YOKE OF BONDAGE

[posthuman]

I placed them there, (in parenthesis) to expose your false teaching that Paul is making the claim that He was an obedient servant to God before his conversion, as Luke said Zechariahs was. He is saying, as he said in other letters, that he was a faithful, zealous Pharisee, and followed the "Law" of the "Jews religion" that Jesus said they created, while he was persecuting innocent people, which was also against God's Commandments.

"as touching the law, a Pharisee".

Had Paul submitted himself to the righteous of God, like Zechariahs, instead of submitting himself to the "traditions of the Fathers" which also persecuted the church of God, (murdered the Prophets) then he would have known Jesus when He came as Zechariahs did.

I realize you can not accept this Biblical truth, but there are others who are reading along and I wanted to point out the Biblical difference between What Paul said about himself, and what Luke said about Zechariahs.

The rest of the post, which you ignore, makes this abundantly clear as folks interested in Seeking the truth of the Bible will clearly see.

if God - who breathed the scripture - meant to say "as touching the righteousness which is in the totally-not-law-but actually-only-worthless-and-evil-human-traditions"
God would have said that.

as it stands, God says "as touching the righteousness that is in the Law"


now, i realize that you write your own version of scripture, the SSV, 'studyman standard version'
but we do not accept it as legitimate.

God says Saul was blameless with regard to the righteousness that is in the Law.
God says that is not sufficient:

Galatians 2:21
if righteousness could be gained through the Law, Christ died for nothing!

 

[posthuman]

Galatians 3:21
if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the Law.

 

[Studyman]

if God - who breathed the scripture - meant to say "as touching the righteousness which is in the totally-not-law-but actually-only-worthless-and-evil-human-traditions"
God would have said that.

as it stands, God says "as touching the righteousness that is in the Law"


now, i realize that you write your own version of scripture, the SSV, 'studyman standard version'
but we do not accept it as legitimate.

God says Saul was blameless with regard to the righteousness that is in the Law.
God says that is not sufficient:

Galatians 2:21
if righteousness could be gained through the Law, Christ died for nothing!

You are free to preach that Saul and the Pharisees were obedient servants of God, blameless, and that is why Jesus rejected them if you like. You are free to use one half of one sentence out of context to erase volumes of scriptures if you like. If you are so prideful and so stubborn that you can't see the difference between how the scriptures speak about the Pharisees and how the scriptures speak about Zechariahs and Abraham, then so be it.

And FTR, I do believe the Blood of goats commanded to be shed for my past sins, according to the Law, did not make a man righteous. So I am in perfect agreement with the scriptures which say "righteousness" did not come by the "law".

I believe this, not because some religious man or religious doctrine of man dictate it, but because the Scriptures tell me as much.

Heb. 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

 

[Studyman]

Galatians 3:21
if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the Law.

True, there was not a law that was given that could grant life to a dead person. I am in full agreement with this scripture.

 

[gb9]

You are free to preach that Saul and the Pharisees were obedient servants of God, blameless, and that is why Jesus rejected them if you like. You are free to use one half of one sentence out of context to erase volumes of scriptures if you like. If you are so prideful and so stubborn that you can't see the difference between how the scriptures speak about the Pharisees and how the scriptures speak about Zechariahs and Abraham, then so be it.

And FTR, I do believe the Blood of goats commanded to be shed for my past sins, according to the Law, did not make a man righteous. So I am in perfect agreement with the scriptures which say "righteousness" did not come by the "law".

I believe this, not because some religious man or religious doctrine of man dictate it, but because the Scriptures tell me as much.

Heb. 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

and you are free to spread your lies , though you should not.

Acts 26, Paul identifies himself as jew, and states that he was a Pharisee, the strictest set of our religion. his words.

and his words prove your devil-worshiping Pharisee conspiracy theory , based on one piece of one thing Jesus said, a complete lie.

now, if you sir do not stop repeating that lie that you have been spreading since you first got here, then you are calling Paul a devil worshiper , something he never said he was.

so, go ahead, attack me, do your studyman spin all you want, but you just got proved wrong, right by Paul's own words.

can you be honest enough and man enough to admit YOUR error???

 

[Studyman]

and you are free to spread your lies , though you should not.

