How Do You Understand The Gospel?

[Thanda]

You are assuming this passage has to do with Christians. The "the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified..." could also be referring to Jewish men and their circumcision covenant, and their rejection of Jesus. Note the context is the Law of Moses. Regardless, most orthodox Christians (orthodox regarding doctrine) believe in assurance and interpret Hebrews 10 overall as discussing irrevocable salvation rather than reject-able salvation. Recall that the gifts of God are irrevocable (Romans 8) and that salvation is a gift of God (Romans 6).

Thanks.

Forgive me but I can't help but feel you're being a little dishonest here. Did you really just read Paul saying "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins," and then conclude that he is talking about Jews? Was Paul not a christian?

 

[Clear]

In response to Billiardsballs definition of being "saved".

Clear asked (post #57) : “…Is avoidance from “going to hell” the entire definition of being “saved” in your Christian theory or does being “saved” mean anything else inside your religious Theory? For example, the second phrase in JayJayDees question related to "what happens to those who are saved?". Can you explain more fully your theory of what happens to those who become “saved” in your Christian theory?

Billiardsball explained (post #60) : “…. One is saved from darkness and ignorance to walk in the light of Christ and to begin to experience some of the fruits of God's Kingdom and eternal life now, in this world. “


Clear asked (post #65) : "1) "Walking in the light of Christ" - If being “saved” means that one “walks in the light of Christ”, what does it mean to “walk in the light of Christ”? Are you speaking of increase in mere confidence or speaking of those who think they are “now going to heaven” or some other strong belief, or are you describing something else in this theory?

2) Experiencing Fruits of God's Kingdom" - If the second part of being saved in your theory is that one “begins” to experience fruits of Gods’ Kingdom, what fruits of his Kingdom and eternal life are you describing? "

Billiardsball explained : (post #77) : "Born again Christians receive the Holy Spirit. God promises that there will be heightened knowledge for believers,..."


So, are you saying that before being "Born again" or "saved", Christians and all other individuals are NOT influenced by the Holy Spirit, but afterwards they are?
Are born again Christians who adhere to conflicting theories given the spirit?
Are "Born again" Christians who then repudiate their belief and defy God and do despicably immoral things also given the spirit to guide them?

You also mentioned that a Christian who is "saved", “begins” to experience fruits of Gods’ Kingdom", what fruits of his Kingdom and eternal life are you describing? "

Thank you for additional information

Clear

 

[JayJayDee]

All gospel parables omit names. Here, Lazarus is named. This isn't Hell but "the grave". In the grave, Abraham (also named) is speaking and says there is a chasm preventing the wicked dead from joining the righteous dead.

That is an assumption. Also your interpretation neglects to support what Solomon wrote as to the condition of the dead in Sheol (hades, the grave).

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6, 9-10....."For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.......Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going." (ESV)

If Abraham was in the grave, then he was in an unconscious state...knowing and feeling nothing.

Somehow you missed what the rich man did that was sin. He let the beggar starve to death at his gates while he feasted sumptuously.

And yet there is nothing to suggest that the beggar was righteous...just hungry. There is so much in that parable that makes a literal application ludicrous.

PS. It is of growing concern to me to hear a Jehovah's Witness read "story" rather than "fundamental truth of Jehovah's Word." Luke 16 is God's revealed, inerrant Word.

Are you serious? You have to swallow Christendom's pagan adoption of belief in the immortality of the soul to suggest that there is conscious existence after death. Solomon wrote that there is NO conscious existence after death. The Jews did not have such a belief until they apostatised and became influenced by the Greeks in later centuries. There was no afterlife of any description in Jewish thought except by resurrection...the kind that Jesus performed on his friend Lazarus. Where did Jesus bring Lazarus back from? John 11:11-14 answers.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So then you agree it is not really very important whether we will go to heaven or whether we will be here on Earth which will be just as glorious.

Heaven and Earth destinations are a part, unfortunately, of the theology that separates Jehovah's Witnesses and others from Orthodox Christian beliefs. It's important IMHO.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In response to Billiardsballs definition of being "saved".

Clear asked (post #57) : “…Is avoidance from “going to hell” the entire definition of being “saved” in your Christian theory or does being “saved” mean anything else inside your religious Theory? For example, the second phrase in JayJayDees question related to "what happens to those who are saved?". Can you explain more fully your theory of what happens to those who become “saved” in your Christian theory?

Billiardsball explained (post #60) : “…. One is saved from darkness and ignorance to walk in the light of Christ and to begin to experience some of the fruits of God's Kingdom and eternal life now, in this world. “


Clear asked (post #65) : "1) "Walking in the light of Christ" - If being “saved” means that one “walks in the light of Christ”, what does it mean to “walk in the light of Christ”? Are you speaking of increase in mere confidence or speaking of those who think they are “now going to heaven” or some other strong belief, or are you describing something else in this theory?

2) Experiencing Fruits of God's Kingdom" - If the second part of being saved in your theory is that one “begins” to experience fruits of Gods’ Kingdom, what fruits of his Kingdom and eternal life are you describing? "

Billiardsball explained : (post #77) : "Born again Christians receive the Holy Spirit. God promises that there will be heightened knowledge for believers,..."


So, are you saying that before being "Born again" or "saved", Christians and all other individuals are NOT influenced by the Holy Spirit, but afterwards they are?
Are born again Christians who adhere to conflicting theories given the spirit?
Are "Born again" Christians who then repudiate their belief and defy God and do despicably immoral things also given the spirit to guide them?

You also mentioned that a Christian who is "saved", “begins” to experience fruits of Gods’ Kingdom", what fruits of his Kingdom and eternal life are you describing? "

Thank you for additional information

Clear

Nonbelievers can be influenced by God as Spirit, sure.

Born again believers receive spiritual gifts--often deriving from past life experience. A schoolteacher might become a Sunday School teacher, a politician might become a mighty reformer or abolitionist, with purpose.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is an assumption. Also your interpretation neglects to support what Solomon wrote as to the condition of the dead in Sheol (hades, the grave).

