What Your Church Won't Tell You by Da...

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30788 Apr 3, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Thank you. I'm not buying the idea that the Bible can be used to fully explain the definition or meaning of the word fulfilled as written in the Bible and attributed to Jesus. Such would be circular reasoning saying that the Bible in and of itself explains itself which it cannot.
Actually, it does. I explained this once before. And I pray you understand that even though all that's written, that we call "The Holy Bible," shares one case-binding, the Holy Bible, itself, is a collection of 66 separate literary works written over a period of 1,500 to 1,600 years-- by 36+ authors! As I believe, the fact that we even have a method that many derogatorily call "circular reasoning" is most impressive considering.
WasteWater wrote:
Standing back and reflecting upon the passage where Jesus reads Isaiah, rolls up the scroll and speaks of the Law of the Prophets as being fulfilled simply means "made whole" again.
English: fulfill
Greek transliteration: pleroo
Definition: to make full, to complete, to accomplish
WasteWater wrote:
If we read the synoptic Gospels we are told what the actual Law is, the Law which never changes. It is a law of compassion and love with a mystical view of God rather than the laws and statutes written and imposed by man upon other men.
Actually and as I explained, Israel attributed righteousness to temple offerings such as sacrifices and oblations rather than actual righteous thoughts, actions, reactions, and speech. And if they did observe the moral law, they were more than satisfied observing the literal letter of the law, either neglecting, or totally misunderstanding, the spiritual aspects of it. In other words, they would refrain from committing the literal act of adultery, but they were excessively inflamed with lust toward their neighbor's wives. And it was for this very reason that our anointed Savior focused, more than anything else, on the spiritual aspects of the moral law.
WasteWater wrote:
Since God of the Hebrew Scripture is said to have made covenants, then Jesus can make no such covenant unless the Holy Trinity is true, which would roll Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father (God) into a single being.
Not exactly. As Father is the proprietor of the first, old covenant, Father is the proprietor of the second, new covenant, too. In the case of sacrifice, the blood of animals was required to establish the old covenant. The blood of our anointed Savior was required to establish the new. And this is why our anointed Savior declared, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me (John 14:6)." Clearly, what our anointed Savior accomplished was not to draw us to him, but to Father, as said by him.
WasteWater wrote:
I see your definition as using the word fulfill as in fulfilling a prophesy or messianic legacy. The passage does read that way as written and translated.
Not entirely.

Luke 24:24
And [Yahowshua] said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in...

