Do you understand the New Testament

[AK4]

I am only pointing out to you that they were never surrounded by Roman Soldiers.
A fact that you have missed like many churches before you. And if you have missed such a little thing, what else is there that you have missed?


The more important thing really is that we all are “accountable” for the crucifixion. It matters not who really did it. But the jews are the ones who said “let His death be on our heads and our childrens” paraphrased. Now to show you that “I” did not folly with mentioning Roman soldiers I will show you again why the importance of a concordance is necessary and once again you are relying too much on one translation

John 18:18 And the servants and officers (grk: hyperetes) stood there (5715), who had made (5761) a fire of coals; for it was (5713) cold: and they warmed themselves (5711): and Peter stood * (5713) (5761) with them, and warmed himself (5734).

hypēretēs

1. servant
   1. an underrower, subordinate rower
   2. any one who serves with hands: a servant
      1. in the NT of the officers and attendants of magistrates as -- of the officer who executes penalties
      2. of the attendants of a king, servants, retinue, the soldiers of a king, of the attendant of a synagogue
      3. of any one ministering or rendering service
   3. any one who aids another in any work
      1. an assistant
      2. of the preacher of the gospel

Now does that help? Which is more plausible---the Pharisees and scribes although being part of a conquered province keeping soldiers or the Romans keeping soldiers in the provinces they conquered? Was there not roman soldiers around or do you think that the romans would allow any nation to have their own soldiers just roaming the streets? Now is this some little thing missed by me? I think not. I came out from those churches so I don’t do what they do.

We respond to situation and circumstances, we do that according to our upbringing and values, we do what seem best for us, if you are a thief what seem best for you is to still. If you are honest you do not touch it or you will try to find the owner. but both of them have the compassity to do the opposite, and that I call free will. They can abandon themselves to do what they know is wrong, but they have been given the compassety to refraim.
We read in Genesis 4:6 - 7, "Then the Lord said to Cain, why are you angry? and why has your countenance fallen? if you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? and if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, BUT YOU MUST MASTER IT." God would not lie to Cain, so Cain will was able to muster sin if he wanted to

Why cant Christianity look deeper? Im showing you the spiritual and you are still seeing only the physical. When you think spiritual you think deeper right? What you just put as “freewill” is a physical thing that only the church and the world see. They cant see that it is God who first brings about the circumstances, who placed any of us in any place or upbringing, that it is God who gives us good values to be even able to do what may be good or that it is God who didn’t give us values so we may not do good, that if God was willing He could have given Cain the “power” to master it.

Nope, the church and the world doesn’t see God behind all this. Nope, they cant see or understand spiritual things. That’s why they replace God with freewill. “We have the capacity to do good on our own” “to come to God on our own” “we have the ability to master sin on our own”. Nope they throw out God, the One and only One who gives one the power, faith, strength, an unfallen countenance etc etc to be able to
Have the capacity to do good
To come to God
To master sin
Etc etc
Is God. But Nope they say who needs God. Freewillers are atheists no matter how you look at it. Did you not just throw God out right here or is it just me and people like me who is seeing this?
We respond to situation and circumstances, we do that according to our upbringing and values, we do what seem best for us, if you are a thief what seem best for you is to still. If you are honest you do not touch it or you will try to find the owner. but both of them have the compassity to do the opposite, and that I call free will. They can abandon themselves to do what they know is wrong, but they have been given the compassety to refraim.
Nope Adam Eve and Cain were all born perfect with the god given ability to be able to do everything without God, yet somehow all of humanity has failed save one. Let alone you have the contradiction of Adam born perfect who never needed God, then Christ born perfect who said “of Myself I can do nothing”.

What you said above is choice or will, not free choice, not freewill. You respond to situations or circumstances then that situation or circumstance is what caused/made (or even forced) your will to choose, therefore your will or choice is not free.

 

[AK4]

Are you guys fighting a war of colored words?

Its funny you said that. I dont know about a war of colored words but it is what is mentioned in Revelations. Its not how christianity teaches but its definitely "a war in heaven"

Hey i wonder since you are not a christian, you may get what i am saying. Do you?

