Dispensationalism versus Hyper-Dispensationalism

  • 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!

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
What false accusations? That you obey the law?

Having the Spirit of God and Christ in us does not move us to obey the law. We obey the Spirit of God and Christ, thus in so doing, do those things written in the law. Your emphasis is obeying the law. My emphasis is obeying the Spirit.

Neither emphasis finds you guiltless before the law. You just want to pretend your effort amounts to something. I am saying the law acknowledges no effort.

Stranger
I obey the Spirit as it leads me to obey the law. Why haven't you explained Ezekiel 36:26-27?
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I obey the Spirit as it leads me to obey the law. Why haven't you explained Ezekiel 36:26-27?

(Eze. 36:26-27) speaks to a restored Israel. This takes place after the Tribulation and prior to the Millennium. Israel as a nation will be born-again.

And at this time, Israel will once again be brought under law. See (Eze. 20:33-37). And she will be brought under the 'bond of the Covenant'.

The Kingdom law, will be law. The Church is not under any such law. The Spirit then will help to obey the law, as there is a law to obey.

No, you're not trying to obey the Spirit. You're trying to obey the law.

Stranger
 

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
(Eze. 36:26-27) speaks to a restored Israel. This takes place after the Tribulation and prior to the Millennium. Israel as a nation will be born-again.

And at this time, Israel will once again be brought under law. See (Eze. 20:33-37). And she will be brought under the 'bond of the Covenant'.

The Kingdom law, will be law. The Church is not under any such law. The Spirit then will help to obey the law, as there is a law to obey.
I agree that Ezekiel 36:26-27 speaks to restored Israel after they have been regathered. The covenant in the phrase "bond of the covenant" is the New Covenant. Regathered Israel will certainly not be under the OC since there is no indwelling Holy Spirit under the OC. So then, what you are saying is that during the Millennium YHWH will have His people Israel obeying the law written in their hearts and minds under the New Covenant, but His other people ("The Church") will not have to obey the laws written in their hearts and minds. Since the "Church" includes many Jews like Paul, Peter, etc., you are saying those Jews do not need to obey the law, but the Jews added to the NC just prior to the Millennium will need to obey the law. You are also saying the citizens of the Kingdom who are part of the "Church" will not live by Kingdom law, but the regathered Israelites living in the same Kingdom will have to live by Kingdom law. Nonsense. There is one law for both Jews and Gentiles in YHWH's Kingdom. That is how it was in the Kingdom type (Exodus 12:49; Numbers 15:16; Numbers 15:29). That one law is "Torah" for ALL under the NC Kingdom anti-type (Jeremiah 31:33). Keep in mind that regathered Israel will have their blindness lifted to receive Yeshua as their Savior and as YHWH's Messiah. They will be "believers" during the Millennium. Therefore, you are also saying that some believers will be brought under the law and others believers will not be brought under the law. How unfair. Why do some believers get to keep the law, but others are not allowed to?
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I agree that Ezekiel 36:26-27 speaks to restored Israel after they have been regathered. The covenant in the phrase "bond of the covenant" is the New Covenant. Regathered Israel will certainly not be under the OC since there is no indwelling Holy Spirit under the OC. So then, what you are saying is that during the Millennium YHWH will have His people Israel obeying the law written in their hearts and minds under the New Covenant, but His other people ("The Church") will not have to obey the laws written in their hearts and minds. Since the "Church" includes many Jews like Paul, Peter, etc., you are saying those Jews do not need to obey the law, but the Jews added to the NC just prior to the Millennium will need to obey the law. You are also saying the citizens of the Kingdom who are part of the "Church" will not live by Kingdom law, but the regathered Israelites living in the same Kingdom will have to live by Kingdom law. Nonsense. There is one law for both Jews and Gentiles in YHWH's Kingdom. That is how it was in the Kingdom type (Exodus 12:49; Numbers 15:16; Numbers 15:29). That one law is "Torah" for ALL under the NC Kingdom anti-type (Jeremiah 31:33). Keep in mind that regathered Israel will have their blindness lifted to receive Yeshua as their Savior and as YHWH's Messiah. They will be "believers" during the Millennium. Therefore, you are also saying that some believers will be brought under the law and others believers will not be brought under the law. How unfair. Why do some believers get to keep the law, but others are not allowed to?

You have contradicted yourself. You have been telling me that the law has not been down away. You have said that you now have the Spirit of God to help you keep the law. Now you say, 'Regathered Israel will certainly not be under the OC since there is no indwelling Holy Spirit under the OC.'

