Results 21 - 39 of 39
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Movingon Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | The allegorical or metaphorical teaching | Not Specified | Movingon | 240391 | ||
There are upwards of 300 different Christian denominations in America supposedly coming from the same textbook; the Bible? The parent from which all heresy sprang and is still very much with us today in the pseudo interpretation of Scripture. In ordinary Christian conversation about understanding Scripture one often hears the term “spiritual interpretation,” without realizing it is not happenstance or a natural progression, but has roots in things that most are not acquainted with. The terms “allegorical,” “parabolical,” “metaphorical,” or the more common expression in layman terms, “spiritual,” have their roots in ancient history. They are by their very geneses a stumbling block to, and in direct opposition to understanding Divine revelation. The Oxford Classical Dictionary states: “Allegorical reading of works of literature-above all the mythological poems of Homer and Hesiod, decoded as accounts of the physical world or the truths of morality-seems to begin as early as the 6th cent, BC and to be an established (if controversial) practice by the end of the 5th.” It is almost inconceivable that rational people would or could approach the Scriptures with such foolishness in mind, yet that is precisely what those who use that method do. It should be axiomatic, if a normal literal statement doesn’t mean what is said, then, it has no meaning. If God indeed meant other than what is written, the entirely reasonable question could be asked concerning the misuse of Scripture, “How could God find fault with anyone, if He himself doesn’t mean what He says? From the heathen mystery religions came the belief that not only did almost every passage have a secret, mysterious and higher meaning, but that God had at times actually falsified even historical events and dates as Philo, an Alexandrian Jew (20 BC AD 50) a contemporary of Christ claimed. This was the method commonly taught by Philo, Barnabas, and later by Clement of Alexandria, who passed it on to his star pupil, Origen (185 254), who in AD 203 at the age of eighteen became head of the catechetical school of theology at Alexandria Egypt, which at that time was the world’s foremost Christian school. From the beginning that belief was established by the church leadership as the correct and legitimate method of teaching that would determine the course of church history and to a great extent world history for the next thirteen centuries until the Reformation. It paved the road to the dark ages for a thousand years and even until the present the same disastrous method is used more or less by most of Christendom. The disastrous result of the method is witnessed by the heresy, confusion everywhere it is used. That method is in fact what almost everyone believed in the primitive church and is the parent of the present theological confusion in the body of Christ. Examples of the claim that God at times falsified Scripture were common in the early church writings. It is often and especially seen in the writings of Origen (AD 185 254), one of the most prolific writers of the post apostolic times. Speaking of the writers of the Scriptures he said: “Scripture contains many contradictions, and many statements which are not literally true, but must be read spiritually and mystically. “…They proposed to speak the truth where it was their intention to prefer the spiritual to the material. The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in the material falsehood.” (Origen, Commentary on John, Anti Nicene Fathers, Hendrickson Pub., 1994. Vol. 9, p. 383). If a statement using normal words is not accepted as meaning what the writer said, then the only thing left are the inventions of those who deny what God has said. They have cast aside the only standard by which all conclusions must be decided which is the Holy Scriptures. If they ever read it they would do well to remember Paul’s statement to the Corinthians about his teaching (2 Cor. 1:13). The allegorical or metaphorical method of teaching according to Paul was contrary to sound biblical exegesis and according to the world’s wisdom. Why not let Paul instruct those who use the metaphorical method. “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). In 2 Cor.1:13 Paul said: “...our dealings with you, have been absolutely aboveboard and sincere before God. They have not been marked by any worldly wisdom, but by the grace of God. Our letters to you have no double meaning-they mean just what you understand them to mean when you read them” (Phillips translation). “…we mean by our letters nothing else than what you read in them and understand us to mean” (Knox translation). “You don’t have to read between the lines of my letters; you can understand them.” (Moffatt. Translation). In His Grace Movingon |
||||||
22 | The allegorical or metaphorical teaching | Bible general | Movingon | 240392 | ||
There are upwards of 300 different Christian denominations in America supposedly coming from the same textbook; the Bible? The parent from which all heresy sprang and is still very much with us today in the pseudo interpretation of Scripture. In ordinary Christian conversation about understanding Scripture one often hears the term “spiritual interpretation,” without realizing it is not happenstance or a natural progression, but has roots in things that most are not acquainted with. The terms “allegorical,” “parabolical,” “metaphorical,” or the more common expression in layman terms, “spiritual,” have their roots in ancient history. They are by their very geneses a stumbling block to, and in direct opposition to understanding Divine revelation. The Oxford Classical Dictionary states: “Allegorical reading of works of literature-above all the mythological poems of Homer and Hesiod, decoded as accounts of the physical world or the truths of morality-seems to begin as early as the 6th cent, BC and to be an established (if controversial) practice by the end of the 5th.” It is almost inconceivable that rational people would or could approach the Scriptures with such foolishness in mind, yet that is precisely what those who use that method do. It should be axiomatic, if a normal literal statement doesn’t mean what is said, then, it has no meaning. If God indeed meant other than what is written, the entirely reasonable question could be asked concerning the misuse of Scripture, “How could God find fault with anyone, if He himself doesn’t mean what He says? From the heathen mystery religions came the belief that not only did almost every passage have a secret, mysterious and higher meaning, but that God