ECT MAD implies both Jesus and Paul are liars.

[JudgeRightly]

The only works that do not justify are circumcision, observance of special days, a special diet, various external washings, and the sacrifice of animals.

Those works of the law do not justify anymore.

What about the rest of the law? You know, do not murder, do not steal, etc..

What justifies people since Jesus is believing that his blood cleans you of the sins you repent of doing.

And according to you, keeping the law.

People don't get justified by believing and being careful not to do any obeying besides believing. lololololol

Tell me, GT, do you have a list of all the things God says (in both the Old and New Testaments) to do and to not do? Such as, do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, etc., and you look at it throughout your day, and when you think about stealing something, you remember, "oh yeah, God said 'do not steal,' so I won't do that; boy, that was close, I almost disobeyed God and ruined my salvation"?

If that's how you obey God, you're a legalist.

So did you just say that I will go to Hell for doing what Jesus said when he walked the earth?!

WOW! So according to you, Jesus sends people to Hell for obeying him.

I'll let Musty reply to that.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Paul didn't come and change the meaning of words! lol

Which came first, Paul's letters or the english language?

I said Messiah is as saying the Savior,

You're either really dense, or your blatantly missing the point.

The word "Messiah" literally means "anointed one." It does not mean "Savior."

Since you won't accept what the Bible says, and instead prefer dictionaries...

From Wikipedia:

Messiah (Hebrew:*????????,*Modern*Mashia?,*Tiberian*M?šî??; in modern Jewish texts in English spelled*Mashiach;*Aramaic:*?????‎‎,*Greek:*Μεσσ?ας,*Syriac:*???????‎,*M?šî??,*Arabic:*??????‎‎,*al-Mas??,*Latin:*Messias) literally means "anointed one".[31]*In Hebrew, the Messiah is often referred to as ??? ????? (Mele? ha-Maš?a? in the*Tiberian vocalization,*pronounced*[?meleχ hama??ia?], literally meaning "the Anointed King".

From https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h4899




From https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G5547&t=KJV




From https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G5547&t=KJV

and you said no. You keep saying anointed. No kidding Jesus is the anointed one.

"Savior" (Greek 'soter') is not synonymous with Messiah (Greek 'messias').

Jesus is our Messiah AND He is our Savior. Yes, when you refer to Him as Messiah, it is implied that you are talking about Him who is also our Savior, but that does not mean that Messiah and Savior are synonymous.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Messiah means Savior and Savior means Messiah and he is the anointed one.

No, it does not. See my previous post for the exact definition of "Messiah." Note that it does not say anywhere that Messiah means Savior.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It is insane to think all the dictionaries of the world are wrong.

mes·si·ah
məˈsīə/Submit
noun
1.
the promised deliverer of the Jewish nation prophesied in the Hebrew Bible.
2.
a leader or savior of a particular group or cause.
"he was regarded as a messiah by liberal and conservatives alike"

See above.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Jesus didn't verbally abuse people as you do.

Then you don't know Him very well. He called people dogs, vipers, swine, whores, and many other names that are not nice.

We all get it that you think people are vipers and liars and deceivers, but stop saying it repeatedly. You make yourself a verbal abuser and then claim you are doing what Jesus said to do. hahahahaha I have been asking you for a long time what it is you say we have to obey when Jesus walked the earth, but you give me no answer. I think I found the only thing you obey from Jesus when he walked the earth?! LOL

 

[JudgeRightly]

But RD's distinctions don't matter in the NT. What matters if faith, or not. All such distinctions he is making are a thing of the past.

His conclusions are known miles ahead of his posts; he fails to give reasons, to deal with reasons.

Pot, meet kettle.

IP, Do you know if Paul distinguished between the Jews and the Christians at any point?

 

[JudgeRightly]

How do you think you can be a teacher of the Bible when you do not even have sense that is common?

GT, one of my high-school teachers said to me once something along the lines of, "First you must know what something is in order to be able to understand it."

If you don't know what the message of the Bible is, how can you understand it?

 

[northwye]

"As per MAD script do NOT discuss the actual scriptures DE-rail the thread with pointless points."

