God did away with some of His own sayings

[eternally-gratefull]

Also wanted to add as my final last statement to you, speaking against somebody for attacking you when you constantly attack others.......................................That is funny ha, ha, ha, ha, ha !!!

Ha Ha Ha on you.. I did not make a false statement, I made a false spelling.

(now who is the final laugh on? Since instead of seeking if I made a mistake, you made a judgment in error (if you would have read Just-Me's comment I responded to. You would have seen it was directed to BEN, and not you) and maybe just maybe, you would not have just made a huge error in judgment.

(and people are yelling at me for not reading and making assumptions..lol

 

[dcontroversal]

peanuts.....popcorn..........shotguns, ............ firehoses........brass knuckles

We got them all right here folks........what's your pleasure?

HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA hilarious!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

of course, ken has me on ignore. and will never see what a mistake he made in trying to tear down my character. but I guess thats ok. So be it.

 

[dcontroversal]

Ha Ha Ha on you.. I did not make a false statement, I made a false spelling.

(now who is the final laugh on? Since instead of seeking if I made a mistake, you made a judgment in error (if you would have read Just-Me's comment I responded to. You would have seen it was directed to BEN, and not you) and maybe just maybe, you would not have just made a huge error in judgment.

(and people are yelling at me for not reading and making assumptions..lol

Don't feel bad bro...he was done with me as well a few days ago, but keeps on replying....in error I might add!

 

[KennethC]

see. Now I need to repent.

That should have been BEN, not KEN.

See how one letter can cause all kinds of strife. and how if one does not humble himself and admit he may have made a mistake. he is useless.

I admit, I made an error. Forgive me.

I forgive you since it was an error, and I will continue to debate and discuss the bible with you if you can agree to keep it civil, respectful, full of the fruits of the Spirit, friendly, and refrain from making false allegations on me that I have nicely asked for you to stop.

If you can agree then we can move on, but if not then this is the last I will speak with you !!!

 

[just-me]

Hey BenFTW I'm setting a trap for you, and telling you so that I am totally above board and honest.

Do you follow this teaching of Paul's?

Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. 1 Corinthians 4:16

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 1 Corinthians 11:1

 

[BenFTW]

These instigated law arguments are pretty old and shows a disdain for certain parts of God's word. Guess who else hates the word of God and takes bits and pieces of God's word out of context in order to deceive? "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"

Let's see if we can divert some attention to the prophets instead of the law. That's part of God's spoken word also.

Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ezekiel 34:2

What have the shepherds done? Have they actually taught that disobedience is tolerable in the New Covenant with Christ so now we have the freedom to reject certain parts of God's spoken words?

Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord;As I live, saith the Lord God, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock;Ezekiel 34:7-8

So what is the end result for those who teach that certain parts of God's spoken word are bad or not needful for Christians?

Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord;Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them. Ezekiel 34:9-10

We talk pretty lofty against the Old Covenant as if God took it upon Himself to abolish it when it was man who broke it. Just because we are unable keep it doesn't give us the right to say it's bad. Ya think God didn't know that was coming? Get real!

"And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you." Judges 2:1

For all those wise people that say things have changed with Christ. Who on earth do you think was talking to Israel in the above verse? Was it a simple angel of the Lord, or was it actually our Lord Jesus Christ being the epitome of God Almighty?
John 14:9

IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN STATED ANY CLEARER!

Read the big blue words.


​

How do you not see the legalistic ramifications of what is being asked? How are people not seeing, clearly, what is being said? Its clearly a point of obedience, a point of being "needful for Christians." He even goes on to ask, "Have they actually taught that disobedience is tolerable in the New Covenant with Christ so now we have the freedom to reject certain parts of God's spoken words? "

Come on people, open your eyes. Reject "certain parts." What parts do you think he is referencing? The Law. We are not under Law for the thousandth time. Rejection and disobedience to what? To what? Come on, to what? Obviously old testament Law.

Sigh...

 

[KennethC]

Apostle Paul keeping with what Jesus taught in Matthew 6:14-15..............

Ephesians 4:32
And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

Colossians 3:13
Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.

This can continue for everything the Lord said in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as Lord Jesus teachings in those books were not for those under the old covenant alone...................

 

[shotgunner]

The Mosaic written ordinances of the Old Covenant pointed to Christ by showing us our sinful ways and need for a Savior, and the fruits of the Holy Spirit tell us how to walk in the New Covenant !!!

In part yes, the need for a sacrifice and the sacrifice itself point to Christ. The law however only points to our own sin.

Romans 3:20King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]20 [/SUP]Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 7:7King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]7 [/SUP]What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

The law does not show us Christ. The law shows us sin. That knowing that we are in sin shows us our need for a savior. Paul says "I had not know, but by the law." He does not say "I had not known Christ but by the law."


What do you mean by this?
"the fruits of the Holy Spirit tell us how to walk in the New Covenant !"

I would say the fruits of the Spirit are the result of walking in the new covenant.

