Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What does "saved" mean?
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Donna Kupp
May 6, 2012, 11:55:32 AM5/6/12
to
What does "saved" mean?
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Romans 10:13
Does the word saved mean "receive eternal life"? That is the concept
that is taught by Modern Christianity. Is it true?
The word saved means "delivered or protect". Thayers lexicon gives
this as the primary meaning: 1) to save, keep safe and sound, to
rescue from danger or destruction.
All men are condemned to death because all have sinned. But whosoever
will call upon the name - the power and authority of Jesus will be
rescued and delivered from the kingdom of Satan so they may repent and
become the children of God.
To be saved is the first step in the process of salvation. Those who
are saved do not have eternal life - but they can - if they will
continue on to true repentance. That is why Paul wrote:
"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my
presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own
salvation with fear and trembling." Phi 2:12
Being saved leads to salvation and receiving eternal life. And how
does one inherit eternal life?
"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good
but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments." Mat 19:17
There can be no question which commandments Jesus meant because he
referred directly to the ten commandments!
We cannot be saved from the clutches of sin and Satan by any power of
our own - only by the grace of God which comes through believing in
Jesus.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:
it is the gift of God:" Eph 2:8
Those who receive Jesus are given the power to become the children of
God - that power is the grace of God. They are not born of God until
they come to true repentance.
"But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become
children of God, even to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12
"But he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved." Mat 24:13
To be saved we must endure to the end (Greek "goal reached") The goal
of those who believe in Jesus is to repent of sin and become the
children of God - those who are born of God.
To be saved is the first step in the process of receiving eternal
life. One can easily see the confusion in peoples minds if they are
taught that to be saved means to receive eternal life.
dk
The Seven Deadly Deceptions Of Counterfeit Christianity
http://www.freetruth.info
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Romans 10:13
Does the word saved mean "receive eternal life"? That is the concept
that is taught by Modern Christianity. Is it true?
The word saved means "delivered or protect". Thayers lexicon gives
this as the primary meaning: 1) to save, keep safe and sound, to
rescue from danger or destruction.
All men are condemned to death because all have sinned. But whosoever
will call upon the name - the power and authority of Jesus will be
rescued and delivered from the kingdom of Satan so they may repent and
become the children of God.
To be saved is the first step in the process of salvation. Those who
are saved do not have eternal life - but they can - if they will
continue on to true repentance. That is why Paul wrote:
"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my
presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own
salvation with fear and trembling." Phi 2:12
Being saved leads to salvation and receiving eternal life. And how
does one inherit eternal life?
"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good
but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments." Mat 19:17
There can be no question which commandments Jesus meant because he
referred directly to the ten commandments!
We cannot be saved from the clutches of sin and Satan by any power of
our own - only by the grace of God which comes through believing in
Jesus.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:
it is the gift of God:" Eph 2:8
Those who receive Jesus are given the power to become the children of
God - that power is the grace of God. They are not born of God until
they come to true repentance.
"But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become
children of God, even to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12
"But he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved." Mat 24:13
To be saved we must endure to the end (Greek "goal reached") The goal
of those who believe in Jesus is to repent of sin and become the
children of God - those who are born of God.
To be saved is the first step in the process of receiving eternal
life. One can easily see the confusion in peoples minds if they are
taught that to be saved means to receive eternal life.
dk
The Seven Deadly Deceptions Of Counterfeit Christianity
http://www.freetruth.info
vince garcia
May 6, 2012, 12:11:49 PM5/6/12
to
Donna Kupp wrote:
>
> A thousand may pray until their knees are bloody, but if they are not
> keeping His Commandments, God says their prayer is an abomination to
> Him. Yet the prayers of one one man who abides in Him can change the
> lives and circumstances of many:
>
> "The effectual fervent prayer of a RIGHTEOUS man availeth much."
> James 5:16 KJV
>
> “Little children, let no one deceive you. He who DOES RIGHT is
> RIGHTEOUS.” 1 John 3:7 RSV
Sounds good, doesn't it? SOUNDS like something a believer in Christ
might really say.
But what is the truth behind what Donna Kupp teaches and believes?
How can we know if this woman is of God or actually a false teacher when
she speaks?
Paul gives us the answer:
2 cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve
through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the
simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth ANOTHER JESUS, whom we have not
preached, or if ye receive ANOTHER SPIRIT, which ye have not received,
or ANOTHER GOSPEL, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with
him.
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.
Donna Kupp, for those who do not know, is a woman preaching a false
gospel with a false Christ that denies virtually every possible
essential of the Christian faith.
Note here paul's words about false teachers: they will actually be
"MINISTERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS"!!!!! Not antinomians, teaching lawlessness
and freedom to sin, but MINISTERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, teaching an
apparently good-sounding Gospel that is actually ANOTHER GOSPEL about
ANOTHER JESUS!
Let us test Donna Kupp's own words against the doctrines of
the New Testament and the Christian church, and see if we can determine
whether she is a servant of God, or actually a minister of Satan!
1. First, Paul warns that a minister of Satan will teach "ANOTHER
JESUS."
Is Donna Kupp's Jesus YOUR Jesus? Or is her Jesus the Jesus of
Scripture?
While Donna Kupp just made a number of statements sound like something a
real Christian might make, we cannot make a judgment whether she is or
is not a true Christian based only on what she just posted here. We must
determine if she really teaches the same Jesus REAL Christians follow by
looking at statements she, herself, has made about Christ in the past,
that she may not throw out on a regular basis, because she knows it
reveals what she REALLY thinks about Christ.
So what does she actually say about the Jesus she follows, and
supposedly places faith in?
This...
>"In the beginning was Jesus
> and Jesus was with THE RULER,
> and Jesus was Ruler.
> The same was in the beginning with THE RULER."
>John was teaching that Jesus was our Ruler (our theos) and that
>Jesus was with the Father from the very beginning of creation.
>(Not that Jesus was one third of some mysterious and mind-
>boggling "Trinity" that no one had ever heard of.)
We can stop right there. Donna Kupp, denying the deity of Christ,
rewrites the Gospel of John in a manner that affirms that denial, so we
can either change all our Bibles to her new trenslation that "proves"
Jesus is NOT fully God, but some other sort of created lesser being, or
we can allow the sacred words of the apostle John to stand AS WRITTEN!
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WORD
WAS GOD.
So we see her Jesus is ANOTHER JESUS that orthodox Protestants and
Evangelicals DO NOT believe in.
For US, Jesus is God in flesh, fully God and fully man, and 2nd Person
of the Trinity she goes on to mock and deny.
2. Next, Paul warns that a minister of Satan will teach or operate under
a "DIFFERENT SPIRIT".
Does Donna Kupp teach and receive anoining by the same Holy Spirit that
REAL Christians follow?
Judge for yourself by her own words.
> The concept that the Holy Spirit is God is based on a single verse in
> Acts (5:3) where it says that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit - and
> later it says that he lied to God.
> To conclude that the Holy Spirit is God on the basis of those verses is
> merely an interpretation which adds to what is actually written. Since
> the Spirit is the means of communciation between God and man, if you
> lie to the Spirit you are in effect lying to God. Are there any verses
> which actually say that the Holy Spirit is God?
> Not one!
> Jesus did not teach the Trinity, the apostles did not teach it, and it
> was not taught by church leaders for three hundred years after the
> death of Christ.
All REAL Christians believe not only in the deity of Christ, but also
the Godhood of the Holy Spirit. As we see from her own words, Donna
Kupp denies those two essentials of the faith, and proclaims the Holy
Spirit is only some nebulous "means of communication between God and
man"
So now we see she has fulfilled the SECOND warning of Paul--she has
A DIFFERENT SPIRIT than REAL Christians do.
By the way, her LIES about the history of the Trinity are instantly
refutable:
The deity of Christ was EXPLICITLY taught by Ignatius in the early 2nd
century
"To the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by
the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God"
"FOR OUR GOD, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God�s
plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit"
Letter to the Ephesians 1 110 AD
False teacher kupp also adds:
> There is no record of the co-equal, co-eternal, three-in-one God
> being taught by a single one of the early church fathers. It
> was not a part of Christian teaching until it was formulated by the
> Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381.A.D.
For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to
the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their
disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in
the Holy Spirit
Irenaeus, before 200 AD
And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for
the unity is distributed in a TRINITY. Placed in order, the three are
the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition,
but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of
one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one
God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"
Tertullian "Against Praxeas" early 200s AD
For Scripture as much announces Christ AS ALSO GOD, as it announces God
himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as
moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it
does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of
man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been
accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he
is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For
as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who
is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed
to be God who is of God. . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus
Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called
also God and the Son of God"
Novatian, Treatise on the Trinity 11 235 AD
And now the capstone to Kupp's historial and TEXTUAL illiteracy:
The Lord says: 'I and the Father are one.' And again of the Father and
Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'And these three are one'.
Cyprian --Treatise 1 on the unity of the Catholic Church, chapter 6,
early 3rd century, PROVING THE LEGITIMACY OF THE COMMA JOHANNEUM KUPP
(and other historical illiterates) SAY IS A FRAUD.
3. The minister of Satan will also teach "ANOTHER GOSPEL."
Does Donna Kupp uphold the CHRISTIAN gospel? We've already seen she
denies and perverts the nature of Jesus Himself and the precious Holy
Spirit. But what is her actual gospel message? She talks about
obedience, and making Jesus Lord...but what does she really believe
about sin, justification, and sanctification? Does she ever lay out her
beliefs in clear language so the body of Christ can see and judge
whether she is or is not a fellow believer?
Yes!
Again, these are her own words:
>To be saved is the first step in the process of salvation. Those who
>are saved do not have eternal life -
Did you get that? THOSE WHO ARE SAVED ___DO NOT___HAVE ETERNAL LIFE!!!
LET'S CONTRAST THAT WITH SCRIPTURE:
jn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, HATH eternal life;
and I will raise him up at the last day.
1 jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name
of the Son of God; that YE MAY KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that
ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
More from Donna Jupp:
> "If one who is born of God has truly repented of committing sin
> (chosen to cease from sin) and then deliberately commits sin he has
> despised the Holy Spirit, just as the OT the Israelites despised the
> Law of God. It is blasphemy!"
> "When we are converted all past sins are forgiven. After a person is
> born-again, only sins of ignorance are forgiven. If a person sins
> with knowledge and intent after that time, they have blasphemed
> the Holy Spirit and there is no more sacrifice for sin. See Hebrews
> 6:1-8; Hebrews 10:26-31."
LET'S CONTRAST THAT WITH SCRIPTURE:
Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves
are ALSO FOUND SINNERS, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God
forbid.
Apparently, paul understood that even those justified in Christ STILL
SINNED!
Are we sure? Well, let's again test the doctrine of donna kupp by paul's
own words, written in the last months of his life:
1 tim 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation,
that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I AM
CHIEF.
Wait a minute--I thought Donna said any Christian who willingly commits
even ONE SIN is eternally damned!
Apparently, paul did not realize this when he acknowledged he was the
WORST of sinners in 67 AD when he wrote this, 30+ years after finding
Christ! Thus, he must have been guilty of blaspheming the spirit
according to false teachers harold and donna kupp
What else did Paul have to say about whether Christians do or do not
commit sin in romans 7?
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing:
for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I
find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: BUT THE EVIL WHICH I WOULD NOT,
____THAT I DO___.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin
that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with
me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my
mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my
members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I
myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Does THAT sound like a man who has reached the state of sinless
perfection like Donna Kupp, who claims any sin she commits is 100%
accidental and unintentional??????
And this is her ultimate blasphemy regarding the blood of Christ...
> Blood of Christ covers: 1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light,
> as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the
> blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (Only sins
> of ignorance)
Notice how donna kupp added the words "Only sins of ignorance" to
pervert John's words? Just as she did with the powerful passage in John
1:1, she rejects the message and inserts her own heretical words flat
out CONTRADICTING what was actually written! John says Christ's blood
cleanses us from ALL sin; Donna adds words to change it to all
UNINTENTIONAL sins, making the blood of Christ LIMITED in its ability to
atone for sin.
Kupp also has missed what Jesus said about how imperfect His followers
will always be:
Luke 4:4 And FORGIVE US OUR SINS; for we also forgive every one that is
indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from
evil.
Meanwhile, THIS is God's true message of salvation:
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become
the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
And while Donna Kupp blasphemes the gospel by claiming we keep--and
actually earn--our salvation through keeping the 10 commandments
perfectly, here is what the SCRIPTURE says about how we stay in right
standing security with God:
1 peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a
lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not
away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 WHO ARE KEPT BY THE POWER OF GOD __THROUGH FAITH__ UNTO SALVATION
ready to be revealed in the last time.
So now we see her "gospel" IS NOT the gospel of the New testament. It is
a false gospel that...
A. Requires Bible verses to be rewritten in a heretical manner.
B. Requires adding a clarification to Scripture that TOTALLY overturns
what the Scripture actually SAYS.
C. Must deny the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
D. Requires remaining in a state of salvation by keeping the 10
commandments PERFECTLY, or else the person is now damned without
possibility of repentance.
E. Blasphemes and limits the atoning power of Christ's blood to
"Only sins of ignorance."
4. As we noted, Paul says the MINISTER OF SATAN will actually appear to
be a MINISTER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS! That is what makes them so deceptive.
They are serpents in the guise of sheep, preaching righteous living and
'keeping God's holy law' while in their hearts is satan himself, drawing
people away from TRUE righteousness, to a perverted notion of it based
on keeping commandments!
Take a look at Donna Kupp's deceptive posts, including this one. Every
one touts the keeping of biblical commandments, threatens people with
damnation for failing to keep biblical commandments, and threatenes them
with damnation if anyone should ever--EVEN ONE TIME--willingly BREAK a
biblical commandment.
So Kupp APPEARS to be preaching the righteousness of 'keeping God's holy
commandments'...yet she does it in a way that is an UTTER PERVERSION of
the gospel of grace, and comes right from the mouth of satan speaking
good things, and making her LOOK like a minister of righetousness.
So, summing it up, Paul says that a minister of satan will...
Preach another Jesus...
Preach under another spirit...
And preach a different gospel...
While appearing to be a minister of righteousness while doing so!
I believe Donna Kupp meets ALL FOUR CRITERIA.
Based on the totality of her teachings, I see no conclusion other than
that the "Jesus" she follows is a demon spirit, and the "Yahweh" she
speaks for is actually SATAN.
I am dead to the law by the crucified body of Christ. Are you?
>
> A thousand may pray until their knees are bloody, but if they are not
> keeping His Commandments, God says their prayer is an abomination to
> Him. Yet the prayers of one one man who abides in Him can change the
> lives and circumstances of many:
>
> "The effectual fervent prayer of a RIGHTEOUS man availeth much."
> James 5:16 KJV
>
> “Little children, let no one deceive you. He who DOES RIGHT is
> RIGHTEOUS.” 1 John 3:7 RSV
Sounds good, doesn't it? SOUNDS like something a believer in Christ
might really say.
But what is the truth behind what Donna Kupp teaches and believes?
How can we know if this woman is of God or actually a false teacher when
she speaks?
Paul gives us the answer:
2 cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve
through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the
simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth ANOTHER JESUS, whom we have not
preached, or if ye receive ANOTHER SPIRIT, which ye have not received,
or ANOTHER GOSPEL, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with
him.
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.
Donna Kupp, for those who do not know, is a woman preaching a false
gospel with a false Christ that denies virtually every possible
essential of the Christian faith.
Note here paul's words about false teachers: they will actually be
"MINISTERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS"!!!!! Not antinomians, teaching lawlessness
and freedom to sin, but MINISTERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, teaching an
apparently good-sounding Gospel that is actually ANOTHER GOSPEL about
ANOTHER JESUS!
Let us test Donna Kupp's own words against the doctrines of
the New Testament and the Christian church, and see if we can determine
whether she is a servant of God, or actually a minister of Satan!
1. First, Paul warns that a minister of Satan will teach "ANOTHER
JESUS."
Is Donna Kupp's Jesus YOUR Jesus? Or is her Jesus the Jesus of
Scripture?
While Donna Kupp just made a number of statements sound like something a
real Christian might make, we cannot make a judgment whether she is or
is not a true Christian based only on what she just posted here. We must
determine if she really teaches the same Jesus REAL Christians follow by
looking at statements she, herself, has made about Christ in the past,
that she may not throw out on a regular basis, because she knows it
reveals what she REALLY thinks about Christ.
So what does she actually say about the Jesus she follows, and
supposedly places faith in?
This...
>"In the beginning was Jesus
> and Jesus was with THE RULER,
> and Jesus was Ruler.
> The same was in the beginning with THE RULER."
>John was teaching that Jesus was our Ruler (our theos) and that
>Jesus was with the Father from the very beginning of creation.
>(Not that Jesus was one third of some mysterious and mind-
>boggling "Trinity" that no one had ever heard of.)
We can stop right there. Donna Kupp, denying the deity of Christ,
rewrites the Gospel of John in a manner that affirms that denial, so we
can either change all our Bibles to her new trenslation that "proves"
Jesus is NOT fully God, but some other sort of created lesser being, or
we can allow the sacred words of the apostle John to stand AS WRITTEN!
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WORD
WAS GOD.
So we see her Jesus is ANOTHER JESUS that orthodox Protestants and
Evangelicals DO NOT believe in.
For US, Jesus is God in flesh, fully God and fully man, and 2nd Person
of the Trinity she goes on to mock and deny.
2. Next, Paul warns that a minister of Satan will teach or operate under
a "DIFFERENT SPIRIT".
Does Donna Kupp teach and receive anoining by the same Holy Spirit that
REAL Christians follow?
Judge for yourself by her own words.
> The concept that the Holy Spirit is God is based on a single verse in
> Acts (5:3) where it says that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit - and
> later it says that he lied to God.
> To conclude that the Holy Spirit is God on the basis of those verses is
> merely an interpretation which adds to what is actually written. Since
> the Spirit is the means of communciation between God and man, if you
> lie to the Spirit you are in effect lying to God. Are there any verses
> which actually say that the Holy Spirit is God?
> Not one!
> Jesus did not teach the Trinity, the apostles did not teach it, and it
> was not taught by church leaders for three hundred years after the
> death of Christ.
All REAL Christians believe not only in the deity of Christ, but also
the Godhood of the Holy Spirit. As we see from her own words, Donna
Kupp denies those two essentials of the faith, and proclaims the Holy
Spirit is only some nebulous "means of communication between God and
man"
So now we see she has fulfilled the SECOND warning of Paul--she has
A DIFFERENT SPIRIT than REAL Christians do.
By the way, her LIES about the history of the Trinity are instantly
refutable:
The deity of Christ was EXPLICITLY taught by Ignatius in the early 2nd
century
"To the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by
the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God"
"FOR OUR GOD, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God�s
plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit"
Letter to the Ephesians 1 110 AD
False teacher kupp also adds:
> There is no record of the co-equal, co-eternal, three-in-one God
> being taught by a single one of the early church fathers. It
> was not a part of Christian teaching until it was formulated by the
> Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381.A.D.
For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to
the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their
disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in
the Holy Spirit
Irenaeus, before 200 AD
And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for
the unity is distributed in a TRINITY. Placed in order, the three are
the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition,
but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of
one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one
God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"
Tertullian "Against Praxeas" early 200s AD
For Scripture as much announces Christ AS ALSO GOD, as it announces God
himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as
moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it
does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of
man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been
accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he
is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For
as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who
is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed
to be God who is of God. . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus
Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called
also God and the Son of God"
Novatian, Treatise on the Trinity 11 235 AD
And now the capstone to Kupp's historial and TEXTUAL illiteracy:
The Lord says: 'I and the Father are one.' And again of the Father and
Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'And these three are one'.
Cyprian --Treatise 1 on the unity of the Catholic Church, chapter 6,
early 3rd century, PROVING THE LEGITIMACY OF THE COMMA JOHANNEUM KUPP
(and other historical illiterates) SAY IS A FRAUD.
3. The minister of Satan will also teach "ANOTHER GOSPEL."
Does Donna Kupp uphold the CHRISTIAN gospel? We've already seen she
denies and perverts the nature of Jesus Himself and the precious Holy
Spirit. But what is her actual gospel message? She talks about
obedience, and making Jesus Lord...but what does she really believe
about sin, justification, and sanctification? Does she ever lay out her
beliefs in clear language so the body of Christ can see and judge
whether she is or is not a fellow believer?