1) the law of Moses, and

2) in the prophets, and

3) in the psalms, concerning me.
WasteWater wrote:
It is intellectually dishonest as Jesus could manipulate circumstances to make it so.
Not exactly. There are, to date, no less than 44 prophecies that were fulfilled by our anointed Savior. And accordingly, there are 18 prophecies that are impossible for him to have orchestrated, regardless.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30789 Apr 3, 2013
Hell Sucks wrote:
Well, I am of no denomination or religion either save that of the Bible and the Shepherd.
I know of many that claim to believe in "God". They say they believe in Jesus Christ. But, they still observe, if not all the commandments, all the traditions held dear by Christendom, like Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, so forth and so on. I can't help but think that they deny affiliation with any denomination or religion only because they don't assemble with any of them. Their observances prove otherwise, though.
Hell Sucks wrote:
I don't know who is chosen or saved or filled with His Spirit. I've stated that endlessly.
Perhaps, then, you shouldn't be so quick to reject assertions that aren't, at least, similar to what you've been taught.
Hell Sucks wrote:
Why the Christian Forum sickens me is the ones that state who is and isn't a "real" Christian. They wouldn't know "real" if it bit them in the tail feathers.
Well, I believe that our posts reflect our person. There are some that I can say, without regret or doubt, that are as "Christian" as Pontius Pilate was.
Hell Sucks wrote:
You have stated endlessly that the power of the Holy Spirit was only temporary and given to the Apostles and ended shortly after.
I said that I believe that that particular function of the Holy Spirit came to end sometime during the first century. "..prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away," wrote Paul.
Hell Sucks wrote:
That there is no such thing as the act of the Spirit coming to us at a designated time when we are Born Again.
Not exactly. I never said there's no such thing. I've just not witnessed such a thing. With an estimated 2.6-billion believers in this world, it's estimated that a little more than 2-million of them are affiliated with the "Born-Again" denomination. This particular denomination believes in being empowered by the Holy Spirit. On top of that, there's an estimated 130-million affiliated with the "Pentecostal" denomination. This is another denomination that believes in being empowered by the Holy Spirit. That's 132-million believers that believe in the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. And yet, according to recent statistics, almost 1-million people, globally, suffer from hunger and malnutrition. So much for bread and fish, huh?
Hell Sucks wrote:
I only repeat what you state as I furnished proof the last time you denied it.
~sigh~
Hell Sucks wrote:
Titus 3:
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Not by works - In this important passage the apostle presents us with a delightful view of our redemption. Herein we have, The cause of it; not our works or righteousness, but the kindness and love of God our Saviour. The effects; which are, Justification; being justified, pardoned and accepted through the alone merits of Christ, not from any desert in us, but according to his own mercy, by his grace, his free, unmerited goodness. Sanctification, expressed by the laver of regeneration,(that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the outward sign,) and the renewal of the Holy Ghost; which purifies the soul, as water cleanses the body, and renews it in the whole image of God. The consummation of all; - that we might become heirs of eternal life, and live now in the joyful hope of it.~ http://wes.biblecommenter.com/titus/3.htm
I'll always love you whether we agree on everything of not, you are my brother!!
;*:*;
If we were righteous beforehand, then we would have never have needed a savior. That's simple. Saved from what, though? We still die, don't we? Who, then, is saved when all's said and done?

James 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30790 Apr 3, 2013
CORRECTION: And yet, according to recent statistics, almost 1-BILLION (not million) people, globally, suffer from hunger and malnutrition. So much for bread and fish, huh?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30791 Apr 4, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, it does. I explained this once before. And I pray you understand that even though all that's written, that we call "The Holy Bible," shares one case-binding, the Holy Bible, itself, is a collection of 66 separate literary works written over a period of 1,500 to 1,600 years-- by 36+ authors! As I believe, the fact that we even have a method that many derogatorily call "circular reasoning" is most impressive considering.
<quoted text>English: fulfill
Greek transliteration: pleroo
Definition: to make full, to complete, to accomplish
<quoted text>Actually and as I explained, Israel attributed righteousness to temple offerings such as sacrifices and oblations rather than actual righteous thoughts, actions, reactions, and speech. And if they did observe the moral law, they were more than satisfied observing the literal letter of the law, either neglecting, or totally misunderstanding, the spiritual aspects of it. In other words, they would refrain from committing the literal act of adultery, but they were excessively inflamed with lust toward their neighbor's wives. And it was for this very reason that our anointed Savior focused, more than anything else, on the spiritual aspects of the moral law.
<quoted text>Not exactly. As Father is the proprietor of the first, old covenant, Father is the proprietor of the second, new covenant, too. In the case of sacrifice, the blood of animals was required to establish the old covenant. The blood of our anointed Savior was required to establish the new. And this is why our anointed Savior declared, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me (John 14:6)." Clearly, what our anointed Savior accomplished was not to draw us to him, but to Father, as said by him.
<quoted text>Not entirely.

Luke 24:24
And [Yahowshua] said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in...
1) the law of Moses, and
2) in the prophets, and
3) in the psalms, concerning me.
<quoted text>Not exactly. There are, to date, no less than 44 prophecies that were fulfilled by our anointed Savior. And accordingly, there are 18 prophecies that are impossible for him to have orchestrated, regardless.
Agree.

The Gospel text says something to the effect that Moses gave them that law....

If Jesus disregards any part of the Law of Moses, then he disregards The Law of Moses as being from God.

In the Gospels, Jesus also claims to change nothing of the law. Even one dot or dash of the Scribes pen.