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6, 9-10....."For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.......Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going." (ESV)

If Abraham was in the grave, then he was in an unconscious state...knowing and feeling nothing.



And yet there is nothing to suggest that the beggar was righteous...just hungry. There is so much in that parable that makes a literal application ludicrous.



Are you serious? You have to swallow Christendom's pagan adoption of belief in the immortality of the soul to suggest that there is conscious existence after death. Solomon wrote that there is NO conscious existence after death. The Jews did not have such a belief until they apostatised and became influenced by the Greeks in later centuries. There was no afterlife of any description in Jewish thought except by resurrection...the kind that Jesus performed on his friend Lazarus. Where did Jesus bring Lazarus back from? John 11:11-14 answers.

We have a few issues here. First, if we say Luke 16 is a parable, we would expect, as with all other parables, Jesus to explain Himself regarding the parable to His disciples following. The verses immediately following this story or parable or example is that the Pharisees might not trust Jesus for salvation, even were He to appear before them resurrected. Jesus talking about resurrection gives me pause to consider the literal nature of His discourse regarding life after death.

Second, I'm aware that many Bible passages are written from the perspective of the narrator. To someone on the Earth, the living die and leave little legacy to endure behind them for future generations on Earth. The futility of many accomplishments apart from God, of course, is the perspective of the entire book of Ecclesiastes.

Third, I hear what you are saying about Roman adoptions of pagan belief or Jewish beliefs regarding the soul. However, neither is to influence proper hermeneutics in interpreting scripture. When Jesus Christ was challenged regarding life after death, it was because the Pharisees held to the end of Isaiah, the end of Daniel, Job's messianic statements, etc. about the resurrection yet the Saducees said, "Brothers, those ain't Moses." Jesus cited Exodus 3, "I AM ABRAHAM'S GOD NOW, 400 years after Abraham died."

You and I are responsible to parse and understand the living Word of God, not ancient thought that may or may not agree with holy writ.

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Forgive me but I can't help but feel you're being a little dishonest here. Did you really just read Paul saying "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins," and then conclude that he is talking about Jews? Was Paul not a christian?

Part of the problem cults run into is interpreting 100% of NT scripture as for Christians. It cannot logically be so, since Christians ask non-Christians to read the scriptures to be saved. There are NT scriptures meant to be applied to:

* Jewish people

* Christian people

* Unbelieving Jews or Gentiles

* Nations and the destiny of nations and empires

One such problem, for example, arises when JWs interpret the 144,000 of Revelation as all being JWs, Jew or Gentile, when clearly the 144,000 are Jewish people, whose tribal designations are listed therein.

You asked, "Was Paul not a Christian?" Sure he was. But was Paul not a Jew?

"We Jews may sin by rejecting salvation after having received the gospel, and then there remains no more sacrifice for sin..." is a completely acceptable rendering of the verse under discussion.

Thanks.

 

[Thanda]

Part of the problem cults run into is interpreting 100% of NT scripture as for Christians. It cannot logically be so, since Christians ask non-Christians to read the scriptures to be saved. There are NT scriptures meant to be applied to:

* Jewish people

* Christian people

* Unbelieving Jews or Gentiles

* Nations and the destiny of nations and empires

One such problem, for example, arises when JWs interpret the 144,000 of Revelation as all being JWs, Jew or Gentile, when clearly the 144,000 are Jewish people, whose tribal designations are listed therein.

You asked, "Was Paul not a Christian?" Sure he was. But was Paul not a Jew?

"We Jews may sin by rejecting salvation after having received the gospel, and then there remains no more sacrifice for sin..." is a completely acceptable rendering of the verse under discussion.

Thanks.

I must say I'm stunned! So you believe there is a gospel for Jews and another for Christians? That when a person who professes to be saved sins God first checks that persons race and if they are Jewish God condemns them to hell and if not then God looks the other way? Is your God a respecter of persons? More specifically, is he racist?

And to answer your questions no, Paul was not a Jew - he was a Christian. But if you are referring to his race then yes he was a member of the House of Israel. The same house to which all true believers are adopted. And being adopted they become full members of the House of Israel. Which still leaves the question of why you feel safe in what ever you feel like doing while Paul and the fellow saints felt a need to keep striving to stay close to their Lord lest they fall like David.

 

[Clear]

Billiardsballs defined "saved" Christians as 1) receiving the holy spirit and given “heightened knowledge) and 2) beginning to “experience fruits of God’s Kingdom and eternal life”

Regarding Billardballs theory that a “saved” Christian receives the Holy Spirit :

Clear asked (post # 82) So, are you saying that before being "Born again" or "saved", Christians and all other individuals are NOT influenced by the Holy Spirit, but afterwards they are?
Are born again Christians who adhere to conflicting theories given the spirit?
Are "Born again" Christians who then repudiate their belief and defy God and do despicably immoral things also given the spirit to guide them?

Billiardsball said post #85) “ Nonbelievers can be influenced by God as Spirit, sure. “

So... in your theory, a "nonbeliever" can be influenced by the spirit of God, and, a “saved” Christian can be influenced by the same spirit as a “Nonbeliever”?

In your theory, does a "nonbeliever" who is influenced by the Holy spirit to the same degree as a "saved Christian" have any disadvantage on this specific point, IF the non-believer has the same influence, in the same amount and upon the same subject? For example, if the spirit witnesses to both individuals to the same degree that they should not tell a lie, or embellish a bit of data, or create data to try to make a point. Is there any advantage to the "saved Christian" in this specific situation?

Also, you forgot to answer these questions :
1) Are born again Christians who adhere to and believe in conflicting theories given the spirit despite their “heightened knowledge” leaving them as confused as everyone else? (forums give us many, many examples of “saved” Christians who argue for multiple, conflicting doctrines…)
2) Are "Born again" Christians who then repudiate their belief and defy God and do despicably immoral things also given the spirit to guide them?



