THE FAITHFUL

[1]

Prov.14:5 says, "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter
lies." Paul is not a 'faithful witness' as he proves in Rom. 3:7, when he admits to
lying in promotion of his "gospel".

The Hebrew word "aman" Strongs H0539, Has several translations. Two of the main
translations used are, " to be faithful" the other is " to believe." Gen 15:6 And he
( Abraham ) " believed or was faithful " in the LORD; and he counted it to him for
righteousness. Paul used this verse to show that all you had to do is believe or have
faith, to be righteous. James 2:19 the devils also believe and have faith, Faith and
believing are very similar. The partition that makes you different from devils is not
just believing, but being faithful. Abraham was faithful to God, and he counted it to
him for righteousness. Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, A false
statement by Paul. ABRAHAM WAS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS. Gen 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments,
my statutes, and my laws. Abraham was counted righteous because of his
faithfulness and works. It can be called tunnel vision when you try to create
a doctrine out of one verse, by eliminating related verses, then false doctrine
ensues.

By Paul's use of the word "Believe" man is justified by faith only. If fact any
person that commits any sin is justified, just because he believes. That is,
according to Paul's doctrine. Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified
by faith, without the deeds of the law. A man breaks into your house and rapes and
kills your wife, your daughter, or mother, then steals your money. According to Paul,
if this person is a believer, he is justified, because he is not under the law. The
man is
guilty of many heinous crimes. It is the law that makes these evil acts a sin.
However,
if the word "Faithful" was used. This person could be called, unfaithful to God. Which
places him in the same category as devils. A person can be a believer and still be
unfaithful.

Can the person harmed or killed, expect justice from God under Paul's doctrine? NO!
Not if the person is justified in his evil acts, just because he believes. It was not,
The Living
God, that inspired Paul, to use the word "believe" instead of "faithful". Gen 15:6
And
he was faithful in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. Gal 3:9 So
then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. Paul knew the
difference
but still used the wrong word deliberately trying to make a false point. This is
called
twisting scripture. It is the uncontrollable desire of unjust men, that tries to find
a way
to be justified in their unfaithfulness. God's ways are righteous. Mans ways are
unrighteous.
If you do things Gods way, and are faithful to the ways of God, it will be counted to
you for
righteousness. Your evil actions are NOT counted righteous, just because you believe.
You must believe to be saved, but just believing does not make you righteous, and does
not make you faithful.

Anyone that kills IS NOT justified, just because they believe. Those that "do not"
kill are called faithful, because they obeyed the voice of God. Those that kill are
called unfaithful, because they did not obey the voice of God. The voice of God said,
Thou shalt not kill. "the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." "the spirit
that now works in the children of disobedience:"
"For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:"
Three times Paul call the unfaithful, "children of disobedience". If the law is gone,
because you are not under it, it would be impossible to disobey the law, nor can you
be called a child of disobedience. This is more of Paul's two faced doctrine. For
those that truly believe, and are faithful to God, every word that comes from God, is
law. Luke 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in
my name, ( like Paul ) saying, Jesus is the Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, ... ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Paul will not have one of these thrones. There
were only twelve tribes in Israel. Paul's thirteenth tribe does not fit any where.
How can anyone judge, when there is no law. How can anyone judge unless
there is a law to judge with. Every country has laws and while you are in that country

you will obey that law or be brought before a judge. The same in God's kingdom,
obey his law or be punished or expelled. The leaders of the twelve houses shall judge
by the law of God. Yet you say, you are not compelled by, or under that law. For the
law shall come from Zion, and those that have no part in Zion, will not have a place
in the kingdom that Jesus that set up. Those that follow Paul in his two faced
doctrine, and ignore God, will have no place on the Mountain. When even Paul tells
you that the law is honorable, and you must keep the law, then turns his face and says
you are not under the law, and you can't see anything wrong with this. .

God will not grant the grace of salvation to anyone that will not humble themselves
before him. A man must admit that he is a sinner, and convince God that he speaks
from the heart, to receive forgiveness. A sin is a violation of the law. Salvation is
forgiveness. Therefore, by the law, a man is saved by grace. Without the law no
man could be saved, because without the law, there could be no sin. Where there
is no sin, there can be no forgiveness. After a person is saved, they can look to see
if they fulfilled the law. If there is no law, there can be no faithful followers.
The law was not written for non believers, but for those that believe.

Gal 2:21. for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Righteousness is doing things right the way God said to do them right. Righteousness
is not keeping the law, but the just application of the law which includes mercy.
Stiff-necked people use the unjust application of the law which attributes to their
being hypocrites. Jesus said I came to fulfill the law. Many times there are
extenuating circumstances. To be faithful to God is to maintain the righteous
application of his law. Jesus was faithful to God, in that he showed honor and
obedience to the law. Faithfulness come by the law. For Jesus to be disobedient to the
law, he could not have fulfilled the law. If Jesus did not fulfill the law, he was
not the chosen one. If Jesus had not the works according to the law, his faith would
be made void. James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by
faith only. Therefore, righteous works by the law supports faith. Rom 2:13 but the
doers of the law shall be justified. The law supports Jesus and condemns Paul's false
doctrine of believe only. Jesus followed the law and for you to walk in his footsteps
you must also follow the law. A law breaker is not following Jesus, and is unfaithful.

The carnal law of the flesh states. Lev 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your
heads, The spiritual application of this law means. Thou shalt not compass about the
mouths of your leaders. Basically saying. It is a sin to tell a leader what he can or
cannot say. Nor cast off the mouths or words of the elders. Paul could not comprehend
the spiritual application of the law. There is the carnal application of this law and
a spiritual application of this law. You can learn the spiritual by examining the
carnal. Why should God be concerned with the way you cut your hair? God looks to the
inner man to see what he looks like. Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good
things to come, and not the very image of the things,

Isa 5:24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the
chaff, so their root ( in Paul ) shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up
as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the
word of the Holy One of Israel. Isa 24:5 The earth also is defiled under the
inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance,
broken the EVERLASTING covenant. These two prophecies are about the Christian church.
These are the people that have transgressed and cast away the law of the lord by
saying we are not compelled by the law, and have broken the covenant. You hide your
criminal behavior in WE ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW. This is accomplished by your desire to
bring God into conformity to what you want to believe. In your self righteous manor
and arrogance you just pick and chose what you want to follow. You just ignore
anything that you don't like. It is God's decision, as to whether to allow you back
into the covenant or not. God did not promise to give you what you want, but he did
promise to give you what you deserve.

Rev 1:5 Jesus, who is the FAITHFUL witness. Abraham was also FAITHFUL. Moses was also
FAITHFUL. Rev 17:14 King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen,
and FAITHFUL. Luke 16:10 He that is FAITHFUL in that which is least is FAITHFUL also
in much: Sinners are unfaithful. A transgression of the law is sin. Sin does not make
you a non believer, but it does make you unfaithful. A law can be called an ordinance,
a statute or precept. But a commandment is a direct command. Many teach they are under
a new covenant. They deny there are laws or terms mentioned with that new covenant.
Man just picks and chooses which laws he desires to call covenant laws. Therefore the
old everlasting covenant is still intact or you have an empty covenant. The Sabbath
was given as a token of the covenant. The only change in the old everlasting covenant
ism the place where it is written. Mat 5:18. one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from m the law. If you desire to remove the word everlasting from the
covenant, then you must also remove the word everlasting from your life.

Thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain. Jesus did not repeat this law. If
you commit this sin, you are unfaithful. If you break a covenant commandment, you are
a covenant breaker. Therefore the covenant is void to you, and you cannot be covered
by the covenant, until you make reparations. Amos 9:10 All the sinners of MY PEOPLE
shall die by the sword, Rev 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and
will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. Isa 66:16 For by fire and by his
sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.
Many believers will be rejected from the kingdom. These position's are
held exclusively for the faithful. Salvation is offered to believers, but only the
faithful will have access to the Mountain. You are welcome to go to Paul's heaven
where there is no law. You can also go to God's heaven, where you will obey the law.

THE FIRST WITNESS

[vince garcia]

1_WITT wrote:
>
> Prov.14:5 says, "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter
> lies." Paul is not a 'faithful witness' as he proves in Rom. 3:7, when he admits to
> lying in promotion of his "gospel".
>
> The Hebrew word "aman" Strongs H0539, Has several translations. Two of the main
> translations used are, " to be faithful" the other is " to believe." Gen 15:6 And he
> ( Abraham ) " believed or was faithful " in the LORD; and he counted it to him for
> righteousness. Paul used this verse to show that all you had to do is believe or have
> faith, to be righteous. James 2:19 the devils also believe and have faith, Faith and
> believing are very similar. The partition that makes you different from devils is not
> just believing, but being faithful. Abraham was faithful to God, and he counted it to
> him for righteousness. Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, A false
> statement by Paul. ABRAHAM WAS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS. Gen 26:5
> Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments,
> my statutes, and my laws. Abraham was counted righteous because of his
> faithfulness and works.

In Romans and Galatians, Paul directs we 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.

In contrast, 1_Witless teaches that we must keep the Law to be
pleasing to God, or as "proof" we have "real" faith.

Well...let us do as Paul directs, and look at Abraham.

Did he keep the Law? No. (It wasn't given until 430 years later.)

Did he keep the sabbath? No. (There isn't one place in Scripture that
says he did or that God told him to! And if he did, then Paul would have
noted that as playing a factor in his justification. Instead, Paul goes
out of his way to show Abraham's justification EXISTED ENTIRE SEPARATE
FROM THE LAW!)

Did he keep ANY set of "commandments"? No.

Now does that mean because he "wasn't under the Law" that it was ok for
him to sin? No.

DID he go out and sin? No. (Though he did technically violate kosher
eating rules, but as REAL Christians know, we're not bound to those weak
and beggarly "commandments".)

WHY didn't he sin?

Because the Law is made for an UNRIGHTEOUS man (1 Tim. 1:9), and Abraham
wasn't unrighteous.

But the fact he was righteous doesn't mean he "kept commandments"! He
simply lived a good moral life as we are called to do INDEPENDENT of
"keeping" laws and commandments.

Yet the Messianic can't get that. He claims that if we say we're not
"under the Law," and if we don't "keep" comamndments, we're saying it's
ok to sin.

All that does is show the demonic ignorance of Messianics and
Sabbatarians, who miss what the New covenant actually is.

So 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 Messianic.

When a Messianic--or any other 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 the that person says
WE must.

If we do that, we will see that everything the Messianic and false
teacher claims we're required to do was NOT done by Abraham.

ALL THE MAN DID WAS BELIEVE. Not believe AND do this or that!

Now Messianics, in their deception, will sometimes try to deny this by
quoting Genesis 26:5 "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my

charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

"Ah ha!" they say. "There you have it--Abraham kept the various
commandments in the Law, even though it hadn't been written down yet by
Moses, and that's because God taught the commandments to him ORALLY. So
we must keep those commandments--like the Sabbath--just as Abraham did!"

Really?

Let's go to the BIBLE and see what God actually told Abraham to do:

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.

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. You will not find any
reference to the Torah, 10 commandments, Sabbath, or what have you.

To say that God DID give those commandments to Abraham, who then kept
them and was thereby justified, is to deny what the SCRIPTURE says God
told 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.

So what you will find THE BIBLE actually records are simply general
orders, including to sacrifice his son, all of which Abraham obeyed.
And, as JAMES says, Abraham was justified--NOT BY KEEPING THE LAW--but
by offering up Isaac.

So what did that verse mean? There is some debate, but one good
possibility is that God was looking forward to Christ THROUGH Abraham,
and, in the ultimate sense, it was CHRIST who actually fully and
perfectly kept God's COMMANDMENTS, STATUTES AND LAWS, not Abraham, per
se.

Others say that it simply meant Abraham "did what he was told"--and we
SEE what he was told, which WAS NOT to keep the sabbath or Law.

In fact, it CANNOT mean he kept any sort of Law since PAUL says the Law
came 430 years AFTER Abraham.

The only possible issue about obedience to a commandment playing a
factor in God's approval of him that could be raised would be that of
circumcision, but Paul deals with that in Romans, and makes it clear his
obedience to that command played NO role in being justified with God
whatever.

Now...

If any Messianic or Sabbatarian can show where God explicitly told
Abraham to keep the 10 commandments, Torah, or Sabbath, please cite the
specific verse where it CLEARLY SAYS THAT, rather than an ambiguous
verse with your spin on it (which is what half of Messianic theology
bases itself on). I've given ALL--repeat, ALL--the verses where God gave
ANY sort of orders to Abraham, and God never mentioned any of those
things the deceived claim He did.

And if Abraham DID do any of those things and was somehow justified with
God for keeping commandments and a law, then that blows away Paul's
whole point of Romans 4, and false teachers like 1_Witless have proven
paul to be the real false teacher!

[Sam Taylor]

witt,
what He is saying is
"Because the Law is made for an UNRIGHTEOUS man " and he is declairing that
He Vince is not UNRIGHTEOUS, but a Holy man
all others are UNRIGHTEOUS.
just ask him he'll tell You.....honest
Sam
"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4D245A...@ix.netcom.com...

[vince garcia]

Sam Taylor wrote:
>
> witt,
> what He is saying is
> "Because the Law is made for an UNRIGHTEOUS man " and he is declairing that
> He Vince is not UNRIGHTEOUS, but a Holy man
> all others are UNRIGHTEOUS.

YOU are, that's sure.

Unrighteous and dead in your sins, awaiting d,mnation at the last
juigment

> just ask him he'll tell You.....honest
> Sam
> "vin

that piece of scum, 1_witless, who rejects paul's writings, is suddenly
your buddy "witt"?

figures.

Two judaising peas in a pod

[Zev]

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4D245A...@ix.netcom.com...
> 1_WITT wrote:

<snipped>

> If any Messianic or Sabbatarian can show where God explicitly told
> Abraham to keep the 10 commandments, Torah, or Sabbath, please cite the
> specific verse where it CLEARLY SAYS THAT, rather than an ambiguous
> verse with your spin on it (which is what half of Messianic theology
> bases itself on). I've given ALL--repeat, ALL--the verses where God gave
> ANY sort of orders to Abraham, and God never mentioned any of those
> things the deceived claim He did.
>
> And if Abraham DID do any of those things and was somehow justified with
> God for keeping commandments and a law, then that blows away Paul's
> whole point of Romans 4, and false teachers like 1_Witless have proven
> paul to be the real false teacher!

Genesis 26:5 mentions voice, charge, commandments, statutes, and laws.
Do you actually think this refers to a short list
of one-time orders?
Do you actually think this means "Faith, *without* works"?
Do you actually think this short list doesn't contain "works"?

You turn a verse which curses Jews
who reject God's authority over them
into an eternal curse for the smallest error
while leaving those who do reject the Law untouched.

It makes as much sense as an unseen sign,
and an "Israel" which doesn't mean Israel,
a father and son who coexist for eternity,
and a God who must sacrifice God
in order to forgive all sin, past, present and future,
to satisfy God's own blood requirements for forgiveness,
in a way which doesn't meet those requirements.

[Sam Taylor]

Vince,
allow Me to burst your Bubble of insanity
"ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF G-D"
this includes You.
so by Your own Scripture the LAW was made for You!

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4D245A...@ix.netcom.com...

[Sam Taylor]

"Sam Taylor" <usern...@teranews.com> wrote in message
news:MW5Vo.75750$wf4....@newsfe05.iad...

> Vince,
> allow Me to burst your Bubble of insanity
> "ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF G-D"
> this includes You.
> so by Your own Scripture the LAW was made for You!

Vince may I add. "there is NONE RIGHTEOUS,
NO NOT ONE"
so by Your argument the ONLY ones exempted from the Law is 1 Big Daddy, 2
J.C., and & 3 the Spook
BUT YHWH says Because He could swear by none greater He swore by the Law.
again he says he holds the Law of greater esteem than HIS (not their) Name.
so by Your argument everybody was the Law made for!

[Sam Taylor]

"Sam Taylor" <usern...@teranews.com> wrote in message

news:q46Vo.2686$7O2...@newsfe04.iad...

>
> "Sam Taylor" <usern...@teranews.com> wrote in message
> news:MW5Vo.75750$wf4....@newsfe05.iad...
> > Vince,
> > allow Me to burst your Bubble of insanity
> > "ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF G-D"
> > this includes You.
> > so by Your own Scripture the LAW was made for You!
>
> Vince may I add. "there is NONE RIGHTEOUS,
> NO NOT ONE"
> so by Your argument the ONLY ones exempted from the Law is 1 Big Daddy, 2
> J.C., and & 3 the Spook
> BUT YHWH says Because He could swear by none greater He swore by the Law.
> again he says he holds the Law of greater esteem than HIS (not their)
Name.
> so by Your argument everybody was the Law made for!
> >

Abraham WAS NOT RIGHTEOUS!
but righteousness was Imputed unto Him,
So the Law was even written for men like Abraham!
Sorry Vince, YOU LOSE AGAIN!

[vince garcia]

Zev wrote:
>
> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:4D245A...@ix.netcom.com...
> > 1_WITT wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > If any Messianic or Sabbatarian can show where God explicitly told
> > Abraham to keep the 10 commandments, Torah, or Sabbath, please cite the
> > specific verse where it CLEARLY SAYS THAT, rather than an ambiguous
> > verse with your spin on it (which is what half of Messianic theology
> > bases itself on). I've given ALL--repeat, ALL--the verses where God gave
> > ANY sort of orders to Abraham, and God never mentioned any of those
> > things the deceived claim He did.
> >
> > And if Abraham DID do any of those things and was somehow justified with
> > God for keeping commandments and a law, then that blows away Paul's
> > whole point of Romans 4, and false teachers like 1_Witless have proven
> > paul to be the real false teacher!
>
> Genesis 26:5 mentions voice, charge, commandments, statutes, and laws.
> Do you actually think this refers to a short list
> of one-time orders?
> Do you actually think this means "Faith, *without* works"?
> Do you actually think this short list doesn't contain "works"?

There is not one word in that passage from Jmaes you appeal to about
obeying a law, zev. The works specifically mentioned were:

1. willingness to make a human sacrifice.
2. Lying to protect some spies.

Please show me where either of those things are a fulfilling of torah
commandments

And once more, here is every command God ever gave Abraham

Gen 21

Gen 22

>

> You turn a verse which curses Jews
> who reject God's authority over them
> into an eternal curse for the smallest error
> while leaving those who do reject the Law untouched.

Not me. The Law, cited by Paul.

[Zev]

On Jan 6, 1:21 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Zev wrote:
> > "vince garcia" <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:4D245A...@ix.netcom.com...
> > > 1_WITT wrote:

> > Genesis 26:5 mentions voice, charge, commandments, statutes, and laws.
> > Do you actually think this refers to a short list
> > of one-time orders?
> > Do you actually think this means "Faith, *without* works"?
> > Do you actually think this short list doesn't contain "works"?
>
> There is not one word in that passage from Jmaes you appeal to about
> obeying a law, zev. The works specifically mentioned were:

Please refrain from accusing me of "appealing" to James.

> 1. willingness to make a human sacrifice.
> 2. Lying to protect some spies.
>
> Please show me where either of those things are a fulfilling of torah
> commandments

You argue for "faith, not works".
Your own quotes prove you wrong!

> > You turn a verse which curses Jews
> > who reject God's authority over them
> > into an eternal curse for the smallest error
> > while leaving those who do reject the Law untouched.
>
> Not me. The Law, cited by Paul.

The Law says to understand a verse as
meaning the opposite of what it says?
Vince, that's almost funny!

[vince garcia]

Zev wrote:
>
> On Jan 6, 1:21 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Zev wrote:
> > > "vince garcia" <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > >news:4D245A...@ix.netcom.com...
> > > > 1_WITT wrote:
>
> > > Genesis 26:5 mentions voice, charge, commandments, statutes, and laws.
> > > Do you actually think this refers to a short list
> > > of one-time orders?
> > > Do you actually think this means "Faith, *without* works"?
> > > Do you actually think this short list doesn't contain "works"?
> >
> > There is not one word in that passage from Jmaes you appeal to about
> > obeying a law, zev. The works specifically mentioned were:
>
> Please refrain from accusing me of "appealing" to James.

well, you talked about faith without works, so you HAD to be referring
to james there, zev. He's the guy who talks aboiut faith w/out works.

The OLD testament never uses those words

>
> > 1. willingness to make a human sacrifice.
> > 2. Lying to protect some spies.
> >
> > Please show me where either of those things are a fulfilling of torah
> > commandments
>
> You argue for "faith, not works".

For salvation, yes--it is faith ALONE. Grace ALONE.

Now saving faith will have FRUIT of works, but that fruit can't save
you.

> Your own quotes prove you wrong!

not at all. You are simply falling into the trap of thinking it is a
choice between law or lawlessness.

So let's go bcak to our friend abraham.

Was he keeping the torah, and was justified with God, earning salvation
through that?

I know some orthdox like to claim he was, but the truth is, nt at all.
(in fact, he broke the dietary laws.)

Was he keeping the 10 comadnments? Nope. They had not been given yet.

Again, plz shoiw me where God gave abraham a law to live by and earn
justification through.

Should be easy to do if it happened.

>
> > > You turn a verse which curses Jews
> > > who reject God's authority over them
> > > into an eternal curse for the smallest error
> > > while leaving those who do reject the Law untouched.
> >
> > Not me. The Law, cited by Paul.
>
> The Law says to understand a verse as
> meaning the opposite of what it says?
> Vince, that's almost funny!

Where is the conundrum? The law curses those who fail to keep ALL of it
to God's standard. I even gave you additional verses apart from the main
one you've been trying to get around by playing word games, to re-verify
that. Need them again??

Deut 28:

15. But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice
of the LORD thy God, to observe to __DO ALL__ his commandments and his
statutes which I command thee this day; that __ALL__ these curses shall
come upon thee, and overtake thee:

Did you catch the words "DO ALL" which is not the word "CONFIRM" which
you want to try to say doesn't mean what Paul rightly says it means?

Can we end the argument now over this issue since THIS verse says "DO"
and says you will be cursed if you DON'T do?

