Blockers..

[Truther]

wadr i cant Quote those Scriptures any more succinctly than i already have, so if you would address them then at least they will be addressed, imo
really i have nothing to say, cant think of anything original that has ever come out of my mouth tbh, even "Jesus sure as hell did not die for your sins" is straight out of the Bible eh? Comprende, or no?

Every single thing that ol' Tassel Toes taught us from that pulpit is crap, said to garnish tithes, and you can easily, easily verify this by asking Him if he has signed any Contracts for Jesus with the Gov lately, that give Him special financial privileges, omg i am finally spelling that right lol.

And those are of course "legal" documents bc we are so completely under the law that we would not abide it any other way.

What do you mean Jesus didn’t die for our sins.
Wasa mata you?

 

[mjrhealth]

Oh I see, you miss the point. The question I am asking is not whether I am right or you are right. The question is whether or not there is only one correct interpretation of Scripture. That correct interpretation could be mine, it could be yours, or it could be something entirely different, but we cannot both be correct.

Something to do with

Joh_14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Joh_16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Yes there is only one truth, it is Christ who is the truth and in Him there is no lie.

 

[mjrhealth]

I doubt seriously if there is going to be a Theological Examination given to us on the last day.

Ye made that point often enough..

 

[Jenniferdiana3637]

What do you think of as "personal revelations"? I'm curious because I believe that God has led me personally with pointedly direct communication in a pathway towards health in all respects.

I've been the recipient of very personal revelation from God. Is that not possible?

Do you have to have a special closeness to God? Is being born from Him sufficient? Might not God use whatever means He saw best including direct communication?

Much love!

Yes he can and you might have..i mean its possible...anything is possible

 

[bbyrd009]

Let's pick one . . .

no son of man may die for another's sins

Simply stated, this statement is not contained in Scripture, and while it bears a similarity to a certain place in Scripture, it does not say the same thing. So base your ideas on this thought or not, but it doesn't come from the Bible.

Ezekiel 18:20 Lexicon: "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

man, seems perfectly acceptable to me? Can you say where you disagree with the translation specifically? All the elements seem to be there?

 

[bbyrd009]

The words of Jesus spoken surely are the Living Word of God... but what the devil had and what those who heard Jesus speak on the mount, if it did have Life at one time, lost the Life because they put others things first above seeking the Kingdom of God and the righteousness of God.

nobody takes go to another town eat what they feed you literally at all huh

 

[Jenniferdiana3637]

Well you are assuming he didnt send them and that is a dangerous place to be. Just because you haven't doesn't mean eh doesn't.

Ezekiel 13

 

[bbyrd009]

No, Scripture cannot mean different things to different people. That's nonsense.

i spouted "stay here for the present" already i hope

 

[bbyrd009]

What do you mean Jesus didn’t die for our sins.
Wasa mata you?

i know right? Christ you can Quote, Jesus you cannot. Its just a weird thing, a pointer. Like Two Greeks who came to worship Jesus (via Phillip no less) and Jesus hid from them.

Christ died for my sins, when i "killed" Him, i even remember when

 

[marks]

Ezekiel 18:20 Lexicon: "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

man, seems perfectly acceptable to me? Can you say where you disagree with the translation specifically? All the elements seem to be there?

This states an order of things, but does not prohibit the Son of God dying for the sins of mankind.

Jesus did not bear the sins of His Father, of course.

You've said that "no son of man may die for another's sins". This verse says, and in my mind it seems clear to be addressing those under the Mosaic Law, that each bears his own guilt not of another, and dies for his own guilt, and not of another, specifically their fathers and sons, that is, generational guilt.

Jesus specifically gave a new covenant, and with no contradiction to this passage, as it does not say that that there cannot be one come who is qualified to in fact die for another's sins, and particularly the old covenant does not prohibit a new covenant, and in fact foretells this new covenant.

That's how I see it.

Much love!

 

[Jay Ross]

This states an order of things, but does not prohibit the Son of God dying for the sins of mankind.

Jesus did not bear the sins of His Father, of course.

You've said that "no son of man may die for another's sins". This verse says, and in my mind it seems clear to be addressing those under the Mosaic Law, that each bears his own guilt not of another, and dies for his own guilt, and not of another, specifically their fathers and sons, that is, generational guilt.

Jesus specifically gave a new covenant, and with no contradiction to this passage, as it does not say that that there cannot be one come who is qualified to in fact die for another's sins, and particularly the old covenant does not prohibit a new covenant, and in fact foretells this new covenant.

