Not By Works

what do you make of this:


it is not disputable that God at a certain time to a certain people commanded physical circumcision. to Abraham, as the sign of His covenant with him in Genesis 17. to Moses, under threat of death in Exodus 4. carried out before entering the Levant, Joshua 5. commanded in the Law, Leviticus 12. required of anyone who wishes to share in the Passover, even slaves, Exodus 12. kept by Jesus Christ, Luke 2. not allowed to enter the temple without it, Ezekiel 44.

three times this is written in the new testament tho: in Christ, circumcision/uncircumcision doesn't count for anything. what matters is:

• faith working through love
• the new creation
• keeping the commandments of God

isn't it reasonable from the text to understand then that physical circumcision is not faith working through love, not the new creation and not ((here's the sticky point)) keeping the commandments of God?
but God had commanded it. to Abraham, the father of all who have faith in God ((Romans 4)). commanded in the Law. commanded in the prophets.

what's all this, then?
what is really meant by 'the commandments of God' if here is one, physical circumcision, that is commanded in scripture -- that is not physically required? if it is physically required what in the word do we do with Galatians and 1 Corinthians and Romans?? it seems clearly not required unless one deletes Paul from the Bible. some people in fact argue to do so, and it is generally, universally understood that such people are heretics and false teachers. doesn't this indicate that for us in Christ, to us in Christ, 'God's commandments' are not the things required of Abraham, not the Law of the Sinai covenant?

Hi VCO, you won't see me at a Church that handles snakes for worship. I Will stand on Matthew Ch4:7, "do not put the Lord to the test." I am deathly allergic to "Bee venom", I use an epi-pen when ever I am stung so to avoid Anaphylactic shock. When I asked the doctor why am I allergic and not others he said, One out of every 200 people that are born in the world are allergic to bee venom.

When I was a teenager I accidentally stepped on a hollow log that was full of yellow hornets. Immediately the hornets attacked me and I ran for my life. It was either run for my truck to take cover or jump in the river. I chose to jump in the river. Foolish mistake because they just hovered over me until I came up for a breath of air. I got up and ran for cover in my faithful truck, it worked and people called the paramedics. Obviously I survived the attack....

Lesson learned, run to your faithful truck not the river. If I recall right it was a Labor Day Weekend camp out.
Or, "do not step on hollow logs"....

Thank you and God bless you VCO

Matthew 4:7 (NASB)
7 Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'"

you post out of context Scripture, write in your oneness commentary, and ignore the definition of words.

so, you bear witness of your self ( by saying that " the translations were corrupted ", but you will not show a source of uncorrupted translations ). and refuse to answer questions that you can't spin into your religion doctrine. ( not Bible doctrine ).

so, no, giving your opinion Is not answering question

Ten Ways You Know You're in a Bad Church

10. The church bus has gun racks

9. The staff consists of "Senior Pastor, Associate Pastor, and Socio-Pastor"

8. The Bible they use is the "Dr. Seuss Version"

7. There is an ATM in the lobby

6. Services are B.Y.O.S. -- "Bring Your Own Snake"

5. The choir wears leather robes

4. There is no cover charge, but communion is a 2 drink minimum

3. They have karaoke worship time

2. The ushers ask "Smoking or Non-Smoking?" before seating you

1. The only song the church organist knows is "Innagaddadavita"

preston39 said:

V......

I believe you are correct. We become qualified to receive eternal salvation when we repent and are water baptized. Ours is to maintain that status ......

Click to expand...

Preston, do not try to hang your hat on My BELIEFS. There IS NO OUR PART IN SALVATION.

IT WAS A DONE DEAL when GOD gave us HIS GRACE because of what CHRIST DID ON ON THE CROSS, IT IS COMPLETE.

Technically, that was TRUE, before the FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH of the Earth, because it says our NAMES WERE WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE BEFORE THE EARTH CAME INTO BEING.

OBEDIENCE is not part of SALVATION, IT IS PART OF LOVE, and it says that LOVE was put into the soil of our HEART, Rom. 5:5. GUESS WHAT THAT SEED WILL PRODUCE? SALVATION IS NOT A CREDIT IN HEAVEN, it is a FREE GIFT FROM GOD.

Yes, that did bring a good laugh. But what is sad is those who are involved in an counterfeit Church, usually do not know there bible well enough to see they are phony. And thus they are Deceived.