Yes!
Again, these are her own words:
>To be saved is the first step in the process of salvation. Those who
>are saved do not have eternal life -
LET'S CONTRAST THAT WITH SCRIPTURE:
jn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, HATH eternal life;
and I will raise him up at the last day.
1 jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name
of the Son of God; that YE MAY KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that
ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
More from Donna Jupp:
> "If one who is born of God has truly repented of committing sin
> (chosen to cease from sin) and then deliberately commits sin he has
> despised the Holy Spirit, just as the OT the Israelites despised the
> Law of God. It is blasphemy!"
> "When we are converted all past sins are forgiven. After a person is
> born-again, only sins of ignorance are forgiven. If a person sins
> with knowledge and intent after that time, they have blasphemed
> the Holy Spirit and there is no more sacrifice for sin. See Hebrews
> 6:1-8; Hebrews 10:26-31."
LET'S CONTRAST THAT WITH SCRIPTURE:
Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves
are ALSO FOUND SINNERS, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God
forbid.
Apparently, paul understood that even those justified in Christ STILL
SINNED!
Are we sure? Well, let's again test the doctrine of donna kupp by paul's
own words, written in the last months of his life:
1 tim 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation,
that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I AM
CHIEF.
Wait a minute--I thought Donna said any Christian who willingly commits
even ONE SIN is eternally damned!
Apparently, paul did not realize this when he acknowledged he was the
WORST of sinners in 67 AD when he wrote this, 30+ years after finding
Christ! Thus, he must have been guilty of blaspheming the spirit
according to false teachers harold and donna kupp
What else did Paul have to say about whether Christians do or do not
commit sin in romans 7?
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing:
for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I
find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: BUT THE EVIL WHICH I WOULD NOT,
____THAT I DO___.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin
that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with
me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my
mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my
members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I
myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Does THAT sound like a man who has reached the state of sinless
perfection like Donna Kupp, who claims any sin she commits is 100%
accidental and unintentional??????
And this is her ultimate blasphemy regarding the blood of Christ...
> Blood of Christ covers: 1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light,
> as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the
> blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (Only sins
> of ignorance)
Notice how donna kupp added the words "Only sins of ignorance" to
pervert John's words? Just as she did with the powerful passage in John
1:1, she rejects the message and inserts her own heretical words flat
out CONTRADICTING what was actually written! John says Christ's blood
cleanses us from ALL sin; Donna adds words to change it to all
UNINTENTIONAL sins, making the blood of Christ LIMITED in its ability to
atone for sin.
Kupp also has missed what Jesus said about how imperfect His followers
will always be:
Luke 4:4 And FORGIVE US OUR SINS; for we also forgive every one that is
indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from
evil.
Meanwhile, THIS is God's true message of salvation:
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become
the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
And while Donna Kupp blasphemes the gospel by claiming we keep--and
actually earn--our salvation through keeping the 10 commandments
perfectly, here is what the SCRIPTURE says about how we stay in right
standing security with God:
1 peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a
lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not
away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 WHO ARE KEPT BY THE POWER OF GOD __THROUGH FAITH__ UNTO SALVATION
ready to be revealed in the last time.
So now we see her "gospel" IS NOT the gospel of the New testament. It is
a false gospel that...
A. Requires Bible verses to be rewritten in a heretical manner.
B. Requires adding a clarification to Scripture that TOTALLY overturns
what the Scripture actually SAYS.
C. Must deny the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
D. Requires remaining in a state of salvation by keeping the 10
commandments PERFECTLY, or else the person is now damned without
possibility of repentance.
E. Blasphemes and limits the atoning power of Christ's blood to
"Only sins of ignorance."
4. As we noted, Paul says the MINISTER OF SATAN will actually appear to
be a MINISTER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS! That is what makes them so deceptive.
They are serpents in the guise of sheep, preaching righteous living and
'keeping God's holy law' while in their hearts is satan himself, drawing
people away from TRUE righteousness, to a perverted notion of it based
on keeping commandments!
Take a look at Donna Kupp's deceptive posts, including this one. Every
one touts the keeping of biblical commandments, threatens people with
damnation for failing to keep biblical commandments, and threatenes them
with damnation if anyone should ever--EVEN ONE TIME--willingly BREAK a
biblical commandment.
So Kupp APPEARS to be preaching the righteousness of 'keeping God's holy
commandments'...yet she does it in a way that is an UTTER PERVERSION of
the gospel of grace, and comes right from the mouth of satan speaking
good things, and making her LOOK like a minister of righetousness.
So, summing it up, Paul says that a minister of satan will...
Preach another Jesus...
Preach under another spirit...
And preach a different gospel...
While appearing to be a minister of righteousness while doing so!
I believe Donna Kupp meets ALL FOUR CRITERIA.
Based on the totality of her teachings, I see no conclusion other than
that the "Jesus" she follows is a demon spirit, and the "Yahweh" she
speaks for is actually SATAN.
I am dead to the law by the crucified body of Christ. Are you?
vince garcia
May 6, 2012, 12:11:59 PM5/6/12
to
Donna Kupp wrote:
>
> What does "saved" mean?
>
> Being saved leads to salvation and receiving eternal life. And how
> does one inherit eternal life?
>
> "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good
> but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the
> commandments." Mat 19:17
>
> There can be no question which commandments Jesus meant because he
> referred directly to the ten commandments!
>
because one of Paul's greatest revelations was that Abraham was the
archetypal paradigm for mankind's justification with God.
In contrast to everything Judaism believed, Paul came to understand
that righteousness--and from that full justification--could only come
through God's grace, through faith, apart from any of mankind's
human efforts.
For Paul, Abraham was the proof of this.
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the
promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of
the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is
the father of us all…
--Rom. 4:16.
Not only was Abraham, the Patriarch of the Jews, declared righteous by
God specifically because of his belief apart from keeping a list of
commandments (Gen. 15:6), but that declaration of his righteousness
and right standing with God came centuries before the Law had ever
been given through Moses.
While there were many great men who served God after the Law was
given--and while many, from a human standpoint, were righteous--only
Abraham had the distinction of being declared righteous independent of
keeping a law, and actually had God impart a foreign righteousness to
him, based on his faith.
Paul, who had fastidiously kept the commandments of the Law, yet was
dead in sin and committing murder in the name of a God he did not
really know, realized that even the greatest men under the Law were
still convicted by their shortcomings, and even if called "righteous,"
in a general sense, still stood condemned, and still lived their lives
out in constant failure to truly reach a state of absolute
righteousness before God by keeping His legion of commandments.
In coming to this revelation, Paul had to come to grips that the Torah
given through Moses--which had been drilled into the heads of the Jews
for 1500 years--not only couldn't save or justify men before God, but
actually hindered mankind's justification before God by imposing a
standard of obedience that humankind could not achieve due to its
fallen nature, which was actually empowered by the Law to rebel!
Some of his final conclusions about the Law were that:
It causes sin to have dominion over us (Rom. 6:14).
It wrought in Paul all manner of concupiscence (Rom. 7:8).
It revived sin in Paul (Rom. 7:10).
It wound up working death in Paul (Rom. 7:13).
It is strength of sin (1 Cor. 15:56).
Why then, if the Law seemed to cause so many problems, was it even
given if no law is required to be reckoned just before God?
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of
transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was
made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
--Gal. 3:19.
And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their
end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in
whom is no faith.
--Deut 32: 20.
Paul saw that the Law had been given because the Jews of Moses' time
were not of the same spirit as their ancestor Abraham. The truth was
that they were faithless rebels, constantly needing a guide to keep them
in line. Without such a guide, they were wanton sinners and eager
idolaters because of their critical lack of faith.
And even with the Law, their core nature never really changed, and
throughout all generations of Israel the nation refused to even live by
that Law:
Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine
ordinances, and have not kept them.
--Malachi 3:7.
Paul quickly saw in the history of Israel an utter failure for the
nation to be in right standing with God in the way its Patriarch
Abraham--about whom God had no complaint--was.
What was the difference?
The one man obtained that right standing through faith, while the
nation sought it through obedience, yet failed to achieve it, because
they thought it would come by keeping commandments:
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.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth.
--Romans 10: 3-4.
And so, in Romans and Galatians, Paul directs his readers to Abraham
as the archetypal paradigm of justification with God.
In both cases, he goes out of his way to point out that Abraham kept no
Law, and achieved full justification with God only through faith--and
that by faith alone, we inherit the blessing of righteousness that
Abraham had:
We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by
the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ,
that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the
works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be
justified.
--Gal. 2:15-16.
He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh
miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the
hearing of faith?
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for
righteousness.
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the
children of Abraham.
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen
through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying,
In thee shall all nations be blessed.
So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for
it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things
which are written in the book of the law to do them.
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is
evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live
in them.
--Gal. 3: 5-12.
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God
in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after,
cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but
God gave it to Abraham by promise.
--Gal. 3:17-18
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to
the flesh, hath found?
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but
not before God.
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was
counted unto him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but
of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth
the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto
whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose
sins are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon
the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to
Abraham for righteousness.
How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in
uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness
of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be
the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised;
that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the
circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of
our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to
Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the
righteousness of faith.
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the
promise made of none effect:
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no
transgression.
--Romans 4:1-15
While these verses--among many others of Paul's--should settle the
issue, the truth is that many Christian movements simply cannot accept
the Gospel Paul articulated. Many denominations--good and bad--teach
that we must somehow keep some sort of law to be pleasing to God, or
as "proof" we have "real" faith.
Well...let us do as Paul directs, and look at Abraham.
First, let us ask: Did Abraham know or keep the Law?
No! It wasn't given until 430 years later, according to Gal. 3:17,
a fact that is critically important to note!
Did Abraham keep the Sabbath?
No! There isn't one place in Scripture that says he did or that God told
him to! And if Abraham did keep the Sabbath commands, then Paul
would have noted that as playing a factor in his justification--or would
have at least mentioned that did not play a factor, as he does when
speaking of circumcision. Instead, Paul went out of his way to show
that Abraham's justification existed entirely separate from the Law,
which would have to mean outside its Sabbath commands.
Did Abraham keep any set of "commandments"?
No!
"But wait!" the Jew and Messianic will say. "The Old Testament says
Abraham kept the Law and God's commandments, so you are dead
wrong when you claim he didn't!"
Let's look at that claim. The passage in question these groups appeal to
is this:
Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for
unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I
will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and
will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all
the nations of the earth be blessed;
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my
commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
--Genesis 26:3-5.
"Well, there you go--Abraham was keeping the Law, right?"
Actually, no. And to prove that, we will go to the Scriptures, test the
claim against what the Bible actually shows, and see if that passage
means what it appears to say, because if it does mean what many of
you think it means, you have just made Paul a false teacher as I will go
on to show.
For Christians, we go not by Jewish speculation, but by what the
apostle Paul actually says on this issue, which is that no law existed
from Adam down to Moses!
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when
there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them
that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,
who is the figure of him that was to come.
--Romans 5:14.
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God
in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after,
cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
--Gal. 3:17.
The Law starts with Moses, 430 years after Abraham!
"No! No!" the Adventist will now say. "The Torah may start with
Moses, but certainly the Ten Commandments were established from the
Garden of Eden, and Abraham was keeping those, especially the
Sabbath command! That's what the passage in Genesis means!"
No. Were that true, then there would have been a law given before
Moses, mankind would have been accountable to that law, and Paul
could not have said:
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when
there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them
that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,
who is the figure of him that was to come.
--Romans 5:14.
"No law" means no law--not, "No law but for the 10 Commandments!"
Also, Moses himself indicates the 10 Commandments starts with the
Jews of his era:
The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb (Mt. Sinai).
The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us,
even us, who are all of here alive this day.
--Deuteronomy 5:2-3.
If Abraham was keeping the 10 Commandments Moses said was not
given before the Exodus, then you have just refuted Paul's teachings in
Romans 4:13-15, and denied Moses' words on top of that!
Now I know Messianics who do reject Paul and consider him to be a
false teacher. But assuming you are a real Christian who follows the
teachings of Paul as the Word of God--your choice is made for you: No
law existed between Adam to Moses, and if you teach that one did and
that Abraham was keeping it, you are directly contradicting the
teachings in Romans and Galatians.
Yet why do some Jews think Abraham kept the full Law?
Because of the language here that meant something in their culture:
Statutes--refers to oral explanations on how to keep the law.
Commandments--are things you have to do, for which a reason may
not clearly be given, like wearing tefillin.
Laws--"commandments" in the sense of laws (often moral) given
with an explanation on why you have to do them.
Thus, many Jews (wrongly) conclude Abraham kept the full Torah.
But for we Christians, we go by what Paul said, and Paul said there was
no explicit law between Adam to Moses. And, had Abraham been
keeping any sort of law as a part of his justification with God--whether
it's the 10, the 613, or only the Sabbath--we have this problem:
For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but
God gave it to Abraham by promise.
--Gal. 3:18.
So what was meant here?
I believe, as Wesley seems to indicate, the passage means that Abraham
simply did what God asked of him, which included obeying a
circumcision covenant, making an animal sacrifice, and being willing
to sacrifice his son. Beyond that, I suspect God was prophetically
speaking about Christ through Abraham, who alone kept God's
commandments, statutes, and laws to God's true standard, and so the
verse, in its ultimate sense, did not even refer to Abraham, per se.
But let's say I'm wrong. Let's say Abraham was keeping some set of
commandments. What were those commandments, because I'd like to
keep them and go to heaven with Abraham?
"Well, they were the Ten Commandments," says the Adventist,
"especially the Sabbath!"
"No," says the Messianic, "while he certainly kept the Sabbath,
Abraham was also keeping the six hundred and thirteen mitzvot, which
always existed, but was simply written down in Moses' time!"
"You're both wrong," says the Reform Jew. "He was keeping the seven
Noachide commandments!"
"A pox on all of you!" says the ultra-Orthodox Jew. "The great Rashi
shows that Avraham kept all the Torah of Moshe, and also the oral
traditions of the rabbis that would follow him on how to keep it
properly because he discerned all these mysteries by contemplating the
nature of G-d's creation!"
Hmm. Whom should I believe? Maybe the Adventist is right. But
then…what if he's wrong and I really have to keep the full 613? Am I
lost if I keep the wrong set of commandments? How can I figure out
which of these varying opinions is the right one?
Well, let's not speculate--but simply go to the Bible and list every
command God is recorded to have ever given Abraham, and see what
those commands were!
Gen. 12
1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy
country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a
land that I will shew thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and
make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth
thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Gen.13
17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the
breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.
Gen. 15
1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a
vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding
great reward.
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward
heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he
said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for
righteousness.
9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a
she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a
turtledove, and a young pigeon.
10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst,
and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he
not.
11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove
them away.
12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon
Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.
13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall
be a stranger in a land that is not their's, and shall serve them; and
they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and
afterward shall they come out with great substance.
15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in
a good old age.
16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for
the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was
dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed
between those pieces.
18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram,
saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of
Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the
Jebusites.
Gen. 17
1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD
appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God;
walk before me, and be thou perfect.
5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name
shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant
therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you
and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be
circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall
be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you,
every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house,
or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy
money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in
your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is
not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath
broken my covenant.
15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt
not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will
bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall
be of her.
Gen. 21
12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight
because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that
Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac
shall thy seed be called.
Gen. 22
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou
lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for
a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou
any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing
thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
That's it. Every "command" God ever gave Abraham.
Where is the mention of the Torah?
Where is the mention of the 10 Commandments?
Where is the mention of the Sabbath?
There is none! And if you think I'm leaving something out, go read all
the chapters of Genesis dealing with Abraham, and you will find I'm
not! There is no record of God's giving Abraham any "law" to obey.
To say that God did give a set of commandments to Abraham, who
then kept them and was somehow justified or by that secured God's
approval, is to deny what the Scripture says about him, and requires us
to:
1. Invent encounters with God that the Bible never mentions.
2. Make up orders given by God to Abraham that the Bible never
mentions.
3. Presume Abraham then adopted a certain lifestyle, based on these
unsubstantiated encounters and commands that the Bible never
mentions.
4. Presume his obedience to this unlisted set of commandments
placed Abraham in right standing with God, which the Bible not
only never mentions, but actually contradicts in Romans 4.
So what you will find the Bible actually records are simply general
orders, including to sacrifice his son, all of which Abraham obeyed.
Even James, the man the cultists go to in order to validate their
heresies about justification through works, writes that Abraham was
justified--not by keeping some Law and its commandments--but
by offering up Isaac:
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had
offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
--James 2:21.
The only possible issue that could be raised about obedience to a
commandment playing a factor in God's approval of Abraham would
be his submitting to circumcision, but Paul deals with that, and
makes it clear circumcision played no role in being justified with
God whatever.
Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the
uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to
Abraham for righteousness.
How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in
uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness
of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be
the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised;
that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the
circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of
our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to
Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the
righteousness of faith.
--Romans 4:9-13.
Thus, Abraham was not under the Law, nor was he keeping the Law!
Now--does that mean because Abraham wasn't under the Law, that it
was okay for him to sin?
No.
Did he go out and sin?
No. (Though he did technically break kosher eating rules in Gen. 18:8,
and violated Lev. 18:9 by being married to his sister, while his
grandson violated the Torah by marrying two sisters.)
But these technical "transgressions" were not imputed to either
Abraham or Jacob because, as Paul says:
... sin is not imputed when there is no law.
--Romans 5:14.
The truth is that Abraham was a righteous man (in the sense of being a
moral man), so God had no need to give him laws against
unrighteousness. But the fact he was righteous, in a temporal sense,
doesn't mean he "kept" commandments of a codified law of some sort! He
simply lived a good moral life as we too are called to do--
independent of "keeping" laws and commandments!
Yet the Child of the Flesh can't get that. He claims that if we say
we're not "under the Law," and if we don't "keep commandments," we're
saying it's okay to sin.
All that does is show the ignorance of heretics who miss what the New
covenant actually is.
So then--how did Abraham achieve justification with God if he wasn't
"keeping God's Law"?
Through faith.
"Oh, but faith without works is dead, so we need to keep God's Law or
we don't have real faith," says the Child of the Flesh.
When a Messianic, Cultist, or any false teacher says we must keep this
law or that, or do this or that to be in right standing with God or to
prove we have "real" faith, we should immediately go back to
Abraham, and check whether Abraham was doing, in practice, what
that person says we must.
If we do that, we will see that everything the false teacher claims
we're required to do was not done as an act of conscious obedience
to a law by Abraham.
All the man did to be justified with God was to believe--not believe and
go do this or that!
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live
in them.
--Gal. 3:12.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
--Romans 4:5.
"No! No!" the cultist will insist. "Abraham kept various
commandments in the Law, even though the Law hadn't been written
down yet by Moses, and that's because God taught those
commandments to him orally. So we must keep those commandments--
like the Sabbath--just as Abraham did, even if the Bible doesn't
explicitly say God taught them to him!"
Wrong.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:
--2 Tim. 3:16.
We do not base critical issues of the faith on oral tradition or
speculation--we go to the Scripture! When we do, we see that in that
Scripture, Paul has directed us to Abraham as our paradigm for
justification. And while it enrages some, Scripture shows the man
Abraham never "kept God's holy Law" to be in full right standing with
the God who imputed righteousness to him because of his belief, and
not his obedience to a set of commandments!
"But if you're saying people don't have to keep God's Law or
commandments, you're contradicting what the New Testament says,
and saying it's okay to go out and sin like the devil!"
Am I?
We'll deal with that in the next article
copyright by Vince Garcia. All rights reserved
>
> What does "saved" mean?
>
> Being saved leads to salvation and receiving eternal life. And how
> does one inherit eternal life?
>
> "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good
> but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the
> commandments." Mat 19:17
>
> There can be no question which commandments Jesus meant because he
> referred directly to the ten commandments!
>
> To be saved is the first step in the process of receiving eternal
> life. One can easily see the confusion in peoples minds if they are
> taught that to be saved means to receive eternal life.
>
> dk
>
It is vitally important that every Christian study the life of Abraham,
> life. One can easily see the confusion in peoples minds if they are
> taught that to be saved means to receive eternal life.
>
> dk
>
because one of Paul's greatest revelations was that Abraham was the
archetypal paradigm for mankind's justification with God.
