“I will shew thee my faith by my works.“

[VictoryinJesus]

nice imo!
one is about perspectives on lack, and the other is about perspectives on plenty, right?

I don’t hear that in the context of the line and the plummet...

Isaiah 28:15-20
[15] Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: [16] Therefore thus saith the Lord God , Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone , a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. [17] Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. [18] And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it. [19] From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report. [20] For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it : and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it .

The report being: the bed is shorter than a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.

How is that a perspective on lack and a perspective on plenty? Isn’t it a perspective of God laid the foundation, not man? The line and plummet are measure...Christ is the measure(Judgement and righteousness).

Revelation 2:21-22
[21] And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. [22] Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

Tribulation: vexation.

 

[bbyrd009]

How is that a perspective on lack and a perspective on plenty?

well, maybe it isn't, and i chose the wrong characterization maybe; that one has always struck me as a perspective of lack? Or rather a perspective of one who is never satisfied, is i guess a better way to put it, a hog or whatever? So i didn't mean to imply that there was any lack, just that it is being perceived there. The other one, "build longer tables, bc you'll need them" is what i read there.

Isn’t it a perspective of God laid the foundation, not man?

very well could be i guess, although the bed is not really too short, is it? That is a description of the men's perspective, isn't it? The bad report brought to Moses about giants etc in the Promised Land comes to mind for some reason. "oh, woe is us." Iow the report serves to condemn the reporter. But i guess God could have been like "sending them lack" too, so to speak.

but a further explanation of your pov would be great, being Isaiah there are prolly multiple perspectives there anyway

 

[H. Richard]

Again, (James 2:1) " My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

When your opinion leads you to make statements that suggest the book of James is not inspired by God, then yes, your opinion is satanic.

Stranger

***

And your refusing to acknowledge that James and Paul were teaching two different gospels is the work of Satan. The religious place man's works as the final necessity to gain salvation. That means that faith in what Jesus did on the cross is not enough to save a person. The religious want the saying in James to divert faith in Jesus' blood to faith in a person's ability to save themselves by their works.

The truth is that the religious want to get people to think that their faith in Jesus' work is not enough. They have to go in by religious works and they lose the work of God on the cross.

I have never said that the book of James was not inspired by God. That is the lie you want to foster about me. I have said, over and over again that the book was not written to the Gentile church and James 1:1 says so. But you and the religious still want to add words to what God has written by saying it is for use in the gospel of grace. James said a person has to have works, Paul said a person only has to have faith in what God did on the cross. Which idea comes from Satan.

Jesus won over Satan when He paid for all the sins of the world because Satan could not get people condemned because of their sins. So Satan has put out his teaching that a person has to stop sinning in the flesh and do good works to be saved. The choice for mankind today is; are they going to believe Satan or God's message of grace sent by Paul. The religious refuse grace when they add works to it.

You defend James writing and try to make Paul's message the same. The religious blend the message of law into the message of grace and have come up with a blended gospel that will send many to hell. Your statement ""your opinion is satanic"" is okay with me since I know the religious said the same thing to Jesus. I am in good company. You have added a crown for me since I am trying to get people to place their faith in Jesus' work on the cross and not on their works as the only means of salvation.

Since You have said what you did I do not feel that we have anything in common to talk about and I do not like to argue especial since you say what I teach is Satanic. What would be the point in such a discussion?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

well, maybe it isn't, and i chose the wrong characterization maybe; that one has always struck me as a perspective of lack? Or rather a perspective of one who is never satisfied, is i guess a better way to put it, a hog or whatever? So i didn't mean to imply that there was any lack, just that it is being perceived there. The other one, "build longer tables, bc you'll need them" is what i read there.

very well could be i guess, although the bed is not really too short, is it? That is a description of the men's perspective, isn't it? The bad report brought to Moses about giants etc in the Promised Land comes to mind for some reason. "oh, woe is us." Iow the report serves to condemn the reporter. But i guess God could have been like "sending them lack" too, so to speak.

but a further explanation of your pov would be great, being Isaiah there are prolly multiple perspectives there anyway

Isaiah shows what God has done and will do. The word becomes a snare: Isaiah 28:13-14
[13] But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. [14] Wherefore hear the word of the Lord , ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

A snare to who: those who want use the word to gain the world. (Pharisees for instance). The broad road many will find which means they are looking, but looking for the wrong thing. (Treasure here).