You can keep arguing if you want, but you've lost before you start, zev

16 Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the
field.
17 Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store.
18 Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the
increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.
19 Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be
when thou goest out.
20 The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all
that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed,
and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings,
whereby thou hast forsaken me.
21 The LORD shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have
consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it.
22 The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and
with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword,
and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until
thou perish.
23 And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth
that is under thee shall be iron.
24 The LORD shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven
shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed.
25 The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou
shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and
shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.

[Zev]

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4D25CA...@ix.netcom.com...

> Zev wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 1:21 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > Zev wrote:
>> > > "vince garcia" <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> > >news:4D245A...@ix.netcom.com...
>> > > > 1_WITT wrote:
>>
>> > > Genesis 26:5 mentions voice, charge, commandments, statutes, and
>> > > laws.
>> > > Do you actually think this refers to a short list
>> > > of one-time orders?
>> > > Do you actually think this means "Faith, *without* works"?
>> > > Do you actually think this short list doesn't contain "works"?
>> >
>> > There is not one word in that passage from Jmaes you appeal to about
>> > obeying a law, zev. The works specifically mentioned were:
>>
>> Please refrain from accusing me of "appealing" to James.
>
> well, you talked about faith without works, so you HAD to be referring
> to james there, zev. He's the guy who talks aboiut faith w/out works.
>
> The OLD testament never uses those words

*You* did, and I'm discussing it with you, not James.
But you're probably right about the OT,
and that's a good point.

We'll see about that.
Let's start with verse 14:
"and do not turn aside from any of the words which I command you
today,
to the right or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them".

The verse says "*any* of the words....to go after other gods...".
"Any" here doesn't mean "any sin you ever make".
It means the same thing Deuteronomy 27:26 means:
the curse applies to any Jew who rejects God's authority over him.

And now verse 15:
"But it shall come about, if you do not obey the LORD your God,
to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes
with which I charge you today,
that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:".

"To observe to do...".
Same language as in Deuteronomy 27:26
The subject is "to observe" and the verse curses a Jew
who accepts some commandments and rejects others.
It is not talking about someone who slips momentarily.
The reasoning is as I said above,
rejecting a commandment, saying, "this one is silly, I won't do it",
places oneself above God.

So far, all of your verses only prove I'm right.
So much for your "lost before you start"!

[vince garcia]

OK so you admit you can't show where God gave abraham any torah, which
thereby made him a righetous man for keeping. Good

So paul and scripture are right--Abraham was declared righteous by God
for HIS FAITH, not his torah observance

In fact, if you check your old testament, you will not find one man ever
after abraham whom God specifically declared to be righteous. Not Moses,
David, Job, Isaiah, and so on.

Only abraham was ever declared to be righteous by the imputation of God,
and that was for his faith

Now you can find generalized statements about "righteous men," meaning
MORAL men (even Jesus, who said God alone was righteous, spoke of them),
but never in the sense of being declared righteous by God.

There is no such verse as God saying "David was a righteous man," and so
on.

Now david and job declared themselves to be righteous, but the first man
was an adulter and murderer, while the second--whom God boasted
about--was even told "will you make me evil to make yourself good?"

So it's true, as isaiah says, "There is none righteous, no not one"

That is, in the sense of God's being able to declare one righteous and
in full right standing with Him by virtue of his own intrinsic morality
and comamndment keeping

This does not work, zev. Again, you're trying to make your failure to
keep ALL God's comamnndments no big deal, and to deny that you're under
a curse for failing to keep them.

First, you try to say "the verses about being cursed only apply if
someone says he DOESN'T have to keep all the comamndments. If he agress
he has to keep all of them, then he isn't cursed"

But then if he fails to keep all of them he STILL isn't cursed?

Rob, for instance, says he doesn't have to keep all sorts of
comamdnemnts because the founders of RJ decided that. Does he fall under
the category of being cursed by God for saying he isn't bound to keep
"ALL" the law?

By your definition as I undersstand it, I think reform and conservative
would fall under the category of being cursed for saying they don't have
to keep this or that.

Or does he/reform get to avoid keeping many comamndments just because
they come up with a ratioanle for not keeping them?

> It means the same thing Deuteronomy 27:26 means:
> the curse applies to any Jew who rejects God's authority over him.
>
> And now verse 15:
> "But it shall come about, if you do not obey the LORD your God,
> to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes
> with which I charge you today,
> that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:".
>
> "To observe to do...".
> Same language as in Deuteronomy 27:26
> The subject is "to observe" and the verse curses a Jew
> who accepts some commandments and rejects others.
> It is not talking about someone who slips momentarily.
> The reasoning is as I said above,
> rejecting a commandment, saying, "this one is silly, I won't do it",
> places oneself above God.
>
> So far, all of your verses only prove I'm right.
> So much for your "lost before you start"!

Actually, they prove you wrong, zev. And thinking like yours--that is,
refusing to admit any of you is keeping the Law to God's standard, and
still have nothing to really worry about-- is exactly why God says the
Jews have NEVER kept His laws and statutes, and why to make heaven you
need a righteousness greater than that of the scribes and pharisees

[Zev]

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4D266B...@ix.netcom.com...

> Zev wrote:
>> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:4D25CA...@ix.netcom.com...
>> > Zev wrote:
>> >> On Jan 6, 1:21 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >> > Zev wrote:
>> >> > > "vince garcia" <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> >> > >news:4D245A...@ix.netcom.com...
>> >> > > > 1_WITT wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > > Genesis 26:5 mentions voice, charge, commandments, statutes, and
>> >> > > laws.
>> >> > > Do you actually think this refers to a short list
>> >> > > of one-time orders?
>> >> > > Do you actually think this means "Faith, *without* works"?
>> >> > > Do you actually think this short list doesn't contain "works"?
>> >> >
>> >> > There is not one word in that passage from Jmaes you appeal to about
>> >> > obeying a law, zev. The works specifically mentioned were:
>> >>
>> >> Please refrain from accusing me of "appealing" to James.
>> >
>> > well, you talked about faith without works, so you HAD to be referring
>> > to james there, zev. He's the guy who talks aboiut faith w/out works.
>> >
>> > The OLD testament never uses those words
>>
>> *You* did, and I'm discussing it with you, not James.
>> But you're probably right about the OT,
>> and that's a good point.

You apparently missed the irony here.

>> >> > 1. willingness to make a human sacrifice.
>> >> > 2. Lying to protect some spies.
>> >> >
>> >> > Please show me where either of those things are a fulfilling of
>> >> > torah
>> >> > commandments
>> >>
>> >> You argue for "faith, not works".
>> >
>> > For salvation, yes--it is faith ALONE. Grace ALONE.
>> >
>> > Now saving faith will have FRUIT of works, but that fruit can't save
>> > you.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Your own quotes prove you wrong!
>> >
>> > not at all. You are simply falling into the trap of thinking it is a
>> > choice between law or lawlessness.
>> >
>> > So let's go bcak to our friend abraham.
>> >
>> > Was he keeping the torah, and was justified with God, earning salvation
>> > through that?
>> >
>> > I know some orthdox like to claim he was, but the truth is, nt at all.
>> > (in fact, he broke the dietary laws.)
>> >
>> > Was he keeping the 10 comadnments? Nope. They had not been given yet.
>> >
>> > Again, plz shoiw me where God gave abraham a law to live by and earn
>> > justification through.
>> >
>> > Should be easy to do if it happened.
>
> OK so you admit you can't show where God gave abraham any torah, which
> thereby made him a righetous man for keeping. Good

You know about Jewish tradition here,
you know about the Noahide commandments,
but I never made an issue of this, that's why I ignored it.
Whatever Genesis 26:5 (*your* quote) means is good enough for me.

> So paul and scripture are right--Abraham was declared righteous by God
> for HIS FAITH, not his torah observance
>
> In fact, if you check your old testament, you will not find one man ever
> after abraham whom God specifically declared to be righteous. Not Moses,
> David, Job, Isaiah, and so on.
>
> Only abraham was ever declared to be righteous by the imputation of God,
> and that was for his faith
>
> Now you can find generalized statements about "righteous men," meaning
> MORAL men (even Jesus, who said God alone was righteous, spoke of them),
> but never in the sense of being declared righteous by God.
>
> There is no such verse as God saying "David was a righteous man," and so
> on.

Numbers 12:7 -
"Not so, with My servant Moses,
He is faithful in all My household".

Not good enough?

> Now david and job declared themselves to be righteous, but the first man
> was an adulter and murderer, while the second--whom God boasted
> about--was even told "will you make me evil to make yourself good?"
>
> So it's true, as isaiah says, "There is none righteous, no not one"

I explained that to just one month ago,
I'll copy it here:
1) Anguish-caused hyperbole.
2) Response to mockers, who asked:
"If God is too weak to prevent this from happening,
why should we obey him?"

Compare to Judges 2:7
The people served the Lord all the days of Joshua,
and all the days of the elders who survived Joshua,
who had seen all the great work of the Lord
which He had done for Israel.

This curse won't apply to him, maybe another one will.

> Rob, for instance, says he doesn't have to keep all sorts of
> comamdnemnts because the founders of RJ decided that. Does he fall under
> the category of being cursed by God for saying he isn't bound to keep
> "ALL" the law?
>
> By your definition as I undersstand it, I think reform and conservative
> would fall under the category of being cursed for saying they don't have
> to keep this or that.
>
>
> Or does he/reform get to avoid keeping many comamndments just because
> they come up with a ratioanle for not keeping them?

In general, in my opinion, no.
But if this subject is important for you,
you'll have to look deeper into it.
Rob himself may have something to say here.
I'll be happy to follow along.

>> It means the same thing Deuteronomy 27:26 means:
>> the curse applies to any Jew who rejects God's authority over him.
>>
>> And now verse 15:
>> "But it shall come about, if you do not obey the LORD your God,
>> to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes
>> with which I charge you today,
>> that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:".
>>
>> "To observe to do...".
>> Same language as in Deuteronomy 27:26
>> The subject is "to observe" and the verse curses a Jew
>> who accepts some commandments and rejects others.
>> It is not talking about someone who slips momentarily.
>> The reasoning is as I said above,
>> rejecting a commandment, saying, "this one is silly, I won't do it",
>> places oneself above God.
>>
>> So far, all of your verses only prove I'm right.
>> So much for your "lost before you start"!
>
> Actually, they prove you wrong, zev. And thinking like yours--that is,
> refusing to admit any of you is keeping the Law to God's standard, and
> still have nothing to really worry about-- is exactly why God says the
> Jews have NEVER kept His laws and statutes, and why to make heaven you
> need a righteousness greater than that of the scribes and pharisees

You quote verses which are obviously not referring to run-of-the-mill
sins,
you know that Moses, for instance, sinned, yet God says of him
that he is faithful in all his household.
All to justify a faith which the human mind rejects.

[vince garcia]

Problem is, you can't base your eternity on speculation and unfounded
tradition.

The BIBLE shows no evidence--and paul affirms this--that abraham ever
kept the law. (And he is is shown to have violated by serving meat and
dairy together)

Also, Sam Taylor--who speaks for Judaism--says that Jews ONLY get their
doctrine from Scripture ALONE, and never from the opinions/speculations
of man.

Is he lying here?

I mean, he's a "jew" so he speaks for you all, right?

>
> > So paul and scripture are right--Abraham was declared righteous by God
> > for HIS FAITH, not his torah observance
> >
> > In fact, if you check your old testament, you will not find one man ever
> > after abraham whom God specifically declared to be righteous. Not Moses,
> > David, Job, Isaiah, and so on.
> >
> > Only abraham was ever declared to be righteous by the imputation of God,
> > and that was for his faith
> >
> > Now you can find generalized statements about "righteous men," meaning
> > MORAL men (even Jesus, who said God alone was righteous, spoke of them),
> > but never in the sense of being declared righteous by God.
> >
> > There is no such verse as God saying "David was a righteous man," and so
> > on.
>
> Numbers 12:7 -
> "Not so, with My servant Moses,
> He is faithful in all My household".
>
> Not good enough?

Not at all. That's GOOD that he was faithful. But my macro issue is that
only IMPUTED righteousness will gte you into heaven, and only Abrham is
shown to have been given that sort of righteousness, and only by his
faith.

Now yes, moses had faith and was saved too, but only abraham was ever
DECALRED righteous by God, and that before the law

Moses, who was under the law, could NEVER be declared righteous by God.
And, in fact, he failed the ultimate test and died in the wilderness.

>
> > Now david and job declared themselves to be righteous, but the first man
> > was an adulter and murderer, while the second--whom God boasted
> > about--was even told "will you make me evil to make yourself good?"
> >
> > So it's true, as isaiah says, "There is none righteous, no not one"
>
> I explained that to just one month ago,
> I'll copy it here:
> 1) Anguish-caused hyperbole.
> 2) Response to mockers, who asked:
> "If God is too weak to prevent this from happening,
> why should we obey him?"
>
> Compare to Judges 2:7
> The people served the Lord all the days of Joshua,
> and all the days of the elders who survived Joshua,
> who had seen all the great work of the Lord
> which He had done for Israel.

That's great, and only means they didn't go whoring after other gods,
though that's even a bit arguable because of this verse at the end of
jushua's life:

Now therefore put away, said he, the strange gods which are among you,
and incline your heart unto the LORD God of Israel.

That don't sound like they're really fully serving God and no other
gods, but anyway...

It DOES NOT mean they kept the law to God's real standard for two
reasons:

1. God SAYS israel never did.
2. God did not remove all sickness from them, whihc is the proof they
WERE keeping the law

why would it not count?

This is a serious question. You've tried to say the curse comes from
failing to say one must agree ALL the comandnments should be kept. So
how can a reform who rationalizes away the keeping of many comamdnments
avoid being cursed?

>
> > Rob, for instance, says he doesn't have to keep all sorts of
> > comamdnemnts because the founders of RJ decided that. Does he fall under
> > the category of being cursed by God for saying he isn't bound to keep
> > "ALL" the law?
> >
> > By your definition as I undersstand it, I think reform and conservative
> > would fall under the category of being cursed for saying they don't have
> > to keep this or that.
> >
> >
> > Or does he/reform get to avoid keeping many comamndments just because
> > they come up with a ratioanle for not keeping them?
>
> In general, in my opinion, no.
> But if this subject is important for you,
> you'll have to look deeper into it.
> Rob himself may have something to say here.
> I'll be happy to follow along.

You know rob--he'll justify it by appealing to reform sages, and say he
DOES think you should keep all the law, but he still doesn't have to
observe this or that....

It's called rationalization

yes he was. But was moses declared righteous by keeping his own law?

no

Only abrhaam was declared righteous by God, and not for keeping a law.

The verse even SAYS it was by faith, not law

So which is better? To have God declare you righteous by virture of your
faith, or to rely on obeying the law well enough to pass muster?

[Rob Strom]

On Jan 7, 8:47 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Zev wrote:

> ...

> The BIBLE shows no evidence--and paul affirms this--that abraham ever
> kept the law. (And he is is shown to have violated by serving meat and
> dairy together)

I think you're mixing up at least two questions:
1. Was Abraham's "righteousness" based on "faith" in the sense of
espousal of creeds (Vince's position of sola fide), or based on
"faithfulness"
in the sense of doing the deeds God wanted him to do (i.e. my
position of righteousness as earned).
2. Was Abraham subject to the Mosaic Law (not my position), or even:
2a. Was Abraham subject to later rabbinic interpretations of Mosaic
Law (a strawman position you create, otherwise what's the
relevance of bringing up that he ate meat and dairy together).

...

>
> Not at all. That's GOOD that he was faithful. But my macro issue is that
> only IMPUTED righteousness will gte you into heaven,

Heaven? Who cares about heaven here?

...

> Moses, who was under the law, could NEVER be declared righteous by God.
> And, in fact, he failed the ultimate test and died in the wilderness.

You somehow equate being allowed to go to the promised land with
being allowed to go to heaven (if there is a heaven).

...

>
> > > So it's true, as isaiah says, "There is none righteous, no not one"
>
> > I explained that to just one month ago,
> > I'll copy it here:
> > 1) Anguish-caused hyperbole.
> > 2) Response to mockers, who asked:
> > "If God is too weak to prevent this from happening,
> > why should we obey him?"
>
> > Compare to Judges 2:7
> > The people served the Lord all the days of Joshua,
> > and all the days of the elders who survived Joshua,
> > who had seen all the great work of the Lord
> > which He had done for Israel.
>
> That's great, and only means they didn't go whoring after other gods,
> though that's even a bit arguable because of this verse at the end of
> jushua's life:
>
> Now therefore put away, said he, the strange gods which are among you,
> and incline your heart unto the LORD God of Israel.
>
> That don't sound like they're really fully serving God and no other
> gods, but anyway...
>
> It DOES NOT mean they kept the law to God's real standard for two
> reasons:
>
> 1. God SAYS israel never did.
> 2. God did not remove all sickness from them, whihc is the proof they
> WERE keeping the law

You're getting back to that, which I told you was not a test.
Otherwise,
we're back to saying that "all" is never used hyperbolically, in which
case, there are no Christians, since they're supposed to receive
*all* knowledge, and if there were any Christians, the Holy Spirit
would have given them the knowledge of the mass of the Higgs boson,
since that is a subset of *all* knowledge.

Sometimes God speaks hyperbolically. I have pointed out also
that the passage about "all our righteousness
is like a polluted garment" is also hyperbolic,
since it is immediately followed by:
"And no one calls in Your name, arouses himself to cling to You",
which taken non-hyperbolically means that nobody
then, now, or in the future will pray to God.

(For Christians, it is also a contradiction to Luke 1:6,
which explicitly said that Zechariah and Elizabeth
were "both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments
and ordinances of the Lord blameless".)

So obviously Zechariah didn't need Christ, since
he was saved by his merits, right? And if they
didn't, I don't either!

...

>
> why would it not count?
>
> This is a serious question. You've tried to say the curse comes from
> failing to say one must agree ALL the comandnments should be kept. So
> how can a reform who rationalizes away the keeping of many comamdnments
> avoid being cursed?

You are begging the question by saying that we "rationalize away"
commandments rather than just following Deuteronomy and interpreting
the commandments differently for the time, just as your own NT said
Jesus did!

...

>
> > In general, in my opinion, no.
> > But if this subject is important for you,
> > you'll have to look deeper into it.
> > Rob himself may have something to say here.
> > I'll be happy to follow along.
>
> You know rob--he'll justify it by appealing to reform sages, and say he
> DOES think you should keep all the law, but he still doesn't have to
> observe this or that....

I don't believe that I can't eat cheeseburgers. You're the one
who thinks ironically that the Orthodox are right that the
prohibition against eating meat and dairy together were
given on Sinai as oral law precisely in the form that the
Orthodox halacha states.

I don't believe that the law against lighting fires on shabbat
applies to spark plugs in automobiles. Ironically, *you*
believe that God gave this interpretation in the Oral Law
on Sinai, even though you inconsistently also believe
that God knew that this law would be annulled in the
time of Jesus, long before the first automobile was ever built.
So God gave a law that was never supposed to be
obeyed, that only existed to condemn to hell those
Jews who wouldn't accept Jesus!
...

>
> > You quote verses which are obviously not referring to run-of-the-mill
> > sins,
> > you know that Moses, for instance, sinned, yet God says of him
> > that he is faithful in all his household.
>
> yes he was. But was moses declared righteous by keeping his own law?

I expect he was.

--
Rob Strom

[vince garcia]

Rob Strom wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 8:47 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Zev wrote:
> > ...
>
> > The BIBLE shows no evidence--and paul affirms this--that abraham ever
> > kept the law. (And he is is shown to have violated by serving meat and
> > dairy together)
>
> I think you're mixing up at least two questions:
> 1. Was Abraham's "righteousness" based on "faith" in the sense of
> espousal of creeds (Vince's position of sola fide), or based on
> "faithfulness"

I will respond to this post if you delete reference to creeds, which
numerous times I have told you mean nothing to me. Otherwise, I will
ignore it

So if you repost this and delete 'vince says it's based on creeds'
claim, I'll answer

[Zev]

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4D2719...@ix.netcom.com...

> Zev wrote:
>> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:4D266B...@ix.netcom.com...
>> > Zev wrote:
>> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:4D25CA...@ix.netcom.com...
>> >> > Zev wrote:
>> >> >> On Jan 6, 1:21 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > Zev wrote:

>> > OK so you admit you can't show where God gave abraham any torah, which
>> > thereby made him a righetous man for keeping. Good
>>
>> You know about Jewish tradition here,
>> you know about the Noahide commandments,
>> but I never made an issue of this, that's why I ignored it.
>> Whatever Genesis 26:5 (*your* quote) means is good enough for me.
>
> Problem is, you can't base your eternity on speculation and unfounded
> tradition.

Genesis 26:5 is tradition and speculation?

> The BIBLE shows no evidence--and paul affirms this--that abraham ever
> kept the law. (And he is is shown to have violated by serving meat and
> dairy together)
>
> Also, Sam Taylor--who speaks for Judaism--says that Jews ONLY get their
> doctrine from Scripture ALONE, and never from the opinions/speculations
> of man.
>
> Is he lying here?
>
> I mean, he's a "jew" so he speaks for you all, right?

Sorry, I haven't paid enough attention to him
to say how knowledgeable he is.

>> > Now you can find generalized statements about "righteous men," meaning
>> > MORAL men (even Jesus, who said God alone was righteous, spoke of
>> > them),
>> > but never in the sense of being declared righteous by God.
>> >
>> > There is no such verse as God saying "David was a righteous man," and
>> > so
>> > on.
>>
>> Numbers 12:7 -
>> "Not so, with My servant Moses,
>> He is faithful in all My household".
>>
>> Not good enough?
>
>
> Not at all. That's GOOD that he was faithful. But my macro issue is that
> only IMPUTED righteousness will gte you into heaven, and only Abrham is
> shown to have been given that sort of righteousness, and only by his
> faith.

Now it's *your* tradition and speculation.

> Now yes, moses had faith and was saved too, but only abraham was ever
> DECALRED righteous by God, and that before the law
>
> Moses, who was under the law, could NEVER be declared righteous by God.
> And, in fact, he failed the ultimate test and died in the wilderness.

>> You quote verses which are obviously not referring to run-of-the-mill

>> sins,
>> you know that Moses, for instance, sinned, yet God says of him
>> that he is faithful in all his household.
>
> yes he was. But was moses declared righteous by keeping his own law?
>
> no
>
> Only abrhaam was declared righteous by God, and not for keeping a law.
>
> The verse even SAYS it was by faith, not law

See Genesis 26:5, the verse *you* quoted!