 

[BenFTW]

Hey BenFTW I'm setting a trap for you, and telling you so that I am totally above board and honest.

Do you follow this teaching of Paul's?

Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. 1 Corinthians 4:16

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 1 Corinthians 11:1

Why don't you be upfront with everyone in the thread and stop letting people defend you when you know their defense of you is on faulty ground? How do you associate yourself with the Law? Do you keep the Law? Are Christians under obligation to walk out the Law, even under the empowerment of the Spirit? Are we to keep the Law as a means of maintaining our salvation? What is the Law to you, and what do you believe is the importance of the Law to new covenant believers? Answer these questions so that all may be plainly seen.

The trap is one of pointing to me as being obedient to something as a believer. There is nothing wrong with obedience, your error is in assuming that obedience is to the Law of Moses. Your gotcha moment has fallen flat. Now answer the questions I previously posed to you.

 

[just-me]

Hey BenFTW I'm setting a trap for you, and telling you so that I am totally above board and honest.

Do you follow this teaching of Paul's?

Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. 1 Corinthians 4:16

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 1 Corinthians 11:1

Why don't you be upfront with everyone in the thread and stop letting people defend you when you know their defense of you is on faulty ground? How do you associate yourself with the Law? Do you keep the Law? Are Christians under obligation to walk out the Law, even under the empowerment of the Spirit? Are we to keep the Law as a means of maintaining our salvation? What is the Law to you, and what do you believe is the importance of the Law to new covenant believers? Answer these questions so that all may be plainly seen.

The trap is one of pointing to me as being obedient to something as a believer. There is nothing wrong with obedience, your error is in assuming that obedience is to the Law of Moses. Your gotcha moment has fallen flat. Now answer the questions I previously posed to you.

I haven't ever typed out the "law of Moses" on this thread. Where does you anger come from?

As Paul said, so I also say following his example "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:" Acts 24:14

 

[BenFTW]

I haven't ever typed out the "law of Moses" on this thread. Where does you anger come from?

As Paul said, so I also say following his example "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:" Acts 24:14

Its less so anger and more so annoyance. You didn't answer the questions. Why is that? I am annoyed at how atwhatcost came in here throwing about accusations and defaming people, including myself saying we skipped over things and are pouncing on people. I am also annoyed that you won't plainly state your perspective but rather let others defend what you believe without stating it plainly. Just do it, answer the questions, it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[KennethC]

In part yes, the need for a sacrifice and the sacrifice itself point to Christ. The law however only points to our own sin.

Romans 3:20King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]20 [/SUP]Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 7:7King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]7 [/SUP]What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

The law does not show us Christ. The law shows us sin. That knowing that we are in sin shows us our need for a savior. Paul says "I had not know, but by the law." He does not say "I had not known Christ but by the law."


What do you mean by this?
"the fruits of the Holy Spirit tell us how to walk in the New Covenant !"

I would say the fruits of the Spirit are the result of walking in the new covenant.

I did not say it shows us Christ, but it does point to Christ is what I said.

Galatians 3:24 clearly states this !!!

As for the fruits of the Spirit Apostles Paul, Peter, and John all emphasize on walking in them, and by doing so then one knows they have eternal life abiding in them.

You can not walk properly in the faith if you don't know what those fruits are in the first place, therefore the fruits guide your walk in the faith not the walk in the faith guiding the fruits. You have to know how to walk before walking the proper way !!!

 

[KennethC]

Its less so anger and more so annoyance. You didn't answer the questions. Why is that? I am annoyed at how atwhatcost came in here throwing about accusations and defaming people, including myself saying we skipped over things and are pouncing on people. I am also annoyed that you won't plainly state your perspective but rather let others defend what you believe without stating it plainly. Just do it, answer the questions, it would be greatly appreciated.

You mean just like you falsely claimed an allegation on me by calling me a false teacher ???

Yet you claimed in the past that we don't have to follow what Jesus said in the gospel books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as you claim that was for the OT.

Yet every time I mention how the Apostles in their epistles confirmed, continued teaching, and expounded on everything the Lord said. You do not even ever address that, so do you believe in what Paul and Peter just to give two of them taught ??? If so why do you think Jesus words in those 4 books don't have to be followed, when those two alone confirmed all that Jesus said showing it is for the new covenant believers ???

 

[BenFTW]

You mean just like you falsely claimed an allegation on me by calling me a false teacher ???

Yet you claimed in the past that we don't have to follow what Jesus said in the gospel books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as you claim that was for the OT.

Yet every time I mention how the Apostles in their epistles confirmed, continued teaching, and expounded on everything the Lord said. You do not even ever address that, so do you believe in what Paul and Peter just to give two of them taught ??? If so why do you think Jesus words in those 4 books don't have to be followed, when those two alone confirmed all that Jesus said showing it is for the new covenant believers ???