 

[AK4]

TO AK4



The arguments that I consider useless are the absence of free will, because you say it is a reaction to a situation brought about by God, and you will do what he has given you to do. so if God has given you to be a murderer you will be a murderer, despite the fact that God will never make you a murderer.

And the idea that in the end all will be made perfect, because as you say we did the evil deeds because he made us do them.

to me it is absurd and sinful even to contemplate such a thing.

God didnt make the person a murderer, but God placed this person--He created--He created with a "desperately weak" heart/mind---in the circumstances to where this person will fall for his own lusts and stuff to become a murderer. The ONLY THING that can keep this guy from becoming a murderer or from falling for his lust is if God gives him His spirit. That is scriptural. Now when someone throws in and say "the only thing that can keep this guy from becoming murderer is his freewill, he has to choose not to fall for his lusts and stuff on his own" is this not replacing God with someones own freewill?

Is this not what Paul and Daniel wrote about? Is this not saying the same thing as "opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as a god sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is a god."

Why? because now with his freewill he can do all that God said only He could do. What that you say? This person can keep himself from being a murderer by his own freewill. He doesnt need God to give him the "power" or ability to choose not to fall for his lusts.

Etc etc etc. What is so hard to understand about that? Or do you still believe what these false prophets of christianity keeps prophecing about what Daniel and Paul wrote about? Or is it too much for you to humble yourself before God and realise that you dont have a freewill? Like i said very early in this thread--freewill is the hardest thing for anyone to give up and come down off of the throne where God says He is supposed to be. You are the temple, your heart/mind is the throne. Either its God or you and your freewill sitting there. Which is it for you?

And you dont believe that in the end all will be made perfect? How many scriptures to throw out. Lets use one "God will be all in all". Should Paul put God will be in as many as in as many? Ridiculous. God is perfect we agree right? So if God will be all in all, it should go without saying that all will be perfect. If there was a hell then that alone should show that it couldnt be everlasting. Will the people in hell be perfect and still have to be roasted and tortured for ever? See how ridiculous it is.

And so the plan of God becomes obsurd and sinful because He placed us here to "have an experience of evil to humble us"? Could He had not did the very opposite at first? Could we have not had "an experience of good" first? Doesnt that alone show Gods responsiblity for all things? Nope says freewillers. See what i am saying. Man, Paul was ever so spiritually gifted by God when penning this about NOT ATHEISTS but FREEWILLERS

Romans 1:20
For His invisible attributes [who cant be seen or heard? the Father]are descried from the creation of the world, being apprehended by His achievements, besides His imperceptible power and divinity, for them to be defenseless,
21 because, knowing God, not as God do they glorify or thank Him, but vain were they made in their reasonings, and darkened is their unintelligent heart.
22 Alleging themselves to be wise, they are made stupid,

Think about it. Atheists dont recognise a God, but christians, jews, muslims, whatever do recognise a God so ...knowing God, not as God do they glorify or thank Him, but vain were they made in their reasonings, and darkened is their unintelligent heart. 22 Alleging themselves to be wise, they are made stupid,

23 and they change the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a corruptible human being [in other words by their freewill, themselves]

 

[AK4]

To freespirit


Quote:
Notice this parable

Matt 9: 17 "Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved."

Explain this parable please.
I do not know if there is a valid spiritual meaning.

Heres a clue. Its talking about the old and new covenants also known as the OT and NT.

 

[AK4]

I do not believe in the trinity as such, I believe that God presents himself to us in various forms: He is King and priest, he is God and Saviour and there is a Holy Spirit, because we can blaspheme against God, or against the Son, and we can be forgiven but if we blaspheme against the Holy Spirit we will not be forgiven. So they are one and the same, but they deal with us in various forms to make it easier for us to understand and to come closer to God.


But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit [this is explained in verse 22-23 as attributing the Satan the very works of God], hath never forgiveness [Gk: 'has not forgiveness for the eon'], but is in danger of eternal [eonian] damnation [condemnation or judgment]" (Mark 3:29).

That takes care of the never being forgiven mistranslation. Now for the one and the same. Are you saying that Jesus and God the Father are the same “entity”?

we must accept the the holy spirit of Jesus is God,
i can go on to expose his various forms, for he is all that there is, or ever was. So the "trinity" for the wanting of a better word is a simple and imperfect exposure of God's multi functions.