> So which is better? To have God declare you righteous by virture of your
> faith, or to rely on obeying the law well enough to pass muster?

Samuel, the prophet, says it's better to obey.
If you think that's no longer true,
You need a non-speculative proof,
otherwise your theory is too risky.

[Rob Strom]

believing in a set of particular unprovable specific
facts or theological positions (Vince's position of sola fide), or
based on
"faithfulness"

in the sense of doing the deeds God wanted him to do (i.e. my
position of righteousness as earned).

Examples of facts and/or positions Vince has previously posted
were necessary to believe correctly to avoid hell:
a. virgin birth
b. resurrection
c. Paul's doctrine of grace.
"A number of them [Messianics .. RS] do, in fact, reject or question
the legitimacy of paul's writings, and will pay a price in hell for
their substitute theology
they embrace in favor of what paul taught"
d. Validity of NT books
"Anything questioning the full authority, inspiration, and authority
of
the 26 books of the NT is heresy that must immediately be denied, or
you
place your salvation at great risk, because the demonic spirit behind
questioning it will lead you to a false salvation doctrine that will
damn you"
e. Belief in Jesus as Messiah "The view springs from unbelief, and
yes--you go to hell for not
believing"

You may not call this creeds, but a creed is something you believe,
and
you make it clear you're judged to salvation or damnation based on
what you believe.

2. Was Abraham subject to the Mosaic Law (not my position), or even:
2a. Was Abraham subject to later rabbinic interpretations of Mosaic
Law (a strawman position you create, otherwise what's the
relevance of bringing up that he ate meat and dairy together).

--

Rob Strom

[Sam Taylor]

"Rob Strom" <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:401fbae5-a85a-4a9b...@j25g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...

What Vince fails to see If You do that which G-D request You to do, that is
in effect Obedience unto a Law.
Abrahams was Imputed Holiness, for Obeying G-D
Before Moses
as was Job, whom obeyed G-D before Abraham,
as Did Noah who came after Job.
these Men did what G-d required by Obedience to the leadings of G-D.
The Law is a Vince fixation, but it is G-D's standard of Right and Wrong.
It is nuetral, being a defining standard niether good nor evil.
a Roadmap to chicago, is it Evil? in Vince mind
it would be.
73
Sam
> --
>
> Rob Strom
>

[Sam Taylor]

Vince what you are argueing is G-D abandoned his standard of Right and
wrong, to give you a free ride
to do what you want, because it was somebody elses fault.
Do You think G-D changed his standards?

You condemn Jews for living up to
what You cannot, and G-D delights in You because of their sins!
don't You know G-D changes not?
Jesus called for an even more stringent way
of the Law, but somehow You are exempt even from that!
"Of old it was Said' has no bearing on You?
do you not know how silly and juvinile that sounds?

[vince garcia]

neither. His righteousness was based on faith. He believed God, and God
IMPUTED righteousness to him.

We get that same benefit by believing. In our case, our belief is to be
in the manifestation of what the OT prophesied was coming, and to
believe what He said about who and what he was

>
> Examples of facts and/or positions Vince has previously posted
> were necessary to believe correctly to avoid hell:
> a. virgin birth

no

> b. resurrection

no

> c. Paul's doctrine of grace.

yeas

> "A number of them [Messianics .. RS] do, in fact, reject or question
> the legitimacy of paul's writings, and will pay a price in hell for
> their substitute theology
> they embrace in favor of what paul taught"

absolutely. Those people are lost.

> d. Validity of NT books
> "Anything questioning the full authority, inspiration, and authority
> of
> the 26 books of the NT is heresy that must immediately be denied, or
> you
> place your salvation at great risk, because the demonic spirit behind
> questioning it will lead you to a false salvation doctrine that will
> damn you"
> e. Belief in Jesus as Messiah "The view springs from unbelief, and
> yes--you go to hell for not
> believing"

correct. And that's why.

As i noted the other day to soemone, the only reason to question paul's
wirtings is to reject grace to hold onto law.

Law will damn you

And also, as I posted to bear, to reject the scriptures is to reject
what God has exalted above His own name

>
> You may not call this creeds, but a creed is something you believe,
> and
> you make it clear you're judged to salvation or damnation based on
> what you believe.

except those are catholic creeds, not my creeds. I might agree w/some of
them, but creeds are not scripture

>
> 2. Was Abraham subject to the Mosaic Law (not my position),

so we agree

or even:
> 2a. Was Abraham subject to later rabbinic interpretations of Mosaic
> Law (a strawman position you create, otherwise what's the
> relevance of bringing up that he ate meat and dairy together).

the most extreme UO hold that abraham kept the law AND the rabbinic
clarifications.

I/paul say he kept neither, and you seem to agree

>
> --
>
> Rob Strom

[vince garcia]

Zev wrote:
>
> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:4D2719...@ix.netcom.com...
> > Zev wrote:
> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4D266B...@ix.netcom.com...
> >> > Zev wrote:
> >> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:4D25CA...@ix.netcom.com...
> >> >> > Zev wrote:
> >> >> >> On Jan 6, 1:21 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Zev wrote:
>
> >> > OK so you admit you can't show where God gave abraham any torah, which
> >> > thereby made him a righetous man for keeping. Good
> >>
> >> You know about Jewish tradition here,
> >> you know about the Noahide commandments,
> >> but I never made an issue of this, that's why I ignored it.
> >> Whatever Genesis 26:5 (*your* quote) means is good enough for me.
> >
> > Problem is, you can't base your eternity on speculation and unfounded
> > tradition.
>
> Genesis 26:5 is tradition and speculation?

the theology you base on that passage IS

>
> > The BIBLE shows no evidence--and paul affirms this--that abraham ever
> > kept the law. (And he is is shown to have violated by serving meat and
> > dairy together)
> >
> > Also, Sam Taylor--who speaks for Judaism--says that Jews ONLY get their
> > doctrine from Scripture ALONE, and never from the opinions/speculations
> > of man.
> >
> > Is he lying here?
> >
> > I mean, he's a "jew" so he speaks for you all, right?
>
> Sorry, I haven't paid enough attention to him
> to say how knowledgeable he is.

Count yourself lucky. If you want to learn about him, read his posts.
You'll find that Jews:

keep a copy of the 10 commandments in the mazzuzah (which he originally
called a MENORAH, but blamed art bell for being tried and confused on
that)

Uphold the 10 comamdnemnts as the core of the law, and the others really
aren't that important

That jews do not believe in the immortality of the soul, but that people
dead in the grave have no consciousness before the last judgment

That jews base their theology on SCRIPTURE ALONE, and not the
opinions/traditions/speculations of men as "Xtians" do

And other assorted views

Like knowing all these things your religion actually teaches that I bet
you didn't know before?

If you'll read his posts, you'll see crap like this presented on a
regular basis, with the word "we" used repeatedly, as if he speaks for
jews and judaism

>
> >> > Now you can find generalized statements about "righteous men," meaning
> >> > MORAL men (even Jesus, who said God alone was righteous, spoke of
> >> > them),
> >> > but never in the sense of being declared righteous by God.
> >> >
> >> > There is no such verse as God saying "David was a righteous man," and
> >> > so
> >> > on.
> >>
> >> Numbers 12:7 -
> >> "Not so, with My servant Moses,
> >> He is faithful in all My household".
> >>
> >> Not good enough?
> >
> >
> > Not at all. That's GOOD that he was faithful. But my macro issue is that
> > only IMPUTED righteousness will gte you into heaven, and only Abrham is
> > shown to have been given that sort of righteousness, and only by his
> > faith.
>
> Now it's *your* tradition and speculation.

no, it's said in the scriptures. That's the difference

>
> > Now yes, moses had faith and was saved too, but only abraham was ever
> > DECALRED righteous by God, and that before the law
> >
> > Moses, who was under the law, could NEVER be declared righteous by God.
> > And, in fact, he failed the ultimate test and died in the wilderness.
>
> >> You quote verses which are obviously not referring to run-of-the-mill
> >> sins,
> >> you know that Moses, for instance, sinned, yet God says of him
> >> that he is faithful in all his household.
> >
> > yes he was. But was moses declared righteous by keeping his own law?
> >
> > no
> >
> > Only abrhaam was declared righteous by God, and not for keeping a law.
> >
> > The verse even SAYS it was by faith, not law
>
> See Genesis 26:5, the verse *you* quoted!

That verse does not declare abraham righteous and does not contradict
the first verse.

I told you what i think that verse refers to. But that is a point of
debate because that verse does not define what it means.

What is NOT open to debate is whether abraham was keeping a law, and on
the basis of keeping it was declared to be righteous by God.

You can search all the verses in genesis where God speaks to abraham,
and He never gives him a law to live by.

To say he did shows how weak your claim is because you must invent a
mythical meeting between God and Abrham in which God lists a bunch of
comamndments for him to obey.

Well...I don't base my theology on making up encounters with God that
the Bible never says.

And beyond that, we see instnaces of his violating the law by staying
married to his sister, serving meat and dairy; and then his grandson,
who presumably would have been taught this law, goes out and marries two
sisters, which again is a violation of moses' Law

>
> > So which is better? To have God declare you righteous by virture of your
> > faith, or to rely on obeying the law well enough to pass muster?
>
> Samuel, the prophet, says it's better to obey.
> If you think that's no longer true,
> You need a non-speculative proof,
> otherwise your theory is too risky.

he said it's better to obey than to sacrifice. I say it's better to be
righteous based on belief rather than by attempts to fulfill a law that
no generation of israel ever fulfilled

[Zev]

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4D2992...@ix.netcom.com...

> Rob Strom wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 8:08 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > Rob Strom wrote:
>> > > On Jan 7, 8:47 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > > > Zev wrote:

>> I think you're mixing up at least two questions:
>> 1. Was Abraham's "righteousness" based on "faith" in the sense of
>> believing in a set of particular unprovable specific
>> facts or theological positions (Vince's position of sola fide), or
>> based on
>> "faithfulness"
>> in the sense of doing the deeds God wanted him to do (i.e. my
>> position of righteousness as earned).
>
> neither. His righteousness was based on faith. He believed God, and God
> IMPUTED righteousness to him.

If you could read that verse in Hebrew, you'd be more hesitant about
that,
and with Genesis 26:5, there's obviously something wrong with your
translation/interpretation.

> We get that same benefit by believing. In our case, our belief is to be
> in the manifestation of what the OT prophesied was coming, and to
> believe what He said about who and what he was
>
>> Examples of facts and/or positions Vince has previously posted
>> were necessary to believe correctly to avoid hell:
>> a. virgin birth

<most of list snipped>

>> e. Belief in Jesus as Messiah "The view springs from unbelief, and
>> yes--you go to hell for not
>> believing"
>
> correct. And that's why.

If you're right, the NT is authoritative, it's right,
and therefore, you're right.
OTOH, if you're wrong....
Vince, you know what this is, and it's not convincing.

[Zev]

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4D2996...@ix.netcom.com...

> Zev wrote:
>> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:4D2719...@ix.netcom.com...
>> > Zev wrote:
>> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:4D266B...@ix.netcom.com...
>> >> > Zev wrote:
>> >> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:4D25CA...@ix.netcom.com...
>> >> >> > Zev wrote:

>> >> You know about Jewish tradition here,
>> >> you know about the Noahide commandments,
>> >> but I never made an issue of this, that's why I ignored it.
>> >> Whatever Genesis 26:5 (*your* quote) means is good enough for me.
>> >
>> > Problem is, you can't base your eternity on speculation and unfounded
>> > tradition.
>>
>> Genesis 26:5 is tradition and speculation?
>
> the theology you base on that passage IS

That works are important?
How else can the verse be understood?

>> >> > There is no such verse as God saying "David was a righteous man,"
>> >> > and
>> >> > so
>> >> > on.
>> >>
>> >> Numbers 12:7 -
>> >> "Not so, with My servant Moses,
>> >> He is faithful in all My household".
>> >>
>> >> Not good enough?
>> >
>> >
>> > Not at all. That's GOOD that he was faithful. But my macro issue is
>> > that
>> > only IMPUTED righteousness will gte you into heaven, and only Abrham is
>> > shown to have been given that sort of righteousness, and only by his
>> > faith.
>>
>> Now it's *your* tradition and speculation.
>
> no, it's said in the scriptures. That's the difference

And where do you think Numbers 12:7 is?

> You can search all the verses in genesis where God speaks to abraham,
> and He never gives him a law to live by.

*You* gave us a list of things God told him to do,
some of them difficult.
And it's impossible to understand Genesis 26:5 if you say
that Abraham was not under God's law, in some way.

>> Samuel, the prophet, says it's better to obey.
>> If you think that's no longer true,
>> You need a non-speculative proof,
>> otherwise your theory is too risky.
>
> he said it's better to obey than to sacrifice. I say it's better to be
> righteous based on belief rather than by attempts to fulfill a law that
> no generation of israel ever fulfilled

If I believe Rob's cat died for me, does that make me righteous?
(Don't worry about the scripture, I'll get that from Rob).
Despite the humorous tone, this question is serious.
Belief that someone died for me isn't righteousness,
by any stretch of the imagination.

[vince garcia]

Zev wrote:
>
> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:4D2996...@ix.netcom.com...
> > Zev wrote:
> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4D2719...@ix.netcom.com...
> >> > Zev wrote:
> >> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:4D266B...@ix.netcom.com...
> >> >> > Zev wrote:
> >> >> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:4D25CA...@ix.netcom.com...
> >> >> >> > Zev wrote:
>
> >> >> You know about Jewish tradition here,
> >> >> you know about the Noahide commandments,
> >> >> but I never made an issue of this, that's why I ignored it.
> >> >> Whatever Genesis 26:5 (*your* quote) means is good enough for me.
> >> >
> >> > Problem is, you can't base your eternity on speculation and unfounded
> >> > tradition.
> >>
> >> Genesis 26:5 is tradition and speculation?
> >
> > the theology you base on that passage IS
>
> That works are important?
> How else can the verse be understood?

My issue is that verse does not mean abraham was keeping a law and
earned righteousness w/God by keeping said law.

The bible record of abraham showed he kept NO LAW.

Now does that mean he walked in open sin? No.

You don't have to "keep the law" to not be walking in sin

>
> >> >> > There is no such verse as God saying "David was a righteous man,"
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > so
> >> >> > on.
> >> >>
> >> >> Numbers 12:7 -
> >> >> "Not so, with My servant Moses,
> >> >> He is faithful in all My household".
> >> >>
> >> >> Not good enough?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Not at all. That's GOOD that he was faithful. But my macro issue is
> >> > that
> >> > only IMPUTED righteousness will gte you into heaven, and only Abrham is
> >> > shown to have been given that sort of righteousness, and only by his
> >> > faith.
> >>
> >> Now it's *your* tradition and speculation.
> >
> > no, it's said in the scriptures. That's the difference
>
> And where do you think Numbers 12:7 is?

what does that have to do w/abraham?

Moses was a 'righteous' man. Did he still need a savior and atonement
for his sins? yes

Did Job keep a law? Where does the bible say he did, and what law did he
keep?

Did Shem keep a law? Where does the bible say he did, and what law did
he keep?

Did noah keep a law? Where does the bible say he did, and what law did
he keep?

Did Seth keep a law? Where does the bible say he did, and what law did
he keep?

Did abel keep a law? Where does the bible say he did, and what law did
he keep?

No one keeps a law until moses, and then--for all generations after
that--they never kept that law to God's standard.

You can be like rob and appeal to hyperbole, but the fact remains that
God says the jews never kept His law from the days of their fathers, to
malachai.

Even in a hyperbolic, best-case scenario, that still leaves the jews as
woefully deficient in keeping God's law

I'd rather be like the people of God before moses who God pleased God
w/out law, and whom God seemed a lot more pleased with than the people
who accepted the law and then didn't seem to be praised much for
effective law-keeping

But this notion that you have to be under a law or keep a law to not be
in sin, or to be in right standing w/God, is wholly false.

>
> > You can search all the verses in genesis where God speaks to abraham,
> > and He never gives him a law to live by.
>
> *You* gave us a list of things God told him to do,
> some of them difficult.

None of which were a real law. The closest was to make an animal
sacrifice or circumcision. But you don't see a trace of the sabbath,
dietary laws, mikvah, marriage laws, and so on

> And it's impossible to understand Genesis 26:5 if you say
> that Abraham was not under God's law, in some way.

It's not impossible at all. One orthodox way to understand it is that he
obeyed what he was told, which included getting circumcised, leaving ur,
making a sacrifice, and so on. Those all seem to be one-time commands,
but abraham obeyed them, which is NOT tantamount to saying he was
keeping a codified law the the torah, noachides or decalogue.

But as i speculate, that verse refers prophetically to christ, not
abraham.

Rob Strom keeps more comamdnments than abraham did otherwise

>
> >> Samuel, the prophet, says it's better to obey.
> >> If you think that's no longer true,
> >> You need a non-speculative proof,
> >> otherwise your theory is too risky.
> >
> > he said it's better to obey than to sacrifice. I say it's better to be
> > righteous based on belief rather than by attempts to fulfill a law that
> > no generation of israel ever fulfilled
>
> If I believe Rob's cat died for me, does that make me righteous?

If that cat is prophesied to be the the messiah and lamb of God who
takes away the sin of the world, yes.

> (Don't worry about the scripture, I'll get that from Rob).
> Despite the humorous tone, this question is serious.
> Belief that someone died for me isn't righteousness,
> by any stretch of the imagination.

you did not respond to this:

[vince garcia]

Zev wrote:
>
> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:4D2992...@ix.netcom.com...
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> >> On Jan 8, 8:08 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> > Rob Strom wrote:
> >> > > On Jan 7, 8:47 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> > > > Zev wrote:
>
> >> I think you're mixing up at least two questions:
> >> 1. Was Abraham's "righteousness" based on "faith" in the sense of
> >> believing in a set of particular unprovable specific
> >> facts or theological positions (Vince's position of sola fide), or
> >> based on
> >> "faithfulness"
> >> in the sense of doing the deeds God wanted him to do (i.e. my
> >> position of righteousness as earned).
> >
> > neither. His righteousness was based on faith. He believed God, and God
> > IMPUTED righteousness to him.
>
> If you could read that verse in Hebrew, you'd be more hesitant about
> that,
> and with Genesis 26:5, there's obviously something wrong with your
> translation/interpretation.

RECKONED a better word?

Chashab

1. to think, account
2. to plan, devise, mean
3. to charge, impute, reckon
4. to esteem, value, regard
5. to invent

>
> > We get that same benefit by believing. In our case, our belief is to be
> > in the manifestation of what the OT prophesied was coming, and to
> > believe what He said about who and what he was
> >
> >> Examples of facts and/or positions Vince has previously posted
> >> were necessary to believe correctly to avoid hell:
> >> a. virgin birth
>
> <most of list snipped>
>
> >> e. Belief in Jesus as Messiah "The view springs from unbelief, and
> >> yes--you go to hell for not
> >> believing"
> >
> > correct. And that's why.
>
> If you're right, the NT is authoritative, it's right,
> and therefore, you're right.

yes

> OTOH, if you're wrong....
> Vince, you know what this is, and it's not convincing.

nothing can convince a jew; only God can

[Rob Strom]

On Jan 9, 5:48 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom wrote:

> ...

>
> > I think you're mixing up at least two questions:
> > 1. Was Abraham's "righteousness" based on "faith" in the sense of
> > believing in a set of particular unprovable specific
> > facts or theological positions (Vince's position of sola fide), or
> > based on
> > "faithfulness"
> > in the sense of doing the deeds God wanted him to do (i.e. my
> > position of righteousness as earned).
>
> neither. His righteousness was based on faith. He believed God, and God
> IMPUTED righteousness to him.
>
> We get that same benefit by believing. In our case, our belief is to be
> in the manifestation of what the OT prophesied was coming, and to
> believe what He said about who and what he was

I don't know how to believe in a manifestation.

There's not a speck of evidence that Abraham believed in Jesus or
knew about him.

>
>
>
> > Examples of facts and/or positions Vince has previously posted
> > were necessary to believe correctly to avoid hell:
> > a. virgin birth
>
> no
>
> > b. resurrection
>
> no

On August 29 of this year, you posted:
"Unfortunately, belief in the resurrection of Christ is a prerequisite
to
be saved. It's not optional"

I'm not sure whether you're relying on a technical distinction between
"to avoid hell" and "to be saved". I always thought that the
Christian
position was that some of the unsaved could avoid hell, but that you
in particular had said that the unsaved couldn't avoid hell.

Perhaps you could give us a Venn diagram describing
the possible differences among these three eschatological conditions:
(a) being unsaved
(b) dying in ones sins
(c) going to hell

I wasn't able to find time to search a quote of yours about virgin
birth.

>
> > c. Paul's doctrine of grace.
>
> yeas

Sounds like a creed to me. You act as though something doesn't
count as a creed unless it's Catholic, but anything you believe
in as a religious matter is a creed, and you're saying that you
have to believe in this thing to be saved, and that this counts
more than if you're good or bad.

Interesting too that you give more weight to what Paul says
than to what Jesus says; a prime characteristic of conservative
Christians.

>
> > "A number of them [Messianics .. RS] do, in fact, reject or question
> > the legitimacy of paul's writings, and will pay a price in hell for
> > their substitute theology
> > they embrace in favor of what paul taught"
>
> absolutely. Those people are lost.

Even though earlier you said you just had to
believe what *Jesus* said about himself.

...

>
> As i noted the other day to soemone, the only reason to question paul's
> wirtings is to reject grace to hold onto law.
>
> Law will damn you

Even though the real Bible says law is eternal and Jesus said
the law was forever.

>
> And also, as I posted to bear, to reject the scriptures is to reject
> what God has exalted above His own name

I wasn't talking about rejecting the scriptures but about rejecting
Paul.

>
>
>
> > You may not call this creeds, but a creed is something you believe,
> > and
> > you make it clear you're judged to salvation or damnation based on
> > what you believe.
>
> except those are catholic creeds, not my creeds. I might agree w/some of
> them, but creeds are not scripture

Paul's doctrine of grace is a creed.

...

