Suicide: A guaranteed direct ticket to hell?

[Helen]

The Apostle Paul is crucial to Christianity, the Messiah has come and Jesus is not still in the tomb, He is alive in you. Jesus, raised from the dead, resurrected, raised so you are justified, being savior conscious not sin conscious, Christ in you the hope of glory. It's Good News and over and over in the Epistles Paul promoted a new faith and people thought he was nuts, some still do.

Sometimes a post needs a bit more than a "clicking of a like button."

 

[GodsGrace]

The Apostle Paul is crucial to Christianity, the Messiah has come and Jesus is not still in the tomb, He is alive in you. Jesus, raised from the dead, resurrected, raised so you are justified, being savior conscious not sin conscious, Christ in you the hope of glory. It's Good News and over and over in the Epistles Paul promoted a new faith and people thought he was nuts, some still do.

Were people justified in the Old Testament?
Were people saved in the Old Testament?
If the answer is yes to both, and it is, then what IS the good news?

 

[GodsGrace]

Sometimes a post needs a bit more than a "clicking of a like button."

Hold on sister!!

What IS the NEW FAITH?
Did God change?

Could you explain the difference between the Old or Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant?

Is there a difference?

 

[Helen]

Were people justified in the Old Testament?
Were people saved in the Old Testament?
If the answer is yes to both, and it is, then what IS the good news?

Hey there.
I would say The "better covenant" ...the good news being that in the old there was always needed a sacrifice for sin. In the NT Jesus is/was the last Lamb slain. Not more need of a blood sacrifice.

Heb 8 "But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises."

Are we agreed?

 

[Helen]

Hold on sister!!

What IS the NEW FAITH?
Did God change?

Could you explain the difference between the Old or Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant?

Is there a difference?

Only just seen this post...I think it's covered in the one I just posted to you.

 

[Helen]

@GodsGrace
Most probably I wouldn't have used the phrase New faith....but Hebrews does speak of the new and living way.

Heb 10. "In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; for he is faithful that promised."

That does sound very different from the Old T and NEW to me!! :)

How do you see it then?

 

[GodsGrace]

@GodsGrace
Most probably I wouldn't have used the phrase New faith....but Hebrews does speak of the new and living way.

Heb 10. "In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; for he is faithful that promised."

That does sound very different from the Old T and NEW to me!! :)

How do you see it then?

I like that you said that Hebrews speaks of a new and better WAY.

Every new covenant did not abolish the old one but ADDED to it.
The New Covenant did all those things you mentioned above but it did not abolish any of the old. All the previous covenants are still in force, although not all of them are needed anymore by Christians. For instance the Abrahamic Covenant has gone to all the nations, but only the Jews are circumcised because we are circumcised in heart only.

The Old Covenant could not be kept, even though the Israelites promised that they would keep all the commandments. They had no power to keep them. The commandments were to show them that they were sinners and also to show them how they were to live since they had been in slavery so long.

So Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the Law--the 10 commandments.
So what's the difference between the Old and the New?

It's the WAY that it could now be kept...as you said in Hebrews... a new a better way that it could be KEPT.

It could now be kept because our heart of stone has been changed into a heart of flesh. Ezekiel 36:26

It could now be kept because we love the one who died for us so that we could gain entry into heaven and who protects us from the enemy who wishes to see us dead to our spirit.

So, yes. if the OC had worked, we would not need a NC, as Hebrews states.
It please God from the beginning of time to make for us a way to keep His commandments as best we could.

What say you?

 

[Helen]

I like that you said that Hebrews speaks of a new and better WAY.

Every new covenant did not abolish the old one but ADDED to it.
The New Covenant did all those things you mentioned above but it did not abolish any of the old. All the previous covenants are still in force, although not all of them are needed anymore by Christians. For instance the Abrahamic Covenant has gone to all the nations, but only the Jews are circumcised because we are circumcised in heart only.

The Old Covenant could not be kept, even though the Israelites promised that they would keep all the commandments. They had no power to keep them. The commandments were to show them that they were sinners and also to show them how they were to live since they had been in slavery so long.

So Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the Law--the 10 commandments.
So what's the difference between the Old and the New?

It's the WAY that it could now be kept...as you said in Hebrews... a new a better way that it could be KEPT.

It could now be kept because our heart of stone has been changed into a heart of flesh. Ezekiel 36:26

It could now be kept because we love the one who died for us so that we could gain entry into heaven and who protects us from the enemy who wishes to see us dead to our spirit.

So, yes. if the OC had worked, we would not need a NC, as Hebrews states.
It please God from the beginning of time to make for us a way to keep His commandments as best we could.

What say you?

Yay!!
Yes, we can agree on that. Something, or maybe it was how you said something...I thought we were further apart than the above.
But, looks like we are closer than I first thought.

We will see as time goes on. :)

( I'll tell you a little of how I function here. ie. I have tried having a nice conversation with Marymog.
It is impossible 'for me'. She is always aggressive in responses. I can see no point in that.
We can all either disagree agreeable, other wise I see no point in it, and it's no longer fun.

Very little for me is a beach worth dying upon. We each stand or fall before our own Master.
I'd prefer maintaining relationship over proving who is 'right' or who has got it 'wrong'. This life is too short......plus there is no prof anyway...it is just a matter of how we each interpret the scripture...God will show us all ...Later. So, hope this helps as we move forward.
Bless you....Helen )

 

[Job]

Jesus took the physical aspects of the Old Covenant and made them spiritual.

 

[Stranger]

You see Stranger,

I was right the first time.
You're saying right up above that there are TWO gospels,
one that Jesus preached and one that Paul preached.
You're separating what Jesus said and what Paul said.
Paul was referring to the salvation of souls through Jesus
NOT A GOSPEL OF GRACE.

Grace Always existed. God ALWAYS shed His grace on manking.
How could anyone come to know God if not by His grace?

So you believe Jesus built His church on Peter? So you're Catholic and believe Peter was the first Pope?

That is future you said. WHAT IS FUTURE?
Jesus came to build a church. Jesus came to change how we live.
Jesus came to be our atonement.

HE went to the cross, NOT Paul.

You're pitting them against each other.
What do you think Paul said that Jesus DID NOT say?

I have to leave for two days, but if you answer that last question, I'd be interested.
HOW ARE JESUS AND PAUL DIFFERENT?
And IF THE ARE...
WHO do we follow, Jesus or Paul?

GG

I have always said the gospel of grace and the kingdom are different. I wouldn't have argued with you over that.

No, 'I' am not separating what Jesus preached concerning the gospel of the kingdom and what Paul preached concerning the gospel of grace. 'Scripture' separates it. Which I gave you. Do you disagree with it? If so why? What is the gospel of the Kingdom? 'Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand'. (Matt. 3:1-2, 4:17, 10:5-7) What is the gospel of grace? 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved'. (Acts 8:37) (Acts 16:31) See the difference.

Of course grace always existed. Just like salvation has always been by faith. The law never saved anyone. And good works never saved anyone. The law condemned. The believer under the law always was confronted with the fact that he doesn't measure up. He is guilty. Thus he must continually bring a sacrifice. So the believer comes continually faithfully bringing his sacrifice due to the guilt he has of not being able to keep the law. So even though there was grace, there was the heavy burden of the law upon the believer. But now, that is different. We come to Christ our Sacrifice one time and are saved.

No, I don't believe Christ built His Church on Peter. I gave you (Matt. 16:18) to show that the Church did not yet exist. 'I will build', is a future statement. He didn't say upon this rock 'I am building'. I am Catholic, just not Roman. I believe every born-again believer is part of the Catholic or universal church. I believe the term 'Roman Catholic' is an oxymoron.

Jesus came first of all to confirm the kingdom promises made to the fathers as (Rom. 15:8) says. The Church was not in view at the begining of Christ's ministry. I am not saying He didn't know that He and the Kingdom would be rejected. But His immediate goal was to bring in the Kingdom that had been promised throughout the Old Testament. I am not saying He didn't know the church would be another body of believers other than Israel, due to Israel's rejection of Him. But He came first to establish the promised earthly kingdom. God never does just one thing when He moves. Many things are accomplished.