In contrast to everything Judaism believed, Paul came to understand
that righteousness--and from that full justification--could only come
through God's grace, through faith, apart from any of mankind's
human efforts.
For Paul, Abraham was the proof of this.
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the
promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of
the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is
the father of us all…
--Rom. 4:16.
Not only was Abraham, the Patriarch of the Jews, declared righteous by
God specifically because of his belief apart from keeping a list of
commandments (Gen. 15:6), but that declaration of his righteousness
and right standing with God came centuries before the Law had ever
been given through Moses.
While there were many great men who served God after the Law was
given--and while many, from a human standpoint, were righteous--only
Abraham had the distinction of being declared righteous independent of
keeping a law, and actually had God impart a foreign righteousness to
him, based on his faith.
Paul, who had fastidiously kept the commandments of the Law, yet was
dead in sin and committing murder in the name of a God he did not
really know, realized that even the greatest men under the Law were
still convicted by their shortcomings, and even if called "righteous,"
in a general sense, still stood condemned, and still lived their lives
out in constant failure to truly reach a state of absolute
righteousness before God by keeping His legion of commandments.
In coming to this revelation, Paul had to come to grips that the Torah
given through Moses--which had been drilled into the heads of the Jews
for 1500 years--not only couldn't save or justify men before God, but
actually hindered mankind's justification before God by imposing a
standard of obedience that humankind could not achieve due to its
fallen nature, which was actually empowered by the Law to rebel!
Some of his final conclusions about the Law were that:
It causes sin to have dominion over us (Rom. 6:14).
It wrought in Paul all manner of concupiscence (Rom. 7:8).
It revived sin in Paul (Rom. 7:10).
It wound up working death in Paul (Rom. 7:13).
It is strength of sin (1 Cor. 15:56).
Why then, if the Law seemed to cause so many problems, was it even
given if no law is required to be reckoned just before God?
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of
transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was
made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
--Gal. 3:19.
And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their
end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in
whom is no faith.
--Deut 32: 20.
Paul saw that the Law had been given because the Jews of Moses' time
were not of the same spirit as their ancestor Abraham. The truth was
that they were faithless rebels, constantly needing a guide to keep them
in line. Without such a guide, they were wanton sinners and eager
idolaters because of their critical lack of faith.
And even with the Law, their core nature never really changed, and
throughout all generations of Israel the nation refused to even live by
that Law:
Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine
ordinances, and have not kept them.
--Malachi 3:7.
Paul quickly saw in the history of Israel an utter failure for the
nation to be in right standing with God in the way its Patriarch
Abraham--about whom God had no complaint--was.
What was the difference?
The one man obtained that right standing through faith, while the
nation sought it through obedience, yet failed to achieve it, because
they thought it would come by keeping commandments:
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.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth.
--Romans 10: 3-4.
And so, in Romans and Galatians, Paul directs his readers to Abraham
as the archetypal paradigm of justification with God.
In both cases, he goes out of his way to point out that Abraham kept no
Law, and achieved full justification with God only through faith--and
that by faith alone, we inherit the blessing of righteousness that
Abraham had:
We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by
the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ,
that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the
works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be
justified.
--Gal. 2:15-16.
He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh
miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the
hearing of faith?
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for
righteousness.
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the
children of Abraham.
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen
through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying,
In thee shall all nations be blessed.
So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for
it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things
which are written in the book of the law to do them.
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is
evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live
in them.
--Gal. 3: 5-12.
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God
in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after,
cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but
God gave it to Abraham by promise.
--Gal. 3:17-18
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to
the flesh, hath found?
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but
not before God.
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was
counted unto him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but
of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth
the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto
whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose
sins are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon
the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to
Abraham for righteousness.
How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in
uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness
of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be
the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised;
that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the
circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of
our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to
Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the
righteousness of faith.
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the
promise made of none effect:
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no
transgression.
--Romans 4:1-15
While these verses--among many others of Paul's--should settle the
issue, the truth is that many Christian movements simply cannot accept
the Gospel Paul articulated. Many denominations--good and bad--teach
that we must somehow keep some sort of law to be pleasing to God, or
as "proof" we have "real" faith.
Well...let us do as Paul directs, and look at Abraham.
First, let us ask: Did Abraham know or keep the Law?
No! It wasn't given until 430 years later, according to Gal. 3:17,
a fact that is critically important to note!
Did Abraham keep the Sabbath?
No! There isn't one place in Scripture that says he did or that God told
him to! And if Abraham did keep the Sabbath commands, then Paul
would have noted that as playing a factor in his justification--or would
have at least mentioned that did not play a factor, as he does when
speaking of circumcision. Instead, Paul went out of his way to show
that Abraham's justification existed entirely separate from the Law,
which would have to mean outside its Sabbath commands.
Did Abraham keep any set of "commandments"?
No!
"But wait!" the Jew and Messianic will say. "The Old Testament says
Abraham kept the Law and God's commandments, so you are dead
wrong when you claim he didn't!"
Let's look at that claim. The passage in question these groups appeal to
is this:
Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for
unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I
will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and
will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all
the nations of the earth be blessed;
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my
commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
--Genesis 26:3-5.
"Well, there you go--Abraham was keeping the Law, right?"
Actually, no. And to prove that, we will go to the Scriptures, test the
claim against what the Bible actually shows, and see if that passage
means what it appears to say, because if it does mean what many of
you think it means, you have just made Paul a false teacher as I will go
on to show.
For Christians, we go not by Jewish speculation, but by what the
apostle Paul actually says on this issue, which is that no law existed
from Adam down to Moses!
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when
there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them
that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,
who is the figure of him that was to come.
--Romans 5:14.
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God
in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after,
cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
--Gal. 3:17.
The Law starts with Moses, 430 years after Abraham!
"No! No!" the Adventist will now say. "The Torah may start with
Moses, but certainly the Ten Commandments were established from the
Garden of Eden, and Abraham was keeping those, especially the
Sabbath command! That's what the passage in Genesis means!"
No. Were that true, then there would have been a law given before
Moses, mankind would have been accountable to that law, and Paul
could not have said:
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when
there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them
that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,
who is the figure of him that was to come.
--Romans 5:14.
"No law" means no law--not, "No law but for the 10 Commandments!"
Also, Moses himself indicates the 10 Commandments starts with the
Jews of his era:
The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb (Mt. Sinai).
The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us,
even us, who are all of here alive this day.
--Deuteronomy 5:2-3.
If Abraham was keeping the 10 Commandments Moses said was not
given before the Exodus, then you have just refuted Paul's teachings in
Romans 4:13-15, and denied Moses' words on top of that!
Now I know Messianics who do reject Paul and consider him to be a
false teacher. But assuming you are a real Christian who follows the
teachings of Paul as the Word of God--your choice is made for you: No
law existed between Adam to Moses, and if you teach that one did and
that Abraham was keeping it, you are directly contradicting the
teachings in Romans and Galatians.
Yet why do some Jews think Abraham kept the full Law?
Because of the language here that meant something in their culture:
Statutes--refers to oral explanations on how to keep the law.
Commandments--are things you have to do, for which a reason may
not clearly be given, like wearing tefillin.
Laws--"commandments" in the sense of laws (often moral) given
with an explanation on why you have to do them.
Thus, many Jews (wrongly) conclude Abraham kept the full Torah.
But for we Christians, we go by what Paul said, and Paul said there was
no explicit law between Adam to Moses. And, had Abraham been
keeping any sort of law as a part of his justification with God--whether
it's the 10, the 613, or only the Sabbath--we have this problem:
For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but
God gave it to Abraham by promise.
--Gal. 3:18.
So what was meant here?
I believe, as Wesley seems to indicate, the passage means that Abraham
simply did what God asked of him, which included obeying a
circumcision covenant, making an animal sacrifice, and being willing
to sacrifice his son. Beyond that, I suspect God was prophetically
speaking about Christ through Abraham, who alone kept God's
commandments, statutes, and laws to God's true standard, and so the
verse, in its ultimate sense, did not even refer to Abraham, per se.
But let's say I'm wrong. Let's say Abraham was keeping some set of
commandments. What were those commandments, because I'd like to
keep them and go to heaven with Abraham?
"Well, they were the Ten Commandments," says the Adventist,
"especially the Sabbath!"
"No," says the Messianic, "while he certainly kept the Sabbath,
Abraham was also keeping the six hundred and thirteen mitzvot, which
always existed, but was simply written down in Moses' time!"
"You're both wrong," says the Reform Jew. "He was keeping the seven
Noachide commandments!"
"A pox on all of you!" says the ultra-Orthodox Jew. "The great Rashi
shows that Avraham kept all the Torah of Moshe, and also the oral
traditions of the rabbis that would follow him on how to keep it
properly because he discerned all these mysteries by contemplating the
nature of G-d's creation!"
Hmm. Whom should I believe? Maybe the Adventist is right. But
then…what if he's wrong and I really have to keep the full 613? Am I
lost if I keep the wrong set of commandments? How can I figure out
which of these varying opinions is the right one?
Well, let's not speculate--but simply go to the Bible and list every
command God is recorded to have ever given Abraham, and see what
those commands were!
Gen. 12
1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy
country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a
land that I will shew thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and
make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth
thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Gen.13
17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the
breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.
Gen. 15
1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a
vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding
great reward.
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward
heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he
said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for
righteousness.
9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a
she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a
turtledove, and a young pigeon.
10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst,
and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he
not.
11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove
them away.
12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon
Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.
13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall
be a stranger in a land that is not their's, and shall serve them; and
they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and
afterward shall they come out with great substance.
15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in
a good old age.
16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for
the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was
dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed
between those pieces.
18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram,
saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of
Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the
Jebusites.
Gen. 17
1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD
appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God;
walk before me, and be thou perfect.
5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name
shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant
therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you
and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be
circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall
be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you,
every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house,
or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy
money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in
your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is
not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath
broken my covenant.
15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt
not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will
bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall
be of her.
Gen. 21
12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight
because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that
Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac
shall thy seed be called.
Gen. 22
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou
lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for
a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou
any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing
thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
That's it. Every "command" God ever gave Abraham.
Where is the mention of the Torah?
Where is the mention of the 10 Commandments?
Where is the mention of the Sabbath?
There is none! And if you think I'm leaving something out, go read all
the chapters of Genesis dealing with Abraham, and you will find I'm
not! There is no record of God's giving Abraham any "law" to obey.
To say that God did give a set of commandments to Abraham, who
then kept them and was somehow justified or by that secured God's
approval, is to deny what the Scripture says about him, and requires us
to:
1. Invent encounters with God that the Bible never mentions.
2. Make up orders given by God to Abraham that the Bible never
mentions.
3. Presume Abraham then adopted a certain lifestyle, based on these
unsubstantiated encounters and commands that the Bible never
mentions.
4. Presume his obedience to this unlisted set of commandments
placed Abraham in right standing with God, which the Bible not
only never mentions, but actually contradicts in Romans 4.
So what you will find the Bible actually records are simply general
orders, including to sacrifice his son, all of which Abraham obeyed.
Even James, the man the cultists go to in order to validate their
heresies about justification through works, writes that Abraham was
justified--not by keeping some Law and its commandments--but
by offering up Isaac:
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had
offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
--James 2:21.
The only possible issue that could be raised about obedience to a
commandment playing a factor in God's approval of Abraham would
be his submitting to circumcision, but Paul deals with that, and
makes it clear circumcision played no role in being justified with
God whatever.
Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the
uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to
Abraham for righteousness.
How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in
uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness
of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be
the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised;
that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the
circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of
our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to
Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the
righteousness of faith.
--Romans 4:9-13.
Thus, Abraham was not under the Law, nor was he keeping the Law!
Now--does that mean because Abraham wasn't under the Law, that it
was okay for him to sin?
No.
Did he go out and sin?
No. (Though he did technically break kosher eating rules in Gen. 18:8,
and violated Lev. 18:9 by being married to his sister, while his
grandson violated the Torah by marrying two sisters.)
But these technical "transgressions" were not imputed to either
Abraham or Jacob because, as Paul says:
... sin is not imputed when there is no law.
--Romans 5:14.
The truth is that Abraham was a righteous man (in the sense of being a
moral man), so God had no need to give him laws against
unrighteousness. But the fact he was righteous, in a temporal sense,
doesn't mean he "kept" commandments of a codified law of some sort! He
simply lived a good moral life as we too are called to do--
independent of "keeping" laws and commandments!
Yet the Child of the Flesh can't get that. He claims that if we say
we're not "under the Law," and if we don't "keep commandments," we're
saying it's okay to sin.
All that does is show the ignorance of heretics who miss what the New
covenant actually is.
So then--how did Abraham achieve justification with God if he wasn't
"keeping God's Law"?
Through faith.
"Oh, but faith without works is dead, so we need to keep God's Law or
we don't have real faith," says the Child of the Flesh.
When a Messianic, Cultist, or any false teacher says we must keep this
law or that, or do this or that to be in right standing with God or to
prove we have "real" faith, we should immediately go back to
Abraham, and check whether Abraham was doing, in practice, what
that person says we must.
If we do that, we will see that everything the false teacher claims
we're required to do was not done as an act of conscious obedience
to a law by Abraham.
All the man did to be justified with God was to believe--not believe and
go do this or that!
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live
in them.
--Gal. 3:12.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
--Romans 4:5.
"No! No!" the cultist will insist. "Abraham kept various
commandments in the Law, even though the Law hadn't been written
down yet by Moses, and that's because God taught those
commandments to him orally. So we must keep those commandments--
like the Sabbath--just as Abraham did, even if the Bible doesn't
explicitly say God taught them to him!"
Wrong.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:
--2 Tim. 3:16.
We do not base critical issues of the faith on oral tradition or
speculation--we go to the Scripture! When we do, we see that in that
Scripture, Paul has directed us to Abraham as our paradigm for
justification. And while it enrages some, Scripture shows the man
Abraham never "kept God's holy Law" to be in full right standing with
the God who imputed righteousness to him because of his belief, and
not his obedience to a set of commandments!
"But if you're saying people don't have to keep God's Law or
commandments, you're contradicting what the New Testament says,
and saying it's okay to go out and sin like the devil!"
Am I?
We'll deal with that in the next article
copyright by Vince Garcia. All rights reserved
Steve Hayes
May 6, 2012, 1:07:05 PM5/6/12
to
On Sun, 6 May 2012 08:55:32 -0700 (PDT), Donna Kupp <dk...@charter.net> wrote:
>What does "saved" mean?
>
>"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
> Romans 10:13
>
>Does the word saved mean "receive eternal life"? That is the concept
>that is taught by Modern Christianity. Is it true?
>
>The word saved means "delivered or protect". Thayers lexicon gives
>this as the primary meaning: 1) to save, keep safe and sound, to
>rescue from danger or destruction.
Yes, that what it means.
>What does "saved" mean?
>
>"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
> Romans 10:13
>
>Does the word saved mean "receive eternal life"? That is the concept
>that is taught by Modern Christianity. Is it true?
>
>The word saved means "delivered or protect". Thayers lexicon gives
>this as the primary meaning: 1) to save, keep safe and sound, to
>rescue from danger or destruction.
It means that we are delivered, or rescued, from the ruler of this world, that
is, the devil.
eg
2Ti 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil,
who are taken captive by him at his will.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
duke
May 6, 2012, 4:35:18 PM5/6/12
to
duke, American - American
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
duke
May 6, 2012, 4:52:24 PM5/6/12
to
On Sun, 6 May 2012 13:48:26 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>On Sun, 6 May 2012 08:55:32 -0700 (PDT), Donna Kupp <dk...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>On Sun, 6 May 2012 08:55:32 -0700 (PDT), Donna Kupp <dk...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>which are alive will be transformed in a twinkle of an eye and from then on
>be with the Lord, delivered from the Great Tribulation.
But what guarantee do you have that you yourself will qualify as the "dead in
Christ"? Firstly, that's for Jesus to decide, not you. And secondly, what
happens if the tribulation period, found in a dream presentation, didn't already
happen?
vince garcia
May 6, 2012, 5:01:28 PM5/6/12
to
If you need the high points...
That doctrine comes from a person who assoicates with it, and makes it
an integral part of a world view that...
1. Denies of the deity of Christ.
have a problem with that?
2. Denies the Personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit, and declares the
Spirit to mean a "means of communication" between God and man.
have a problem with that?
3. Claims that ANY--repeat, ANY--willful violation of the 10
comamndnments makes it "impossible" to renew a Christian to salvation.
Again, "impossible"
have a problem with that?
4. Claims the blood of Christ only cleanses from all "unintentional"
sin, and when John says it cleanses from "ALL sin," he really means all
UNINTENTIONAL sin, and so--as noted--any INTENTINAL sin can NEVER be
cleansed by the blood of Christ
have a problem with that?
5. Declares the 'real' translation of John 1:1 to be: "In the beginning
was Jesus and Jesus was with THE RULER and Jesus was Ruler.
The same was in the beginning with THE RULER."
If the answer is that you have no problems with these doctrines of hers,
then she is your gal
r m
May 6, 2012, 6:10:33 PM5/6/12
to
On May 7, 3:07 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2012 08:55:32 -0700 (PDT), Donna Kupp <dk...@charter.net> wrote:
> >What does "saved" mean?
>
> >"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
> > Romans 10:13
>
> >Does the word saved mean "receive eternal life"? That is the concept
> >that is taught by Modern Christianity. Is it true?
>
> >The word saved means "delivered or protect". Thayers lexicon gives
> >this as the primary meaning: 1) to save, keep safe and sound, to
> >rescue from danger or destruction.
>
> Yes, that what it means.
>
> It means that we are delivered, or rescued, from the ruler of this world, that
> is, the devil.
Yea, verily. See below.
> On Sun, 6 May 2012 08:55:32 -0700 (PDT), Donna Kupp <dk...@charter.net> wrote:
> >What does "saved" mean?
>
> >"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
> > Romans 10:13
>
> >Does the word saved mean "receive eternal life"? That is the concept
> >that is taught by Modern Christianity. Is it true?
>
> >The word saved means "delivered or protect". Thayers lexicon gives
> >this as the primary meaning: 1) to save, keep safe and sound, to
> >rescue from danger or destruction.
>
> Yes, that what it means.
>
> It means that we are delivered, or rescued, from the ruler of this world, that
> is, the devil.
>
> eg
>
> 2Ti 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil,
> who are taken captive by him at his will.
Principal texts that come to mind are the lost/found parables in Luke
15, and 1Pet 2:9-10. Key word, for me, is our being precious or
treasured by Him.
>
> --
> Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
> Blog:http://khanya.wordpress.com
> E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Jim
May 7, 2012, 12:00:54 AM5/7/12
to
duke wrote:
>
[....]
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
>
[....]
>
> But what guarantee do you have that you yourself will qualify as the "dead in
> Christ"? Firstly, that's for Jesus to decide, not you. And secondly, what
> happens if the tribulation period, found in a dream presentation, didn't already
> happen?
>
> duke, American - American
!
> But what guarantee do you have that you yourself will qualify as the "dead in
> Christ"? Firstly, that's for Jesus to decide, not you. And secondly, what
> happens if the tribulation period, found in a dream presentation, didn't already
> happen?
>
> duke, American - American
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Rockinghorse Winner
May 7, 2012, 12:40:03 AM5/7/12
to
and so are condemned to endlessly dispute with each other about doctrinal
matters. Do you see how blessed we are to belong to the Church?
Terry
>*****
>1 John 3:4-6
>4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
>sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
>appeared so that he might take away our sins.
>And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
>him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
>sin has either seen him or known him.
>*****
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
-Albert Schweitzer
badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo
Message has been deleted
"save us"
May 7, 2012, 9:39:32 AM5/7/12
to
We are saved, and are being saved, and by the grace of God will be saved in
the end. To be saved is not an on and off switch, it is a process.
We are to be baptised to start that process
"As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ"
(Galatians 3:27)
It is by putting on Christ that we like Him can have victory over death.
We are born again.
We are thus saved if we remain constant in Him.
Message has been deleted
duke
May 7, 2012, 2:34:45 PM5/7/12
to
On Mon, 07 May 2012 00:00:54 -0400, Jim <j...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>duke wrote:
>>
>[....]