had at times actually falsified even historical events and dates as Philo, an Alexandrian Jew (20 BC AD 50) a contemporary of Christ claimed. This was the method commonly taught by Philo, Barnabas, and later by Clement of Alexandria, who passed it on to his star pupil, Origen (185 254), who in AD 203 at the age of eighteen became head of the catechetical school of theology at Alexandria Egypt, which at that time was the world’s foremost Christian school. From the beginning that belief was established by the church leadership as the correct and legitimate method of teaching that would determine the course of church history and to a great extent world history for the next thirteen centuries until the Reformation. It paved the road to the dark ages for a thousand years and even until the present the same disastrous method is used more or less by most of Christendom. The disastrous result of the method is witnessed by the heresy, confusion everywhere it is used. That method is in fact what almost everyone believed in the primitive church and is the parent of the present theological confusion in the body of Christ. Examples of the claim that God at times falsified Scripture were common in the early church writings. It is often and especially seen in the writings of Origen (AD 185 254), one of the most prolific writers of the post apostolic times. Speaking of the writers of the Scriptures he said: “Scripture contains many contradictions, and many statements which are not literally true, but must be read spiritually and mystically. “…They proposed to speak the truth where it was their intention to prefer the spiritual to the material. The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in the material falsehood.” (Origen, Commentary on John, Anti Nicene Fathers, Hendrickson Pub., 1994. Vol. 9, p. 383). If a statement using normal words is not accepted as meaning what the writer said, then the only thing left are the inventions of those who deny what God has said. They have cast aside the only standard by which all conclusions must be decided which is the Holy Scriptures. If they ever read it they would do well to remember Paul’s statement to the Corinthians about his teaching (2 Cor. 1:13). The allegorical or metaphorical method of teaching according to Paul was contrary to sound biblical exegesis and according to the world’s wisdom. Why not let Paul instruct those who use the metaphorical method. “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). In 2 Cor.1:13 Paul said: “...our dealings with you, have been absolutely aboveboard and sincere before God. They have not been marked by any worldly wisdom, but by the grace of God. Our letters to you have no double meaning-they mean just what you understand them to mean when you read them” (Phillips translation). “…we mean by our letters nothing else than what you read in them and understand us to mean” (Knox translation). “You don’t have to read between the lines of my letters; you can understand them.” (Moffatt. Translation). In His Grace Movingon |
||||||
23 | Is the allegorical or metaphorical metho | Not Specified | Movingon | 240390 | ||
There are upwards of 300 different Christian denominations in America supposedly coming from the same textbook; the Bible? The parent from which all heresy sprang and is still very much with us today in the pseudo interpretation of Scripture. In ordinary Christian conversation about understanding Scripture one often hears the term “spiritual interpretation,” without realizing it is not happenstance or a natural progression, but has roots in things that most are not acquainted with. The terms “allegorical,” “parabolical,” “metaphorical,” or the more common expression in layman terms, “spiritual,” have their roots in ancient history. They are by their very geneses a stumbling block to, and in direct opposition to understanding Divine revelation. The Oxford Classical Dictionary states: “Allegorical reading of works of literature-above all the mythological poems of Homer and Hesiod, decoded as accounts of the physical world or the truths of morality-seems to begin as early as the 6th cent, BC and to be an established (if controversial) practice by the end of the 5th.” It is almost inconceivable that rational people would or could approach the Scriptures with such foolishness in mind, yet that is precisely what those who use that method do. It should be axiomatic, if a normal literal statement doesn’t mean what is said, then, it has no meaning. If God indeed meant other than what is written, the entirely reasonable question could be asked concerning the misuse of Scripture, “How could God find fault with anyone, if He himself doesn’t mean what He says? From the heathen mystery religions came the belief that not only did almost every passage have a secret, mysterious and higher meaning, but that God had at times actually falsified even historical events and dates as Philo, an Alexandrian Jew (20 BC AD 50) a contemporary of Christ claimed. This was the method commonly taught by Philo, Barnabas, and later by Clement of Alexandria, who passed it on to his star pupil, Origen (185 254), who in AD 203 at the age of eighteen became head of the catechetical school of theology at Alexandria Egypt, which at that time was the world’s foremost Christian school. From the beginning that belief was established by the church leadership as the correct and legitimate method of teaching that would determine the course of church history and to a great extent world history for the next thirteen centuries until the Reformation. It paved the road to the dark ages for a thousand years and even until the present the same disastrous method is used more or less by most of Christendom. The disastrous result of the method is witnessed by the heresy, confusion everywhere it is used. That method is in fact what almost everyone believed in the primitive church and is the parent of the present theological confusion in the body of Christ. Examples of the claim that God at times falsified Scripture were common in the early church writings. It is often and especially seen in the writings of Origen (AD 185 254), one of the most prolific writers of the post apostolic times. Speaking of the writers of the Scriptures he said: “Scripture contains many contradictions, and many statements which are not literally true, but must be read spiritually and mystically. “…They proposed to speak the truth where it was their intention to prefer the spiritual to the material. The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in the material falsehood.” (Origen, Commentary on John, Anti Nicene Fathers, Hendrickson Pub., 1994. Vol. 9, p. 383). If a statement using normal words is not accepted as meaning what the writer said, then the only thing left