>
> > 2a. Was Abraham subject to later rabbinic interpretations of Mosaic
> > Law (a strawman position you create, otherwise what's the
> > relevance of bringing up that he ate meat and dairy together).
>
> the most extreme UO hold that abraham kept the law AND the rabbinic
> clarifications.
>
> I/paul say he kept neither, and you seem to agree
>
>

You seemed to imply that Jewish non-Christians could be damned
if they ate cheeseburgers. Jewish Christians, on the other hand,
would be saved even if they were mafiosi.

This is the justice system that conservative Christians subscribe to.

--
Rob Strom

[Sam Taylor]

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4D2996...@ix.netcom.com...

I did post that, while in a midst of a political argument
with a right wing wacko on My Ham Radio.

>
> Uphold the 10 comamdnemnts as the core of the law, and the others really
> aren't that important

No i posted the 10 are the basis for all Law
to a jew, and all other of the Law
are built upon the 10
NO LAW IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY OTHER LAW.
for G-D reveals Himself through His Law, is
one part of G-D greater than any other part

>
> That jews do not believe in the immortality of the soul, but that people

We believe We ARE A SOUL,
not have a SOUL, and WE are MORTAL
"that Means "WE CAN DIE"

> dead in the grave have no consciousness before the last judgment

Why Yes I did! as we believe in a BODILY Ressurection,
not a Spiritual Ressurection,
We get ressurected like Jesus, naybe that is a Jewish Thing, gentiles don't
get.
We are kinda bad at Floating on Clouds,
and playing Harps.

Oh! You mean G-d thought Job wasn't?

> > >
> > > Moses, who was under the law, could NEVER be declared righteous by
God.
> > > And, in fact, he failed the ultimate test and died in the wilderness.
> >
> > >> You quote verses which are obviously not referring to run-of-the-mill
> > >> sins,
> > >> you know that Moses, for instance, sinned, yet God says of him
> > >> that he is faithful in all his household.
> > >
> > > yes he was. But was moses declared righteous by keeping his own law?
> > >
> > > no
> > >
> > > Only abrhaam was declared righteous by God, and not for keeping a law.
> > >
> > > The verse even SAYS it was by faith, not law
> >
> > See Genesis 26:5, the verse *you* quoted!
>
> That verse does not declare abraham righteous and does not contradict
> the first verse.
>
> I told you what i think that verse refers to. But that is a point of
> debate because that verse does not define what it means.
>
> What is NOT open to debate is whether abraham was keeping a law, and on
> the basis of keeping it was declared to be righteous by God.

BY HIS OBEDIENCE TO YHWH!

>
> You can search all the verses in genesis where God speaks to abraham,
> and He never gives him a law to live by.
>
> To say he did shows how weak your claim is because you must invent a
> mythical meeting between God and Abrham in which God lists a bunch of
> comamndments for him to obey.

Like getouta Ur, Sacrafice Your Kid, stuff like that

[Sam Taylor]

"Sam Taylor" <usern...@teranews.com> wrote in message

news:Y2mWo.17598$rG3....@newsfe09.iad...

Sam Adds,
NO it was not Art, although He was in the QSO
> >

Vince is Mad cause I proved Him wrong 5 other times
starting with Passove NOT BEING a Sabboth,
but a Yearly Memorial.
which He though were also sabboths.
and the day after Passover was the yearly Sabboth.

> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >> > Now you can find generalized statements about "righteous men,"
> meaning
> > > >> > MORAL men (even Jesus, who said God alone was righteous, spoke of

Wait a minute, didn't You just get done saying Abraham was righteous?

What is this Leave Ur stuff ?

> >
> > To say he did shows how weak your claim is because you must invent a
> > mythical meeting between God and Abrham in which God lists a bunch of
> > comamndments for him to obey.
>
> Like getouta Ur, Sacrafice Your Kid, stuff like that
> >
> > Well...I don't base my theology on making up encounters with God that
> > the Bible never says.
> >
> > And beyond that, we see instnaces of his violating the law by staying
> > married to his sister, serving meat and dairy; and then his grandson,
> > who presumably would have been taught this law, goes out and marries two
> > sisters, which again is a violation of moses' Law
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > So which is better? To have God declare you righteous by virture of
> your
> > > > faith, or to rely on obeying the law well enough to pass muster?
> > >
> > > Samuel, the prophet, says it's better to obey.
> > > If you think that's no longer true,
> > > You need a non-speculative proof,
> > > otherwise your theory is too risky.
> >
> > he said it's better to obey than to sacrifice. I say it's better to be
> > righteous based on belief rather than by attempts to fulfill a law that
> > no generation of israel ever fulfilled

but Gentiles did?
if G-d is so hard on Israel, i would b b be v v very
Afraid vince.
You think G-D is going to love You because of the way , You dance?
>
>

[Rob Strom]

On Jan 9, 10:42 am, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
...

>
> I wasn't able to find time to search a quote of yours about virgin
> birth.

Update:
From March 24, 2009, Vince writes:
"Starting with the RCC and working down to the john hagees of the
world,
to deny the virgin birth is to disqualify yourself from salvation."

So there it is. Believe in Jesus' divinity. Believe in his
resurrection.
Believe in his virgin birth. Believe all the nonsense Paul wrote
about
grace superseding law. Believe believe believe and you'll get
infinite mercy. Disbelieve and your smallest sin damns you.
That's the "justice" of Vince Garcia (that he chooses not to
call accepting a creed, but that is a creed nevertheless).

--
Rob Strom

[Zev]

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4D29C3...@ix.netcom.com...

Genesis 26:5 mentions:

voice, charge, commandments, statutes, and laws.

I will eventually tire of repeating this,
but that won't mean that you're right.

> Now does that mean he walked in open sin? No.
>

> You don't have to "keep the law" to not be walking in sin.

Adam and eve could have been placed in a "Garden of Eden"
without trees which could get them into trouble.
Noah's generation could have had an environment
in which sin would be less inviting.

Law, and Reward and Punishment, are an integral part of human life.
Angels aren't under law, but they also have no opportunity
to say afterwards "mostly I did the right thing,
despite all the provocations".

I've said it myself, more than once, but you ignore it.
"Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine
ordinances, and have not kept them.."
end quote
Reasons:

1) Anguish-caused hyperbole.
2) Response to mockers, who asked:
"If God is too weak to prevent this from happening,
why should we obey him?"

> Even in a hyperbolic, best-case scenario, that still leaves the jews as

> woefully deficient in keeping God's law
>
>
> I'd rather be like the people of God before moses who God pleased God
> w/out law, and whom God seemed a lot more pleased with than the people
> who accepted the law and then didn't seem to be praised much for
> effective law-keeping
>
>
> But this notion that you have to be under a law or keep a law to not be
> in sin, or to be in right standing w/God, is wholly false.

Why Noah's flood, why Sodom destroyed?
Why was Nineveh almost destroyed?
Lawlessness, you know it as well as I do.

>> > You can search all the verses in genesis where God speaks to abraham,
>> > and He never gives him a law to live by.
>>
>> *You* gave us a list of things God told him to do,
>> some of them difficult.
>
> None of which were a real law. The closest was to make an animal
> sacrifice or circumcision. But you don't see a trace of the sabbath,
> dietary laws, mikvah, marriage laws, and so on
>
>
>> And it's impossible to understand Genesis 26:5 if you say
>> that Abraham was not under God's law, in some way.
>
> It's not impossible at all. One orthodox way to understand it is that he
> obeyed what he was told, which included getting circumcised, leaving ur,
> making a sacrifice, and so on. Those all seem to be one-time commands,
> but abraham obeyed them, which is NOT tantamount to saying he was
> keeping a codified law the the torah, noachides or decalogue.
>
> But as i speculate, that verse refers prophetically to christ, not
> abraham.

Taking a quick look, I saw Abraham, A-b-r-a-h-a-m.
Keep this up, and people will call you Humpty-Dumpty.

> Rob Strom keeps more comamdnments than abraham did otherwise
>
>
>>
>> >> Samuel, the prophet, says it's better to obey.
>> >> If you think that's no longer true,
>> >> You need a non-speculative proof,
>> >> otherwise your theory is too risky.
>> >
>> > he said it's better to obey than to sacrifice. I say it's better to be
>> > righteous based on belief rather than by attempts to fulfill a law that
>> > no generation of israel ever fulfilled
>>
>> If I believe Rob's cat died for me, does that make me righteous?
>
> If that cat is prophesied to be the the messiah and lamb of God who
> takes away the sin of the world, yes.

If you believe in soap, and use it properly, it will make you clean.
It won't make you righteous.
The Pharisees and their followers
opposed Christianity from the start,
because they recognized it for what it was,
cheap covenant and easy penitence.

The rhetorical question of Deuteronomy 10:13
(Now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require from you,
but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways
and love Him, and to serve the Lord your God
with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep
the Lord's commandments and His statutes which
I am commanding you today for your good?)
implies that God will not reject one who cares and tries to obey.
Your "needing atonement", in the sense you use it,
is an invention meant to turn the verse on its head,
and deny the obvious.

>> (Don't worry about the scripture, I'll get that from Rob).
>> Despite the humorous tone, this question is serious.
>> Belief that someone died for me isn't righteousness,
>> by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> you did not respond to this:

It sounded like:
"Let's you and him fight!".
Why should I play?

[Zev]

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4D29C4...@ix.netcom.com...

I was thinking of the grammar, but taking a second look at the verse,
I think I was too critical.
I think a better translation might be a more colloquial
"God reckoned it a Mitzvah",
but I don't think it makes much difference to either of us.

>> > We get that same benefit by believing. In our case, our belief is to be
>> > in the manifestation of what the OT prophesied was coming, and to
>> > believe what He said about who and what he was
>> >
>> >> Examples of facts and/or positions Vince has previously posted
>> >> were necessary to believe correctly to avoid hell:
>> >> a. virgin birth
>>
>> <most of list snipped>
>>
>> >> e. Belief in Jesus as Messiah "The view springs from unbelief, and
>> >> yes--you go to hell for not
>> >> believing"
>> >
>> > correct. And that's why.
>>
>> If you're right, the NT is authoritative, it's right,
>> and therefore, you're right.
>
> yes
>
>> OTOH, if you're wrong....
>> Vince, you know what this is, and it's not convincing.
>
> nothing can convince a jew; only God can

By accepting the fact that you have nothing better
than the above circular reasoning, you admit defeat.

[vince garcia]

Rob Strom wrote:
>
> On Jan 9, 10:42 am, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> ...
> >
> > I wasn't able to find time to search a quote of yours about virgin
> > birth.
>
> Update:
> From March 24, 2009, Vince writes:
> "Starting with the RCC and working down to the john hagees of the
> world,
> to deny the virgin birth is to disqualify yourself from salvation."

yes, Traditional Chrisianity holds that belief in the virgin brith is a
requirement for salvation. I don't know that I go that far, but if you
don't beleieve in the VB, then undoubtedly you reject some essentials
the plan of salvation as well.

>
> So there it is. Believe in Jesus' divinity. Believe in his
> resurrection.
> Believe in his virgin birth. Believe all the nonsense Paul wrote
> about
> grace superseding law. Believe believe believe and you'll get
> infinite mercy. Disbelieve and your smallest sin damns you.

most of that is correct

> That's the "justice" of Vince Garcia (that he chooses not to
> call accepting a creed, but that is a creed nevertheless).

creeds are not scripture. stop saying i claim you must believe creeds.

I say you must believe BIBLE. Get that straight and stop bearing false
witness
>
> --
> Rob Strom

[vince garcia]

one of my gripes about hebrew--same word means so dran many things, and
it can be hard to know for sure what it means in a given instnace

But the main thing is that God credited righteousness to him not by
keeping a law but by faith

>
> >> > We get that same benefit by believing. In our case, our belief is to be
> >> > in the manifestation of what the OT prophesied was coming, and to
> >> > believe what He said about who and what he was
> >> >
> >> >> Examples of facts and/or positions Vince has previously posted
> >> >> were necessary to believe correctly to avoid hell:
> >> >> a. virgin birth
> >>
> >> <most of list snipped>
> >>
> >> >> e. Belief in Jesus as Messiah "The view springs from unbelief, and
> >> >> yes--you go to hell for not
> >> >> believing"
> >> >
> >> > correct. And that's why.
> >>
> >> If you're right, the NT is authoritative, it's right,
> >> and therefore, you're right.
> >
> > yes
> >
> >> OTOH, if you're wrong....
> >> Vince, you know what this is, and it's not convincing.
> >
> > nothing can convince a jew; only God can
>
> By accepting the fact that you have nothing better
> than the above circular reasoning, you admit defeat.

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand
not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut
their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and
understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

intellelctual argument cannot overcome a curse of God's blindness

[vince garcia]

And how many times must I point out that doesn't mean what YOU want that
to mean?

God gave abraham NO LAW. If you're going to say He did, show the
conversation.

It does not exist

>
> > Now does that mean he walked in open sin? No.
> >
> > You don't have to "keep the law" to not be walking in sin.
>
> Adam and eve could have been placed in a "Garden of Eden"
> without trees which could get them into trouble.
> Noah's generation could have had an environment
> in which sin would be less inviting.
>
> Law, and Reward and Punishment, are an integral part of human life.
> Angels aren't under law, but they also have no opportunity
> to say afterwards "mostly I did the right thing,
> despite all the provocations".

Not sure I get the point.

Do you agree or disagree that you can be "righteoeous" without keeping a
law?

and my answer is below

>
> > Even in a hyperbolic, best-case scenario, that still leaves the jews as
> > woefully deficient in keeping God's law

disagree?

How good a record do the jews have in listening and heeding the
propphets and warnings of God?

I'd like to know what you think on this. Mediocre? Bad? Good? Great?

What?

I think the obvious point--and the existence of reform and conservative
judaism is proof of it--is that israel to this day still doesn't keep
God's law.

And yes, you need atonement, and ues, in the sense of chrost, zev

>
> >> (Don't worry about the scripture, I'll get that from Rob).
> >> Despite the humorous tone, this question is serious.
> >> Belief that someone died for me isn't righteousness,
> >> by any stretch of the imagination.
> >
> > you did not respond to this:
>
> It sounded like:
> "Let's you and him fight!".
> Why should I play?

you should at least be disgusted that someone claiming to be jewish is
going around, claiming jews believe things like this

[Sam Taylor]

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4D2B97...@ix.netcom.com...

Vince, scripture states, "those whom by Nature whom do the things contained
in the Law, are , and or , Become a Law unto themselves"
IT DOES NOT STATE, those whom by nature do
NOT do the things contained in the Law, are
a Law unto themselves, they are considered trangressors of the Law.
Sin is
1 anything not of Faith
2 doing things You know NOT to Do
3 NOT doing things You know to do
4 transgression of the Law
ALL OF THESE ARE SIN
YOU CANNOT JUST CHOOSE JUST ONE!

[Sam Taylor]

Vince,
you have an undue hatred for what You deem as
"judaizers" but logicly Vince one cannot Judaize a jew.
Do you have that same hatered of "Gentilizers"
You cannot Giltilize a gentile.
You think it's ok to gentilize Jews?
but not Judaize gentiles.
is that it bubba?
you think paul gentilized Jews?
there is no scriptural proof of that.
it is You pure Vain imaginations, not scripture, nor
scripturaly based.

[1_witt]

Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:

>On Jan 8, 8:08 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Rob Strom wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 7, 8:47 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > > Zev wrote:
>> > > ...
>>
>> > > The BIBLE shows no evidence--and paul affirms this--that abraham ever
>> > > kept the law. (And he is is shown to have violated by serving meat and
>> > > dairy together)

Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments,
my statutes, and my laws. I guess this makes you a liar. One thing it does not show,
is that, Abraham did not keep the law of Moses. Paul does not affirm this. This would
be hard to understand, for anyone unlearned about the difference between the law of
God, and the law of Moses. The purpose of this one law is the spiritual impact. Thou
shalt not serve the milk of the word, and the meat of the word, at the same time.
There was no law of Moses, till 400 years after Abraham. All those that God spoke to
were faithful.

>I think you're mixing up at least two questions:
>1. Was Abraham's "righteousness" based on "faith" in the sense of
>believing in a set of particular unprovable specific
>facts or theological positions (Vince's position of sola fide), or
>based on "faithfulness" in the sense of doing the deeds God wanted him to do (i.e. my
>position of righteousness as earned).

No one is acceptable to God unless they are faithful. There is more to it than just
believeing. Devils believe, but being faithful separates man from devils. You can have
all the faith in the world, but if they are unfaithful, they are not acceptable. Being
unfaithful, makes you a servant of Satan. If you are unfaithfull you are digressing
in the backwards direction from the straight and narrow path. It won't be long before
you are gone. If you desire to just believe, and be unfaithful you're history. You're
nothing more than, just another animal. It is mans arrogance that makes him believe,
that he is something when he is not. Isa 1:26 And I will restore thy judges as at the
first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The
city of righteousness, the faithful city. But the trash must be kept out.

>Examples of facts and/or positions Vince has previously posted
>were necessary to believe correctly to avoid hell:

>a. virgin birth

A catholic lie. This story was concocted by Satan and given to the catholics. If Jesus
had no carnal father, he was a bastard. The seed had to come from the linage of David.
The male carries the seed and the female carries the egg. The egg is not seed. In a
marriage the female takes the family name of the man. This was written by someone that
didn't know anything about spirtual re-birth. Jesus had a carnal father, Joseph, and
then with spiritual birth, God became his Father. For anyone to impregnate Mary, other
than Joseph, would be adultry. Mat 1:18. When as his mother Mary was espoused to
Joseph, Espoused is the same as being married.

>b. resurrection

The first resurrection is for those that are born again. All the rest will take part
in the second resurrection and judgment. Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye
are not under the law. Paul put this stipulation on law breakers. If you are allowed
to commit sin. Or the spirit leads you to sin. You are not following a spirit from
God. Satan has defeted you.

>c. Paul's doctrine of grace

Paul did not recieve grace. Paul said he was a slave. A slave has no authority to
invite anyone into his masters house. People use Paul for their justification for sin.
Imputed righteousness does not apply to the children of God. Mat 8:12 But the
CHILDREN of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: These are the ones that
are just saved and not born again. If you do not grow up in the word, this is your
fate. Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but
they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. But you are not of the
spirit, untill the spirit is born. Salvation of washed in the blood only washes the
sin of the soul. There is no conception or birth involved.

>"A number of them [Messianics .. RS] do, in fact, reject or question
>the legitimacy of paul's writings, and will pay a price in hell for
>their substitute theology
>they embrace in favor of what paul taught"

Paul taught that he was aborted. 1 Cor.15:8. As is the way of most people, they just
believe what condemns others, and they ignore what condemns them. It's an undenyable
fact. Paul was aborted. Not fit for service. Most people refuse to believe this
because, they are in denial. That is, An unconscious defense mechanism characterized
by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings. A person cannot be
aborted from salvation. They also cannot be miscarried from adoption. This only leaves
born again. This also shows that salvation and born again are two different events.
John 1:12 But as many as received ( A ) him, to them gave he power to become ( B )
the sons of God, A. Salvation. B. Born again. To recieve is salvation. To become is
birth. Many become the children of God. God gave them power to BECOME SONS. If they do
not go that way or follow the ways of Jesus. Mat 8:12 But the CHILDREN of the kingdom
shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

>d. Validity of NT books
>"Anything questioning the full authority, inspiration, and authority
>of
>the 26 books of the NT is heresy that must immediately be denied, or
>you place your salvation at great risk,

Your salvation is never at risk for this. The NT books were picked by the catholics.
I'm not catholic, so I'm not bound by catholic law. If you follow the 26 books you are
following the 66 stigma of the beast of Revelation. The catholic church does not have
salvation. These are the tares of Matt.13_25. Anyone that does not question their
authority is following man and not God. Wasn't it Paul that said "Rightly Divide the
word of truth. Yet this person wants to threaten you with Hell for doing what Paul
said to do. This ignorant person also is blaming all the mistakes found in the bible
on God or Jesus. Go a head and send me that demonic spirit to damn me. I'll just bet
he is a monkey to. Monkey see, Monkey do. Means they have nothing of their own. Only
what they stole from others. Jer 23:30

>because the demonic spirit behind
>questioning it will lead you to a false salvation doctrine that will
>damn you"

You ever wrote this, has no idea of what a demonic spirit is. This is completely false
doctrine. This is something made up, like the boogy man. They also have no idea of
what salvation is. Why don't they just say, BOO! This is just about as stupid.

>e. Belief in Jesus as Messiah "The view springs from unbelief, and
>yes--you go to hell for not believing"

The word messiah does not mean Jesus. It means anointed and Jesus is only one of many
anointed. Antichrist means anti-anointed. Not, anti-Jesus. You can go to hell a lot
quicker for claiming salvation, when you're not saved. This makes you a heathen. You
can also go to hell for claiming imputed righteousness to cover your wicked mind. No
person can have imputed righteousness with guile in their heart. God wants people that
will do his will and not those that try to find a way, not to serve God. If all you
can show is hatred in your heart. This means that Satan has control over you. If you
cannot overcome Satan and sin in your life, you will not enter the kingdom.

THE FIRST WITNESS

[1_witt]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Rob Strom wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 9, 10:42 am, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> >
>> > I wasn't able to find time to search a quote of yours about virgin
>> > birth.
>>
>> Update:
>> From March 24, 2009, Vince writes:
>> "Starting with the RCC and working down to the john hagees of the
>> world,
>> to deny the virgin birth is to disqualify yourself from salvation."

THATS A CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. People with half a brain have already figured this out.
Jesus was not born of a virgin.

>yes, Traditional Chrisianity holds that belief in the virgin brith is a
>requirement for salvation. I don't know that I go that far, but if you
>don't beleieve in the VB, then undoubtedly you reject some essentials
>the plan of salvation as well.

You have no idea of what salvation. What are you doing in these groups speaking of
things you are ignorant of.

>>
>> So there it is. Believe in Jesus' divinity. Believe in his
>> resurrection.
>> Believe in his virgin birth. Believe all the nonsense Paul wrote
>> about
>> grace superseding law. Believe believe believe and you'll get
>> infinite mercy. Disbelieve and your smallest sin damns you.

Prov 28:9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be
abomination. To me this is a promise from God to you.
THE FIRST WITNESS

[1_witt]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

This only shows that you don't have a spirit from God to guide you.

