Should we not Preach against "Fornication" and "Adultery" strongly in the Body of Christ and confirm those who commit such will go to HELL

[Dave M]

At this point, you can argue with Jesus about it. HIS parable gave a time frame of four years.

Rhema

(So who am I to listen to again?)
.

yet he is also the one who said one must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven is he not??

Rhema this is a very interesting topic, I hope I am wrong, I think maybe this topic deserves its own thread, and maybe the light can be shown better, I will start one.

 

[PloughBoy]

Well ain't that the truth.


First, that's why I decided to learn Greek to read the initial monographs back when I was 14 (decades ago).

Second, what does translation have to do with you conflating two separate teachings that use the fig tree as an example?

The parable of dunging the fig tree has nothing to do with Jesus' curse of a completely different fig tree.

So there's that,
Rhema

All liars and deceivers and false teachers are going to Hell. so says the english translations, How is it stated in "Koine Greek"?

 

[Mister]

The Law is good for many reasons! We should want to know what is displeasing to God, even though by keeping the Law we are not justified.

Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. How can one be guilty if he thinks he is innocent? We see how great God's mercy is when we are truly convicted that we deserve to be cast into the Lake of Fire for offending Him. What is God saving us from!??

2 Cor 7:10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.

Jesus has even magnified the Law - Mat 5:28

Here Jesus tells the rich man to keep the commandments, which against them is sin, Mat 19:16-22.

What about Nathan and David?! David would have continued to conceal his own sin even though looking outwardly at others, a man in the same boat as he, was GUILTY! Mat 7:3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

2 Sam 12: 1-15
And the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had very many flocks and herds, 3 but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children. It used to eat of his morsel and drink from his cup and lie in his arms,[a] and it was like a daughter to him. 4 Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the guest who had come to him, but he took the poor man's lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.” 5 Then David's anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die, 6 and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.”

7 Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. 8 And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. 9 Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ 11 Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’” 13 David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord,[b] the child who is born to you shall die.” 15 Then Nathan went to his house.

 

[Rhema]

yet he is also the one who said one must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven is he not??

Yes indeed, it is reported that he said this to Nicodemus. Now if it confused Nicodemus, we might do well to exercise some caution about exactly what is meant by being "born again."

Rhema this is a very interesting topic, I hope I am wrong, I think maybe this topic deserves its own thread, and maybe the light can be shown better, I will start one.

You might be right. Give me some time to find your thread.

Kindly,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

All liars and deceivers and false teachers are going to Hell. so says the english translations, How is it stated in "Koine Greek"?

Which verse did you have in mind? I noticed you hadn't posted any scripture reference.

The English translations also say this about those going to hell:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.​

(Matthew 5:22 KJV)​

In this specific case, "hell" is γέεννα, transliterated as Gehenna, the Aramaic name of the Valley of Hinnom. Gehenna is different from the more neutral Sheol (Hebrew)/ Hades (Greek), the abode of the dead, although the KJV misleadingly translates both with the Anglo-Saxon word hell. (LINK).

There are various teachings about what Gehenna might mean. The Aramaic states "The Gehenna of Fire" and my view is that things consumed by fire are burnt up and obliterated.

Hades was the Greek word chosen for Sheol which just means the Grave (a hole in the ground where dead bodies are buried).

Let me know if I can be of further help,
Rhema

 

[Andyindauk]

And by way of an off-tangent answer, there are. There are contradictions in the Bible, but I'll speak of these only in a different thread, if anyone has the desire to deal honestly with this topic.

The black and white mindset that it's ALL true or it's ALL worthless is untenable in light of the overwhelming evidence presented within New Testament studies today. The real question is, "Do the contradictions we see in the Bible make any substantive difference?"

Looking at the manuscript evidence, there are more textual errors in the New Testament documents than there are words in the New Testament.

Hi Rhema,

Some of your statements to me are to say the least, like walking on thin ice. To say that the Bible is contradictory and full of textual errors is dangerous. Here's a couple of verses about the authenticity and reliability of the Bible, and there are dozens more -

“But it is still my consolation,
And I rejoice in unsparing pain,
That I have not denied the words of the Holy One. Job 6:10

As he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 2 Peter 3:16

I'll grant you that there are odd passages that provoke discussion about translation, mostly because the English language is an evolving language and meanings change over time so you're right to say that occasionally that going back to the ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts can be a worthwhile exercise. But you go much further than that, you remind me of a teacher marking a pupil's essay: '8 out of 10 - with a bit more effort, could do better.'