2) Regarding Billiardsballs' theory that “saved” Christians experience “fruits of God’s Kingdom and eternal life”.

Clear asked (post # 82) “…what fruits of his Kingdom and eternal life are you describing? "

Billiardball said : (post #85) A schoolteacher might become a Sunday School teacher, a politician might become a mighty reformer or abolitionist, with purpose.

So, you are saying that becoming a “saved” Christian allows a person to do the very same things a non-saved Christian does (since a non-believer and a non-Christian can do both of those things)? Ghandi was a “mighty reformer” and he was not Christian at all, Some of the dead sea scroll translators were agnostic and yet were wonderful religious educators (both on Sundays and other days).


3) Regarding Billiardsballs' "rendering" of a New Testament Verse when attempting to support a point

Billiardsball claimed (post # 87) “"We Jews may sin by rejecting salvation after having received the gospel, and then there remains no more sacrifice for sin..." is a completely acceptable rendering of the verse under discussion. “

Billiardsball. You claim to have training in Greek yet you offer a completely bogus "rendering" of Heb 10:26. You do realize, don’t you , that there are those who read greek on the forum and thus, can see that this "rendering" of yours is an erroneous fabrication and a good example of simply making up a paraphrase and offering it to Thanda and the rest of us in the place of scripture (and perhaps hoping, crossing fingers.. that none of us will notice the deception?...)

The greek phrase in Heb 10:26 reads "Εκουσιως γαρ αμαρτανοντων ημων μετα το λαβειν την επιγνωσιν της αληθειας , ουκετι περι αμαρτιων απολειπεται θυσια."

Billiardsball, will you point out where the words “We Jews” are in this sentence? They aren’t there. And, if they aren’t there in the biblical text, you should not insert them in your “rendering” just to support your theory.

Billiardsball, Can you point out where the words “sin by rejecting salvation” are? They also aren’t there. And, if they aren’t there, you should not add them in your “rendering” to support your theory.

How about the words “after receiving the gospel”? Where are you finding these words? They aren’t there. And, if they aren’t there, you should not add them to the text to support your theory.

DOES ANY GREEK READER ON THIS ENTIRE FORUM SEE THESE ADDITIONAL WORDS INSIDE THIS GREEK SENTENCE FROM HEBREWS 10:26? ANYONE??

Billiardball, I think one of the reasons you are coming across to readers as not being forthright is that there are so many such deceptions in the posts you offer (whether intended or accidental, they are still there).

Instead of quoting the bible verse itself, as a Biblicist would tend to do, you sometimes quote a paraphrases (perhaps a personal commentary?) and then offer these as though they were verses from an authentic bible, when they are not. You've been caught doing this before. This unhappy habit you have is, I think, detrimental to your credibility and undermines your claims to any educated person. (though the uneducated may not realize what you are doing...)

I think you will have better communications and improve your credibility if you use actual biblical verses, especially since you claimed you have at least a year of Greek education and, therefore, you should know when your verses are correct versus paraphrased.

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is good

Clear
νενεειω

 

[BilliardsBall]

I must say I'm stunned! So you believe there is a gospel for Jews and another for Christians? That when a person who professes to be saved sins God first checks that persons race and if they are Jewish God condemns them to hell and if not then God looks the other way? Is your God a respecter of persons? More specifically, is he racist?

And to answer your questions no, Paul was not a Jew - he was a Christian. But if you are referring to his race then yes he was a member of the House of Israel. The same house to which all true believers are adopted. And being adopted they become full members of the House of Israel. Which still leaves the question of why you feel safe in what ever you feel like doing while Paul and the fellow saints felt a need to keep striving to stay close to their Lord lest they fall like David.

You are stunned because you didn't understand what I wrote. Let me please re-explain. Not everything in the Bible is written to saved people. Nor did Paul ever stop being Jewish. There is one gospel for Jews and Gentiles, I'm simply explaining that a plausible exegesis of Hebrews 10 is speaking about Jews who are circumcised who reject the gospel, not Christians who reject their Christianity/being saved.

And when David fell, he was still saved. He said "restore unto me the joy of my salvation" in Psalm 53, and not "restore unto me my salvation".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Billiardsballs defined "saved" Christians as 1) receiving the holy spirit and given “heightened knowledge) and 2) beginning to “experience fruits of God’s Kingdom and eternal life”

Regarding Billardballs theory that a “saved” Christian receives the Holy Spirit :

Clear asked (post # 82) So, are you saying that before being "Born again" or "saved", Christians and all other individuals are NOT influenced by the Holy Spirit, but afterwards they are?
Are born again Christians who adhere to conflicting theories given the spirit?
Are "Born again" Christians who then repudiate their belief and defy God and do despicably immoral things also given the spirit to guide them?

Billiardsball said post #85) “ Nonbelievers can be influenced by God as Spirit, sure. “

So... in your theory, a "nonbeliever" can be influenced by the spirit of God, and, a “saved” Christian can be influenced by the same spirit as a “Nonbeliever”?

In your theory, does a "nonbeliever" who is influenced by the Holy spirit to the same degree as a "saved Christian" have any disadvantage on this specific point, IF the non-believer has the same influence, in the same amount and upon the same subject? For example, if the spirit witnesses to both individuals to the same degree that they should not tell a lie, or embellish a bit of data, or create data to try to make a point. Is there any advantage to the "saved Christian" in this specific situation?

Also, you forgot to answer these questions :
1) Are born again Christians who adhere to and believe in conflicting theories given the spirit despite their “heightened knowledge” leaving them as confused as everyone else? (forums give us many, many examples of “saved” Christians who argue for multiple, conflicting doctrines…)
2) Are "Born again" Christians who then repudiate their belief and defy God and do despicably immoral things also given the spirit to guide them?



2) Regarding Billiardsballs' theory that “saved” Christians experience “fruits of God’s Kingdom and eternal life”.