>>
>> But what guarantee do you have that you yourself will qualify as the "dead in
>> Christ"? Firstly, that's for Jesus to decide, not you. And secondly, what
>> happens if the tribulation period, found in a dream presentation, didn't already
>> happen?
>>
>> duke, American - American
>
>!
Yep, just more you never thought of.
>duke wrote:
>>
>[....]
>>
>> But what guarantee do you have that you yourself will qualify as the "dead in
>> Christ"? Firstly, that's for Jesus to decide, not you. And secondly, what
>> happens if the tribulation period, found in a dream presentation, didn't already
>> happen?
>>
>> duke, American - American
>
>!
duke
May 7, 2012, 2:44:17 PM5/7/12
to
On Sun, 06 May 2012 14:01:28 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>> >To be saved is the first step in the process of receiving eternal
>> >life. One can easily see the confusion in peoples minds if they are
>> >taught that to be saved means to receive eternal life.
>> >
>> >dk
>> >
>> >The Seven Deadly Deceptions Of Counterfeit Christianity
>> >http://www.freetruth.info
>>
>> Hmmmmm, I wonder what vince thinks about this.
>I devoted a whole post to what I think of this crap.
>If you need the high points...
>That doctrine comes from a person who assoicates with it, and makes it
>an integral part of a world view that...
>1. Denies of the deity of Christ.
>have a problem with that?
That Jesus was fully flesh and fully divine is a fact. But it's also a fact
that flesh saw flesh and not divinity. Jesus the man died on the cross, not
Jesus the Son of God.
>2. Denies the Personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit, and declares the
>Spirit to mean a "means of communication" between God and man.
Unless you're confused by the wording, that's exactly true in so far as the Holy
Spirit only revealed that which he received from Jesus and did not speak on his
own.
John 16:12-13 (New International Version)
12 的 have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when
he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will
not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you
what is yet to come.
>have a problem with that?
>3. Claims that ANY--repeat, ANY--willful violation of the 10
>comamndnments makes it "impossible" to renew a Christian to salvation.
If one willfully violates what God has given us, then he is in violation of
blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and that cannot be forgiven in heaven.
>Again, "impossible"
>have a problem with that?
>4. Claims the blood of Christ only cleanses from all "unintentional"
>sin, and when John says it cleanses from "ALL sin," he really means all
>UNINTENTIONAL sin, and so--as noted--any INTENTINAL sin can NEVER be
>cleansed by the blood of Christ
Now that's wrong.
attempted.
>If the answer is that you have no problems with these doctrines of hers,
>then she is your gal
Some I do, some not so much.
wrote:
>> >To be saved is the first step in the process of receiving eternal
>> >life. One can easily see the confusion in peoples minds if they are
>> >taught that to be saved means to receive eternal life.
>> >
>> >dk
>> >
>> >The Seven Deadly Deceptions Of Counterfeit Christianity
>> >http://www.freetruth.info
>>
>> Hmmmmm, I wonder what vince thinks about this.
>I devoted a whole post to what I think of this crap.
>If you need the high points...
>That doctrine comes from a person who assoicates with it, and makes it
>an integral part of a world view that...
>1. Denies of the deity of Christ.
>have a problem with that?
that flesh saw flesh and not divinity. Jesus the man died on the cross, not
Jesus the Son of God.
>2. Denies the Personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit, and declares the
>Spirit to mean a "means of communication" between God and man.
Spirit only revealed that which he received from Jesus and did not speak on his
own.
John 16:12-13 (New International Version)
12 的 have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when
he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will
not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you
what is yet to come.
>have a problem with that?
>3. Claims that ANY--repeat, ANY--willful violation of the 10
>comamndnments makes it "impossible" to renew a Christian to salvation.
blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and that cannot be forgiven in heaven.
>Again, "impossible"
>have a problem with that?
>4. Claims the blood of Christ only cleanses from all "unintentional"
>sin, and when John says it cleanses from "ALL sin," he really means all
>UNINTENTIONAL sin, and so--as noted--any INTENTINAL sin can NEVER be
>cleansed by the blood of Christ
>have a problem with that?
>5. Declares the 'real' translation of John 1:1 to be: "In the beginning
>was Jesus and Jesus was with THE RULER and Jesus was Ruler.
> The same was in the beginning with THE RULER."
Sounds like a private interpretation and something not even the apostles
>5. Declares the 'real' translation of John 1:1 to be: "In the beginning
>was Jesus and Jesus was with THE RULER and Jesus was Ruler.
> The same was in the beginning with THE RULER."
attempted.
>If the answer is that you have no problems with these doctrines of hers,
>then she is your gal
duke
May 7, 2012, 2:45:40 PM5/7/12
to
On Sun, 6 May 2012 21:40:03 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner <rwi...@badass.edu>
wrote:
>>But what guarantee do you have that you yourself will qualify as the "dead in
>>Christ"? Firstly, that's for Jesus to decide, not you. And secondly, what
>>happens if the tribulation period, found in a dream presentation, didn't already
>>happen?
the comforter.
duke, American - American
wrote:
>>But what guarantee do you have that you yourself will qualify as the "dead in
>>Christ"? Firstly, that's for Jesus to decide, not you. And secondly, what
>>happens if the tribulation period, found in a dream presentation, didn't already
>>happen?
>They reject any outside authority in religion, except for the Bible, Duke,
>and so are condemned to endlessly dispute with each other about doctrinal
>matters. Do you see how blessed we are to belong to the Church?
I fully understand. Their private interpretations can holy leave them without
>and so are condemned to endlessly dispute with each other about doctrinal
>matters. Do you see how blessed we are to belong to the Church?
the comforter.
duke, American - American
duke
May 7, 2012, 2:46:29 PM5/7/12
to
On Sun, 6 May 2012 22:25:14 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>How can I be happy for you that lives in such ignorance? What is worse you
>did a double down on it.
But we're quoting the Church authority, and you're quoting..........your own
personal opinion.
>did a double down on it.
But we're quoting the Church authority, and you're quoting..........your own
personal opinion.
"save us ."
May 7, 2012, 2:58:25 PM5/7/12
to
> We are saved, and are being saved, and by the grace of God will be saved
in
> the end. To be saved is not an on and off switch, it is a process.
>
"Only to those who do not follow the word of God. John 3:17 For God sent
in
> the end. To be saved is not an on and off switch, it is a process.
>
not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through
him might be saved.
Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ
we shall be saved, even as they.
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt
be saved, and thy house.
And they were thereafter baptized and started the process of being saved.
> We are to be baptised to start that process
>
grace and faith, confession of it with the mouth, and then Baptism.
In all cases belief came first."
You know better then that. Salvation in all eight baptism examples given
you was tied to baptism. One verse mentioned faith as part of the process.
Which is obvious of course.
> "As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ"
>
> (Galatians 3:27)
after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are
all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as
have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor
Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female:
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:25-28 KJV)
Faith first."
Yup, there it is, faith obviously and baptisim as the start of the process.
> It is by putting on Christ that we like Him can have victory over death.
>
"1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
>
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
There you go again, cherry picking, or as you put it proof texting out of a
bible you do not even consider the basis for your religion. It was
understood that belief came before Baptism unto Christs death. Just look at
the conversation of the Eunuch in the Chariot being taught by Philip."
There you go again as your usual practice. This is the * only * other use
of "born again" aside from that Christ used.
In the eight examples given you babtism is tied to Christ's victory over
death and we can be joind to Him as we rise from the watery grave.
> We are thus saved if we remain constant in Him.
Smile, does that apply to a one off man made religion invented in
isolation?
Each time you try to wiggle away you only get pulled more into the mud of
your own making. This is even more the case when you try to use scripture.
To be saved is a process of a lifetime in Christ. We are in baptism joined
to Him and His victory over death, that is what scripture says. That one
would have faith in Him and want to start the process is a given.
Message has been deleted
"save. us"
May 7, 2012, 5:41:13 PM5/7/12
to
> Each time you try to wiggle away you only get pulled more into the mud of
> your own making. This is even more the case when you try to use
scripture.
>
> To be saved is a process of a lifetime in Christ. We are in baptism
joined
> to Him and His victory over death, that is what scripture says. That one
> would have faith in Him and want to start the process is a given.
"It is not by works so that men cannot boast, Everyones works are as filthy
> your own making. This is even more the case when you try to use
scripture.
>
> To be saved is a process of a lifetime in Christ. We are in baptism
joined
> to Him and His victory over death, that is what scripture says. That one
> would have faith in Him and want to start the process is a given.
rags, yet you declare a separate way."
Nonsense, what has coming to faith and being joined to Christ in baptism to
do with "works"?
This illustrates well how you dig yourself in all the more when you attempt
to use scripture. When you attempt to pour backwards into scripture the
meaning you want 2000 years after the fact.
Would you tell us if you please the history of who and when first proposed
the meaning of "saved" as you want it and how it has evolved overtime?
Then tell us if you please the same for the one who proposed that baptism
was not being "born again".
Then we can compare what you come up with to the unbroken 2000 yer
christian witness on the same things.
vince garcia
May 7, 2012, 7:49:32 PM5/7/12
to
duke wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 May 2012 14:01:28 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >To be saved is the first step in the process of receiving eternal
> >> >life. One can easily see the confusion in peoples minds if they are
> >> >taught that to be saved means to receive eternal life.
> >> >
> >> >dk
> >> >
> >> >The Seven Deadly Deceptions Of Counterfeit Christianity
> >> >http://www.freetruth.info
> >>
> >> Hmmmmm, I wonder what vince thinks about this.
>
> >I devoted a whole post to what I think of this crap.
> >If you need the high points...
> >That doctrine comes from a person who assoicates with it, and makes it
> >an integral part of a world view that...
>
> >1. Denies of the deity of Christ.
> >have a problem with that?
>
> That Jesus was fully flesh and fully divine is a fact. But it's also a fact
> that flesh saw flesh and not divinity. Jesus the man died on the cross, not
> Jesus the Son of God.
Is that a way of agreeing or disagreeing with her? Your last line
>
> On Sun, 06 May 2012 14:01:28 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >To be saved is the first step in the process of receiving eternal
> >> >life. One can easily see the confusion in peoples minds if they are
> >> >taught that to be saved means to receive eternal life.
> >> >
> >> >dk
> >> >
> >> >The Seven Deadly Deceptions Of Counterfeit Christianity
> >> >http://www.freetruth.info
> >>
> >> Hmmmmm, I wonder what vince thinks about this.
>
> >I devoted a whole post to what I think of this crap.
> >If you need the high points...
> >That doctrine comes from a person who assoicates with it, and makes it
> >an integral part of a world view that...
>
> >1. Denies of the deity of Christ.
> >have a problem with that?
>
> That Jesus was fully flesh and fully divine is a fact. But it's also a fact
> that flesh saw flesh and not divinity. Jesus the man died on the cross, not
> Jesus the Son of God.
implies "Yes she's right in all these points"
So she would be right HERE, that Jesus is not God, nor part of the "mind
boggling" trinity
>
> >2. Denies the Personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit, and declares the
> >Spirit to mean a "means of communication" between God and man.
>
> Unless you're confused by the wording, that's exactly true in so far as the Holy
> Spirit only revealed that which he received from Jesus and did not speak on his
> own.
Do you deny the deity of the hoily spirit?
>
> John 16:12-13 (New International Version)
> 12 的 have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when
> he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will
> not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you
> what is yet to come.
>
> >have a problem with that?
>
> >3. Claims that ANY--repeat, ANY--willful violation of the 10
> >comamndnments makes it "impossible" to renew a Christian to salvation.
>
> If one willfully violates what God has given us, then he is in violation of
> blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and that cannot be forgiven in heaven.
to lust for her, since that is wilfull, and thus unforgivaeble.
So you do agree with her on this, eh? Good to know
Hate to tell you, though, my local priest says a catholic can commit
mudrer and go to confession and get absolved.
I'm surprised you agree with kupp over him, since she says it's
unforgivable unless the adultery was accidental and unintentional
>
> >Again, "impossible"
> >have a problem with that?
>
> >4. Claims the blood of Christ only cleanses from all "unintentional"
> >sin, and when John says it cleanses from "ALL sin," he really means all
> >UNINTENTIONAL sin, and so--as noted--any INTENTINAL sin can NEVER be
> >cleansed by the blood of Christ
>
> Now that's wrong.
> >have a problem with that?
>
> >5. Declares the 'real' translation of John 1:1 to be: "In the beginning
> >was Jesus and Jesus was with THE RULER and Jesus was Ruler.
> > The same was in the beginning with THE RULER."
>
> Sounds like a private interpretation and something not even the apostles
> attempted.
>
> >If the answer is that you have no problems with these doctrines of hers,
> >then she is your gal
>
> Some I do, some not so much.
teaches against every one.
Rod
May 7, 2012, 8:09:53 PM5/7/12
to
On 5/7/2012 1:44 PM, duke wrote:
> On Sun, 06 May 2012 14:01:28 -0700, vince garcia<vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> To be saved is the first step in the process of receiving eternal
>>>> life. One can easily see the confusion in peoples minds if they are
>>>> taught that to be saved means to receive eternal life.
>>>>
>>>> dk
>>>>
>>>> The Seven Deadly Deceptions Of Counterfeit Christianity
>>>> http://www.freetruth.info
>>>
>>> Hmmmmm, I wonder what vince thinks about this.
>
>> I devoted a whole post to what I think of this crap.
>> If you need the high points...
>> That doctrine comes from a person who assoicates with it, and makes it
>> an integral part of a world view that...
>
>> 1. Denies of the deity of Christ.
>> have a problem with that?
>
> That Jesus was fully flesh and fully divine is a fact. But it's also a fact
> that flesh saw flesh and not divinity. Jesus the man died on the cross, not
> Jesus the Son of God.
You're wrong. He did die and was brought back by the Father,
> On Sun, 06 May 2012 14:01:28 -0700, vince garcia<vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> To be saved is the first step in the process of receiving eternal
>>>> life. One can easily see the confusion in peoples minds if they are
>>>> taught that to be saved means to receive eternal life.
>>>>
>>>> dk
>>>>
>>>> The Seven Deadly Deceptions Of Counterfeit Christianity
>>>> http://www.freetruth.info
>>>
>>> Hmmmmm, I wonder what vince thinks about this.
>
>> I devoted a whole post to what I think of this crap.
>> If you need the high points...
>> That doctrine comes from a person who assoicates with it, and makes it
>> an integral part of a world view that...
>
>> 1. Denies of the deity of Christ.
>> have a problem with that?
>
> That Jesus was fully flesh and fully divine is a fact. But it's also a fact
> that flesh saw flesh and not divinity. Jesus the man died on the cross, not
> Jesus the Son of God.
the scars are still on His hands, His forehead and His feet
and back, and the deep wound in His side.
He was dead, 3 whole days.
Message has been deleted
Jim
May 8, 2012, 1:18:40 AM5/8/12
to
duke wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >>
> >[....]
> >>
> >> But what guarantee do you have that you yourself will qualify as the "dead in
> >> Christ"? Firstly, that's for Jesus to decide, not you. And secondly, what
> >> happens if the tribulation period, found in a dream presentation, didn't already
> >> happen?
> >>
> >> duke, American - American
> >
> >!
>
> Yep, just more you never thought of.
> duke, American - American
taking thoughts into captivity and then rejecting the untruths
allows those of us who belong to Christ to enjoy peace, the
certainty of His promises and gifts while knowing the truth
concerning our confidence in Christ Jesus who is able to do the
things He has said He has done for us who believe in Him and His
prefect sin free complete total righteousness.
one of the many gifts received from Christ having gone to the
cross in my place is the ability to resist satan and his imps
even so to further rebuke the lies of satan and his imps.
therefore, imp you are rebuked and your lies have no power in
my life!
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
.
.
> Jim wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >>
> >[....]
> >>
> >> But what guarantee do you have that you yourself will qualify as the "dead in
> >> Christ"? Firstly, that's for Jesus to decide, not you. And secondly, what
> >> happens if the tribulation period, found in a dream presentation, didn't already
> >> happen?
> >>
> >> duke, American - American
> >
> >!
>
> Yep, just more you never thought of.
> duke, American - American
allows those of us who belong to Christ to enjoy peace, the
certainty of His promises and gifts while knowing the truth
concerning our confidence in Christ Jesus who is able to do the
things He has said He has done for us who believe in Him and His
prefect sin free complete total righteousness.
one of the many gifts received from Christ having gone to the
cross in my place is the ability to resist satan and his imps
even so to further rebuke the lies of satan and his imps.
therefore, imp you are rebuked and your lies have no power in
my life!
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not
of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
world; but that the world through him might be saved.
.
.
.
Message has been deleted
Jim
May 8, 2012, 8:57:54 AM5/8/12
to
> and misc. for a couple days. Last evening, I had another bought with fever,
> headaches, and body ache and then all of a sudden in my spirit I felt
> rejoicing and praise, like a cool breeze, so I praised Him and praised Him
> for all that was happening, with prayer. What was so unusual is that my
> spirit and my body were not in sync which only served to show the glory of
> the Lord, like two opposites. Today I am fine like fine gold 99.9% pure and
> praise Him for it. I just had to share it. It was very distinct.
>
> --
> Peter
> A Disciple of The Lord Jesus Christ
> Joh 13:34-35 KJV
> Join up now.
satan has no power over you! satan was stripped of what he
stole when Jesus went to the cross for you me and everyone
who by faith believes in the work of the blood of Christ.
believe not the reports from your body. stand fast in the
gifts and promises from God to know satan has been defeated
and can do no harm to you. know that everything coming out
of satan is a lie and the lie is his only tool left to him
who seeks to deceive you into being distracted in your
thoughts from the love of God.
therefore REBUKE satan and his imps! give no place in your
life to satan and believe nothing he says to you. for it is
God Himself through the work of Christ going to the cross who
has provided you with the shield, the sword and the helmet of
faith, salvation and the Spirit of the Word of God that you
are able to stand and not only stand but prosper on and in
the love God has for you!
GLYB!
"tell us/"
May 8, 2012, 10:10:40 AM5/8/12
to
I wrote previously:
Would you tell us if you please the history of who and when first proposed
the meaning of "saved" as you want it and how it has evolved overtime?
Then tell us if you please the same for the one who proposed that baptism
was not being "born again".
Then we can compare what you come up with to the unbroken 2000 yer
christian witness on the same things.
You made a response to these questions:
Your response was all over the place and not in the least responsive to the
questions.
This is another familiar pattern. Ignore questions and throw all manner of
mud on the wall hoping some will stick. Hoping that to get the discussion
diverted from your non-responsive behavior will go un-noticed.
I'm calling your bluff on this. The questions are clear and easily
answered. To say I don't know is a proper answer. To say nothing is an
answer that shows how much you want to avoid discussing this line of
questions.
Would you tell us if you please the history of who and when first proposed
the meaning of "saved" as you want it and how it has evolved overtime?
Then tell us if you please the same for the one who proposed that baptism
was not being "born again".
Then we can compare what you come up with to the unbroken 2000 yer
christian witness on the same things.
Your response was all over the place and not in the least responsive to the
questions.
This is another familiar pattern. Ignore questions and throw all manner of
mud on the wall hoping some will stick. Hoping that to get the discussion
diverted from your non-responsive behavior will go un-noticed.
I'm calling your bluff on this. The questions are clear and easily
answered. To say I don't know is a proper answer. To say nothing is an
answer that shows how much you want to avoid discussing this line of
questions.
Message has been deleted
duke
May 8, 2012, 11:53:28 AM5/8/12
to
On Mon, 07 May 2012 16:49:32 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>> >I devoted a whole post to what I think of this crap.
>> >If you need the high points...
>> >That doctrine comes from a person who assoicates with it, and makes it
>> >an integral part of a world view that...
>> >1. Denies of the deity of Christ.
>> >have a problem with that?
>> That Jesus was fully flesh and fully divine is a fact. But it's also a fact
>> that flesh saw flesh and not divinity. Jesus the man died on the cross, not
>> Jesus the Son of God.
>Is that a way of agreeing or disagreeing with her? Your last line
>implies "Yes she's right in all these points"
Scripture says he presented himself to flesh as flesh. His second nature was
not seen by man.
>So she would be right HERE, that Jesus is not God, nor part of the "mind
>boggling" trinity
>> >2. Denies the Personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit, and declares the
>> >Spirit to mean a "means of communication" between God and man.