I am not pitting Jesus and Paul against each other. Jesus is the Son of God. Paul is just a man. We follow God and Jesus Christ. But the words that Paul was given to write come straight from God. Do you believe that? Or do you believe Paul's words were not inspired by the Holy Spirit? Do you believe Paul received his revelation from the risen Jesus Christ? If so, then how could they be against one another? They are not.

In following Paul's writings we are following Jesus Christ.

Stranger

 

[GodsGrace]

Yay!!
Yes, we can agree on that. Something, or maybe it was how you said something...I thought we were further apart than the above.
But, looks like we are closer than I first thought.

We will see as time goes on. :)

( I'll tell you a little of how I function here. ie. I have tried having a nice conversation with Marymog.
It is impossible 'for me'. She is always aggressive in responses. I can see no point in that.
We can all either disagree agreeable, other wise I see no point in it, and it's no longer fun.

Very little for me is a beach worth dying upon. We each stand or fall before our own Master.
I'd prefer maintaining relationship over proving who is 'right' or who has got it 'wrong'. This life is too short......plus there is no prof anyway...it is just a matter of how we each interpret the scripture...God will show us all ...Later. So, hope this helps as we move forward.
Bless you....Helen )

AGREED!

 

[GodsGrace]

Jesus took the physical aspects of the Old Covenant and made them spiritual.

This is very interesting, but could we have more info.
Like what for instance?

 

[amadeus]

HOW ARE JESUS AND PAUL DIFFERENT?
And IF THE ARE...
WHO do we follow, Jesus or Paul?

GG

They are different in that Jesus did not see the things of God as through a "glass darkly", but Paul write that he did [I Cor 13:12].

Paul also tells us how to follow him:
"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." I Cor 11:1

Of course, I do not believe that message through Paul contradicts the message through Jesus. If someone doesn't understand that is it not because that someone lacks understanding? God doesn't lack understanding and will provide it to each of us according to our need. He decides what our needs are. Sometimes we really do not know our own needs...

 

[GodsGrace]

Were people justified in the Old Testament?
Were people saved in the Old Testament?
If the answer is yes to both, and it is, then what IS the good news?

@Armadillo

No reply?
You said the good news is that we are saved through Jesus' sacrifice.

I asked the above questions.
Do you have a reply???

 

[GodsGrace]

This is very interesting, but could we have more info.
Like what for instance?

@Job

Hi Job,

You said:

Job said: ↑
Jesus took the physical aspects of the Old Covenant and made them spiritual.

I asked you, Like What For Instance???
This is an interesting idea.
Do you have a reply?

 

[GodsGrace]

I have always said the gospel of grace and the kingdom are different. I wouldn't have argued with you over that.

No, 'I' am not separating what Jesus preached concerning the gospel of the kingdom and what Paul preached concerning the gospel of grace. 'Scripture' separates it. Which I gave you. Do you disagree with it? If so why? What is the gospel of the Kingdom? 'Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand'. (Matt. 3:1-2, 4:17, 10:5-7) What is the gospel of grace? 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved'. (Acts 8:37) (Acts 16:31) See the difference.

I dont see the difference.
IF we want to be saved, we must LIVE in the Kingdom.
Jesus is showing us HOW to live in the Kingdom.
He Himself stated that one must be born from above, or born again, to even SEE the Kingdom.
John 3:5

Paul is just teaching us that we are no longer UNDER the Law.
This is not to say that the Law has been abolished.
Mathew 5:17

We are justified by faith and not by our works.
Sanctification involves works.

Jesus confirmed this by his disapproval of the pharisees who taught the Jews that they must work and follow all the Law to be saved. Since Jesus disapproved of this, it must surely mean that Paul agrees with HIM (not the other way around).

Of course grace always existed. Just like salvation has always been by faith. The law never saved anyone. And good works never saved anyone. The law condemned. The believer under the law always was confronted with the fact that he doesn't measure up. He is guilty. Thus he must continually bring a sacrifice. So the believer comes continually faithfully bringing his sacrifice due to the guilt he has of not being able to keep the law. So even though there was grace, there was the heavy burden of the law upon the believer. But now, that is different. We come to Christ our Sacrifice one time and are saved.