For me, the only limitation of the Bible is that it is written in English, and previously Latin, Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. How can languages of men adequately describe the wonder, beauty, majesty, power and vastness of God or describe the measures and beauty of His love for us when I'm pretty sure that even angels in their words would struggle with that exercise?

To me, anything about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Bible are sacrosanct. Two things that all four have in common -

They last forever - Matthew 24:36 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.

They are Holy and pure - Psalm 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.

And by way of an off-tangent answer, there are. There are contradictions in the Bible, but I'll speak of these only in a different thread, if anyone has the desire to deal honestly with this topic.

Believe me, there are no contradictions in the Bible, every single word in it is reliable and dependable, that's why we call it The Word of God. Treating the Bible like a box of chocolates where you consume the ones you like and discard the rest is just wrong.

But like I've said before, there are apparent contradictions, some of which are reconcilable with further research but others maybe not be, to which we've got to hold our hands up and say to God, I really don't understand this passage, but in faith I accept and believe it. There are passages that God doesn't want us to understand just yet, but they will be revealed to us in the fulness of time.

God does not expect us to know everything, indeed there's a warning that too much knowledge can sometimes be a bad thing - Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 1 Corinthians 8:1

And as I've said before, a craftsman is only as good as his tools, so I would encourage everyone to get a copy of this book -

Amazon.com

Keep looking though, and you can find copies much more affordable.

I'm hoping this is just an ill-thought out comment, spout first - think later. But to describe yourself as a craftsman with inadequate tools is a level of arrogance I haven't come across in many years. My ill-thought out response, spout first is an old English saying - a bad workman always blames his tools; and as the owner of a tool rental shop, I should know lol

Back to topic, I just want to respond to an earlier post of your addressed to me -

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

(James 2:14 KJV)​

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.​

(James 2:24 KJV)​

Rhema

Please don't confuse works with 'good behaviour'. OP basically asks should we lead a pure holy sin free life to avoid Hell? James in his epistle is stating that good works are the hallmark of a genuine believer so if you purport to have faith but you're devoid of good works, then that casts a big question mark over the authenticity of the faith of the person in question. I see too many Christians reassuring destitute brothers and sisters that they'll pray for them. Don't pray - PAY! Share, show some genuine love.

What James is not saying is that there is a second way to Heaven that doesn't involve Jesus.

(I'm not your enemy, Andy)
Rhema

I know that. No, you're not my enemy, you're my adorable brother or sister (not sure which ) and I do genuinely love you!

May God bless you today with amazing blessings.

All the best,


Andy

 

[Br. Bear]

@Rhema

Greetings Brother,

And yet that's exactly what the phrase "If they shall fall away," means. Hadn't you even acknowledged this here?

So then you agree that 'falling away' = losing salvation ?? If not, then what possible thing could "falling away" mean ?


The list of "elemental things" are all Judaic. So yes, the topic is about not-returning to a Judaic faith. Look what the author says about those who do return to Judaism, after being saved: it's impossible " If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame " It is Impossible to return.

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,​

(Hebrews 6:4 KJV)​

This is not about a "oh he was never saved to begin with" pretext, as the list of qualifiers is quite specific. These people were:

1. once enlightened
2. have tasted of the heavenly gift
3. were made partakers of the Holy Ghost (you can't get much more saved than that)
4. tasted the good word of God
5. and tasted the powers of the world to come

And what of them ?

If they shall fall away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance;

Their salvation cannot be renewed. One does indeed lose one's salvation, and there's no coming back.


The Map is not the terrain, the metaphor is not the truth.

The "Milk" is Judaism. That's the author's audience is it not? The "Hebrews"?

The "Meat" is full blown Christianity. And the people spoken of are those who were indeed saved, but have fallen away.

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.​

(Galatians 5:4 KJV)​

So there's a second verse for y'all.


Br. Bear, the passage directly speaks of people who have fallen away, and what happens to them.

If "IF" were not possible, then why even waste one's breath?

IF they shall fall away, ... it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance;

It's a strong warning, for something you seem to believe is impossible. The author did not.

Kindly,
Rhema

Thank you for your reply.

I hear what you are saying. However, i do question the milk being Judaism, but will chew it over a bit before either swallowing or spitting it out! Might take me a while, as my teeth are not what they used to be.

