ECT Mad finds itself in the trash by applying simple logic

[musterion]

:chuckle:

Just like IP isn't a preterist.

 

[musterion]

None of that reminds me of Acts 5, where they healed every one.

Only persons who actually believe and understand the Bible care about points like that. To a charismatic, what you just posted is like what Paul Crouch once called doctrinal doo-doo (and then threatened God will shoot you...or behead you).

Charismatics have a very low key contempt for Scripture when it doesn't agree with their experience.

 

[musterion]

 

[musterion]

Replace "shoot" with "behead" and who does that sound like?

 

[john w]

Who told you that?

If anyone claims to have received anything from God, Musterian and John W are the first to fight against it.

Do they have special revelation from God?

LA

Raise the dead. Why are you fighting it?

Another fraud-like Tribbles, they are everywhere.

 

[musterion]

 

[musterion]

If they believe that they can do greater miracles than Christ did maybe one of them should remotely heal Andy.

 

[john w]

I'd like to throw pies at those Penty frauds, con artists, charlatans....

 

[DAN P]

Recentl
You won't believe the mad responses to this.

Go!

Hi and am glad that you can be AMUSED !!

How AMUSING is this in John 20:22 and 23 as these are Jesus words , and you do follow Jesus , RIGHT ??

In verse 22 Jesus breaths on ( them ), and said unto them , RECEIVE ye ( THE ) HOLY SPIRIT !!

By the wat the Greek article ( THE ) is not innthe Greek text !! I do not no why I am telling you as you will never believe it !!

Then in verse 23 Whose soever SINS ye REMIT , they are REMITTED , so can you REMIT SINS Jesus said you can , so AMUSE ME and say how they did it ??

dan p

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hello...hello!

 

[andyc]

Once again you just completely IGNORED this verse that tells us that the believers who lived under the Law were saved by grace:

"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (Ro.4:16).​

Evidently you have no answer to that so I guess that you are in the hope that it will just go away.

Sorry for the delay, it's been a little hectic for me lately catching up with work at a busy time. I'm struggling to find the motivation for bothering after looking at all the stupid responses in this thread. At least you are attempting to answer my questions.

The promise to all the seed, is not talking about those in the old testament, as Paul is talking about those who walk in like faith to Abraham before he was circumcised (See verse 12). I'm not waiting for anything to go away, I'm waiting for you to understand what you're reading in Romans 4.

I also said this:

The Jews who believed in the Lord Jesus' name were born of God when they believed:

"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (Jn.1:11-13).​

To this you said:



Even though the verse says clearly that it was those who believed in the Lord Jesus' "NAME" who were born of God you deny that truth.

Believing in the name of the Lord Jesus is simply to understand that he is the mediator between God and man, and that only through faith in him can people receive forgiveness of sins.

Before people received the Holy Spirit, they were trying to understand who Christ was with their natural mind. And this was a hindrance. Thomas didn't believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. Flesh and blood didn't reveal to Peter who Jesus was, God revealed it. Nicodemus knew that Jesus was sent from God, but was obviously confused about who he claimed to be, which is why Jesus spoke about the need to be born again.

1 Corinthians 12:3 ...........no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit

Please tell me the gospel message which was being preached here:

And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick... And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where" (Lk.9:2,6).​

The gospel is simply faith in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, in order to receive eternal life and enter the kingdom of God. It's the same gospel today. John 3:16

We know that this is not the gospel which proclaims that Christ died for our sins because at that time of Luke 9 they didn't even know that Christ was to die:

"Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished...And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken" (Lk.18:31,33-34).​

So tell me what gospel message which they were preaching.

Yes it's the same. When Jesus was preaching the gospel of the kingdom, people were required to believe in him for the forgiveness of sins. They may not have yet fully understood how their sins could be forgiven, but accepting as healer / forgiver, they were healed and forgiven.

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

Of course you failed to address this passage which reveals that "life" comes as a "result" of believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:30-31).​

I dealt with this further up, but to expand on it - It is impossible to know from the heart who Jesus is without it first being revealed. As Paul said, no one can say that Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit.

1 John 4:15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

The text you're quoting is not about what must happen first in order to have life, but simply that faith in the heart concerning who Jesus is, is essential to knowing why you have life.

So we can understand that the "life" which those who believed in the identity of the Lord Jesus, that He is the Christ, the Son of God, was realized when they were born of God:

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 Jn.5:1-5).​

No different to us. We can confess with the mouth who Jesus is, but until it is in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, we aren't born again.