If having the Holy Spirit means we are not under the Old Covenant, then why are you so obsessed with keeping the law?

Why is the 'bond of the covenant' the New Covenant. The very term 'bond' speaks to legality. It is law. Yes, Israel will have the Holy Spirit, and that Holy Spirit will enable them to keep the law. This is for the Millennium. When Jesus Christ came offering this Kingdom to Israel at the beginning of His ministry, He laid out the law of that Kingdom.

This law of the Kingdom is known as the Sermon on the Mount. (Matt. 5-7). Read it. It is legal through and through. It is more strict than the Mosaic law. But it is as legal as the Mosaic law. For example: (Matt. 5:21-22) "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:..." etc. etc.

The Sermon on the Mount is not for the Church to follow. It will be for Israel who is now brought back into that same Mosaic Covenant, with a certain change in that they have the Holy Spirit. And having the Holy Spirit, and the Messiah physically present, they will be obedient to that covenant. Note (Eze. 20:40) "...there shall all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me: there will I accept them, and there will I require your offerings,and the firstfruits of your oblations, with all you holy things." Law.

The Church is under no law, save the law of the Spirit. The Church and Israel are different bodies of believers. What is unfair about that? Israel knows Jesus Christ as King. The Church knows Jesus Christ as her Husband. Do you think the wife will be treated differently than the subject? Of course.

Stranger
 

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
You have contradicted yourself. You have been telling me that the law has not been down away. You have said that you now have the Spirit of God to help you keep the law. Now you say, 'Regathered Israel will certainly not be under the OC since there is no indwelling Holy Spirit under the OC.'

If having the Holy Spirit means we are not under the Old Covenant, then why are you so obsessed with keeping the law?
There is no contradiction in my words. I obey the NC law written in my heart through the Spirit. There was no indwelling Holy Spirit under the OC. They tried to keep the law in their flesh. As a NC believer, I have the indwelling Holy Spirit which makes obeying the law possible. I am not obsessed with keeping the law. I am obsessed with doing the will of my Father which includes obeying His commandments, statutes and judgments.

Why is the 'bond of the covenant' the New Covenant. The very term 'bond' speaks to legality. It is law. Yes, Israel will have the Holy Spirit, and that Holy Spirit will enable them to keep the law. This is for the Millennium. When Jesus Christ came offering this Kingdom to Israel at the beginning of His ministry, He laid out the law of that Kingdom.
Every covenant is a bond between two parties. The NC is a bond in blood between YHWH and those who enter it through receiving Yeshua and the blood of the NC. If one does not choose to receive Yeshua as Lord and Savior, the bond is not made. The "bond of the covenant" is the NC because Jeremiah 31 tells us that is the covenant they will be under in the future. Ezekiel 36 tells us how the covenant of Jeremiah 31 will be administered which is the same for those under the NC today (cleansing from sin, new heart, indwelling Spirit).

This law of the Kingdom is known as the Sermon on the Mount. (Matt. 5-7). Read it. It is legal through and through. It is more strict than the Mosaic law. But it is as legal as the Mosaic law. For example: (Matt. 5:21-22) "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:..." etc. etc.
The SOTM is not different from the Mosaic Law. It is a magnification of that law (Isaiah 42:21). Matthew 5:21-22 does NOT do away with the command to not kill/murder. It magnifies it to include unrighteous anger. Matthew 5:27-28 does NOT do away with the command to not commit adultery. It magnifies it to include the lust of the heart.

The Sermon on the Mount is not for the Church to follow.
What!!?? You won't even obey the SOTM?? Most Christians teach the SOTM is included in the new "Law of Christ".

It will be for Israel who is now brought back into that same Mosaic Covenant, with a certain change in that they have the Holy Spirit. And having the Holy Spirit, and the Messiah physically present, they will be obedient to that covenant. Note (Eze. 20:40) "...there shall all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me: there will I accept them, and there will I require your offerings,and the firstfruits of your oblations, with all you holy things." Law.
As John Gill writes concerning Ezekiel 20:40; "meaning the offering up of their persons: bodies, and souls, as a living, holy, and acceptable sacrifice, which he would require of them as their reasonable service; together with all holy duties of prayer, praise, and beneficence; sacrifices with which God is well pleased through Christ and his sacrifice;

The Church is under no law, save the law of the Spirit.
1 Corinthians 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
The "law of the Spirit" is YHWH's law given through Moses and administered through the Spirit as opposed to the flesh.

