Do you understand the New Testament

[sojourner]

No. I just hate being lied to. And for most of my life and all the different churches and denominations did not teach the full truth of the Word and basically lied and distorted and twisted it and it ****** me off how pastors and preachers who are "supposed" to know what they preach actually preach heresy. They teach these church doctrines and theologians "exesegisises" and traditions that LIE and distort the truth. But knowing Gods plan i dont hold them at fault .

You should. If they have lied to you, you have a duty to hold them accountable, and you have every right to be pi**** as h***. You also have a duty to be sure that you're not misunderstanding what they'e telling you. Problem is that there are a whole lot of sanctimonious, self-righteous, jack-leg preachers out there who don't know the theology or the proper exegesis of the texts. Your job is to be careful who you listen to. There are also many, many honest people out there who know the Bible and the theology and who are honest enough to say they don't know when they don't.

So tell me, who/which is the real church of christ? This oughta be interesting, yet i know the question will be avoided.

The Church has always had its incarnation in a community of believers, some of whom have been set aside for leadership, by laying on of hands and conferment of the authority of the apostles. Sometimes that community is called the Catholic Church. Sometimes it's called the Episcopal Church. Sometimes it's the Lutherans. Sometimes it's an independent body of believers. The Church is present whenever two or three are gathered in God's Name. The church is identifiable by these bodies of believers, but not identified as those particular bodies (IMO). The Church is much broader than our denominational interpretations and presentations. The Church is the Body of Christ on earth, wherever and in whomever that Body appears.

Yeah i despise stuff that exposes the church lies. NOT. But apparently you do.

I enjoy any scholar whose theology is sound, and whose exegesis is enlightening.

No if i was a christain i would tell my 3 in 1 god to condemn you to hell.

I thought you were a Christian. Even so, why would you want a fellow believer to roast in hell? That's not what God wants...

So tell me where it says that rebuke cant be done in love.

In what way is "I don't care what they think" an expression of love?

And tell me, if we are to imitate Paul because he says he was trying to imitate Christ and both rebuked those who contradict then……
Oh by the way if that’s a threat I am not afraid, but I wont take that way either. Remember the disciples rejoiced because they were found worthy to suffer for Christ.

Neither are you a Martyr.

I thought I posted that earlier in this thread.

I remember reading some opinions with regard to my methodology, but no real analysis...

 

[free spirit]

That being said, I think it's clear that it was the high priest's intent to kill Jesus. But I don't think it was necessary for Jesus to die. (That may stand in disagreement with Matthew, but not, necessarily, with the other gospels.) I think that salvation is possible without death, and I further think that the circumstances of Jesus'death are highly theologically metaphorical. That is, while his crucifixion is almost certainly an historical fact, the reasons, significance, and design are not particularly fact.

Romans 5: 17 to 19, is very clear about the reversal of Adam's action for we read. "For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one the many will be made righteous."
Jesus mentioned his impending death throughout the gospel, for while he lived there was the remote possibility that he would sin, so he had to die sinless to fulfill the whale law, and present to God a perfect sacrifice of a human soul. Therefore Adam sinned and put enmity between men and God, And Jesus (a type of Adam reconciled humanity to God)

However, had Jesus not been willing to cash bodily a check that he wrote with his mouth -- had he run away, or had he recanted before the Sanhedrin, or had angels come to whisk him down off the cross, he would have lost a great deal of credibility. sometimes a sacrifice has to be made -- not because salvation couldn't otherwise be effected, but as a demonstration that you're willing to go to the mat for your principles. Theologically, Jesus shows here that not even death can silence the message of reconciliation.

Jesus credibility is not an issue here, but God's plan for our redemption is and issue.

Second, let's look at the creation narratives, and draw some comparisons to the Passion. What Adam did wasn't strictly a disobedience to God's commandment. What Adam did was to attempt to cross the line between humanity and Divinity -- to become "like God -- knowing good and evil." The same thing happened to the people on the plain of Shinar.

We read in Genesis 2: 16 - 17; "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die."
To me it looks like Adam did disobeyed God's commandment.