are the inventions of those who deny what God has said. They have cast aside the only standard by which all conclusions must be decided which is the Holy Scriptures. If they ever read it they would do well to remember Paul’s statement to the Corinthians about his teaching (2 Cor. 1:13). The allegorical or metaphorical method of teaching according to Paul was contrary to sound biblical exegesis and according to the world’s wisdom. Why not let Paul instruct those who use the metaphorical method. “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). In 2 Cor.1:13 Paul said: “...our dealings with you, have been absolutely aboveboard and sincere before God. They have not been marked by any worldly wisdom, but by the grace of God. Our letters to you have no double meaning-they mean just what you understand them to mean when you read them” (Phillips translation). “…we mean by our letters nothing else than what you read in them and understand us to mean” (Knox translation). “You don’t have to read between the lines of my letters; you can understand them.” (Moffatt. Translation). In His Grace Movingon |
||||||
24 | Is the allegorical or metaphorical metho | Bible general | Movingon | 240394 | ||
There are upwards of 300 different Christian denominations in America supposedly coming from the same textbook; the Bible? The parent from which all heresy sprang and is still very much with us today in the pseudo interpretation of Scripture. In ordinary Christian conversation about understanding Scripture one often hears the term “spiritual interpretation,” without realizing it is not happenstance or a natural progression, but has roots in things that most are not acquainted with. The terms “allegorical,” “parabolical,” “metaphorical,” or the more common expression in layman terms, “spiritual,” have their roots in ancient history. They are by their very geneses a stumbling block to, and in direct opposition to understanding Divine revelation. The Oxford Classical Dictionary states: “Allegorical reading of works of literature-above all the mythological poems of Homer and Hesiod, decoded as accounts of the physical world or the truths of morality-seems to begin as early as the 6th cent, BC and to be an established (if controversial) practice by the end of the 5th.” It is almost inconceivable that rational people would or could approach the Scriptures with such foolishness in mind, yet that is precisely what those who use that method do. It should be axiomatic, if a normal literal statement doesn’t mean what is said, then, it has no meaning. If God indeed meant other than what is written, the entirely reasonable question could be asked concerning the misuse of Scripture, “How could God find fault with anyone, if He himself doesn’t mean what He says? From the heathen mystery religions came the belief that not only did almost every passage have a secret, mysterious and higher meaning, but that God had at times actually falsified even historical events and dates as Philo, an Alexandrian Jew (20 BC AD 50) a contemporary of Christ claimed. This was the method commonly taught by Philo, Barnabas, and later by Clement of Alexandria, who passed it on to his star pupil, Origen (185 254), who in AD 203 at the age of eighteen became head of the catechetical school of theology at Alexandria Egypt, which at that time was the world’s foremost Christian school. From the beginning that belief was established by the church leadership as the correct and legitimate method of teaching that would determine the course of church history and to a great extent world history for the next thirteen centuries until the Reformation. It paved the road to the dark ages for a thousand years and even until the present the same disastrous method is used more or less by most of Christendom. The disastrous result of the method is witnessed by the heresy, confusion everywhere it is used. That method is in fact what almost everyone believed in the primitive church and is the parent of the present theological confusion in the body of Christ. Examples of the claim that God at times falsified Scripture were common in the early church writings. It is often and especially seen in the writings of Origen (AD 185 254), one of the most prolific writers of the post apostolic times. Speaking of the writers of the Scriptures he said: “Scripture contains many contradictions, and many statements which are not literally true, but must be read spiritually and mystically. “…They proposed to speak the truth where it was their intention to prefer the spiritual to the material. The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in the material falsehood.” (Origen, Commentary on John, Anti Nicene Fathers, Hendrickson Pub., 1994. Vol. 9, p. 383). If a statement using normal words is not accepted as meaning what the writer said, then the only thing left are the inventions of those who deny what God has said. They have cast aside the only standard by which all conclusions must be decided which is the Holy Scriptures. If they ever read it they would do well to remember Paul’s statement to the Corinthians about his teaching (2 Cor. 1:13). The allegorical or metaphorical method of teaching according to Paul was contrary to sound biblical exegesis and according to the world’s wisdom. Why not let Paul instruct those who use the metaphorical method. “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). In 2 Cor.1:13 Paul said: “...our dealings with you, have been absolutely aboveboard and sincere before God. They have not been marked by any worldly wisdom, but by the grace of God. Our letters to you have no double meaning-they mean just what you understand them to mean when you read them” (Phillips translation). “…we mean by our letters nothing else than what you read in them and understand us to mean” (Knox translation). “You don’t have to read between the lines of my letters; you can understand them.” (Moffatt. Translation). In His Grace Movingon |
||||||
25 | If "heaven" is a metaphor | Phil 3:20 | Movingon | 240193 | ||
Hi Beja Thanks for reminding me of my language. If I might ask a favor of you please read a response to my post on New Covenant beginning from DocTrinsograce. In His grace Movingon Following is Doc's note. Note: "Hi, movingon... We are not a forum created for debate, or the promulgation of unusual or aberrant teachings. Our gracious host, the Lockman Foundation, has us agree specifically to these things in the Terms of Use (TOU). I understand that you want to pedal your books -- although that is also eschewed in the TOU. Ours is necessarily an ecumenical association of Christendom. It is novel to hear from the fringe from time to time, but you might be received in a better light in some of the other forums in which you have participated. There, perhaps, the focus is more on novelty that on Scripture alone. In Him, Doc" |