That's how I see it.

Much love!

Mark,

We have had this discussion before on the fact that Jesus did not come to change any part of the Salvation Covenant or to bring or instigate a "Brand New" Salvation Covenant. What Christ did though, Dan 9:24b, was to change the process whereby people could receive their salvation through His Sacrifice on the cross which will cover their sins should they accept his offer of salvation.

The references to the Old and New Covenants are with respect to the Kingdom of priests, a Holy Nation and God's possession among the nations, covenant and, although these old and renewed covenants also have embedded within their structure, words about peoples Salvation, it has nothing to do with The process of a person's salvation. The Old and New Covenants, as labelled by man, is the process whereby God will provide a kingdom of Priests during the Millennium Age to teach the nations about the things of God and their respective salvation.

Mark we all want something that is "brand new" but sadly we do not necessarily want to renew our minds, i.e. change our understanding, so that we can actually put on the renewed/refurbished personhood that God intended us to have from the beginning of creation.

Shalom

 

[bbyrd009]

This states an order of things, but does not prohibit the Son of God dying for the sins of mankind.

well so you say, but fwiw one v would never have changed my mind either!

Jesus did not bear the sins of His Father, of course.

pretty sure the belief holds Jesus as a "father" to us, in that case. The specific language there actually becomes a hint to the intended meaning, once eastern dialectics is more understood. Kind of in the vein of "he who says he knows, doesnt" is the only example comes to mind right now

 

[mjrhealth]

well so you say, but fwiw one v would never have changed my mind either!

Thats why I dont bother anymore. Someone told me that you are just here to stir the pot, gives us a good chuckle occasionally but no more.

 

[marks]

well so you say, but fwiw one v would never have changed my mind either!
pretty sure the belief holds Jesus as a "father" to us, in that case

Actually, I think Romans 8 tells us that Jesus is our brother, as we are all born of God, that is, those who are born of God.

And fwiw . . . single verses have brought about incredible changes in my life when I came to believe that the simple statements they make are actually true. For me it's not about how many words God uses to say something, just whether He said it or not.

Much love!

 

[bbyrd009]

Jesus specifically gave a new covenant, and with no contradiction to this passage, as it does not say that that there cannot be one come who is qualified to in fact die for another's sins

ya, it pretty much does? But as long as you serve a God who needs sacrifices to make you acceptable to Him (who told you that you were naked? I desire mercy, not sacrifice, et al) then your impression of the v will not change, i guess. Blood=red=Edom, i would prolly say to someone where you are?

We project our bloodthirst onto Yah, and Scripture goes along with that the same way that Paul uses "we" imo, to be more inclusive. But once you start looking, it becomes a flood

 

[bbyrd009]

Actually, I think Romans 8 tells us that Jesus is our brother, as we are all born of God, that is, those who are born of God.

And fwiw . . . single verses have brought about incredible changes in my life when I came to believe that the simple statements they make are actually true. For me it's not about how many words God uses to say something, just whether He said it or not.

yes ok

wadr if you are finding simple statements in Scripture...then Bless your heart imo

 

[bbyrd009]

Thats why I dont bother anymore. Someone told me that you are just here to stir the pot, gives us a good chuckle occasionally but no more.

yeh, ppl say all kinda stuff i guess, who knows huh

 

[marks]

ya, it pretty much does? But as long as you serve a God who needs sacrifices to make you acceptable to Him (who told you that you were naked? I desire mercy, not sacrifice, et al) then your impression of the v will not change, i guess. Blood=red=Edom, i would prolly say to someone where you are?

We project our bloodthirst onto Yah, and Scripture goes along with that the same way that Paul uses "we" imo, to be more inclusive. But once you start looking, it becomes a flood

Yeah, I see what you're saying, but I'm not saying that actually.

Only death can separate me from the corruption of my flesh, and only in Jesus can I die and still live.

Where are you is a fantastic question! Are you in Christ, baptized into Him?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Kind of in the vein of "he who says he knows, doesnt" is the only example comes to mind right now

But you can't lift this out of sound reasoning, or else you have no one knowing whether they know anything at all Including the Author, Who then wouldn't actually know whether He knows or not, and that's an absurdity.

 

[bbyrd009]

Only death can separate me from the corruption of my flesh

nullifies Be perfect, as I am to my mind?

Where are you is a fantastic question! Are you in Christ, baptized into Him?

ever found a testifier of themselves replying "no" to this marks?
lemme know when you do k