We read in Mark 12:26 to 32, "The foremost is, HEAR, O ISRAEL! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, you shall love your neighbor as yourself, there is no other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said to him, right teacher you have truly stated that he is ONE; and there is no one else besides him."
I hope this will put to rest for good the trinity question

So here are some beliefs about Jesus, which one of these would your beliefs fall under?
[1] Jesus is a myth; a religious hoax; an historical fraud?.there never was a real Jesus.

[2] Jesus was not a real person, but He is real in that He is the spiritual principle of all that is or can be good about humanity and its potential for righteousness. He is a spiritual principle rather than a literal person.

[3] Jesus was a real historical figure, but just a man?there is nothing supernatural or divine about Him?.

[4] Jesus was indeed the Son of God conceived by the Holy Spirit of His Father God in the womb of a human mother, but had no pre-existence of any kind before becoming human. Jesus was never God and never will be God.

[5] Jesus did exist before His human birth and co-existed with God from eternity. He had no ?beginning,? but was the Beginner and Creator of all else. All was created by God the Father, but it was accomplished through Jesus. Jesus was the instrumentality behind His Father?s creation. Jesus therefore is the Eternal Second Person of the Godhead trinity.

[6] Jesus existed as God before His human incarnation. And not only was and is He Deity; not only was and is He God; but in reality, JESUS ALSO WAS AND IS THE FATHER. Jesus is not a separate Individual from His God Father, but actually IS THE GOD FATHER changed into a human. Jesus as God (#5 & #6) are the reason why Christian theologians say that Jesus did not die on the cross, but only His body died, seeing that Jesus was and is God Himself, and therefore could not have ever DIED.

 

[free spirit]

5] Jesus did exist before His human birth and co-existed with God from eternity. He had no ?beginning,? but was the Beginner and Creator of all else. All was created by God the Father, but it was accomplished through Jesus. Jesus was the instrumentality behind His Father?s creation. Jesus therefore is the Eternal Second Person of the Godhead trinity.

God is not a duet, nor a trinity as the following scripture says, but he deals with us in many forms. You cannot separate me from what I say.

We read in Mark 12:26 to 32, "The foremost is, HEAR, O ISRAEL! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, you shall love your neighbor as yourself, there is no other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said to him, right teacher you have truly stated that he is ONE; and there is no one else besides him."
I hope this will put to rest for good the trinity question

 

[free spirit]

Heres a clue. Its talking about the old and new covenants also known as the OT and NT.

My brain is frozen on this, enlighten me.

 

[free spirit]

God didnt make the person a murderer, but God placed this person--He created--He created with a "desperately weak" heart/mind---in the circumstances to where this person will fall for his own lusts and stuff to become a murderer. The ONLY THING that can keep this guy from becoming a murderer or from falling for his lust is if God gives him His spirit. That is scriptural. Now when someone throws in and say "the only thing that can keep this guy from becoming murderer is his freewill, he has to choose not to fall for his lusts and stuff on his own" is this not replacing God with someones own freewill?

Is this not what Paul and Daniel wrote about? Is this not saying the same thing as "opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as a god sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is a god."

Why? because now with his freewill he can do all that God said only He could do. What that you say? This person can keep himself from being a murderer by his own freewill. He doesnt need God to give him the "power" or ability to choose not to fall for his lusts.

Etc etc etc. What is so hard to understand about that? Or do you still believe what these false prophets of christianity keeps prophecing about what Daniel and Paul wrote about? Or is it too much for you to humble yourself before God and realise that you dont have a freewill? Like i said very early in this thread--freewill is the hardest thing for anyone to give up and come down off of the throne where God says He is supposed to be. You are the temple, your heart/mind is the throne. Either its God or you and your freewill sitting there. Which is it for you?

And you dont believe that in the end all will be made perfect? How many scriptures to throw out. Lets use one "God will be all in all". Should Paul put God will be in as many as in as many? Ridiculous. God is perfect we agree right? So if God will be all in all, it should go without saying that all will be perfect. If there was a hell then that alone should show that it couldnt be everlasting. Will the people in hell be perfect and still have to be roasted and tortured for ever? See how ridiculous it is.