The Church and Israel are different bodies of believers. What is unfair about that? Israel knows Jesus Christ as King. The Church knows Jesus Christ as her Husband. Do you think the wife will be treated differently than the subject? Of course.
Yes, the wife will be treated differently, but all will abide by the same laws.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is no contradiction in my words. I obey the NC law written in my heart through the Spirit. There was no indwelling Holy Spirit under the OC. They tried to keep the law in their flesh. As a NC believer, I have the indwelling Holy Spirit which makes obeying the law possible. I am not obsessed with keeping the law. I am obsessed with doing the will of my Father which includes obeying His commandments, statutes and judgments.


Every covenant is a bond between two parties. The NC is a bond in blood between YHWH and those who enter it through receiving Yeshua and the blood of the NC. If one does not choose to receive Yeshua as Lord and Savior, the bond is not made. The "bond of the covenant" is the NC because Jeremiah 31 tells us that is the covenant they will be under in the future. Ezekiel 36 tells us how the covenant of Jeremiah 31 will be administered which is the same for those under the NC today (cleansing from sin, new heart, indwelling Spirit).


The SOTM is not different from the Mosaic Law. It is a magnification of that law (Isaiah 42:21). Matthew 5:21-22 does NOT do away with the command to not kill/murder. It magnifies it to include unrighteous anger. Matthew 5:27-28 does NOT do away with the command to not commit adultery. It magnifies it to include the lust of the heart.


What!!?? You won't even obey the SOTM?? Most Christians teach the SOTM is included in the new "Law of Christ".


As John Gill writes concerning Ezekiel 20:40; "meaning the offering up of their persons: bodies, and souls, as a living, holy, and acceptable sacrifice, which he would require of them as their reasonable service; together with all holy duties of prayer, praise, and beneficence; sacrifices with which God is well pleased through Christ and his sacrifice;


1 Corinthians 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
The "law of the Spirit" is YHWH's law given through Moses and administered through the Spirit as opposed to the flesh.


Yes, the wife will be treated differently, but all will abide by the same laws.

But, you don't, by your own admission, keep the law. So, what now? You are no different then those in the Old Covenant under law. You are a law breaker, but enjoy being under the New Covenant. In other words, you who are under the New Covenant, still break the law. So, if you cannot keep the law, then why make a pretense of keeping the law?

That is a lie. You are obsessed with keeping the law. You are not obsessed with doing the will of the Father. The will of the Father has removed the Church of Christ from being under law.

No, every covenant is not a bond between two parties. The Mosaic covenant was a bond between two parties as Israel had to agree to accept the terms of that covenant. See (Ex. 19:5-8) "...If ye will obey my voice...and keep my covenant....And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do....."

The Abrahmic Covenant, on the other hand, is not a bond between two parties. It is a bond binding God alone. (Gen. 15:12-17). It is in the Abrahamic Covenant that the New Covenant is found In other words, the phrase 'the bond of the covenant' doens't apply to the New Covenant. It applies to the legalistic covenant of law found in the Mosaic Covenant and the Covenant over Israel during the Millennium.

Indeed the Sermon on the Mount is law. That is what I said. The Church is not under any law. The Sermon on the Mount is the law which will preside over Israel in the Millennium.

I don't care what 'most Christians' teach, as you say. Which identifies you not as Christian by the way. I care what the Bible teaches.

Well, John Gill is out to lunch. Just as you are.

Explain your use of (1 Cor. 9:21)

Are you married? Is your wife under law? Do you treat your wife as you do others under your so called law? Do you have a marriage counselor? If the wife is treated differently, where is the law? How stupid.

Stranger
 

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
But, you don't, by your own admission, keep the law. So, what now? You are no different then those in the Old Covenant under law. You are a law breaker, but enjoy being under the New Covenant. In other words, you who are under the New Covenant, still break the law. So, if you cannot keep the law, then why make a pretense of keeping the law?

That is a lie. You are obsessed with keeping the law. You are not obsessed with doing the will of the Father. The will of the Father has removed the Church of Christ from being under law.
Thankfully you will not be my judge. You have no grace and just seek to condemn and belittle. You are an antinomian through and through and as such I cannot receive your words.

No, every covenant is not a bond between two parties. The Mosaic covenant was a bond between two parties as Israel had to agree to accept the terms of that covenant. See (Ex. 19:5-8) "...If ye will obey my voice...and keep my covenant....And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do....."