There is only one logical conclusion that Jesus is referring too the Ten Commandments, therefore, the fact that he preaches on adultery within the Law of Moses proves my point does it not?

Fulfill as used by Jesus meant making the Law whole again by disregarding all the man made stuff which caused the Law to be nothing more than a burden.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30792 Apr 4, 2013
I also accept fulfill as a prophetic claim. OTOH manipulating the events to fulfill Scripture means that prophesy is literally unproven. If I were to predict that I will crash my car into a tree on a particular day and do so, was that prophetic or did I purposely do it? In the Gospels, Jesus states that he must fulfill what is written.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30793 Apr 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Agree.

The Gospel text says something to the effect that Moses gave them that law....

If Jesus disregards any part of the Law of Moses, then he disregards The Law of Moses as being from God.

In the Gospels, Jesus also claims to change nothing of the law. Even one dot or dash of the Scribes pen.

There is only one logical conclusion that Jesus is referring too the Ten Commandments, therefore, the fact that he preaches on adultery within the Law of Moses proves my point does it not?

Fulfill as used by Jesus meant making the Law whole again by disregarding all the man made stuff which caused the Law to be nothing more than a burden.
Your's is a common misconception. Consider the following, please and if you will.
__________

Matthew 19:16-19
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said,

(Exodus 20:13) Thou shalt do no murder,

(Exodus 20:14) Thou shalt not commit adultery,

(Exodus 20:15) Thou shalt not steal,

(Exodus 20:16) Thou shalt not bear false witness,

(Exodus 20:12) Honour thy father and thy mother: and,

(Leviticus 19:18) Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
__________

Matthew 22:36-40
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him,

(Deuteronomy 6:5) Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it,

(Leviticus 19:18) Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
__________

I doubt you missed it, but notice that with what was taught by our anointed Savior during both accounts, he included precepts that aren't in what we call the "Ten Commandments." This proves, if anything, that the moral law is not confined to just the commandments of Exodus 20. Those at Exodus 20 are the precepts in which all the moral law derives.
WasteWater wrote:
I also accept fulfill as a prophetic claim.
And it is, as I've shown you. It was prophesied that certain laws would become fulfilled in and by our anointed Savior. And they were. If they weren't, then circumcision would still be a most necessary requirement in order to enter into "God's" covenant of blood. If they weren't, then we'd still be subject to the penalty of death as prescribed in the law given to Moses.
WasteWater wrote:
OTOH manipulating the events to fulfill Scripture means that prophesy is literally unproven. If I were to predict that I will crash my car into a tree on a particular day and do so, was that prophetic or did I purposely do it? In the Gospels, Jesus states that he must fulfill what is written.
The difference is that you made the prediction, yourself. It wasn't foretold thousands of years prior.

And if you were given every imagined description detailing your accident, including how much and how long you'll suffer before you died, could you continue?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30794 Apr 4, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Your's is a common misconception. Consider the following, please and if you will.
__________
Matthew 19:16-19
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said,
(Exodus 20:13) Thou shalt do no murder,
(Exodus 20:14) Thou shalt not commit adultery,
(Exodus 20:15) Thou shalt not steal,
(Exodus 20:16) Thou shalt not bear false witness,
(Exodus 20:12) Honour thy father and thy mother: and,
(Leviticus 19:18) Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
__________
Matthew 22:36-40
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him,
(Deuteronomy 6:5) Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it,
(Leviticus 19:18) Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
__________
I doubt you missed it, but notice that with what was taught by our anointed Savior during both accounts, he included precepts that aren't in what we call the "Ten Commandments." This proves, if anything, that the moral law is not confined to just the commandments of Exodus 20. Those at Exodus 20 are the precepts in which all the moral law derives.
<quoted text>And it is, as I've shown you. It was prophesied that certain laws would become fulfilled in and by our anointed Savior. And they were. If they weren't, then circumcision would still be a most necessary requirement in order to enter into "God's" covenant of blood. If they weren't, then we'd still be subject to the penalty of death as prescribed in the law given to Moses.
<quoted text>The difference is that you made the prediction, yourself. It wasn't foretold thousands of years prior.
And if you were given every imagined description detailing your accident, including how much and how long you'll suffer before you died, could you continue?
So you have proven that some parts of the Law of Moses was preached by Jesus but other parts ignored.

