Eternal Security

[Nancy]

This is getting into another subject, but okay...First of all, translating it as Easter doesn't create a change in doctrine for the worse but for the better...it is clear to me that the devil himself hates the concept of Easter, because it is the very thing that defeated him (since Easter is a holiday that represents the resurrection of Jesus Christ). So I can see why he wants it changed.

Now the point that I made was that the original autographs were lost to us, and therefore what we find written in the original languages are on the same level as what we have translated to us in Englilsh...especially since God in His sovereignty, Omni[potence, and love would not allow the message to be compromised in at least one translation that He has had some of His people contend is the authority in English, over other tranlsations.



You have seen many of the verses that "go along with that" and have rejected their testimony. Therefore your problem is not an intellectual one but is a matter of unbelief--of the heart (Hebrews 3:7-8, Hebrews 3:15, Hebrews 4:7)

"especially since God in His sovereignty, Omni[potence, and love would not allow the message to be compromised " <----- Indeed, and woe to anybody who mistranslate purposely to mislead. If anybody say's to me..."you know there are missing books in the bible?" I will say, well, I suppose our Sovereign God did not WANT them in there! lol.

 

[gadar perets]

why bother?
You are here for one reason.
To try and drag down to hell as many Christians as possible, so that you will not feel alone.
You have done nothing to build up the body of Christ.
You only try to prove Jesus is not God.
You are not Christian and if I were a moderator, I would have banned you by now.

I build up the body by healing it of it's illnesses ( false doctrines), but many here don't think they are sick and so they don't take the medicine of truth. You think I'm trying to give you poison. The great physician knows the medicine I am offering is good because he is the one that gave it to me to give to you.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I build up the body by healing it of it's illnesses ( false doctrines), but many here don't think they are sick and so they don't take the medicine of truth. You think I'm trying to give you poison. The great physician knows the medicine I am offering is good because he is the one that gave it to me to give to you.

You can only receive the Holy Spirit through Jesus.
Anything else is not of God.

 

[gadar perets]

You can only receive the Holy Spirit through Jesus.
Anything else is not of God.

1 John 4:2 - Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Yeshua Messiah is come in the flesh is of God:

I confess this, therefore I have the Holy Spirit.

 

[APAK]

I disagree.

(Heb 6:4) For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
​

They were "enlightened" by the receiving the Light of the World into their life. "Tasted" figuratively means to "experience" according to lexicons. These people experienced Yeshua.

(Heb 6:5) who tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
​

They experienced YHWH's words and power.

(Heb 6:6) but then fell away- it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
​

They "fell away" from faith in Yeshua. They once repented of their sins and received Yeshua as Savior. He was crucified for them and they received his death for theirs. Then they fell away from faith in Yeshua and were not permitted to return because that would mean Yeshua needed to be crucified again for them. They brought shame upon Yeshua and will therefore remain in the current state of life without Yeshua.

(Heb 6:7) For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God.
(Heb 6:8) But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is rejected and in danger of being cursed, whose end is to be burned. (NEV)
​

In their return to a fallen state, they do not bear fruit and will be burned.

GP I disagree with your post. Taste versus experience is really in the same vein as intended here.

After reading your words .."Then they fell away from faith in Yeshua and were not permitted to return.." I then realized you did not understand the context of this scripture, and this is not inline with scripture. No one is denied to return to repent genuinely. These fake believer were not genuine they never had true faith; that is the entire point. They were, whther they were aware of it or not, ridiculing Jesus and his work to the cross by being fake (verse 6 is the kicker verse). The went through the motions. They 'tasted' or experienced the spiritual powers and Christ as you said, no difference. Nevertheless, they never once committed to becoming saved. They never once truly repented to the point of being justified in Christ. The use of the word 'impossible' is appropriate here as they are permitted to repent all their lives. It will do them no good. It still will be impossible for them to be saved.

No worries....

I'm committed to writing up a commentary for @GodsGrace. I will explain more on who is saved and then its spiritual guarantee of security in this writing.

Bless you bro.

APAK

 

[GodsGrace]

GP I disagree with your post. Taste versus experience is really in the same vein as intended here.

