Rapture Top Dogs Admit no Proof Exists.

[farouk]

Old Testament believers are also referenced as being saints but the word typically comes out "faithful" from the English translators. The word in question is qaddiysh in Hebrew and it is from the same root word as "holy" in Hebrew. And that is what "saint" means--holy or set apart for God's use. There are a number of places where the same word is used to describe believers in the OT. It could easily reference believing Jews in the Tribulation--(AKA as the "Time of Jacob's Trouble"). Of course, it could also refer to those Gentiles who come to faith in Jesus during the Tribulation as well. These believers--both Jewish and Gentile are not part of the Church which will be taken to heaven before the Tribulation. The Church is not appointed to God's wrath.

I think the dispensational distinctives are helpful and relevant, when it comes to future events and the different groups of people involved.

 

[bbyrd009]

I can't see any place that you are out of order re the rules!!
Christianity Board Forum Rules

If you are...then I can think of one brother who must be breaking them almost every time that he posts

Well right in the preamble there works fine I guess. If it's ok to call Jews antichrist today, tomorrow it will be Catholics, then Pentecostals, etc I guess

 

[bbyrd009]

What utter nonsense. Jesus says, "Come, let's be going." at Gethsemane. He could have easily said, "We must leave now." And WHAT QUESTION WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ANSWER? I know you love to be cryptic and all, but you are not helping whatever your argument is by being nasty to other Christians.

All I did was ask a question LC, i didn't mean to imply that I expected you to answer it, or even be able to see it for that matter.
Question, what question, there was no question
works fine for me ok

 

[CoreIssue]

I think the dispensational distinctives are helpful and relevant, when it comes to future events and the different groups of people involved.

One word can appear one way in the Hebrew and another in the Greek.

The distinction is one becomes a saint when born again. No one in the OT was born again.

That is why they are referred to as righteous, a condition that could be lost as being a saint cannot.

Distinctions are in the condition of the believers. Both Testaments say believers are righteous. But only in the New Testament is one born again.

 

[farouk]

One word can appear one way in the Hebrew and another in the Greek.

The distinction is one becomes a saint when born again. No one in the OT was born again.

That is why they are referred to as righteous, a condition that could be lost as being a saint cannot.

Distinctions are in the condition of the believers. Both Testaments say believers are righteous. But only in the New Testament is one born again.

I agree that the term 'born again' really applies after Pentecost, when the Spirit came to indwell.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

See bc the "we" that I find most reliably described in the Bible seems to be "twice the sons of hell" and "seven worse spirits" wadr. These will surely testify of themselves and engage in commending themselves to each other, don't you think? Prolly in with a fair amount of saying that they know, etc?

Simon Peter in John 6:68 says, "...Lord to whom would we go?..." Would you accuse him the way you have accused me?

 

[bbyrd009]

I agree that the term 'born again' really applies after Pentecost, when the Spirit came to indwell.

Plenty of "born-again" OT I guess, and prolly pretty sketchy to equate our ritual to it too I bet

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

The distinction is one becomes a saint when born again.

Please, show me in the Bible where that is stated? I maintain that a "saint" is a believer. Period. Whether one is "born again from on high" is a separate matter. There is no record that John the Baptist was ever indwelt by the Holy Spirit ("born again") but are you prepared to say that he wasn't a saint of God--set apart for God's holy purpose?

 

[bbyrd009]

Simon Peter in John 6:68 says, "...Lord to whom would we go?..." Would you accuse him the way you have accused me?

If he talked the same way, certainly. Ah and I guess we even have some support for that, specifically for mr pebble huh?

so once again, I have not accused you of anything, and you have not answered the question, would you like to continue in this line until it becomes obvious even to you?

Bc if so understand my only interest now would be setting an over/under for how many posts that might take, ok. Pls don't answer the question, again, and you may certainly testify of yourself all you like ok, don't misunderstand me.

 

[CoreIssue]

Show me in the Bible where that is stated? I maintain that a "saint" is a believer. Period. Whether one is "born again from on high" is a separate matter. There is no record that John the Baptist was ever indwelt by the Holy Spirit ("born again") but are you prepared to say that he wasn't a saint of God--set apart for God's holy purpose?

The usage is set apart in the Old Testament is not the usage of set apart in the New Testament.

Being born again makes a big difference. In the Old Testament righteousness could be lost, but not in the New Testament after the Gospels.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

All I did was ask a question LC, i didn't mean to imply that I expected you to answer it, or even be able to see it for that matter.
Question, what question, there was no question
works fine for me ok

You were obviously implying something about me--that I am somehow like Hitler or the "sons of the devil" in merely using the word "we". It is quite irrational to attack someone because they used a word that I have shown was also used by Peter.

 

[bbyrd009]

You were obviously implying something about me--that I am somehow like Hitler or the "sons of the devil" in merely using the word "we". It is quite irrational to attack someone because they used a word that I have shown was also used by Peter.

Then it should be no problem to answer the q right, who is that "we?"
Bc no offense meant, honestly, but see Peter I know...

So wadr I am done with this irrational avoiding and deflecting, and I sincerely apologize if I hurt your feelings LC. Carry on testifying of yourself all you like ok, pretend peter was doing the same thing too if you want

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

The usage is set apart in the Old Testament is not the usage of set apart in the New Testament.

I think you are getting into the weeds when you say that.

Being born again makes a big difference. In the Old Testament, righteousness could be lost, but not in the New Testament after the Gospels.

Well that is no doubt true. He is our "helper" and He "leads to all truth" countering the lies of the enemy of our souls.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Then it should be no problem to answer the q right, who is that "we?"
Bc no offense meant, honestly, but see Peter I know...

So wadr I am done with this irrational avoiding and deflecting, and I sincerely apologize if I hurt your feelings LC. Carry on testifying of yourself all you like ok

We are supposed to testify of our faith. What is it that you think you are doing?

 

[bbyrd009]

The usage is set apart in the Old Testament is not the usage of set apart in the New Testament.

Being born again makes a big difference. In the Old Testament righteousness could be lost, but not in the New Testament after the Gospels.

"Therefore let him who thinks he stands take care that he does not fall"

NT

 

[bbyrd009]

We are supposed to testify of our faith. What is it that you think you are doing?

Hopefully illuminating the diff in doing that and doing that with your mouth LC, and sincerely my apologies that I am not better at it ok. Your "we" is going to let you down though ok, and when you need them the most too I guess, so prolly better if you get a bit pissed at me right now

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Hopefully illuminating the diff in doing that and doing that with your mouth LC, and sincerely my apologies that I am not better at it ok. Your "we" is going to let you down though ok, and when you need them the most too I guess, so prolly better if you get a bit pissed at me right now

“Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen” (2 Tim 2:14).

 

[bbyrd009]

“Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen” (2 Tim 2:14).

Then you compel me to Quote once again that if you testify of yourself, your testimony is invalid, and you may take that however seems best to you, ok

 

[bbyrd009]

“Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen” (2 Tim 2:14).

But fwiw I srsly doubt you deserved most of that ok, I envisioned a diff convo, you replying "believers who actually follow Christ" or something, wherein the ending would have been diff too

 

[bbyrd009]

So,let's try again maybe

Why would any true Christian "renounce his/her faith" if faith and salvation is a gift of God (which I believe it is). How can we ever undo faith and salvation, when we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit? No matter what happens (or doesn't happen) we are His.

Why would any true Roman renounce their faith if salvation is a gift from God, either?