Clear asked (post # 82) “…what fruits of his Kingdom and eternal life are you describing? "

Billiardball said : (post #85) A schoolteacher might become a Sunday School teacher, a politician might become a mighty reformer or abolitionist, with purpose.

So, you are saying that becoming a “saved” Christian allows a person to do the very same things a non-saved Christian does (since a non-believer and a non-Christian can do both of those things)? Ghandi was a “mighty reformer” and he was not Christian at all, Some of the dead sea scroll translators were agnostic and yet were wonderful religious educators (both on Sundays and other days).


3) Regarding Billiardsballs' "rendering" of a New Testament Verse when attempting to support a point

Billiardsball claimed (post # 87) “"We Jews may sin by rejecting salvation after having received the gospel, and then there remains no more sacrifice for sin..." is a completely acceptable rendering of the verse under discussion. “

Billiardsball. You claim to have training in Greek yet you offer a completely bogus "rendering" of Heb 10:26. You do realize, don’t you , that there are those who read greek on the forum and thus, can see that this "rendering" of yours is an erroneous fabrication and a good example of simply making up a paraphrase and offering it to Thanda and the rest of us in the place of scripture (and perhaps hoping, crossing fingers.. that none of us will notice the deception?...)

The greek phrase in Heb 10:26 reads "Εκουσιως γαρ αμαρτανοντων ημων μετα το λαβειν την επιγνωσιν της αληθειας , ουκετι περι αμαρτιων απολειπεται θυσια."

Billiardsball, will you point out where the words “We Jews” are in this sentence? They aren’t there. And, if they aren’t there in the biblical text, you should not insert them in your “rendering” just to support your theory.

Billiardsball, Can you point out where the words “sin by rejecting salvation” are? They also aren’t there. And, if they aren’t there, you should not add them in your “rendering” to support your theory.

How about the words “after receiving the gospel”? Where are you finding these words? They aren’t there. And, if they aren’t there, you should not add them to the text to support your theory.

DOES ANY GREEK READER ON THIS ENTIRE FORUM SEE THESE ADDITIONAL WORDS INSIDE THIS GREEK SENTENCE FROM HEBREWS 10:26? ANYONE??

Billiardball, I think one of the reasons you are coming across to readers as not being forthright is that there are so many such deceptions in the posts you offer (whether intended or accidental, they are still there).

Instead of quoting the bible verse itself, as a Biblicist would tend to do, you sometimes quote a paraphrases (perhaps a personal commentary?) and then offer these as though they were verses from an authentic bible, when they are not. You've been caught doing this before. This unhappy habit you have is, I think, detrimental to your credibility and undermines your claims to any educated person. (though the uneducated may not realize what you are doing...)

I think you will have better communications and improve your credibility if you use actual biblical verses, especially since you claimed you have at least a year of Greek education and, therefore, you should know when your verses are correct versus paraphrased.

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is good

Clear
νενεειω

So, you are saying that becoming a “saved” Christian allows a person to do the very same things a non-saved Christian does (since a non-believer and a non-Christian can do both of those things)? Ghandi was a “mighty reformer” and he was not Christian at all, Some of the dead sea scroll translators were agnostic and yet were wonderful religious educators (both on Sundays and other days).

Ghandi worshipped idols. He was not a Christian. Correct. What are you saying regarding what a saved Christian can do or not do? I don’t understand. I do understand that a Christian receives blessings, the Spirit and a change of nature while still being “trapped” inside flesh with a propensity for sin.

Billiardsball claimed (post # 87) “"We Jews may sin by rejecting salvation after having received the gospel, and then there remains no more sacrifice for sin..." is a completely acceptable rendering of the verse under discussion. “
DOES ANY GREEK READER ON THIS ENTIRE FORUM SEE THESE ADDITIONAL WORDS INSIDE THIS GREEK SENTENCE FROM HEBREWS 10:26? ANYONE??

I’d be shocked if anyone found those words in the Greek. If it said in the Greek, “we JEWS…” no one would be deceived on this issue of Hebrew 10 teaching loss of salvation. I know many fine born again Christians who believe Heb. 10 refers to loss of salvation, and others who believe it does not teach such a thing. There is a tension there. However, “the blood of the covenant” could be circumcision or the blood of Christ. Earlier in the same passage, we read, “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds…” an OT quotation which in context is referring to natural Israel. I’m not trying to deceive anyone, rather I was presenting an alternative viewpoint in response to another poster’s question. If my context is correct, it would indeed be an acceptable rendering of the verse in a paraphrase such as an NIV, the most popular Bible translation in English.

Thanks.

 

[Clear]

Billiardballs’ theory and definitions concerning a “saved Christian” compared to a “non-saved” person

Billiardsball :

You defined "saved" Christians as 1) receiving the holy spirit and given “heightened knowledge” and 2) beginning to “experience fruits of God’s Kingdom and eternal life”. When I asked what these statements actually meant, you have not clearly described what the difference is.

If both the “saved” and the “unsaved” have access to guidance from the Holy Spirit, and a specific “unsaved” person can have the guidance to the same degree as another “saved Christian”, then what is the advantage of being “saved” in this specific example?

You have also forgotten yet again to answer these other questions :

1) Are born again Christians who adhere to and believe in conflicting theories given the spirit despite their “heightened knowledge” leaving them as confused as everyone else? (forums give us many, many examples of “saved” Christians who argue for multiple, conflicting doctrines…)
2) Are "Born again" Christians who then repudiate their belief and defy God and do despicably immoral things also given the spirit to guide them?

You also declared your' theory that “saved” Christians experience “fruits of God’s Kingdom and eternal life”. You defined these fruits thusly : (post #85) " A schoolteacher might become a Sunday School teacher, a politician might become a mighty reformer or abolitionist, with purpose."

However, non-saved individuals can also become Sunday School teachers and wonderful teachers of religion as I gave you examples of. Non-saved individuals can become mighty reformers and abolitionists with purpose as per my examples.