After reading your words .."Then they fell away from faith in Yeshua and were not permitted to return.." I then realized you did not understand the context of this scripture, and this is not inline with scripture. No one is denied to return to repent genuinely. These fake believer were not genuine they never had true faith; that is the entire point. They were, whther they were aware of it or not, ridiculing Jesus and his work to the cross by being fake (verse 6 is the kicker verse). The went through the motions. They 'tasted' or experienced the spiritual powers and Christ as you said, no difference. Nevertheless, they never once committed to becoming saved. They never once truly repented to the point of being justified in Christ. The use of the word 'impossible' is appropriate here as they are permitted to repent all their lives. It will do them no good. It still will be impossible for them to be saved.

No worries....

I'm committed to writing up a commentary for @GodsGrace. I will explain more on who is saved and then its spiritual guarantee of security in this writing.

Bless you bro.

APAK

On a phone, can't write now.
Believers can return to God anytime after they've fallen away.
The Prodigal Son,,,Luke.

These believers wanted to return to the LAW for salvation.
A slap in the face to Jesus.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

1 John 4:2 - Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Yeshua Messiah is come in the flesh is of God:

I confess this, therefore I have the Holy Spirit.

1 John 4:6;
We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from
God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of falsehood.
John 20;28; Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God".

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Believing Jesus is God is the only way to confess him and obtain the truth.

 

[APAK]

On a phone, can't write now.
Believers can return to God anytime after they've fallen away.
The Prodigal Son,,,Luke.

These believers wanted to return to the LAW for salvation.
A slap in the face to Jesus.

No,no,no...the Prodigal son never was lost to his Father, he never lost his salvation from his Father....he just was not glorifying his Father in his life....his salvation was never in jeopardy.....read the scripture again. He never 'fell away' meaning that he never lost his salvation!!!!

Yes, these folks were mostly wanting to go back to the Law and thus never really repented to our Lord Jesus and would never be saved through the Law. They were actually mocking him

 

[gadar perets]

This is getting into another subject, but okay...First of all, translating it as Easter doesn't create a change in doctrine for the worse but for the better...it is clear to me that the devil himself hates the concept of Easter, because it is the very thing that defeated him (since Easter is a holiday that represents the resurrection of Jesus Christ). So I can see why he wants it changed.

So, in other words, you condone changing "Passover" to "Easter", truth to error. BTW, Easter is a man made day. It is NOT resurrection day, but a day that man has precalculated to his liking (the first Sunday following the first ecclesiastical full moon that occurs on or after the day of the vernal equinox). The true resurrection day ALWAYS falls in the Passover week which, by YHWH's calendar in the heavens, can fall a whole month after the man made Easter.

Now the point that I made was that the original autographs were lost to us, and therefore what we find written in the original languages are on the same level as what we have translated to us in Englilsh...especially since God in His sovereignty, Omni[potence, and love would not allow the message to be compromised in at least one translation that He has had some of His people contend is the authority in English, over other tranlsations.

The KJV most definitely changes the message, especially in the OT. The KJV does not transliterate our Creator's name, but instead substitutes "the LORD" in its place. "The LORD" is not a translation or transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, but a MAN MADE SUBSTITUTE FOR TRUTH. It has caused great confusion about who Yeshua is because Yeshua is also called "the Lord".

 

[gadar perets]

GP I disagree with your post. Taste versus experience is really in the same vein as intended here.

After reading your words .."Then they fell away from faith in Yeshua and were not permitted to return.." I then realized you did not understand the context of this scripture, and this is not inline with scripture. No one is denied to return to repent genuinely. These fake believer were not genuine they never had true faith; that is the entire point. They were, whther they were aware of it or not, ridiculing Jesus and his work to the cross by being fake (verse 6 is the kicker verse). The went through the motions. They 'tasted' or experienced the spiritual powers and Christ as you said, no difference. Nevertheless, they never once committed to becoming saved. They never once truly repented to the point of being justified in Christ. The use of the word 'impossible' is appropriate here as they are permitted to repent all their lives. It will do them no good. It still will be impossible for them to be saved.

It is no different than Hebrews 10:26 where willful sin causes one to lose their salvation because they no longer have Yeshua's sacrifice for sin. Once a person loses that sacrifice they cannot receive it back and they know it because they live out their remaining years in fear.