The Abrahmic Covenant, on the other hand, is not a bond between two parties. It is a bond binding God alone. (Gen. 15:12-17). It is in the Abrahamic Covenant that the New Covenant is found In other words, the phrase 'the bond of the covenant' doens't apply to the New Covenant. It applies to the legalistic covenant of law found in the Mosaic Covenant and the Covenant over Israel during the Millennium.
Under the New Covenant we are bonded to YHWH and Yeshua the moment we receive Yeshua. By receiving Yeshua as Savior, I am agreeing to enter the New Covenant. We are yoked/bound to Yeshua as we work together to do the Father's will. Paul is called a "bondservant", "servant", "slave" of Yeshua. You look at being bound in a totally negative sense that only exists under the OC. I look at it in a positive sense under the NC.

Explain your use of (1 Cor. 9:21)
I quoted it to show believers are "under law" contrary to your view which you have repeated several times, that the Church is under no law.

Are you married? Is your wife under law? Do you treat your wife as you do others under your so called law? Do you have a marriage counselor? If the wife is treated differently, where is the law? How stupid.
This is all irrelevant. Whether a couple is married under the OC or NC, they BOTH are to obey the law of those covenants even if the husband treats the wife differently than he treats others.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thankfully you will not be my judge. You have no grace and just seek to condemn and belittle. You are an antinomian through and through and as such I cannot receive your words.


Under the New Covenant we are bonded to YHWH and Yeshua the moment we receive Yeshua. By receiving Yeshua as Savior, I am agreeing to enter the New Covenant. We are yoked/bound to Yeshua as we work together to do the Father's will. Paul is called a "bondservant", "servant", "slave" of Yeshua. You look at being bound in a totally negative sense that only exists under the OC. I look at it in a positive sense under the NC.


I quoted it to show believers are "under law" contrary to your view which you have repeated several times, that the Church is under no law.


This is all irrelevant. Whether a couple is married under the OC or NC, they BOTH are to obey the law of those covenants even if the husband treats the wife differently than he treats others.

(1 Cor. 9:21) does not place believers in the Church under the law. Paul is contrasting the Jews who are under the law to the Gentiles who are not under the law. Says nothing about the Church being under the law.

It isn't irrelevant. But of course you don't see yourself as part of the Bride of Christ. I am not sure what you see yourself. You are one who wants to accept Jesus as the Messiah, and then bring the Church under the law, but yourself you don't see as part of the Church. What exactly are you?

Stranger
 

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
(1 Cor. 9:21) does not place believers in the Church under the law. Paul is contrasting the Jews who are under the law to the Gentiles who are not under the law. Says nothing about the Church being under the law.
I didn't say it places the "Church" "under the law". I said, "under law". However, after checking the Greek, I noticed the word "under" is not the same Greek word for "under" used in other verses that use the phrase "under the law". "Under" (ennomos) in verse 21 means "subject to" or "in law" as opposed to "hupo" meaning "beneath". Under the OC, people were beneath the law. The law ruled over them as a husband rules over his wife. Under the NC, we are no longer beneath the law, but the law is in our hearts and minds. We are beneath Messiah and the Spirit leads us to obey the law within us.

It isn't irrelevant. But of course you don't see yourself as part of the Bride of Christ. I am not sure what you see yourself. You are one who wants to accept Jesus as the Messiah, and then bring the Church under the law, but yourself you don't see as part of the Church. What exactly are you?
Do not presume to tell me what I believe. I see myself as part of the Bride of Messiah. You are the one saying I am trying to bring the "Church" under the law because it is your goal to twist my words and discredit me every chance you get. This is why, even though you said you are not sure what I see myself as, you still said as a fact that I do not see myself as part of the Bride. If you are not sure what I see myself as, how can you be sure I do not see myself as part of the Bride?

The word "Church" does not belong in our Bibles as it is not a translation of "ekklesia". Do some study on its origin and on "ekklesia". I am part of those who have been "called out" (ekklesia) of this world into the Body of Messiah. The "Church" is comprised of many people who think they are part of the Body because they belong to a "church", but are not. However, everyone who is part of the Body are also among those called out (the ekklesia).
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I didn't say it places the "Church" "under the law". I said, "under law". However, after checking the Greek, I noticed the word "under" is not the same Greek word for "under" used in other verses that use the phrase "under the law". "Under" (ennomos) in verse 21 means "subject to" or "in law" as opposed to "hupo" meaning "beneath". Under the OC, people were beneath the law. The law ruled over them as a husband rules over his wife. Under the NC, we are no longer beneath the law, but the law is in our hearts and minds. We are beneath Messiah and the Spirit leads us to obey the law within us.