>But the main thing is that God credited righteousness to him not by
>keeping a law but by faith

Thats a lie of Paul. You know, Paul the admitted liar. Rom 3:7 For if the truth of
God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a
sinner? Because God has nothing to do with liars. I just guess that Paul was still
under the law, when he is convicted of lying. God credited righteousness to Abraham
for faithfulness.

Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. This is what Paul
wrote. But he left out a very important part. Psa. 32:2. "in whose spirit there is no
guile." remissness, treachery: - deceit (-ful, -fully), false, guile, idle, slack,
slothful. You can pick the word that works best. But the answer is moot. Only after a
person is born again will the Lord not impute sin. Gal 3:9 So then they which be of
faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. Paul expressed another lie, when he knew that
Abraham was faithful. God also found a place for you. Prov 16:4 The LORD hath made
all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.


THE FIRST WITNESS.

[1_witt]

"Sam Taylor" <usern...@teranews.com> wrote:

>"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

>news:4D2B97...@ix.netcom.com...

>Vince, scripture states, "those whom by Nature whom do the things contained
>in the Law, are , and or , Become a Law unto themselves"
>IT DOES NOT STATE, those whom by nature do
>NOT do the things contained in the Law, are
>a Law unto themselves, they are considered trangressors of the Law.

1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar,
and the truth is not in him. These are the covenant commandments. This proves that
vinnie is a liar. He has no knowledge of God. Prov 6:23 For the commandment is a
lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: He hates
the law. Paul taught him that. But rejecting the law of God, he has no light or lamp.
Prov 28:9. He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be
abomination. He is only trying to find justicification for his evil ways. He thinks he
will enter into Pauls heaven. He only wants to believe Paul and throw the rest of the
books away. Thats typical for an unsaved person. Saved people are not filled with
hatred as this monkey is. Every bit of information he has he stole from others. This
is monkey see. monkey do. About spiritual things he is about as ignorant as they come.
He denys the law of the covenant. He has no knowledge of God. He has no light or lamp
from God, and he is an abomination to God.

THE FIRST WITNESS.

[Sam Taylor]

Witt,
a soft answere turns away wrath.
Vince claims we are Damned and Judaisers.
while he gladly is a Xtianiser of Jews.
and think that is somehow holy and Good.
he fails to understand paul taught within the context
of a Messianic religion, that was jewish, by both
nature , and form.
The very church, and it's Dogma would be Foriegn
to the One they claim as it's founder.
They happily admit the Foundation of their church is a man....Peter.
The G-D I worship didn't want Man to even Touch his temple, for fear of
defilement, yet they now claim
G-D wants them to found his religion......
Poppycock
Happy New year Witt
Sam

[Zev]

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4D2B97...@ix.netcom.com...

> Zev wrote:
>> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:4D29C3...@ix.netcom.com...
>> > Zev wrote:
>> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:4D2996...@ix.netcom.com...
>> >> > Zev wrote:
>> >> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:4D2719...@ix.netcom.com...
>> >> >> > Zev wrote:
>> >> >> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:4D266B...@ix.netcom.com...
>> >> >> >> > Zev wrote:

>> Genesis 26:5 mentions:
>> voice, charge, commandments, statutes, and laws.
>> I will eventually tire of repeating this,
>> but that won't mean that you're right.
>
> And how many times must I point out that doesn't mean what YOU want that
> to mean?
>
> God gave abraham NO LAW. If you're going to say He did, show the
> conversation.
>
> It does not exist

I suggest you erase Genesis 26:5 in your Bible,
you don't read it anyway.

>> > Now does that mean he walked in open sin? No.
>> >
>> > You don't have to "keep the law" to not be walking in sin.
>>
>> Adam and eve could have been placed in a "Garden of Eden"
>> without trees which could get them into trouble.
>> Noah's generation could have had an environment
>> in which sin would be less inviting.
>>
>> Law, and Reward and Punishment, are an integral part of human life.
>> Angels aren't under law, but they also have no opportunity
>> to say afterwards "mostly I did the right thing,
>> despite all the provocations".
>
>
> Not sure I get the point.
>
> Do you agree or disagree that you can be "righteoeous" without keeping a
> law?

The simple answer is: "disagree".

>> > You can be like rob and appeal to hyperbole, but the fact remains that
>> > God says the jews never kept His law from the days of their fathers, to
>> > malachai.
>>
>> I've said it myself, more than once, but you ignore it.
>> "Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine
>> ordinances, and have not kept them.."
>> end quote
>> Reasons:
>> 1) Anguish-caused hyperbole.
>> 2) Response to mockers, who asked:
>> "If God is too weak to prevent this from happening,
>> why should we obey him?"
>
> and my answer is below
>
>>
>> > Even in a hyperbolic, best-case scenario, that still leaves the jews as
>> > woefully deficient in keeping God's law
>
>
> disagree?
>
> How good a record do the jews have in listening and heeding the
> propphets and warnings of God?
>
> I'd like to know what you think on this. Mediocre? Bad? Good? Great?
>
> What?

History ignores the simple person who prays, gives charity,
conducts his business honestly, raises his children to be good
citizens,
and studies as much as he can.

Jews have no monopoly on evil-doing, as you well know from
Adam and Eve, through Noah's generation, down to our own times.
Who knows, it may be that allowing Jesus to roam the country,
preaching heresy, was also a great sin.
I don't think you'll get very far with this line of reasoning.

>> > I'd rather be like the people of God before moses who God pleased God
>> > w/out law, and whom God seemed a lot more pleased with than the people
>> > who accepted the law and then didn't seem to be praised much for
>> > effective law-keeping
>> >
>> >
>> > But this notion that you have to be under a law or keep a law to not be
>> > in sin, or to be in right standing w/God, is wholly false.
>>
>> Why Noah's flood, why Sodom destroyed?
>> Why was Nineveh almost destroyed?
>> Lawlessness, you know it as well as I do.

Nothing to say on this?

>> >> If I believe Rob's cat died for me, does that make me righteous?
>> >
>> > If that cat is prophesied to be the the messiah and lamb of God who
>> > takes away the sin of the world, yes.
>>
>> If you believe in soap, and use it properly, it will make you clean.
>> It won't make you righteous.
>> The Pharisees and their followers
>> opposed Christianity from the start,
>> because they recognized it for what it was,
>> cheap covenant and easy penitence.
>>
>> The rhetorical question of Deuteronomy 10:13
>> (Now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require from you,
>> but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways
>> and love Him, and to serve the Lord your God
>> with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep
>> the Lord's commandments and His statutes which
>> I am commanding you today for your good?)
>> implies that God will not reject one who cares and tries to obey.
>> Your "needing atonement", in the sense you use it,
>> is an invention meant to turn the verse on its head,
>> and deny the obvious.
>
> I think the obvious point--and the existence of reform and conservative
> judaism is proof of it--is that israel to this day still doesn't keep
> God's law.

Their members obviously don't agree with you.

> And yes, you need atonement, and ues, in the sense of chrost, zev

>> It sounded like:

>> "Let's you and him fight!".
>> Why should I play?
>
> you should at least be disgusted that someone claiming to be jewish is

> going around, claiming jews believe things like this.

Well, there you are, my guess was right.

[Zev]

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4D2B94...@ix.netcom.com...

> Zev wrote:
>> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:4D29C4...@ix.netcom.com...
>> > Zev wrote:
>> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:4D2992...@ix.netcom.com...
>> >> > Rob Strom wrote:
>> >> >> On Jan 8, 8:08 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > Rob Strom wrote:

> one of my gripes about hebrew--same word means so dran many things, and
> it can be hard to know for sure what it means in a given instnace

Very true, but mostly it's the style, not "Hebrew".

> But the main thing is that God credited righteousness to him not by
> keeping a law but by faith

>> >> If you're right, the NT is authoritative, it's right,

>> >> and therefore, you're right.
>> >
>> > yes
>> >
>> >> OTOH, if you're wrong....
>> >> Vince, you know what this is, and it's not convincing.
>> >
>> > nothing can convince a jew; only God can
>>
>> By accepting the fact that you have nothing better
>> than the above circular reasoning, you admit defeat.
>
> And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand
> not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
> Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut
> their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and
> understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
>
> intellelctual argument cannot overcome a curse of God's blindness

That's a poor excuse for your inability to convince religious Jews
to abandon their God-given Torah and commandments.

[Sam Taylor]

>
> >> It sounded like:
> >> "Let's you and him fight!".
> >> Why should I play?
> >

Zev, thank You for not playing, it would be dishonest
to make You to either defend , and or accuse Me.
Vince is of the Mind of the sterotypist.
I tried to explain to Him scripture ALONE is the basis of jewish doctrine,
but he keeps bringing up opinions of some jews, as a basis all jews believe
in different positions.
I tried to explain we have the freedom of opinion,
without fear of condemnation, but Jewish doctrine is
never based upon opinion, but scripture as that way,
we may have a true foundation of Dialog iregardless
of opinions.
he must then Also believe all Republicans are Tea Party Members, and
Libertarians
for his religion does not tolarate opinions, that is
why the fight and condemn each other so readily
and fiercely.
Shalohm
Sam

[vince garcia]

1_WITT wrote:
>
> bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >I agree totally!
>
> >There are a number of folks in this group that applies a
> >cafeteria-style approach to scripture and that being, "I like and
> >agree with this verse just as it reads therefore, it is
> >legitimate scripture". However, this verse, I do not like, nor do I
> >agree with it, therefore, "It is ok if I change it to say what I want
> >it to say, I completely ignore it, or, it was not intended to be
> >included in the Bible".
>
> >It is my belief that anyone that denies any part of the Bible, as
> >being the inspired word of God, are false witnesses and therefore, are
> >not to be trusted or believed, when it comes to scripture.
>
> >Bear
>
> The reason there are many problems is because you are not reading the word of God. You
> are reading an interpretation of what God said.

What an utter hypopcrite.

What could possibly be a greater example of perverting and
REINTERPRETING the Word of God than rejecting half the New Testament
because one rejects the apostle paul, and claiming the gospel of John
and Revelation have been altered to make Jesus out to be "the word" when
supposedly "that as added in the 3rd century?

1_WITT is a demonized heretic under the delusion that he is a one of the
two witnesses in Revelation. He has denied the authority and ministry of
the apostle paul:

1_WITT wrote:
> As for Paul. A person must be born of the spirit to be an apostle. Paul
>was an apostle by his own delusion. Paul by his own words was aborted,
> miscarried. 1 Cor 15:8. Meaning, unfit for service.

>Paul was an apostle, only by his own words.

He has also declared him "ignorant" for his teaching that Christians
are not under or bound to keep the Jewish Law:

>
>1_WITT wrote:
>You made this statement in another post that you are not bound by the
> law. This would be you following Pauls ignorance.

Has declared paul's teachings on the Law "Wrong":

>1_WITT wrote:
> Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the
> transgression of the law. AGAIN PAUL WAS WRONG. Gal 3:19 Wherefore
> then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions.

Has declared people who listen to Paul "Gullible":

>1_WITT wrote:
>Paul only spoke to those that were gullible enough to believe him.

Has called Paul "scatter-brained," "ignorant," and denounced his
teachings on justitification:

>1_WITT wrote:
>So Paul said that righteousness was imputed for belief. Then he said
>that faith which is belief, was imputed for righteousness. Gen 26:5.
> showed the whole premise of his statements are false. Paul was truly
> scatter brained. The problem is. Others see this and want to blame God
> for Paul's ignorance.

Has called Paul "a liar," denies he got his information from God, and
declares those who believe his teachings to be liars:

>1_WITT wrote:
> he did not get his information from God. He is a liar and he is making
> you a liar.

Has said that those who follow's Paul's teachings on the law and
justification...

>won't even make it into the kingdom. Neither will his followers.

Has overruled Jesus and the Scriptures, and declared the Holy Spirit is
not a HE, but rather a SHE:

>1_WITT wrote:
>The Holy Spirit is a separate entity, from God and Jesus. She is the
> mother to all those that are born again.

> The Holy Spirit was always a she, until the heathen catholics changed
> her gender.

Denies the Holy Spirit indwells believers:

>1_WITT wrote:
>There is no indwelling spirit except for one's own spirit. I have told
> you this before, so it must have gone right over your head. This dogma
> was made up by a person that did not know God.

Proclaimed that only if you learn from HIM can you understand the Holy
Spirit and what "SHE" is:

>1_WITT wrote:
>You don't have a clue as to the office and purpose of the Holy Spirit,
> unless you got that information from me.

Has denied the pre-existence and deity of Christ:

>1_WITT wrote:

> Jesus was not called the word until Origin about 250 c.e. In 350 c.e.
> Constantine, the heathen leader of the catholic church, declared
>Jesus as pre-existing. There was no proof either way. Anyone refusing
>this doctrine of, pre-existence would be excommunicated. So they
>added verses or altered them to say that Jesus pre-existed. 1
> John 5:7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, > the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Most people
> know this verse to be a forgery. Like I said, Jesus was not called the
> word until at least 250 c.e. So who is responsible for altering the
>bible.

FYI, people--this is untrue. SECOND CENTURY gospel manuscripts read "In
the beginning was the word" EXACTLY as later ones, and our bible do.

JUSTIN MARTYR in the 2nd century ALSO knew Jesus was called "the word":

"He appears arrayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call
Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but
maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father,
just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and
inseparable from the sun in the heavens"

And the verse he--in his textual ignorance--has claimed is a "forgery"
was cited as early as the 3rd century

As John says, THIS is how REAL Christians are to treat a spiritual whore
like him:
2 Jn: 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of
Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath
both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him
not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

And this is what PAUL--the apostle she rejects as "wrong", "unfit," and
under "delusion," said to do with a whore like him who preaches the
Jewish law and sabbath:

gal 4: Nevertheless what saith the scripture? CAST OUT the bondwoman and
her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of
the freewoman.

I'll listen to Paul. Whom will you listen to?

[vince garcia]

[vince garcia]

[vince garcia]

1_WITT is a demonized heretic under the delusion that he is a one of the

two witnesses in Revelation. Yrt he has denied every possible essential
of the Christian faith--EVERY one--starting with denying the Virgin
birth of Christ:

> >a. virgin birth
>
> A catholic lie. This story was concocted by Satan and given to the
> catholics. If Jesus had no carnal father, he was a bastard. The seed
> had to come from the linage of David. The male carries the seed and
> the female carries the egg. The egg is not seed. In a marriage the
> female takes the family name of the man. This was written by someone
> that didn't know anything about spirtual re-birth. Jesus had a carnal
> father, Joseph, and then with spiritual birth, God became his Father.
> For anyone to impregnate Mary, other than Joseph, would be adultry.
> Mat 1:18. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, Espoused
> is the same as being married.

Has denied the authority and ministry of the apostle paul:

[vince garcia]

1_WITT is a demonized heretic under the delusion that he is a one of the
two witnesses in Revelation. Yrt he has denied every possible essential
of the Christian faith--EVERY one--starting with denying the Virgin
birth of Christ:

> >a. virgin birth

>
> A catholic lie. This story was concocted by Satan and given to the
> catholics. If Jesus had no carnal father, he was a bastard. The seed
> had to come from the linage of David. The male carries the seed and
> the female carries the egg. The egg is not seed. In a marriage the
> female takes the family name of the man. This was written by someone
> that didn't know anything about spirtual re-birth. Jesus had a carnal
> father, Joseph, and then with spiritual birth, God became his Father.
> For anyone to impregnate Mary, other than Joseph, would be adultry.
> Mat 1:18. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, Espoused
> is the same as being married.

[Sam Taylor]

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4D2C56...@ix.netcom.com...

> WHAT the "Holy ghost" has a gender?
It must be It, rather than He or She.
The Holy Ghost is the breath of Life
Since when was the wind of a breath
a He or She/
OH it's from the Song "Muriah"
"they call the wind Muriah"
acording to the Song....
she is a She, not a he, or
even a He She.
witt 1 Vince 0

[vince garcia]

It's the best excuse there is, zev.

acts 38
25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that
Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the
prophet unto our fathers,
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and
shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull
of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with

their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart,

and should be converted, and I should heal them.
28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent
unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

rom 11
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this
mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in
part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come
in.

I know, going into it, no intellectual argument on earth can convince a
jew under God's blindness to see. But there is always a chance God will
elect you to salvation and open your eyes. Til then, I can only speak
the truth to you, and let it stop at that.

I wouldn't waste the time if I did not esteem you as a fine man

[vince garcia]

This nut must be having intercourse with a demonic spirit who is giving
him this doctrine.

Judge for yourself...

1_WITT is a demonized heretic under the delusion that he is a one of the

two witnesses in Revelation. Yet he has denied every possible essential

> The Holy Spirit was always a she, until the heathen catholics changed

[Zev]

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4D2C59...@ix.netcom.com...

Intellectual arguments lose because they're not intellectual.
Take Galatians 4, you've quoted it yourself.
One of the highest praises the Bible has is "servant of God".

The belief of Paul and the meaning of Galatians 4
is that religious law is a kind of slavery to be avoided.
The belief of religious, Orthodox, Jews
is that one should desire to receive and fulfill
God's commandments.
This is our mission in this world.

How could Paul convince a knowledgeable Jew
to abandon the commandments with the allegory he brought?

> I wouldn't waste the time if I did not esteem you as a fine man.

Thanks for the compliment.
I also avoid subscribers I wouldn't talk to on the street.
It's aggravating and frustrating, we all have better things to do.
OTOH, sometimes it's difficult to tell someone
you admire how wrong you think he is.

[Rob Strom]

On Jan 10, 11:55 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom wrote:
>
> > On Jan 9, 10:42 am, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > I wasn't able to find time to search a quote of yours about virgin
> > > birth.
>
> > Update:
> > From March 24, 2009, Vince writes:
> > "Starting with the RCC and working down to the john hagees of the
> > world,
> > to deny the virgin birth is to disqualify yourself from salvation."
>
> yes, Traditional Chrisianity holds that belief in the virgin brith is a
> requirement for salvation. I don't know that I go that far, but if you
> don't beleieve in the VB, then undoubtedly you reject some essentials
> the plan of salvation as well.

You don't know what the word "creed" means.

If there are a list of "essentials" I have to believe in, then
whatever is on that list is called a "creed". "Creed" just
means "something believed in as a matter of faith".

>
>
>
> > So there it is.  Believe in Jesus' divinity.  Believe in his
> > resurrection.
> > Believe in his virgin birth.  Believe all the nonsense Paul wrote
> > about
> > grace superseding law.  Believe believe believe and you'll get
> > infinite mercy.  Disbelieve and your smallest sin damns you.
>
> most of that is correct

According to the Vince Garcia definition of justice, which
is exactly the opposite of true justice.

>
> > That's the "justice" of Vince Garcia (that he chooses not to
> > call accepting a creed, but that is a creed nevertheless).
>
> creeds are not scripture. stop saying i claim you must believe creeds.

You are saying you must believe certain things. Whatever those
things are, if you have to believe them without evidence, they
become creeds.

>
> I say you must believe BIBLE. Get that straight and stop bearing false
> witness

Actually, you also require *disbelieving* much of the Bible.

The Bible says you're judged by your deeds, but you
disbelieve that, saying it's waxen old and nailed to the cross.

--
Rob Strom

[1_witt]

"Sam Taylor" <usern...@teranews.com> wrote:

>Witt,
>a soft answere turns away wrath.

He likes this stuff. He must, because he is the one that started it.

This little monkey makes a lot of claims he can't back up. Those that believe in Jesus
are saved people. This means circumcised in the heart and no longer stiff-necked.
Stiff-necked means harsh treatment of others. This guy has not even been saved. He
knows nothing about God. This little monkey started the name calling back when I ask
him for a source for an interpretation of a word. The only reason for his involvement
in these groups is to claim Paul, as the god of the Christians. And I have proof of
this, by his own words. Paul said he was aborted from being born again. But people
just ignore this absolute fact. The only people he has power to convert is, weak
believers, into Satanism.

[1_witt]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>1_WITT wrote:
>>

>> The reason there are many problems is because you are not reading the word of God. You
>> are reading an interpretation of what God said.

The monkey boy commented

>What an utter hypopcrite.

Maybe you should look up the word hypocrite, before you use it falsely again. Thats an
order, monkey boy.

>What could possibly be a greater example of perverting and
>REINTERPRETING the Word of God than rejecting half the New Testament
>because one rejects the apostle paul,

I see that you are to stupid to understand even this. A person that interprets
scripture will use definitions that fit his bias. This is the bases of what I said.
This also proves what a moron you are. You condemn anything I say just because of your
hatred. When you condemn what is right, you make yourself a fool. I said there are
many different translations with each claiming they are the word of God. Then you
accuse me of perverting the word of God. Open your eyes idiot, and smell what you are
trying to shovel. You just told someone else that you didn't know how to pick the
right definition for a word. This shows that you can't even study. All you can do is
accept what someone else has written. This is exactly what makes you, monkey boy.

It sounds like you have been listening to Paul. You are about as scatterbrainded as
he was. A person must be saved to understand the bible. You are not saved, as shown by
your own actions. You think that because you believe, this makes you saved. Satan
believes and isn't saved because of evil works. Your works show me that you are of
Satan. If you were saved, then you would be condemned as a covenant breaker. Satan has
complete control over you and you don't even know it.

>and claiming the gospel of John
>and Revelation have been altered to make Jesus out to be "the word" when
>supposedly "that as added in the 3rd century?

>FYI, people--this is untrue. SECOND CENTURY gospel manuscripts read "In

>the beginning was the word" EXACTLY as later ones, and our bible do.

When you repeat me it sounds different because it's a lie, you twist things to match
your own demented mind. I said 250 ce during the time of Origen. And FYI there are no
manuscripts of the bible in existence before 325 ce. Can't you get anything right.
Previous to this time the philosophers applied the logos ( word ) to Zeus, the head
god of the pantheon. Quote "One of the most notable of Origen's ideas was his logos
doctrine. Origen applied this principle to christ's person and work. He treated christ
as the logos who brings reason to the world." New Standard Encyclopedia. vol 12 1992.
Origen 185 ? 254 ? End Quote. The philosophers said that " reason " was how the word
or logos was defined.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was
made. This is speaking about God.
Heb 2:10 For it became him, ( God ) for whom are all things, and by whom are all
things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation (
Jesus ) perfect through sufferings.