Acts 26, Paul identifies himself as jew, and states that he was a Pharisee, the strictest set of our religion. his words.

and his words prove your devil-worshiping Pharisee conspiracy theory , based on one piece of one thing Jesus said, a complete lie.

now, if you sir do not stop repeating that lie that you have been spreading since you first got here, then you are calling Paul a devil worshiper , something he never said he was.

so, go ahead, attack me, do your studyman spin all you want, but you just got proved wrong, right by Paul's own words.

can you be honest enough and man enough to admit YOUR error???

Thank you G9, for another scripture filled, thoughtful reply.

I was discussing with Post his statement that Zechariahs and Saul were described as the same, both blameless according to the law.

I'm not interested into being drawn into a juvenile insult throwing contest as if we are still in grade school, although I have been drawn in to them in the past. I am more interested in studying God's Word as instructed. It is with this intent that I offer the following.

I posted some glaring differences between what the "law of the Pharisee" was as described by the Author and Finisher of my Faith, and how the same Word describes Zechariahs.

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

So Zechariahs knew God, and was known of God and God heard his prayers. Zechariahs was not blind, did not kill innocent people, did not prescribe to the "law of the Pharisees".

If you can find scriptural evidence that calls this understanding into question, please post it.

Here is what the word says about Saul.

1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Jesus addresses this whole "slaughter against the Disciples of the Lord" that Saul was doing.

John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

Is there any indication that Zechariahs refused to obey God's Laws given through Moses, or that he killed innocent people, Prophets as was the tradition of the Pharisees?

John 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

This is how Jesus described the Pharisees that you and Post preach were "blameless" before God. Paul was the perfect Pharisee and Paul was killing innocent people for simply following what the Law and Prophets instructed them to follow.

Post preaches that Paul was "Blameless before God" according to God's Laws. And that him and Zechariahs are the same according to the "Law".

But as you can see, this teaching is not true. Saul was a murderer of innocent people, Zechariahs was not.

1 Cor. 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Why didn't Saul know Jesus when He came, and Zechariahs did?

John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

So Saul was a perfect Pharisee and followed their "LAW" perfectly, blameless. He was made righteous by the "Works" of the Pharisees version of the Levitical Priesthood. He followed the traditions of the Fathers more zealously than his peers.

But Jesus clearly described the "traditions of the fathers" of the Pharisees as "Commandments of men" and not from God.


I don't know why you and Post are so set on promoting doctrines that are not Biblical. Are you doing it on purpose? Are you just following some teaching of man? I shouldn't judge your motive to teaching falsehoods, rather, I should show from God's word where you are mistaken. The rest is up to you guys.

 

[gb9]

Thank you G9, for another scripture filled, thoughtful reply.

I was discussing with Post his statement that Zechariahs and Saul were described as the same, both blameless according to the law.

I'm not interested into being drawn into a juvenile insult throwing contest as if we are still in grade school, although I have been drawn in to them in the past. I am more interested in studying God's Word as instructed. It is with this intent that I offer the following.

I posted some glaring differences between what the "law of the Pharisee" was as described by the Author and Finisher of my Faith, and how the same Word describes Zechariahs.

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

So Zechariahs knew God, and was known of God and God heard his prayers. Zechariahs was not blind, did not kill innocent people, did not prescribe to the "law of the Pharisees".

If you can find scriptural evidence that calls this understanding into question, please post it.

Here is what the word says about Saul.

1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Jesus addresses this whole "slaughter against the Disciples of the Lord" that Saul was doing.

John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

Is there any indication that Zechariahs refused to obey God's Laws given through Moses, or that he killed innocent people, Prophets as was the tradition of the Pharisees?

John 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

This is how Jesus described the Pharisees that you and Post preach were "blameless" before God. Paul was the perfect Pharisee and Paul was killing innocent people for simply following what the Law and Prophets instructed them to follow.

Post preaches that Paul was "Blameless before God" according to God's Laws. And that him and Zechariahs are the same according to the "Law".

But as you can see, this teaching is not true. Saul was a murderer of innocent people, Zechariahs was not.

1 Cor. 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Why didn't Saul know Jesus when He came, and Zechariahs did?

John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

So Saul was a perfect Pharisee and followed their "LAW" perfectly, blameless. He was made righteous by the "Works" of the Pharisees version of the Levitical Priesthood. He followed the traditions of the Fathers more zealously than his peers.