You still have not differentiated a “saved” Christian from any other potential “non-saved” person other than their beliefs are different.




Regarding Billiardsballs’ rendering of Hebrews 10:26

In reponding to the poster Thanda, you claimed : (post # 87) “"We Jews may sin by rejecting salvation after having received the gospel, and then there remains no more sacrifice for sin..." is a completely acceptable rendering of the verse under discussion. “

Yet the greek text CANNOT be honestly translated per your “acceptable rendering”. You are adding many words and context to the text that the text does not have. No greek translator in the world can or would use your “rendering” for this verse. I gave you examples of the errors and additions you are making. I asked any other greek readers (or anyone else) to see if they could find your textual “rendering” in the New Testament.

I pointed out that it is these sorts of habits of “adding to and taking away” from the text that is habitually a problem for you. In both of the threads I have seen you involved in (I’ve only seen two), your posts have resulted in this same discomfort of credibility and honesty. For example, if JayJayDee quotes a verse, I think I will find the verse in the bible just where he says it is and it will say the very thing he quotes it as saying. JayJayDees’ credibility on this point is very good. Yours credibility on this specific point is not.

For example, with your quotes, I cannot tell what the real verse might say. I cannot tell if your quote is even IN the bible where you say it is. You are simply not careful with biblical text and verses. For example, in post # 90, when you quote "psalms 53" to the poster Thanda, if Thanda actually goes to Psalms 53, she will not find your quote in that chapter, since it doesn’t even exist in that chapter, but is elsewhere.

And, when caught "embellishing" New Testament Text, you don't own up to it, but excuse it. READ your last post where you excuse adding to the text by appealing to personal context (that is, what the verse means to you...). While a "commentator" may add or subtract to explain what they think the meaning of a text is, a "translator" who is rendering a translation may not do this but is bound to use the text itself (though he may add commentary outside of the text to add explanation...). You cannot honestly add to or subtract from biblical text to support your theories and call it an accurate translation or rendering. Typically, readers on the forums are neither stupid, nor will they look kindly upon someone who takes such "liberties" with actual biblical text.

In any case, I hope your spiritual Journey is good.

And, JayJayDee, THANK YOU for accurately quoting scriptures and for the scriptures you quote actually being in the place where you quote them.

Clear
ειτζεινεω

 

[JayJayDee]

We have a few issues here. First, if we say Luke 16 is a parable, we would expect, as with all other parables, Jesus to explain Himself regarding the parable to His disciples following.

He did not explain all of them.
The details of the parable of the rich man do not fit with a literal application. Besides, the ancient Jews had no belief in heaven and hell. Jesus would not teach something that was not in God's word.

The verses immediately following this story or parable or example is that the Pharisees might not trust Jesus for salvation, even were He to appear before them resurrected. Jesus talking about resurrection gives me pause to consider the literal nature of His discourse regarding life after death.

There was no life after death in Jewish thinking apart from resurrection. Immortality of the soul is Greek, not Jewish.
You should know this.

In the Bible, every resurrection performed by God's servants was back to life in the flesh....it was the only resurrection they knew.

Second, I'm aware that many Bible passages are written from the perspective of the narrator. To someone on the Earth, the living die and leave little legacy to endure behind them for future generations on Earth. The futility of many accomplishments apart from God, of course, is the perspective of the entire book of Ecclesiastes.

Something Solomon brings up is the futility of living and dying with nothing to give us any advantage over the animals in death.
This of course was not the case originally. Humans were not created to die. It is a foreign element in our existence.
Solomon said we had no advantage over the animals now...and he was right. Adam brought this situation on his children. We are no better now than just human "animals".

Ecclesiastes 3:18-20...."I said to myself concerning the sons of men, “God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts.” For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust." (NASB)

Jesus came to fix that problem and to restore the everlasting life that God planned for us in the beginning.

Third, I hear what you are saying about Roman adoptions of pagan belief or Jewish beliefs regarding the soul. However, neither is to influence proper hermeneutics in interpreting scripture.

Whose "proper hermeneutics" are we talking about here? Surely not ones that support a corrupt religious system that has been lying to people for centuries? I find their hermeneutics to be anything but "proper". I allow the Bible to speak for itself.

When Jesus Christ was challenged regarding life after death, it was because the Pharisees held to the end of Isaiah, the end of Daniel, Job's messianic statements, etc. about the resurrection yet the Saducees said, "Brothers, those ain't Moses." Jesus cited Exodus 3, "I AM ABRAHAM'S GOD NOW, 400 years after Abraham died."

Huh? The teachings of the Pharisees was "leaven" (corrupted) according to Jesus. He didn't have anything good to say about the Sadducees either.

I assume you mean John 8:58 in this statement? If so, Jesus was saying that he was older than Abraham, not that he was Abraham's God.
YHWH does not mean "I Am" and never did. The divine name means "he causes to become" which denotes God's ability to become whatever he needs to be in order to carry out his purpose in the case of free willed beings, who can choose their own actions. Nothing is cast in concrete except God's original purpose. He will rise to any occasion to make sure that the final outcome is in line with his will.

You and I are responsible to parse and understand the living Word of God, not ancient thought that may or may not agree with holy writ.

We are under obligation to teach the truth that is in line with the entirety of scripture. Not to prop up erroneous beliefs and doctrines that infiltrated Christianity centuries ago through an apostate church system.

Understanding God's purpose in the beginning helps us to see how he achieves success in it at the end. (Isa 55:10, 11)

 

[BilliardsBall]

Billiardballs’ theory and definitions concerning a “saved Christian” compared to a “non-saved” person

Billiardsball :

You defined "saved" Christians as 1) receiving the holy spirit and given “heightened knowledge” and 2) beginning to “experience fruits of God’s Kingdom and eternal life”. When I asked what these statements actually meant, you have not clearly described what the difference is.

