Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
To impute means "to credit to one's account." That is the definition of impute.
Cults are formed when people begin to redefine words in the Bible so that their people perceive the Bible differently than it was intended to be perceived.
You mean the Son,,,but Jesus is good too.In Hebrews 8:6-12 the Bible says it is Jesus speaking at Sinai and the OT says the one speaking at Sinai is "LORD" - YHWH
One God in three persons - yet Jesus is the one speaking in the OT as YHWH.
1 Cor 10 "4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a Spiritual Rock which followed them; and the Rock was Christ."
...until the law sin was in the world,
"Until the law..." This is speaking of a period of time in which the law was not in effect
Man sinned in that he was independent of the Lord, but he didn't transgress
...sin was not imputed to him, because the law, not being present, didn't point him out as being a sinner.
Because man was not aware because of the law
I choose to believe Stranger on this one.
To impute means "to credit to one's account." That is the definition of impute.
You mean the Son,,,but Jesus is good too.
The Son has always existed...
Jesus started living 2,000 years ago.
But it's the same "person".
If YAWEH was visible in the O.T., it was the Son.
I think we've established that no one has ever seen God except He that comes from above.
Your problem is not in your intellect but in your heart. Jesus said that those who will not believe that He is the great I AM, will die in their sins.
Scripture please. We are to believe Yeshua is the Son of God (Son of YHWH). We are NOT to believe Yeshua is God Himself.You must be born again to go to heaven; and that includes accepting the testimony that Jesus Christ is God.
The "Lord" of 1 Corinthians 8:6 is in contrast to the "one God". Paul was not trying to teach us their is only one Lord. He just got done saying there are "many lords" in verse 5. The Father and the Son are two separate beings and each bears the title "Lord". That does not make them the same being anymore than YHWH being the Father and me being a father makes me YHWH.No one can say that Jesus is the Lord except through the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 12:3). In Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21, Jesus called the Father, "Lord of heaven and earth." And then in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and in Ephesians 4:5, it is mentioned that there is one Lord. He is the "only Lord God' according to Jude 1:4 (kjv); and in that verse the Greek word for 'and' is 'kai', which can be translated 'even'.
False. In the passages/context both before and after that verse, Yeshua makes it clear that he is not referring to himself, but to the God of Abraham. Also, did NOT teach that "the Lord our God is one Lord". He taught "YHWH our God is one YHWH" or "YHWH our God, YHWH is one".When Jesus spoke of the shema He mentioned that the Lord our God is one Lord (Mark 12:29).
The New Testament didn't exist when Paul wrote 1 Timothy. The only body of Scripture they had was the OT. Even though there were isolated letters and Gospels, none of them "sanctified" meats when understood correctly.They are sanctified in 1 Timothy 4:4-5, Mark 7:15-19, Luke 11:41, and Romans 14:14. For the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament (2 Corinthians 3:12-15, Hebrews 8:13).
Acts 12:4 in the KJV proves the KJV is NOT perfect.I'm interested in what you think the Greek on those verses says. Nevertheless I do not feel I need the original Greek and Hebrew; because not only have the original autographs been lost to us; but I believe in the sovereignty, love, and omnipotency of God; and therefore I believe that He preserved His word perfectly in the kjv.
We don't need to be dishonest when it comes to spiritual things. Our OWN righteousness is imputed to us. Tht's how imputing works. God's righteousness is imputed to Him. How then do we become the righteousness of God ?(note: it says the righteousness OF God...therefore imputed to Him)
We take on God's righteousness when we put on the New Man. When we enter into the Spirit. Then we are living in a "world" of holiness so that every thought and action is holy. In that case it is better to say that God's righteousness is IMPARTED to us by entering into Him.
Cultic behaviour begins when we counterfeit something of God...calling something OURS when in fact we have nothing. No, God's attributes are found in Him and we must enter into Him to take these on.
YHWH is the NAME of God.Agreed. The incarnation did not exist before the birth of Christ - so then God the Son existed but the human nature of the Son was not yet created until He was incarnate. 1 Cor 10:4 says "That Rock was Christ" but not claiming he was incarnate in the OT.
My point is that the name "YHWH" appears to apply to anyone of the 3 members of the Godhead "The Lord your God is ONE" and so that "name" applies to them all.
The Trinity is a mystery.YHWH is the NAME of God.
Like someone could be named John.