By all means, do the same with what you were replying to.


Bless you ....><>

 

[Rhema]

Some of your statements to me are to say the least, like walking on thin ice.

Well Jesus walked on water, so that idiom doesn't really bother me. If you have any specific concerns, please let me know so that I may address them and clarify any confusion that I may have caused.

To say that the Bible is contradictory and full of textual errors is dangerous.

And yet I did not say that. So I will express concern that my words went in one ear and came out ... differently. Allow me to quote -

There are contradictions in the Bible,

To acknowledge that contradictions exist in the Bible, is just not the same thing as saying the Bible is contradictory. There is at least one order of magnitude in difference. But I had said that I wouldn't speak any further to this issue in this thread, so if you wish to reply, please... I ask that you start a thread on this topic (and let me know).

And just where had I said, "full of textual errors"? You mean the fact that we know there are more copiest errors in the corpus (collection) of NT manuscripts than there are words in the NT? That's a truth. And we, as followers of Christ, do a disservice to the world to deny this. ( And I do believe I had spoken to the question of whether these manuscript errors are substantive or not.)

Every Christian should read this book - and deal with the facts (not the conclusions) but the facts presented there in -

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why: Ehrman, Bart D.: 9780060859510: Amazon.com: Books

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why [Ehrman, Bart D.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

www.amazon.com

(Not promoting Amazon, since one can find copies online for about five bucks elsewhere. Or visit you local library.)

“But it is still my consolation,
And I rejoice in unsparing pain,
That I have not denied the words of the Holy One. Job 6:10

Where have I denied the words of the Holy One? And yet how could Job mean the Bible since it hadn't yet been written? To be open and honest, I happen to agree with the Jews who understand that the book of Job is a religious essay (theological literature) and not history. Whichever it may be, any conclusion is an interpretation.

As he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 2 Peter 3:16

I'll grant you that there are odd passages that provoke discussion about translation,

And you just quoted one. The actual texts states - "as they do the remaining scriptures" (λοιπας - LINK to Liddell Scott Lexicon). But I'm not talking about contradictions that are the result of translation artifacts, I speak about contradictions that are found within the initial languages themselves.

you're right to say that occasionally that going back to the ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts can be a worthwhile exercise.

Occasionally?? I am directly stating that one must learn the language in order to deal with serious problems. Allow me to quote:

Whether we like it or not, very serious problems cannot be solved in English. As an example, in order to make the New Testament say what Martin Luther wished, he added a word to one verse, and removed a word from another. It's an historical fact. So let's not try to "cover" or make excuses for God, and deal with facts when these are presented. Yes?

It's a fact that Martin Luther treated scripture deceitfully, and much of the doctrine of the Reformation is based upon this deceit.

But you go much further than that, you remind me of a teacher marking a pupil's essay: '8 out of 10 - with a bit more effort, could do better.'

Well Paul would get a six (possibly five) for his ramblings in the book of Romans. It was not well written. And yes, much of the infighting about what various scripture verses mean stems directly from the fact that they could have been written better. Allow me to give an example:

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.​

(Genesis 14:18-21 KJV)​

Read the above passage very carefully... and if you need to, please spend the time to delve into the Hebrew, because I have one question for you. Look at the text that states, "And he gave him tithes of all." That's all you have - pronouns, "he" gave "him"... So who gave whom "tithes of all" ?? Now what happens when you understand the Hebrew words mean "He Awarded him a tenth of all" ?? Again, I will Not address this any further in this thread. If you're curious (trust me, you likely have the wrong answer), I'd be happy to discuss this later in its own thread.

For me, the only limitation of the Bible is that it is written in English, and previously Latin, Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew.

I don't care what language it is written in, I care about what language it was authored in (and it was not authored in Latin). But for the most part, though, I agree that the common Christian is unable to spend the time necessary to learn how to read the New Testament texts directly, and so all of them (and I must include you in this) are at the mercies of the translators' competency (and bias). As a teenager, this struck me as folly, to be helpless against bad translation decisions - especially about something as important as the New Testament. And I have not found many (translators) to be all that competent.

So yes, it is a limitation to you, and I applaud that you are cognizant of that fact. But we press on, and learn as we go, which is why I recommended this interlinear. There are maybe three or four glosses I disagree with. (Not much.)