Agreed 100%

No, I don't believe Christ built His Church on Peter. I gave you (Matt. 16:18) to show that the Church did not yet exist. 'I will build', is a future statement. He didn't say upon this rock 'I am building'. I am Catholic, just not Roman. I believe every born-again believer is part of the Catholic or universal church. I believe the term 'Roman Catholic' is an oxymoron.

Catholic is a Church.
Roman is a rite. It's not correct to call the C C the R C C.
Anyway, I don't quite understand the importance of the Church happening in the future, as you call it. Jesus Church had aready started when He was still preaching.
Didn't His disciples follow Him? Were they not part of the "new Church"?
Did Jesus not preach grace?
He taught Love and how we're to help our fellow man.
He sent the Apostles out to heal and peach and teach what He taught.
Mathew 10. Is this not the beginning of a New idea - a New Church?

Jesus came first of all to confirm the kingdom promises made to the fathers as (Rom. 15:8) says. The Church was not in view at the begining of Christ's ministry. I am not saying He didn't know that He and the Kingdom would be rejected. But His immediate goal was to bring in the Kingdom that had been promised throughout the Old Testament. I am not saying He didn't know the church would be another body of believers other than Israel, due to Israel's rejection of Him. But He came first to establish the promised earthly kingdom. God never does just one thing when He moves. Many things are accomplished.

Again, Agreed 100%
His first mission was to establish the Kingdom.

The Wedding Banquet would confirm that He came for Others.
Mathew 22
And also the fact that He said that He had other sheep...
John 10:16

I am not pitting Jesus and Paul against each other. Jesus is the Son of God. Paul is just a man. We follow God and Jesus Christ. But the words that Paul was given to write come straight from God. Do you believe that? Or do you believe Paul's words were not inspired by the Holy Spirit? Do you believe Paul received his revelation from the risen Jesus Christ? If so, then how could they be against one another? They are not.

It sounded to me like YOU were saying there is a difference.
Jesus and Paul should not be pitted against each other.
I DO say that if there is any doubt, we must Always refer to JESUS.

In following Paul's writings we are following Jesus Christ.

Stranger

Click to expand

 

[Stranger]

GodsGrace

Well, do you see all the people from Adam to Abraham as being Israel?

Catholic is not a church it simply speaks to being universal. The Roman Church is just the the church at Rome. All believers are part of the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ.

The Church of Jesus Christ didn't begin until Pentacost, (Acts 2) I believe it is important to see that the Church was yet future from the time when Christ was here on earth, so as not to confuse the messages.

Before the Church, (Acts 2), the believers were Israelites or proselytes to Israel. At Pentacost they were brought into the Church. (Matt. 10) is not the beginning of anything new. It is Christ coming and offering the kingdom which was promised to Israel in the Old Testament.

Concerning the wedding banquet in (Matt. 22), that there are others in the Kingdom is true. The Church is just part of the Kingdom.

There is a difference in Paul's message and Jesus's message. One concerns the kingdom, one concerns the Church. That doesn't mean they are against each other.

To say if there is doubt we should choose Jesus over Paul, doesn't sound right. It is a matter of understanding the Scripture, both of Jesus and Paul.

Stranger

 

[Job]

@Job

Hi Job,

You said:

Job said: ↑
Jesus took the physical aspects of the Old Covenant and made them spiritual.

I asked you, Like What For Instance???
This is an interesting idea.
Do you have a reply?

Hebrews 8
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”


Mark 12
30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment.
31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”


Romans 2
13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.


John 4
23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.
24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”


Matthew 5
21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’
22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

<snip>

27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.




Will this suffice?

o

 

[Armadillo]

@Armadillo

No reply?
You said the good news is that we are saved through Jesus' sacrifice.

I asked the above questions.
Do you have a reply???

Post 99.

 

[Armadillo]

Will this suffice?

We shall see. ;)