And so the plan of God becomes obsurd and sinful because He placed us here to "have an experience of evil to humble us"? Could He had not did the very opposite at first? Could we have not had "an experience of good" first? Doesnt that alone show Gods responsiblity for all things? Nope says freewillers. See what i am saying. Man, Paul was ever so spiritually gifted by God when penning this about NOT ATHEISTS but FREEWILLERS

Romans 1:20
For His invisible attributes [who cant be seen or heard? the Father]are descried from the creation of the world, being apprehended by His achievements, besides His imperceptible power and divinity, for them to be defenseless,
21 because, knowing God, not as God do they glorify or thank Him, but vain were they made in their reasonings, and darkened is their unintelligent heart.
22 Alleging themselves to be wise, they are made stupid,

Think about it. Atheists dont recognise a God, but christians, jews, muslims, whatever do recognise a God so ...knowing God, not as God do they glorify or thank Him, but vain were they made in their reasonings, and darkened is their unintelligent heart. 22 Alleging themselves to be wise, they are made stupid,

23 and they change the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a corruptible human being [in other words by their freewill, themselves]

we have been through this before, and I think that you see things that are not there. Your lively imagination is leading you on tin ice, you do not know that your own spirit is deceiving you. My suggestion for you is to rest in the Lord for a while.

 

[free spirit]

I am only pointing out to you that they were never surrounded by Roman Soldiers.
A fact that you have missed like many churches before you. And if you have missed such a little thing, what else is there that you have missed?


The more important thing really is that we all are “accountable” for the crucifixion. It matters not who really did it. But the jews are the ones who said “let His death be on our heads and our childrens” paraphrased. Now to show you that “I” did not folly with mentioning Roman soldiers I will show you again why the importance of a concordance is necessary and once again you are relying too much on one translation

John 18:18 And the servants and officers (grk: hyperetes) stood there (5715), who had made (5761) a fire of coals; for it was (5713) cold: and they warmed themselves (5711): and Peter stood * (5713) (5761) with them, and warmed himself (5734).





hypēretēs

1. servant
   1. an underrower, subordinate rower
   2. any one who serves with hands: a servant
      1. in the NT of the officers and attendants of magistrates as -- of the officer who executes penalties
      2. of the attendants of a king, servants, retinue, the soldiers of a king, of the attendant of a synagogue
      3. of any one ministering or rendering service
   3. any one who aids another in any work
      1. an assistant
      2. of the preacher of the gospel

Now does that help? Which is more plausible---the Pharisees and scribes although being part of a conquered province keeping soldiers or the Romans keeping soldiers in the provinces they conquered? Was there not roman soldiers around or do you think that the romans would allow any nation to have their own soldiers just roaming the streets? Now is this some little thing missed by me? I think not. I came out from those churches so I don’t do what they do.
The Romans at that time were not the conquerer, history says that they were there from 64 BC. as allies, the Romans conquered them when they revolted because of a religious dispute with the Greeks, it ended with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 ad.


We respond to situation and circumstances, we do that according to our upbringing and values, we do what seem best for us, if you are a thief what seem best for you is to still. If you are honest you do not touch it or you will try to find the owner. but both of them have the compassity to do the opposite, and that I call free will. They can abandon themselves to do what they know is wrong, but they have been given the compassety to refraim.
We read in Genesis 4:6 - 7, "Then the Lord said to Cain, why are you angry? and why has your countenance fallen? if you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? and if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, BUT YOU MUST MASTER IT." God would not lie to Cain, so Cain will was able to muster sin if he wanted to

Why cant Christianity look deeper? Im showing you the spiritual and you are still seeing only the physical. When you think spiritual you think deeper right? What you just put as “freewill” is a physical thing that only the church and the world see. They cant see that it is God who first brings about the circumstances, who placed any of us in any place or upbringing, that it is God who gives us good values to be even able to do what may be good or that it is God who didn’t give us values so we may not do good, that if God was willing He could have given Cain the “power” to master it.

