM. "

This denial is what I would call using the Lords name in vain. There is not enough words in the New Testament to cover one day in the life of the apostles if you want every detail; What they taught before Jesus's death you would not know and don't need to know except for false doctrine purposes. The Gospels were written 30 years after the crucifixion and you can be sure
They knew what Jesus taught in order to record what he taught.

4. I suspect you haven't got as clue what you are talking about; do you know that a Testament is a will and only takes effect after the testator dies; in this case the New Covenant which Jesus has already established with out a dit or dot changed.

5. rhetoric

6. Here we have some half truth:

"JESUS DIDN'T REQUIRE THAT AFTER THE CROSS EVERYBODY HAD TO LIVE JUDAISM WITH ITS 630 LAWS THEY HAD TO OBEY OR BE CURSED SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE BLESSING AND CURSING SYSTEM. JUDAISM WAS THE OLD COVENANT."

Judaism didn't come into existence until around the same time as the Papacy, Mohammad, and the Masoretic text. Judaism, like Pharisism is based on the Babylonian Talmuds. The 630 Laws could be called Pharisaic Dispensationalism; nothing to do with the Law Jesus gave Moses. The Pharises did not keep God's Law else Jesus would not have called them murders, adulaters, thieves and hypocrites. Also Jesus kept saying to them, your Law says this or your Law says that.

9. The Catholic Church is big on death, the crucify Christ every Mass. Without quoting scripture Jesus's crucifixion accomplished at least two things; the shedding of blood for the remission of sin and his brutal death was a ransom for redemption. Redemption is where one buys back what one already owns. And because He was the Lamb of God since the foundation His death and blood covers both covenants. Had the Jews/Israel been successful completing their covenant the Kingdom of God would have been 2000 years ago.

 

[jerry kelso]

I really do not know what is wrong with you; I presume that this rhetoric is your answer to my question.

1. I do not accept what you call truth; not that some of it is untrue but the way you use truth it becomes vanity.

Lets look at this: "The disciples in Jesus day did not teach the death, burial, and resurrection message because Jesus didn't teach it to them." When Jesus taught this to the Jews in John chapter 6 the apostles were present and in Mat 16:21-23 he does teach the apostles specifically, even if the wordage here doesn't suit your specific false doctrine.

2. What are you rambling on about here:

"Matthew 10:1; Jesus gave his disciples power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Jesus sent them out to proclaim the KoH message to jews only Matthew 10:5-6 not the gentiles. They were to proclaim the kingdom was at hand. The condition for the kingdom to come to fruition was repent Matthew 4:17; Repent for the KoH is at hand. It was about repentance and recognizing the Messiah because John baptized Jesus to manifest him to Israel John 1:31."

Lets suppose you are saying the KoH is for the Old Covenant and the CoG is for the New Covenant; then you are mistaken. Mat 5:20 kingdom of heaven.
Mat 6:10, Thy Kingdom come.
Mat 6:33 His kingdom- the Kingdom of God; Jesus uses both terms, interchangeably while talking to the same people.

3. This is an Atheist argument, it is just short of saying prove Jesus exists":

"There is nothing implied or said that they witnessed about the death, burial, and resurrection like in Romans 10:9-10. John 6:53-70 and Matthew 16:21-23 show that they didn't have a clue what Jesus was saying about him dying and rising from the dead all throughout his earthly ministry. The old covenant had to be done away with because the old covenant believers could not be perfected until Calvary with us new covenant believers after the cross. Hebrews 11:40. Hebrews 5:9; And being made PERFECT, he became the AUTHOR OF ETERNAL SALVATION UNTO ALL THEM THAT OBEY HIM. "

This denial is what I would call using the Lords name in vain. There is not enough words in the New Testament to cover one day in the life of the apostles if you want every detail; What they taught before Jesus's death you would not know and don't need to know except for false doctrine purposes. The Gospels were written 30 years after the crucifixion and you can be sure
They knew what Jesus taught in order to record what he taught.