The dialectic is a way of making arguments and counter arguments structured by a direct opposition between a thesis and its opposite, called the anti-thesis, all within a dialogue between two or more people on opposite sides of an issue. In the dialectic, as a game, it is the goal of each player to win the argument.

So, if you enter the game of the didactic presenting facts, rather than just doing dialogue, you are in violation of the rules of the dialectic. The dialectic is a game.

And when the participants in the dialectic do not make factual statements, but side step doing that and treat the argument as being only a game, the nature of the dialectic becomes clear, that it is just a game. Winning is very important to the people who are addicted to the dialectic game, and for this reason the "rules" of the dialectic game degenerate and the "game" becomes more obvious as a game. What are presented as arguments are no longer arguments but statements that pretend to be arguments. So the dialectic game moves toward mindlessness.

When a person allows himself to get immersed in a prolonged quarrel using the dialectic. he or she is being gamed.

Here is another interesting comment on this thread: "Alright, at the risk of getting hit by poo, let me start with a question or few to dodge: What model do you adhere to in understanding God's relationship to his people? Acts 2 dispensational? Covenental theology? "

Why only two models? Why are there only two? This reduction could be a result of the present day church's focus on church theologies rather than on scripture. It could also be a result of the widespread use of the dialectic within the churches and outside the churches, that is, structuring arguments as a game within a dialogue and using an oppositional or thesis versus anti-thesis simplification. Christian Zionists tend to have some traits that might be called cult-like, and thinking that reformed, Calvinist or Covenant theology is the only opposition to dispensationalism might be cult-like. To a dispensationalist maybe everybody who does not agree with them is into covenant theology, or replacement theology.

 

[dodge]

northwye;5046738]"As per MAD script do NOT discuss the actual scriptures DE-rail the thread with pointless points."

The dialectic is a way of making arguments and counter arguments structured by a direct opposition between a thesis and its opposite, called the anti-thesis, all within a dialogue between two or more people on opposite sides of an issue. In the dialectic, as a game, it is the goal of each player to win the argument.

So, if you enter the game of the didactic presenting facts, rather than just doing dialogue, you are in violation of the rules of the dialectic. The dialectic is a game.

And when the participants in the dialectic do not make factual statements, but side step doing that and treat the argument as being only a game, the nature of the dialectic becomes clear, that it is just a game. Winning is very important to the people who are addicted to the dialectic game, and for this reason the "rules" of the dialectic game degenerate and the "game" becomes more obvious as a game. What are presented as arguments are no longer arguments but statements that pretend to be arguments. So the dialectic game moves toward mindlessness.

When a person allows himself to get immersed in a prolonged quarrel using the dialectic. he or she is being gamed.

I agree.

Here is another interesting comment on this thread: "Alright, at the risk of getting hit by poo, let me start with a question or few to dodge: What model do you adhere to in understanding God's relationship to his people? Acts 2 dispensational? Covenental theology? "

Good question. I have never labeled myself as anything other than Christian. I believe "dispensation" as used in grace was and is dispensed by God, and it was never intended to be used as a frame work for a time period. Paul was dispensed grace by God which he shared and lived in that "grace".

I believe there was the "law" that men tried to live by and depend on for salvation could not be kept perfectly. God in His infinite wisdom and mercy provided a means to know and love Him through His "grace" i.e. Jesus. I believe there is an old covenant i.e. "law" and a new covenant i.e. "grace" so does that land me on the covenant theology side ? I know each side is nuanced and labeled as believing "all" that either side supposedly adheres to. One either tries to approach and know God and receive forgiveness through the law(old covenant) which was fulfilled by and in Jesus or they approach and trust God through grace (New Covenant).

Why only two models? Why are there only two? This reduction could be a result of the present day church's focus on church theologies rather than on scripture. It could also be a result of the widespread use of the dialectic within the churches and outside the churches, that is, structuring arguments as a game within a dialogue and using an oppositional or thesis versus anti-thesis simplification. Christian Zionists tend to have some traits that might be called cult-like, and thinking that reformed, Calvinist or Covenant theology is the only opposition to dispensationalism might be cult-like. To a dispensationalist maybe everybody who does not agree with them is into covenant theology, or replacement theology.

Reading the scriptures where there are only two "testaments" given the "old" (law)and the "new"( grace) seems like a good place to hang ones hat and begin the journey that will end hopefully with the traveler placing their faith in Jesus.