Nope, the church and the world doesn’t see God behind all this. Nope, they cant see or understand spiritual things. That’s why they replace God with freewill. “We have the capacity to do good on our own” “to come to God on our own” “we have the ability to master sin on our own”. Nope they throw out God, the One and only One who gives one the power, faith, strength, an unfallen countenance etc etc to be able to
Have the capacity to do good
To come to God
To master sin
Etc etc
Is God. But Nope they say who needs God. Freewillers are atheists no matter how you look at it. Did you not just throw God out right here or is it just me and people like me who is seeing this?
We respond to situation and circumstances, we do that according to our upbringing and values, we do what seem best for us, if you are a thief what seem best for you is to still. If you are honest you do not touch it or you will try to find the owner. but both of them have the compassity to do the opposite, and that I call free will. They can abandon themselves to do what they know is wrong, but they have been given the compassety to refraim.
Nope Adam Eve and Cain were all born perfect with the god given ability to be able to do everything without God, yet somehow all of humanity has failed save one. Let alone you have the contradiction of Adam born perfect who never needed God, then Christ born perfect who said “of Myself I can do nothing”.

What you said above is choice or will, not free choice, not freewill. You respond to situations or circumstances then that situation or circumstance is what caused/made (or even forced) your will to choose, therefore your will or choice is not free.

In 1 Timothy 6:3 - 4, we read

"If anyone advocate a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words."
AK4 The above scripture really fit you, please rest in the Lord, you are working to hard at it.

 

[AK4]

5] Jesus did exist before His human birth and co-existed with God from eternity. He had no ?beginning,? but was the Beginner and Creator of all else. All was created by God the Father, but it was accomplished through Jesus. Jesus was the instrumentality behind His Father?s creation. Jesus therefore is the Eternal Second Person of the Godhead trinity.

God is not a duet, nor a trinity as the following scripture says, but he deals with us in many forms. You cannot separate me from what I say.

I hope this will put to rest for good the trinity question

Well they all were unscriptural to tell you the truth but the one you did pick is the closest. What is wrong with it is that Jesus didnt co-exist with God the Father from eternity and He did have a beginning.

It sounds and seems as if it is a duet but it is and it isnt. See since Jesus came out from the Father that makes them two seperate "entities". Something cant come from something and still be the same thing. Its not scientific or scriptural. They are One by/in spirit. Jesus is the expressed stamped image of His Father. The reason He is called God is because He not only thinks and does whatever the Father tells Him but since He can do all that the Father does that makes Him God. That is why we have the scriptures like "the only begotten GOD" (son is not the scripture its God).

The Father gave Jesus everything He has. The Father sent Jesus. The sender is always greater than the one that is sent etc etc. We are to worship the Lord thy God because He is One. Jesus is our Lord and God because He is the one who created us and everything, but the Father did everything also because it was through Jesus. That is why when Jesus said if you worship me you are worshipping the Father or that it brings glory to the Father (paraphrased). That is why when Jesus also said when you see Me you see the Father. Yes Jesus is our one and only father/Lord and God because by the power GIVEN to Him by His God (the Father). Remember the giver is greater than the reciever.

Its a spiritual understanding to see that yes it seems as a duet but its not. Yes the trinity tries to explain it as one but it just doesnt stand up scripturally. If one wants to call it a duet, fine, but it still stands scripturally. To deny the scriptures that say Jesus came out of/from the Father is to deny both Jesus and the Father. To say they are the same "entity" does the same thing. If you want to show you how i can.

Hope this helps

Edit---Oops i thought you picked #6. That one is closest to the truth

 

[AK4]

My brain is frozen on this, enlighten me.

Okay we know its a parable.Jesus is speaking of the Old and New Covenants. We cannot, we dare not, try to put the old with the new or both will be ruined. We can’t put the Old and the New together.

The parable is showing that when we put these two covenants in their proper places (the Old is for babes to bring them to Christ, while the new is for those maturing into Sonship), that they are both preserved Yes, both are preserved, but only if we don’t mix them. The same thing goes with the referring back to the OT for scriptures that help and give witnesses to Gods principles, plan, character etc etc to help explain something in the NT. (although truthfully there really is no OT and NT but just one Word of God).