 

[gadar perets]

These believers wanted to return to the LAW for salvation.
A slap in the face to Jesus.

If you are referring to Hebrews 6:4-8, that passage has nothing to do with the Law. You are reading that into the text.

 

[Helen]

No,no,no...the Prodigal son never was lost to his Father, he never lost his salvation from his Father....he just was not glorifying his Father in his life....his salvation was never in jeopardy.....read the scripture again. He never 'fell away' meaning that he never lost his salvation!!!!

Yes, these folks were mostly wanting to go back to the Law and thus never really repented to our Lord Jesus and would never be saved through the Law. They were actually mocking him

Amen! If he was lost to his Father...the Father would not always be looking down the road for his return. He was never lost!

...

 

[gadar perets]

1 John 4:6;
We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from
God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of falsehood.

I can use the same verse on you. You don't listen to us. Let's face it Rollo, you feel more spiritual when you accuse others of not having the Spirit.

John 20;28; Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God".

Yes, that is what it says in our trinitarian English Bibles. Of course, Thomas did NOT speak English. Therefore, he did NOT say "God" with a capital "G". He most likely said "elohim" in Hebrew which is exactly what Yeshua is. However, since Yeshua's Elohim is his Father YHWH, then Yeshua is a lesser elohim than YHWH. They are NOT co-equal as trinitarians teach.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I can use the same verse on you. You don't listen to us. Let's face it Rollo, you feel more spiritual when you accuse others of not having the Spirit.


Yes, that is what it says in our trinitarian English Bibles. Of course, Thomas did NOT speak English. Therefore, he did NOT say "God" with a capital "G". He most likely said "elohim" in Hebrew which is exactly what Yeshua is. However, since Yeshua's Elohim is his Father YHWH, then Yeshua is a lesser elohim than YHWH. They are NOT co-equal as trinitarians teach.

That's a typical response from a jehovah's witness
Why not discuss John 1:1;
I quoted that too

 

[gadar perets]

That's a typical response from a jehovah's witness
Why not discuss John 1:1;
I quoted that too

I am not a JW and never have been. They are lawless as well.

As for John 1:1, I choose to not read the Son into the text as trinitarian translators do. The "logos" is a thing, not a person. The key to understanding John 1:1 lies in the word order of John 1:1c. Here is an excerpt from one of the most, if not the most widely used Biblical Greek Grammars (Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.)

"As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, 'and the Word was God.' But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

and God was the Word.​

We know that "the Word" is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: 'and the Word was God.' Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεὸς thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: 'What God was, the Word was' is how one translation (Revised English Bible) brings out this force." (bold, gadar perets).
​

In other words, If YHWH our Elohim is holy, so is His word. If YHWH is powerful, so is His word. If YHWH is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of YHWH are the same as the attributes of YHWH Himself.

By reversing the word order and making the logos "God" and reading that "God" as the Son has caused great confusion and led to the use of pronoun "him" in verses 3-4. Versions prior to the KJV were not confused. They did not read the Son into the text and used "it" instead of "him".

John 1:3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made.
John 1:4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men
John 1:5 and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not. Tyndale's Bible
​

Other versions such as The Geneva Bible, The Bishop's Bible, Matthews Bible, and The Great Bible all made similar translations. Today, all versions follow the KJV error of changing "it" to "him" to help support the trinity doctrine which needs all the help it can get.

 

[justbyfaith]

No,no,no...the Prodigal son never was lost to his Father, he never lost his salvation from his Father....he just was not glorifying his Father in his life....his salvation was never in jeopardy.....read the scripture again. He never 'fell away' meaning that he never lost his salvation!!!!

Yes, these folks were mostly wanting to go back to the Law and thus never really repented to our Lord Jesus and would never be saved through the Law. They were actually mocking him

The prodigal (if you would read the parable) was "dead" and "lost" until he was "found" and was "alive again".

 

[justbyfaith]

So, in other words, you condone changing "Passover" to "Easter", truth to error. BTW, Easter is a man made day. It is NOT resurrection day, but a day that man has precalculated to his liking (the first Sunday following the first ecclesiastical full moon that occurs on or after the day of the vernal equinox). The true resurrection day ALWAYS falls in the Passover week which, by YHWH's calendar in the heavens, can fall a whole month after the man made Easter.