If both the “saved” and the “unsaved” have access to guidance from the Holy Spirit, and a specific “unsaved” person can have the guidance to the same degree as another “saved Christian”, then what is the advantage of being “saved” in this specific example?

You have also forgotten yet again to answer these other questions :

1) Are born again Christians who adhere to and believe in conflicting theories given the spirit despite their “heightened knowledge” leaving them as confused as everyone else? (forums give us many, many examples of “saved” Christians who argue for multiple, conflicting doctrines…)
2) Are "Born again" Christians who then repudiate their belief and defy God and do despicably immoral things also given the spirit to guide them?

You also declared your' theory that “saved” Christians experience “fruits of God’s Kingdom and eternal life”. You defined these fruits thusly : (post #85) " A schoolteacher might become a Sunday School teacher, a politician might become a mighty reformer or abolitionist, with purpose."

However, non-saved individuals can also become Sunday School teachers and wonderful teachers of religion as I gave you examples of. Non-saved individuals can become mighty reformers and abolitionists with purpose as per my examples.

You still have not differentiated a “saved” Christian from any other potential “non-saved” person other than their beliefs are different.




Regarding Billiardsballs’ rendering of Hebrews 10:26

In reponding to the poster Thanda, you claimed : (post # 87) “"We Jews may sin by rejecting salvation after having received the gospel, and then there remains no more sacrifice for sin..." is a completely acceptable rendering of the verse under discussion. “

Yet the greek text CANNOT be honestly translated per your “acceptable rendering”. You are adding many words and context to the text that the text does not have. No greek translator in the world can or would use your “rendering” for this verse. I gave you examples of the errors and additions you are making. I asked any other greek readers (or anyone else) to see if they could find your textual “rendering” in the New Testament.

I pointed out that it is these sorts of habits of “adding to and taking away” from the text that is habitually a problem for you. In both of the threads I have seen you involved in (I’ve only seen two), your posts have resulted in this same discomfort of credibility and honesty. For example, if JayJayDee quotes a verse, I think I will find the verse in the bible just where he says it is and it will say the very thing he quotes it as saying. JayJayDees’ credibility on this point is very good. Yours credibility on this specific point is not.

For example, with your quotes, I cannot tell what the real verse might say. I cannot tell if your quote is even IN the bible where you say it is. You are simply not careful with biblical text and verses. For example, in post # 90, when you quote "psalms 53" to the poster Thanda, if Thanda actually goes to Psalms 53, she will not find your quote in that chapter, since it doesn’t even exist in that chapter, but is elsewhere.

And, when caught "embellishing" New Testament Text, you don't own up to it, but excuse it. READ your last post where you excuse adding to the text by appealing to personal context (that is, what the verse means to you...). While a "commentator" may add or subtract to explain what they think the meaning of a text is, a "translator" who is rendering a translation may not do this but is bound to use the text itself (though he may add commentary outside of the text to add explanation...). You cannot honestly add to or subtract from biblical text to support your theories and call it an accurate translation or rendering. Typically, readers on the forums are neither stupid, nor will they look kindly upon someone who takes such "liberties" with actual biblical text.

In any case, I hope your spiritual Journey is good.

And, JayJayDee, THANK YOU for accurately quoting scriptures and for the scriptures you quote actually being in the place where you quote them.

Clear
ειτζεινεω

I'd say one clear difference -- the saved person goes to Heaven, the lost person to Hell. Since I also believe that this is not based on behavioral outcomes... can we say that many of the differences are internal? According to the scriptures, one has an inner witness of relationship with Jesus when saved. Additionally, as I believe I mentioned elsewhere on this thread (?) Christians receive spiritual gifts.

Second, I'm sorry for transposing a Psalm number. Thankfully Thanda and I have access to 100 versions of the Bible online as well as the ability to search Google for verses. Will you forgive me?

Third, paraphrasing Bible passages per one's interpretation is standard practice across numerous modern Bibles in numerous languages. My intent was to educate, not deceive. My intent was to bless, not cause distress. However, are you saying my exegesis if not my interpretation is wrong? Are you saying the blood of the covenant has to be the covenant of Christ's blood rather than the blood of the covenant of circumcision? Please support your thoughts with context and scripture, not re-reminding us all that the word "Jews" does not appear in that verse. We all knew that before I posted my note, including Thanda or she would already have not made the exegesis she had!

Thanks!

 

[BilliardsBall]

He did not explain all of them.
The details of the parable of the rich man do not fit with a literal application. Besides, the ancient Jews had no belief in heaven and hell. Jesus would not teach something that was not in God's word.



There was no life after death in Jewish thinking apart from resurrection. Immortality of the soul is Greek, not Jewish.
You should know this.

In the Bible, every resurrection performed by God's servants was back to life in the flesh....it was the only resurrection they knew.



Something Solomon brings up is the futility of living and dying with nothing to give us any advantage over the animals in death.
This of course was not the case originally. Humans were not created to die. It is a foreign element in our existence.
Solomon said we had no advantage over the animals now...and he was right. Adam brought this situation on his children. We are no better now than just human "animals".

Ecclesiastes 3:18-20...."I said to myself concerning the sons of men, “God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts.” For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust." (NASB)

Jesus came to fix that problem and to restore the everlasting life that God planned for us in the beginning.



Whose "proper hermeneutics" are we talking about here? Surely not ones that support a corrupt religious system that has been lying to people for centuries? I find their hermeneutics to be anything but "proper". I allow the Bible to speak for itself.



Huh? The teachings of the Pharisees was "leaven" (corrupted) according to Jesus. He didn't have anything good to say about the Sadducees either.

I assume you mean John 8:58 in this statement? If so, Jesus was saying that he was older than Abraham, not that he was Abraham's God.
YHWH does not mean "I Am" and never did. The divine name means "he causes to become" which denotes God's ability to become whatever he needs to be in order to carry out his purpose in the case of free willed beings, who can choose their own actions. Nothing is cast in concrete except God's original purpose. He will rise to any occasion to make sure that the final outcome is in line with his will.