But Judgement and righteousness ...the way is narrow: God laid a measure of both (the corner stone). “But we don’t know the way” Philip said. “I am the way, the truth, and the life” the Son replied. The way into the kingdom is narrow and constricted...the eye of a needle...here is the bed of God(tight and reduction to man’s flesh) which seems less than the adulterous bed because it is confined and kept by God(the Father says: My children and I are already in bed, but if you knock I will rise and give you the Spirit). Not give the Spirit for fuller measure to ones self but He will give the Spirit for you to set “bread” before another that has none. Back to the eye of a needle...who can push a camel through it? God can. Just look at Saul(a rich man) broken and gone through the eye into the Kingdom of God. Acts 14:22
[22] Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

I am a camel God reduced in size(by tribulation) to go through the narrow door.(Christ: Judgement and righteousness) Isaiah 28:15
[15] Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

“Under falsehood have we hid ourselves”
Matthew 10:26-27
[26] Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. [27] What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.

God tears down a man’s glory(flesh) for the purpose of building him up anew in God(Spirit). “Life abundantly” is life abundant in God...the rest is not worth mentioning. You say “here have a skin”. I’m not sure what you mean because we do need Christ. He is “the measure” and the only way. It is not about increasing our tent but reducing our tent until we fold it up(when God says) and take it off. Vanity puffs up flesh; humility shrinks flesh. That is the report: God will show man all fails except what is of God and not man.

 

[bbyrd009]

You say “here have a skin”. I’m not sure what you mean because we do need Christ.

by that i mean that God can look upon sin, with forgiveness and without judgement, contrary to the popular misinterpretation of another v that maybe seems to suggest otherwise. All are forgiven, forgiveness does not lead to salvation, otherwise all would be saved. A million+ Hebrews left Egypt forgiven, and free; but only two made it to the PL

We need to follow Christ, yes, i would totally agree to that.
Where i disagree is the notion that God needed another "person" in His Pantheon to worship, or that God somehow needed a sacrifice to make us acceptable to Him, which is what i hear when i hear "we need Christ."

And also how another v or two is misinterpreted, right. Might be best to even Quote the vv i'm talking about, and reflect on their counterparts some, ok with me. There is Scripture that might appear to directly contradict what i am saying here iow, that must needs be read with diff eyes

We need to become elohim, and partake like Christ, and stop "worshipping" a Snake on a Pole imo

We need to be perfect as Christ is perfect, and we better believe that God will not be crying any tears of anguish and remorse at lopping off dead limbs
imo

 

[H. Richard]

by that i mean that God can look upon sin, with forgiveness and without judgement, contrary to the popular misinterpretation of another v that maybe seems to suggest otherwise. All are forgiven, forgiveness does not lead to salvation, otherwise all would be saved. A million+ Hebrews left Egypt forgiven, and free; but only two made it to the PL

We need to follow Christ, yes, i would totally agree to that.
Where i disagree is the notion that God needed another "person" in His Pantheon to worship, or that God somehow needed a sacrifice to make us acceptable to Him, which is what i hear when i hear "we need Christ."

And also how another v or two is misinterpreted, right. Might be best to even Quote the vv i'm talking about, and reflect on their counterparts some, ok with me. There is Scripture that might appear to directly contradict what i am saying here iow, that must needs be read with diff eyes

We need to become elohim, and partake like Christ, and stop "worshipping" a Snake on a Pole imo

We need to be perfect as Christ is perfect, and we better believe that God will not be crying any tears of anguish and remorse at lopping off dead limbs
imo

***
Just asking!!!!! so I will know.

You wrote, "Where i disagree is the notion that God needed another "person" in His Pantheon to worship, or that God somehow needed a sacrifice to make us acceptable to Him, which is what i hear when i hear "we need Christ." Are you saying we do not need Jesus' shed blood on the cross???

