gadar perets
Well-Known Member
I did both of those things 33 years ago and have been walking in the Spirit ever since. Just because a person does not believe like you does not mean they are without the Holy Spirit.
The Problem With The Trinity
- Thread starter JesusIsFaithful
- Start date
-
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!
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
i agree this would be ideal, and you can even do this with say Jews, who have Beliefs; however among "Believers" who all seem to have Absolute Truths--iow among those who have come to erroneously associate truth with their beliefs--i don't think this is really possible, for the reasons you have already demonstrated imo,
that's Scripture gadar, addressing you directly, seems to me
etc. And since i guess you will jump to another false conclusion, i do not mean to say that you are wrong in any of these, so much as that you are not even open to the possibility, to the extent that you openly deny any Scripture that is not to your liking apparently
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
fwiw i would suggest abandoning this affectation and just using the term "Christ;" however, being Messianic we might also take you to mean the Jewish kings who all shared the title i guess
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
I guess you are desiring to derail us into the dietary laws again. I do not order anyone to eat clean. I educate them on the proper interpretation of Scripture. If they choose to not hear, that's on them. And I certainly do not order anyone to abstain from "FOOD". Unclean animal flesh was never designated as "FOOD" in Scripture. Now, the Roman Church not only orders people to abstain from certain foods, ie; meat on Fridays, but they also forbid people to marry, ie; clergy.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
Abandon using the name "Yeshua"?? Why would you suggest that? I can understand abandoning the name "Jesus" since it is an erroneous conglomeration of Hebrew, Greek, Latin and English, but "Yeshua" is our Saviour's correct name.
Were you baptized in the name of Jesus Christ or in titles? And also, did you repent? And was your baptism for the remission of sins?
If you were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, I don't think you would be making the fuss that you do over your contention that His only real name is Yeshua. That is cultic, by the way.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
Did I say I was offended by personal attacks? No. I said I endure them. Since you are throwing around verses about offending, here is one for you to keep in mind;
Luke 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
So how do you apply that to the "offence of the cross" (Galatians 5:11 (kjv))?
Most assuredly we are mandated to preach the cross.
Yet there is offence in it.
What is the context of Luke 17:1?
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
Now I have to jump through another of your hoops to justify my having the Holy Spirit? I'll humor you since it gives me an opportunity to share more truth. I was baptized in titles as a RC baby. Then in the name "Jesus Christ" as an adult. Yes, I repented of my sins. That is why I know obey YHWH's laws. Did you repent? Obviously not since you continue to break His laws. And yes, my sins were remitted upon my baptism.
It is a sad state of affairs when truth is considered "cultic". Let me give you a lesson on the Saviour's name. He was given the name "Yeshua" (pronounced "Yay-shoo-ah") at his birth via YHWH's will. The Greeks do not have an "sh" sound in their language, so they were unable to transliterate his name properly. They also add a "us" terminal on many of their names. So they rendered the Saviour's name as "Iesous" (pronounced "Yay-soo-us"). They almost got it right. Then along came Latin further corrupting his name to "Iesus" (pronounced "Yay-sus"). Finally, when printed invented the letter "J" in the 16th century, his name was further corrupted to "Jesus" (pronounced "Jee-zus"). BTW, the 1611 KJV used "Iesus" for the Son's name (less corrupt than "Jesus"). If you choose to continue using a corrupted name for the Saviour, go right ahead. Since it is our Father's desire that we love the truth, I will abandon that which is not true and embrace that which is true. I will NOT fight against truth.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
So, in keeping with your style of Bible study, you take these words literally without seeking a deeper understanding. Therefore, this verse taken at face value claims human beings are "meat/food" as well since humans live and move. Or do you believe humans are excluded? On what grounds? I believe unclean animals are excluded as well on the grounds that 1) the distinction between clean and unclean existed before the flood and 2) had Noah, or anyone who got off the ark, ate one of the only two unclean pigs, for example, pigs would have become extinct and 3) it is obvious that we cannot take every verse at face value or we would all be cannibals.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
The "offence of the cross" is excluded in Luke 17:1 which is referring to transgressions done against another person, not offences taken because someone rejects salvation by faith in a crucified Messiah.
Oh really? What laws are those? I do my best to keep the food laws for that I desire to be great in the kingdom (Matthew 5:17-20), and I also teach that we ought to obey them so as not to stumble our Jewish brothers and sisters; but I also seek to be a good minister of Jesus Christ by proclaiming the truth that we find in 1 Timothy 4:1-6, iow, that every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused.
So on the basis of (1) above, you would think that God would have simply included the word "clean" in Genesis 9:3, but He didn't. He said, "every moving thing that liveth," not, "every clean moving thing that liveth." And we have gone through this before. The children of Israel even ate their own babies during a specific time in their own history, and I thought that we had also concluded that those people who ate people that had died in that situation in the mountains where they were trapped with no other food except to eat the people who had died, that we did not judge them or condemn them over doing so.
Finally, it is only common sense that human beings do not normally eat other human beings. Therefore I don't think the Lord even had to make the distinction for us to understand, because it is inherent in human nature that we do not eat cannibalistically unless it is an extreme or dire circumstance. But since the distinction had already been made between clean and unclean, you would think that God would have mentioned that unclean animals were prohibited from being eaten in Genesis 9:3.
And it is also simply an argument that is not based in scripture, that you pulled out of your head, the thing about cannibalism, it is carnal thinking not based in scripture.
Last edited:
A major part of the "offence of the cross" has to do with the fact that certain people are excluded from salvation because of beliefs that they hold to (or lack of belief in the proper thing); and they are offended by that exclusion of their souls from redemption.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
Sabbaths, Feasts. Why do you even bother to "keep the food laws" if you believe we are free to eat everything based on Gen 9:3? Does your conscience bother you when you eat unclean flesh? If we can eat everything that lives and moves, how can not eating unclean flesh make us "great in the kingdom"?
You would think YHWH would have included the word "new" in Isaiah 65:18 referring to "New Jerusalem", but He didn't. That does not mean it should not be implied there.
In Gen 8:21, it reads, "And YHWH smelled a sweet savour; and YHWH said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." He did not include the words "to those outside the ark" after the word "done" in this verse, but they must be implied to understand His meaning properly.
It is also common sense that we don't eat anything that YHWH considers "abominable" and that He commanded His people to not eat.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
Let's face it jbf, you have set yourself up as the judge of who enters the Kingdom and who doesn't. It is YOUR interpretation of Scripture that sets the criteria.
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
ya, no pot/kettle there at all huh
see gadar, you are even doing it right now ok.
For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
see gadar, you are even doing it right now ok.
Last edited:
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
would you bet your life on it? do you know that in the time you are all hot to reenact you would have been stoned to death a long time ago simply for the way you talk, the statements you make? No one alive knows for sure how the ancients pronounced a single word gadar, but our linguists assure us that the drift in 500 years or so makes any language unintelligible, not sure the exact number, something about the more vowels or phonemes the quicker the drift, but anyway while we're at it, all that amazing Masoretic pointing, same thing, no one knows for sure if that led them to make the same sound with their mouths that we do now, and any linguist will tell you that that is actually highly unlikely.
Last edited:
I have asked for anyone to give an the alternate interpretation of what Jesus really meant when He said what He did in John 8:24. I'm still waiting for that.
Similar threads
- Locked