But Jesus clearly described the "traditions of the fathers" of the Pharisees as "Commandments of men" and not from God.


I don't know why you and Post are so set on promoting doctrines that are not Biblical. Are you doing it on purpose? Are you just following some teaching of man? I shouldn't judge your motive to teaching falsehoods, rather, I should show from God's word where you are mistaken. The rest is up to you guys.

as usual, you just attack me instead of actually discussing what I said.

so, since you do not have the guts to answer questions, I will do it for you=

how many nations of Israel were they? 1

how many sets of laws were given to them through Moses? 1

did the Pharisees add to the Law, the 613 added laws, based on the Torah? yes. ( you have been shown this ).

was Paul a Pharisee? yes?

now, would adding 613 laws to a already thick book of them make the original laws more strict? yes.

so, that brings us up to Paul's statement in Acts that I quoted you yesterday that you refused to comment on, which I knew you would.

if you were a honest man, you would have done what I just did above - tell the truth when confronted with it.

but, you are not , you care nothing about truth, just push you man-made religion.

 

[Studyman]

as usual, you just attack me instead of actually discussing what I said.

so, since you do not have the guts to answer questions, I will do it for you=

how many nations of Israel were they? 1

how many sets of laws were given to them through Moses? 1

did the Pharisees add to the Law, the 613 added laws, based on the Torah? yes. ( you have been shown this ).

was Paul a Pharisee? yes?

now, would adding 613 laws to a already thick book of them make the original laws more strict? yes.

so, that brings us up to Paul's statement in Acts that I quoted you yesterday that you refused to comment on, which I knew you would.

if you were a honest man, you would have done what I just did above - tell the truth when confronted with it.

but, you are not , you care nothing about truth, just push you man-made religion.

Thank you again G9 for another spirit filled reply.

The post wasn't intended to "Attack" anyone, rather, to discuss doctrinal issues apart from childish rock throwing.

Next time maybe you can actually read the post, and explain how the post is not Biblically supported. And it would be a decent and honest thing to do if, when you accuse folks of such egregious sins, you would love them enough to point out exactly what they are saying that is "man made" or that are "lies".

I don't see any scripture defending your religion here. There is some reference to religious man's data and doctrines, but nothing from God's Word.

If you are uncomfortable discussing how the Bible describes the Pharisees, that's OK. We don't have to discuss it.

 

[gb9]

we

Thank you again G9 for another spirit filled reply.

The post wasn't intended to "Attack" anyone, rather, to discuss doctrinal issues apart from childish rock throwing.

Next time maybe you can actually read the post, and explain how the post is not Biblically supported. And it would be a decent and honest thing to do if, when you accuse folks of such egregious sins, you would love them enough to point out exactly what they are saying that is "man made" or that are "lies".

I don't see any scripture defending your religion here. There is some reference to religious man's data and doctrines, but nothing from God's Word.

If you are uncomfortable discussing how the Bible describes the Pharisees, that's OK. We don't have to discuss it.

well, I am trying to have a adult discussion, you are using argument tactics.

you have yet to discussion what Paul said in Acts 26 about what the Pharisees were, the strictest set of the Jewish religion.

instead, you accuse me of not wanting to discuss what the Bible says about them when I am pointing out what a man who described himself as " a Pharisee of Pharisees " said of them. incredible cognitive dissonance.

you see, one of us is fine about discussing what the Bible says about the Pharisees . one of us only wants to use one piece of one thing that Jesus said to build a religious system around it.

I think it is best to consider all the Bible has to say about subject to come to a conclusion , but you seem not to think so.

 

[Studyman]

we


well, I am trying to have a adult discussion, you are using argument tactics.

you have yet to discussion what Paul said in Acts 26 about what the Pharisees were, the strictest set of the Jewish religion.

instead, you accuse me of not wanting to discuss what the Bible says about them when I am pointing out what a man who described himself as " a Pharisee of Pharisees " said of them. incredible cognitive dissonance.

you see, one of us is fine about discussing what the Bible says about the Pharisees . one of us only wants to use one piece of one thing that Jesus said to build a religious system around it.

I think it is best to consider all the Bible has to say about subject to come to a conclusion , but you seem not to think so.