Because Adam (all humanity) attempts to blur that distinction, we suffer the pain of death. What Jesus did was not so much "take away that sin," as it was a simple reversal. Humans try to become God, and end up in sin. It took God becoming human to reconcile us to God, by "becoming sin" for us. Did Jesus have to die in order to do that? I think that, in order for Jesus to be fully human, yes, he would also have to be fully mortal. But a crucifixion? No. The significance isn't some kind of spiritual magic. It's a metaphor. The one sacrifice of God for the sin of the world, replaces the many animal sacrifices made for the same purpose. It was the early Xians' way of validating the new Covenant.

Jesus (God) became flesh therefore he became sin, because sin and flesh is one and the same. Yes the crucifixion was not necessary but to demonstrate is endurance against sin he chose a slow death; for we read in Isaiah 53: 10 - 11; "But the Lord was pleased to crush him, putting him to grief; if he would render himself as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring, he will prolong his days, and the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in his hand. as a result of the anguish of his soul, he will see it and be satisfied; by his knowledge the righteous one my servant, will justify the many as he will bear their iniquities."

How did Jesus "fulfill" the Law? By loving and by being an example of love.[/

quote]
No definitively not, because we are the ones that have to do that; he took the heavy burden to make our burden light.

 

[free spirit]

I humbly suggest that anyone trying to prove me wrong about anything that I make up about the Bible would have quite a difficult time.

And they would have to use my intepretative methods, that I have unquestionably mastered.

Good luck, chumps.

This is a pearl of wisdom of the character of humanity.:clap

 

[free spirit]

I started to answer this personally but here is how a friend answered someone about the puppet thing

Well The scripture says that we are gods, for in Genesis 3; 22, we read; "Then the Lord God said, " Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever."
Also in John 10: 33 to 35, we read; "the Jews answered him, "For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make yourself out to be God." Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your law, 'I said you are Gods?' "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken,) do you say of him, whom the father sanctified and sent into the world, you are blaspheming, because I said, 'I am the son of God?"
Also in Matthew 22: 37 to 40, there is an hidden truth can you spot that truth; for we read "And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets."

Have you read post 326 yet?

 

[sojourner]

Romans 5: 17 to 19, is very clear about the reversal of Adam's action for we read. "For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one the many will be made righteous."
Jesus mentioned his impending death throughout the gospel, for while he lived there was the remote possibility that he would sin, so he had to die sinless to fulfill the whale law, and present to God a perfect sacrifice of a human soul. Therefore Adam sinned and put enmity between men and God, And Jesus (a type of Adam reconciled humanity to God)

That's your theory, and one which I do not share.

Jesus credibility is not an issue here, but God's plan for our redemption is and issue.

You're wrong. Jesus' cedibility would have been at issue, both for his early followers, and for the community out of which more believers would come.
God's plan did not include crucifixion.

We read in Genesis 2: 16 - 17; "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die."
To me it looks like Adam did disobeyed God's commandment.

Yes, but the disobedience itself was not the issue. The issue was that Adam tried to cross a line that could not be crossed.

for we read in Isaiah 53: 10 - 11; "But the Lord was pleased to crush him, putting him to grief; if he would render himself as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring, he will prolong his days, and the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in his hand. as a result of the anguish of his soul, he will see it and be satisfied; by his knowledge the righteous one my servant, will justify the many as he will bear their iniquities."

Isaiah has nothing to do with Jesus, and it shouldn't be read that way.

 

[free spirit]

That's your theory, and one which I do not share.

You're wrong. Jesus' cedibility would have been at issue, both for his early followers, and for the community out of which more believers would come.
God's plan did not include crucifixion.

Yes, but the disobedience itself was not the issue. The issue was that Adam tried to cross a line that could not be crossed.

Isaiah has nothing to do with Jesus, and it shouldn't be read that way.

You do not seem to agree with anything, are you certain that you are a Christian?
So fill me in, what do you believe? in plain language please.