Good Day!
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

G1378 δόγμα dogma (d̮og'-ma) n.
1. that which is supposed as good or which seems right (whether it actually is or not).
2. (concisely) an opinion on a matter.
3. (by conclusion) a decree or ordinance (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical).
[from the base of G1380]
KJV: decree, ordinance
Root(s): G1380

G1380 δοκέω dokeo (d̮o-ke'-ō) v.
) doctrine, decree, ordinance
1a) of public decrees
1b) of the Roman Senate
1c) of rulers
2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment
3) of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living

The "moral law" still (should) apply in our lives, daily.

God Bless.......

I don't teach salvation by works. I seek and believe in the Messiah and I strive to follow His teaching.

Eph. 2:
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of (mans) works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them

God's Holy Sabbath was before ordained by God that we should walk in it, but not Christmas, Easter, Good Friday, All Saints day. etc.

God before ordained that we should never create, partake of, acknowledge any image of God in likeness of anything, even a handsome men's hair shampoo model. Yet man's religion has done just that to the point where the whole world considers this "image" the Christian God.

Jesus didn't do this, Abraham didn't, Zechariahs didn't. But the religions of the land continue these traditions to this very day. But it isn't like Jesus didn't warn us.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

In the first example of deception that the Word which became Flesh gave us, the serpent convinced Eve of 2 things.

#1. she was already saved, already immortal. All set.

#2. that God's instructions were against her. A burden to her, created to keep her in prison and blind. And only by rejecting these instructions can one be really free.

I don't believe the serpent Dan, I "believe" in the Messiah of the Bible.

Luke 16:
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

I simply posted scriptures which show that the Mainstream Preachers of Christ's time had corrupted the Scriptures. This is Biblical fact, no opinion.

Matt. 23:4 For they (Pharisees, not God) bind heavy burdens (Yoke)and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders (Necks); but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Matt. 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Jer. 5:
30 A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land;
31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

Here is some proof, there is volumes more, that the Mainstream Preachers of Christ's time corrupted the scriptures. The source is the Word of God.

So once again your scorn and ridicule is led, not by the Spirit of Truth, but by the father of lies.

Actually you do and the sad part is you don’t even realize it.

View attachment 187703 [/QUOTE]
The issue here is not textual but grammatical. The Emphatic Diagalott’s interlinear translation of μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν; ends with a question mark after αὐτόν (him) (note left column in above rip). I’m not sure what Greek text the ED uses, but a colon-;- at the end of a sentence represents a question mark in Greek texts; therefore, the Greek text of the ED saw μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν;(Can that faith save him?) as a question, as the interlinear translation shows. The ED’s translation in the right column, “This faith is not able to save him” doesn’t follow proper Greek grammar.

There are two main Greek negative particles: μὴ and οὐ. μὴ is more subjective and used with the subjunctive or optative verb moods of probability. οὐ deals more with facts and is almost always used with the indicative mood.

When μὴ is followed by a verb in the indicative mood it is used to ask a question which expects the answer to be “no.”1 δύναται is the present indicative middle of δύναμαι /dynamai (to be able, either intrinsically and absolutely). Therefore, μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν; is a question and not a statement.

1 Dana, H. E., and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. (Macmillan, 1993),
page 265.

(Sorry for format mistakes. Still need to get used to this new system)

Very cleaver and subtle deflection. I can see why you wouldn't want to discuss the points I brought up.

He is sharp, isn't he?

Good works have no part in saving us. Good works, like baptism, are the response of a good conscience toward Him. The teaching that good works are a requirement for salvation is the work of the antichrist. It is a denial of the power in the blood of the Savior of the World. Only God can judge a soul's conscience. Therefore, the works of the soul cannot be a measure used to determine salvation. God and only is God is able to judge the heart. Jesus needs no help in saving the world, therefore to teach good works as having any part in saving the soul is blasphemy because it is a disclaimer of His ability to do what God sent Him to do.

Also, to judge based on works is self-righteous and as Jesus tells us, the self-righteous shall receive the greater condemnation.

The issue here is not textual but grammatical. The Emphatic Diagalott’s interlinear translation of μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν; ends with a question mark after αὐτόν (him) (note left column in above rip). I’m not sure what Greek text the ED uses, but a colon-;- at the end of a sentence represents a question mark in Greek texts; therefore, the Greek text of the ED saw μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν;(Can that faith save him?) as a question, as the interlinear translation shows. The ED’s translation in the right column, “This faith is not able to save him” doesn’t follow proper Greek grammar.

There are two main Greek negative particles: μὴ and οὐ. μὴ is more subjective and used with the subjunctive or optative verb moods of probability. οὐ deals more with facts and is almost always used with the indicative mood.