Amazon.com

How can languages of men adequately describe the wonder, beauty, majesty, power and vastness of God or describe the measures and beauty of His love for us when I'm pretty sure that even angels in their words would struggle with that exercise?

Who cares?

That's not the purpose of translation. And you know that. The purpose of translation is to provide an accurate understanding of the meaning intended by the author who has written in another language. We don't invent new meanings, and we don't treat the writings deceitfully in order to promote a specific theological agenda. I don't have an agenda, unlike most denominationally paid for translations. I find it rather astonishing that most Christians don't comprehend that the King James Version is a Catholic Bible.

To me, anything about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Bible are sacrosanct.

Well then we have something in common. (And I will hold you to that.)

They last forever - Matthew 24:36

I think you mean verse 35, not 36.

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.​

(Matthew 24:35 KJV)​

And yet, you would think it sacrilegious for me to ask you, "What do you mean by my words ??"

I'm fairly confident that you would define this as "The Bible" and yet when Jesus said this, the New Testament hadn't even been written, let alone existing as a canon compiled by the Roman Catholic Church - the one you use.

( I am proud to be condemned as a "Red Letter" Christian.)

They are Holy and pure - Psalm 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.

And yet, you would think it sacrilegious for me to ask you, "What did the author mean by The words of the Lord ??" Because he certainly didn't mean the Bible.

There is more that should be discussed on this matter, but from experience, I doubt that you would wish to continue in such a discussion at any length. But maybe I'm wrong.

Believe me, there are no contradictions in the Bible,

Believe me, there are contradictions in the Bible. (See how that works?) The real question is whether you can deal with this fact in an open and honest manner.

..., that's why we call it The Word of God.

No.

You call it the Word of God because you were told that by other people who are incompetent (perhaps I should say ill-informed). But within the New Testament texts, one cannot find that the New Testament texts are called the Word of God.

Because you are limited by English, I'm rather sure that you haven't yet learned that there are TWO Word of God(s) spoken of in the New Testament, both of which are defined in the New Testament - with neither definition meaning "The Bible." And if you think something to be the Word of God, when in truth something else is the Word of God, how can one possibly avoid confusion? (Get the dang Interlinear, brother. I'll buy it for you.)

Again, this must be dealt with in a different thread, as I don't wish to incur the wrath of Br Bear any further. ( I feel I"m teetering on the edge as it is.)

There are passages that God doesn't want us to understand just yet,

And just where does it say this? ( I'm curious to know where you got that idea from.)

I'm hoping this is just an ill-thought out comment, spout first - think later. But to describe yourself as a craftsman with inadequate tools ...

And I'm hoping that your reply here is just an ill-thought out comment, spout first - think later, because I never described myself as a craftsman with inadequate tools. I'm not sure whether you misread what I wrote, or miswrote what you meant, but truly, I strongly encourage you to re-read what I posted.

Please don't confuse works with 'good behaviour'.

I can't, because I'm reading the Greek text directly. Both passages in James use the word G2041 ἔργον - which is the exact same word as found in Ephesians 2:9.

Changing the definitions of words to promote a theological agenda is treating what is written deceitfully. (And that aint' sacrosanct.)

I know that. No, you're not my enemy, you're my adorable brother or sister (not sure which ) and I do genuinely love you!

May God bless you today with amazing blessings.

And right back at ya,
Rhema

PS: Now please, though, understand that it is not my intention to disrespect what you beleve, but I ask of you the same thing. It would be wonderful over the next few months to deal with some of the issues we've discussed in this thread.

PPS: I hadn't quoted James to speak to the OP, but rather as a referent to the fact that James and Paul disagreed with one another, even over soteriology, to the point where James set Paul up to be deported to Rome. But again, please, I just can't depart anymore from the OP.

PPPS: Don't confuse competence and confidence with arrogance.

 

[Br. Bear]

@Rhema

Greetings,

I nearly forgot to swallow!

You will have to back track to follow the following....

@Rhema

Greetings Brother,



Thank you for your reply.

I hear what you are saying. However, i do question the milk being Judaism, but will chew it over a bit before either swallowing or spitting it out! Might take me a while, as my teeth are not what they used to be.

By all means, do the same with what you were replying to.


Bless you ....><>

I suppose i have always considered milk to be stuff that not only is designed for baby but also for that reason is not as meat which a baby could not only not chew [a double knot for you] but could not assimilate and could prove [would prove] harmful to the baby - digestive tract and related everything including what goes in must come out.