Simon the Sorcerer believed Philip's gospel, but he didn't receive the Holy Spirit, did he?

No, Peter believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, during the Lord's ministry (Mt.16:16) and therefore he received new life when he was born of God. And despite what you say he continued living under the law.

Acts 15:10 "Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Notice the "were" able to bear?

This is telling you that Peter was no longer under the law. God had told him to kill and eat unclean animals, which means it was impossible for him to be ceremonially unclean. Those who are born again relate to God in Spirit, and so the uncleaness of the flesh is irrelevant.

Since Peter believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, he was no longer under the demands of the law in regard to establishing his own righteousness:

"For Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Ro.10:4).​

You even admit that Peter was saved by grace and we know that "grace" and "works" are mutually exclusive:

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

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt" (Ro.4:4).​

I repeat, he was no longer under the law then, was he?
Your own logic defeats your arguments.

Now a question for you, Andy. We know that the Jews who lived under the law were saved during the ministry of the Lord Jesus (Jn.1:11-13;Lk.7:49). Were they saved by grace through faith? Let me give you a little hint:

"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (Ro.4:16).​

Yes. Faith in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, but so far you haven't explained the basis for this forgiveness.
Moses was the mediator of the old covenant, and Jesus is the mediator of the new. When Jesus spoke to his disciples of his blood and body, he was telling them how he was their savior. He was the mediator of the new covenant.

 

[Lighthouse]

Not at all. Just showing you how easy it is to reply with words like idiot and moron etc. You've been doing it for years. It's no good crying if I let you have some.

I don't cuss when I do it. You did. Which is against the rules. And calling you out on that is not crying. In fact, I don't even care about the cussing, except that it is against the rules here. You don't have to worry about hurting my feelings, it can't be done.

You have rules for yourself?

"Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many. Hmm?"

:duh: Of course he agreed with it, but he was obviously hoping for people to see beyond it.

Or maybe even see it, as they were ignoring much of it.

Yes

Explain how they did so.

Did the law say to only stone the woman?

Did the law say to bring the adulteress before someone who was not recognized as a priest or a judge?

Agreeing with the Mosaic law would not have put Jesus in a difficult position with Rome.

Why was Jesus turned over to Rome to be executed instead of the people of Israel who wanted Him dead just stoning Him?

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God."

You missed something there.

Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning. But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover. Pilate then went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this Man?” They answered and said to him, “If He were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him up to you.”
Then Pilate said to them, “You take Him and judge Him according to your law.”

Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,”
-John 18:28-31

If Jesus felt that the woman ought to have died, he could have said the same thing.

See above.

Dear oh dear. When I read nonsense like this, and your comments of me all through this post, it makes me laugh.
It's like talking to brick wall.

Moses received the law on behalf of Israel, and "thou shalt not commit adultery" was one of the commandments.
Death was the punishment. Jesus was a minister of a new covenant where sinners (adulterers) had the opportunity to repent.

You know this is true, but it gives mad a black eye, so you reject it, while making yourself look more and more stupid.

The opportunity to repent doesn't excuse one from punishment for crime. Repentance and forgiveness is only in regard to sin.

A murderer doesn't get to go free just because they repent.

Well show it from scripture in the old testament!

Go on!

What do you think submission to the shedding of their own blood for their crimes was?

And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
-Hebrews 9:22D

Do you get that? According to the law.

And what do you think, "Their blood shall be upon them," meant?

Or is it your argument that anyone who committed such a crime before Christ came went straight to Hell and was never atoned?

All three of your excuses are all irrelevant because the woman was not on trial. You are concentrating on the judicial aspect of the law, which is only necessary when judgment is to be carried out.

How was she not on trial? They picked up stones to stone her.

Also, the only time a judge or priest were to be involved was if the people could not come to an agreement that said crime had been committed. They all agreed, therefore they were in their right to stone her if they were following the law correctly, regardless of what Jesus had to say.

Yes he could.

How so?

He knew she committed adultery.

Did He witness it? If so, is He two or three people? And if so again is He enough people to constitute as the community? Because the community was to be involved, according to the law:

Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you.
-Deuteronomy 17:6-7

If there was no forgiveness for adultery under the law, she would be condemned under the law even if she escaped physical judgement. It's similar to when Paul judged the man at Corinth who had his father wife.