We are under obligation to teach the truth that is in line with the entirety of scripture. Not to prop up erroneous beliefs and doctrines that infiltrated Christianity centuries ago through an apostate church system.

Understanding God's purpose in the beginning helps us to see how he achieves success in it at the end. (Isa 55:10, 11)

Here's a bit more on I AM in John 8:

- Exodus 3:14 in the Gospels

Although I was thinking of Mark 12. The next verse is "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living [Abraham, now]. You are badly mistaken!”

 

[JayJayDee]

Here's a bit more on I AM in John 8:

You must read the words of John 8:58 in context. Jesus is speaking with those whose intent towards him was murderous.

John 8:52-59......."The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.’ Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?” Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple." (NASB)

Jesus was answering a question about his age here. He was saying that he existed before Abraham was born. "I am" is not capitalised in the NASB because Jesus is not making the statement that he is God. Do you know how many times Jesus said "I am" in his teachings? In all those instances, someone picks out John 5:58 and claims that this is Jesus claiming to be God. John 5:58 has no connection whatsoever with Ex 3:14 for the simple reason that YHWH doesn't mean "I Am" and never did.

(Je·hoʹvah) [the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha·wahʹ (become); meaning “He Causes to Become”].
His name is not a statement of his being, but a statement of his intent.....to "become" whatever he needs to be in any given situation that arises in connection with his stated purpose.

- Exodus 3:14 in the Gospels

Sorry, that is incorrect. Jesus merely saying "I am" in all the instances he said it, is not differentiated in John 5:58 from all those other instances in any way. Humans seeking to make Jesus into God put that slant on those innocuous words. That is a pretty desperate attempt to make Jesus say something he did not.

Can you provide one single clear and unequivocal statement from either Jesus or his Father categorically making the son into his Father's equal in any way? Please provide it.

Although I was thinking of Mark 12. The next verse is "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living [Abraham, now]. You are badly mistaken!”

Do you understand "death" from God's perspective? All his faithful ones "live" as far as he is concerned.

Luke renders that passage this way....

Luke 20:37-38...."But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the burning bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Now He is not the God of the dead but of the living; for all live to Him." (NASB)

They are just "sleeping", awaiting the call to come out and enjoy the life they were promised. (John 5:28, 29)
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all those other men and women of faith in pre-Christian times were never promised heaven, but we're looking forward to Messiah's rule on earth. No Jew was labouring under the impression that his destiny was anything but earthly in those times.

When Jesus taught his disciples, that thought was so ingrained in them that even as he was ascending to heaven, they thought he was going to establish his kingdom in Israel at that time. (Acts 1:6) Jesus told them to wait in Jerusalem because the holy spirit would help them to understand many things. True to his word, when the holy spirit came upon those who had gathered, they were anointed and given the conviction and hope of life in heaven. They were to become immortal "kings and priests" who would rule with Christ in his heavenly kingdom (Rev 20:6)....but this kingdom would have earthly subjects. How do we know this? Because the apostle John, in the concluding part of his revelation from Jesus, said that "new Jerusalem" would descend to rule mankind. God would be with his people on earth. (Rev 21:1-5)
Abraham and all those mentioned in Heb 11 who saw this "city" afar off and welcomed it, will be resurrected to enjoy its benefits.

There was no "heaven and hell" in Jewish belief. And the holy spirit needed to convince Jesus earthly followers that they would be transformed into spirit beings in order to dwell in heaven with him. The hope of others is to live in an earthly paradise under their watchful care. What more could we want? This is the life God had planned for us all along.

I believe it is you who is badly mistaken.

 

[JesusBeliever]

It sounds to me like Heaven and Earth sort of merge (where God lives is heaven) and people land in one of two places.

Hi there, that's the impression I get as well except there are scriptures that suggest this merging has already happened. We just can't see it properly coz of the Old Man - Flesh. Here are the scriptures that come to mind:
[VERSE="Mar 4:30-32, KJV"]And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.[/VERSE]
The sown and growing up part reminds me of the Christ in Us. We start off as babes in Christ needing milk like a baby. Kind of explains why the Old Man gets the better of us during this stage coz we're only babes in Christ.
[VERSE="Isaiah 61:11 , KJV"]For as the earth bringeth forth her bud, and as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth; so the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.[/VERSE]
I get the impression that the Kingdom of God is sown in the believers when they accept Christ. This verse comes to mind:
[VERSE="Luke 10:8-9 , KJV"]And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.[/VERSE]
Recall that we are told that Heavenly Jerusalem is the Mother of all those born of the Spirit (Galatians 4:26). The book of Hebrews speaks of us already having come to Heavenly Jerusalem:
[VERSE="Heb 12:22-25, KJV"]But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:[/VERSE]
This makes perfect sense when you consider that verse 25 is making reference to Israel at Mount Sinai, when they asked that God not speak to them, "lest we die!" they said. This OT type apparently occurring on the day of Pentecost of that year, 50 days after they left Egypt. So this would mean that these verses relate to our Pentecost, except we are not supposed to be at Mount Sinai in the Wilderness but Mount Zion in the Heavenly Promised Land.
[VERSE="Heb 12:26-29, KJV"]Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 29 For our God is a consuming fire.
[/VERSE]
Sorry, I wasn't expecting this to be so long, I've just got one more verse before I sign off. I was reminded of this prophecy in Isaiah:
[VERSE="Isaiah 2:2-5, KJV"] 2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. 5 O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.[/VERSE]
A Bible search of the words "sword " and "mouth" suggests that it's our mouths that we need to beat into plowshares.

God Bless

 

[BilliardsBall]

You must read the words of John 8:58 in context. Jesus is speaking with those whose intent towards him was murderous.