||||||
26 | If "heaven" is a metaphor | Phil 3:20 | Movingon | 240191 | ||
Doc says: “Citizenship of heaven is a metaphor -- not heaven itself.” As to Paul's remark that citizenship in heaven being a metaphor used by most Christians is the same as most Amillennial twisting of plain literal words to suit their own inventions. It's an outright denial of what Paul said. It is also the teaching of Christadelphianism, Seventh Day Adventists’ who accepts most of Ellen G. White’s teaching and the so called Jehovah’s witnesses, etc.. To deny our citizenship in heaven and it’s literalness is to rob the Lord's people of a great blessing. In the Old Testament the Hebrew word Sheol identifies the retaining place of the spirit and soul of the deceased as when the Lord spoke of the rich man and Lazerus (Lk. 16:19-31). According to Doc they are still there. But in Zech. 9:11 the Lord said of Israel’s New Covenant and those saved and preserved in Sheol: “…because of the blood of your covenant, I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit.” That pit was described by the Lord in Lk. 16:19-31. The waterless pit was Sheol in the lower regions of the earth where Abraham and all who trusted God before the cross were preserved until their sins were paid for (Lk. 16:19-31). If I may be permitted to remind Doc, God said He would set His people free of Sheol. Paul speaks of their very deliverance when after the Lord’s death He descended into Sheol (Hades in Greek) and when He ascended and took those who had been prisoners until payment for their sins was accomplished. "When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men." (Now this, "He ascended"--what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.) And He Himself gave some [to be] apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Eph. 4:8-12). According to Paul the Lord Jesus Christ is going to bring from heaven those whose soul and spirit were taken out of Hades. He then took them up to heaven with the Him at His Ascension. At the rapture He comes to resurrect their physical bodies to be joined with their soul and spirit from heaven. Then together those yet living at that time will also be changed and taken to heaven with those who will be changed to have a glorious body the same as the Lord Himself yet living at that time. “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words” (1 Thess. 4:13-18). Following are other passages showing soul’s in heaven. Ephesians 3:14-15 states, "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." “So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:6-8). “When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held…”(Rev. (6:9). “Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed” (Rev. 6:11). "Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?" And I said to him, "Sir, you know." So he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. And I said to him, "Sir, you know." So he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 7:13-14). In His grace Movingon |
||||||
27 | New Covenant beginning | Heb 8:13 | Movingon | 240178 | ||
Doc says: “Despite the Campbellism advertising, there is a big problem here; i.e., making the Sermon on the Mount -- and, apparently, all the other places Christ mandates forgiveness -- as only applying to the Jews.” I do see there is a big problem here. You don’t seem to have a problem with Christ’s teaching the way to eternal life is through keeping the commandments by talking about the gospels being an integral part of the New Covenant. Of course the Lord said many things that applies to any and all but again, you have completely missed the distinction between an earthly kingdom under the law of commandments and all the statutes and judgments that the Lord was offering, and the present church whose citizenship is already in heaven. Either you misunderstood or just rejected what I said. In Matt. 5:3-10 if we are to believe those things applies to everyone then we do have trouble. If you believe us not forgiving others sins will result in God not forgiving ours, does that mean we will be lost? All I am trying to do is to cut things clean and make sharp distinctions of what the Old and New Covenants teach. And eliminate confusion caused when you cannot tell the difference between the Old Covenant Mosaic laws and the present dispensation of grace. Do you not understand what Paul said of the Old Covenant? I will quote it for you in case you missed it. “…THE LETTER KILLS, but the Spirit gives life. But if THE MINISTRY OF DEATH, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the MINISTRY OF THE SPIRIT not be more glorious? For if the MINISTRY OF CONDEMNATION had glory, the MINISTRY OF RIGHTEOUSNESS exceeds much more in glory” (2 Cor. 6-9). Look what Paul said concerning the Old Mosaic Covenant of commandments which the gospels are part of that you are defending. “…having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” Col. 2:14). “…if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain” (Gal. 2:21). “…Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4). I am writing this because Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. so the unlearned can understand what the Scriptures plainly say without all the theological jargon of theologians who brought all the problems to the church of Christ for the last two millennia. And yes, paved the road to a thousand years of the dark ages for the whole world. You are poisoning the waters of truth by your insistence that we are to use the Lord’s teaching of things under the Mosaic laws that is contrary Paul’s teaching of grace. Again, my point was, the Lord was speaking to the Jews about life in an earthly kingdom and under the Mosaic laws which we are not. If anyone does not make that distinction then confusion cannot and will not be avoided and it seems that distinction has completely escaped you. Did you ever notice when the Lord spoke of one entering the kingdom it was always based on their works rather than their faith. I know you have read the parables of the wheat and tares, sheep and goats and Rev. 2-3 where we see the same thing where over and over; “…he who overcomes.” Whereas, we have already overcome and stand in Christ and without spot or blemish. I know you understand Doc that salvation is through our faith, yet you mix law and grace constantly in the use of what is erroneously called the gospels without distinction between the fact that there was a gospel for the Jews, and, a gospel for the Gentiles which is the present assembly of Christ (Gal. 2:2, 7-9). Of our security in Christ Paul said: “…also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee” (2 Cor. 1:22). “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,…” (Eph. 1:13). “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30). “Israel was under the Law where it is said: “…the soul who sins shall die…” (Eze. 18:4, 20). Paul said: “…wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. ” (Rom. 6:23). Doc I love you in Christ when I take issue with you when all I am trying to do is eliminate confusion in the Body of Christ that your type of Theological philosophy on the Old Covenant creates. In His grace Movingon |