Some things in the OT are no doubt "superceded" by the what is in the NT, but principles and concepts are not. They are "both preserved". The two covenants are not in "according" with one another—they are not to be "unequally yoked together," seeing that they are not equal.
Here is the most concise Scriptural description of the Old and New Testament that I can give you:

"For the Law was given by Moses [that would be the OLD Covenant], but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ [that would be the NEW Covenant]" (John 1:17).

Law is good, but grace and truth is better. Grace and truth is a much more demanding and much higher calling. This in no way though nullifies what is in the OT. They are both preserved and used are forever. We know the law is spiritual. Spirit never dies. The law never passed away it is preserved and is to be followed spiritually not physically not to the letter and Jesus with the teachings in NT taught us how to do "the law" spiritually.

I dont know i just brought this up because you accused me of being in the OT. I am actually in all the Word of God or the Word of God is in me (and we know who is the Word of God)

 

[AK4]

In 1 Timothy 6:3 - 4, we read

"If anyone advocate a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words."
AK4 The above scripture really fit you, please rest in the Lord, you are working to hard at it.

So let me ask you, is what i am saying different from the scriptures or what the world and the church teaches? I know for a fact its different than the church and the world and i know that what i am saying is grounded in scripture upon scripture. So with that quoted scripture above which am i advocating that is a different doctrine of---the church and the world or the scriptures?

 

[free spirit]

TO AK4

God is not a duet, nor a trinity as the following scripture says, but he deals with us in many forms. You cannot separate me from what I say.

AK4 The word was in God from the beginning whenever that was, and then he spoke, so the word was the first borne from all creation. but you cannot separate the two. it is like if I write a book; the words in the book is me, and I am the words in the book.


I hope this will put to rest for good the trinity question

 

[free spirit]

TO AK4

In 1 Timothy 6:3 - 4, we read

"If anyone advocate a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words."
AK4 The above scripture really fit you, please rest in the Lord, you are working to hard at it.

So let me ask you, is what i am saying different from the scriptures or what the world and the church teaches? I know for a fact its different than the church and the world and i know that what i am saying is grounded in scripture upon scripture. So with that quoted scripture above which am i advocating that is a different doctrine of---the church and the world or the scriptures?

AK4 the key words in the above scripture are "the doctrine conforming to godliness"
in other words we must speak a doctrine that would make people conform to godliness, but what you say does not do that, you say that man cannot change. that disturbs my spirit immensely, not because I want to be God, but because it negates the hope that God has given us.

 

[free spirit]

Okay we know its a parable.Jesus is speaking of the Old and New Covenants. We cannot, we dare not, try to put the old with the new or both will be ruined. We can’t put the Old and the New together.

The parable is showing that when we put these two covenants in their proper places (the Old is for babes to bring them to Christ, while the new is for those maturing into Sonship), that they are both preserved Yes, both are preserved, but only if we don’t mix them. The same thing goes with the referring back to the OT for scriptures that help and give witnesses to Gods principles, plan, character etc etc to help explain something in the NT. (although truthfully there really is no OT and NT but just one Word of God).

Some things in the OT are no doubt "superceded" by the what is in the NT, but principles and concepts are not. They are "both preserved". The two covenants are not in "according" with one another—they are not to be "unequally yoked together," seeing that they are not equal.
Here is the most concise Scriptural description of the Old and New Testament that I can give you:

"For the Law was given by Moses [that would be the OLD Covenant], but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ [that would be the NEW Covenant]" (John 1:17).

Law is good, but grace and truth is better. Grace and truth is a much more demanding and much higher calling. This in no way though nullifies what is in the OT. They are both preserved and used are forever. We know the law is spiritual. Spirit never dies. The law never passed away it is preserved and is to be followed spiritually not physically not to the letter and Jesus with the teachings in NT taught us how to do "the law" spiritually.

I dont know i just brought this up because you accused me of being in the OT. I am actually in all the Word of God or the Word of God is in me (and we know who is the Word of God)

I must say that you do have something here, but I haven't yet grasped what you are saying, be more specific please.

 

[AK4]

TO AK4

God is not a duet, nor a trinity as the following scripture says, but he deals with us in many forms. You cannot separate me from what I say.