Do not presume to tell me what I believe. I see myself as part of the Bride of Messiah. You are the one saying I am trying to bring the "Church" under the law because it is your goal to twist my words and discredit me every chance you get. This is why, even though you said you are not sure what I see myself as, you still said as a fact that I do not see myself as part of the Bride. If you are not sure what I see myself as, how can you be sure I do not see myself as part of the Bride?

The word "Church" does not belong in our Bibles as it is not a translation of "ekklesia". Do some study on its origin and on "ekklesia". I am part of those who have been "called out" (ekklesia) of this world into the Body of Messiah. The "Church" is comprised of many people who think they are part of the Body because they belong to a "church", but are not. However, everyone who is part of the Body are also among those called out (the ekklesia).

(1 Cor. 9:21) doesn't put the Church under the law or under law, either way you want to word it. As I said, Paul was contrasting between Jew and Gentile. Has nothing to do with the Church being put under any law.

Quit being such a hypocrite. You spent the post #103 telling me what I am saying. Don't get so ruffled when I am telling you what you are saying. If you don't like it, then obey your own rule or law.

You have said you are not Christian. Thus you cannot be part of the Bride of Christ. If you are part of the Bride of Christ then you are Christian. You had better figure out what you are. I don't think you know.

Oh please. Church means called out ones. The Church of Jesus Christ are His called out ones. The Church of Jesus Christ is made up of all born-again believers. Just that simple. There are plenty of people who go to church who are not believers. Guess what, they are not part of the Church of Jesus Christ. There have been plenty of Jews who went to the synagogues that were not believers. Guess what, they were not part of Israel. Ever since Moses led Israel out of Egypt, there have always been a mixed multitude identifying with God's people, but who are not God's people. (Ex. 12:38) Just as Jesus had his Judas.

Stranger
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
(1 Cor. 9:21) doesn't put the Church under the law or under law, either way you want to word it. As I said, Paul was contrasting between Jew and Gentile. Has nothing to do with the Church being put under any law.
1Co 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; [Gain them to what? To Messiah and salvation]
1Co 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. [Gain Gentiles to what? To Messiah and salvation. Paul became as one without law to win those without law, but while he did so, he was not without law to God because he was "in law" to Messiah]
1Co 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Quit being such a hypocrite. You spent the post #103 telling me what I am saying. Don't get so ruffled when I am telling you what you are saying. If you don't like it, then obey your own rule or law.
There is a big difference between what I did and what you did. I was summing up what I interpreted you to be saying. You flat out came up with a false accusation that was not based on anything I said.

You have said you are not Christian. Thus you cannot be part of the Bride of Christ. If you are part of the Bride of Christ then you are Christian. You had better figure out what you are. I don't think you know.
You definition of "Bride of Christ" and the Biblical definition do not agree. The Biblical definition is a believer who is espoused to Messiah Yeshua. Your definition is a Christian. There are people that are espoused to Yeshua that are not Christians, like me. A modern day Christian must believe in the trinity and believe Jesus is the one true God, but that is not the requirement to be a believer in Messiah Yeshua. Therefore, I do not meet Christianity's man-made requirements.

Oh please. Church means called out ones. The Church of Jesus Christ are His called out ones. The Church of Jesus Christ is made up of all born-again believers. Just that simple.
You obviously never studied the issue. The word "Church" does not belong in our Bibles. Neither does "Easter", "the LORD", and other words.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
1Co 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; [Gain them to what? To Messiah and salvation]
1Co 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. [Gain Gentiles to what? To Messiah and salvation. Paul became as one without law to win those without law, but while he did so, he was not without law to God because he was "in law" to Messiah]
1Co 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.


There is a big difference between what I did and what you did. I was summing up what I interpreted you to be saying. You flat out came up with a false accusation that was not based on anything I said.


You definition of "Bride of Christ" and the Biblical definition do not agree. The Biblical definition is a believer who is espoused to Messiah Yeshua. Your definition is a Christian. There are people that are espoused to Yeshua that are not Christians, like me. A modern day Christian must believe in the trinity and believe Jesus is the one true God, but that is not the requirement to be a believer in Messiah Yeshua. Therefore, I do not meet Christianity's man-made requirements.


You obviously never studied the issue. The word "Church" does not belong in our Bibles. Neither does "Easter", "the LORD", and other words.