 

[emiliano]

AK4,
It is that you seem to have the time line of resurrection-> judgment wrong, now what make you think that those that see the Lord coming and bow their knees and recognize Jesus the son of man as Lord are those that died in their sins? As I told you God’s good pleasure is that we received Jesus the eon that you write about is a Greek term and the Nazarenes did not speak that language. So your doctrines lack scriptural support and Paul was on the wrong team at the time of the Gospels none the less he wrote about this in Romans Chapter 2.
You asked me: Tell me, when these people are judged what happens to them and after what happens to them---then what? I refer you back to the parable in Mathew chapter 25.

Mat 25:41
"Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:
Mat 25:46
And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." ​

As for the righteous we have that they did righteousness, good works and get the reward they actually receive their Savior and did as commanded, they did Gods good pleasure, I don’t see the godless in the this group that the Apostle preached in Phl 2:13

Mat 25:32
All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides [his] sheep from the goats.​

I place this at a time after the Judgment and those ones worshiping as those in the right side those that are blessed of God to inherit the Kingdom.

Mat 25:34
Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:​

You wrote: Remember everlasting, eternal, eternity is not scriptural.
What!

Gen 9:16
The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that [is] on the earth."
Mat 12:41
The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas [is] here.
Rom 2:5
But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, ​

 

[AK4]

Cross-contextual is not the same thing as contextual. The practice of Biblical writers borrowing texts, or citing texts is cogent to a theological point they want to make. But when exegeting a text, we understand that it's borrowed, and we seek to find out, not only what the borrowed passage originally meant in its own context, but what the editor had in mind for his purposes. Then we can correctly ascertain the correct cross-contextual meaning.

You need to remember that you're neither a Biblical writer nor a theologian. You're not writing text for others to read scripturally. You're reading what others have written. Therefore, what you're doing and what they're doing are two different things.

You're dead wrong here, and that's why you disagree with so many here. Bible means "library" -- or, "a collection of books." They are the collection of texts that we hold as sacred. In fact, the Jews didn't have a book. They had separate scrolls.

Yes. It's a collection of the whole Tradition -- a collection of separate thoughts of different individuals, editing stories that they've heard through the centuries. Sometimes the same story gets told in different books, with slightly different circumstances and different characters -- sort of like urban legend.

Wow. No wonder why you cant answer that question. If you cant see that the Word of God is ONE, then youll NEVER understand it.

Look how he served his God. Would you die on a cross to expiate the sin of the world?

If God the Father had created me as Jesus, would not of have had a choice. But you wouldnt understand that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You do not seem to agree with anything, are you certain that you are a Christian?
So fill me in, what do you believe? in plain language please.

I dunno - I'd have to use Greek poetry to express my beliefs, and that would be difficult for the both of us.

 

[Oberon]

I dunno - I'd have to use Greek poetry to express my beliefs, and that would be difficult for the both of us.

Interesting. I use interpretive dance.

 

[sojourner]

You do not seem to agree with anything, are you certain that you are a Christian?
So fill me in, what do you believe? in plain language please.

Are you certain that you're in any way qualified, by virtue of information, authroity, or insight, to question my faith? I don't think I've ever raised that question when someone disagrees with me. I might say that your theology is skewed, or that your scholarship is weak, or that your arguments cannot be validated with any level of certainty. But I have never questioned whether someone was "really a Christian."

Are you certain you know that one's Christianity is not determined by what one believes, but by whom one follows?

You guys are usually the ones who scream the loudest that "It's not about theology, it's about faith."
Yet, when someone believes differently from you, suddenly they're "not Christian," as if it really is about theology.

I'm not sure I could tell you what I beleive, and satisfy you according to your criteria. Or even that I should tell you what I believe, for that matter.

 

[sojourner]

Wow. No wonder why you cant answer that question. If you cant see that the Word of God is ONE, then youll NEVER understand it.

Wow. No wonder why you're so far off-base. If you can't see that the Bible is a collection of separate writings, all of which have to do with our salvation-history, then you'll NEVER understand it.
You'll just continue to come up with your secret-squirrel Bible-codes and conspiracy theories about how we're really controlled by a God who tricks us into thinking we have free will. Why don't you write a book, instead of wasting time posting here? They could sell it right next to the "Left Behind" series in the fantasy section.