 

[God's Truth]

GT, one of my high-school teachers said to me once something along the lines of, "First you must know what something is in order to be able to understand it."

If you don't know what the message of the Bible is, how can you understand it?

There is no other name under heaven in which we are to be saved.

 

[God's Truth]

Pot, meet kettle.

IP, Do you know if Paul distinguished between the Jews and the Christians at any point?

What do you think the distinction was?

Do you understand that all humans, no matter the nationality or ethnicity were ALL bound to the same place?

They were ALL condemned to hell and are condemned to hell until they are saved.

Do you not understand that means all Gentiles, Greeks, everyone, and Jews.

Romans 11:32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.


It no longer means anything to be blood related to Abraham.


John 1:3 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.


Read what is plainly written and believe it.

Children born NOT of natural descent, i.e. blood relations to Abraham.

 

[God's Truth]

Then you don't know Him very well. He called people dogs, vipers, swine, whores, and many other names that are not nice.

How many times do you have to have it explained to you? Do you know what verbal abuse is? Verbal abuse is when you constantly and consistently call someone outside their name with an unflattering name. It becomes abuse when every day, all day, in every other post, RD calls people liars and idiots, etc.

You need to have your heart adjusted if you think that is what Jesus did.

 

[God's Truth]

See above.

Savior and Messiah are the same thing.

 

[God's Truth]

Which came first, Paul's letters or the english language?



You're either really dense, or your blatantly missing the point.

The word "Messiah" literally means "anointed one." It does not mean "Savior."

Since you won't accept what the Bible says, and instead prefer dictionaries...

From Wikipedia:

Messiah (Hebrew:*????????,*Modern*Mashia?,*Tiberian*M?šî??; in modern Jewish texts in English spelled*Mashiach;*Aramaic:*?????‎‎,*Greek:*Μεσσ?ας,*Syriac:*???????‎,*M?šî??,*Arabic:*??????‎‎,*al-Mas??,*Latin:*Messias) literally means "anointed one".[31]*In Hebrew, the Messiah is often referred to as ??? ????? (Mele? ha-Maš?a? in the*Tiberian vocalization,*pronounced*[?meleχ hama??ia?], literally meaning "the Anointed King".

From https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h4899




From https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G5547&t=KJV




From https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G5547&t=KJV






"Savior" (Greek 'soter') is not synonymous with Messiah (Greek 'messias').

Jesus is our Messiah AND He is our Savior. Yes, when you refer to Him as Messiah, it is implied that you are talking about Him who is also our Savior, but that does not mean that Messiah and Savior are synonymous.

You use and twist Mr. Strong's words and treat him like an apostle in the New Testament.

Strong is not in the Bible.

And, how many times do you have to have it explained to you that the Messiah is the anointed one.

 

[God's Truth]

What about the rest of the law? You know, do not murder, do not steal, etc..

No. Those things are not the law of works that justify; those are the works that all humans are expected to know and live up to.

And according to you, keeping the law.

You are making things up. I said we have to obey the new law.

Tell me, GT, do you have a list of all the things God says (in both the Old and New Testaments) to do and to not do? Such as, do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, etc., and you look at it throughout your day, and when you think about stealing something, you remember, "oh yeah, God said 'do not steal,' so I won't do that; boy, that was close, I almost disobeyed God and ruined my salvation"?

Do you almost cheat on your wife and stop yourself and think wow that could have destroyed my marriage?

If that's how you obey God, you're a legalist.

You are relying on what your false teachers like to say about those who preach obedience to Christ.

 

[God's Truth]

Can unbelievers be graceful? Yes? That's the kind of grace that is invoked in that verse, which says that grace was upon them, not taught by them.

Did Jesus teach grace? No, He taught law, yet John 1:17 says grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Basically, my point is that just because the word "grace" is used does not mean that "Covenant of Grace" was taught. In fact, it's possible to teach law graciously.

In addition to that, Acts 4:33 is in the passage describing how all the people of Israel have sold their things and are living under communism, expecting God to return soon, and very soon, according to what Jesus had said to them before his ascension.

You call it the Covenant of Grace. A Covenant is made with blood. Jesus taught the guidelines for the new Covenant, and then he shed his blood on the cross for the new Covenant.