Prov 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day
of evil.

These are three references to God creating all things himself. John 1:3 was speaking
about God, and not Jesus. God even included you and those like you, in this last part
of Proverbs. even the wicked for the day of evil.

>1_WITT is a demonized heretic under the delusion that he is a one of the
>two witnesses in Revelation. He has denied the authority and ministry of
>the apostle paul:

Another false statement by Paul is Rom 4:13 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. This is a lie. This came to Abraham by covenant. Gen
15:18. 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: This makes the whole premise of Paul's statements false. There are laws
and promises within a covenant. Paul TWISTED the truth, to create his corrupt
doctrine. God will not associate with a liar like Paul. Paul said he would be all
things to all men. This is probably why he attracts so many liars. Rom 3:7 For if the
truth of God hath more abounded through MY LIE unto his glory; why yet am I also
judged as a sinner? If you think you are justified for lying, GUESS AGAIN.

So it continues along, people just accepting what is said without question. This leads
to today. All will be shown the truth. Accept or reject. But when the bottomless pit
opens, if you have rejected the truth. When you die you will descend into the pit,
with no resurrection or judgment. You made your choice.

Do you think anyone cares about what you say. They know you as a liar and you have no
back up for what you say. Only what comes out of your deluded mind. You automatically
turn on your hatred to who ever doesn't believe as you do. I have a reason for
believing as I do. Which means, I'll have backup for what I say, as shown above. The
only way for you to defeat what I say, is for you to lie or twist what I say. This is
probably why you and LL are friends, your both habitual liars.

>1_WITT wrote:
>> As for Paul. A person must be born of the spirit to be an apostle. Paul
>>was an apostle by his own delusion. Paul by his own words was aborted,
>> miscarried. 1 Cor 15:8. Meaning, unfit for service.
>>Paul was an apostle, only by his own words.

This is the truth and you are not smart enough to disprove it. If you just don't like
it, that doesn't mean anything. Paul was a loser and so are you. Actually you cannot
claim you are following Paul, if you reject part of his gospel.

I have another anti Paul letter coming up. Thank you for keeping everyones mind on
Paul's corruption. Sucker.

THE FIRST WITNESS.

[1_witt]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote

As always monkey boy, only gives his on opinion without any back up. This is why he
will always be a loser. I see that Linda is feeding you material. Thats two peas in a
pod. Two habitual liars. She had a lot of anti-Paul material also, untill she showed
her other face. She is trying to make Jesus out to be the Avatar of Buddha. So what is
this, Satan and the sister. Satan is really working you two, hard. By this pepole will
know that the end must be comming. Satan working over time to stop the truth useing
two unsaved people claiming they are. Thankfully, Satan picked an ignorant person, to
come against me. You have absolutely no knowledge of the history of the bible, yet you
condemn all that I say. Go for it monkey boy.

THE FIRST WITNESS.

[1_witt]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>1_WITT is a demonized heretic under the delusion that he is a one of the
>two witnesses in Revelation. Yrt he has denied every possible essential
>of the Christian faith--EVERY one--starting with denying the Virgin
>birth of Christ:

You can't prove any of this wrong and back it up with something than just your
opinion. It time for you to put up or shut up.

Monkeys can't read or write. They just repeat what they see humans do.
I graded your paper. Look at how many things you got right.

>> >a. virgin birth
>>
>> A catholic lie. This story was concocted by Satan and given to the
>> catholics. If Jesus had no carnal father, he was a bastard. The seed
>> had to come from the linage of David. The male carries the seed and
>> the female carries the egg. The egg is not seed. In a marriage the
>> female takes the family name of the man. This was written by someone
>> that didn't know anything about spirtual re-birth. Jesus had a carnal
>> father, Joseph, and then with spiritual birth, God became his Father.
>> For anyone to impregnate Mary, other than Joseph, would be adultry.
>> Mat 1:18. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, Espoused
>> is the same as being married.

Absolute truth.

>Has denied the authority and ministry of the apostle paul:

>1_WITT wrote:
>> As for Paul. A person must be born of the spirit to be an apostle. Paul
>>was an apostle by his own delusion. Paul by his own words was aborted,
>> miscarried. 1 Cor 15:8. Meaning, unfit for service.

Absolute truth

>>Paul was an apostle, only by his own words.

>He has also declared him "ignorant" for his teaching that Christians
>are not under or bound to keep the Jewish Law:

THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID MONKEY BOY. How nice it is when you prove yourself a liar.
Everything you say is being recorded. This is the important time. God is starting to
call his chosen.

>>
>>1_WITT wrote:
>>You made this statement in another post that you are not bound by the
>> law. This would be you following Pauls ignorance.

>Has declared paul's teachings on the Law "Wrong":

You have been following Paul to long. Your getting to be as ignorant as him.

>>1_WITT wrote:
>> Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the
>> transgression of the law. AGAIN PAUL WAS WRONG. Gal 3:19 Wherefore
>> then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions.

>Has declared people who listen to Paul "Gullible":

You can't see the error in what Paul wrote. Because you are to stupid to understand.

>>1_WITT wrote:
>>Paul only spoke to those that were gullible enough to believe him.

Right again

>Has called Paul "scatter-brained," "ignorant," and denounced his
>teachings on justitification:

Correct again

>>1_WITT wrote:
>>So Paul said that righteousness was imputed for belief. Then he said
>>that faith which is belief, was imputed for righteousness. Gen 26:5.
>> showed the whole premise of his statements are false. Paul was truly
>> scatter brained. The problem is. Others see this and want to blame God
>> for Paul's ignorance.

I believe you cut some of this one out. You will never have any imputed righteousness
because you are to evil. Hab 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and
canst not look on iniquity: And you expect God to look at you. Thats a joke.

>Has called Paul "a liar," denies he got his information from God, and
>declares those who believe his teachings to be liars:

Right again. This is why Paul said three times I LIE NOT. The people he wrote to
didn't believe him either.

>>1_WITT wrote:
>> he did not get his information from God. He is a liar and he is making
>> you a liar.

2 Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should
believe a lie: The exposed lie is. Paul is a liar. Simple

>Has said that those who follow's Paul's teachings on the law and
>justification.

>won't even make it into the kingdom. Neither will his followers.

Read it and weep.

>Has overruled Jesus and the Scriptures,

You just about sneaked this in on me. What a lying piece of heathen trash, you are.
This is something you just made up. Now you showed me how sneaky you can be.

>and declared the Holy Spirit is
>not a HE, but rather a SHE:

Let me see now. Do you have the intelect to prove me wrong, or are you as ignorant as
I say you are. You'll probably have to get linda to help with this.

>>1_WITT wrote:
>>The Holy Spirit is a separate entity, from God and Jesus. She is the
>> mother to all those that are born again.

Correct.

>> The Holy Spirit was always a she, until the heathen catholics changed
>> her gender.

The Holy Spirit was shown as Feminine by Philo. Also in other Jewish writings.

>Denies the Holy Spirit indwells believers:

TRUE

>>1_WITT wrote:
>>There is no indwelling spirit except for one's own spirit. I have told
>> you this before, so it must have gone right over your head. This dogma
>> was made up by a person that did not know God.

TRUE

>Proclaimed that only if you learn from HIM can you understand the Holy
>Spirit and what "SHE" is:

TRUE

>>1_WITT wrote:
>>You don't have a clue as to the office and purpose of the Holy Spirit,
>> unless you got that information from me.

TRUE

>Has denied the pre-existence and deity of Christ:

>>1_WITT wrote:

>> Jesus was not called the word until Origin about 250 c.e. In 350 c.e.
>> Constantine, the heathen leader of the catholic church, declared
>>Jesus as pre-existing. There was no proof either way. Anyone refusing
>>this doctrine of, pre-existence would be excommunicated. So they
>>added verses or altered them to say that Jesus pre-existed. 1
>> John 5:7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, > the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Most people
>> know this verse to be a forgery. Like I said, Jesus was not called the
>> word until at least 250 c.e. So who is responsible for altering the
>>bible.

>FYI, people--this is untrue. SECOND CENTURY gospel manuscripts read "In
>the beginning was the word" EXACTLY as later ones, and our bible do.

>JUSTIN MARTYR in the 2nd century ALSO knew Jesus was called "the word":

You were proved wrong in another post.

>"He appears arrayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call
>Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but
>maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father,
>just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and
>inseparable from the sun in the heavens"

>And the verse he--in his textual ignorance--has claimed is a "forgery"
>was cited as early as the 3rd century

>As John says, THIS is how REAL Christians are to treat a spiritual whore
>like him:

There you go again showing how stupid you can be. Why don't you invest in a dictionary
and look up these word you have no knowledge of. Those that you call real christians
if they are like you. They also will be thrown out. Mat 8:12 But the children of the

kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of

teeth. All monkey boys also will be cast out.

>2 Jn: 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of
>Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath
>both the Father and the Son.
>10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him
>not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

I didn't condemn Jesus or God, I condemned Paul you retard. All you have to do is open
your mouth and stupid comes out.

>And this is what PAUL--the apostle she rejects as "wrong", "unfit," and
>under "delusion," said to do with a whore like him who preaches the
>Jewish law and sabbath:

I never said Jewish law, you retard. This was you, altering what I said. You are
slimey like that. I see that you are still bearing false witness. You not only
ignore the commandments, but you make a mockery of them. Prov 12:22 Lying lips are
abomination to the LORD: Prov 28:9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law,
even his prayer shall be abomination. This is exactly what you have done. You have
turned your ear from hearing the law.

>gal 4: Nevertheless what saith the scripture? CAST OUT the bondwoman and
>her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of
>the freewoman.

You ignorant fool you used this verse out of context.
All these things I stated about are true. What up sets you is that you don't have the
intelligence to challenge what I say. Do you keep posting the same thing hoping
someone can help you. That's called whining. You will have a lot of time to viset
Paul in hell. Maybe I'll have him save you a seat. There will be a lot of heathen men
going that way. As it stands right now, you have lost your justification for sin. You
have even lost your ability to pray. Because you are an abomination to God.

Here is a challenge to you monkey boy. Prove me wrong. Put up or shut up.

THE FIRST WITNESS

[1_witt]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>This nut must be having intercourse with a demonic spirit who is giving
>him this doctrine.

This is stupid. You are being defeted on every side and all you can think of is sex.
Your a perverted little monkey arn't you. You have got to be catholic. I'll just bet
you were an altar boy.

This doctrine is not new. It has been in these groups for over 15 years. I know that
people like you come and go, all the time. Previous to the groups were bulletin
boards. At least I have a doctrine. You have nothing. You just make it to easy. If
someone wants to jump on me, I jump back. God would not put a sissy in this position.
When the people gave Jesus a lot of guff, he didn't back down.

You keep saying easly reputed. You have reputed nothing you ignorant ass. All you did
was whine about what I said. That is not refuting. Refuteing is proving someone
wrong. This you have never done. Not once. Grow up little boy, your playing with
the men now.

THE FIRST WITNESS.

[vince garcia]

This nut must be having intercourse with a demonic spirit who is giving
him this doctrine.

Judge for yourself...

Has declared those who can't see Paul's "errors" stupid and witghout
underdstanding:

>
>1_WITT wrote:
> You can't see the error in what Paul wrote. Because you are to stupid
> to understand.

Has declared paul's teachings on the Law "Wrong":

>1_WITT wrote:
> Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the
> transgression of the law. AGAIN PAUL WAS WRONG. Gal 3:19 Wherefore
> then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions.

Has declared people who listen to Paul "Gullible":

>1_WITT wrote:
>Paul only spoke to those that were gullible enough to believe him.

Has called Paul "scatter-brained," "ignorant," and denounced his
teachings on justitification:

>1_WITT wrote:
>So Paul said that righteousness was imputed for belief. Then he said
>that faith which is belief, was imputed for righteousness. Gen 26:5.
> showed the whole premise of his statements are false. Paul was truly
> scatter brained. The problem is. Others see this and want to blame God
> for Paul's ignorance.

Has called Paul "a liar," denies he got his information from God, and
declares those who believe his teachings to be liars:

>1_WITT wrote:
> he did not get his information from God. He is a liar and he is making
> you a liar.

> This is why Paul said three times I LIE NOT. The people he wrote to

> didn't believe him either.

Misuses Paul's own writings to claim Paul prophesised himself to be a
liar:

>1_WITT wrote:
> 2 Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that
> they should believe a lie: The exposed lie is. Paul is a liar. Simple

Has said Paul is a heathen and in hell

>1_WITT wrote:
> You will have a lot of time to viset Paul in hell. Maybe I'll have him
> save you a seat. There will be a lot of heathen men going that way.

Has said that those who follow's Paul's teachings on the law and

[vince garcia]

This nut must be having intercourse with a demonic spirit who is giving
him this doctrine.

Judge for yourself...

1_WITT is a demonized heretic under the delusion that he is a one of the

two witnesses in Revelation. Yet he has denied every possible essential

of the Christian faith--EVERY one--starting with denying the Virgin
birth of Christ:

> >a. virgin birth

>
> A catholic lie. This story was concocted by Satan and given to the
> catholics. If Jesus had no carnal father, he was a bastard. The seed
> had to come from the linage of David. The male carries the seed and
> the female carries the egg. The egg is not seed. In a marriage the
> female takes the family name of the man. This was written by someone
> that didn't know anything about spirtual re-birth. Jesus had a carnal
> father, Joseph, and then with spiritual birth, God became his Father.
> For anyone to impregnate Mary, other than Joseph, would be adultry.
> Mat 1:18. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, Espoused
> is the same as being married.

Has denied the authority and ministry of the apostle paul:

1_WITT wrote:
> As for Paul. A person must be born of the spirit to be an apostle. Paul
>was an apostle by his own delusion. Paul by his own words was aborted,
> miscarried. 1 Cor 15:8. Meaning, unfit for service.

>Paul was an apostle, only by his own words.

He has also declared him "ignorant" for his teaching that Christians
are not under or bound to keep the Jewish Law:

>

>1_WITT wrote:
>You made this statement in another post that you are not bound by the
> law. This would be you following Pauls ignorance.

Has declared those who can't see Paul's "errors" stupid and witghout
underdstanding:

>
>1_WITT wrote:
> You can't see the error in what Paul wrote. Because you are to stupid
> to understand.

Has declared paul's teachings on the Law "Wrong":

>1_WITT wrote:

> Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the
> transgression of the law. AGAIN PAUL WAS WRONG. Gal 3:19 Wherefore
> then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions.

Has declared people who listen to Paul "Gullible":

>1_WITT wrote:

>Paul only spoke to those that were gullible enough to believe him.

Has called Paul "scatter-brained," "ignorant," and denounced his
teachings on justitification:

>1_WITT wrote:

>So Paul said that righteousness was imputed for belief. Then he said
>that faith which is belief, was imputed for righteousness. Gen 26:5.
> showed the whole premise of his statements are false. Paul was truly
> scatter brained. The problem is. Others see this and want to blame God
> for Paul's ignorance.

Has called Paul "a liar," denies he got his information from God, and

declares those who believe his teachings to be liars:

>1_WITT wrote:

> he did not get his information from God. He is a liar and he is making
> you a liar.

> This is why Paul said three times I LIE NOT. The people he wrote to
> didn't believe him either.

Misuses Paul's own writings to claim Paul prophesised himself to be a
liar:

>1_WITT wrote:
> 2 Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that
> they should believe a lie: The exposed lie is. Paul is a liar. Simple

Has said Paul is a heathen and in hell

>1_WITT wrote:
> You will have a lot of time to viset Paul in hell. Maybe I'll have him
> save you a seat. There will be a lot of heathen men going that way.

Has said that those who follow's Paul's teachings on the law and
justification...

>won't even make it into the kingdom. Neither will his followers.

Has overruled Jesus and the Scriptures, and declared the Holy Spirit is

not a HE, but rather a SHE:

>1_WITT wrote:

>The Holy Spirit is a separate entity, from God and Jesus. She is the
> mother to all those that are born again.

> The Holy Spirit was always a she, until the heathen catholics changed
> her gender.

Denies the Holy Spirit indwells believers:

>1_WITT wrote:

>There is no indwelling spirit except for one's own spirit. I have told
> you this before, so it must have gone right over your head. This dogma
> was made up by a person that did not know God.

Proclaimed that only if you learn from HIM can you understand the Holy

Spirit and what "SHE" is:

>1_WITT wrote:

>You don't have a clue as to the office and purpose of the Holy Spirit,
> unless you got that information from me.

Has denied the pre-existence and deity of Christ:

>1_WITT wrote:

> Jesus was not called the word until Origin about 250 c.e. In 350 c.e.
> Constantine, the heathen leader of the catholic church, declared
>Jesus as pre-existing. There was no proof either way. Anyone refusing
>this doctrine of, pre-existence would be excommunicated. So they
>added verses or altered them to say that Jesus pre-existed. 1
> John 5:7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, > the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Most people
> know this verse to be a forgery. Like I said, Jesus was not called the
> word until at least 250 c.e. So who is responsible for altering the
>bible.

FYI, people--this is untrue. SECOND CENTURY gospel manuscripts read "In
the beginning was the word" EXACTLY as later ones, and our bible do.

JUSTIN MARTYR in the 2nd century ALSO knew Jesus was called "the word":

"He appears arrayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call

Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but
maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father,
just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and
inseparable from the sun in the heavens"

And the verse he--in his textual ignorance--has claimed is a "forgery"
was cited as early as the 3rd century

As John says, THIS is how REAL Christians are to treat a spiritual whore
like him:

2 Jn: 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of
Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath
both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him
not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

And this is what PAUL--the apostle she rejects as "wrong", "unfit," and

under "delusion," said to do with a whore like him who preaches the
Jewish law and sabbath:

gal 4: Nevertheless what saith the scripture? CAST OUT the bondwoman and

her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of
the freewoman.

I'll listen to Paul. Whom will you listen to?

[vince garcia]

This nut must be having intercourse with a demonic spirit who is giving
him this doctrine.

Judge for yourself...

1_WITT is a demonized heretic under the delusion that he is a one of the

two witnesses in Revelation. Yet he has denied every possible essential

of the Christian faith--EVERY one--starting with denying the Virgin
birth of Christ:

> >a. virgin birth
>
> A catholic lie. This story was concocted by Satan and given to the
> catholics. If Jesus had no carnal father, he was a bastard. The seed
> had to come from the linage of David. The male carries the seed and
> the female carries the egg. The egg is not seed. In a marriage the
> female takes the family name of the man. This was written by someone
> that didn't know anything about spirtual re-birth. Jesus had a carnal
> father, Joseph, and then with spiritual birth, God became his Father.
> For anyone to impregnate Mary, other than Joseph, would be adultry.
> Mat 1:18. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, Espoused
> is the same as being married.

Has denied the authority and ministry of the apostle paul:

1_WITT wrote:
> As for Paul. A person must be born of the spirit to be an apostle. Paul
>was an apostle by his own delusion. Paul by his own words was aborted,
> miscarried. 1 Cor 15:8. Meaning, unfit for service.

>Paul was an apostle, only by his own words.

He has also declared him "ignorant" for his teaching that Christians
are not under or bound to keep the Jewish Law:

>
>1_WITT wrote:
>You made this statement in another post that you are not bound by the
> law. This would be you following Pauls ignorance.

Has declared those who can't see Paul's "errors" stupid and witghout
underdstanding:

>
>1_WITT wrote:
> You can't see the error in what Paul wrote. Because you are to stupid
> to understand.

Has declared paul's teachings on the Law "Wrong":

>1_WITT wrote:
> Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the
> transgression of the law. AGAIN PAUL WAS WRONG. Gal 3:19 Wherefore
> then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions.

Has declared people who listen to Paul "Gullible":

>1_WITT wrote:
>Paul only spoke to those that were gullible enough to believe him.

Has called Paul "scatter-brained," "ignorant," and denounced his
teachings on justitification:

>1_WITT wrote:
>So Paul said that righteousness was imputed for belief. Then he said
>that faith which is belief, was imputed for righteousness. Gen 26:5.
> showed the whole premise of his statements are false. Paul was truly
> scatter brained. The problem is. Others see this and want to blame God
> for Paul's ignorance.

Has called Paul "a liar," denies he got his information from God, and
declares those who believe his teachings to be liars:

>1_WITT wrote:
> he did not get his information from God. He is a liar and he is making
> you a liar.

> This is why Paul said three times I LIE NOT. The people he wrote to

> didn't believe him either.

Misuses Paul's own writings to claim Paul prophesised himself to be a
liar:

>1_WITT wrote:
> 2 Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that
> they should believe a lie: The exposed lie is. Paul is a liar. Simple

Has said Paul is a heathen and in hell

>1_WITT wrote:
> You will have a lot of time to viset Paul in hell. Maybe I'll have him
> save you a seat. There will be a lot of heathen men going that way.

Has said that those who follow's Paul's teachings on the law and

[vince garcia]

This nut must be having intercourse with a demonic spirit who is giving
him this doctrine.

Judge for yourself...

1_WITT is a demonized heretic under the delusion that he is a one of the

two witnesses in Revelation. Yet he has denied every possible essential
of the Christian faith--EVERY one--starting with denying the Virgin
birth of Christ:

> >a. virgin birth
>
> A catholic lie. This story was concocted by Satan and given to the
> catholics. If Jesus had no carnal father, he was a bastard. The seed
> had to come from the linage of David. The male carries the seed and
> the female carries the egg. The egg is not seed. In a marriage the
> female takes the family name of the man. This was written by someone
> that didn't know anything about spirtual re-birth. Jesus had a carnal
> father, Joseph, and then with spiritual birth, God became his Father.
> For anyone to impregnate Mary, other than Joseph, would be adultry.
> Mat 1:18. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, Espoused
> is the same as being married.

Has denied the authority and ministry of the apostle paul:

1_WITT wrote:
> As for Paul. A person must be born of the spirit to be an apostle. Paul
>was an apostle by his own delusion. Paul by his own words was aborted,
> miscarried. 1 Cor 15:8. Meaning, unfit for service.

>Paul was an apostle, only by his own words.

He has also declared him "ignorant" for his teaching that Christians

are not under or bound to keep the Jewish Law:

>
>1_WITT wrote:
>You made this statement in another post that you are not bound by the
> law. This would be you following Pauls ignorance.