(1 Cor. 9:21-22) does not in any way say the Church is under any law. When he spoke to Jews, he identified with them as under law. When he spoke to Gentiles he identified with them as not under law. Just because you want to paint Paul as under law doesn't make this verse say what you are trying to make it say.

Oh, I see. Big difference.

To be a Christian one must be born-again. If you are born-again, you are a Christian. That makes you part of the Bride of Christ. That makes you part of the Body of Christ. If you don't want to be born-again, that is up to you. But once you are, you are. You don't get to say I am born-again but not part of the Church. You either are or you are not. As I said, I don't know what you are, and I don't think you do either.

Nothing wrong with the word 'church' or 'called out ones'. The word used for 'Easter' there is 'passover'. Not a problem. The different ways of captializing 'Lord' help to know which term is being used.

Stranger
 

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
(1 Cor. 9:21-22) does not in any way say the Church is under any law. When he spoke to Jews, he identified with them as under law. When he spoke to Gentiles he identified with them as not under law. Just because you want to paint Paul as under law doesn't make this verse say what you are trying to make it say.
Paul mentions fulfilling the "law of Christ" in Galatians 6:2. Was Paul under the law of Christ? Was Paul subject to the law of Christ? Did Paul need to obey the law of Christ? I would answer yes to all these questions. "In law to Christ" refers to the same thing. While Paul became without law to Gentiles, he was not without law to YHWH or Yeshua. He obeyed the law of YHWH and the law of Messiah.

To be a Christian one must be born-again. If you are born-again, you are a Christian. That makes you part of the Bride of Christ. That makes you part of the Body of Christ. If you don't want to be born-again, that is up to you. But once you are, you are. You don't get to say I am born-again but not part of the Church. You either are or you are not. As I said, I don't know what you are, and I don't think you do either.
I could care less that you don't know what I am. Yeshua knows what I am. He knows I'm a born again disciple who is part of his Body and betrothed to him. The problem you have with me is that I don't fit into your man-made box of what a true believer should be. I must bear the derogatory name "Christian" as you do or I'm not part of the Bride or born again. You can't handle the fact that I teach people to obey YHWH's commandments because if I'm correct, that means you are not obeying YHWH and are actually teaching people to not obey YHWH. So you will falsely accuse me to discredit me.

Nothing wrong with the word 'church' or 'called out ones'.
Here is one article that explains the issue for those that care. There are many others.

The word used for 'Easter' there is 'passover'. Not a problem.
Its not a problem to put "Easter" in the text even though it supposedly refers to resurrection day and "Passover" refers to death day? This is the kind of careless attitude that has led to multiple false teachings in Christianity today.

The different ways of captializing 'Lord' help to know which term is being used.
More careless attitude towards Scripture and truth. If translators truly want to make a distinction between terms, translating the words correctly would have been far more efficient than using capitalization of a word that does not correctly translate the Hebrew or Greek.

Keep on justifying error and see where it gets you.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Paul mentions fulfilling the "law of Christ" in Galatians 6:2. Was Paul under the law of Christ? Was Paul subject to the law of Christ? Did Paul need to obey the law of Christ? I would answer yes to all these questions. "In law to Christ" refers to the same thing. While Paul became without law to Gentiles, he was not without law to YHWH or Yeshua. He obeyed the law of YHWH and the law of Messiah.


I could care less that you don't know what I am. Yeshua knows what I am. He knows I'm a born again disciple who is part of his Body and betrothed to him. The problem you have with me is that I don't fit into your man-made box of what a true believer should be. I must bear the derogatory name "Christian" as you do or I'm not part of the Bride or born again. You can't handle the fact that I teach people to obey YHWH's commandments because if I'm correct, that means you are not obeying YHWH and are actually teaching people to not obey YHWH. So you will falsely accuse me to discredit me.


Here is one article that explains the issue for those that care. There are many others.


Its not a problem to put "Easter" in the text even though it supposedly refers to resurrection day and "Passover" refers to death day? This is the kind of careless attitude that has led to multiple false teachings in Christianity today.


More careless attitude towards Scripture and truth. If translators truly want to make a distinction between terms, translating the words correctly would have been far more efficient than using capitalization of a word that does not correctly translate the Hebrew or Greek.

Keep on justifying error and see where it gets you.

The law of Christ is not the Mosaic law. It is the love between the brethren. (John 13:34) "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

Paul did not become law to the Gentiles. He idenitified with the Jews under law. He identified with the Gentiles not under law. Concerning (1 Cor. 9:21-22), you're trying to read into this something that is not there.