||||||
28 | WHATSOEVER YOU ASK THE FATHER | Bible general | Movingon | 240163 | ||
Two Scritpures have been mentioned. One was: “Are you still saved if you don't forgive?” And "…whatsoever you ask the father in my name you shall have so that the father... etc." The confusion on these passage from John 14:13-14 and other similar passages of Matt. 6:14-15 is because we are applying Scripture to the church that belongs to Israel in the earthly kingdom the Lord was offering. One of the benefits of dispensationalism is a proper separation of the covenants and dispensations which are missing here. Nowhere did the Lord ever in His earthly ministry directly mention the present assembly of Christ. Since they were offering a restoration of the Davidic kingdom (Kingdom from heaven) then we have a completely different set of promises, requirements and goals from the Old Covenant gospels. In Zech. 12:6-10 we read of Israel in the days of the kingdom and the miraculous power of some: “In that day I will make the governors of Judah like a firepan in the woodpile, and like a fiery torch in the sheaves; they shall devour all the surrounding peoples on the right hand and on the left, but Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place Jerusalem. The Lord will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall not become greater that of Judah. In that day the Lord will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; the one who is feeble among them in that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the Angel of the Lord before them. It shall be in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they have pierced; they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn”. Another among many is the confusion of the Lord’s words when He said: “But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” Does that apply to us in this dispensation of grace? Years ago my barber an Armenian and I always discussed the Scriptures while he cut my hair and the forgiveness of sin came up and I asked him, if you sinned and before you confessed it what would happen? His immediate answer was: I would be lost. Well, we have the same problem about forgiving some ones sins such as the passage under consideration here if it applies to the present assembly of Christ. Again, we are mixing two different covenants, two different dispensations and a heavenly citizenship with an earthly one. Surely we can see the error of applying the gospels as New Testament and the gospel of the kingdom under the old Mosaic laws and Paul’s gospel of grace. It has been said that the gospels are an integral part of the New Testament. But Paul said of the Law which the Lord taught: “…the letter kills,” a “…ministry of death” and a “…ministry of condemnation” (2 Cor. 3:6-7, 9). Furthermore, twice (Gal. 1:8-9) Paul said of anyone who taught the necessity of keeping the law for salvation: “let them be accursed.” The very exact thing the Lord told a young man who asked what he had to do to have eternal life. He said to the young man: “…if you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” The Lord was only quoting what Moses wrote in Lev. 18:5. I told a man the Lord said the way to have eternal life was to keep the commandments. Then I told him Paul said if anyone taught that, “…let them be accursed. I Then asked him who are we to believe? And, is Paul contradicting the Lord? He had no answer. Then I explained to him that the Lord and Paul only taught what was required under the covenant in which they ministered, so there was no contradiction by either. Once on TV I was listening to what was supposed to be a minister of the gospel who said: “...the Lord and Paul did not always agree, so who are we to believe”? He then answered his own question: "...of course we believe the Lord.” With an audience of millions he had suggested that all the 14 epistles of Paul including the Hebrews letter could not be trusted. We have a similar problem with red letter bibles which suggests that the Lord’s words are more important than any other. Did Paul not say he was speaking the commandments of the Lord? (1 Cor. 14:37). Yet for some of my remarks it has been suggested elsewhere that I am a nitpicker and troublemaker. Well, I will leave that to the Lord. In His grace Movingon |
||||||
29 | His "Church"? | Matt 16:18 | Movingon | 240128 | ||
In Matthew Chap.10:5-23 is an unbroken narrative of the Lord sending out the twelve to preach the gospel of the kingdom that ends at His Second Advent where there is nowhere a break for the present dispensation. In Chap. 22:2-10 is a parable of three offerings of the kingdom and still no mention of the present assembly of Christ that is between the second and third offer. The third offer of vv. 8-10 is the same as the Lords words in Matt. 24:14 after the rapture when the gospel of the kingdom for the third and last time will be preached to “…all the world”. In Acts 1-3 is found the second offer of the kingdom as in Matt. 22:4-7 where Peter preached the same Gospel of the Kingdom after the cross that they and Lord preached before the cross. We know vv. 4-7 was after the cross because that is the first persecution of his servants and the result in v. 7 where the Lord sent His armies under Titus and burned up Jerusalem. In Acts 1:3-6 when after teaching the disciples for 40 days about things concerning the kingdom they asked the Lord if He would at that time restore the kingdom to Israel. In verse 7 He did not correct them, but simply told them, it was not for them to know when. If they were confused, that was the appropriate time to correct them, but we find no such thing. When it is said that the present church did not begin on the Day of Pentecost with Peter’s preaching, immediately we are told that the Lord said He would build his church and the gates of Hades would not prevail against it. The confusion has been caused by the erroneous translation of the Lord’s words in Matt. 16:18 when He said that He would build His “Church.” If the word church, simply means the “the called out ones,” as we are told, then the word ekklesia translated “church” is just as appropriate when applied to the Ephesian idol worshiping mob who would have killed Paul (Acts 19:32, 39, 41), as when it is used to identify