Has declared those who can't see Paul's "errors" stupid and witghout
underdstanding:

>
>1_WITT wrote:
> You can't see the error in what Paul wrote. Because you are to stupid
> to understand.

Has declared paul's teachings on the Law "Wrong":

>1_WITT wrote:
> Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the
> transgression of the law. AGAIN PAUL WAS WRONG. Gal 3:19 Wherefore
> then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions.

Has declared people who listen to Paul "Gullible":

>1_WITT wrote:
>Paul only spoke to those that were gullible enough to believe him.

Has called Paul "scatter-brained," "ignorant," and denounced his
teachings on justitification:

>1_WITT wrote:
>So Paul said that righteousness was imputed for belief. Then he said
>that faith which is belief, was imputed for righteousness. Gen 26:5.
> showed the whole premise of his statements are false. Paul was truly
> scatter brained. The problem is. Others see this and want to blame God
> for Paul's ignorance.

Has called Paul "a liar," denies he got his information from God, and
declares those who believe his teachings to be liars:

>1_WITT wrote:
> he did not get his information from God. He is a liar and he is making
> you a liar.

> This is why Paul said three times I LIE NOT. The people he wrote to

> didn't believe him either.

Misuses Paul's own writings to claim Paul prophesised himself to be a
liar:

>1_WITT wrote:
> 2 Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that
> they should believe a lie: The exposed lie is. Paul is a liar. Simple

Has said Paul is a heathen and in hell

>1_WITT wrote:
> You will have a lot of time to viset Paul in hell. Maybe I'll have him
> save you a seat. There will be a lot of heathen men going that way.

Has said that those who follow's Paul's teachings on the law and
justification...

>1_WITT wrote:

FYI, people--this is untrue. SECOND CENTURY gospel manuscripts read "In

the beginning was the word" EXACTLY as later ones, and our bible do.

JUSTIN MARTYR in the 2nd century ALSO knew Jesus was called "the word":

[vince garcia]

Rob Strom wrote:
>
> On Jan 10, 11:55 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 9, 10:42 am, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > ...
> >
> > > > I wasn't able to find time to search a quote of yours about virgin
> > > > birth.
> >
> > > Update:
> > > From March 24, 2009, Vince writes:
> > > "Starting with the RCC and working down to the john hagees of the
> > > world,
> > > to deny the virgin birth is to disqualify yourself from salvation."
> >
> > yes, Traditional Chrisianity holds that belief in the virgin brith is a
> > requirement for salvation. I don't know that I go that far, but if you
> > don't beleieve in the VB, then undoubtedly you reject some essentials
> > the plan of salvation as well.
>
> You don't know what the word "creed" means.

i most certainly do.

any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a
denomination

Creeds are cofification of beliefs, and mauy contain truth, but they
aren't authoritative. Only scripture is.

>
> If there are a list of "essentials" I have to believe in, then
> whatever is on that list is called a "creed". "Creed" just
> means "something believed in as a matter of faith".
>

Nom it DOES NOT mean "just" that

> >
> >
> >
> > > So there it is. Believe in Jesus' divinity. Believe in his
> > > resurrection.
> > > Believe in his virgin birth. Believe all the nonsense Paul wrote
> > > about
> > > grace superseding law. Believe believe believe and you'll get
> > > infinite mercy. Disbelieve and your smallest sin damns you.
> >
> > most of that is correct
>
> According to the Vince Garcia definition of justice, which
> is exactly the opposite of true justice.
>
> >
> > > That's the "justice" of Vince Garcia (that he chooses not to
> > > call accepting a creed, but that is a creed nevertheless).
> >
> > creeds are not scripture. stop saying i claim you must believe creeds.
>
> You are saying you must believe certain things. Whatever those
> things are, if you have to believe them without evidence, they
> become creeds.
>
> >
> > I say you must believe BIBLE. Get that straight and stop bearing false
> > witness
>
> Actually, you also require *disbelieving* much of the Bible.

I disbelieve your reform interpretation of it

>
> The Bible says you're judged by your deeds, but you
> disbelieve that, saying it's waxen old and nailed to the cross.

Great. How many good deeds must you do to earn your salvation?

A number please...

[Sam Taylor]

Time to change your underpants Vince,
they are soggy, and beginning to stink.

[Sam Taylor]

[Sam Taylor]

[Sam Taylor]

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4D2DBB...@ix.netcom.com...

That is where You misjudge judaism
What You call salvation, we call the Mercy of G-D
We believe in a Mercifull G-D willing to save.
whose mercies are from Everlasting.

You believe in a G-D with his holy Baseball Bat,
and if You know the Passwords, you don't go to the Holy Bar-B-Que

[Peter B.]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:35:03 -0800, Sam Taylor wrote:

> Time to change your underpants Vince,
> they are soggy, and beginning to stink.

Why are you so close?

[Qadosh Stephanos]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 04:10:10 -0800, vince garcia
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Has overruled Jesus and the Scriptures, and declared the Holy Spirit is
>not a HE, but rather a SHE:

Actually, you are both wrong. God is Spirit.

Genesis 1:27 (KJV)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:23-24 (KJV)

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:
she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore
shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his
wife: and they shall be one flesh.

[Rob Strom]

On Jan 12, 7:10 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
...
> >won't even make it into the kingdom. Neither will his followers.
>
> Has overruled Jesus and the Scriptures, and declared the Holy Spirit is

> not a HE, but rather a SHE:...

Don't know about the rest of your complaints, but the phrase
'ruach ha kodesh' is grammatically feminine. I don't
see how grammar can become the subject of heresy.

--
Rob Strom

[vince garcia]

that's not entirely true. But it CAN be slavery.

non-orthodox judaism is proof that many jews consider it slavery else
they wouldn't water down the law, but would in fact add every
comamdnment they possibly could to it.

> The belief of religious, Orthodox, Jews
> is that one should desire to receive and fulfill
> God's commandments.
> This is our mission in this world.

Sounds good, but along with that is a rejection of your agent of
atonement.

And again--if the law ISN'T bondage, why did the Jews have such an
atrocious time keeping it?

Why do so many find ways not to keep it today?

Meanwhile, here is an example of what I mean by how blind the jews are.
This is what you would have seen if you would have looked down from
above on the Jews camped in the wilderness:

http://centralcal.com/b1b.jpg

Christ is everywhere in the OT, and WE see that clearly

[vince garcia]

Zev wrote:
>
> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

> news:4D2B97...@ix.netcom.com...

> > Zev wrote:
> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

> >> news:4D29C3...@ix.netcom.com...

> >> > Zev wrote:
> >> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

> >> >> news:4D2996...@ix.netcom.com...

> >> >> > Zev wrote:
> >> >> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

> >> >> >> news:4D2719...@ix.netcom.com...

> >> >> >> > Zev wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

> >> >> >> >> news:4D266B...@ix.netcom.com...
> >> >> >> >> > Zev wrote:
>
> >> Genesis 26:5 mentions:
> >> voice, charge, commandments, statutes, and laws.
> >> I will eventually tire of repeating this,
> >> but that won't mean that you're right.
> >
> > And how many times must I point out that doesn't mean what YOU want that
> > to mean?
> >
> > God gave abraham NO LAW. If you're going to say He did, show the
> > conversation.
> >
> > It does not exist
>
> I suggest you erase Genesis 26:5 in your Bible,
> you don't read it anyway.

How about telling me what the comamndments in this mythical law were?

In fact, from your perspective, how do you know that law wasn't the 7
noachides?

I'd MUCH rather "keep" those than the 613

>
> >> > Now does that mean he walked in open sin? No.
> >> >
> >> > You don't have to "keep the law" to not be walking in sin.
> >>
> >> Adam and eve could have been placed in a "Garden of Eden"
> >> without trees which could get them into trouble.
> >> Noah's generation could have had an environment
> >> in which sin would be less inviting.
> >>
> >> Law, and Reward and Punishment, are an integral part of human life.
> >> Angels aren't under law, but they also have no opportunity
> >> to say afterwards "mostly I did the right thing,
> >> despite all the provocations".
> >
> >
> > Not sure I get the point.
> >
> > Do you agree or disagree that you can be "righteoeous" without keeping a
> > law?
>
> The simple answer is: "disagree".

So if you have a jew doing good deeds, giving to the poor, and living
morally because he's under the law, and you have a baptist doing the
same who isn't--the baptist isn't righteous but the jew is?

How does that work?

>
> >> > You can be like rob and appeal to hyperbole, but the fact remains that
> >> > God says the jews never kept His law from the days of their fathers, to
> >> > malachai.
> >>
> >> I've said it myself, more than once, but you ignore it.
> >> "Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine
> >> ordinances, and have not kept them.."
> >> end quote
> >> Reasons:
> >> 1) Anguish-caused hyperbole.
> >> 2) Response to mockers, who asked:
> >> "If God is too weak to prevent this from happening,
> >> why should we obey him?"
> >
> > and my answer is below
> >
> >>
> >> > Even in a hyperbolic, best-case scenario, that still leaves the jews as
> >> > woefully deficient in keeping God's law
> >
> >
> > disagree?
> >
> > How good a record do the jews have in listening and heeding the
> > propphets and warnings of God?
> >
> > I'd like to know what you think on this. Mediocre? Bad? Good? Great?
> >
> > What?
>
> History ignores the simple person who prays, gives charity,
> conducts his business honestly, raises his children to be good
> citizens,
> and studies as much as he can.
>
> Jews have no monopoly on evil-doing, as you well know from
> Adam and Eve, through Noah's generation, down to our own times.
> Who knows, it may be that allowing Jesus to roam the country,
> preaching heresy, was also a great sin.
> I don't think you'll get very far with this line of reasoning.

But it was the jews who accepted and were given the law. Yet nearkly the
whole history of the OT is one of those same jews slaying the prophets
and rejecting God's call to repentance.

Jesus even pointed this out.

What has changed in the jews to alter this attitude of going their own
way and refusing repentance, and when did it change?

>
> >> > I'd rather be like the people of God before moses who God pleased God
> >> > w/out law, and whom God seemed a lot more pleased with than the people
> >> > who accepted the law and then didn't seem to be praised much for
> >> > effective law-keeping
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > But this notion that you have to be under a law or keep a law to not be
> >> > in sin, or to be in right standing w/God, is wholly false.
> >>
> >> Why Noah's flood, why Sodom destroyed?
> >> Why was Nineveh almost destroyed?
> >> Lawlessness, you know it as well as I do.
>
> Nothing to say on this?

Did nineveh go keep the law and gain salvation by keeping that law?

Is San Francisco righteous?

I agree with you, there was unrighteousness, but where other cities were
NOT destroyed, it was not because those cities were keeping a law.

They simply lived within some level of moral acceptabilty, but that was
not based on keeping jewish laws

>
> >> >> If I believe Rob's cat died for me, does that make me righteous?
> >> >
> >> > If that cat is prophesied to be the the messiah and lamb of God who
> >> > takes away the sin of the world, yes.
> >>
> >> If you believe in soap, and use it properly, it will make you clean.
> >> It won't make you righteous.
> >> The Pharisees and their followers
> >> opposed Christianity from the start,
> >> because they recognized it for what it was,
> >> cheap covenant and easy penitence.
> >>
> >> The rhetorical question of Deuteronomy 10:13
> >> (Now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require from you,
> >> but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways
> >> and love Him, and to serve the Lord your God
> >> with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep
> >> the Lord's commandments and His statutes which
> >> I am commanding you today for your good?)
> >> implies that God will not reject one who cares and tries to obey.
> >> Your "needing atonement", in the sense you use it,
> >> is an invention meant to turn the verse on its head,
> >> and deny the obvious.
> >
> > I think the obvious point--and the existence of reform and conservative
> > judaism is proof of it--is that israel to this day still doesn't keep
> > God's law.
>
> Their members obviously don't agree with you.

so? I think YOU do even if you won't say it

>
> > And yes, you need atonement, and ues, in the sense of chrost, zev
>
> >> It sounded like:
> >> "Let's you and him fight!".
> >> Why should I play?
> >
> > you should at least be disgusted that someone claiming to be jewish is
> > going around, claiming jews believe things like this.
>
> Well, there you are, my guess was right.

he appreciates your support

[Zev]

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4D2EE6...@ix.netcom.com...

> Zev wrote:
>> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:4D2C59...@ix.netcom.com...
>> > Zev wrote:
>> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:4D2B94...@ix.netcom.com...
>> >> > Zev wrote:
>> >> >> "vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:4D29C4...@ix.netcom.com...

> non-orthodox judaism is proof that many jews consider it slavery else

> they wouldn't water down the law, but would in fact add every
> comamdnment they possibly could to it.
>
>
>> The belief of religious, Orthodox, Jews
>> is that one should desire to receive and fulfill
>> God's commandments.
>> This is our mission in this world.
>
> Sounds good, but along with that is a rejection of your agent of
> atonement.
>
> And again--if the law ISN'T bondage, why did the Jews have such an
> atrocious time keeping it?
>
> Why do so many find ways not to keep it today?

Bad environment.
Jews living in non-Christian countries tend to be
more religious than those living in Christian countries.

> Meanwhile, here is an example of what I mean by how blind the jews are.
> This is what you would have seen if you would have looked down from
> above on the Jews camped in the wilderness:
>
> http://centralcal.com/b1b.jpg

Probably more like this:
http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/BJ001368.html

> Christ is everywhere in the OT, and WE see that clearly.

If you look crooked, the straightest eyeglasses won't help you.

[vince garcia]

Rob Strom wrote:
>
> On Jan 12, 7:10 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> ...
> > >won't even make it into the kingdom. Neither will his followers.
> >
> > Has overruled Jesus and the Scriptures, and declared the Holy Spirit is
> > not a HE, but rather a SHE:...
>
> Don't know about the rest of your complaints, but the phrase
> 'ruach ha kodesh' is grammatically feminine.

"ruach" is a feminine noun (so is Shekhinah), but the Holy Spirit...

1. Is a PERSON, not a force.
2. Is referred to as a HE in the New Testament, not a SHE.

And just as one of God's names means "many-breasted one" but God is MALE
and just as Jesus equated Himself to a mother hen, but yet was MALE, so
the Spirit is MALE even if RUACH is a feminine noun in hebrew.

When Jesus speaks of the Spirit as the "comforter" the word is
parakletos, a masculine noun in GREEK.

[Sam Taylor]

>
> he appreciates your support

Vince You argue false premises, then claim you are Right.
I never asked Zev, for support, as I am a Man
of Full age, I need no Ahnor to Kopher Me.
Nor should You Imply support, by his desire
not to get caught in your Juvinile games.

Zev, and I have the rights of Agreement, and Disagreement.
just like you straw man argument, of if a Jew and a Gentile show mercy whom
does G-D love.
G-d can love whom he chooses, and can even
.........Dred it dagnab it anyway.........BOTH OF THEM!
and show mercy, to those whom give Mercy.
a thing You by the very nature of your puttings lack.
which are the very first sign of Your knowledge of G-D
Of which You have written on Your Forehead
Mene, Mene Tiekel Uparsin, oh Ichabod

[Jude Alexander]

Well, let's back up all the way. Male and female are HUMAN realities for
the process of procreation. God is Spirit. Therefore, God is not male nor
female. Men, who were the controllers of most socieities, projected their
own masculinity onto God and the the heirarchy between male and female. It
is incorrect to think of God in terms of gender.

[Rob Strom]

On Jan 13, 12:14 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom wrote:
>
> > On Jan 12, 7:10 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > > >won't even make it into the kingdom. Neither will his followers.
>
> > > Has overruled Jesus and the Scriptures, and declared the Holy Spirit is
> > > not a HE, but rather a SHE:...
>
> > Don't know about the rest of your complaints, but the phrase
> > 'ruach ha kodesh' is grammatically feminine.
>
> "ruach" is a feminine noun (so is Shekhinah), but the Holy Spirit...
>
> 1. Is a PERSON, not a force.

We don't actually know this.

> 2. Is referred to as a HE in the New Testament, not a SHE.

My understanding is that pneuma is a neuter noun, but that's
not the point.

It's not heresy to use the wrong *grammatical gender* of a noun,
and grammatical gender being what it is, it will vary from
language to language for the same word, regardless of sex.

>
> And just as one of God's names means "many-breasted one" but God is MALE

actually God is not MALE; the *word* for God (in Hebrew) is
of masculine grammatical gender, which is a totally different thing.

> and just as Jesus equated Himself to a mother hen, but yet was MALE, so
> the Spirit is MALE even if RUACH is a feminine noun in hebrew.

The spirit, like God, has no actual sex, although the word for spirit
can be feminine in Hebrew, neuter in Greek, and masculine in French.

>
> When Jesus speaks of the Spirit as the "comforter" the word is
> parakletos, a masculine noun in GREEK.

Which doesn't give the spirit an actual sex any more than
the word ruach gave it a feminine sex.

--
Rob Strom

[Ike E 1/1/11]

"Jude Alexander" <Jude@de_swamp.net> wrote in message
news:igncqa$upv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

> Well, let's back up all the way. Male and female are HUMAN realities for
> the process of procreation. God is Spirit. Therefore, God is not male
> nor
> female.

This is partly false.

Jesus is male.

Jesus is God.

God is male.

Now, if you're going to talk about the broad-spectrum of all that is "God,"
then you would have a point, as Genesis says "God made mankind in His image;
male and female created He them."

So the complete image of God is male, female, and neutral. Moreover, God has
His own "procreation" thing going on.

But "God" Himself is "male," as Jesus is "God Himself"--He's just not all
that is "God."

> Men, who were the controllers of most socieities, projected their
> own masculinity onto God and the the heirarchy between male and

> female.This is patently false.

FALSE.

WOMAN brought the dominion of man down on herself back in the garden; that
was God's curse on her for leading Adam astray.

It was supposed to be an equitable arrangement; EVE blew it.

> It is incorrect to think of God in terms of gender.

This is patently false, too, and smacks of the spirit of Jezebel. Jesus was
a man; Jesus is God of gods; therefore, God is "male."

Sorry, but them's the facts.

Ike

--
********

Which of the following is the correct way to read Bible prophecy?

A. Immediacy
B. Historicism
C. Dispensationalism
D. Preterism (Full or Partial)
E. Idealism
F. Realized/Sapiential Eschatology
G. All of the above
H. None of the above

Based on an examination of how (not just what) Jesus and the prophets
prophesied, "The Triune Hypothesis" is a guide to reading the Bible
prophetically in all three dimensions of interpretation-the horizontal axis
in time (what was, is, and/or is to come), the perpendicular axis in
application (literal, figurative, and/or spiritual), and the vertical axis
in context (thesis, generality, and/or antithesis).

Topics of discussion include the resurrections, the triune "Last Days," the
Pentecosts, the one-baptism-in-three-parts, the triple application of the
Elijah prophecies, the Temples in Jerusalem, the Abominations of Desolation,
the Triune Israel, the devolution of prophecy, and much more.

Kindle Version:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Triune-Hypothesis-ebook/dp/B0049P231G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=books&qid=1289971036&sr=1-1

Print Version:

http://www.amazon.com/Triune-Hypothesis-Mr-Eickleberry-Jr/dp/1456322087/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1290113159&sr=8-3

Facebook: (discussions enabled)

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/The-Triune-Hypothesis/102657386473773

Web: (filtered blog comments enabled)

http://thetriunist.weebly.com/index.html

[Jude Alexander]

Ike E 1/1/11 wrote:
>> "Jude Alexander" <Jude@de_swamp.net> wrote in message
>> news:igncqa$upv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Well, let's back up all the way. Male and female are HUMAN
>>> realities for the process of procreation. God is Spirit.
>>> Therefore, God is not male nor
>>> female.
>>
>> This is partly false.
>>
>> Jesus is male.
>>
>> Jesus is God.
>>
>> God is male.

Crap sandwich. Jesus was not God. God is immortal, and, by defintion, is
eternal and cannot die which is a human condition. DEATH IS WHAT HAPPENS TO
HUMANS! If Jesus is God and cannot trust in God to raised Him from the
dead, than the death was a sham. You won't try to understand because you
have been raised on lies and misperceptions. I have said what I have to say
about the subject. The Messiah was not God Himself but a man made
specifically for a divine purpose.

[seeker]

On Jan 13, 10:17 am, "Ike E 1/1/11" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> "Jude Alexander" <Jude@de_swamp.net> wrote in message
>
> news:igncqa$upv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > Well, let's back up all the way.  Male and female are HUMAN realities for
> > the process of procreation.  God is Spirit.  Therefore, God is not male
> > nor
> > female.
>
> This is partly false.
>
> Jesus is male.

That Yesuah the Nazarene was male is not disputed.

>
> Jesus is God.
>
> God is male.

So you assert. Can you prove any of that?

> Now, if you're going to talk about the broad-spectrum of all that is "God,"
> then you would have a point, as Genesis says "God made mankind in His image;
> male and female created He them."
>
> So the complete image of God is male, female, and neutral. Moreover, God has
> His own "procreation" thing going on.
>
> But "God" Himself is "male," as Jesus is "God Himself"--He's just not all
> that is "God."

Then why in the stories is Jesus talking to God and about God?

> >  Men, who were the controllers of most socieities, projected their
> > own masculinity onto God and the the heirarchy between male and
> > female.This is patently false.
>
> FALSE.
>
> WOMAN brought the dominion of man down on herself back in the garden; that
> was God's curse on her for leading Adam astray.

The garden of Eden never existed. However if it had existed the
actions of one woman would not bring down anything upon all women.

> It was supposed to be an equitable arrangement; EVE blew it.

It was a story made up by a man.

> > It is incorrect to think of God in terms of gender.
>
> This is patently false, too, and smacks of the spirit of Jezebel. Jesus was
> a man; Jesus is God of gods; therefore, God is "male."
>
> Sorry, but them's the facts.

What facts? The only facts you cited was that a book states something
and that Jesus was male.

[Antares 531]

Jude, how do you interpret/translate this and other such passages?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All
things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that
was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it
not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The
same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men
through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to
bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which
lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the
world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11
He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 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: 13 Which were born, not of blood,
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace
and truth.

[Jude Alexander]

So? This is what John believed. Doesn't make it true. There are a LOT of
errors and contradictions in the bible and this is just one more.