John 8:52-59......."The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.’ Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?” Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple." (NASB)

Jesus was answering a question about his age here. He was saying that he existed before Abraham was born. "I am" is not capitalised in the NASB because Jesus is not making the statement that he is God. Do you know how many times Jesus said "I am" in his teachings? In all those instances, someone picks out John 5:58 and claims that this is Jesus claiming to be God. John 5:58 has no connection whatsoever with Ex 3:14 for the simple reason that YHWH doesn't mean "I Am" and never did.

(Je·hoʹvah) [the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha·wahʹ (become); meaning “He Causes to Become”].
His name is not a statement of his being, but a statement of his intent.....to "become" whatever he needs to be in any given situation that arises in connection with his stated purpose.



Sorry, that is incorrect. Jesus merely saying "I am" in all the instances he said it, is not differentiated in John 5:58 from all those other instances in any way. Humans seeking to make Jesus into God put that slant on those innocuous words. That is a pretty desperate attempt to make Jesus say something he did not.

Can you provide one single clear and unequivocal statement from either Jesus or his Father categorically making the son into his Father's equal in any way? Please provide it.



Do you understand "death" from God's perspective? All his faithful ones "live" as far as he is concerned.

Luke renders that passage this way....

Luke 20:37-38...."But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the burning bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Now He is not the God of the dead but of the living; for all live to Him." (NASB)

They are just "sleeping", awaiting the call to come out and enjoy the life they were promised. (John 5:28, 29)
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all those other men and women of faith in pre-Christian times were never promised heaven, but we're looking forward to Messiah's rule on earth. No Jew was labouring under the impression that his destiny was anything but earthly in those times.

When Jesus taught his disciples, that thought was so ingrained in them that even as he was ascending to heaven, they thought he was going to establish his kingdom in Israel at that time. (Acts 1:6) Jesus told them to wait in Jerusalem because the holy spirit would help them to understand many things. True to his word, when the holy spirit came upon those who had gathered, they were anointed and given the conviction and hope of life in heaven. They were to become immortal "kings and priests" who would rule with Christ in his heavenly kingdom (Rev 20:6)....but this kingdom would have earthly subjects. How do we know this? Because the apostle John, in the concluding part of his revelation from Jesus, said that "new Jerusalem" would descend to rule mankind. God would be with his people on earth. (Rev 21:1-5)
Abraham and all those mentioned in Heb 11 who saw this "city" afar off and welcomed it, will be resurrected to enjoy its benefits.

There was no "heaven and hell" in Jewish belief. And the holy spirit needed to convince Jesus earthly followers that they would be transformed into spirit beings in order to dwell in heaven with him. The hope of others is to live in an earthly paradise under their watchful care. What more could we want? This is the life God had planned for us all along.

I believe it is you who is badly mistaken.

Are you saying Jesus existed before Abraham was born?

Hebrews says Jesus was more than a mere man. Hebrews says Jesus was not an angel. What was He?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hi there, that's the impression I get as well except there are scriptures that suggest this merging has already happened. We just can't see it properly coz of the Old Man - Flesh. Here are the scriptures that come to mind:
[VERSE="Mar 4:30-32, KJV"]And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.[/VERSE]
The sown and growing up part reminds me of the Christ in Us. We start off as babes in Christ needing milk like a baby. Kind of explains why the Old Man gets the better of us during this stage coz we're only babes in Christ.
[VERSE="Isaiah 61:11 , KJV"]For as the earth bringeth forth her bud, and as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth; so the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.[/VERSE]
I get the impression that the Kingdom of God is sown in the believers when they accept Christ. This verse comes to mind:
[VERSE="Luke 10:8-9 , KJV"]And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.[/VERSE]
Recall that we are told that Heavenly Jerusalem is the Mother of all those born of the Spirit (Galatians 4:26). The book of Hebrews speaks of us already having come to Heavenly Jerusalem:
[VERSE="Heb 12:22-25, KJV"]But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:[/VERSE]
This makes perfect sense when you consider that verse 25 is making reference to Israel at Mount Sinai, when they asked that God not speak to them, "lest we die!" they said. This OT type apparently occurring on the day of Pentecost of that year, 50 days after they left Egypt. So this would mean that these verses relate to our Pentecost, except we are not supposed to be at Mount Sinai in the Wilderness but Mount Zion in the Heavenly Promised Land.
[VERSE="Heb 12:26-29, KJV"]Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 29 For our God is a consuming fire.
[/VERSE]
Sorry, I wasn't expecting this to be so long, I've just got one more verse before I sign off. I was reminded of this prophecy in Isaiah:
[VERSE="Isaiah 2:2-5, KJV"] 2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. 5 O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.[/VERSE]
A Bible search of the words "sword " and "mouth" suggests that it's our mouths that we need to beat into plowshares.

God Bless

I'm excited you are a new believer! It is very important for proper Bible interpretation that you allow the Bible to speak literally where it does so. The prophets, for example, were speaking of real weapons to real people under military threat--as is Israel now, surrounded by enemies.

 

[JayJayDee]

Are you saying Jesus existed before Abraham was born?

That is what he told his accusers. As "The Word" (Logos) who was "in the beginning" with his Father as his firstborn son, the spirit being who became the man Jesus, was definitely in existence before Abraham.

Hebrews says Jesus was more than a mere man. Hebrews says Jesus was not an angel. What was He?

He is and always has been the "only begotten son" of his Father. He is a unique creation because he existed before all things and through him all things came into existence. But he is not the Creator...only the Father can carry that title.
The pre-human Jesus was the Father's "master workman" (Prov 8:22, 30, 31) and was with his God as the fabricator of the raw materials used to bring all things into being. (Col 1:15-17) He is the agency through which God created everything we see and the things we don't see. He is "the image" or reflection of his Father and the most important personage in existence apart from his God. He is not just an angel, (which means messenger) he is God son. He is commander and chief of all the army of the heavens. (2 Thess 1:7-9)

Seeing Jesus as a deity equal with his Father is blasphemous. It is a violation of the first Commandment. He never once claimed the position given to him by Christendom.