>>
>> Unless you're confused by the wording, that's exactly true in so far as the Holy
>> Spirit only revealed that which he received from Jesus and did not speak on his
>> own.
>again, Is that a way of agreeing or disagreeing with her? Y
>Do you deny the deity of the hoily spirit?
The Holy Spirit is the 3rd person of the Holy Trinity, but he guides us to all
truth and does not speak on his own.
>> John 16:12-13 (New International Version)
>> 12 的 have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when
>> he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will
>> not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you
>> what is yet to come.
>Hate to tell you, though, my local priest says a catholic can commit
>mudrer and go to confession and get absolved.
And what happens to him if he is truly repentant? Now I'm not "in the know" on
how a priest handles murder in the confessional, but the bible says a death bed
conversion is acceptable.
>> >4. Claims the blood of Christ only cleanses from all "unintentional"
>> >sin, and when John says it cleanses from "ALL sin," he really means all
>> >UNINTENTIONAL sin, and so--as noted--any INTENTINAL sin can NEVER be
>> >cleansed by the blood of Christ
>> Now that's wrong.
>See my last comment. Good to know you agree with her on this as well
A sin must be intentional to be a sin of a mortal nature..
>> >5. Declares the 'real' translation of John 1:1 to be: "In the beginning
>> >was Jesus and Jesus was with THE RULER and Jesus was Ruler.
>> > The same was in the beginning with THE RULER."
>>
>> Sounds like a private interpretation and something not even the apostles
>> attempted.
>
>So she's wrong on this but not the others? good to know
I addressed each one individually.
>> >If the answer is that you have no problems with these doctrines of hers,
>> >then she is your gal
>> Some I do, some not so much.
>yopu should have a problem with every one of them since catholcism
>teaches against every one.
No, it doesn't.
wrote:
>> >I devoted a whole post to what I think of this crap.
>> >If you need the high points...
>> >That doctrine comes from a person who assoicates with it, and makes it
>> >an integral part of a world view that...
>> >1. Denies of the deity of Christ.
>> >have a problem with that?
>> That Jesus was fully flesh and fully divine is a fact. But it's also a fact
>> that flesh saw flesh and not divinity. Jesus the man died on the cross, not
>> Jesus the Son of God.
>Is that a way of agreeing or disagreeing with her? Your last line
>implies "Yes she's right in all these points"
not seen by man.
>So she would be right HERE, that Jesus is not God, nor part of the "mind
>boggling" trinity
>> >2. Denies the Personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit, and declares the
>> >Spirit to mean a "means of communication" between God and man.
>>
>> Unless you're confused by the wording, that's exactly true in so far as the Holy
>> Spirit only revealed that which he received from Jesus and did not speak on his
>> own.
>again, Is that a way of agreeing or disagreeing with her? Y
>Do you deny the deity of the hoily spirit?
truth and does not speak on his own.
>> John 16:12-13 (New International Version)
>> 12 的 have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when
>> he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will
>> not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you
>> what is yet to come.
>> >3. Claims that ANY--repeat, ANY--willful violation of the 10
>> >comamndnments makes it "impossible" to renew a Christian to salvation.
>> If one willfully violates what God has given us, then he is in violation of
>> blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and that cannot be forgiven in heaven.
>So you agree with her? fine. I hope you have never looked upon a woman
>to lust for her, since that is wilfull, and thus unforgivaeble.
God's 10 commandments or proper living still stands.
>> >comamndnments makes it "impossible" to renew a Christian to salvation.
>> If one willfully violates what God has given us, then he is in violation of
>> blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and that cannot be forgiven in heaven.
>So you agree with her? fine. I hope you have never looked upon a woman
>to lust for her, since that is wilfull, and thus unforgivaeble.
>Hate to tell you, though, my local priest says a catholic can commit
>mudrer and go to confession and get absolved.
how a priest handles murder in the confessional, but the bible says a death bed
conversion is acceptable.
>> >4. Claims the blood of Christ only cleanses from all "unintentional"
>> >sin, and when John says it cleanses from "ALL sin," he really means all
>> >UNINTENTIONAL sin, and so--as noted--any INTENTINAL sin can NEVER be
>> >cleansed by the blood of Christ
>> Now that's wrong.
>See my last comment. Good to know you agree with her on this as well
>> >5. Declares the 'real' translation of John 1:1 to be: "In the beginning
>> >was Jesus and Jesus was with THE RULER and Jesus was Ruler.
>> > The same was in the beginning with THE RULER."
>>
>> Sounds like a private interpretation and something not even the apostles
>> attempted.
>
>So she's wrong on this but not the others? good to know
>> >If the answer is that you have no problems with these doctrines of hers,
>> >then she is your gal
>> Some I do, some not so much.
>yopu should have a problem with every one of them since catholcism
>teaches against every one.
duke
May 8, 2012, 11:54:28 AM5/8/12
to
On Mon, 07 May 2012 19:09:53 -0500, Rod <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/7/2012 1:44 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 14:01:28 -0700, vince garcia<vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> To be saved is the first step in the process of receiving eternal
>>>>> life. One can easily see the confusion in peoples minds if they are
>>>>> taught that to be saved means to receive eternal life.
>>>>>
>>>>> dk
>>>>>
>>>>> The Seven Deadly Deceptions Of Counterfeit Christianity
>>>>> http://www.freetruth.info
>>>>
>>>> Hmmmmm, I wonder what vince thinks about this.
>>
>>> I devoted a whole post to what I think of this crap.
>>> If you need the high points...
>>> That doctrine comes from a person who assoicates with it, and makes it
>>> an integral part of a world view that...
>>
>>> 1. Denies of the deity of Christ.
>>> have a problem with that?
>>
>> That Jesus was fully flesh and fully divine is a fact. But it's also a fact
>> that flesh saw flesh and not divinity. Jesus the man died on the cross, not
>> Jesus the Son of God.
>
> You're wrong. He did die and was brought back by the Father,
You guys sure have a problem keep track of what others say. Jesus died as flesh
>On 5/7/2012 1:44 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 14:01:28 -0700, vince garcia<vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> To be saved is the first step in the process of receiving eternal
>>>>> life. One can easily see the confusion in peoples minds if they are
>>>>> taught that to be saved means to receive eternal life.
>>>>>
>>>>> dk
>>>>>
>>>>> The Seven Deadly Deceptions Of Counterfeit Christianity
>>>>> http://www.freetruth.info
>>>>
>>>> Hmmmmm, I wonder what vince thinks about this.
>>
>>> I devoted a whole post to what I think of this crap.
>>> If you need the high points...
>>> That doctrine comes from a person who assoicates with it, and makes it
>>> an integral part of a world view that...
>>
>>> 1. Denies of the deity of Christ.
>>> have a problem with that?
>>
>> That Jesus was fully flesh and fully divine is a fact. But it's also a fact
>> that flesh saw flesh and not divinity. Jesus the man died on the cross, not
>> Jesus the Son of God.
>
> You're wrong. He did die and was brought back by the Father,
and was raised by flesh by the Father.
> the scars are still on His hands, His forehead and His feet
> and back, and the deep wound in His side.
> He was dead, 3 whole days.
Message has been deleted
"tell. us"
May 8, 2012, 12:15:36 PM5/8/12
to
dogmas confused the issues for you but I was quite clear. Or should I say
the word of God is."
Another familiar dodge, say that all was given before when clearly it was
not. When one asks who and when the answer inherently lies in a historical
context. You merely repeat your pouring backwards based doctrines and toss
yet more mud.
In short non-responsive again.
"The teaching as I showed you began at the beginning and in actuality the
teaching of instructions from the Lord ended with the apostle Johns book of
the Revelation. Now the Holy Spirit can and will lead one into all truth,
and teach us the scripture, but you must be born again first.
There is no bluff on my part, especially on these points. If you think
there is then start a thread, called "calling Petes bluff" and prove it to
everyone. Or call it bluff 1 and another bluff2."
No need, this thread does well enough.
Let us begin the history of your doctrines. Until about 500 years ago
baptism was the first step in the process of salvation. O f course having
faith in the claims of Christ was a given.
This inovation was invented by one of the leaders of the most liberal wing
of the protestant movement. Luther and calvin did not hold to this new
liberal inovation.
Then about 150 years ago the meaning of "saved" as tied to "born again" as
you describe it was invented in n. america. This was yet another liberal
inovation not accepted by the more conservative protestants.
Do you see, history answers well enough without the dodges and mud
slinging.
Both conservative and liberal protestants for each invention had their
scriptures all ready.
The real question then is why did those liberal protestants gain a
following? And for you why did you join with them?
Did we have to wait 1600 years and 1850 years for the "real" teaching on
this point to appear? Or does the time element say something about the
several warnings in scripture about those to come who would mislead for
their own agendas?
This same time period found the rise of the jw and mormans and others who
were in the same age of liberal inovation and who had the same scripture on
which to start. How are the liberal inovations of the group to which you
join yourself different?
Then the steadfast never changing 2000 year christian witness emerging from
and based on the same scripture is the reference by which to compare the
liberal inovations above. What is there to be learned from this lesson?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
duke
May 8, 2012, 3:27:22 PM5/8/12
to
On Tue, 08 May 2012 01:18:40 -0400, Jim <j...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>duke wrote:
>
>> Jim wrote:
>>
>> >duke wrote:
>> >>
>> >[....]
>> >>
>> >> But what guarantee do you have that you yourself will qualify as the "dead in
>> >> Christ"? Firstly, that's for Jesus to decide, not you. And secondly, what
>> >> happens if the tribulation period, found in a dream presentation, didn't already
>> >> happen?
>> >>
>> >> duke, American - American
>> >
>> >!
>>
>> Yep, just more you never thought of.
>> duke, American - American
>taking thoughts into captivity and then rejecting the untruths
>allows those of us who belong to Christ to enjoy peace, the
>certainty of His promises and gifts while knowing the truth
>concerning our confidence in Christ Jesus who is able to do the
>things He has said He has done for us who believe in Him and His
>prefect sin free complete total righteousness.
>
>one of the many gifts received from Christ having gone to the
>cross in my place
Which means you're toying with the fires of hell because Jesus didn't go to for
>duke wrote:
>
>> Jim wrote:
>>
>> >duke wrote:
>> >>
>> >[....]
>> >>
>> >> But what guarantee do you have that you yourself will qualify as the "dead in
>> >> Christ"? Firstly, that's for Jesus to decide, not you. And secondly, what
>> >> happens if the tribulation period, found in a dream presentation, didn't already
>> >> happen?
>> >>
>> >> duke, American - American
>> >
>> >!
>>
>> Yep, just more you never thought of.
>> duke, American - American
>taking thoughts into captivity and then rejecting the untruths
>allows those of us who belong to Christ to enjoy peace, the
>certainty of His promises and gifts while knowing the truth
>concerning our confidence in Christ Jesus who is able to do the
>things He has said He has done for us who believe in Him and His
>prefect sin free complete total righteousness.
>
>one of the many gifts received from Christ having gone to the
>cross in my place
cross for you. He went to the cross to appease his Father for sin in the world,
who then allowed individual salvation basis our life style.
> is the ability to resist satan and his imps
"tell. .us"
May 8, 2012, 3:40:17 PM5/8/12
to
Would you tell us if you please the history of who and when first proposed
the meaning of "saved" as you want it and how it has evolved overtime?
Then tell us if you please the same for the one who proposed that baptism
was not being "born again".
Then we can compare what you come up with to the unbroken 2000 yer
christian witness on the same things.
the meaning of "saved" as you want it and how it has evolved overtime?
Then tell us if you please the same for the one who proposed that baptism
was not being "born again".
Then we can compare what you come up with to the unbroken 2000 yer
christian witness on the same things.
To say I don't know is a proper answer.
To say nothing is an answer that shows how much you want to avoid
discussing this line of questions.
To throw mud and attempt to sow confusion by introducing irrelevant issues
To say nothing is an answer that shows how much you want to avoid
discussing this line of questions.
is an admission of the truth of the witness.
Jim
May 8, 2012, 9:09:03 PM5/8/12
to
duke wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>
[....]
> Jim wrote:
>
[....]
>
> > is the ability to resist satan and his imps
>
> Heb 4:15 says you can't succeed.
> duke, American - American
:)
> > is the ability to resist satan and his imps
>
> Heb 4:15 says you can't succeed.
> duke, American - American
duke
May 9, 2012, 8:18:28 AM5/9/12
to
On Tue, 8 May 2012 12:12:44 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>On 08 May 2012 18:08:51 GMT, .tell us. wrote:
>
>>> liberal inovations above. What is there to be learned from this lesson?
>>
>> "This is the end of my replies in this thread with you and your
>> newsreader."
>>
>> After this hit and run away dodge, next mud is thrown at the wall hoping
>> some will collect. Hoping desperately that no one will notice you did not
>> answer the questions put to you. Hoping that you can not answer in truth
>> is missing from this non-response.
>Start right off with false accusations, rabid contentiousness, and lies are
>not conducive to communications.
You pulled your usual "run and hide" trick.
>> Of course this truth will not disappear. You will do the familiar dance
>> and hit and run away is quite predictable each time you are asked to answer
>> the questions.
>You chose not to accept what others say about your newsreader and that
>shows sheer stupidity.
>> The steadfast 2000 year witness of christians emerging from scripture times
>> to the present speak a truth you can not avoid.
>The bible remains the same, truth is funny that way, eh? Christians are not
>always christians many are in name only.
And those that refuse to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in the 4 gospels
is just that.
>> Having adopted those liberal inovations of the past few hundreds of years
>> you stand naked and unable to answer before that witness.
>Others may judge for themselves, you? Never.
>
>> Is God trying to tell you something?
>
>Always, at this point He is says in His word to ignore people like you,
>Chow.
Chow????
>On 08 May 2012 18:08:51 GMT, .tell us. wrote:
>
>>> liberal inovations above. What is there to be learned from this lesson?
>>
>> newsreader."
>>
>> After this hit and run away dodge, next mud is thrown at the wall hoping
>> some will collect. Hoping desperately that no one will notice you did not
>> answer the questions put to you. Hoping that you can not answer in truth
>> is missing from this non-response.
>Start right off with false accusations, rabid contentiousness, and lies are
>not conducive to communications.
You pulled your usual "run and hide" trick.
>> Of course this truth will not disappear. You will do the familiar dance
>> and hit and run away is quite predictable each time you are asked to answer
>> the questions.
>You chose not to accept what others say about your newsreader and that
>shows sheer stupidity.
>> The steadfast 2000 year witness of christians emerging from scripture times
>> to the present speak a truth you can not avoid.
>The bible remains the same, truth is funny that way, eh? Christians are not
>always christians many are in name only.
And those that refuse to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in the 4 gospels
is just that.
>> Having adopted those liberal inovations of the past few hundreds of years
>> you stand naked and unable to answer before that witness.
>Others may judge for themselves, you? Never.
>
>> Is God trying to tell you something?
>
>Always, at this point He is says in His word to ignore people like you,
>Chow.
Chow????
duke
May 9, 2012, 8:20:21 AM5/9/12
to
On Tue, 08 May 2012 21:09:03 -0400, Jim <j...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>duke wrote:
>
>> Jim wrote:
>>
>[....]
>>
>> > is the ability to resist satan and his imps
>>
>> Heb 4:15 says you can't succeed.
>> duke, American - American
You didn't comprehend that there was no salvation before the cross, did you?
>duke wrote:
>
>> Jim wrote:
>>
>[....]
>>
>> > is the ability to resist satan and his imps
>>
>> Heb 4:15 says you can't succeed.
>> duke, American - American
duke
May 9, 2012, 8:24:37 AM5/9/12
to
On Tue, 8 May 2012 08:43:55 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
Revelatlions is an unknown Christian prophet named John. Maybe it was, maybe it
was not.
>Then you clearly do not understand what it is, perhaps your churches dogmas
>confused the issues for you but I was quite clear. Or should I say the word
>of God is.
>
>confused the issues for you but I was quite clear. Or should I say the word
>of God is.
>
>The teaching as I showed you began at the beginning and in actuality the
>teaching of instructions from the Lord ended with the apostle Johns book of
>the Revelation.
Sorry, pete. But that's a mistake. The most we can say is that the author of
>teaching of instructions from the Lord ended with the apostle Johns book of
>the Revelation.
Revelatlions is an unknown Christian prophet named John. Maybe it was, maybe it
was not.
duke
May 9, 2012, 8:26:03 AM5/9/12
to
On Tue, 8 May 2012 10:49:39 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>On 08 May 2012 16:15:36 GMT, tell. us wrote:
>
>> Did we have to wait 1600 years and 1850 years for the "real" teaching on
>> this point to appear? Or does the time element say something about the
>> several warnings in scripture about those to come who would mislead for
>> their own agendas?
>>
>> This same time period found the rise of the jw and mormans and others who
>> were in the same age of liberal inovation and who had the same scripture on
>> which to start. How are the liberal inovations of the group to which you
>> join yourself different?
>>
>> Then the steadfast never changing 2000 year christian witness emerging from
>> and based on the same scripture is the reference by which to compare the
>> liberal inovations above. What is there to be learned from this lesson?
>
>On 08 May 2012 16:15:36 GMT, tell. us wrote:
>
>> Did we have to wait 1600 years and 1850 years for the "real" teaching on
>> this point to appear? Or does the time element say something about the
>> several warnings in scripture about those to come who would mislead for
>> their own agendas?
>>
>> This same time period found the rise of the jw and mormans and others who
>> were in the same age of liberal inovation and who had the same scripture on
>> which to start. How are the liberal inovations of the group to which you
>> join yourself different?
>>
>> Then the steadfast never changing 2000 year christian witness emerging from
>> and based on the same scripture is the reference by which to compare the
>> liberal inovations above. What is there to be learned from this lesson?
>
>This is the end of my replies in this thread with you and your newsreader.
I suspect your reader is the problem. He's is coming out correctly on my Agent.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
duke
May 9, 2012, 12:16:29 PM5/9/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 08:52:02 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>Not too bright, eh?
>No one ran here, and both of you know it.
Chow???
>Born again has been around 1000's of years, and it is well known by many.
>Baptism into salvation has been an error of the Catholics and their
>descendants for EONS, and those that know history and the word know it.
Yet Jesus revealed it to the Catholics. And we know what it mean, as Jesus
called us to go forth and baptize all nations. Mat 28:16-20. Just for the
record, he didn't say go forth and "born again" people.
Acts 22:16 (New International Version)
16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins
away, calling on his name.
Romans 6:3-4 (New International Version)
3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were
baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism
into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the
glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Titus 3:5-6 (New International Version)
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his
mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy
Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior,
>Go back and read my posts,
Why? They don't reflect knowledge.
>then follow the scriptures through from one end
>of the bile to the other, prove me wrong. I know you cannot, Like the Fool
>you will not back up anything you say. From the beginning neither has, just
>trolled.
Oh, you are the fool, pete, not me.
>No one ran here, and both of you know it.
Chow???
>Born again has been around 1000's of years, and it is well known by many.
>Baptism into salvation has been an error of the Catholics and their
>descendants for EONS, and those that know history and the word know it.
Yet Jesus revealed it to the Catholics. And we know what it mean, as Jesus
called us to go forth and baptize all nations. Mat 28:16-20. Just for the
record, he didn't say go forth and "born again" people.
Acts 22:16 (New International Version)
16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins
away, calling on his name.
Romans 6:3-4 (New International Version)
3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were
baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism
into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the
glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Titus 3:5-6 (New International Version)
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his
mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy
Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior,
>Go back and read my posts,
Why? They don't reflect knowledge.
>then follow the scriptures through from one end
>of the bile to the other, prove me wrong. I know you cannot, Like the Fool
>you will not back up anything you say. From the beginning neither has, just
>trolled.
Oh, you are the fool, pete, not me.
duke
May 9, 2012, 12:19:55 PM5/9/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 08:55:34 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>On Wed, 09 May 2012 07:20:21 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 21:09:03 -0400, Jim <j...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>duke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>[....]
>>>>
>>>> > is the ability to resist satan and his imps
>>>>
>>>> Heb 4:15 says you can't succeed.
>>>> duke, American - American
>>
>> You didn't comprehend that there was no salvation before the cross, did you?
>Gen_49:18 I have waited for thy salvation, O LORD.
>Exo_14:13 And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and
>see the salvation of the LORD, which he will shew to you to day: for the
>Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for
>ever.