Heb 9:22
22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
NKJV

You also wrote, ""Where i disagree is the notion that God needed another "person" in His Pantheon to worship, or that God somehow needed a sacrifice to make us acceptable to Him, which is what i hear when i hear "we need Christ."

Explain this, are you saying that Jesus is not God and we didn't need His work on the cross? If so are you a Jehovah witness follower?

Don't want a discussion about this. I just want to understand you.

 

[Stranger]

***

And your refusing to acknowledge that James and Paul were teaching two different gospels is the work of Satan. The religious place man's works as the final necessity to gain salvation. That means that faith in what Jesus did on the cross is not enough to save a person. The religious want the saying in James to divert faith in Jesus' blood to faith in a person's ability to save themselves by their works.

The truth is that the religious want to get people to think that their faith in Jesus' work is not enough. They have to go in by religious works and they lose the work of God on the cross.

I have never said that the book of James was not inspired by God. That is the lie you want to foster about me. I have said, over and over again that the book was not written to the Gentile church and James 1:1 says so. But you and the religious still want to add words to what God has written by saying it is for use in the gospel of grace. James said a person has to have works, Paul said a person only has to have faith in what God did on the cross. Which idea comes from Satan.

Jesus won over Satan when He paid for all the sins of the world because Satan could not get people condemned because of their sins. So Satan has put out his teaching that a person has to stop sinning in the flesh and do good works to be saved. The choice for mankind today is; are they going to believe Satan or God's message of grace sent by Paul. The religious refuse grace when they add works to it.

You defend James writing and try to make Paul's message the same. The religious blend the message of law into the message of grace and have come up with a blended gospel that will send many to hell. Your statement ""your opinion is satanic"" is okay with me since I know the religious said the same thing to Jesus. I am in good company. You have added a crown for me since I am trying to get people to place their faith in Jesus' work on the cross and not on their works as the only means of salvation.

Since You have said what you did I do not feel that we have anything in common to talk about and I do not like to argue especial since you say what I teach is Satanic. What would be the point in such a discussion?

You asked the question about doing satan's work, thus I answered. Don't act like I came out of left field and called you a satanist. Don't be so quick to give yourself a crown that you manipulated to get.

Yes, when you say James was mistaken, then you are saying God was mistaken because the Scriptures are inspired by God. You can't have it both ways.

The writings of James and Paul do not disagree.

The point in the discussion would be for you to recognize that you can be used by satan, even though you believe you are presenting God's truth.

Didn't both Peter and Paul do the same?

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

Are you saying we do not need Jesus' shed blood on the cross???

Heb 9:22
22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
NKJV

if you notice how you put that HR, and then go back and look at my previous posts even, you'll see that i have been saying exactly that; we needed the "sacrifice;" Bc what you are really asking is "Are you saying that God did not need the sacrifice, in order to make us acceptable to Him," right. And there it is, right there in your Quote, HR. And it's in all the others too. It's in the little set-up phrases that we don't pay attention to, on the way to reading the part that grabs us, etc, also hidden in plain sight other ways i guess

 

[bbyrd009]

Explain this, are you saying that Jesus is not God and we didn't need His work on the cross? If so are you a Jehovah witness follower?

not a JW, and you are to be elohim too right, so i prefer to defer on the "is Jesus God" Q for now, or i'll say that yes "Jesus is God" coming from your mouth is fine for the moment, but the doctrine that that is turned into by others is warped, and must lead to "One has to become a Christian to be accepted by God," which is not true imo. And you might easily be led into the Hegelian yourself by that doctrine, right?

