Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I have already explained what was being said. Evidently you have never learned about the difference between the "present" tense and the 'future" tense.
Such concepts are way above your limited understanding.
ECT Where is the Kingdom of God?
- Thread starter achduke
- Start date
I have already explained what was being said. Evidently you have never learned about the difference between the "present" tense and the 'future" tense.
Such concepts are way above your limited understanding.
God's Truth
New member
We are born again when we are saved that is when Jesus' blood washes us clean. When all our sins are gone, we have a new born again life. A new life without sins.
God's Truth
New member
Jesus said we have to believe in him.
What do we have to believe?
We have to believe that he forgives our sins.
When he died for the sins of the world, then everyone could come to him for forgiveness.
God's Truth
New member
Jesus came first for the lost sheep of Israel.
While Jesus walked the earth, he forgave people of their sins.
When Jesus died on the cross, he was the Sacrificial Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world.
While Jesus walked the earth, he forgave people of their sins.
When Jesus died on the cross, he was the Sacrificial Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
There is nothing "wrong" with the KJV, it's just that people ignore the fact that in the KJV "YOU" is always PLURAL. So "within YOU" is the same as "in your midst".
Blue Letter Bible said:
Not quite, it was in their reach, like it was before Enoch's ascension.
For sure, this notion that "the KJV failed to properly translate this here, that there" and so on, is base ignorance.
The Early Modern English of the KJV is over four hundred years old, more or less. The "failure" is not in the translation, rather; in the level of competence or incompetence of the particular reader as to its Early Modern English.
And that is only half the story. For the fact of the matter is that the intended sense of words is determined by who is using them, when, where, how, and why, they are.
In this, the issue is never the issue of the translation of one word or words, rather; of intended sense, as determined by who is using them, when, where, how, and why they are.
This is a Basic Principle of language in general, that, when taken to be a principle, or general rule of thumb to be consistently followed; began to lead to the re-emergence of the Mid-Acts Hermeneutic [Acts 9 Dispensationalism].
Some, however, go by the end result of other's labors, and as a result; never really make the root principle their own.
The result being; that they ever remain unable to progress further in their own understanding of the actual dynamic at work behind words that gives them their intended sense regardless of "translation."
In contrast to others who; seeking to go by the original root principle as to how words derive their intended sense, as a result; are ever able to continue to further refine their understanding.
Books about this, or that, have their place.
But far too often they end up a crutch - what to think, in contrast to personally getting in the Text [Scripture] one self and There wrestle with It one on One, not only for Its Intended Sense, but for Its Principles.
As fascinating as books are and can be; they too often end up, in the hands of far too many, all they actually know "about" a thing...
And what that leads to - an all far too common all knowing narcissism not unlike that of the Adversary's moment before that sea of glass.
That moment when, seeing his own reflection together with the sum of his wisdom; he concluded that wisdom of the wise God would prove foolish in a Mystery - "I will be like the Most High."
Keep your books you who are made wise in your own conceits by your overreliance on them.
Some of us are doing just fine in the promise that is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - just fine...as is.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
No he didn't.
God's Truth
New member
Oh yes he did.
John the FORERUNNER of Jesus said Jesus is the LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY SINS.
John 1:9 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
John 1:36 When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
No he didn't.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
July 28th, 2015 02:12 PM God's Truth You are busy going kicking again the goads. I am a goad to those who fight against the Word.
GT lies about what John the Baptist said, and gets upset at me for correcting her.
GT, why do you not turn the other cheek when someone gives you a rep of the negative fashion?
GT lies about what John the Baptist said, and gets upset at me for correcting her.
GT, why do you not turn the other cheek when someone gives you a rep of the negative fashion?
He carried, and he didn't take away sins of Israel or anybody else; he didn't scapegoat them, fool.
And "pretty". You forgot "pretty".
God's Truth
New member
Show me in the Bible where it says we cannot rebuke anyone.
heir
TOL Subscriber
Don't change what it says. It does not say as you say, "first for the lost sheep of Israel". The scripture saith:
Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
God's Truth
New member
When Jesus walked the earth, he came only for the lost sheep of Israel. When Jesus was crucified, then all can come to him to be saved.
Do you think Paul changed what Jesus said?
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.
Acts 3:26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."
Romans 2:9
There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;
Interplanner
Well-known member
God'sT:
That's called prodding or stirring or arousing. Paul did (and says he was doing it) in Rom 11, too.
Don't forget that in the first exchanges after the Sermon on Mount in Matt, Jesus helped a foreigner and said "I've not seen such faith in Israel." That means he was not exclusively doing Israel, and it is also prodding or urging Israel.
Why? Because they had built in background to take the mission to the nations, and he, and Paul, were trying to tap into it.
It is interesting to note that Peter stumbled on this, having to have the dramatic reminders of the sheet vision, the tongues and then Paul's take-down to realize the mission really was to the nations. Paul, however, never lost sight of it, probably because of the corrective nature of being confronted about his focus on the wrong mission (Israel taking torah to the nations).
That's called prodding or stirring or arousing. Paul did (and says he was doing it) in Rom 11, too.
Don't forget that in the first exchanges after the Sermon on Mount in Matt, Jesus helped a foreigner and said "I've not seen such faith in Israel." That means he was not exclusively doing Israel, and it is also prodding or urging Israel.
Why? Because they had built in background to take the mission to the nations, and he, and Paul, were trying to tap into it.
It is interesting to note that Peter stumbled on this, having to have the dramatic reminders of the sheet vision, the tongues and then Paul's take-down to realize the mission really was to the nations. Paul, however, never lost sight of it, probably because of the corrective nature of being confronted about his focus on the wrong mission (Israel taking torah to the nations).
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Show me in the Bible where "Jesus" said do not turn the other cheek.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You are obviously unaware that those words are speaking to believers.
How can you possibly believe that all of the sins of the world were paid for at the Cross with these words of the lord Jesus in view:
"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.8:24).
It is only those who "believe" who have their sins remitted or taken away:
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:43).
According to your dumb idea all have had their sins remitted whether they believe or not!
Interplanner
Well-known member
No, they mean that there is one efficacious sacrifice for those sins. Belief/faith is only as good as its object. The gospels are written as though the audience had heard enough to know that the life and work of Christ was to atone for sins, even though when we think too much about the text we can see 'gaps' in knowledge. We weren't there. You have to be there. But we do know that John made it clear that he was a sacrificial lamb to take away the sins of the world. 'Take away' was the expression for the scape goat practice of putting the guilt of sins on an animal. It dealt with debt. It did not mean every person so believing would stop sinning.
Anyway, word got around. Look how many times the gospel writers allude to the widespread word of mouth exposure that Jesus had. That will help solve this.
The things you wrestle over just aren't worth it, Jerry.
Anyway, word got around. Look how many times the gospel writers allude to the widespread word of mouth exposure that Jesus had. That will help solve this.
The things you wrestle over just aren't worth it, Jerry.