When μὴ is followed by a verb in the indicative mood it is used to ask a question which expects the answer to be “no.”1 δύναται is the present indicative middle of δύναμαι /dynamai (to be able, either intrinsically and absolutely). Therefore, μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν; is a question and not a statement.

1 Dana, H. E., and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. (Macmillan, 1993),
page 265.

(Sorry for format mistakes. Still need to get used to this new system)[/QUOTE]
It's all Greek to me.

Thanks for posting I get the gist

I was thinking arrogant, but let’s just go with sharp.

Hmm, so you are replying to my post as if I sais works save, I actually said this:

"that true fauth has works, feigned faith does not have works and can not save"

HERE;

The issue here is not textual but grammatical. The Emphatic Diagalott’s interlinear translation of μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν; ends with a question mark after αὐτόν (him) (note left column in above rip). I’m not sure what Greek text the ED uses, but a colon-;- at the end of a sentence represents a question mark in Greek texts; therefore, the Greek text of the ED saw μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν;(Can that faith save him?) as a question, as the interlinear translation shows. The ED’s translation in the right column, “This faith is not able to save him” doesn’t follow proper Greek grammar.

There are two main Greek negative particles: μὴ and οὐ. μὴ is more subjective and used with the subjunctive or optative verb moods of probability. οὐ deals more with facts and is almost always used with the indicative mood.

When μὴ is followed by a verb in the indicative mood it is used to ask a question which expects the answer to be “no.”1 δύναται is the present indicative middle of δύναμαι /dynamai (to be able, either intrinsically and absolutely). Therefore, μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν; is a question and not a statement.

1 Dana, H. E., and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. (Macmillan, 1993),
page 265.

(Sorry for format mistakes. Still need to get used to this new system)[/QUOTE]

I agree and some manuscripts include the ? ( and some do not, same with the last few words some include them soome do not.

Shamah said:
LOL the Emphatic Diagalott is not an obscure translation...

It is An english-greek interlinear that has notes on nearly all the different ancient manuscript readings...

It's called real study materials.

ohh and that verses about handling snakes.. is not in the oldest manuscripts.. divergent manuscripts...

gb9 said:

um, the emphatic diaglott was in the hands of the watchtower group ( Jehovah;s witness ) for 50 years .

so, i'll not be trusting anything that cult had it's hands on.

so, no surprise that one cult ( Hebrew roots ) taking something that one guy wrote in the 1850"s wrote, then was in the hands of the watchtower ( another cult ) is being used to push cult propaganda.

now, surly you knew that the watchtower had this for 5 decades, did you not??

you are so quick to demonize the catholics ( not good in their own right ), but silence on the watchtower.

you expose your self more and more.

Click to expand...

I found the CONNECTION of the emphatic diaglott to the Watchtower Society, which is the Jehovah Witnesses. So, I am in total Agreement, that the emphatic diaglott has to be disreguarded as a valid resource. That is because of the Command that a LITTLE LEVINE will Levine the HOLE LUMP, and the Command that we should Abstain from all Appearance of Evil. Here is an example of why we should not use the emphatic diaglott when so many reliable sources can be found elsewhere.

I think EVERYONE should see this page PERSONALLY, to reassure themselves that we as Born Again Christians, should not be quoting the emphatic diaglott as our support, we should find another reliable Source. http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2011/11/emphatic-diaglott-and-watch-tower.html

Just in case someone is unfamiliar what Charles Taze Russel's belief system (Jehovah Witnesses) centers around; it is DENYING THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST, in fact in their NWT they actually CHANGED the Wording of John 1:1, to: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." That is right, THEY TEACH THAT JESUS WAS A LESSER GOD THAN THE FATHER. Which actually Deny HIS TRUTH in Isa. 43:10-11.


Shamah, do you agree that Spirit in the body of JESUS is Yahweh?


Isaiah 43:10-11 (HCSB)
10 “You are My witnesses”— ⌊this is⌋ the LORD’s declaration— “and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. No god was formed before Me, and there will be none after Me.
11 I, I am Yahweh, and there is no other Savior but Me.

Luke 2:11 (HCSB)
11 Today a Savior, who is Messiah the Lord, was born for you in the city of David.

2 Corinthians 5:19 (NASB)
19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Isaiah 43:15 (HCSB)
15 I am Yahweh, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King.

John 12:15-16 (HCSB)
15 Fear no more, Daughter Zion. Look, your King is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt.
16 His disciples did not understand these things at first. However, when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things had been written about Him and that they had done these things to Him.

One I already addressed this. BOttom line is the original greek manuscript is used and divergent manuscript readings are given, so it is valuable for checking the original language. However as I said I have multiple INterlineras, I also provided other resources that agree...