>Exo_15:2 The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation:
>he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I
>will exalt him.
>Deu_32:15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art
>grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made
>him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
>1Sa_2:1 And Hannah prayed, and said, My heart rejoiceth in the LORD, mine
>horn is exalted in the LORD: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies;
>because I rejoice in thy salvation.
Then why does scripture say that Jesus is the only way to the Father? Mat
27:51-53 well shows that those that had died in the friendship of God before the
cross were kept some place well short of satan's lair before being raised to new
life with the cross. And if they waited, you and I will too - IF we are judged
suitably by Jesus..
>On Wed, 09 May 2012 07:20:21 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 21:09:03 -0400, Jim <j...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>duke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>[....]
>>>>
>>>> > is the ability to resist satan and his imps
>>>>
>>>> Heb 4:15 says you can't succeed.
>>>> duke, American - American
>>
>> You didn't comprehend that there was no salvation before the cross, did you?
>Exo_14:13 And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and
>see the salvation of the LORD, which he will shew to you to day: for the
>Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for
>ever.
>Exo_15:2 The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation:
>he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I
>will exalt him.
>Deu_32:15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art
>grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made
>him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
>1Sa_2:1 And Hannah prayed, and said, My heart rejoiceth in the LORD, mine
>horn is exalted in the LORD: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies;
>because I rejoice in thy salvation.
Then why does scripture say that Jesus is the only way to the Father? Mat
27:51-53 well shows that those that had died in the friendship of God before the
cross were kept some place well short of satan's lair before being raised to new
life with the cross. And if they waited, you and I will too - IF we are judged
suitably by Jesus..
duke
May 9, 2012, 12:21:03 PM5/9/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:00:50 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>On Wed, 09 May 2012 07:26:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 8 May 2012 10:49:39 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>
>>>On 08 May 2012 16:15:36 GMT, tell. us wrote:
>>>
>>>> Did we have to wait 1600 years and 1850 years for the "real" teaching on
>>>> this point to appear? Or does the time element say something about the
>>>> several warnings in scripture about those to come who would mislead for
>>>> their own agendas?
>>>>
>>>> This same time period found the rise of the jw and mormans and others who
>>>> were in the same age of liberal inovation and who had the same scripture on
>>>> which to start. How are the liberal inovations of the group to which you
>>>> join yourself different?
>>>>
>>>> Then the steadfast never changing 2000 year christian witness emerging from
>>>> and based on the same scripture is the reference by which to compare the
>>>> liberal inovations above. What is there to be learned from this lesson?
>>>
>>>This is the end of my replies in this thread with you and your newsreader.
>>
>> I suspect your reader is the problem. He's is coming out correctly on my Agent.
>>
>
>You didn't follow the thread from the beginning. I am not the only one who
>has told Fool this, most just ignore her.
I'm not having a problem with he(r) at all. Why are you? Maybe it's you.
>On Wed, 09 May 2012 07:26:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 8 May 2012 10:49:39 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>
>>>On 08 May 2012 16:15:36 GMT, tell. us wrote:
>>>
>>>> Did we have to wait 1600 years and 1850 years for the "real" teaching on
>>>> this point to appear? Or does the time element say something about the
>>>> several warnings in scripture about those to come who would mislead for
>>>> their own agendas?
>>>>
>>>> This same time period found the rise of the jw and mormans and others who
>>>> were in the same age of liberal inovation and who had the same scripture on
>>>> which to start. How are the liberal inovations of the group to which you
>>>> join yourself different?
>>>>
>>>> Then the steadfast never changing 2000 year christian witness emerging from
>>>> and based on the same scripture is the reference by which to compare the
>>>> liberal inovations above. What is there to be learned from this lesson?
>>>
>>>This is the end of my replies in this thread with you and your newsreader.
>>
>> I suspect your reader is the problem. He's is coming out correctly on my Agent.
>>
>
>has told Fool this, most just ignore her.
I'm not having a problem with he(r) at all. Why are you? Maybe it's you.
duke
May 9, 2012, 12:21:51 PM5/9/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 08:57:48 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>That is your problem Earl, Few others have any issues other than those who
>think they can rule God.
Well.............STOP IT. You are the one that keeps telling God you don't care
what he teaches, that you know better than he does.
>think they can rule God.
Well.............STOP IT. You are the one that keeps telling God you don't care
what he teaches, that you know better than he does.
"tell . us"
May 9, 2012, 12:31:02 PM5/9/12
to
These questions remain unanswered. A response, any response, just to have
one is not a proper answer.
Would you tell us if you please the history of who and when first proposed
the meaning of "saved" as you want it and how it has evolved overtime?
Then tell us if you please the same for the one who proposed that baptism
was not being "born again".
Then we can compare what you come up with to the unbroken 2000 yer
christian witness on the same things.
To say I don't know is a proper answer.
To say nothing is an answer that shows how much you want to avoid
discussing this line of questions.
To toss mud and provide irrelevant info is not an answer.
To say nothing is an answer that shows how much you want to avoid
discussing this line of questions.
To answer properly does not include any reference to the person asking the
questions and is irrelevant also.
Jim
May 9, 2012, 1:01:50 PM5/9/12
to
duke wrote:
>
[.....]
>
> We don't worship God by bowing to a statue. ONly you protest_ants think
> otherwise.
>
[....]
>
> duke, American - American
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=catholic+wordhiping+mary&view=detail&id=3DDC508D77D21D79324BC15E6EDC5C24FB0F5A17&first=0&qpvt=catholic+wordhiping+mary&FORM=IDFRIR
>
[.....]
>
> We don't worship God by bowing to a statue. ONly you protest_ants think
> otherwise.
>
[....]
>
> duke, American - American
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=catholic+wordhiping+mary&view=detail&id=3DDC508D77D21D79324BC15E6EDC5C24FB0F5A17&first=0&qpvt=catholic+wordhiping+mary&FORM=IDFRIR
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Jim
May 9, 2012, 3:54:33 PM5/9/12
to
Pete wrote:
> duke wrote:
> > Pete wrote:
[....]
> >>then follow the scriptures through from one end
> >>of the bile to the other, prove me wrong. I know you cannot, Like the Fool
> >>you will not back up anything you say. From the beginning neither has, just
> >>trolled.
> >
> > Oh, you are the fool, pete, not me.
> >
>
> I didn't call you a fool, it is the Fool that is posting these things, I
> said like the Fool you will not back up anything you say.
you got to love the english language with how things can so
easily be misinterpreted. while I know you were making a
reference to the poster going by the nick 'holyfool' duke
on the other hand seeing himself being attacked, then by his
nature returned a counter attack. duke not one to communicate
but rather assume and then insult.
> You are dead wrong on all your reply here. There were no Catholics then.
it took satan a while to recover from his defeat at the cross but then
satan realized how he could separate humans from God by creating religions
and since his catholic religion worked out so well for him he went on to
create more religions.
> duke wrote:
> > Pete wrote:
[....]
> >>then follow the scriptures through from one end
> >>of the bile to the other, prove me wrong. I know you cannot, Like the Fool
> >>you will not back up anything you say. From the beginning neither has, just
> >>trolled.
> >
> > Oh, you are the fool, pete, not me.
> >
>
> said like the Fool you will not back up anything you say.
you got to love the english language with how things can so
easily be misinterpreted. while I know you were making a
reference to the poster going by the nick 'holyfool' duke
on the other hand seeing himself being attacked, then by his
nature returned a counter attack. duke not one to communicate
but rather assume and then insult.
> You are dead wrong on all your reply here. There were no Catholics then.
it took satan a while to recover from his defeat at the cross but then
satan realized how he could separate humans from God by creating religions
and since his catholic religion worked out so well for him he went on to
create more religions.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
r m
May 9, 2012, 5:14:08 PM5/9/12
to
On May 10, 1:52 am, Pete <*@*> wrote:
that believeth not shall be damned."
Therefore salvation is contingent upon baptism (as a consequence of
belief). Belief>baptism=salvation.
>
> Go back and read my posts, then follow the scriptures through from one end
> Peter
> A Disciple of The Lord Jesus Christ
> Joh 13:34-35 KJV
> Join up now.
> Not too bright, eh?
> No one ran here, and both of you know it.
> No one ran here, and both of you know it.
> Born again has been around 1000's of years, and it is well known by many.
> Baptism into salvation has been an error of the Catholics and their
> descendants for EONS, and those that know history and the word know it.
Jesus said "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
> Baptism into salvation has been an error of the Catholics and their
> descendants for EONS, and those that know history and the word know it.
that believeth not shall be damned."
Therefore salvation is contingent upon baptism (as a consequence of
belief). Belief>baptism=salvation.
>
> Go back and read my posts, then follow the scriptures through from one end
> of the bile to the other, prove me wrong. I know you cannot, Like the Fool
> you will not back up anything you say. From the beginning neither has, just
> trolled.
>
> --
> you will not back up anything you say. From the beginning neither has, just
> trolled.
>
> Peter
> A Disciple of The Lord Jesus Christ
> Joh 13:34-35 KJV
> Join up now.
Rockinghorse Winner
May 9, 2012, 5:15:28 PM5/9/12
to
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Terry
--
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
-Albert Schweitzer
badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>Born again has been around 1000's of years, and it is well known by many.
>>Baptism into salvation has been an error of the Catholics and their
>>descendants for EONS, and those that know history and the word know it.
>
> Yet Jesus revealed it to the Catholics. And we know what it mean, as Jesus
> called us to go forth and baptize all nations. Mat 28:16-20. Just for the
> record, he didn't say go forth and "born again" people.
>
> Acts 22:16 (New International Version)
> 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins
> away, calling on his name.
>
> Romans 6:3-4 (New International Version)
> 3 Or don?t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were
>>Born again has been around 1000's of years, and it is well known by many.
>>Baptism into salvation has been an error of the Catholics and their
>>descendants for EONS, and those that know history and the word know it.
>
> Yet Jesus revealed it to the Catholics. And we know what it mean, as Jesus
> called us to go forth and baptize all nations. Mat 28:16-20. Just for the
> record, he didn't say go forth and "born again" people.
>
> Acts 22:16 (New International Version)
> 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins
> away, calling on his name.
>
> Romans 6:3-4 (New International Version)
> baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism
> into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the
> glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
>
> Titus 3:5-6 (New International Version)
> 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his
> mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy
> Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior,
>
>>Go back and read my posts,
>
> Why? They don't reflect knowledge.
>
>>then follow the scriptures through from one end
>>of the bile to the other, prove me wrong. I know you cannot, Like the Fool
>>you will not back up anything you say. From the beginning neither has, just
>>trolled.
>
> Oh, you are the fool, pete, not me.
No, not a fool, just uninformed. :)
> into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the
> glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
>
> Titus 3:5-6 (New International Version)
> 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his
> mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy
> Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior,
>
>>Go back and read my posts,
>
> Why? They don't reflect knowledge.
>
>>then follow the scriptures through from one end
>>of the bile to the other, prove me wrong. I know you cannot, Like the Fool
>>you will not back up anything you say. From the beginning neither has, just
>>trolled.
>
> Oh, you are the fool, pete, not me.
Terry
--
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
-Albert Schweitzer
badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo
",tell us"
May 9, 2012, 6:09:28 PM5/9/12
to
Would you tell us if you please the history of who and when first proposed
the meaning of "saved" as you want it and how it has evolved overtime?
Then tell us if you please the same for the one who proposed that baptism
was not being "born again".
Then we can compare what you come up with to the unbroken 2000 yer
christian witness on the same things.
The doctrines you present for many many centuries did not exist. Then they
the meaning of "saved" as you want it and how it has evolved overtime?
Then tell us if you please the same for the one who proposed that baptism
was not being "born again".
Then we can compare what you come up with to the unbroken 2000 yer
christian witness on the same things.
appeared and spread.
A proper answer does not include reference to any other person then
yourself and the historical doctrines in question.
When a vain and obvious attempt is made to turn the question in another
direction it is
glaring confession.
Shortly if you can't and/or will not provide the answers, I will be happy
to do so.
duke
May 10, 2012, 7:53:58 AM5/10/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 11:26:58 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
Scripture is wonderful. It IS my backup.
>You are dead wrong on all your reply here. There were no Catholics then.
That's like saying there were no Christians then. That term was not installed
until Antioch. You are the fool, pete, making the ultimate mistake in your
personal interpretations of the Word of God.
That's what Adam and Eve first did. And look at what it got them.
>I didn't call you a fool, it is the Fool that is posting these things, I
>said like the Fool you will not back up anything you say.
Scripture is wonderful. It IS my backup.
>You are dead wrong on all your reply here. There were no Catholics then.
until Antioch. You are the fool, pete, making the ultimate mistake in your
personal interpretations of the Word of God.
That's what Adam and Eve first did. And look at what it got them.
duke
May 10, 2012, 7:57:44 AM5/10/12
to
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:54:33 -0400, Jim <j...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Pete wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>> > Pete wrote:
>
>[....]
>
>> >>then follow the scriptures through from one end
>> >>of the bile to the other, prove me wrong. I know you cannot, Like the Fool
>> >>you will not back up anything you say. From the beginning neither has, just
>> >>trolled.
>> >
>> > Oh, you are the fool, pete, not me.
>> >
>>
>> I didn't call you a fool, it is the Fool that is posting these things, I
>> said like the Fool you will not back up anything you say.
>
>you got to love the english language with how things can so
>easily be misinterpreted. while I know you were making a
>reference to the poster going by the nick 'holyfool' duke
>on the other hand seeing himself being attacked, then by his
>nature returned a counter attack. duke not one to communicate
>but rather assume and then insult.
Au contraire. This is a discussion area, not a one-on-one private discussion.
>Pete wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>> > Pete wrote:
>
>[....]
>
>> >>then follow the scriptures through from one end
>> >>of the bile to the other, prove me wrong. I know you cannot, Like the Fool
>> >>you will not back up anything you say. From the beginning neither has, just
>> >>trolled.
>> >
>> > Oh, you are the fool, pete, not me.
>> >
>>
>> I didn't call you a fool, it is the Fool that is posting these things, I
>> said like the Fool you will not back up anything you say.
>
>you got to love the english language with how things can so
>easily be misinterpreted. while I know you were making a
>reference to the poster going by the nick 'holyfool' duke
>on the other hand seeing himself being attacked, then by his
>nature returned a counter attack. duke not one to communicate
>but rather assume and then insult.
As massive as pete's mistakes are, I absolutely must spend time trying to
correct his and protect others from his unscriptural mistakes.
>> You are dead wrong on all your reply here. There were no Catholics then.
>it took satan a while to recover from his defeat at the cross but then
>satan realized how he could separate humans from God by creating religions
>and since his catholic religion worked out so well for him he went on to
>create more religions.
misinterpret scripture rather than pay attention to them. After all, they are
God's words.
duke
May 10, 2012, 8:02:24 AM5/10/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 13:29:38 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:54:33 -0400, Jim <j...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:54:33 -0400, Jim <j...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>I will be so HAPPY to see Jesus in the clouds!
So will I.
>I'll be taking off next week, Lord willing, for three or more weeks,
>depending. Ill be thinking and praying for all the believers.
What you need to do is ask yourself over those weeks is if Jesus lives in you
and you in him. What he do what you do. Do you do what he did.
> Especially
>the newer ones. I have some related (old/new/old) stuff on the Catching
>away or Rapture, also some surprising info on born again and the
>non-relationship of being born again by baptism.
What rapture, and did it already happen. Do you really think that one day JEsus
is going to return riding a white horse and swinging a sword? The events of the
return, nature wise, have already happened.
duke
May 10, 2012, 8:03:01 AM5/10/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 14:15:28 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner <badass....@gmx.com>
wrote:
Highly so, but the fool refuses to reconsider.
wrote:
duke
May 10, 2012, 8:10:31 AM5/10/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 11:22:28 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>How I wish your question were sincere. These people were all saved by
>Jesus, they were resurrected at the time He was.
But you notice they died before the cross, making them Jews and gentiles and all
sorts of people in the world that never heard of Jesus. And remember, they were
in limbo/purgatory/bosum of Abraham, or whatever you want to call it. Scripture
well says that once in hell, there is no return. So Abraham was one because he
believed God. So was Moses and Elijah. All good Jews.
They died in the favor of God, and so were raised to life.
> If you were born again
Baptized in John's baptism of repentance at 8 weeks and Confirmed in the Holy
Spirit by the laying on of hands and oil at 13 years of age.
How about you? Or is this just more of all you reject in scripture?
>then read the OT you would understand why.
I'm a Christian. I live the NT.
>Jesus, they were resurrected at the time He was.
But you notice they died before the cross, making them Jews and gentiles and all
sorts of people in the world that never heard of Jesus. And remember, they were
in limbo/purgatory/bosum of Abraham, or whatever you want to call it. Scripture
well says that once in hell, there is no return. So Abraham was one because he
believed God. So was Moses and Elijah. All good Jews.
They died in the favor of God, and so were raised to life.
> If you were born again
Baptized in John's baptism of repentance at 8 weeks and Confirmed in the Holy
Spirit by the laying on of hands and oil at 13 years of age.
How about you? Or is this just more of all you reject in scripture?
>then read the OT you would understand why.
I'm a Christian. I live the NT.
duke
May 10, 2012, 8:13:58 AM5/10/12
to
On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:01:50 -0400, Jim <j...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>duke wrote:
>>
>[.....]
>>
>> We don't worship God by bowing to a statue. ONly you protest_ants think
>> otherwise.
>>
>[....]
>>
>> duke, American - American
>
>http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=catholic+wordhiping+mary&view=detail&id=3DDC508D77D21D79324BC15E6EDC5C24FB0F5A17&first=0&qpvt=catholic+wordhiping+mary&FORM=IDFRIR
I'm a Roman Catholic amongst millions of Roman Catholics in the Church started
>duke wrote:
>>
>[.....]
>>
>> We don't worship God by bowing to a statue. ONly you protest_ants think
>> otherwise.
>>
>[....]
>>
>> duke, American - American
>
>http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=catholic+wordhiping+mary&view=detail&id=3DDC508D77D21D79324BC15E6EDC5C24FB0F5A17&first=0&qpvt=catholic+wordhiping+mary&FORM=IDFRIR
by Jesus Christ. We don't worship Mary. But if Jesus showed he paid attention
to her, and he did, I sure don't have a problem asking her to ask Jesus along
side me for a personal need.
How about you?
duke
May 10, 2012, 8:16:08 AM5/10/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 10:55:50 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>On Wed, 09 May 2012 11:21:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:00:50 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 May 2012 07:26:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 8 May 2012 10:49:39 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 08 May 2012 16:15:36 GMT, tell. us wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Did we have to wait 1600 years and 1850 years for the "real" teaching on
>>>>>> this point to appear? Or does the time element say something about the
>>>>>> several warnings in scripture about those to come who would mislead for
>>>>>> their own agendas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This same time period found the rise of the jw and mormans and others who
>>>>>> were in the same age of liberal inovation and who had the same scripture on
>>>>>> which to start. How are the liberal inovations of the group to which you
>>>>>> join yourself different?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then the steadfast never changing 2000 year christian witness emerging from
>>>>>> and based on the same scripture is the reference by which to compare the
>>>>>> liberal inovations above. What is there to be learned from this lesson?
>>>>>
>>>>>This is the end of my replies in this thread with you and your newsreader.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect your reader is the problem. He's is coming out correctly on my Agent.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You didn't follow the thread from the beginning. I am not the only one who
>>>has told Fool this, most just ignore her.
>>
>> I'm not having a problem with he(r) at all. Why are you? Maybe it's you.
>Two possible reasons, one you hardly read full posts ever
You're totally clueless to what I do, pete.
>, Two you have
>never had long convo's with her, especially when she breaks up a paragraph
>into three pieces and never applies attributes.
Aw, is widdle pete unable to respond to a line rather than a paragraph? Do you
have the right to tell her how to post. I've read her posts and I don't have a
problem. Maybe it's you.
