OVERCOMING

[Taken]

We must always interpret the OT by the NT.

I disagree with your study method.

If you read the OT "with consideration of knowledge of the NT", it is easy to lose the perspective of the characters in the OT.

The NT redefines OT definitions and concepts.

Disagree. The NT does not "redefine".
The NT, REVEALS what was kept Hidden from OT men.
And the NT, fulfills, many things OT men were waiting to come to pass.

OT Men "new" to the earth, are like newborns.
They had no history, or experiences, from which to learn and quickly grasp new things ...like our babies.

We teach them bit by bit. We don't "redefine" what we have told them. We reveal more and more, as they begin forming a familiar history and experiences. We continue telling them more, and bit by bit, as they mature, they begin UNDERSTANDING the knowledge they have been being taught.

We keep knowledge hidden from little children....they are not yet mature enough to be exposed to all knowledge.

The same was for OT men.

When Jesus arrived, MANY many things that was hidden and puzzled OT men, was Revealed.

Its a WAY and ORDER, that everyone experiences, regardless of the era.

The most serious error is in adding to Revelation if we ignore Jesus.

Again disagree.

The most serious error of a man, is "failure" of a Jew to Continue Belief and his adherence to the Law
or
he to Become a Messianic Jew...

and
"Failure" of a Gentile to Believe and become Converted.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[bbyrd009]

I don't ignore you because every so often you land a good point. So I bear up under the abuse.

imagine how we feel after about the third or fourth go-around with you Dave, like every one of your victims has mentioned at this point. You make many good points yourself btw, even if they are not Absolute Truth like you believe. If you and Frank and Mary wanna play the innocent doves, understand how that comes across after all the insistence and willful ignoring ok.

yes, it's a communication problem, i would post the relevant Scripture now but you would just ignore it again so i won't. You might review your older posts and get an outside perspective on how you come across, but fwiw it's better to wait until the convo has completely faded from memory for some reason

 

[Dave L]

I disagree with your study method.

If you read the OT "with consideration of knowledge of the NT", it is easy to lose the perspective of the characters in the OT.



Disagree. The NT does not "redefine".
The NT, REVEALS what was kept Hidden from OT men.
And the NT, fulfills, many things OT men were waiting to come to pass.

OT Men "new" to the earth, are like newborns.
They had no history, or experiences, from which to learn and quickly grasp new things ...like our babies.

We teach them bit by bit. We don't "redefine" what we have told them. We reveal more and more, as they begin forming a familiar history and experiences. We continue telling them more, and bit by bit, as they mature, they begin UNDERSTANDING the knowledge they have been being taught.

We keep knowledge hidden from little children....they are not yet mature enough to be exposed to all knowledge.

The same was for OT men.

When Jesus arrived, MANY many things that was hidden and puzzled OT men, was Revealed.

Its a WAY and ORDER, that everyone experiences, regardless of the era.



Again disagree.

The most serious error of a man, is "failure" of a Jew to Continue Belief and his adherence to the Law
or
he to Become a Messianic Jew...

and
"Failure" of a Gentile to Believe and become Converted.

Glory to God,
Taken

If you ignore Jesus and the NT definitions of OT words, and take the Old Covenant into Revelation you add to the book many things never intended to be there.

 

[Dave L]

imagine how we feel after about the third or fourth go-around with you Dave, like every one of your victims has mentioned at this point. You make many good points yourself btw, even if they are not Absolute Truth like you believe. If you and Frank and Mary wanna play the innocent doves, understand how that comes across after all the insistence and willful ignoring ok.

yes, it's a communication problem, i would post the relevant Scripture now but you would just ignore it again so i won't. You might review your older posts and get an outside perspective on how you come across, but fwiw it's better to wait until the convo has completely faded from memory for some reason

Blessings...