{it is OK... some of my sentences are shorter] Notice no comma nor period nor semi or singular colon [there is that exit point again!]

Therefore, meat would be for those who are able to digest from teeth to toilet.

So, in the verse in question [?] when talking about the milk, does that have to be only Judaism? If you say so, do you mind explaining it in a little detail.
I certainly can see where it might fit snugly but that does not immediately qualify it to be the case.

Thank you for the patience shown.


Bless you ....><>

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

Is not this a part of "The GOSPEL According to JESUS CHRIST" and There is nothing to debate about it,

King James Bible
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Should we not speak up about these practices but with great effort, speak against it in kindness. Which is easy. But to get others to speak up against it, is were the problem lies! Now that is where the battle comes. To get them to Speak up!

Not so, my friend....Jesus did not come to preach against sin, but to proclaim the good news...

17 and he was given the scroll of the prophet Yesha‘yahu. Unrolling the scroll, he found the place where it was written,


18 “The Spirit of Adonai is upon me;
therefore he has anointed me
to announce Good News to the poor;
he has sent me to proclaim freedom for the imprisoned
and renewed sight for the blind,
to release those who have been crushed,
19 to proclaim a year of the favor of Adonai.”
Luke 4:17-19

Every salesman on the planet knows that if you want to make a sale, you do not put down the product the potential client is using...Simply show him a better way, and help him get it.....That's what Jesus does all the time.

 

[Rhema]

So, in the verse in question [?] when talking about the milk, does that have to be only Judaism?

It best fits the overall context of the passage.

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.​

(Hebrews 5:12 KJV)​

What might the author mean by the first principles of the oracles of God if not Judaism? The text doesn't read the first principles of Christ, and I would note that "principles" is plural, so it wouldn't just mean a singular doctrine of "Jesus is Messiah". I would also note the use of the word first, which is also used in -

For if that first had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.​

(Hebrews 8:7 KJV)​

I submit the "first principles" is the same as the "first covenant."

Now I readily admit that the chapter break between 5 and 6 is unfortunate, but let's look at the list of items that seem to be representative of "milk":

• the foundation of repentance from dead works - Judaism (as shown by the Baptism of John)
• faith toward God, - also foundational Judaism (pick a psalm.. any psalm)
• the doctrine of baptisms, (or washings) - there were many principles of washings in Judaism
• laying on of hands, - Judaic anointing for passing on authority (cf. Num 27:22, 23).
• and of resurrection of the dead, - at first one might say, "What? This is a principle of Judaism?" Yep. (cf. Act 23:6) It's a foundational doctrine of the Jewish Pharisees.
• and of eternal judgment - this doctrine is a bit harder to establish, since the phrase "eternal judgment" is found only once in the entire Bible (right here in Hebrews) but let me know if you need me to support this assertion, I just don't have the time to do it justice right now. If pressed, I'm sure one can find an "eternal judgment" somewhere within Judaism.

But let's look at it from a different direction. Let's say that all these principles above are specifically Christianity and not Judaic ... what's the strong meat? What might you think the author of Hebrews thinks "strong meat" to be ?? The parallel to "strong meat" in chapter six is "perfection". Unfortunately these two terms, "strong meat" and "perfection" are left undefined. Yet it's well accepted that the book of Hebrews is an evangelical exhortation to the Jewish people. The "strong meat" and "perfection" would seem to be "Christ died for you" - move on from Judaism to embracing Christ. But perhaps I've missed something completely, so if you know differently, I am quite open to learning new things.

Hope that clarifies things to some extent,
Rhema

PS: Wait. Wasn't the "losing of salvation" the initial topic, though? It seems clear that if someone does move to "perfection" in embracing "Christ died for you," leaving the foundational principles of Judaism, but then returns to Judaic elements, that their "salvation" is lost.

 

[Rhema]

Jesus did not come to preach against sin,

Then what the heck does Repent mean?

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.​

(Matthew 4:17 KJV)​

Rhema

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

Then what the heck does Repent mean?

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.​

(Matthew 4:17 KJV)​

Rhema

Obviously one has to turn away from what they have in order to take what is offered...You cannot ride both trains at once....Repentance is "turning away from your course and going in another direction....Its not complicated.

 

[PloughBoy]

Well Jesus walked on water, so that idiom doesn't really bother me. If you have any specific concerns, please let me know so that I may address them and clarify any confusion that I may have caused.