4. I suspect you haven't got as clue what you are talking about; do you know that a Testament is a will and only takes effect after the testator dies; in this case the New Covenant which Jesus has already established with out a dit or dot changed.

5. rhetoric

6. Here we have some half truth:

"JESUS DIDN'T REQUIRE THAT AFTER THE CROSS EVERYBODY HAD TO LIVE JUDAISM WITH ITS 630 LAWS THEY HAD TO OBEY OR BE CURSED SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE BLESSING AND CURSING SYSTEM. JUDAISM WAS THE OLD COVENANT."

Judaism didn't come into existence until around the same time as the Papacy, Mohammad, and the Masoretic text. Judaism, like Pharisism is based on the Babylonian Talmuds. The 630 Laws could be called Pharisaic Dispensationalism; nothing to do with the Law Jesus gave Moses. The Pharises did not keep God's Law else Jesus would not have called them murders, adulaters, thieves and hypocrites. Also Jesus kept saying to them, your Law says this or your Law says that.

9. The Catholic Church is big on death, the crucify Christ every Mass. Without quoting scripture Jesus's crucifixion accomplished at least two things; the shedding of blood for the remission of sin and his brutal death was a ransom for redemption. Redemption is where one buys back what one already owns. And because He was the Lamb of God since the foundation His death and blood covers both covenants. Had the Jews/Israel been successful completing their covenant the Kingdom of God would have been 2000 years ago.

sparow,

1. You do not accept the scripture as truth in its proper context.

2. Jesus was not teaching the disciples in John 6 for them to believe in his death and resurrection. The disciples from that time on he began telling them. If he would have taught them he would have been direct and said you must believe in my death and resurrection to be saved for this is the new covenant. Even in Matthew 28:26 they didn't understand the type of the last passover drinking the wine was his blood for remission of sins.

3. Jesus message on earth was about the KoH and the KoG to Israel only and not the gentiles Matthew 10:6-7. You can't deny this. The reason why is because the gentiles didn't have a covenant at this time and this is why they were proselyted into Judaism and the theocracy they had with God. This is they the jew had to nice to the stranger at the gate and this is why Jesus said love your enemies.

4. You have shown you have no clue what the KoH and the KoG message was to the jew and was not a message to fulfill the covenants later for gentiles that are a part of the church. The church will be a part of the KoH because those who suffer will reign. 2 Timothy 2:12.

5. You think the KoH and the KoG are interchangeable terms and the fact is you don't even know why they are interchangeable in any respect. The interchangeable is because of the KoG in it's physical aspect is the whole universe. The KoH in it's physical aspect is the earth because this is where the kingdom reign will happen in the millennial kingdom and why after the final confrontation after the 1000 years the son will give the kingdom back to the father so God will be all in all. Then the universal KoG physically will be one as far as the KoH on earth will be brought back into harmony.

6. Matthew 6:33 says to seek the KoG and his righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you.

7. The KoG comes without observation in Luke 17:20 which is the spiritual aspect of the KoG. Matthew only uses the KoH term and the jew was never said to seek the KoH spiritually to come to God.

8. The KoH in it's physical aspect is this physical earth on which the kingdom reign will happen when Christ takes over the kingdoms of this world Revelation 11:15.

9. The greek term for KoH is baselia which is the kingdom from the heavens and Daniel 7:27 says this earth is the kingdom under the whole heaven. The kingdom from the heavens means that the spiritual rule comes from heaven.

10. In Jesus ministry the KoH was the physical kingdom because it is tied into the millennial kingdom and restitution of all things and the times of refreshing which Peter talked about in Acts 3:19-21. He told this too because Israel was to be at the head of the nations according to their covenants. Isaiah 2:2-4.