 

[bbyrd009]

We must always interpret the OT by the NT.

case in point, see, we are freed from the law of sin and death or you would already be dead, making such definitive statements without any proof

If you ignore Jesus and the NT definitions of OT words, and take the Old Covenant into Revelation you add to the book many things never intended to be there.

this from a guy assuring us, insisting even, that kurios means God
Dave

 

[Dave L]

case in point, see, we are freed from the law of sin and death or you would already be dead, making such definitive statements without any proof

this from a guy assuring us, insisting even, that kurios means God
Dave

Blessings

 

[bbyrd009]

Blessings...

back to that huh, ok, well you too ok

wait til you get the knowledge that brings sorrow Dave, if you think i am some kind of force

 

[Dave L]

back to that huh, ok, well you too ok

wait til you get the knowledge that brings sorrow Dave, if you think i am some kind of force

Blessings again

 

[bbyrd009]

We must always interpret the OT by the NT. The NT redefines OT definitions and concepts. The most serious error is in adding to Revelation if we ignore Jesus.

you do start with a good point here imo btw, but you have put it in such a straightjacket i don't see how anyone could agree.
any Support you can Quote would be nice

 

[CoreIssue]

It most certainly does. An example: Paul says, “For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.” (2 Corinthians 1:20)

This means the unbelieving Jews have no claim to the promise to Abraham.

In simple terms it means taking what he says that literally, not interpreting, and that merging them into an expanded meaning. But no original meaning is lost by either.

2 Corinthians 1:20 New International Version (NIV)
20 For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God.

This confirms what I said and denies what you said. The way you handle scripture changes the original meaning.

 

[CoreIssue]

feels good standing there, huh Dave

Dave uses the archaic English KJV was history was catholic.

Changes to the King James Bible

 

[Frank Lee]

Not overcoming is just nonsense. Ever since my feet hit the floor as a heathen I did nothing but overcome. Then saved, born again, being made a new creature in Jesus Christ at 33 and baptized in the Holy Spirit I've done nothing but overcome with God's kind help.

Let everything, everything be done toward building up says the word. Vanity and vexation of spirit do not add to our peace at all. Zero building up.

 

[Taken]

Today's broken off Jews are in fact gentiles since Christ abolished circumcision on the cross.

Disagree.

Circumcision has always been about the Heart, and is still in effect.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

If you ignore Jesus and the NT definitions of OT words, and take the Old Covenant into Revelation you add to the book many things never intended to be there.

That is nothing I said.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Dave L]

That is nothing I said.

Glory to God,
Taken

good for you.

 

[Dave L]

Disagree.

Circumcision has always been about the Heart, and is still in effect.

Glory to God,
Taken

In the OT, physical circumcision made one a physical member of Abraham's seed/Israel/Jew. Only few were circumcised in heart (see Hebrews 11 for a list of examples). When God abolished circumcision, all the physically circumcised became gentiles by default. The circumcised in heart accepted Christ and remain as Israel.

 

[Dave L]

In simple terms it means taking what he says that literally, not interpreting, and that merging them into an expanded meaning. But no original meaning is lost by either.

2 Corinthians 1:20 New International Version (NIV)
20 For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God.

This confirms what I said and denies what you said. The way you handle scripture changes the original meaning.

NIV is not reliable.

“The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine [Jesus]; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.” (Leviticus 25:23)

“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” (Galatians 3:16)

 

[Dave L]

you do start with a good point here imo btw, but you have put it in such a straightjacket i don't see how anyone could agree.
any Support you can Quote would be nice

We cannot drag OT physical kingdom concepts into Revelation without adding false prophecy to it. Here is an example of how Jesus redefines the kingdom for us.

“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)

“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)

“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)

“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)

“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)

“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)

“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)

“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)

“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)

“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)

“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)

 

[bbyrd009]

We cannot drag OT physical kingdom concepts into Revelation without adding false prophecy to it.

i'm just trying to recall anyone ever having dragged physical kingdom concepts into the Revelation, guess i'd need some examples

 

[bbyrd009]

NIV is not reliable.

and parrots live to be like 100 Dave, the more important subject i guess

i mean no offense, but you are the one making the defs with the bad inferences. Books are not reliable bc scribes, and you infer that some other Book--that you call Word btw right, you have some version you deem Word, and believe you are qualified to even define Word now, 'NIV is not reliable'--is reliable, most likely Queenie's with the Easter and the archaic English and the agenda that renders many vv into mush i guess