I agree 100% that we should consider "ALL" the scriptures which describe the Pharisees and that is exactly why I disagree with you and Post's preaching on the matter.

I have not argued that Paul wasn't a zealous member of the Mainstream "Jewish Religion" of that time. What I am contesting is your and Post's teaching that the "Jews Religion" was obedient to God, like Zechariahs was. You still do not address the scriptures I post to make my point, and the chapter you reference, "Acts 26" actually contradict your teaching that Paul was "Blameless" according to the Law of God.

Acts 26:
4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.
11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

How can you and Post go from this scripture, to preaching the Saul was "blameless" before God according to His Law? Especially given what Jesus Himself said about Saul and the Pharisees.

How is the preaching of Post, who said Zechariahs and Paul were both "Blameless" according to the laws of God, be true given what Jesus said, what Paul Himself said, and what the Prophets prophesied about the Pharisees?

Matt. 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Not God)

Gal. 1:
13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

4 For they (Pharisees, not God) bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Acts 7:
51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

If Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, a strict member of this religion as Acts 26 says, zealous for the "Doctrines created from the Commandments of men" which is the Pharisees Doctrines, how is it you and Post preach that he was "blameless" according to the Law of God?

Can you see how it looks like you are using this one scripture to erase all other scriptures which explain what a Pharisee is.

5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Which is in what law? God's Law, or the Pharisees law?

Will you explain how my understanding of all these scriptures are wrong? Can you explain how I am using "argument tactics"?

 

[gb9]

I agree 100% that we should consider "ALL" the scriptures which describe the Pharisees and that is exactly why I disagree with you and Post's preaching on the matter.

I have not argued that Paul wasn't a zealous member of the Mainstream "Jewish Religion" of that time. What I am contesting is your and Post's teaching that the "Jews Religion" was obedient to God, like Zechariahs was. You still do not address the scriptures I post to make my point, and the chapter you reference, "Acts 26" actually contradict your teaching that Paul was "Blameless" according to the Law of God.

Acts 26:
4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.
11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

How can you and Post go from this scripture, to preaching the Saul was "blameless" before God according to His Law? Especially given what Jesus Himself said about Saul and the Pharisees.

How is the preaching of Post, who said Zechariahs and Paul were both "Blameless" according to the laws of God, be true given what Jesus said, what Paul Himself said, and what the Prophets prophesied about the Pharisees?

Matt. 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Not God)

Gal. 1:
13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

4 For they (Pharisees, not God) bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Acts 7:
51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

If Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, a strict member of this religion as Acts 26 says, zealous for the "Doctrines created from the Commandments of men" which is the Pharisees Doctrines, how is it you and Post preach that he was "blameless" according to the Law of God?

Can you see how it looks like you are using this one scripture to erase all other scriptures which explain what a Pharisee is.

5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Which is in what law? God's Law, or the Pharisees law?

Will you explain how my understanding of all these scriptures are wrong? Can you explain how I am using "argument tactics"?

here is why it is pointless to try to explain this yet again, because you will not accept it.

the 613 laws connect straight back to the Torah. they based them on the Torah. post showed you them ONE by ONE a few months ago.

if you do not believe this, then nothing I ( or anyone ) says will make a difference.

 

[Studyman]

here is why it is pointless to try to explain this yet again, because you will not accept it.

the 613 laws connect straight back to the Torah. they based them on the Torah. post showed you them ONE by ONE a few months ago.

if you do not believe this, then nothing I ( or anyone ) says will make a difference.

So it's not about the Word's of Christ then.

OK, well thanks again for all the spirit filled replies.

You have a nice day.

 

[Dan_473]

I believe what the Bible teaches about Faith. That Eve didn't have it but Abraham did. That Cain didn't have it but Abel did. That many in Israel didn't have it, but Caleb did. That Saul and the Pharisees didn't have it but Zechariahs did. And the one thing that separated them was their "WORKS". One side of the example chose "man's" thoughts and works, while the other side of the example chose "God's" Words and Works. These all "Let their Light shine", they didn't have some secret respect and honor for God that they hid in their mind while following the religious traditions of the land.