11. The message of the KoH and the KoG actually started in the garden of Eden because when Adam and Eve sinned they were kicked out of the physical kingdom and lost the spiritual life because of sin. This is what Jesus was to restore in his earthly ministry through the KoH and the KoG message to Israel who were covenanted with God to be at the head of the nations in the millennial kingdom Isaiah 2:1-4. This has never happened.

12. Most gentiles don't understand the KoH and the KoG message to Israel and why it was not for the gentiles or the church one. Israel was backslidden and the true church is not backslidden. Both Israel and the Church today were and are to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth but only Israel has been trodden down under the foot of men which Jesus prophesy of 70 A.D. proved but the gates of hell shall never prevail against the church.

13. You don't understand this message and the perception given is that you don't want to believe it because you would have to let go of your doctrine which is contrary to the truth of the word in context.

14. The death, burial and resurrection message not being taught by the disciples in Jesus ministry is not an atheist argument. The atheist argument is connected to him being raised at all after it happened because the disciples taught his death, burial and resurrection after the fact and why Peter and them got into the trouble by the judaizers like in Acts 4:1-2. If an atheist believed in Christ resurrection at all they could not be an atheist against the true God. They do believe in false gods whether it is mythical gods or themselves.


15. To say I take the name of the Lord in vain is ridiculous and false. I gave you the scripture of what Jesus taught to come to him to be forgiven and what the disciples knew and didn't know after the rejection of Israel.

16. You don't have a clue what the KoH and the KoG message is about and you don't understand the basis of coming to Jesus in order to be saved in the revelation of the law of Moses and the new covenant. Jesus was still living under the old testament because the new covenant was not until his death.


17. To prove my point explain the phrase I die daily in 1 Corinthians 15 and what it specifically means in the immediate context and give a scripture to show the exact meaning of the phrase, I die daily. This will clear up whether or not you can comprehend context. Jerry kelso

 

[sparow]

sparow,

1. You do not accept the scripture as truth in its proper context.

2. Jesus was not teaching the disciples in John 6 for them to believe in his death and resurrection. The disciples from that time on he began telling them. If he would have taught them he would have been direct and said you must believe in my death and resurrection to be saved for this is the new covenant. Even in Matthew 28:26 they didn't understand the type of the last passover drinking the wine was his blood for remission of sins.

3. Jesus message on earth was about the KoH and the KoG to Israel only and not the gentiles Matthew 10:6-7. You can't deny this. The reason why is because the gentiles didn't have a covenant at this time and this is why they were proselyted into Judaism and the theocracy they had with God. This is they the jew had to nice to the stranger at the gate and this is why Jesus said love your enemies.

4. You have shown you have no clue what the KoH and the KoG message was to the jew and was not a message to fulfill the covenants later for gentiles that are a part of the church. The church will be a part of the KoH because those who suffer will reign. 2 Timothy 2:12.

5. You think the KoH and the KoG are interchangeable terms and the fact is you don't even know why they are interchangeable in any respect. The interchangeable is because of the KoG in it's physical aspect is the whole universe. The KoH in it's physical aspect is the earth because this is where the kingdom reign will happen in the millennial kingdom and why after the final confrontation after the 1000 years the son will give the kingdom back to the father so God will be all in all. Then the universal KoG physically will be one as far as the KoH on earth will be brought back into harmony.

6. Matthew 6:33 says to seek the KoG and his righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you.

7. The KoG comes without observation in Luke 17:20 which is the spiritual aspect of the KoG. Matthew only uses the KoH term and the jew was never said to seek the KoH spiritually to come to God.

8. The KoH in it's physical aspect is this physical earth on which the kingdom reign will happen when Christ takes over the kingdoms of this world Revelation 11:15.

9. The greek term for KoH is baselia which is the kingdom from the heavens and Daniel 7:27 says this earth is the kingdom under the whole heaven. The kingdom from the heavens means that the spiritual rule comes from heaven.