Indeed, you could care less. But, your the one claiming to be born-again yet not part of the Church, the Body and Bride of Christ. Foolish. That is like saying I am from the state of Kansas but I'm not from the U.S. It doesn't work.

It is no problem handling the fact that you teach people to come under the law. You are not alone in that department. I disagree with it. The Church is not under the law or law. You are strange in that you claim to be born-again but not part of the Church. That is not a box I have created. That is just your poor theology. And yes, if you are correct, then I am not correct. Our views differ immensely.

The term 'passover' in (Acts 12:4) speaks to the entire Feast of Passover. See (12:3) "...(Then were the days of unleavened bread.)" Thus it doesn't speak just to the day of the Crucifixion. Thus the term Easter, though added later is not all that far fetched. That the term should be translated 'passover' is known by all.

Sorry, but I will trust the translators more than you. As to your last statement, no comment.

Stranger
 

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
The law of Christ is not the Mosaic law. It is the love between the brethren. (John 13:34) "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."
I posted Galatians 6:2 to refute your belief that believers do not have to obey any law.

Indeed, you could care less. But, your the one claiming to be born-again yet not part of the Church, the Body and Bride of Christ. Foolish. That is like saying I am from the state of Kansas but I'm not from the U.S. It doesn't work.
What you erroneously call "the Church", I call the "called out" or the "Assembly". "Church" is the wrong translation, plain and simple.

It is no problem handling the fact that you teach people to come under the law. You are not alone in that department. I disagree with it. The Church is not under the law or law.
I do not teach people to come under the law. I teach them to obey the law through the Spirit just as Yeshua and the Apostles did.

The term 'passover' in (Acts 12:4) speaks to the entire Feast of Passover. See (12:3) "...(Then were the days of unleavened bread.)" Thus it doesn't speak just to the day of the Crucifixion. Thus the term Easter, though added later is not all that far fetched. That the term should be translated 'passover' is known by all.
It is beyond me how you continue to defend a FALSE TRANSLATION. "Easter" did not even exist back then. That is how far fetched it is.

Sorry, but I will trust the translators more than you. As to your last statement, no comment.
You don't need to trust me. We know for a fact the text reads "YHWH" (transliterated letters). "The LORD" is NOT a translation or transliteration of the Tetragrammaton as any lexicon will show. It is a man-made substitute for truth that you choose to defend because you are careless in handling the Word as are ALL translators that do the same.
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
"The LORD" is NOT a translation or transliteration of the Tetragrammaton as any lexicon will show. It is a man-made substitute for truth that you choose to defend because you are careless in handling the Word as are ALL translators that do the same.
The KJV translators were simply following the practice of Jews who substituted Adonai (Lord) for YHWH [which in their minds was not to be pronounced, so now they say *Ha Shem* (the Name) for God, just as many Messianics today write G-d instead of God].

Actually capitalizing LORD for YHWH is an excellent alternative to a name which was written in consonants, unpronounceable (some say Yahweh, some say Jehovah) and not to be pronounced by Jews. There is nothing careless about this, and you are the one making a careless accusation.
 

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
The KJV translators were simply following the practice of Jews who substituted Adonai (Lord) for YHWH [which in their minds was not to be pronounced, so now they say *Ha Shem* (the Name) for God, just as many Messianics today write G-d instead of God].

Actually capitalizing LORD for YHWH is an excellent alternative to a name which was written in consonants, unpronounceable (some say Yahweh, some say Jehovah) and not to be pronounced by Jews. There is nothing careless about this, and you are the one making a careless accusation.
The Jews had no right to forbid people to pronounce the Name. YHWH put His Name in Scripture so we would read it, say it, and use it in our daily speech just as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did. The KJV translators propagated the error of the Jews. They could have just written those four letters (YHWH), but instead they chose to totally remove the Name and replace it with a man-made title.

Also, the letters of the Tetragrammaton are not consonants, but vowel/consonants. Each letter was used as vowels just as Josephus stated. One need only pronounce each vowel to pronounce the Name; ee ah oo eh.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I posted Galatians 6:2 to refute your belief that believers do not have to obey any law.


What you erroneously call "the Church", I call the "called out" or the "Assembly". "Church" is the wrong translation, plain and simple.


I do not teach people to come under the law. I teach them to obey the law through the Spirit just as Yeshua and the Apostles did.


It is beyond me how you continue to defend a FALSE TRANSLATION. "Easter" did not even exist back then. That is how far fetched it is.