And yet I did not say that. So I will express concern that my words went in one ear and came out ... differently. Allow me to quote -
To acknowledge that contradictions exist in the Bible, is just not the same thing as saying the Bible is contradictory. There is at least one order of magnitude in difference. But I had said that I wouldn't speak any further to this issue in this thread, so if you wish to reply, please... I ask that you start a thread on this topic (and let me know).

And just where had I said, "full of textual errors"? You mean the fact that we know there are more copiest errors in the corpus (collection) of NT manuscripts than there are words in the NT? That's a truth. And we, as followers of Christ, do a disservice to the world to deny this. ( And I do believe I had spoken to the question of whether these manuscript errors are substantive or not.)

Every Christian should read this book - and deal with the facts (not the conclusions) but the facts presented there in -

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why: Ehrman, Bart D.: 9780060859510: Amazon.com: Books

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why [Ehrman, Bart D.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

www.amazon.com

(Not promoting Amazon, since one can find copies online for about five bucks elsewhere. Or visit you local library.)


Where have I denied the words of the Holy One? And yet how could Job mean the Bible since it hadn't yet been written? To be open and honest, I happen to agree with the Jews who understand that the book of Job is a religious essay (theological literature) and not history. Whichever it may be, any conclusion is an interpretation.


And you just quoted one. The actual texts states - "as they do the remaining scriptures" (λοιπας - LINK to Liddell Scott Lexicon). But I'm not talking about contradictions that are the result of translation artifacts, I speak about contradictions that are found within the initial languages themselves.


Occasionally?? I am directly stating that one must learn the language in order to deal with serious problems. Allow me to quote:


It's a fact that Martin Luther treated scripture deceitfully, and much of the doctrine of the Reformation is based upon this deceit.


Well Paul would get a six (possibly five) for his ramblings in the book of Romans. It was not well written. And yes, much of the infighting about what various scripture verses mean stems directly from the fact that they could have been written better. Allow me to give an example:

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.​

(Genesis 14:18-21 KJV)​

Read the above passage very carefully... and if you need to, please spend the time to delve into the Hebrew, because I have one question for you. Look at the text that states, "And he gave him tithes of all." That's all you have - pronouns, "he" gave "him"... So who gave whom "tithes of all" ?? Now what happens when you understand the Hebrew words mean "He Awarded him a tenth of all" ?? Again, I will Not address this any further in this thread. If you're curious (trust me, you likely have the wrong answer), I'd be happy to discuss this later in its own thread.


I don't care what language it is written in, I care about what language it was authored in (and it was not authored in Latin). But for the most part, though, I agree that the common Christian is unable to spend the time necessary to learn how to read the New Testament texts directly, and so all of them (and I must include you in this) are at the mercies of the translators' competency (and bias). As a teenager, this struck me as folly, to be helpless against bad translation decisions - especially about something as important as the New Testament. And I have not found many (translators) to be all that competent.

So yes, it is a limitation to you, and I applaud that you are cognizant of that fact. But we press on, and learn as we go, which is why I recommended this interlinear. There are maybe three or four glosses I disagree with. (Not much.)

Amazon.com

Who cares?

That's not the purpose of translation. And you know that. The purpose of translation is to provide an accurate understanding of the meaning intended by the author who has written in another language. We don't invent new meanings, and we don't treat the writings deceitfully in order to promote a specific theological agenda. I don't have an agenda, unlike most denominationally paid for translations. I find it rather astonishing that most Christians don't comprehend that the King James Version is a Catholic Bible.


Well then we have something in common. (And I will hold you to that.)


I think you mean verse 35, not 36.

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.​

(Matthew 24:35 KJV)​

And yet, you would think it sacrilegious for me to ask you, "What do you mean by my words ??"

I'm fairly confident that you would define this as "The Bible" and yet when Jesus said this, the New Testament hadn't even been written, let alone existing as a canon compiled by the Roman Catholic Church - the one you use.

( I am proud to be condemned as a "Red Letter" Christian.)


And yet, you would think it sacrilegious for me to ask you, "What did the author mean by The words of the Lord ??" Because he certainly didn't mean the Bible.

There is more that should be discussed on this matter, but from experience, I doubt that you would wish to continue in such a discussion at any length. But maybe I'm wrong.