There is always forgiveness for sin; but not for crime. But if one cannot be condemned for said crime because no witnesses rise against them, etc. then that is all there is to it. That still doesn't mean they were forgiven of the crime.

He would have agreed with the law, and agreed that those who were caught should be put to death.

Irrelevant.

And I stand by the fact that he would not have agreed with them that they should execute the woman, because they were not following the law correctly.

Jesus came to save sinners, as he was the mediator between God and man in a new covenant, where he would take the penalty for all sins committed upon himself. The problem was that he accusers didn't recognize him as such, because they didn't believe in him.

Had Jesus taken that upon Himself yet?

And that fact they did not recognize Him for who He was/is agrees with my point.

This had nothing to do with the law. Dunderhead.

Then what condemned them?

Obviously whenever he forgave people of their sins because of their faith, he was removing the condemnation of the law upon them. You are yet to explain the basis for this (see the OP).

If it's so obvious you should be able to show it from the text.

I said, Jesus would have expected the Jewish leaders to see it done. If capital punishment was expected as part of the law, they should have been carrying it out regardless of Rome. Better to fear God than man.

You are aware that these Jewish leaders feared man more than God, are you not?

What was right and what they did were completely different things.

But that's irrelevant, as it was not the job of the leaders to carry out such things. Not according to the law.

Well it's obvious.

It would be left to people to regard Jesus as someone greater than Moses, or an impostor rebelling against Moses.

And what would the men who brought the woman to Him have said? What would they then have told the people?

OK folks.

What was the basis for Jesus to forgive sins while supposedly still being under the law?

Have you figured it out yet?

We've already answered that one. Not surprisingly you haven't.

 

[musterion]

Andy speaks in "tongues" which makes him smarter and more spiritual than anyone. Just like the Corinthians were.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Believing in the name of the Lord Jesus is simply to understand that he is the mediator between God and man, and that only through faith in him can people receive forgiveness of sins.

In the following verse the Lord Jesus is telling the Jews that if they don't believe in His "identity" then they will die in their sins:

"And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (Jn.8:23-24).​

Those who did believe in His "identity" did not die in their sins so therefore those who did believe had their sins forgiven. That means that the forgiveness of sins was dependent on nothing more than believing on His "identity."

Nicodemus knew that Jesus was sent from God, but was obviously confused about who he claimed to be, which is why Jesus spoke about the need to be born again.

Yes, and Peter tells us exactly how one is born again:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).​

Those who believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, received life and that life began when they were born of God:

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:31).​

1 Corinthians 12:3 ...........no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit

Yes, and it the gospel which comes in the Holy Spirit (1 Thess.1:5) which brings life, as witnessed by the words of the Lord Jesus here:

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (Jn.6:63).​

I repeat, he was no longer under the law then, was he?
Your own logic defeats your arguments.

As early as Matthew 16:16 Peter know that the Lord Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, so by that time he received life and was saved by grace. And then later the Lord Jesus made it plain to all of his disciples that they were to remain under the law:

"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not" (Mt.23:1-3).​

Where did you ever get the idea that the Lord's favored people who lived under the law were not saved by grace?

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Where did you ever get the idea that the Lord's favored people who lived under the law were not saved by grace?

Madists teach it.

They say Paul bought in the gospel of grace.

They claim Peter was still under the law until he was converted by Paul's message.

LA

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Madists teach it.

They say Paul bought in the gospel of grace.

They claim Peter was still under the law until he was converted by Paul's message.

LA

Poor LA is confused, as usual.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Peter continued to preach The Kingdom Gospel to The House of Israel, while Paul preached The Grace Gospel to the Gentiles.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

LA doesn't know how to " Rightly Divide" the word of God.

 

[Interplanner]

Peter continued to preach The Kingdom Gospel to The House of Israel, while Paul preached The Grace Gospel to the Gentiles.

There is no support for this. Israel was supposed to repent (I think that includes repent of thinking of a Davidic theocracy) and work in God's mission. That is what heavyweight passages like Mt 21's parable of the vineyard says and what Peter urges in Acts 2&3. They are to fufill Gen 12 by preaching about the Seed to the nations.

 

[Interplanner]

LA doesn't know how to " Rightly Divide" the word of God.

That expression has to do with useless arguements about Levitical vocab in Paul's time. See the passage. The best translation is 'handle properly' meaning--not a specific 'position' but not getting entangled in the wrong definitions of terms from the law, and detracting from unity and from practical truth.