the present assembly of Christ. Would we say the idol worshipers were the “called out ones? Because the translators want to believe the present assembly of Christ was what the Lord spoke of, they have deliberately misled the present assembly of Christ for two thousand years by translating the Greek “ekklesia,” to “church,” when the common word ‘ekklesia’ simply means is an assembly, of any kind or thing. If the word in Matt. 16:18 means church as used today, then we have a contradiction when the Lord said He would build His assembly and then immediately give Peter the keys to what identified in the next verse 19 as the kingdom of heaven. They are most certainly not the same as Doc points out. The term “kingdom of heaven” is used for a total of 33 times in Matthew alone, so there is no doubt as to what the keys were to open in spite of what scholars and church leaders tell us. Neither is the church a kingdom par-se of any kind. It is a clear example past and present of those who know better yet deliberately mislead the Lord’s people. They are not to be excused of the absurdity and harm that they have wrought in the body of Christ. They are determined to prove that the Lord was speaking of the present assembly of Christ in Matthew 16. When we say church assembly, we are actually saying the redundant, assembly assembly, or, assembly congregation. Yet we still continue to perpetuate the same nonsense because we have been misled by the philosophers and translators into the belief that the present church was what the Lord spoke of in Matt. 16:18. Of the original Greek word “ekklesia,” the very qualified Merrill F. Unger says: "The word ekklesia, however, is employed of any assembly, and the word in the Greek language implies no more". Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary, Moody Press. 1960, p. 204. A. T. Robertson certainly did not agree with me on many things, nevertheless as a recognized authority on NT Greek, his words are weighty, and even he has to agree on the meaning of the word “ekklesia” as found in Matt. 16:18, and 18:17 and it’s origin. He says: “What is the sense here in which Jesus uses it? The word originally meant “assembly” (Acts 19:39, but it came to be applied to an “unassembled” assembly….”And the name for the new Israel, ekklesia, in His mouth is not an anachronism. It is an old familiar name for the congregation of Israel found in Deut. (18:26; (sic) 23:2) and (Psalms 22:36) (sic), both books well known to Jesus….” It is interesting to observe that in Psalm 89 most of the important words employed by Jesus on this occasion occur in the LXX text”. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1930, Vol. 1, p. 132. Robertson clearly identifies the original Greek having a meaning of assembly. And that is what is being said here and so identified by the Lord Himself when He gave Peter the keys to the “kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19) and in other places as the kingdom of David. In His grace Movingon |
||||||
30 | His "Church"? | Not Specified | Movingon | 240124 | ||
What did the Lord mean when in Matt. 16:18 He said: "...I will build my church"? | ||||||
31 | His "Church"? | Matt 16:18 | Movingon | 240126 | ||
What did the Lord mean when in Matt. 16:18 He said: "...I will build my church"? | ||||||
32 | Is the water the preached word of god? | Rev 21:6 | Movingon | 240123 | ||
Concerning Eph. 5:26 Mommapbs asks: What is this "washing?" Of all the answers one thing is obvious. The Scriptures that explains what the washing is, is totally ignored. It seems to me the best and to the point is The Amplied New Testament which says: “…having cleansed her with the washing of water with the word,…” “With the Word”, is speaking of two things, not one explaining the other. To be explicit on baptism, Peter said to the Jews when they realized they had crucified and murdered their King: “…what shall we do?” Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Peter also explains baptism in 1Pet. 3:20-21. Paul the apostle speaks of sins being forgiven and his new birth when he was taken to Ananias who said to Saul of Tarsus who became Paul the apostle: “…you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. ‘And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts.22:14-16). May I kindly say: the washing above is the same washing Paul speaks of in Eph. 5:26. When speaking of the time of salvation of the believer Paul said to the Roman and Colossians churches: "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection" (Rom. 6:3-5). When Paul speaks of being buried with Christ, he is speaking of emersion in water and as one comes out of the water they are raised by the Holy Spirit to new life like Christ who arose from the grave. “…buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with [Him] through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Col. 2:13). Here it is plain that “through our faith” in the working of God we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit as we come up out of the water (grave). Paul in Acts 19:2-6 when speaking to some disciples of John the Baptist asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit and they said they didn’t know there was a Holy Spirit. He then baptized them in water and when he laid hands on them they received the Holy Spirit. Again, both water and Holy Spirit baptism is clearly seen. "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit” (1Cor. 12:13). It is understood that the above words of instruction from Peter and Paul will not be accepted by most evangelical Christians. However, it is more important to listen to the Word’s of Scripture since that is what we will be judged by, rather than what scholars and teachers say. Those who disagree with what is written here always bring up the following remark by Paul supposedly to prove that Paul did not teach water baptism. "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect” (1 Cor. 1:17). But they always leave off the very thing that shows very plainly that Paul did teach water baptism and had baptized others but explains why he did not normally do it himself. "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other" (1Cor. 1:14-16). Paul also baptized 12 disciples of John the Baptist. We have a plain and easy to understand case of water baptism with Philip and a eunuch when he preached Jesus to him (Acts 8:36-38). “Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him” (Acts 19:1-6). It is very plain here again that it was his faith in Jesus that brought about his salvation. It is certainly not being said that God will not save anyone apart from water baptism. I myself was born of the Spirit of God before water baptism. But it is plain that both Peter and Paul and Philip taught water baptism as a physical act of initiation. So often when one is confronted with Scripture about a simple and plain truth, they imediately say: “well I think;” it doesn’t matter what we "think". What matters is what the Word says? In His grace movingon |
||||||
33 | New Covenant beginning | Heb 8:13 | Movingon | 240061 | ||
This answer is to DocTrinsograce about his answer to my post about the division between the Old and New Covenant. New Covenant beginning Note: "Hi, movingon... We are not a forum created for debate, or the promulgation of unusual or aberrant teachings. Our gracious host, the Lockman Foundation, has us agree specifically to these things in the Terms of Use (TOU). I understand that you want to pedal your books -- although that is also eschewed in the TOU. Ours is necessarily an ecumenical association of Christendom. It is novel to hear from the fringe from time to time, but you might be received in a better light in some of the other forums in which you have participated. There, perhaps, the focus is more on novelty that on Scripture alone. In Him, Doc" You said: “In hermeneutics we have something called the principle of previous mention. When the same writer uses the same word in the same way he means the same thing. As stated it is one of those things that sounds a bit pedantic; but without it, rational communication would be impossible.” Answering the Doctor You say we are not a forum created for debate. According to the dictionary a forum is: (1) "…a meeting at which a subject can be discussed. (2) "…a place or opportunity for discussing a subject. “I thought that was what we were doing. The subject I asked about was the division of the Old and New Covenant and showed the plain statements by Paul in the Hebrews and Galatians epistle where the present division is incorrect and you challenged me with the remark: “In hermeneutics we have something called the principle of previous mention…” You or no one else can use theological principles or anything else to deny what is plainly written in the Scriptures. Then you accuse me of chopping up the gospels and placing part of them after Malachi and the rest before Acts. Those were your words not mine. You then accuse me of being silly for your invention that you accuse me of. Ad to that, you say perhaps I should go where: “…perhaps, the focus is more on novelty than on Scripture alone.” It seems to me that you are the one being novel. Ad to the above the accusation that I want to pedal my books. You say: “…I understand that you want to pedal your books.” Well Doc, that hurt. Even though there isn’t a word of truth in your remark I can quickly say: I would be more than happy to give anything I have written to anyone who would care to read them without any charge anytime. If that wasn’t enough you then say I am novel and on the fringe. I can imagine some of the things you accuse me of were common in the days of the Reformers because they came to undersanding the Scriptures as meaning what they literally said. Perhaps they became weary of theological principles. Doc I would very much like to discuss and share my findings in Scripture without any heated debate with you or anyone on the forum. I understand your concern with my conclusions. What I do not understand is you slandering behavior when I said nothing to deserve it. I notice your contribution in helping others to understanding many things with your vast knowledge of Scripture and for that I am thankful. And if you don’t manage to get me dismissed from the Forum, perhaps I can also help some and I am certainly not above learning from you or anyone else. The only thing I expect from you is treatment as a brother in Christ who has also studied many years and think I also have somewhat to offer. Yet you have slandered me unmercifully when I give you plain and easy to understand Scriptures by anyone to verify my conclusions which you rejected outright. If I have done anything other than be honest and try to defend myself, then I ask your forgiveness. May the Lord Judge between us. The Lord told some folks one day: “...I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned (Matt. 12:36-37). May the Lord bless you and your ministry in His Word Doc. In His grace movingon |
||||||
34 | Three times Paul says his gospel was a m | Rom 16:25 | Movingon | 240023 | ||
Hi Jalek! God to hear from you. You say: "In Ephesians 1:3-14 and 3:1-21, Paul talks about the mystery. In Ephesians 1:9, he calls it "the mystery of His (God the Father's) will". Later in Ephesians 3:4, he calls it the "Mystery of Christ". He's talking about redemption. Although redemption is certainly taught by Paul. Man’s redemption was known from the beginning so that was no mystery." Paul says the mystery of his gospel in this dispensation was: “that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel” (Eph. 3:6). And, that the Gentiles would be accepted in the same body of believers as co-equals of the Jews You say: “It was two people who changed the early church's mind on that. The first was Peter, who had a vision in Acts 10. In Acts 11, he uses the vision as a defense to uphold the position of teaching gentiles the Gospel.” Peter’s mission to Cornelius and use of the keys was to open the gates to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19) which he used in his first message in Acts 2-3 when he first preached Christ to the Jews. Other than Cornelius Peter never preached to the Gentiles or established a Gentile church. When Peter came to the house of Cornelius, one of the first things he said was, as a Jew he was not supposed to be in the company of a Gentile (Acts 10:28). Cornelius even had to explain to him why he was there (Acts 10: 29). After Cornelius explained his vision, Peter said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.” That sounds strange for someone who had supposedly just established a church to be made up of people without distinction from all nations on the Day of Pentecost. The apostle Paul speaking of the church said: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). If Peter started the present church on the Day of Pentecost and was the founder of any Gentile church as is universally taught, then how can the confrontation between Paul and Peter be explained? Paul said of Peter when he came to visit one of Paul’s churches: …when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to face to face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “if you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews” (Gal. 2:11-14). Here it is seen that Peter was even afraid to be caught eating with Gentile Christians. Does that sound like someone who was the founder and head of the Gentile churches? The Protestant churches have made the same mistake about the primacy of Peter in his founding of the present church. However, they did not make the abominable mistake of Peter having a successor with unlimited power to determine who would be admitted into heaven, or rejected. And how can it be explained why Peter as late as A.D. 38 was so afraid and astonished at the happenings when he was sent to Cornelius in Acts 10 if he started the present Jew and Gentile church on the Day of Pentecost? The apostle Paul speaking of the present church said: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Nowhere did Peter ever establish a Gentile church and only wrote 2 epistles, and those were to Jews. Thanks Jalek for your note. In His grace movingon |
||||||
35 | New Covenant beginning | Heb 8:13 | Movingon | 240021 | ||
Doc asked if I have been on this website before. I don’t remember posting anything here. As to my remark that Paul’s gospel was a mystery, Doc says: “Who ignores it and it what way?” There are many ways it is ignored. We are taught that Paul’s gospel is the same as the 12 before him. Consequently, we cannot tell the difference between the Lord’s offering an earthly kingdom to Israel and our citizenship in heaven. Paul’s Gospel of Grace was a mystery, including a previously unknown Dispensation of Grace (Eph. 3:1-9) set between the Lord’s first and second coming. His gospel was to establish a special mystery program that had nothing to do with Israel or their offer of the Kingdom by the 12 apostles before him. Paul’s first ministry to the Gentiles began in Acts 13:46-47 some 14 years after Pentecost which was also the beginning of the present assembly of Christ and Dispensation of Grace. The delay of Paul’s calling and ministry was because the Jews were again rejecting the second offer of the kingdom as they had before the cross (Matt. 10:16-23; 22:4-7; Lk. 21:12-24; Acts 3:19-25). Paul’s mystery gospel he named 3 times as “my gospel” it is mentioned nowhere in the Moses, the psalms, the prophets nor the Lord’s teaching. Paul’s gospel being unknown in past ages, what we see in Matt. 10:5 23; 22:1-10 is the same is throughout Scripture. Shown here is only a few Scriptures from the many where there is no break shown for the present age: Gen. 49:10; Isa. 9:6 7; 61:2; Dan. 7:8 9, 12 14, 19 22; 9:26 27; Amos 9:9 11; Zech. 9:9 10; 13:7 9; Matt. 3:11; 10:5 23; Lk. 1:31 33; 21:24 25; Acts 2:17 21; Rev. 12:5 6. And as Paul said, his gospel, this dispensation and rapture were mysteries in past ages until revealed to him (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:1-9; Col. 1:25-27). How much evidence do we need to establish such a simple fact? Doc says: You are assuming that the New Covenant took place at the moment of Christ's death. No, I am not assuming anything. I simply quoted Paul’s words. Any debate about where the New Covenant began is between you and Paul. You furthermore say: “I do not think that every Christian in 21 centuries got it wrong. :-) If the gospel message of Christ's birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, etc. were not absolutely integral to the New Covenant. It would be rather silly to chop up the gospels and place part of them after Malachi and the rest of them just before Acts. :-)” If they say the New Covenant began with Matt. 1:1, then yes, they certainly got it wrong. What is erroneously called the Gospel’s is according to Paul yet part of the Mosaic Covenants. As to it being silly to chop up the Gospels, I never mentioned any such thing. There are between 2 and 3 hundred religious denominations in the United States. That is the reason I am concerned about the incorrect division of the Old and New covenants. That incorrect division is the primary reason for the present confusion in the body of Christ. We have a poisonous mixture of two covenants that are diametrically opposed to each other teaching the exact opposite of the way of eternal life. The last remark here will be addressed in full in another post. I fully understand the Lord saying He was the way of life, but he also said other things that is usually ignored and will be discussed in a later post. Has anyone noticed the Lord’s words when He said: “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Or Matt. 10:5 6, where He refused to let His disciples preach to the Gentiles or even the Samaritans. Because the kingdom was promised to, and still belongs to Israel. As late as Acts 11:19 the disciples were still only preaching to Jews; Luke records: “Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only.” I will make the statement here but it should be placed alone in another thread to prevent confusion. Nowhere did the Lord ever in His earthly ministry directly mention the present church (assembly of Christ) or else there is a head on collision between Himself and Paul. Before anyone reminds me of Matt. 16:18; 18:17 or the churches in Rev. 2 and 3 make sure you have thoroughly studied the evidence. The understanding of this truth has a profound effect on all that we believe. In His grace movingon |
||||||
36 | New Covenant beginning | Heb 8:13 | Movingon | 240013 | ||
Thanks Doc for your prompt answer. The point I was trying to make was the four books called the gospels are not in the New Testament (Covenant). There could be no New Covenant until the sins committed under the old were paid for. The New Covenant could not begin until the Book of Acts after the cross. Also, speaking of Christ’s death Paul says it’s like a last will and testament: "He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives" (Heb. 9:15-17). Paul told the Galatians church: "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (Gal. 3:13). …when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons" (Gal. 4:4-5). Here we see that all those before were under the law by the passages from the Galatians letter and that would include all four books called the gospels. To add finality to what Paul said: "…when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you." Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission" (Heb. 9:15-22. In view of all the confusion it has caused, it’s a mystery to me how we could go for two millennia without correction being made. There is no end to the confusion in the Body of Christ because of the present incorrect division. In His grace movingon |
||||||
37 | Three times Paul says his gospel was a m | Rom 16:25 | Movingon | 240008 | ||
Why do we ignore Paul's statement that his gospel was a mystery to all before him? | ||||||
38 | New Covenant beginning | Not Specified | Movingon | 240007 | ||
Why do we call Matt,Mk. Lk. Jo. New Testament(Covenant)? | ||||||
39 | New Covenant beginning | Heb 8:13 | Movingon | 240009 | ||
Why do we call Matt,Mk. Lk. Jo. New Testament(Covenant)? | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 ] |