AK4 The word was in God from the beginning whenever that was, and then he spoke, so the word was the first borne from all creation. but you cannot separate the two. it is like if I write a book; the words in the book is me, and I am the words in the book.


I hope this will put to rest for good the trinity question

No God is not a duet, but the Father and Son are not the same.
1Co 8:6 -yet for us there is {but} one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we {exist} for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we {exist} through Him.
Its pretty plainly stated right there, but the way you state it is not quite scriptural. But if you are satisfied in your thinking i will leave it alone.

 

[AK4]

TO AK4

In 1 Timothy 6:3 - 4, we read

"If anyone advocate a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words."
AK4 The above scripture really fit you, please rest in the Lord, you are working to hard at it.

So let me ask you, is what i am saying different from the scriptures or what the world and the church teaches? I know for a fact its different than the church and the world and i know that what i am saying is grounded in scripture upon scripture. So with that quoted scripture above which am i advocating that is a different doctrine of---the church and the world or the scriptures?

AK4 the key words in the above scripture are "the doctrine conforming to godliness"
in other words we must speak a doctrine that would make people conform to godliness, but what you say does not do that, you say that man cannot change. that disturbs my spirit immensely, not because I want to be God, but because it negates the hope that God has given us.

Believe me what i am speaking does that "conforming to godliness". When someone drops the idol of the heart of freewill it does just that conform to godliness, It helps open up the scriptures and the truths of God exponentially and you get a real glimspe at the plan and purpose of God, but what do i know.

I never mentioned anything about man not being able to change. We just cant change on our own, by our own power without God is what i and the Word are saying. If anything what i am saying should give you more hope and depend on God more to bring about a change in you, instead of relying on oneself. I know the feeling your feeling-- its called dethroning oneself. But your not seeing the other side. What does Jesus say in Revelations "to him that overcomes...sit with me on my throne". Jesus is not selfish, if you let Him in, in on His rightful place He will share His throne with you. But He wont do that until you are willing to step down first. Either you can voluntarily do it now in this age or in judgment He will make you--but still He will share with you.

Isnt God so loving?

 

[AK4]

I must say that you do have something here, but I haven't yet grasped what you are saying, be more specific please.

Basically i am saying what ive been saying. That it (the Word, OT and NT) is all ONE. Just like how we are told in the OT

Isaiah 28:9-13
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine them that are weaned from the milk (remember the old covenant/ten commandments is the milk), and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: 11 For with stammering of lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken

And told to “rightly divide the word” “established by two or three witnesses” and “no scripture is its own interpretation”. As long as we stay along the precepts established going from the OT to the NT to quote scripture is a commandment. You have to think about it how the Apostles did it. They didn’t have a NT to quote scripture, they had only the OT.

Granted there are many precepts but if you know the main ones or the scripture that sets one, it matters not if you jump from the OT to the NT. For example this one

Isa 46:10 -
Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';

This precept alone destroys many of the teachings that has come out of Christianity and the world.

 

[free spirit]

No God is not a duet, but the Father and Son are not the same.
1Co 8:6 -yet for us there is {but} one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we {exist} for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we {exist} through Him.
Its pretty plainly stated right there, but the way you state it is not quite scriptural. But if you are satisfied in your thinking i will leave it alone.

GOOG, GOOD, GOOD,
Glory to God

 

[free spirit]

Basically i am saying what ive been saying. That it (the Word, OT and NT) is all ONE. Just like how we are told in the OT

Isaiah 28:9-13
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine them that are weaned from the milk (remember the old covenant/ten commandments is the milk), and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: 11 For with stammering of lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken

And told to “rightly divide the word” “established by two or three witnesses” and “no scripture is its own interpretation”. As long as we stay along the precepts established going from the OT to the NT to quote scripture is a commandment. You have to think about it how the Apostles did it. They didn’t have a NT to quote scripture, they had only the OT.

Granted there are many precepts but if you know the main ones or the scripture that sets one, it matters not if you jump from the OT to the NT. For example this one

Isa 46:10 -
Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';

This precept alone destroys many of the teachings that has come out of Christianity and the world.

You lost me here, go back to the parable of the wine and wineskins, or the parable before that. What you said in the first post is near to the truth but I cannot quite grasp it.