The KJV most definitely changes the message, especially in the OT. The KJV does not transliterate our Creator's name, but instead substitutes "the LORD" in its place. "The LORD" is not a translation or transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, but a MAN MADE SUBSTITUTE FOR TRUTH. It has caused great confusion about who Yeshua is because Yeshua is also called "the Lord".

The fact that someone who denies the Deity of Jesus Christ is against the King James Version is an indictment on the non-kjv position, impaho.

Other than that, I am not going to argue with you: I did enough of that at CARM where there is a whole section devoted to the subject; and the people who argue there against the kjv are so hateful in my opinion that I would adhere to the kjv for that reason alone if I did not also know that it is the truest thing we have in English to doctrine that is sound in the word of the Lord.

But concerning the fact that YHWH is translated LORD: if YHWH refers to the Father, is it not true that the Father is considered to be the Lord by Jesus in Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21?

Because I think your contention is with the idea of YHWH being the LORD or the Lord; considering the meaning of LORD or Lord as being simply "Master".

Because I am certain that you see LORD and Lord as being different words with different definitions; but I see them as one word with one definition that might be given to the title Lord: that YHWH, being the LORD, is the Master of everything and therefore He is the Lord of everything.

You have to deal therefore with the fact that the Father (YHWH-fill in the blank) is the Lord (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21), that Jesus (YHWH is salvation) is the Lord (1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 12:3) and that there is only one Lord (Ephesians 4:5).

 

[justbyfaith]

I can use the same verse on you. You don't listen to us. Let's face it Rollo, you feel more spiritual when you accuse others of not having the Spirit.


Yes, that is what it says in our trinitarian English Bibles. Of course, Thomas did NOT speak English. Therefore, he did NOT say "God" with a capital "G". He most likely said "elohim" in Hebrew which is exactly what Yeshua is. However, since Yeshua's Elohim is his Father YHWH, then Yeshua is a lesser elohim than YHWH. They are NOT co-equal as trinitarians teach.

However, we know that we have the Spirit of the Lord...and you don't. No one can say that Jesus is the Lord (see Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, Ephesians 4:5) except by the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 12:3 (kjv)). Therefore if you don't confess that Jesus is the Lord (God), you don't have the Holy Ghost. Simple as that.

 

[gadar perets]

The fact that someone who denies the Deity of Jesus Christ is against the King James Version is an indictment on the non-kjv position, impaho.

Other than that, I am not going to argue with you: I did enough of that at CARM where there is a whole section devoted to the subject; and the people who argue there against the kjv are so hateful in my opinion that I would adhere to the kjv for that reason alone if I did not also know that it is the truest thing we have in English to doctrine that is sound in the word of the Lord.

FYI- I use the KJV as my main study Bible. I wrote what I did about it because of your false statement that the KJV is perfect. It is far from perfect, but it is one of the better versions we have.

But concerning the fact that YHWH is translated LORD: if YHWH refers to the Father, is it not true that the Father is considered to be the Lord by Jesus in Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21?

Yes. However, it is not a matter of "IF YHWH refers to the Father". That is an undeniable Scriptural fact (Psalm 2:7).

Because I think your contention is with the idea of YHWH being the LORD or the Lord; considering the meaning of LORD or Lord as being simply "Master".

Because I am certain that you see LORD and Lord as being different words with different definitions; but I see them as one word with one definition that might be given to the title Lord: that YHWH, being the LORD, is the Master of everything and therefore He is the Lord of everything.

"Lord" means "Master". "LORD" is meaningless to me as far as a translation. It is not a translation. In other words, "YHWH" does NOT mean "LORD". "LORD" is a man made substitute word that was put in our Bibles contrary to what the Holy Spirit inspired for us. Nor is "LORD" a transliteration of YHWH meaning the same sound in Hebrew is brought over to English. "YHWH" is vocalized as "Yahweh" in all languages on earth. It is NOT vocalized as "LORD".

You have to deal therefore with the fact that the Father (YHWH-fill in the blank) is the Lord (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21), that Jesus (YHWH is salvation) is the Lord (1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 12:3) and that there is only one Lord (Ephesians 4:5).

I have already dealt with it in past replies.