There isn't another blood covenant, and you need to stop making Paul a master of a false doctrine.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I agree.

Good question. I have never labeled myself as anything other than Christian. I believe "dispensation" as used in grace was and is dispensed by God, and it was never intended to be used as a frame work for a time period. Paul was dispensed grace by God which he shared and lived in that "grace".

Dispensation =/= dispensing.

Dispensation (or rather, the Greek "oikonomia", which is where we get our word for "economy" from) literally means "house rules".

Oikos - house
Nomos - law or rules

Dispensing means to distribute or provide.

I believe there was the "law" that men tried to live by and depend on for salvation could not be kept perfectly. God in His infinite wisdom and mercy provided a means to know and love Him through His "grace" i.e. Jesus. I believe there is an old covenant i.e. "law" and a new covenant i.e. "grace" so does that land me on the covenant theology side?

Actually, funnily enough, that little bit about "law" vs "grace" is a dispensational viewing of scripture, in that it recognizes the the rules changed, from salvation by works (the law) to salvation by grace (faith alone).

I know each side is nuanced and labeled as believing "all" that either side supposedly adheres to. One either tries to approach and know God and receive forgiveness through the law(old covenant) which was fulfilled by and in Jesus or they approach and trust God through grace (New Covenant).

One of the things I've noticed myself doing recently is noting the key things that each person I'm in discussion with are saying and comparing it to what others say, and adjusting my arguments to each person's arguments, rather than just have the "us vs them" mentality.

Many times I'll note as I read and respond to posts that are three or more people each discussing a theology that is different than mine and everyone else's.

It's greatly helped me understand the differences between each person's arguments. (Btw, [MENTION=14521]God's Truth[/MENTION], that's another example of "knowing comes before understanding.)

Reading the scriptures where there are only two "testaments" given the "old" (law)and the "new"( grace) seems like a good place to hang ones hat and begin the journey that will end hopefully with the traveler placing their faith in Jesus.

Starting with an overview of the entire Bible helps too...

 

[JudgeRightly]

"As per MAD script do NOT discuss the actual scriptures DE-rail the thread with pointless points."

The dialectic is a way of making arguments and counter arguments structured by a direct opposition between a thesis and its opposite, called the anti-thesis, all within a dialogue between two or more people on opposite sides of an issue. In the dialectic, as a game, it is the goal of each player to win the argument.

So, if you enter the game of the didactic presenting facts, rather than just doing dialogue, you are in violation of the rules of the dialectic. The dialectic is a game.

And when the participants in the dialectic do not make factual statements, but side step doing that and treat the argument as being only a game, the nature of the dialectic becomes clear, that it is just a game. Winning is very important to the people who are addicted to the dialectic game, and for this reason the "rules" of the dialectic game degenerate and the "game" becomes more obvious as a game. What are presented as arguments are no longer arguments but statements that pretend to be arguments. So the dialectic game moves toward mindlessness.

When a person allows himself to get immersed in a prolonged quarrel using the dialectic. he or she is being gamed.

Here is another interesting comment on this thread: "Alright, at the risk of getting hit by poo, let me start with a question or few to dodge: What model do you adhere to in understanding God's relationship to his people? Acts 2 dispensational? Covenental theology? "

Why only two models? Why are there only two? This reduction could be a result of the present day church's focus on church theologies rather than on scripture. It could also be a result of the widespread use of the dialectic within the churches and outside the churches, that is, structuring arguments as a game within a dialogue and using an oppositional or thesis versus anti-thesis simplification. Christian Zionists tend to have some traits that might be called cult-like, and thinking that reformed, Calvinist or Covenant theology is the only opposition to dispensationalism might be cult-like. To a dispensationalist maybe everybody who does not agree with them is into covenant theology, or replacement theology.

See my response to dodge.

 

[Right Divider]

Savior and Messiah are the same thing.

No, they do not. And you repeating your ignorance over and over again will not change that.

 

[Right Divider]

You use and twist Mr. Strong's words and treat him like an apostle in the New Testament.

Strong is not in the Bible.

And, how many times do you have to have it explained to you that the Messiah is the anointed one.

Messiah MEANS anointed one.