Since all 3 of the persons are God, I would suppose all three could be called YAHWEH or YHWH. There is only ONE GOD, only ONE John. This makes logical sense...which is not easy to find in the Trinity!
However, I was taught that each person is separate and has His own attributes and work to do. So, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, etc.
But this is different. Would you agree?
This is for sure.The Trinity is a mystery.
A time will come when we will see the Trinity and then we will understand.
So now you are going to accuse me of being scornful and hating knowledge? That it simply not true of me; and I know this because of my extensive times of reading in God's word.
But Paul said, I do not permit a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man...and then referred to the order of creation as being the reason why he held that as a principle. I am not being scornful in holding that scripture to be inspired and applicable; and it is also true that I am a man who loves knowledge.
Do you want me to condemn your tongue? For that is my heritage as a servant of the Lord (Isaiah 54:17); you do not do well to rise up against me in judgment.
there are no male or female in the kingdom, so wadr you might see that these are one flesh, and a woman can speak from her man as easily as the reverse, a man can speak from his womanBut Paul said, I do not permit a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man...
if you are applying it literally you might be i guessI am not being scornful in holding that scripture to be inspired and applicable;
all well being as how knowledge brings sorrow i guess we'll seeand it is also true that I am a man who loves knowledge.
you do not do well to rise up against me in judgment.
Two comments:
1. Your first sentence is incorrect.
This is what you said:
It is true that for the unbelieving sinner, he is required to obey the law perfectly in order to be saved, from conception into eternity (Galatians 3:10, James 2:10, Matthew 5:48).
An unbeliever is not saved. He could obey the law all he wants to, if he does NOT believe in God, he's not going to be with God. And how does one obey the law to eternity??
2. In the 6th paragraph, you say:
for the believer in Christ, obedience is not a requirement
Everything you said was correct (after the first paragraph) but did you have to include that sentence?
Jesus said we are to be obedient. Why say the opposite?
John 14:15
15"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments."
Mathew 7:23
23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
Exactly. The lack of clarity....even the twisting of meaning of key words has led the church to it's present powerless state. You are now doing the very thing you are warning others about by sticking to a vague statement like "to credit to one's account". Religious lawyers can have a field day with the vagueness of that.
Are you a lawyer?
You can't make the word formulation that suits you trump all other proper definitions. The word "credit" is misleading.
To impute means to "attribute" ... but if we were to use credit we would say "to give credit where credit is due. " Certainly not the modern false interpretation meaning to be credited for something another did.
When a writer takes credit for another person's work....that's NOT a case where we can honestly use the word "impute"...unless you want to talk about plagiarizing. In that case you could say..."the plagiarization was imputed to the writer who stole the other's work". Then we would be getting at the truth.
We don't need to be dishonest when it comes to spiritual things. Our OWN righteousness is imputed to us. Tht's how imputing works. God's righteousness is imputed to Him. How then do we become the righteousness of God ?(note: it says the righteousness OF God...therefore imputed to Him)
We take on God's righteousness when we put on the New Man. When we enter into the Spirit. Then we are living in a "world" of holiness so that every thought and action is holy. In that case it is better to say that God's righteousness is IMPARTED to us by entering into Him.
Cultic behaviour begins when we counterfeit something of God...calling something OURS when in fact we have nothing. No, God's attributes are found in Him and we must enter into Him to take these on.
John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. John 8:24 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.
Context. "If you believe not that I am" what? "That I am the I AM"? Of course not! "If you believe not that I am "from above" referring to his heavenly origin from the Father.
I'm not going to read this or anything you write. You are being ignored, as you deserve to be.
there are no male or female in the kingdom, so wadr you might see that these are one flesh, and a woman can speak from her man as easily as the reverse, a man can speak from his woman
if you are applying it literally you might be i guess
all well being as how knowledge brings sorrow i guess we'll see
omg, never mind then lol
And you say that I am in error...see Matthew 7:13-14 and John 14:6.That's not what it says. What it is saying is that we are justified when we let God justify the ungodly...like people of other religions and non-religious people. Most Christians are completely unable to do this. They think they must become Christian in order to be justified...therefore they are not qualified for justification themselves according to the verse you cited.
Can you notice that God justified people who are not Christian? You asked me to notice...but I don't think you understand the verse or the idea in question.
And you say that I am in error...see Matthew 7:13-14 and John 14:6.
The way to life is narrow and few there be that find it...Jesus is the only way to the Father!