Matthew 15:8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”
10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said,“Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

Yet in Luke Jesus says 16:16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it. 17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

So what was the Law of the Prophets? Is Jesus a liar?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30795 Apr 4, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Your's is a common misconception. Consider the following, please and if you will.
__________
Matthew 19:16-19
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said,
(Exodus 20:13) Thou shalt do no murder,
(Exodus 20:14) Thou shalt not commit adultery,
(Exodus 20:15) Thou shalt not steal,
(Exodus 20:16) Thou shalt not bear false witness,
(Exodus 20:12) Honour thy father and thy mother: and,
(Leviticus 19:18) Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
__________
Matthew 22:36-40
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him,
(Deuteronomy 6:5) Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it,
(Leviticus 19:18) Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
__________
I doubt you missed it, but notice that with what was taught by our anointed Savior during both accounts, he included precepts that aren't in what we call the "Ten Commandments." This proves, if anything, that the moral law is not confined to just the commandments of Exodus 20. Those at Exodus 20 are the precepts in which all the moral law derives.
<quoted text>And it is, as I've shown you. It was prophesied that certain laws would become fulfilled in and by our anointed Savior. And they were. If they weren't, then circumcision would still be a most necessary requirement in order to enter into "God's" covenant of blood. If they weren't, then we'd still be subject to the penalty of death as prescribed in the law given to Moses.
<quoted text>The difference is that you made the prediction, yourself. It wasn't foretold thousands of years prior.
And if you were given every imagined description detailing your accident, including how much and how long you'll suffer before you died, could you continue?
The time differential makes no difference. Jesus did everything he could to make sure he would fulfill what had been written. Jesus could have done otherwise and what was written would not have come to pass. This hardly meets a strict definition of prophesy.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#30796 Apr 4, 2013
*taps the monitor*

Gary, are you in there? You remind me of another guy who was on Topix a couple of yrs ago - during the days/weeks/months before 5-21-2011 came and went. Probably a Campbellite. He was always making ramblings he knows what is going on, but all of a sudden, BAMMM!!- he disappears off the forums never to be heard from again, until you showed up.

Hmmmmm....I wonder.....

:o)

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#30797 Apr 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The time differential makes no difference. Jesus did everything he could to make sure he would fulfill what had been written. Jesus could have done otherwise and what was written would not have come to pass. This hardly meets a strict definition of prophesy.
They do like to make it sound glamorous.

In truth - it was actually a very simple way of teaching - showing others that the Spirit transcends, and in some way, can come back to this plane of existence we are in.

But as for prophecy? Nope. Reading something and then doing what it says is not fulfilling, but just doing. Anyone can do it.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30799 Apr 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
So you have proven that some parts of the Law of Moses was preached by Jesus but other parts ignored.
And how, if you don't mind my asking, did I prove that?!

John 21:25 says, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

We read of what our anointed Savior was most concerned with, that being the spiritual famine.
WasteWater wrote:
Matthew 15:8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”
10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said,“Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”
The above is strictly in regards to eating without washing hands, as this was the subject-matter. What this was not about was our anointed Savior teaching anyone to disregard the dietary law. Mark 7:2 says, "And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault."
WasteWater wrote:
Yet in Luke Jesus says 16:16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it. 17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

So what was the Law of the Prophets? Is Jesus a liar?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. Nevertheless...