Believe me, there are contradictions in the Bible. (See how that works?) The real question is whether you can deal with this fact in an open and honest manner.


No.

You call it the Word of God because you were told that by other people who are incompetent (perhaps I should say ill-informed). But within the New Testament texts, one cannot find that the New Testament texts are called the Word of God.

Because you are limited by English, I'm rather sure that you haven't yet learned that there are TWO Word of God(s) spoken of in the New Testament, both of which are defined in the New Testament - with neither definition meaning "The Bible." And if you think something to be the Word of God, when in truth something else is the Word of God, how can one possibly avoid confusion? (Get the dang Interlinear, brother. I'll buy it for you.)

Again, this must be dealt with in a different thread, as I don't wish to incur the wrath of Br Bear any further. ( I feel I"m teetering on the edge as it is.)


And just where does it say this? ( I'm curious to know where you got that idea from.)


And I'm hoping that your reply here is just an ill-thought out comment, spout first - think later, because I never described myself as a craftsman with inadequate tools. I'm not sure whether you misread what I wrote, or miswrote what you meant, but truly, I strongly encourage you to re-read what I posted.


I can't, because I'm reading the Greek text directly. Both passages in James use the word G2041 ἔργον - which is the exact same word as found in Ephesians 2:9.

Changing the definitions of words to promote a theological agenda is treating what is written deceitfully. (And that aint' sacrosanct.)


And right back at ya,
Rhema

PS: Now please, though, understand that it is not my intention to disrespect what you beleve, but I ask of you the same thing. It would be wonderful over the next few months to deal with some of the issues we've discussed in this thread.

PPS: I hadn't quoted James to speak to the OP, but rather as a referent to the fact that James and Paul disagreed with one another, even over soteriology, to the point where James set Paul up to be deported to Rome. But again, please, I just can't depart anymore from the OP.

PPPS: Don't confuse competence and confidence with arrogance.

How could even the smallest or youngest of christians withstand such "apostasy" and "abominations" and treat it as if it is a mere debate. and but a violation in plain Blatantly of The Word of GOD. "for there it seems, there is No one "who is capable or is able to "Content for The Faith" which was once delivered unto the saints. or is able to discern the "battle", No wonder, sanctity has been lost. And in a rapid free fall and there is no discernment at all. For New testament Prophesy as it is written has come to pass.

For it is time to Rejoice., Because you know
American Standard Version
But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads; because your redemption draweth nigh.

[I can hear the galloping of his feet . Echoing threw out The Whole "Universe"]
New American Standard Bible
And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war.
Exodus 15:3
The LORD is a warrior, the LORD is His name. and He is "The WORD of GOD" who offends many and many declares HE is in Error. But no matter what they may say. "The WORD of GOD" cannot be Broken!

 

[Rhema]

.Repentance is "turning away from your course and going in another direction....Its not complicated.

And so Jesus preached against sin, commanding all to repent. It's not complicated.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

How could even the smallest or youngest of christians withstand such "apostasy" and "abominations"

a violation in plain Blatantly of The Word of GOD.

And so, then, where in the Bible does it say that the Bible has no contradictions?

(As mentioned previously, start a thread if you want an honest discussion. But I don't think you do, and I don't think you can, since your "go to" is to have a hissy-fit, blasting out blasphemy like a tenured Pharisee.)

there is No one "who is capable or is able to "Content for The Faith"

I think you mean "contend." So, are you capable or able? (Start a thread, and let me know.)

Rhema

 

[Br. Bear]

@Rhema

Greetings,

thank you for your reply.

It best fits the overall context of the passage.

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.​

(Hebrews 5:12 KJV)​

What might the author mean by the first principles of the oracles of God if not Judaism? The text doesn't read the first principles of Christ, and I would note that "principles" is plural, so it wouldn't just mean a singular doctrine of "Jesus is Messiah". I would also note the use of the word first, which is also used in -

For if that first had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.​

(Hebrews 8:7 KJV)​

I submit the "first principles" is the same as the "first covenant."