>On Wed, 09 May 2012 11:21:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:00:50 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 May 2012 07:26:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 8 May 2012 10:49:39 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 08 May 2012 16:15:36 GMT, tell. us wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Did we have to wait 1600 years and 1850 years for the "real" teaching on
>>>>>> this point to appear? Or does the time element say something about the
>>>>>> several warnings in scripture about those to come who would mislead for
>>>>>> their own agendas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This same time period found the rise of the jw and mormans and others who
>>>>>> were in the same age of liberal inovation and who had the same scripture on
>>>>>> which to start. How are the liberal inovations of the group to which you
>>>>>> join yourself different?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then the steadfast never changing 2000 year christian witness emerging from
>>>>>> and based on the same scripture is the reference by which to compare the
>>>>>> liberal inovations above. What is there to be learned from this lesson?
>>>>>
>>>>>This is the end of my replies in this thread with you and your newsreader.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect your reader is the problem. He's is coming out correctly on my Agent.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You didn't follow the thread from the beginning. I am not the only one who
>>>has told Fool this, most just ignore her.
>>
>> I'm not having a problem with he(r) at all. Why are you? Maybe it's you.
You're totally clueless to what I do, pete.
>, Two you have
>never had long convo's with her, especially when she breaks up a paragraph
>into three pieces and never applies attributes.
Aw, is widdle pete unable to respond to a line rather than a paragraph? Do you
have the right to tell her how to post. I've read her posts and I don't have a
problem. Maybe it's you.
duke
May 10, 2012, 8:20:12 AM5/10/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 10:57:31 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>Never have and never would and you would never find any such statements
>from me.
I see it in you day after day after day. You make no bones about it. It's your
personal interpretation and that's your major fault. Instead of listening to
God speak, you decide for yourself what he said in one line to the total
exclusion to what he said in other parts of the scripture. It's the teaching
authority of the Papa_cy that is so much more powerful than you because they
have been researching all this for the last 2000 years. Your errors are glaring
in this respect.
Take the next 3 weeks off and think about this, and ask yourself how poor your
chances are of knowing scripture better than 2000 years and millions of man
hours of research by others.
>from me.
I see it in you day after day after day. You make no bones about it. It's your
personal interpretation and that's your major fault. Instead of listening to
God speak, you decide for yourself what he said in one line to the total
exclusion to what he said in other parts of the scripture. It's the teaching
authority of the Papa_cy that is so much more powerful than you because they
have been researching all this for the last 2000 years. Your errors are glaring
in this respect.
Take the next 3 weeks off and think about this, and ask yourself how poor your
chances are of knowing scripture better than 2000 years and millions of man
hours of research by others.
duke
May 10, 2012, 8:21:48 AM5/10/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 11:18:14 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>On 09 May 2012 16:31:02 GMT, tell . us wrote:
>
>> These questions remain unanswered. A response, any response, just to have
>> one is not a proper answer.
>>
>
>Listen up Fool, I gave you an answer, where it began in print and where it
>ends in print.
>of saved. What Paul says about it is what I believe. What God says about it
>in Deut. I believe.
There was NO salvation according to OT scripture, pete. Time you grow up. The
scriptures well reveal that salvation of the Jews had to wait until the cross,
as Jesus is the only way to the Father.
>> Then tell us if you please the same for the one who proposed that baptism
>> was not being "born again".
>>
>Everyone in the early church, especially all the Jews who became believers
>and knew what it meant. They knew the Catholics got it all wrong, just like
>the Bible still says today.
>from you because you have always purposely neglected to give me and answer
>about the EO since the first we communicated. You could not even give me
>the definition of church for months. Yet you feel free to accuse the
>brethren night and day, remind you of your father?
>especially in things biblical and spiritual.
>understand what you are saying here. I did not tell her you go by the name
>"Fool".
>
>Show me on piece of paper that says year 75 AD and has EO on it and can be
>documented for age. You can even use Catholic and or Roman Catholic.
>On 09 May 2012 16:31:02 GMT, tell . us wrote:
>
>> These questions remain unanswered. A response, any response, just to have
>> one is not a proper answer.
>>
>
>ends in print.
>
>> Would you tell us if you please the history of who and when first proposed
>> the meaning of "saved" as you want it and how it has evolved overtime?
>
>You make a huge mistake, Fool, to assume I have some unusual understanding
>> Would you tell us if you please the history of who and when first proposed
>> the meaning of "saved" as you want it and how it has evolved overtime?
>
>of saved. What Paul says about it is what I believe. What God says about it
>in Deut. I believe.
There was NO salvation according to OT scripture, pete. Time you grow up. The
scriptures well reveal that salvation of the Jews had to wait until the cross,
as Jesus is the only way to the Father.
>> Then tell us if you please the same for the one who proposed that baptism
>> was not being "born again".
>>
>and knew what it meant. They knew the Catholics got it all wrong, just like
>the Bible still says today.
>
>
>> Then we can compare what you come up with to the unbroken 2000 yer
>> christian witness on the same things.
>>
>
>You, Fool, haven't a leg to stand on here. I really don't expect and answer
>
>> Then we can compare what you come up with to the unbroken 2000 yer
>> christian witness on the same things.
>>
>
>from you because you have always purposely neglected to give me and answer
>about the EO since the first we communicated. You could not even give me
>the definition of church for months. Yet you feel free to accuse the
>brethren night and day, remind you of your father?
>
>> To say I don't know is a proper answer.
>>
>> To say nothing is an answer that shows how much you want to avoid
>> discussing this line of questions.
>>
>
>That is all dung and you know it, you are no psychologist, nor a psych.
>> To say I don't know is a proper answer.
>>
>> To say nothing is an answer that shows how much you want to avoid
>> discussing this line of questions.
>>
>
>
>> To toss mud and provide irrelevant info is not an answer.
>
>No on is tossing mud here missie, but you. You are not the arbiter of fact,
>> To toss mud and provide irrelevant info is not an answer.
>
>especially in things biblical and spiritual.
>
>>
>> To answer properly does not include any reference to the person asking the
>> questions and is irrelevant also.
>
>Asked my wife as women often think differently then men. She couldn't
>>
>> To answer properly does not include any reference to the person asking the
>> questions and is irrelevant also.
>
>understand what you are saying here. I did not tell her you go by the name
>"Fool".
>
>Show me on piece of paper that says year 75 AD and has EO on it and can be
>documented for age. You can even use Catholic and or Roman Catholic.
Jim
May 10, 2012, 8:50:43 AM5/10/12
to
duke wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>
[....]
>
> Jim wrote:
>
[....]
>
> >it took satan a while to recover from his defeat at the cross but then
> >satan realized how he could separate humans from God by creating religions
> >and since his catholic religion worked out so well for him he went on to
> >create more religions.
>
> Satan never has recovered
[....]
> >satan realized how he could separate humans from God by creating religions
> >and since his catholic religion worked out so well for him he went on to
> >create more religions.
>
> Satan never has recovered
> After all, they are God's words.
and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there
be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Jesus said there are many who go into destruction and
few there be that find the way unto life.
satan and his followers are the ones leading men into destruction.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Jim
May 10, 2012, 1:11:26 PM5/10/12
to
duke wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >>
> >[.....]
> >>
> >> We don't worship God by bowing to a statue. ONly you protest_ants think
> >> otherwise.
> >>
> >[....]
> >>
> >> duke, American - American
> >
> >http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=catholic+wordhiping+mary&view=detail&id=3DDC508D77D21D79324BC15E6EDC5C24FB0F5A17&first=0&qpvt=catholic+wordhiping+mary&FORM=IDFRIR
>
> I'm a Roman Catholic amongst millions of Roman Catholics in the Church started
> by Jesus Christ. We don't worship Mary. But if Jesus showed he paid attention
> to her, and he did, I sure don't have a problem asking her to ask Jesus along
> side me for a personal need.
what happened to your statement where you were saying mary was without sin?
should you recant that? should you recant your statement about catholics
not bowing to a statue? God has a great reward for those who are able to
recant, repent and see HIS truth.
>
> How about you?
Joh 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do,
that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Joh 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
critical verse one with great importance and significant meaning beyond measure.
Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
critical verse one with great importance and significant meaning beyond measure.
Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth
me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and
will manifest myself to him.
Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that
is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession
for us.
therefore understand it is Christ Jesus alone who petitions on our behalf.
do not belittle the work of Christ by asking in any other name than His which
has been lifted up by God above all names. Honor Him with honor.
> Jim wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >>
> >[.....]
> >>
> >> We don't worship God by bowing to a statue. ONly you protest_ants think
> >> otherwise.
> >>
> >[....]
> >>
> >> duke, American - American
> >
> >http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=catholic+wordhiping+mary&view=detail&id=3DDC508D77D21D79324BC15E6EDC5C24FB0F5A17&first=0&qpvt=catholic+wordhiping+mary&FORM=IDFRIR
>
> I'm a Roman Catholic amongst millions of Roman Catholics in the Church started
> by Jesus Christ. We don't worship Mary. But if Jesus showed he paid attention
> to her, and he did, I sure don't have a problem asking her to ask Jesus along
> side me for a personal need.
should you recant that? should you recant your statement about catholics
not bowing to a statue? God has a great reward for those who are able to
recant, repent and see HIS truth.
>
> How about you?
Joh 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do,
that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Joh 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
critical verse one with great importance and significant meaning beyond measure.
Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
critical verse one with great importance and significant meaning beyond measure.
Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth
me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and
will manifest myself to him.
Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that
is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession
for us.
therefore understand it is Christ Jesus alone who petitions on our behalf.
do not belittle the work of Christ by asking in any other name than His which
has been lifted up by God above all names. Honor Him with honor.
"/tell us."
May 10, 2012, 1:20:52 PM5/10/12
to
> Some time ago I asked pete these simple questions:
> doesn't answer the who and when question.
>
> We shall start with the baptism and born again part.
>
> The protestant movement had three leaders. Luther and calvin and zwingli
> all had their schools of thought.
>
> that of zwingli
> was the most radical and liberal of the three.
>
> He like calvin thought that salvation was predestined as to whom would be
> saved. So he came up with the idea that this made baptism a sign only
for
> what was already predetermined. .
>
> Of course luther and calvin could present the many many parts of
scripture
> pointing to baptism as being born again. Their view was that held since
the
> time of Christ by all christians everywhere.
>
> But of course zwingli thought he knew better based on his own idea.
>
> So the who was zwingli and the time was 16 centuries after Christ.
>
> Scripture says there would be those to come who would be false in their
> teaching. Is zwingli one of these? Did we really have to wait almost
1600
> years to get the ccorrect idea based on the opinion of one person?
>
> In a coming post we will answer the who and when about what idea took the
> place of baptism to be born again.
Pete avoiding the question said:
"Joh 3:3
snip
This disproves your entire post."
The John above is the mention By christ to be born again of water and
spirit so one can see the kingdom of God. It does not say what this means
in practice except as what "water" implies.
Elsewhere in scripture in several places it says that by baptism we are
tied to Christ and to eternal life and thus the kingdom through Him. So
the born of water is now clear in practice.
So pete has only repeated his theory, the one started by zwingli as given
above, almost 1600 years after Christ. He has once again not answered the
question of who and when this theory he holds was started. Now he knows.
>
> Would you tell us if you please the history of who and when first
proposed
> the meaning of "saved" as you want it and how it has evolved overtime?
> Would you tell us if you please the history of who and when first
proposed
> the meaning of "saved" as you want it and how it has evolved overtime?
> Then tell us if you please the same for the one who proposed that
baptism
> was not being "born again"."
> He could only respond by attacking and repeating what he believed. That
baptism
> was not being "born again"."
> doesn't answer the who and when question.
>
> We shall start with the baptism and born again part.
>
> The protestant movement had three leaders. Luther and calvin and zwingli
> all had their schools of thought.
>
> that of zwingli
> was the most radical and liberal of the three.
>
> He like calvin thought that salvation was predestined as to whom would be
> saved. So he came up with the idea that this made baptism a sign only
for
> what was already predetermined. .
>
> Of course luther and calvin could present the many many parts of
scripture
> pointing to baptism as being born again. Their view was that held since
the
> time of Christ by all christians everywhere.
>
> But of course zwingli thought he knew better based on his own idea.
>
> So the who was zwingli and the time was 16 centuries after Christ.
>
> Scripture says there would be those to come who would be false in their
> teaching. Is zwingli one of these? Did we really have to wait almost
1600
> years to get the ccorrect idea based on the opinion of one person?
>
> In a coming post we will answer the who and when about what idea took the
> place of baptism to be born again.
Pete avoiding the question said:
"Joh 3:3
snip
This disproves your entire post."
The John above is the mention By christ to be born again of water and
spirit so one can see the kingdom of God. It does not say what this means
in practice except as what "water" implies.
Elsewhere in scripture in several places it says that by baptism we are
tied to Christ and to eternal life and thus the kingdom through Him. So
the born of water is now clear in practice.
So pete has only repeated his theory, the one started by zwingli as given
above, almost 1600 years after Christ. He has once again not answered the
question of who and when this theory he holds was started. Now he knows.
Message has been deleted
";tell us"
May 10, 2012, 2:44:22 PM5/10/12
to
Considering John 3:3:
> The John above is the mention By christ to be born again of water and
> spirit so one can see the kingdom of God. It does not say what this means
> in practice except as what "water" implies.
>
"You are intentionally misreading the scripture and pouring in your
fallacies. It is a well known fact that Water Birth is of ones mom."
But Christ address this very question in the above. He is asked how one
can enter into the womb again because the person was confused about being
"born again". There is nothing there to say that the "water" of birth is
implied. As Christ said, this is not about one's physical birth.
The theory you suggest is one that was invented after zwingli invented his
theory about baptism. Your theory was needed to divorce the born again of
water and spirit from baptism. That theory was invented within the last
150 years or so.
> Elsewhere in scripture in several places it says that by baptism we are
> tied to Christ and to eternal life and thus the kingdom through Him. So
> the born of water is now clear in practice.
>
"You have no proof of that else it would have been presented, like before
when you present things they oft go against your teachings/"
Correction, you were given the specific scriptures from several authors in
the NT where the tie between baptism as above is clearly given.
None of this has to do with myself. The historical facts are not mine but
are there for all to see.
> So pete has only repeated his theory, the one started by zwingli as given
> above, almost 1600 years after Christ. He has once again not answered the
> question of who and when this theory he holds was started. Now he knows.
"Again, you make things up, apt to lie a lot. Know nothing of things
spiritual and your only purpose is contention. You through out a name like
zilch and no proof and expect others to be as ignorant as that of the
author that came up with the idea."
Again, this is well and widely known to anyone with even a minimal
knowledge of this history. It is not my or a single author's view as to
what zwingli said and the result. It is not my view that luther and calvin
denounced his theory and stuck to the previous 1600 years of teaching held
by all chirstians everywhere.
A proper answer would not be an empty attack but alternative and easily
available historical information. Google is your friend and there is much
about zwingli and exactly what I said.
You have bought into the theory of zwingli and he invented it some 1600
years after Christ as a personal opinion. You don't know the backstory of
what you believe and who and when it was introduced.
> The John above is the mention By christ to be born again of water and
> spirit so one can see the kingdom of God. It does not say what this means
> in practice except as what "water" implies.
>
fallacies. It is a well known fact that Water Birth is of ones mom."
But Christ address this very question in the above. He is asked how one
can enter into the womb again because the person was confused about being
"born again". There is nothing there to say that the "water" of birth is
implied. As Christ said, this is not about one's physical birth.
The theory you suggest is one that was invented after zwingli invented his
theory about baptism. Your theory was needed to divorce the born again of
water and spirit from baptism. That theory was invented within the last
150 years or so.
> Elsewhere in scripture in several places it says that by baptism we are
> tied to Christ and to eternal life and thus the kingdom through Him. So
> the born of water is now clear in practice.
>
when you present things they oft go against your teachings/"
Correction, you were given the specific scriptures from several authors in
the NT where the tie between baptism as above is clearly given.
None of this has to do with myself. The historical facts are not mine but
are there for all to see.
> So pete has only repeated his theory, the one started by zwingli as given
> above, almost 1600 years after Christ. He has once again not answered the
> question of who and when this theory he holds was started. Now he knows.
spiritual and your only purpose is contention. You through out a name like
zilch and no proof and expect others to be as ignorant as that of the
author that came up with the idea."
Again, this is well and widely known to anyone with even a minimal
knowledge of this history. It is not my or a single author's view as to
what zwingli said and the result. It is not my view that luther and calvin
denounced his theory and stuck to the previous 1600 years of teaching held
by all chirstians everywhere.
A proper answer would not be an empty attack but alternative and easily
available historical information. Google is your friend and there is much
about zwingli and exactly what I said.
You have bought into the theory of zwingli and he invented it some 1600
years after Christ as a personal opinion. You don't know the backstory of
what you believe and who and when it was introduced.
Message has been deleted
"-tell us"
May 10, 2012, 3:34:46 PM5/10/12
to
> A proper answer would not be an empty attack but alternative and easily
> available historical information. Google is your friend and there is much
> about zwingli and exactly what I said.
>
"Nothing about him matters to me. Nor does it matter to you, else you would
> available historical information. Google is your friend and there is much
> about zwingli and exactly what I said.
>
have sought his reasoning for his beliefs. If it was based on NT teachings,
and the words of Jesus, then what?"
Perhaps you should be concerned with the reason this idea ever saw the
light of day. You have taken it as recieved doctrine and did not know who
and when it was invented.
I outlined his "reasoning" in the first post of this thread. Did it
require 1600 years for the "real" reasoning to appear? Did luther and
calvin fail because they did not accept his "resoning"?
> You have bought into the theory of zwingli and he invented it some 1600
> years after Christ as a personal opinion. You don't know the backstory
of
> what you believe and who and when it was introduced.
teachings?"
The same thing luther and calvin and all christians at all time and
everywhere the 1600 years previously. He said to be born again to have
eternal life. Others in the NT said the way to eternal life by being born
again of water in baptism is how we are tied to Christ and thus eternal
life.
What zwingli did was to spin the teaching of Christ to his own agenda as an
individual opinion.
Message has been deleted
":tell us"
May 10, 2012, 5:04:12 PM5/10/12
to
> "So what do you do with the Words of Jesus? What do you do with His
> teachings?"
>
> The same thing luther and calvin and all christians at all time and
> everywhere the 1600 years previously. He said to be born again to have
> eternal life. Others in the NT said the way to eternal life by being
born
> again of water in baptism is how we are tied to Christ and thus eternal
> life.
"Do you make this stuff up on the fly, or is it dogma from your church."
> teachings?"
>
> The same thing luther and calvin and all christians at all time and
> everywhere the 1600 years previously. He said to be born again to have
> eternal life. Others in the NT said the way to eternal life by being
born
> again of water in baptism is how we are tied to Christ and thus eternal
> life.
Nope, the more interesting qquestion is why is this common knowledge of
what luther and calvin and all chirstians held before zwingli, and you
don't know it?
"Jesus/God emphasized it. Double emphasized it to reinforce His Teaching.
Says it *must* be done and you feel free to over ride the Almighty God by
twisting the teachings of the Holy Bible to fit some other way of
Salvation? Jesus said, I Am the Way, only Him. you would see fit to stir up
obvious contradictions in the word and render it fallible with your
distortions and twisting of facts. In every case, it is "Believe first" as
in Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you and your family shall be saved.
No mention of baptism."
I would ask the very same question of you, using the zwingli invention to
which you hold instead. Was he "free" to reinvent a new theory of baptism
and being born again 1600 years after Christ?
Christ is the way, and through His rise from the tomb and defeating death
we might have eternal life. As the verses given you in the NT says it is
by baptism we join with Him in rising from the watery grave unto eternal
life.
Having faith in the claims of Christ is a given, then we are born again by
baptisim and being joined to Him as the NT says.
"It is so simple it is confusing to you because all the works required for
theosis are thrown out. No verse supports your theories, and a relationship
with God is no a theory, it is experienced."
It is not about me. It is about zwingli and the invention 1600 years after
Christ you hold without knowing that source for it.
> What zwingli did was to spin the teaching of Christ to his own agenda as
an
> individual opinion.
you are a Christian. Go figger."
Then the same applies to luther and calvin and all christians before them
to bible times who held the same view of baptism and being born again.
Can it apply to a theory invented by one man 1600 years after Christ?
Rockinghorse Winner
May 10, 2012, 5:19:47 PM5/10/12
to
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Pete <*@*> wrote:
> On 10 May 2012 19:34:46 GMT, -tell us wrote:
>
>>> A proper answer would not be an empty attack but alternative and easily
>>> available historical information. Google is your friend and there is much
>>> about zwingli and exactly what I said.