What our anointed Savior was saying was that up until John, Israel was subject to the law and the writings of the prophets by the teachings of men that understood neither, the law, or the prophecies. But, now, the intention and desired result of the Torah and Tanakh were finally being explained to Israel, fully.
WasteWater wrote:
The time differential makes no difference. Jesus did everything he could to make sure he would fulfill what had been written. Jesus could have done otherwise and what was written would not have come to pass. This hardly meets a strict definition of prophesy.
We're starting to go in circles now. I've already stated that there are, to date, no less than 44 prophecies that were fulfilled by our anointed Savior. And of these 44, there are 18 prophecies that are virtually impossible for him to have orchestrated, himself. Now, you can believe what you want with the 28 that he could have fulfilled by means of personal manipulation, but it'll make no difference regarding the other 18.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30800 Apr 4, 2013
CORRECTION: Now, you can believe what you want with the 26 that he could have fulfilled by means of personal manipulation, but it'll make no difference regarding the other 18.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30802 Apr 4, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
They do like to make it sound glamorous.
What "they" would you be associating me with?
NASL wrote:
In truth - it was actually a very simple way of teaching - showing others that the Spirit transcends, and in some way, can come back to this plane of existence we are in. But as for prophecy? Nope. Reading something and then doing what it says is not fulfilling, but just doing. Anyone can do it.
Which is why I mentioned the 18 prophecies that could not have been fulfilled by our anointed Savior, himself, by manipulation.

And technically, a person can fulfill a prophecy simply by performing it unto completion. A prediction, though, is another issue altogether.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30803 Apr 4, 2013
NASL wrote:
`
And technically, a person can fulfill a prophecy simply by performing it unto completion. A prediction, though, is another issue altogether.

In the case of our anointed Savior, it was never about fulfilling just one, or a few, prophecies. It was about fulfilling all the prophecies that involved Mashiyach.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30804 Apr 4, 2013
Dr Shrink wrote:
i
That's as far as I read up to when I lost interest.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30805 Apr 4, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
They do like to make it sound glamorous.
In truth - it was actually a very simple way of teaching - showing others that the Spirit transcends, and in some way, can come back to this plane of existence we are in.
But as for prophecy? Nope. Reading something and then doing what it says is not fulfilling, but just doing. Anyone can do it.
I agree. I believe Jesus was showing a way or path to spiritual enlightenment.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30806 Apr 4, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>And technically, a person can fulfill a prophecy simply by performing it unto completion. A prediction, though, is another issue altogether.
In the case of our anointed Savior, it was never about fulfilling just one, or a few, prophecies. It was about fulfilling all the prophecies that involved Mashiyach.
Many people disagree and say he failed in doing so. I am not really interested one way or the other. IMHO he was on an entirely different mission.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30807 Apr 4, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>And how, if you don't mind my asking, did I prove that?!
John 21:25 says, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
We read of what our anointed Savior was most concerned with, that being the spiritual famine.
<quoted text>The above is strictly in regards to eating without washing hands, as this was the subject-matter. What this was not about was our anointed Savior teaching anyone to disregard the dietary law. Mark 7:2 says, "And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault."
<quoted text>I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. Nevertheless...
What our anointed Savior was saying was that up until John, Israel was subject to the law and the writings of the prophets by the teachings of men that understood neither, the law, or the prophecies. But, now, the intention and desired result of the Torah and Tanakh were finally being explained to Israel, fully.
<quoted text>We're starting to go in circles now. I've already stated that there are, to date, no less than 44 prophecies that were fulfilled by our anointed Savior. And of these 44, there are 18 prophecies that are virtually impossible for him to have orchestrated, himself. Now, you can believe what you want with the 28 that he could have fulfilled by means of personal manipulation, but it'll make no difference regarding the other 18.
I disagree. Jesus was saying that many things had been written into the Law which were simply there to serve the leaders. Such laws were burdensome and had nothing to do with the real Law of the Prophets which was eternal, everlasting and never changing. To say that a new covenant was established negating such laws is making Jesus a liar. I doubt Jesus lied. Therefore I must reject the notion of a new covenant and go with more logical choice that certain Law and Statutes in the Law of Moses had nothing to do with the Law Jesus spoke of as never changing and everlasting.