So for self-application, following, great for now, but for judging and condemnation of others, not so much. When the self-app leads to incense and bowing and other empty gestures that we now deem "worship," not so much either i guess. We think we get this concept from the Book but it is not in There either!

 

[H. Richard]

You asked the question about doing satan's work, thus I answered. Don't act like I came out of left field and called you a satanist. Don't be so quick to give yourself a crown that you manipulated to get.

Yes, when you say James was mistaken, then you are saying God was mistaken because the Scriptures are inspired by God. You can't have it both ways.

The writings of James and Paul do not disagree.

The point in the discussion would be for you to recognize that you can be used by satan, even though you believe you are presenting God's truth.

Didn't both Peter and Paul do the same?

Stranger

***
And you can't have it both ways either then.

You say the book was written for the Gentile grace church too. Since the Holy Spirit did not include the Gentiles in James 1:1, using your logic, He got it wrong. No where in the Book of James indicates it was written to the Gentile grace church too.

Can people really say they believe the scriptures in the Bible and not believe what they actually say?????

James 1:1 NKJV
1 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings.

The above was inspired by the Holy Spirit.



Below is the same verse, re-written, to make it written to the grace church as well so it can be used lay the workings of the Law on those under grace.

James 1:1
1 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad ""and to the Gentiles"": Greetings.

Which way is correct, the Holy Spirit’s way or man’s way?

It simply MUST be understood that the Jews were under the law of Moses and if a Jew had faith he/she would show it by doing the works of the law of Moses. The Gentles are under grace, not the law of Moses. The book of James should not be used as a guide for those who are not under the Law of Moses.

But include it if you wish but be on notice that it is also written in the Bible:
Rom 2:16
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
NKJV

Rom 16:25
25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began
NKJV

You may say that Paul's gospel was the same as the gospel of the kingdom that Jesus and the 12 taught to those under the Law and harmonize (blend) both together but I will not. The blended gospel of man will send many to Hell.

 

[H. Richard]

if you notice how you put that HR, and then go back and look at my previous posts even, you'll see that i have been saying exactly that; we needed the "sacrifice;" Bc what you are really asking is "Are you saying that God did not need the sacrifice, in order to make us acceptable to Him," right. And there it is, right there in your Quote, HR. And it's in all the others too. It's in the little set-up phrases that we don't pay attention to, on the way to reading the part that grabs us, etc, also hidden in plain sight other ways i guess

***

You did not really answer my questions you just use this reply to criticize me. That is what you do, not only to me, but to most everyone you reply to.

I suspect that most everyone on this forum knows nothing about what you believe.

Okay, don't directly answer my two questions. I don't really care.

 

[bbyrd009]

You did not really answer my questions you just use this reply to criticize me.

i'm not sure how that post is being critical of you or anyone else at all, HR;

if you notice how you put that HR, and then go back and look at my previous posts even, you'll see that i have been saying exactly that; we needed the "sacrifice;" Bc what you are really asking is "Are you saying that God did not need the sacrifice, in order to make us acceptable to Him," right. And there it is, right there in your Quote, HR. And it's in all the others too. It's in the little set-up phrases that we don't pay attention to, on the way to reading the part that grabs us, etc, also hidden in plain sight other ways i guess

by "notice how you put that" i only mean to point out the unspoken, assumed part of the question, not meaning to be critical there.

If i put that incorrectly, or even if you think that leads to an improper characterization even if technically true, then bam pls correct me at the bolded assumption ok

 

[bbyrd009]

Okay, don't directly answer my two questions. I don't really care.

***
Just asking!!!!! so I will know.

You wrote, "Where i disagree is the notion that God needed another "person" in His Pantheon to worship, or that God somehow needed a sacrifice to make us acceptable to Him, which is what i hear when i hear "we need Christ." Are you saying we do not need Jesus' shed blood on the cross???

Heb 9:22
22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
NKJV

You also wrote, ""Where i disagree is the notion that God needed another "person" in His Pantheon to worship, or that God somehow needed a sacrifice to make us acceptable to Him, which is what i hear when i hear "we need Christ."