You don't need to trust me. We know for a fact the text reads "YHWH" (transliterated letters). "The LORD" is NOT a translation or transliteration of the Tetragrammaton as any lexicon will show. It is a man-made substitute for truth that you choose to defend because you are careless in handling the Word as are ALL translators that do the same.

The law of the Spirit or the law of Christ is not the Mosaic law. It is the same as walking in the Spirit. It is not obedience to a written law. Note it does not obey the law of Christ. It says fulfill the law of Christ. When one walks in the Spirit, he will fulfill the law of Christ.

Nothing wrong with the word Church to represent the 'called out ones'. You just don't want to be part of the Church. As I said, you are like someone saying they are from Kansas, but not the U.S. What 'called out ones' do you belong to? You can't be the Body of Christ, as that is the Church.

When you teach people that they need to obey the Mosaic Law, you are putting them under Law. A Law that you admit you cannot keep. And that is what you are doing.

Apparently you didn't read what I said. I said, the term Easter was added later and that it is known by all that it should be translated Passover. But, it is not just the Passover day that is addressed, it is the Feast of Passover which covers the time of the resurrection also. Thus the identification with Easter or the Resurrection is not far fetched.

As I said, I will trust the translators, not you. One can go to the Concordance and look up 'Lord' or 'LORD' and identify Who is addressed.

Stranger
 

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
The law of the Spirit or the law of Christ is not the Mosaic law. It is the same as walking in the Spirit. It is not obedience to a written law. Note it does not obey the law of Christ. It says fulfill the law of Christ. When one walks in the Spirit, he will fulfill the law of Christ.
What happens when one fails to walk in the Spirit and, for example, commits adultery? Is that OK because there is no longer a law against adultery? It is a sin to commit adultery because it transgresses YHWH's law (1 John 3:4).

Nothing wrong with the word Church to represent the 'called out ones'. You just don't want to be part of the Church. As I said, you are like someone saying they are from Kansas, but not the U.S. What 'called out ones' do you belong to? You can't be the Body of Christ, as that is the Church.
I am already part of what you call "the Church". I just don't use that erroneous word to identify believers. The Body of Christ is comprised of all true believers in Messiah Yeshua, of which I am one whether you like it or not.

When you teach people that they need to obey the Mosaic Law, you are putting them under Law.
Explain that is the light of the following passage;

Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture,: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well
Jas 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Jas 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.​

Apparently you didn't read what I said. I said, the term Easter was added later and that it is known by all that it should be translated Passover. But, it is not just the Passover day that is addressed, it is the Feast of Passover which covers the time of the resurrection also. Thus the identification with Easter or the Resurrection is not far fetched.
It is SO far fetched that it is IMPOSSIBLE. Putting the word "Easter" in the text FORCES Easter to exist back then as a demarcation of time that Herod used. Like "Church" and "the LORD", it does NOT belong in our Bibles.

As I said, I will trust the translators, not you. One can go to the Concordance and look up 'Lord' or 'LORD' and identify Who is addressed.
A concordance will merely lead one to all the verses that erroneously use "the LORD" to replace "YHWH". It is the context and the inspired word יהוה that identifies who is addressed.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
gadar perets

I never said sin wasn't sin. I said the Church is under no law. I never said it is ok to commit sin because we are not under law. Sin is always sin and when we sin we confess it before God and move on. The law has no power or authority over us to condemn us. We do not try and now keep the law of God so as not to sin. We walk in the Spirit. If we walk in the Spirit we will not sin. If you try and obey the law, your sins will multiply.

OK, so you're part of the Church...you just don't like your name. You're the one claiming before you were not Christian, not part of the Church. I was just going by what you said.

Concerning (James 2:8-12), James is speaking to Jewish Christians concerning having the faith in Christ with respect of persons. And he goes on to use the example of accepting a rich man and not a poor man into your assembly. We know the Jerusalem Church was especially prone to to have the faith in Christ with respect to the Jews and not the Gentiles. And, that they were prone to try and force circumcision on the Gentiles. And they were prone to keeping the law.

So James is showing these Jews that respect of persons is a sin just as adultry is a sin, just as murder is a sin, thus they have broken the whole law, because when you break one law, you have broken the whole law. The law to the Jews is like a pacifier. They need to be taken back to it to prove what is sin and what is not.

Well, if you don't like the term Easter, and don't know that Easter should mean passover and represent the feast of passover, then find you a Bible that doesn't have it there. Concerning the word ' 'LORD' even the 'Tanakh' uses the word LORD God, and God, and Lord. You are making a big deal over nothing.

Stranger