 

[sojourner]

If God the Father had created me as Jesus, would not of have had a choice. But you wouldnt understand that.

"A self-sacrifice of love is based upon coersion, not selfless compassion."
Other "true" quotations:
"Hukd on fonix wirkt fir mee."
"The sound barrier will never be broken."
"If man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings."

 

[AK4]

Well The scripture says that we are gods, for in Genesis 3; 22, we read; "Then the Lord God said, " Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever."
Also in John 10: 33 to 35, we read; "the Jews answered him, "For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make yourself out to be God." Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your law, 'I said you are Gods?' "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken,) do you say of him, whom the father sanctified and sent into the world, you are blaspheming, because I said, 'I am the son of God?"
Also in Matthew 22: 37 to 40, there is an hidden truth can you spot that truth; for we read "And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets."

Have you read post 326 yet?

There is a danger in subtracting and adding to the Word, but for what you did here doesnt seem to be that bad since we are to rightly divide. God inspired those verses to be put there and for many it has become a snare and a trap so they will be decieved by the devil to believe false doctrines.

9 (What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

Now we know the two false doctrines (immortal soul and hell) people use this verse as support of what they believe. But when people actually believe the scriptures when Jesus says He was dead, as in dead dead, they should know that when Paul says what he says in verse 9 and 10 that this means He descended from heaven down to earth, to become human. Not that He descended to some fabled hell where His spirit only had a cadaver body.

Think about it like this....hell is not real so if you take out that false teaching, where could Jesus descend to? Earth. You take out the false doctrine of immortal soul and believe the scriptures about what happens to someone when their dead ("for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. (EC 9:10) and those two verse 9 and 10 are appropriate.

Do you see it?

Jesus (God) became flesh therefore he became sin, because sin and flesh is one and the same.

Whoa there now. Christ was not sin. Yes the scripture says it this way and it is that way in the greek BUT the meaning to it is He became a sin offering. Fifty-four times in the book of Leviticus alone, we see the words ‘sin’ all by itself s-i-n, sin translated sin offering. Guess what? The word offering is never found in italics in those places, because it is a part of the translation, it means ‘sin offering.’ The word offering is understood. Christ is our Passover, our sin offering. He is not sin.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You do not seem to agree with anything, are you certain that you are a Christian?
So fill me in, what do you believe? in plain language please.

Here you go - http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/christianity/82099-why-angellous-not-christian.html#post1585684

 

[AK4]

Wow. No wonder why you're so far off-base. If you can't see that the Bible is a collection of separate writings, all of which have to do with our salvation-history, then you'll NEVER understand it.
You'll just continue to come up with your secret-squirrel Bible-codes and conspiracy theories about how we're really controlled by a God who tricks us into thinking we have free will. Why don't you write a book, instead of wasting time posting here? They could sell it right next to the "Left Behind" series in the fantasy section.

I guess it would seem like "secret-squirrel Bible-codes" to the carnal minded. Youre a pastor right? The same type of pastor/minister that taught me when i was growing up and you all are the same. And you all fulfill prophecy to a tee

Mr 13:6 - For many shall come in my name, saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many.
2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their worksTherefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
I pray for the people in your congo to wake up.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The same type of pastor/minister that taught me when i was growing up and you all are the same...

I pray for the people in your congo to wake up.

And you can stay thin by feeding on your own bile.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Look at this! It's the "lost" people that are "saved."


Christianity has accomplished nothing.

 

[AK4]

"A self-sacrifice of love is based upon coersion, not selfless compassion."
Other "true" quotations:
"Hukd on fonix wirkt fir mee."
"The sound barrier will never be broken."
"If man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings."

Your trust in man over God is incredible. And your a pastor

Was Jesus coerced into sacrificing Himself? No. What does He say "for this reason I have come" and "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Your "book knowledge" has harmed you and not helped. I am not attacking you. Everything you say is just contradictory to the Word. You indeed are a christain. :sorry1:

 

[AK4]

And you can stay thin by feeding on your own bile.

Im rubber your glue. what you say bounces off of me and sticks you.