Explain this, are you saying that Jesus is not God and we didn't need His work on the cross? If so are you a Jehovah witness follower?

Don't want a discussion about this. I just want to understand you.

"Are you saying we do not need Jesus' shed blood on the cross???"
in the context from which the question is asked, yes, that is what i am saying
hence why Christ shed His blood for the whole world, yet the whole world is not deemed "saved." Only forgiven.

"Explain this, are you saying that Jesus is not God and we didn't need His work on the cross?"
same Q right, and

"If so are you a Jehovah witness follower?"
i have already answered HR, and my apologies if you felt i was being critical ok

 

[bbyrd009]

No where in the Book of James indicates it was written to the Gentile grace church too.

there is only One Church HR; isn't there?

 

[H. Richard]

there is only One Church HR; isn't there?

***

Read your Bible. In it you will find that there were many churches.

As for the blood their is no way to salvation that is not bought by faith in Jesus' blood.

 

[Stranger]

***
And you can't have it both ways either then.

You say the book was written for the Gentile grace church too. Since the Holy Spirit did not include the Gentiles in James 1:1, using your logic, He got it wrong. No where in the Book of James indicates it was written to the Gentile grace church too.

Can people really say they believe the scriptures in the Bible and not believe what they actually say?????

James 1:1 NKJV
1 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings.

The above was inspired by the Holy Spirit.



Below is the same verse, re-written, to make it written to the grace church as well so it can be used lay the workings of the Law on those under grace.

James 1:1
1 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad ""and to the Gentiles"": Greetings.

Which way is correct, the Holy Spirit’s way or man’s way?

It simply MUST be understood that the Jews were under the law of Moses and if a Jew had faith he/she would show it by doing the works of the law of Moses. The Gentles are under grace, not the law of Moses. The book of James should not be used as a guide for those who are not under the Law of Moses.

But include it if you wish but be on notice that it is also written in the Bible:
Rom 2:16
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
NKJV

Rom 16:25
25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began
NKJV

You may say that Paul's gospel was the same as the gospel of the kingdom that Jesus and the 12 taught to those under the Law and harmonize (blend) both together but I will not. The blended gospel of man will send many to Hell.

Where did I say the book of James is written to the Gentile grace church?

Where did I say that Paul's gospel was the same gospel as the gospel of the kingdom?

Stranger

 

[H. Richard]

Where did I say the book of James is written to the Gentile grace church?

Where did I say that Paul's gospel was the same gospel as the gospel of the kingdom?

Stranger

***

If you use it in the grace church you are saying it is for the grace church. If you use the law in your gospel you are blending law with grace.

You just want to argue and I see no end to it. You and I will never see anything the same and since I do NOT WANT to argue with you, goodbye. I will refrain from replying to you on anything.

 

[Stranger]

***

If you use it in the grace church you are saying it is for the grace church. If you use the law in your gospel you are blending law with grace.

You just want to argue and I see no end to it so goodbye.

***

If you use it in the grace church you are saying it is for the grace church. If you use the law in your gospel you are blending law with grace.

You just want to argue and I see no end to it so goodbye.

Yes, it is for the Church. Yet you didn't repeat the word 'Gentile', as you accused before?

I never blended law into the gospel of grace. Where did you get that?

Of course I want to argue, because I believe you are wrong in what you are stating.

Stranger

 

[H. Richard]

Yes, it is for the Church. Yet you didn't repeat the word 'Gentile', as you accused before?

I never blended law into the gospel of grace. Where did you get that?

Of course I want to argue, because I believe you are wrong in what you are stating.

Stranger

***

OKAY, I AM WRONG """IN YOUR OPINION"". You are wrong in my opinion so get a life.

 

[Stranger]

***

OKAY, I AM WRONG """IN YOUR OPINION"". You are wrong in my opinion so get a life.

Well, perhaps you should consider these things.

Stranger