“THE HEAT IS ON”

Since: Apr 12

Satan IS in "The Church"

#30808 Apr 5, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
*taps the monitor*
Gary, are you in there? You remind me of another guy who was on Topix a couple of yrs ago - during the days/weeks/months before 5-21-2011 came and went. Probably a Campbellite. He was always making ramblings he knows what is going on, but all of a sudden, BAMMM!!- he disappears off the forums never to be heard from again, until you showed up.
Hmmmmm....I wonder.....
:o)
Who are you referring to that disappeared off the forums? I'm disappointed Gary is not continuing to post too. I was hoping to get to have exchanges once again.

;*:*;

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30809 Apr 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Many people disagree and say he failed in doing so. I am not really interested one way or the other. IMHO he was on an entirely different mission.
True, many say that. But, there are two main reasons as to why they believe he failed.

The first is because the priesthood didn't believe they needed a Messiah for atonement and reconciliation. Again, they believed they were already in good-standings with Father, because they had the sacrifices and oblations that they erroneously believed was their righteousness. By the time of our anointed Savior's ministry, the priesthood believed that they were already prepared to accept the promised kingdom and this was a main concern. They believed that above all things, their being descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, guaranteed them admittance. This is why they were repeatedly warned of their attitude toward these matters. And this brings us to the second issue.

Because the priesthood believed they were already prepared for the promised kingdom, they expected their Messiah to return to put into subjection all the nations, especially the Roman Empire. The priesthood expected a warrior-king, like David was, mainly because the prophecies declared that their Messiah would come to sit on David's throne. They erroneously applied the prophecies to David himself and not the authority given him. So, when our anointed Savior came and taught peace and humility, they rejected him. The last thing they wanted to hear was a Messiah instructing them to turn the other cheek and to love their enemies.
WasteWater wrote:
I disagree. Jesus was saying that many things had been written into the Law which were simply there to serve the leaders. Such laws were burdensome and had nothing to do with the real Law of the Prophets which was eternal, everlasting and never changing.
I agree, but not entirely.

Remember, you stated that I had proved that our anointed Savior taught on some laws, but ignored others. Then, you quoted the portion where he taught that it's not that which enters into man that defiles man, but that which comes out. In my experiences, people usually quote that particular teaching in an attempt to prove that our anointed Savior destroyed the dietary law, but this is furthest from the truth. I attempted to prove to you that the issue was not in regards to eating unclean animals, but eating with unwashen hands, as it's written. Other than that, I do agree, because eating with unwashen hands, considered by the priesthood an act that causes one to become defiled, was a tradition. And our anointed Savior did oppose the traditions. As you said, these traditions were not only burdensome, but considered even greater than the actual law to a degree and by the priesthood. And why? Well, like you stated, they served the priesthood. The more so-called "laws" included that deemed men "defiled" meant more sacrifices, oblations, and offerings, to the temple and synagogues.
WasteWater wrote:
To say that a new covenant was established negating such laws is making Jesus a liar. I doubt Jesus lied. Therefore I must reject the notion of a new covenant and go with more logical choice that certain Law and Statutes in the Law of Moses had nothing to do with the Law Jesus spoke of as never changing and everlasting.
You're disregarding the stipulations of the first covenant, or any covenant for that matter, my friend. Covenants are always between two (or more) parties. And for the covenant to remain valid, both parties must fulfill the requirements. Well, in the case of the first, Israel (repeatedly) broke the new covenant while grossly taking for granted the grace clause. Because of this, the first became void. In this, a new covenant was made with the same desired results, but with somewhat different requirements. This, our anointed Savior did not do on his own.

Jeremiah 31:31
..Yahoweh.. will make a new covenant with.. Israel, and with.. Judah.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min Darwins Stepchild 865,230
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 5 min RiccardoFire 6,505
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 14 min onemale 272,422
I want a sugar daddy! (May '12) 15 min kkk 80
Pro Lifers Are The Same As liberals 19 min RiccardoFire 23
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 38 min WasteWater 6,312
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 43 min MUQ2 40,890
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 58 min June VanDerMark 599,890
The Christian Atheist debate 4 hr HipGnosis 2,015
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 12 hr Frannie 44
More from around the web