Now I readily admit that the chapter break between 5 and 6 is unfortunate, but let's look at the list of items that seem to be representative of "milk":

• the foundation of repentance from dead works - Judaism (as shown by the Baptism of John)
• faith toward God, - also foundational Judaism (pick a psalm.. any psalm)
• the doctrine of baptisms, (or washings) - there were many principles of washings in Judaism
• laying on of hands, - Judaic anointing for passing on authority (cf. Num 27:22, 23).
• and of resurrection of the dead, - at first one might say, "What? This is a principle of Judaism?" Yep. (cf. Act 23:6) It's a foundational doctrine of the Jewish Pharisees.
• and of eternal judgment - this doctrine is a bit harder to establish, since the phrase "eternal judgment" is found only once in the entire Bible (right here in Hebrews) but let me know if you need me to support this assertion, I just don't have the time to do it justice right now. If pressed, I'm sure one can find an "eternal judgment" somewhere within Judaism.

But let's look at it from a different direction. Let's say that all these principles above are specifically Christianity and not Judaic ... what's the strong meat? What might you think the author of Hebrews thinks "strong meat" to be ?? The parallel to "strong meat" in chapter six is "perfection". Unfortunately these two terms, "strong meat" and "perfection" are left undefined. Yet it's well accepted that the book of Hebrews is an evangelical exhortation to the Jewish people. The "strong meat" and "perfection" would seem to be "Christ died for you" - move on from Judaism to embracing Christ. But perhaps I've missed something completely, so if you know differently, I am quite open to learning new things.

Hope that clarifies things to some extent,
Rhema

PS: Wait. Wasn't the "losing of salvation" the initial topic, though? It seems clear that if someone does move to "perfection" in embracing "Christ died for you," leaving the foundational principles of Judaism, but then returns to Judaic elements, that their "salvation" is lost.

How about if we look at the milk of the 'Sermon on the Mount', for example?
as we might also find in

And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
!Corinthians 3:1-4

something to chew over?


Bless you ....><>

 

[Rhema]

How about if we look at the milk of the 'Sermon on the Mount', for example?

But why would that be labeled as "milk" ?? The Sermon on the Mount is a core, foundational summary of the Gospel of Jesus.

If Jesus came preaching the Gospel, then the Gospel is what Jesus preached, and as such, the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain would constitute the meat of the Gospel.

Corinthians 3:1-4

Well... we were discussing the metaphor as presented in the book of Hebrews, an epistle whose author cannot be verified as Paul, and an epistle that I would contend was written by Apollos.

If we assume (and it is an assumption) that various authors all mean the same thing by "milk" (and I don't think context allows for that assumption), then you have one author portraying milk as a "necessary evil" that one ought to quickly leave behind, while another portrays milk as a thing to be desired:

Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:​

(1 Peter 2:1-2 KJV)​

I believe it is a fatal error to think that an archetype (a word or phrase used as a spiritual metaphor) holds to a single definition throughout the Bible. Just search for the word "milk" and you see that different authors use the word in rather different contexts to mean different things.

And I find myself crestfallen that you hadn't really addressed any of my questions, such as -

• What might the author mean by the first principles of the oracles of God if not Judaism (the first covenant) ?
• What's the strong meat? What might you think the author of Hebrews thinks "strong meat" to be ?? The parallel to "strong meat" in chapter six is "perfection". Unfortunately these two terms, "strong meat" and "perfection" are left undefined, no?

(And I thought I had presented a rather solid case for the "milk" in Hebrews to be the elements of Judaism, but you had left that unaddressed.)

Rough week,
Rhema

Remember, my questions are actually questions.

 

[Rhema]

Repentance is "turning away from your course and going in another direction....Its not complicated.

Forgot to add this verse where Jesus preaches against sin ... (and the edit function timed out) -

There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.​

(Luke 13:1-5 KJV)​

Rhema
It's not complicated.

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings,

And I find myself crestfallen that you hadn't really addressed any of my questions, such as -

Fear not, I am a slow chewer with not many teeth!
(not to mention a rather full plate, of late! )
Perhaps i should eat more Greek.. falafels, yoghurt and the like? Maybe


a bit of H-Brew too?

Thank you for adding to the subject at hand with your replies to me. Have to see what else can be drawn out of the well.

(And I thought I had presented a rather solid case for the "milk" in Hebrews to be the elements of Judaism, but you had left that unaddressed.)

I did touch lightly upon it [which you responded to lightly, too.]

I shall try to get back to this but do not hold thine breath waiting, Sir.

Rough week,
Rhema

Rest up, rest up.

Remember, my questions are actually questions.

I take that as a statement?
It is OK, I realize that.

Be kind to me, though. i am made of much the same stuff you are.


Jesus is Lord


Bless you ....><>