10. In Jesus ministry the KoH was the physical kingdom because it is tied into the millennial kingdom and restitution of all things and the times of refreshing which Peter talked about in Acts 3:19-21. He told this too because Israel was to be at the head of the nations according to their covenants. Isaiah 2:2-4.

11. The message of the KoH and the KoG actually started in the garden of Eden because when Adam and Eve sinned they were kicked out of the physical kingdom and lost the spiritual life because of sin. This is what Jesus was to restore in his earthly ministry through the KoH and the KoG message to Israel who were covenanted with God to be at the head of the nations in the millennial kingdom Isaiah 2:1-4. This has never happened.

12. Most gentiles don't understand the KoH and the KoG message to Israel and why it was not for the gentiles or the church one. Israel was backslidden and the true church is not backslidden. Both Israel and the Church today were and are to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth but only Israel has been trodden down under the foot of men which Jesus prophesy of 70 A.D. proved but the gates of hell shall never prevail against the church.

13. You don't understand this message and the perception given is that you don't want to believe it because you would have to let go of your doctrine which is contrary to the truth of the word in context.

14. The death, burial and resurrection message not being taught by the disciples in Jesus ministry is not an atheist argument. The atheist argument is connected to him being raised at all after it happened because the disciples taught his death, burial and resurrection after the fact and why Peter and them got into the trouble by the judaizers like in Acts 4:1-2. If an atheist believed in Christ resurrection at all they could not be an atheist against the true God. They do believe in false gods whether it is mythical gods or themselves.


15. To say I take the name of the Lord in vain is ridiculous and false. I gave you the scripture of what Jesus taught to come to him to be forgiven and what the disciples knew and didn't know after the rejection of Israel.

16. You don't have a clue what the KoH and the KoG message is about and you don't understand the basis of coming to Jesus in order to be saved in the revelation of the law of Moses and the new covenant. Jesus was still living under the old testament because the new covenant was not until his death.


17. To prove my point explain the phrase I die daily in 1 Corinthians 15 and what it specifically means in the immediate context and give a scripture to show the exact meaning of the phrase, I die daily. This will clear up whether or not you can comprehend context. Jerry kelso

The Dispensational context is not truth it is a lie.

You don't seem to understand that you speak Dispensational and I speak English, every word you use has a Dispensational concept attached and I am not familiar with Dispensationalism and have no interest in it.

In John 6, what do you think the apostles were there with their fingers in their ears so that they couldn't hear what Jesus was saying to the Jews; you are totally irrational.

As I have said before the difference between the KoH and the KoG is to do with grammar and semantics; the kingdom is the same, the government and Law is the same, one tells where the kingdom is the other tells who owns it or who the king is. Heaven is not a literal place other than it is the dwelling place of God but as God move around so does His dwelling place. The Babylonians give Heaven 7 physical existences, which includes Paul's third heaven.

You keep putting the onus of determining what Paul meant by "I die daily". Paul means nothing to me and I want nothing from him and I see his dying daily as more of his ceaseless self testimony.

 

[Dispy]

The Dispensational context is not truth it is a lie.

You don't seem to understand that you speak Dispensational and I speak English, every word you use has a Dispensational concept attached and I am not familiar with Dispensationalism and have no interest in it.

In John 6, what do you think the apostles were there with their fingers in their ears so that they couldn't hear what Jesus was saying to the Jews; you are totally irrational.

As I have said before the difference between the KoH and the KoG is to do with grammar and semantics; the kingdom is the same, the government and Law is the same, one tells where the kingdom is the other tells who owns it or who the king is. Heaven is not a literal place other than it is the dwelling place of God but as God move around so does His dwelling place. The Babylonians give Heaven 7 physical existences, which includes Paul's third heaven.

You keep putting the onus of determining what Paul meant by "I die daily". Paul means nothing to me and I want nothing from him and I see his dying daily as more of his ceaseless self testimony.

I have requested several time to have my user name (DISPY) removed from the christianforum.com web site. Apparently no one can read.