KennethC, not now... this will just derail the thread even more. Maybe you can clear the air. What do you believe is the OP's point and is it wrong to infer there is in some way, how ever small, a hint of law abidance being hinted at with the post?

 

[shotgunner]

I did not say it shows us Christ, but it does point to Christ is what I said.

Galatians 3:24 clearly states this !!!

As for the fruits of the Spirit Apostles Paul, Peter, and John all emphasize on walking in them, and by doing so then one knows they have eternal life abiding in them.

You can not walk properly in the faith if you don't know what those fruits are in the first place, therefore the fruits guide your walk in the faith not the walk in the faith guiding the fruits. You have to know how to walk before walking the proper way !!!

That's just more works based mentality. I don't walk in peace, love and joy so I can be in Christ. Because I'm in Christ, I walk in peace, love and joy.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I haven't ever typed out the "law of Moses" on this thread. Where does you anger come from?

As Paul said, so I also say following his example "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:" Acts 24:14

see. He refuses to answer. And people get mad because we confront him

 

[BenFTW]

I apologize to anyone if what I have written has come off as heated and you were offended. That isn't my intent, though I may have just become passionate over the topic at hand and also defensive because of certain people's tones. The OP makes a good point, we ought to seek the spiritual truths of God's Word (that includes old and new testament). It is beneficial, in more ways than one.

I will, however, plainly state that there is an inference to be made in reading the OP that had to be addressed, and that is that we have to rightly divide the word and in doing so, certain truths do become void to us as children of God under the new covenant.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You mean just like you falsely claimed an allegation on me by calling me a false teacher ???

Yet you claimed in the past that we don't have to follow what Jesus said in the gospel books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as you claim that was for the OT.

Yet every time I mention how the Apostles in their epistles confirmed, continued teaching, and expounded on everything the Lord said. You do not even ever address that, so do you believe in what Paul and Peter just to give two of them taught ??? If so why do you think Jesus words in those 4 books don't have to be followed, when those two alone confirmed all that Jesus said showing it is for the new covenant believers ???

if I may without you claiming I am misrepresenting you. or I am judging you.

When you add the word "MUST" to something, or say something HAS TO BE DONE you claim that thing is required (if it is not done completely, then whatever your trying to earn will be lost)

Would it not be better to say "SHOULD" Which is not legalistic, or even better, Gods true children WILL DO.. which is not only a fact supported by scripture But less confrontational, and judgmental?

 

[atwhatcost]

These instigated law arguments are pretty old and shows a disdain for certain parts of God's word. Guess who else hates the word of God and takes bits and pieces of God's word out of context in order to deceive? "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"

Let's see if we can divert some attention to the prophets instead of the law. That's part of God's spoken word also.

Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ezekiel 34:2

What have the shepherds done? Have they actually taught that disobedience is tolerable in the New Covenant with Christ so now we have the freedom to reject certain parts of God's spoken words?

Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord;As I live, saith the Lord God, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock;Ezekiel 34:7-8

So what is the end result for those who teach that certain parts of God's spoken word are bad or not needful for Christians?

Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord;Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them. Ezekiel 34:9-10

We talk pretty lofty against the Old Covenant as if God took it upon Himself to abolish it when it was man who broke it. Just because we are unable keep it doesn't give us the right to say it's bad. Ya think God didn't know that was coming? Get real!

"And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you." Judges 2:1

For all those wise people that say things have changed with Christ. Who on earth do you think was talking to Israel in the above verse? Was it a simple angel of the Lord, or was it actually our Lord Jesus Christ being the epitome of God Almighty?
John 14:9

One of the cool things I've learned in my studies in the last year is there is a difference between an angel of God and the angel of God. Like they're different words in the original language, so people will catch on. (I can't read original language so that certainly didn't help me for 43 years. lol) An angel of God is a messenger. The angel of God is God -- aka Jesus.

Three guys visited Abraham on the way to Sodom and Gomorrah to fetch Lot and family. One stayed with Abraham. The other two kept going after a meal. The one who stayed with him was Jesus. The other two were messengers.

That fire-cloud in the wilderness was a "the angel," not a "an angel." Jesus literally led the Israelites.

And yet, even now, we're busy dividing the Bible into Old God/New God, old rules/new rules/no rules. He's been there all along.

SAME God, same rules, new terms. Only thing that changed was God showed Man we wouldn't/couldn't follow the contract, so he made one with the only two that could -- Father and Son. SAME God, SAME Rules, New Terms. Trust Jesus. Not to say God ever changed his mind on the rules. He merely showed us the same thing all the way through. Those rules are HIS perfection. Follow them -- not in a legalistic sense -- and you follow God. Don't know what you should do if you back into a neighbor's dog? Look it up. It's covered. We don't pay for the dog or pay for the vet bills because that's what our country's law says. We do that because that is who God tells us to be.

Sure beats the forever-chant "I do whatever Jesus tells me to do without ever finding out what he tells me to do." And in response to that one, Yeah, I'm perfect too.