READ THIS: GOD CANNOT DIE!

[Antares 531]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:07:46 -0600, "Jude Alexander"
<Jude@de_swamp.net> wrote:

Jude, I'm not trying to pick an argument. You may very well be right
in your assessment, but I can't get this to fall into place the way
you seem to have it figured out. And, please let me point out...you
have a right to your ideas and assessments as surely as I or anyone
else has. But, I do like to discuss things like this...on a friendly
level.

Jesus died a MORTAL death on the cross. He did not die a SPIRITUAL
death, therefore your statement that GOD CANNOT DIE is beside the
point. It's a bit tricky, keeping the expressions regarding MORTAL and
SPIRITUAL death separate and understood in their proper perspective.

Adam and Eve didn't die in the MORTAL sense, when they first sinned,
but it seems they did die in the SPIRITUAL sense, immediately, then
they died mortally some years later. Their spiritual departure from
God, which we all inherited from them, is the reason God had to
provide means for our salvation, other than by our own merits.

When Jesus died (MORTALLY) He descended into Hell and took care of
those problems that were blocking our salvation. Jesus did this in His
SPIRITUAL form, while his MORTAL body was physically dead and locked
in the tomb.

This must have been a horrible experience for Jesus. The way he
reacted when the time drew near indicates that he was VERY tense and
upset about having to descend into Hell. I'm sure his MORTAL death,
and the suffering on the cross was not what had him so stressed out
the night before He was crucified. He could easily resurrect Himself,
and He could also nullify all the physical pain associated with the
crucifixion. Therefore, His MORTAL death or suffering on the cross was
not a really frightening or stressful matter to Him.

We have little or no information as to precisely what Jesus did while
in Hell, but we can accept that without this having been taken care
of, we all would be doomed to hell, with no provision for our
salvation.

One possibility is that Jesus, along a different time axis, survived
in Hell an eternity for each of us, paying in full our debt for sin.
Since our time axis is different from God's time axis, Jesus could
have done this, then, from our time frame, He returned on the third
day...earth day, that is.

As to believing what John believed, we either take the Bible as the
inspired Word of God, or we toss it aside as mere writings from the
imaginations of men. I go for the acceptance of the Bible as the true,
infallible Word of God. But, I do acknowledge that much of it is not
comprehensible by means of our own intelligence. That is, we DO need
to be lead by the Holy Spirit before we can get this all sorted out
and properly understood.

If God could not inspire John and the other writers to get it right,
then provide means through the Holy Spirit for us to comprehend the
Word of God we must conclude that this was beyond God's control, and
therefore meaningless, from a spiritual perspective, for us mortals.

Gordon

[Jude Alexander]

According to the bible, both mortal and spiritual death was the price for
disobedience of Adam & Eve. Once, disobedient, there came spiritual
separation in the sense of incapability with living in God's presence and,
again according to the bible, they were prevented from eating the fruit from
the tree of life so that they would not live eternally separated from God.
Thus, supposedly, a plan was set up at that time that a seed of Adam & Eve
would crush the seed of the serpent.

If Jesus did not experience separation from God as a human and death to be
the first resurrected than it doesn't make sense. I could go on more but I
don't believe in the story of Adam & Eve because mankind existed long before
that story happening around 7,000 years ago. I'm only saying from the
biblical point of view, that God is immortal. The MAIN THEME of Judaism was
always that God was one. 3 God, no matter how you explain them, is
incompatible with Judaism. If Jesus was, in fact, the Messiah, Christianity
would HAVE to be compatible with Judaism and it is not with the concept of
trinity.

The only way the bible "makes sense" is to recognize that it is the author's
explanation to the best of their understanding what was meant by certain
events.

[Sam Taylor]

"Ike E 1/1/11" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ignfkl$i0o$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

> "Jude Alexander" <Jude@de_swamp.net> wrote in message
> news:igncqa$upv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > Well, let's back up all the way. Male and female are HUMAN realities
for
> > the process of procreation. God is Spirit. Therefore, God is not male
> > nor
> > female.
>
> This is partly false.
>
> Jesus is male.
>
> Jesus is God.
>
> God is male.

That is a false assumption, based upon the fact
"Man was made in the image of G-D thinking
that Image was Sexual and male.
.............................BUT.....................................
When man was created Man was Created as BOTH male and Female, "Male and
female created He (G-D)
them"
notice G-D is refered to in the Singular.
so was Man
Then G-D (Singular) put a sleep upon Adam,
and Removed her from him
Adam said that She was , bone of My bone, AND
Flesh of MY Flesh. "Male and female created he them"
notice the difference between
1 "Male and Female Created he him"
..........................AND.......................
2 "Male and female created He them"
both allegories are both from Genisis and
are not contradictory, for Both He (Ish) and
She (Ishshah) are the Image of G-D
to define sexuality to G-D is a Vain imagination, and Slander unto G-D.
for G-D is both Male and female and greater than both
Male and female.

[Mordecai]

At least you put in the entire first part of the chapter.
JC is identified as the light. therefore JC cannot be the word.
Unless the word which is JC created the light which is JC as JC spoke
himself into existence by pre-existing himself.

You have to identify two things - the word and the light. JC is the light -
therefore he is not the word. If JC is not the word - then the idea that
the word being G_d created the light which is JC does not create trinity.

three things need to be done ... if one is to create the idea for trinity.
1) Make the word equal to G_d.
2) make JC equal the word.
3) Make JC NOT the light
... and the second was done with a rather ... amusing rendition of verse
14 - and the third is done by the absolute silence of the entire christian
church to quote JC as the light ... ever.

John 1:14 ... the critical verse - is the discussion of the giving of the
law to israel.
Ergo the greek construct 'took form" which was forced into "made flesh".
"Tabernacle" was forced into "dwelt amongst us". "We beheld" which is a
reference that all of Israel could testify of the giving of the law ... and
the comment by the author that in respect to glory ONLY - the glory of the
tabernacle of the law given to Moses was equivalent to the glory of the
son, full of grace and truth.

One thing is absolute. Whoever wrote John chapter one absolutely and
utterly repudiated Trinity in the construction used.
it took a concerted and diligent effort of the translators to change one
thing into another, and they did it with great skill.

John 1:14 is NOT a reference to JC! EXCEPT in the comparison of the glory.
--
Mordecai!

When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is
wrong, and reality is Never wrong.

[Linda Lee]

Sam must be about two years old. That would explain his lack of
coherence too. But he must be a typing prodigy - how many two-year-
olds can use a keyboard and make some semblance of typing real words?

[Linda Lee]

Actually qôdesh (holy) is a masculine noun, and rûach is a feminine
noun, so that is as it should be since the Holy Spirit is neither
solely male nor female.

>
> --
> Rob Strom

[Antares 531]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:21:52 -0600, "Jude Alexander"
<Jude@de_swamp.net> wrote:

This is very hard for me to sort out. It seems that Adam and Eve were
spiritually separated from God, but their spirits did not die in the
sense that they ceased to exist, eternally. I really don't understand
what the word "death" means in this context. But, it seems that all of
us are in the same boat. That is, without Jesus' provision for our
salvation, we are eternally separated, spiritually, from God. But, our
spirits never die "cease to exist" or Hell would not be a problem to
us or to any non-believer.

>
>If Jesus did not experience separation from God as a human and death to be

>the first resurrected then it doesn't make sense. I could go on more but I

>don't believe in the story of Adam & Eve because mankind existed long before
>that story happening around 7,000 years ago. I'm only saying from the
>biblical point of view, that God is immortal. The MAIN THEME of Judaism was
>always that God was one. 3 God, no matter how you explain them, is
>incompatible with Judaism. If Jesus was, in fact, the Messiah, Christianity
>would HAVE to be compatible with Judaism and it is not with the concept of
>trinity.
>

This trinity concept is hard to grasp. The best way I've found to deal
with it is by way of an analogy. Think of a large office main computer
with a firewall router (Jesus) connected and available by which we
(individual computers) to connect to God. Without this firewall
router, none of us individual computers could connect to God. From our
perspective, the firewall router (Jesus) and the main computer (God)
are one computer system.

>
>The only way the bible "makes sense" is to recognize that it is the author's
>explanation to the best of their understanding what was meant by certain
>events.
>

This whole set of problems seems to be the result of the necessity
that the Bible had to be given in a format that those ancient,
illiterate people could understand, as they understood parables,
allegories, etc. We modern people could understand it had it been
given in a more "scientific" format, but this would not have been fair
to those ancient people. So, to avoid any favoritism, the Word of God
was given us in a format that anyone of any time frame, culture or
educational level could/can get enough of it figured out to enable us
to understand all that is necessary, then trust in God for all that
which we can not understand, entirely.

Also, this format leaves each of us with the option of accepting or
rejecting the Word of God. That is, no one is whipped into compliance.
If all of God's information had been given us in an objectively
provable way, no one would have the option of rejecting it.

The Adam and Eve story is a typical example. As you pointed out, Early
Modern Humans (EMH) existed probably as far back as about 20,000 years
ago, but the ones that finally became intellectually developed enough
to "know right from wrong - good from evil" didn't come into existence
until about 7,000 years ago.

The first one of this new class of EMH was different in that he had
the modern multinational variant of the Fox P2 gene on chromosome 7
and this genetic mutation enabled him to use very complex speech. This
was Adam. But there was not a woman found suitable for a mate for
Adam. The women did not yet have this new mutation of the Fox P2 gene
on chromosome 7.

Then God caused Adam to become infected with something in the form of
a retrovirus that transferred this complex speech genetic mutation to
one of the women (Eve) and their descendants were all able to use
complex speech. This had to involve the reproductive cells (ovum and
sperm cells) so it could be passed along to their descendants.

Adam used nouns, as indicated by the passage that says he named all
the animals. Earlier hominids used something in the form of verbs,
adverbs, adjectives, but did not use nouns. They could not convey
their historical knowledge to their younger generations. But, Adam and
Eve's new ability led to their downfall, spiritually. They had it all
figured out on their own and turned away from God as their leader.

[Zev]

"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:4D2EE8...@ix.netcom.com...

You know the Jewish traditions about this,
but maybe it was the 7 Noahides.
If it makes sense, I'll take whatever you say on this.
Remember, if it doesn't take Genesis 26:5 into account,
it does *not* make sense.

>> >> > Now does that mean he walked in open sin? No.
>> >> >
>> >> > You don't have to "keep the law" to not be walking in sin.
>> >>
>> >> Adam and eve could have been placed in a "Garden of Eden"
>> >> without trees which could get them into trouble.
>> >> Noah's generation could have had an environment
>> >> in which sin would be less inviting.
>> >>
>> >> Law, and Reward and Punishment, are an integral part of human life.
>> >> Angels aren't under law, but they also have no opportunity
>> >> to say afterwards "mostly I did the right thing,
>> >> despite all the provocations".
>> >
>> >
>> > Not sure I get the point.
>> >
>> > Do you agree or disagree that you can be "righteoeous" without keeping
>> > a
>> > law?
>>
>> The simple answer is: "disagree".
>
> So if you have a jew doing good deeds, giving to the poor, and living
> morally because he's under the law, and you have a baptist doing the
> same who isn't--the baptist isn't righteous but the jew is?
>
> How does that work?

Our Baptist knows what kind of a life he's supposed to live,
even if he insists it's not "law".
A better question might be about a good person in Sodom.
But I think even in Sodom people knew right from wrong,
otherwise their punishment would be unjust.

This sort of thing seems to be innate, like the
understanding that murder, theft etc... is wrong.
But I see your point, and I admit that Nietzsche, for instance,
wouldn't have praised that kind of behavior.

From the Exodus till the end it's about a thousand years,
and when people are being bad, there's nothing to write about.
Keep that it mind.

> Jesus even pointed this out.
>
> What has changed in the jews to alter this attitude of going their own
> way and refusing repentance, and when did it change?

I think it something to do with your beating your wife.

>> >> > I'd rather be like the people of God before moses who God pleased
>> >> > God
>> >> > w/out law, and whom God seemed a lot more pleased with than the
>> >> > people
>> >> > who accepted the law and then didn't seem to be praised much for
>> >> > effective law-keeping
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > But this notion that you have to be under a law or keep a law to not
>> >> > be
>> >> > in sin, or to be in right standing w/God, is wholly false.
>> >>
>> >> Why Noah's flood, why Sodom destroyed?
>> >> Why was Nineveh almost destroyed?
>> >> Lawlessness, you know it as well as I do.
>>
>> Nothing to say on this?
>

> Did Nineveh go keep the law and gain salvation by keeping that law?

They recognized their error, I presume they improved.

> Is San Francisco righteous?
>
> I agree with you, there was unrighteousness, but where other cities were
> NOT destroyed, it was not because those cities were keeping a law.
>
> They simply lived within some level of moral acceptabilty, but that was
> not based on keeping jewish laws

Obviously.
I never said that Jewish Law applied to non-Jews.
That doesn't even make sense.

These groups have a certain appeal to them.
If I'm not a member, it's because I disagree with them.

>> > And yes, you need atonement, and ues, in the sense of chrost, zev
>>
>> >> It sounded like:
>> >> "Let's you and him fight!".
>> >> Why should I play?
>> >
>> > you should at least be disgusted that someone claiming to be jewish is
>> > going around, claiming jews believe things like this.
>>
>> Well, there you are, my guess was right.
>
> he appreciates your support

Don't tell him that I don't even know
what his opinions are ;-)

[Antares 531]

"Light" as in enlightenment. Are you enlightened when you learn
something you hadn't yet understood?
?

[Linda Lee]

On Jan 13, 1:17 pm, "Ike E 1/1/11" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Baloney; those are your delusions. Jezebel has nothing to do with
anything; there is no "spirit of Jezebel". In the Hebrew Scriptures,
Jezebel was an idol worshipper. In the NT, Jezebel was symbolic of
those condemned for teaching fornication and eating idol sacrifices.

Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because
thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess,
to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat
things sacrificed unto idols.

[Linda Lee]

On Jan 13, 4:05 pm, Mordecai <"mldavis(please dont

That doesn't make sense. That is like saying since God is called "the
Father of lights", that means he is not the father of something/
someone else also.

Said of "the Word": verse 3 "All things were made by him".

Said of "the Light": verse 10 "He was in the world, and the world was
made by him".

[Jude Alexander]

According to the bible, after disobedience Adam & Eve were no long able to
be physically with God in harmony of spirit. He sent them out of the Garden
of Eden so they would not stay in that state for eternity.

>>> If Jesus did not experience separation from God as a human and
>>> death to be the first resurrected then it doesn't make sense. I
>>> could go on more but I don't believe in the story of Adam & Eve
>>> because mankind existed long before that story happening around
>>> 7,000 years ago. I'm only saying from the biblical point of view,
>>> that God is immortal. The MAIN THEME of Judaism was always that
>>> God was one. 3 God, no matter how you explain them, is
>>> incompatible with Judaism. If Jesus was, in fact, the Messiah,
>>> Christianity would HAVE to be compatible with Judaism and it is not
>>> with the concept of trinity.
>>>
>> This trinity concept is hard to grasp. The best way I've found to
>> deal with it is by way of an analogy. Think of a large office main
>> computer with a firewall router (Jesus) connected and available by
>> which we (individual computers) to connect to God. Without this
>> firewall router, none of us individual computers could connect to
>> God. From our perspective, the firewall router (Jesus) and the main
>> computer (God) are one computer system.

I don't believe in the trinity because it is completely incapatible with
Judaism and Christianity, if you believe in Jesus as Messiah, is a
continuation of Judaism. There is only One God, Jesus a son made special
just like Adam was made special and the "holy spirit of God" is the
indwelling power of God. Of course, you'll get other takes different than
mine.

>>> The only way the bible "makes sense" is to recognize that it is the
>>> author's explanation to the best of their understanding what was
>>> meant by certain events.
>>>
>> This whole set of problems seems to be the result of the necessity
>> that the Bible had to be given in a format that those ancient,
>> illiterate people could understand, as they understood parables,
>> allegories, etc. We modern people could understand it had it been
>> given in a more "scientific" format, but this would not have been
>> fair to those ancient people. So, to avoid any favoritism, the Word
>> of God was given us in a format that anyone of any time frame,
>> culture or educational level could/can get enough of it figured out
>> to enable us to understand all that is necessary, then trust in God
>> for all that which we can not understand, entirely.

The bible, both O.T. and N.T. have lots of errors. It is a book written by
authors to according to their best ability and understanding of God and His
relationship to us. That, in and of itself, doesn't necesitate that they
were perfect in their perception.

>> Also, this format leaves each of us with the option of accepting or
>> rejecting the Word of God. That is, no one is whipped into
>> compliance. If all of God's information had been given us in an
>> objectively provable way, no one would have the option of rejecting
>> it.
>>
>> The Adam and Eve story is a typical example. As you pointed out,
>> Early Modern Humans (EMH) existed probably as far back as about
>> 20,000 years ago, but the ones that finally became intellectually
>> developed enough to "know right from wrong - good from evil" didn't
>> come into existence until about 7,000 years ago.

According to most expert, humans have been around 1.4 million years. People
have been in "America" for 30,000-50,000 years.

>> The first one of this new class of EMH was different in that he had
>> the modern multinational variant of the Fox P2 gene on chromosome 7
>> and this genetic mutation enabled him to use very complex speech.
>> This was Adam. But there was not a woman found suitable for a mate
>> for Adam. The women did not yet have this new mutation of the Fox P2
>> gene on chromosome 7.

Actually, we have a common ancestry with apes, our chromosones are exactly
the same except (I think) Chromosone 9 is fused in us and is not in apes.

What people claim and what is truth is always necessarily the same. It can
be shown that Paul believed that Adam & Eve was the first people because he
talks about their immediate decendents knowing God and, even though they had
the knowledge of God (via Adam & Eve is implied or we can infer that) they
turned to worshipping God's creation. The story of Adam & Eve can't
possibly be the truth unless there were already humans and Adam & Eve were
created separate but it is clear that Adam & Eve are supposed to be the
first humans. That's can't possibly be right. One theory is what I said
above, that Adam & Eve were the first Jews while we Gentiles already
existed. When Cain took a wife, it was from us animal Gentiles who didn't
believe in the Creator but were worshippers of nature and the figment of our
imaginations. :) Lots of stories out there and lots of theories.

[Mordecai]

This is the analogy used by the author of John.
In this analogy - he did not explain what the light was.
The only thing he gave was about light and darkness and the failure to
comprehend ... and later the statements by JtB about JC ... and the
comparison between his way (law) and the away of JC.

You might do a lot better if you read the chapter within the paradigm used
by the author.

This means setting aside your existing ideas, throwing out the deliberate
mistranslation by the committee under king Jimmy ... who decided to throw
out the ideas of John for the higher truth of trinity ... and work out the
things they decided were worthless - when they removed his ideas and
replaced them with a mistranslation incompatible with the text.

AFTER you work out what the author actually said, then and only then might
you venture an opinion as to the meaning of light.

> >You have to identify two things - the word and the light. JC is the light -
> >therefore he is not the word. If JC is not the word - then the idea that
> >the word being G_d created the light which is JC does not create trinity.
> >
> >three things need to be done ... if one is to create the idea for trinity.
> >1) Make the word equal to G_d.
> >2) make JC equal the word.
> >3) Make JC NOT the light
> >... and the second was done with a rather ... amusing rendition of verse
> >14 - and the third is done by the absolute silence of the entire christian
> >church to quote JC as the light ... ever.
> >
> >John 1:14 ... the critical verse - is the discussion of the giving of the
> >law to israel.
> >Ergo the greek construct 'took form" which was forced into "made flesh".
> >"Tabernacle" was forced into "dwelt amongst us". "We beheld" which is a
> >reference that all of Israel could testify of the giving of the law ... and
> >the comment by the author that in respect to glory ONLY - the glory of the
> >tabernacle of the law given to Moses was equivalent to the glory of the
> >son, full of grace and truth.
> >
> >One thing is absolute. Whoever wrote John chapter one absolutely and
> >utterly repudiated Trinity in the construction used.
> >it took a concerted and diligent effort of the translators to change one
> >thing into another, and they did it with great skill.
> >
> >John 1:14 is NOT a reference to JC! EXCEPT in the comparison of the glory.

--

[Linda Lee]

On Jan 13, 5:43 pm, Mordecai <"mldavis(please dont

John the Baptist's "way of righteousness" was not "the law" of Moses;
John's "way of righteousness" was baptism, repentance of sins, and
belief in Yahashua` the Messiah as "the Son of God" and "the Lamb of
God".

Joh 1:23 He [John the Baptist] said, I am the voice of one crying in
the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet
Esaias [Isaiah].
...
Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith,
BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD, WHICH TAKETH AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD.
Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is
preferred before me: for he was before me.
Joh 1:31 And I knew him not: but THAT HE SHOULD BE MADE MANIFEST TO
ISRAEL, THEREFORE AM I COME BAPTIZING WITH WATER.
Joh 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending
from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with
water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit
descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with
the Holy Ghost.
Joh 1:34 And I SAW, AND BARE RECORD THAT THIS IS THE SON OF GOD.
Joh 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his
disciples;
Joh 1:36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, BEHOLD THE
LAMB OF GOD!
Joh 1:37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed
Jesus.
Joh 1:38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto
them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being
interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
Joh 1:39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he
dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
Joh 1:40 ONE OF THE TWO WHICH HEARD JOHN SPEAK, AND FOLLOWED HIM, WAS
ANDREW, Simon Peter's brother.
Joh 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him,
WE HAVE FOUND THE MESSIAS, WHICH IS, BEING INTERPRETED, THE CHRIST.

Yahashua` the Messiah said to the chief priests and the elders:
Mat 21:31 "Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots
go into the kingdom of God before you.
Mat 21:32 For JOHN CAME UNTO YOU IN **THE WAY OF RIGHTEOUSNESS,** AND
YE BELIEVED HIM NOT: but the publicans and the harlots believed him:
and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might
believe him.
...
Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures,
The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of
the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our
eyes?
Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken
from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Mat 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but
on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

[Sam Taylor]

no linda, Without Vince, everybody would ignore You.
you 2 need each other to reafirm how smart you think You are.
You smell his Soggy shorts and ignore it.
as you stay next to vince in all you do
without Him, you would be
a very lonely lady.