>>>
>> "Nothing about him matters to me. Nor does it matter to you, else you would
>> have sought his reasoning for his beliefs. If it was based on NT teachings,
>> and the words of Jesus, then what?"
>>
>> Perhaps you should be concerned with the reason this idea ever saw the
>> light of day. You have taken it as recieved doctrine and did not know who
>> and when it was invented.
>>
>
> possibly run into a Giant Redwood Tree and not see it. Disregarding the
> teachings of the Jews, who as Jews accepted and believed the born again
> principle, Jesus the Only Begotten Son of God taught it.
>
> Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of
> water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That
> which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit
> is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
>
>
>> I outlined his "reasoning" in the first post of this thread. Did it
>> require 1600 years for the "real" reasoning to appear? Did luther and
>> calvin fail because they did not accept his "resoning"?
>>
>
> Does it matter? You are speaking of what you call a Johhny-come-lately. The
>
>> I outlined his "reasoning" in the first post of this thread. Did it
>> require 1600 years for the "real" reasoning to appear? Did luther and
>> calvin fail because they did not accept his "resoning"?
>>
>
> other two were still working their way out from under the clutches of a
> false church, and their learned dependency. Hardly any different then being
> freed from Communism and learning what the newly found freedom entails.
>
>>> You have bought into the theory of zwingli and he invented it some 1600
>>> years after Christ as a personal opinion. You don't know the backstory
>> of
>>> what you believe and who and when it was introduced.
>>
>> "So what do you do with the Words of Jesus? What do you do with His
>> teachings?"
>>
>> The same thing luther and calvin and all christians at all time and
>> everywhere the 1600 years previously. He said to be born again to have
>> eternal life. Others in the NT said the way to eternal life by being born
>> again of water in baptism is how we are tied to Christ and thus eternal
>> life.
>>
>
>>> You have bought into the theory of zwingli and he invented it some 1600
>>> years after Christ as a personal opinion. You don't know the backstory
>> of
>>> what you believe and who and when it was introduced.
>>
>> "So what do you do with the Words of Jesus? What do you do with His
>> teachings?"
>>
>> The same thing luther and calvin and all christians at all time and
>> everywhere the 1600 years previously. He said to be born again to have
>> eternal life. Others in the NT said the way to eternal life by being born
>> again of water in baptism is how we are tied to Christ and thus eternal
>> life.
>>
>
> Do you make this stuff up on the fly, or is it dogma from your church.
>
>
> Jesus/God emphasized it. Double emphasized it to reinforce His Teaching.
> Says it *must* be done and you feel free to over ride the Almighty God by
> twisting the teachings of the Holy Bible to fit some other way of
> Salvation? Jesus said, I Am the Way, only Him. you would see fit to stir up
> obvious contradictions in the word and render it fallible with your
> distortions and twisting of facts. In every case, it is "Believe first" as
> in Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you and your family shall be saved.
> No mention of baptism.
>
> Says it *must* be done and you feel free to over ride the Almighty God by
> twisting the teachings of the Holy Bible to fit some other way of
> Salvation? Jesus said, I Am the Way, only Him. you would see fit to stir up
> obvious contradictions in the word and render it fallible with your
> distortions and twisting of facts. In every case, it is "Believe first" as
> in Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you and your family shall be saved.
> No mention of baptism.
>
> It is so simple it is confusing to you because all the works required for
> theosis are thrown out. No verse supports your theories, and a relationship
> with God is no a theory, it is experienced.
>
> theosis are thrown out. No verse supports your theories, and a relationship
> with God is no a theory, it is experienced.
>
>> What zwingli did was to spin the teaching of Christ to his own agenda as an
>> individual opinion.
>
>> individual opinion.
>
> Thanks for the warning. You dismiss the teachings of Christ and yet think
> you are a Christian. Go figger.
All we can do is do our best to follow Christ's teachings according to the
> you are a Christian. Go figger.
light we are given. 'No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent
me draw him.' So, confident in our calling let's go forward doing God's
work, and refraining from recriminations, squabbling and other vain things.
Instead of pulling each other down, let's push each other up and encourage
each other.
We are all member of one body. Let's follow Christ's command to love one
another, to forgive each other. The time is short.
Message has been deleted
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
May 11, 2012, 12:49:40 AM5/11/12
to
Eph 5:26 - That he might sanctify and cleanse it
with the washing of water
by the word,
Tit 3:5 - Not by works of righteousness which we have done,
but according to his mercy he saved us,
by the washing of regeneration,
and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
with the washing of water
by the word,
Tit 3:5 - Not by works of righteousness which we have done,
but according to his mercy he saved us,
by the washing of regeneration,
and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
r m
May 11, 2012, 1:36:42 AM5/11/12
to
On May 11, 2:49 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
I would append Mar 16:16, too
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.
r m
May 11, 2012, 1:35:08 AM5/11/12
to
bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the
Spirit ... when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of
Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls
were saved by water. "
duke
May 11, 2012, 8:13:07 AM5/11/12
to
duke
May 11, 2012, 8:16:29 AM5/11/12
to
>??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ????
>
>This disproves your entire post.
We are humanly born into sin. In baptism, we are reborn spiritually without
>This disproves your entire post.
sin.
Psalm 51:5 (New International Version)
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Romans 5:12-13 (New International Version)
Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through
sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned�
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not
charged against anyone�s account where there is no law.
duke
May 11, 2012, 8:24:02 AM5/11/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 08:09:36 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 May 2012 07:10:31 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> But you notice they died before the cross, making them Jews and gentiles and all
>> sorts of people in the world that never heard of Jesus. And remember, they were
>> in limbo/purgatory/bosum of Abraham, or whatever you want to call it. Scripture
>> well says that once in hell, there is no return. So Abraham was one because he
>> believed God. So was Moses and Elijah. All good Jews.
>Abraham was not a Jew and not on person who crossed the Red Sea was a Jew.
Au contraire? What was Abraham? He certainly wasn't a Christian, and he was
saved.
>> They died in the favor of God, and so were raised to life.
>They were the righteous who listened to the teachings of God about the Lamb
>who was to be slain for the sin of the whole earth.
Nope, Abraham knew nothing about said Lamb. He comes from a society that
sacrificed their first born son to their pagan god.
>>> If you were born again
>> Baptized in John's baptism of repentance at 8 weeks and Confirmed in the Holy
>> Spirit by the laying on of hands and oil at 13 years of age.
>That will not get it, you must be born again. Jesus spoke that. The rituals
>you did, nice, but no to effect. You are not a Christian, you are an RCC.
That is born again and confirmed.
>> How about you? Or is this just more of all you reject in scripture?
>You have been told and shown John's baptism of repentance was for the Jew,
>before Christ died.
Acts 19:2-6 (New International Version)
2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to
believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on
them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[b] and prophesied.
Then you will notice that baptism in the Holy Spirit is by the laying on of
hands. Were you baptized in the Holy Spirit, pete?
>>>then read the OT you would understand why.
>> I'm a Christian. I live the NT.
>It isn't a house.
But all YOU do is read it. Jesus told us to live it if we want to live in him
and him in us.
>On Thu, 10 May 2012 07:10:31 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> But you notice they died before the cross, making them Jews and gentiles and all
>> sorts of people in the world that never heard of Jesus. And remember, they were
>> in limbo/purgatory/bosum of Abraham, or whatever you want to call it. Scripture
>> well says that once in hell, there is no return. So Abraham was one because he
>> believed God. So was Moses and Elijah. All good Jews.
Au contraire? What was Abraham? He certainly wasn't a Christian, and he was
saved.
>> They died in the favor of God, and so were raised to life.
>who was to be slain for the sin of the whole earth.
Nope, Abraham knew nothing about said Lamb. He comes from a society that
sacrificed their first born son to their pagan god.
>>> If you were born again
>> Baptized in John's baptism of repentance at 8 weeks and Confirmed in the Holy
>> Spirit by the laying on of hands and oil at 13 years of age.
>you did, nice, but no to effect. You are not a Christian, you are an RCC.
That is born again and confirmed.
>> How about you? Or is this just more of all you reject in scripture?
>before Christ died.
Acts 19:2-6 (New International Version)
2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to
believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on
them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[b] and prophesied.
Then you will notice that baptism in the Holy Spirit is by the laying on of
hands. Were you baptized in the Holy Spirit, pete?
>>>then read the OT you would understand why.
>> I'm a Christian. I live the NT.
But all YOU do is read it. Jesus told us to live it if we want to live in him
and him in us.
"-tell us"
May 11, 2012, 9:56:07 AM5/11/12
to
Ignoring scripture and the lesson of history when a doctrine was invented:
> "Thanks for the warning. You dismiss the teachings of Christ and yet
think
> you are a Christian. Go figger."
>
> Then the same applies to luther and calvin and all christians before them
> to bible times who held the same view of baptism and being born again.
>
> Can it apply to a theory invented by one man 1600 years after Christ?
"Anyone who holds the views that Jesus taught cannot go wrong. I don't care
what the age is that the person is born in, 1200 1500, 1600. or 325 AD They
cannot believe until they hear it. Faith, Gods faith, cometh by hearing and
hearing by the word of God."
Amen. You obscure the point. One can have faith in Christ and be baptised
and born again in any age of history, that is notthe point.
The point is the view that baptism was being born again was the universal
teaching that luther and calvin etc. held until it was changed by a radical
liberal some 1600 years after Christ.
We are to be born again to see the kingdom and thus unto eternal life. By
baptism we are tied to Christ unto eternal life.
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus
were baptized into his death?
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ
was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in
newness of life.
Romans 6:3-4
That is scripture and the lesson of history of who and when the doctrine
was changed.
> "Thanks for the warning. You dismiss the teachings of Christ and yet
think
> you are a Christian. Go figger."
>
> Then the same applies to luther and calvin and all christians before them
> to bible times who held the same view of baptism and being born again.
>
> Can it apply to a theory invented by one man 1600 years after Christ?
what the age is that the person is born in, 1200 1500, 1600. or 325 AD They
cannot believe until they hear it. Faith, Gods faith, cometh by hearing and
hearing by the word of God."
Amen. You obscure the point. One can have faith in Christ and be baptised
and born again in any age of history, that is notthe point.
The point is the view that baptism was being born again was the universal
teaching that luther and calvin etc. held until it was changed by a radical
liberal some 1600 years after Christ.
We are to be born again to see the kingdom and thus unto eternal life. By
baptism we are tied to Christ unto eternal life.
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus
were baptized into his death?
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ
was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in
newness of life.
Romans 6:3-4
That is scripture and the lesson of history of who and when the doctrine
was changed.
duke
May 11, 2012, 11:20:43 AM5/11/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 13:11:26 -0400, Jim <j...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>duke wrote:
>
>> Jim wrote:
>>
>> >duke wrote:
>> >>
>> >[.....]
>> >>
>> >> We don't worship God by bowing to a statue. ONly you protest_ants think
>> >> otherwise.
>> >>
>> >[....]
>> >>
>> >> duke, American - American
>> >
>> >http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=catholic+wordhiping+mary&view=detail&id=3DDC508D77D21D79324BC15E6EDC5C24FB0F5A17&first=0&qpvt=catholic+wordhiping+mary&FORM=IDFRIR
>>
>> I'm a Roman Catholic amongst millions of Roman Catholics in the Church started
>> by Jesus Christ. We don't worship Mary. But if Jesus showed he paid attention
>> to her, and he did, I sure don't have a problem asking her to ask Jesus along
>> side me for a personal need.
>what happened to your statement where you were saying mary was without sin?
Why? We don't worship Mary. We hold her in high esteem (venerate) but we don't
>duke wrote:
>
>> Jim wrote:
>>
>> >duke wrote:
>> >>
>> >[.....]
>> >>
>> >> We don't worship God by bowing to a statue. ONly you protest_ants think
>> >> otherwise.
>> >>
>> >[....]
>> >>
>> >> duke, American - American
>> >
>> >http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=catholic+wordhiping+mary&view=detail&id=3DDC508D77D21D79324BC15E6EDC5C24FB0F5A17&first=0&qpvt=catholic+wordhiping+mary&FORM=IDFRIR
>>
>> I'm a Roman Catholic amongst millions of Roman Catholics in the Church started
>> by Jesus Christ. We don't worship Mary. But if Jesus showed he paid attention
>> to her, and he did, I sure don't have a problem asking her to ask Jesus along
>> side me for a personal need.
>what happened to your statement where you were saying mary was without sin?
worship her. We also venerate the bare cross on Good Friday.
>should you recant that? should you recant your statement about catholics
>not bowing to a statue? God has a great reward for those who are able to
>recant, repent and see HIS truth.
lives in us and us in him.
>> How about you?
>Joh 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do,
>that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
>Joh 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
>critical verse one with great importance and significant meaning beyond measure.
>Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
>critical verse one with great importance and significant meaning beyond measure.
>Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth
>me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and
>will manifest myself to him.
>Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that
>is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession
>for us.
>therefore understand it is Christ Jesus alone who petitions on our behalf.
>do not belittle the work of Christ by asking in any other name than His which
>has been lifted up by God above all names. Honor Him with honor.
duke
May 11, 2012, 11:30:38 AM5/11/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 08:14:15 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 May 2012 07:20:12 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Take the next 3 weeks off and think about this, and ask yourself how poor your
>> chances are of knowing scripture better than 2000 years and millions of man
>> hours of research by others.
>
>The same as the early believers, and infinitely better when the author is
>the one helping you when compared to others who do not walk in the spirit.
El wrongo, pete. The early believers actually knew the Lord Jesus. Many wrote
about what was going on, what they heard, what they practiced. For instance,
the early believers were attending daily Mass and building the new Church. They
were formulating the creeds by which Christians will live.
All you're done is read a book you don't understand and can't relate to what is
said in the front, middle and back parts of the bible and how it all comes
together.
When you go in vacation, I strongly suggest you buy a copy of the Catechism of
the Catholic Chruch, and learn for a change. It's fully amazing how confused
you are, and the worst part is your false pride that won't let you see.
Remember, basis your own words so far, it's doubtful that you have been baptized
in the Holy Spirit, preferring to stop with John's baptism.
>On Thu, 10 May 2012 07:20:12 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Take the next 3 weeks off and think about this, and ask yourself how poor your
>> chances are of knowing scripture better than 2000 years and millions of man
>> hours of research by others.
>
>the one helping you when compared to others who do not walk in the spirit.
El wrongo, pete. The early believers actually knew the Lord Jesus. Many wrote
about what was going on, what they heard, what they practiced. For instance,
the early believers were attending daily Mass and building the new Church. They
were formulating the creeds by which Christians will live.
All you're done is read a book you don't understand and can't relate to what is
said in the front, middle and back parts of the bible and how it all comes
together.
When you go in vacation, I strongly suggest you buy a copy of the Catechism of
the Catholic Chruch, and learn for a change. It's fully amazing how confused
you are, and the worst part is your false pride that won't let you see.
Remember, basis your own words so far, it's doubtful that you have been baptized
in the Holy Spirit, preferring to stop with John's baptism.
duke
May 11, 2012, 11:35:40 AM5/11/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 08:19:41 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 May 2012 07:21:48 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> There was NO salvation according to OT scripture, pete. Time you grow up. The
>> scriptures well reveal that salvation of the Jews had to wait until the cross,
>> as Jesus is the only way to the Father.
>
>Several times in the last few days you have seen the scripture where I
>showed that it was here at the beginning of men.
What here at the beginning of men? What screwball idea are you dreaming up? Do
you or don't you understand the Lord's words to his Jewish friends in Mat
27:51-53? Do you not understand that there was no salvation prior to the cross.
And that Mat 27 reveals those that died before in the friendship of God, like
Abraham, were raised to new life with the cross.
> You have also been showed
>over the last few years the description of Christ dying on the cross and
>what he said, directly from the Old testament.
I know what he said from the cross. We Cahtolics know it as Psalms 22. He was
praying to his Father.
> You have been shown His
>name, again from the OT. You have also been shown from the NT many times
>and you have been contentious about that was well.
Not even the Apostles at the last supper knew he was anything more than a man.
They did see he as the messiah, but that's a man's job.
>On Thu, 10 May 2012 07:21:48 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> There was NO salvation according to OT scripture, pete. Time you grow up. The
>> scriptures well reveal that salvation of the Jews had to wait until the cross,
>> as Jesus is the only way to the Father.
>
>showed that it was here at the beginning of men.
What here at the beginning of men? What screwball idea are you dreaming up? Do
you or don't you understand the Lord's words to his Jewish friends in Mat
27:51-53? Do you not understand that there was no salvation prior to the cross.
And that Mat 27 reveals those that died before in the friendship of God, like
Abraham, were raised to new life with the cross.
> You have also been showed
>over the last few years the description of Christ dying on the cross and
>what he said, directly from the Old testament.
I know what he said from the cross. We Cahtolics know it as Psalms 22. He was
praying to his Father.
> You have been shown His
>name, again from the OT. You have also been shown from the NT many times
>and you have been contentious about that was well.
Not even the Apostles at the last supper knew he was anything more than a man.
They did see he as the messiah, but that's a man's job.
duke
May 11, 2012, 11:56:05 AM5/11/12
to
>> >it took satan a while to recover from his defeat at the cross but then
>> >satan realized how he could separate humans from God by creating religions
>> >and since his catholic religion worked out so well for him he went on to
>> >create more religions.
>>
>> Satan never has recovered
>[....]
>
>> After all, they are God's words.
>Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate,
>and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there
>be which go in thereat:
>Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
>leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
>Jesus said there are many who go into destruction and
>few there be that find the way unto life.
Exactly. And he well stated that unless you eat his Body and drink his Blood in
>> >satan realized how he could separate humans from God by creating religions
>> >and since his catholic religion worked out so well for him he went on to
>> >create more religions.
>>
>> Satan never has recovered
>[....]
>
>> After all, they are God's words.
>Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate,
>and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there
>be which go in thereat:
>Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
>leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
>Jesus said there are many who go into destruction and
>few there be that find the way unto life.
the Holy Eucharist, you have no spiritual life in you. And rejecting the
teachings of the Lord will do that to you.
duke
May 11, 2012, 12:01:21 PM5/11/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 10:58:42 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>On 10 May 2012 17:20:52 GMT, /tell us. wrote:
>
>
>???????? ? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???????
>?????? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ????
>>
understand, as washing the dirt off the gentiles so they could become Jews was a
popular field of work in those days.
>> Elsewhere in scripture in several places it says that by baptism we are
>> tied to Christ and to eternal life and thus the kingdom through Him. So
>> the born of water is now clear in practice.
knowledge.
You through out a name like
>zilch and no proof and expect others to be as ignorant as that of the
>author that came up with the idea.
>On 10 May 2012 17:20:52 GMT, /tell us. wrote:
>
>
>???????? ? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???????
>?????? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ????
>>
>> This disproves your entire post."
>>
>> The John above is the mention By christ to be born again of water and
>> spirit so one can see the kingdom of God. It does not say what this means
>> in practice except as what "water" implies.
>>
>
>>
>> The John above is the mention By christ to be born again of water and
>> spirit so one can see the kingdom of God. It does not say what this means
>> in practice except as what "water" implies.
>>
>
>You are intentionally misreading the scripture and pouring in your
>fallacies. It is a well known fact that Water Birth is of ones mom.
And reborn in water is Baptism. Jesus told Nicodemus that he should well
>fallacies. It is a well known fact that Water Birth is of ones mom.
understand, as washing the dirt off the gentiles so they could become Jews was a
popular field of work in those days.
>> Elsewhere in scripture in several places it says that by baptism we are
>> tied to Christ and to eternal life and thus the kingdom through Him. So
>> the born of water is now clear in practice.
>You have no proof of that else it would have been presented, like before
>when you present things they oft go against your teachings/
>when you present things they oft go against your teachings/
>> So pete has only repeated his theory, the one started by zwingli as given
>> above, almost 1600 years after Christ. He has once again not answered the
>> question of who and when this theory he holds was started. Now he knows.
>> above, almost 1600 years after Christ. He has once again not answered the
>> question of who and when this theory he holds was started. Now he knows.
>Again, you make things up, apt to lie a lot. Know nothing of things
>spiritual and your only purpose is contention.
Look who's talking - pete - the man most noted for being limited in biblical
>spiritual and your only purpose is contention.
knowledge.
You through out a name like
>zilch and no proof and expect others to be as ignorant as that of the
>author that came up with the idea.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages