The God that mankind is rebelling against doesn't exist.

[bbyrd009]

quiethinker's post explaining this very matter.

Which post? Ty

 

[bbyrd009]

The above is a very common opinion on what the gospel is. Even a majority opinion. I am a sinner. I sin. I can't stop sinning so I need Jesus. Jesus forgives my non-stop sinning. His blood saves me. Yay, I'm going to heaven.

And not one hint if the need of repentance...forsaking all evil...obedience...faithfulness....fruit growing....

nice imo, and as we can see I guess "confession" is literally like a dirty word around here lol

 

[bbyrd009]

Wet Paint Principle (Freedom)

Receive it as on a par with the word of God

I mean pls bro, why not just claim that you are God and get it over with already
I mean no offense, but every decent witness we have here has come out against that? You think referring to that thread helps your case?

 

[Episkopos]

Having said what was previously stated...the world hates truth. The world hates holiness and submission to God.

Could we say that all the angels would obey God if they knew Him? Well, 1/3 of they that knew Him still rebelled.

And some people will never want to be reconciled to God....they want to live for themselves....or not at all.

Isn't the motto of Massachusetts...live free or die? So that attitude is very prevalent in the US. People are seeking their own happiness....rather than God's.

So then the selfish ways of men clash with the selfless ways and standards of God. And this means they truly do not like God's ways.

Was Jesus put to death on a misunderstanding?

 

[bbyrd009]

Having said what was previously stated...the world hates truth. The world hates holiness and submission to God.

Could we say that all the angels would obey God if they knew Him? Well, 1/3 of they that knew Him still rebelled.

And some people will never want to be reconciled to God....they want to live for themselves....or not at all.

Isn't the motto of Massachusetts...live free or die? So that attitude is very prevalent in the US. People are seeking their own happiness....rather than God's.

So then the selfish ways of men clash with the selfless ways and standards of God. And this means they truly do not like God's ways.

Was Jesus put to death on a misunderstanding?

hmm, now you have me conflicted lol, bc imo "yes," and "live free or die" may be taken in another way

 

[amadeus]

i suggest that you cannot Quote that, and you can "believe in" whatever you like, beliefs will not spare you from judgement, as Scripture makes abundantly plain except maybe in English, wherein "faith" has been so conveniently written out in favor of "belief."
"No Son of Man may die for another's sins; the soul that sins will die"
so if you want to believe in things the Bible says, then believe that!

On the one hand we read this:

"The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." Num 14:18

But then on the other hand we read this:

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezek 18:20

There is no contradiction, only misunderstanding... There is much of the latter.

 

[justbyfaith]

Ah no offense meant, I just natch assumed that someone who considers the Bible so central to their salvation would already know where that is. Google can help if you are having any trouble finding that fwiw.

I know that it is probably in Ezekiel 18 or 33; but I would think that if you were being honest with the word, you would not shrink back from the accountability of sharing chapter and verse with some here who are not as versatile with the word as I am.

I mean pls bro, why not just claim that you are God and get it over with already

Because I am not God.

Was Paul the apostle God? yet he shared with people what was accepted by them as being the word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

 

[justbyfaith]

If you are governed by the law as you claim, then you must needs be subservient to the law. You are professing to be precisely what you are incorrectly claiming me to be... Having the law as your master. Yet I have Christ as my Governer and Master, who by His grace creates in me His righteousness... Not the righteousness which is by the law, but the righteousness which comes by faith through grace.

No, the law is not my master, Christ is. The law is His word to us as to the details of obedience that He requires, obedience to Him. As true believers, we are obedient to the spirit of the law, we are not sticklers for the letter. If the spirit of the law requires us to do something in violation of the letter (such as healing on the sabbath), then we obey the spirit and not the letter.

This means to you that you are saved even while disobeying God? Surely you are mistaken. For shall we sin that grace may abound? God forbid.

Yet grace would abound; which is why Paul has to make that statement.

 

[brakelite]

If the spirit of the law requires us to do something in violation of the letter (such as healing on the sabbath), then we obey the spirit and not the letter.

The letter of the law and the spirit of the law cannot be contradictory one to another. If Christ broke the letter of the law by healing on the Sabbath, then He is a sinner no less so than you and I. I have never seen anywhere in scripture a "thus saith the Lord, thou shalt not heal on the Sabbath".

Yet grace would abound; which is why Paul has to make that statement.

Indeed grace would abound for individual sins we confess and repent of. But the disobedience I speak of that negates salvation isn't the odd sin here and there...I am speaking of a practice...a lifestyle...a mindset of disobedience based on the selfish laziness of men to learn and grow in truth, and failure to fully repent of habits and addictions which God may be pointing out to us. God will show us truth, and will forbear with our rejection and doubts for a time...but there comes a time for all men when His forbearance runs out...this is when we blaspheme the holy Spirit. When we reject constantly the promptings, the counsel, the judgements, the teaching, the disciplining, and we continually doubt the very word of God Himself, then we resist to the point when we are no longer reachable. This I believe was the case with Pharaoh. And of course with many others. But there are professed Christians who are in danger of this also. We become contented in error. There is no real excuse for rejecting truth...not even ignorance...seeing there are Bibles everywhere and we are all reasonable literate.

 

[bbyrd009]

The letter of the law and the spirit of the law cannot be contradictory one to another.

Um, are you sure?

If Christ broke the letter of the law by healing on the Sabbath, then He is a sinner

Wouldn't this be an arg for them being contradictory?

 

[Davy]

Man's misapprehension over the character of God began in the garden when Adam and Eve sewed for themselves fig leaves and hid. This mindset continued throughout man's history, and was seen markedly in Nimrod who institutionalized it and made it an ideological system that today we call Babylon. It was seen at Babel because the tower was built on that false premise...that rebellion against God was fully justified for two reasons...God is to be feared and God doesn't care.
The tower of Babel was built on 2 principles...self exaltation and self-preservation. Self exaltation because God only cared for Himself, and self preservation because God was to be feared. Human beings today are doing the only thing they can do in ight of their perspective on the character of God inherited by the race from Adam, and made an official religion at Babel. To live for themselves and preserve themselves. They don't believe God is interested in them and nor do they believe He is interested in protecting them or looking after them....in fact most believe, even many Christians, believe God wants to take stuff away from them that is for their good.
But man is deceived!
The God who man is rebelling against does not exist. So what was God's response to this dilemma? First, He called a man out of Babylon and started him on a journey whereby he would learn to trust God in all things and prove God a loving beneficent Protector and Saviour. His name was Abraham. God gave him and his progeny commandments and a law and a mode of living that was to be a blessing for all people. And God has been calling people (ekklesia) out of Babylon ever since. And it is our calling to bring others with us. But we cannot do that if we ourselves are unwilling to accept those things which God gave to be a blessing, demonstrating His willingness to take care of and preserve and protect man from all that would harm him. One such blessing is the Sabbath. In rejecting the Sabbath, man is reverting to Babylon...."seeking his own pleasure and doing his own ways" (Isaiah 58:13,14.)
Abram was called out of the self-exalting culture of Babylon in order to be a blessing to all the nations of the world. And that call still resounds today..."Come our of her My people, that ye be not a partaker of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues".

That is not... how things happened back then at all, and it still is not how people view God today.

There is an interesting book written in 1927 by Sydney Bristowe, called Sargon The Magnificent.

In it Bristowe revealed the Assyriologist's original translation from the Babylonian Cylinder of Nabonidus about Sargon's days being around 3800 B.C. But the mainstream scholars changed the date for Sargon's existence to the 23rd century B.C. to fit their previous theories. She surmised that Sargon I in ancient Sumer at 3800 B.C. was actually Cain.

Sargon I (label is for a 'king'), was of Semitic origin. His metal death mask resides in the British museum, showing his Semitic features. Sargon arrived among the Sumerians who called themselves "blackheads". He taught them agriculture, canal building, sciences, and he built the first city there. Sumer would become the later Babylonia, Babylon, and Assyria. It is today modern day Iraq.

Per the tablets, the Sumerians called him son of Bel, or son of the dragon. Sargon was the originator of pagan Bel worship (Baal). All later pagan idol worship of Baal originated with him. From those Babylonian clay tablets, is a description of the creation that is older than the Hebrew Scriptures of God's Word. Just because those clay tablets has an older description some Christian pastors have been duped, and believe the lie that the Hebrew OT description of the creation in Genesis came from the Babylonian tablets.

The 3800 B.C. dating for Sargon is important, because the time of the man Adam formed in God's Garden per Old Testament reckoning was approximately 4004 B.C. (per Bishop Ussher's 17th century chronology in The History of The World). Thus 3800 B.C. is only about 200 years difference. And per Genesis' declaration of how long people lived then, it fits that Sargon I could have been Cain that was kicked out of the area of God's Eden to the "land of Nod". Most likely, ancient Sumer was that "land of Nod" where Cain went to. And from there began pagan idol worship. The creation story account found in the Babylonian tablets reveals language like taught in the ancient mystery schools, a story hidden behind enigma, so it doesn't truly explain the creation like Genesis does. The tablets show a pagan priestly type of account of creation, exactly the kind of story someone like Cain would bring with him when he went to the land of Nod.

Primitive man worshiped the elements of nature, and made idols of wood, stone, and eventually metal, and this out of ignorance. But what Sargon I did was to worship the devil himself (Bel). When other peoples, including the ancient Sumerians, were worshiping things connected with nature, suddenly with Sargon's appearance among them, devil worship became a mainstay. Sargon brought it with him. That even more so suggests Sargon may have been Cain, and that devil worship began with him.

The later tower of Babel shows how Sargon's influence might have had a connection, and the purpose of it being the direct rebellion against God Himself, and instead to proclaim the devil as their god. Some researchers report that the Zodiac was represented upon the tower, as other ancient pagan structures in Egypt were also found with the Zodiac represented on their structures. Bullinger's excellent work The Witness of the Stars reveals how the ancient Zodiac constellation meanings have been changed by paganism. The original meanings were in connection with God's Word, basically The Word of God written in the stars. Bullinger documented this history through his travels, discovering the origins of paganism's meanings for the Zodiac. This in essence then, is another example of the existence of a dual history, one that follows God's children, and another that follows the devil's children. Depending on which one you listen to and heed will depend on which historical outcome you believe, man's or God's Word.

 

[justbyfaith]

If Christ broke the letter of the law by healing on the Sabbath, then He is a sinner no less so than you and I.

No; because He was High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek which was based on the power of an endless life rather than a carnal commandment. Jesus is Lord of the sabbath; and the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. With the change in priesthood came a change of the law. Jesus did not spring out of Levi, which is the biblical priestly order, but from out of Judah. Therefore His priesthood was not of the order of Levi, but of Melchizedek.

But yes, the letter of the law is thus:

Exo 20:10, But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Then there is this:

Jhn 5:17, But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Jhn 5:18, Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

I have never seen anywhere in scripture a "thus saith the Lord, thou shalt not heal on the Sabbath".

It remains that Jesus claimed to be working by virtue of the fact that He healed on the sabbath.

 

[brakelite]

No; because He was High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek which was based on the power of an endless life rather than a carnal commandment. Jesus is Lord of the sabbath; and the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. With the change in priesthood came a change of the law. Jesus did not spring out of Levi, which is the biblical priestly order, but from out of Judah. Therefore His priesthood was not of the order of Levi, but of Melchizedek.

But yes, the letter of the law is thus:

Exo 20:10, But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Then there is this:

Jhn 5:17, But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Jhn 5:18, Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.



It remains that Jesus claimed to be working by virtue of the fact that He healed on the sabbath.

Oh please, since when did being the high priest give him leave to break the very law he is tasked to protect. The very fact that anyone could even remotely suggest that Jesus actually broke the law, whether by spirit or letter, regardless of how you read the scripture should fill anyone with horror. The prophecy regarding the last days where Isaiah says Gods people have made void the law of God had become a reality.

 

[marks]

People understand grace as God looking the other way when we sin...it His new found permissiveness towards sin in His people. Or so it is taught.

Romans 7:17-20
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Actually I think God has a different perpective. He's made us a new person, righteous and holy.

What does it mean to be righteous and holy, do you think?

Much love!

 

[justbyfaith]

Oh please, since when did being the high priest give him leave to break the very law he is tasked to protect. The very fact that anyone could even remotely suggest that Jesus actually broke the law, whether by spirit or letter, regardless of how you read the scripture should fill anyone with horror. The prophecy regarding the last days where Isaiah says Gods people have made void the law of God had become a reality.

There was a change of law with the change in priesthood. Jesus is Lord of the sabbath; and He has also defined the sabbath as being made for man and not man for the sabbath. Therefore in violating the sabbath (John 5:17-18) Jesus didn't sin. Because the priesthood that He presides over is not based in a carnal commandment but in the power of an endless life.

Also, as believers in Christ we ourselves are not bound to the letter but are obedient to the spirit of what is commanded in the holy scriptures, see Romans 7:6, 2 Corinthians 3:6.

 

[justbyfaith]

There is no law of God that would condemn those who are bearing the fruit of the Spirit. So perhaps you are right in saying that it was the Pharisee's misinterpretation of the sabbath laws that Jesus violated.

But then, since the law has changed (Hebrews 7:12), violating the sabbath would not be anything that is contrary to the fruit of the Spirit.

 

[quietthinker]

There is no law of God that would condemn those who are bearing the fruit of the Spirit. So perhaps you are right in saying that it was the Pharisee's misinterpretation of the sabbath laws that Jesus violated.

But then, since the law has changed (Hebrews 7:12), violating the sabbath would not be anything that is contrary to the fruit of the Spirit.

All I can say jbf is that your understanding of the matters spoken to is a muddled mess!!

 

[brakelite]

@justbyfaith You are confused as to what law was changed. Jesus said the law would never change, so long as the earth existed. Hebrews (Paul) said the law was changed. So clearly there are two distinctly different laws under discussion here. Hebrews tells us why the law was changed...and you mentioned it earlier...
Hebrews 7:11 ¶ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Therefore the law was changed of necessity...not because the Sabbath has changed, but because there was a change in the priesthood. You are reading too much into the verses which mention nothing of the sabbath. About 3 times you have mentioned that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. I would really like you to explain your reasoning behind the meaning of that reference and how it affects any changes Jesus purportedly made to it.

 

[justbyfaith]

All I can say jbf is that your understanding of the matters spoken to is a muddled mess!!

Thank you I will take your words into consideration.

I feel that my understanding of the matters is actually concise. Perhaps my relation of them to you is muddled.

@justbyfaith You are confused as to what law was changed. Jesus said the law would never change, so long as the earth existed. Hebrews (Paul) said the law was changed. So clearly there are two distinctly different laws under discussion here. Hebrews tells us why the law was changed...and you mentioned it earlier...
Hebrews 7:11 ¶ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Therefore the law was changed of necessity...not because the Sabbath has changed, but because there was a change in the priesthood. You are reading too much into the verses which mention nothing of the sabbath. About 3 times you have mentioned that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. I would really like you to explain your reasoning behind the meaning of that reference and how it affects any changes Jesus purportedly made to it.

No; Jesus didn't say the law wouldn't change; He said that not one jot or tittle would pass from it. There is a difference.

For my understanding on this see the following:

Wet Paint Principle (Freedom)

Chapter 3 of the document.