Search results

One of the most effective ways to mislead the brethren is to read our own beliefs into the text. If Yeshua is YHWH, then he is his own father (Psalms 2:7).

?? If that's the case, then Israel had no part in creating the Old Covenant. YHWH set/created the covenant and they agreed to enter it. Same as the New. YHWH set/created the New Covenant and we agree to enter it by receiving Yeshua. It doesn't matter who creates the covenant. All that matters is...

As I said in post#888; "Faith in Yeshua and being cleansed of sin by his blood is required to enter the New Covenant." It cannot function without Yeshua. It is his blood that is the blood of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28). Without faith in Yeshua and his shed blood to cleanse us, we cannot...

This is false as is GodsGrace's statement, "The New Covenant was uni-lateral." Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith YHWH, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day...

Done. That happened because you quoted me in post 830 without attributing the quote to me.

If it bothers you so much to hear the truth, then stop reading my posts.

This is a quote of Romans 14:14 in which the Greek word is "koinon" meaning "common" as in Acts 10:14. It does not mean "unclean". The context is eating clean food with dirty hands. It is not referring to eating unclean meat with dirty hands. Yeshua summed up his teaching by saying, "These are...

It was a vision with a lesson. If you choose to go beyond the interpretation that YHWH gave Peter, so be it. I would never do such a thing knowing how that would mislead people.

The smile face can mean you were joking or mocking and enjoying it.

He was told to kill and eat in the vision, not in reality. The unclean animals he was told to kill and eat represented Gentiles, not real unclean animals.

It is hard to tell online when someone is joking or mocking.

Acts 10:28 gives us the interpretation; And he said unto them, You know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God has showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Peter was NOT shown that unclean animals...

A typical child-like reply.

Not true. Here is one example; Lev 11:42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination. Lev 11:43 Ye shall not make yourselves...

This derailment started when I posted #304 to refute OSAS, but another poster mistook me to be talking about the Sabbath.

I don't impose or nag. I correct and enlighten those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.

The Bible does NOT say the first tablet contained holiness laws and the second righteousness laws. That is your man made designation. In fact, we are NOT told there were only four commands on one tablet and six on the other. You would do well to not read your own beliefs into the text...

The natural branches (natural Israelites) were cut off from Israel, but will be grafted back into Israel if they believe. Gentile believers are already grafted into Israel. Eventually, believing Jews and Gentiles will all dwell together as the "Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16). If you choose to...

Who decides which are holiness laws and which are righteousness laws since Scripture does not make such designations? Deuteronomy 6:25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before YHWH our God, as He has commanded us. "These commandments" include all...

I agree. It is the Holy Spirit's desire to move all believers to holiness 24/7, but at the same time our flesh wants to move us in the opposite direction. Thus, the war between the flesh and the Spirit. The flesh wants to work on the Sabbath, but the Spirit does not want us to. We must choose...