I also know that very cleaver, very subtle voices are at work which sound reasonable, which sound righteous to man, but are there to convince religious man, as they did Eve, to question and reason within ourselves the relevance of God's instruction. And Jesus Himself said "many" would choose it's voice over God's. I think the evidence of this in Mainstream religion is over whelming.

The New Covenant is exactly what Jesus said it was. A change in the Priesthood. How sin's are forgiven, formally involved Levite Priest's performing "works of the Law" for remission of sins.

And how God's Law is administered, formally given to the people though the Levite Priests.

There is nowhere that your actions or my actions are even mentioned. How religious man can use Jer. 31 to preach God changed His definition of sin, or made immaterial the Law and Prophets is astounding. And the fact that so "many" people buy into this preaching is truly a testimony of wisdom and foresight of the Word which became Flesh when He told us in Jeremiah 5 and 6.

30 A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land;
31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

So yes, I do believe our actions show our Faith, and our works show what or who we have faith in. And the Lord's Holy, Sanctified, set apart Sabbath is a Work of Almighty God. Walking in it is walking in the Spirit. This is why I don't believe what you preach about God's Instructions, because they are from the Light of the World, and the Righteous examples of the Bible chose them over other voices to guides their footsteps.

I believe that Jesus intended for us to choose Him as well?

I think and interesting thing about the old Testament prophets is that they seem to talk most about Idol worship and the impression of the poor. We had talked to earlier about Mammon. we talked about how if one is serving Mammon one is not holding to God. I think that's basically Idolatry. serving Mammon of course is also likely going to involve oppression of the poor.
we do show our faith by our works
James 2: 1. My brothers, don't hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory with partiality. 2. For if a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, comes into your synagogue, and a poor man in filthy clothing also comes in; 3. and you pay special attention to him who wears the fine clothing, and say, "Sit here in a good place;" and you tell the poor man, "Stand there," or "Sit by my footstool;" 4. haven't you shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? 5. Listen, my beloved brothers. Didn't God choose those who are poor in this world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the Kingdom which he promised to those who love him? 6. But you have dishonored the poor man. Don't the rich oppress you, and personally drag you before the courts? 7. Don't they blaspheme the honorable name by which you are called? 8. However, if you fulfill the royal law, according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well. 9. But if you show partiality, you commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors. 10. For whoever keeps the whole law, and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not commit murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12. So speak, and so do, as men who are to be judged by a law of freedom. 13. For judgment is without mercy to him who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. 14. What good is it, my brothers, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can faith save him? 15. And if a brother or sister is naked and in lack of daily food, 16. and one of you tells them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled;" and yet you didn't give them the things the body needs, what good is it? 17. Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself. 18. Yes, a man will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
what do you mean by the holy Sabbath is a work of God? what do you mean by walking in the Sabbath? are these phrases from the scriptures? God's instructions are to walk by the spirit.
Galatians 5: 25. If we live by the Spirit, let's also walk by the Spirit.

I think it's interesting to note that law here Galatians 5: 18. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
does not have a definite article with it. so I believe a possible translation is also law. so a reasonable translation would be if we are led by the spirit we are not under rules.
I'm not sure why you ask if Jesus intended for us to choose him. I think the answer would clearly be yes.

 

[Dan_473]

I agree with your link, we are not sure when the book of Job was written.
But in the bible, we might have some clues of when Job lived. few things we know

None of the conversation in the book of Job refers to the exodus under Moses.
But the flood is still uppermost in the minds of the people (Job 22:17-18).

Job lived in the generation after Esau, for one of his friends was Eliphaz the Temanite
(Job 2:11). Eliphaz was the father of the Temanites (Gen. 36: 11) and the son of Esau,
Jacob's brother (verse 10). Eliphaz and Joseph were first cousins.

Job lived before the Mosaic law which permitted only Levites to sacrifice.(Job 1:5; 42:8).

Coming into Egypt with Jacob was a grandson -- named Job! "And these are the names of
the children of Israel who came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons ... And the sons of Issachar:
Tola, and Phuvah and JOB, and Shimron" (Genesis 46:13).

In I Chronicles 7:1 Job's name appears as Jashub or Iashub: "And the sons of Issachar:
Tola, and Puah, Jashub, and Shimron, four.

Job was Joseph's nephew.

a characteristic of the tribe of Issachar had mathematical and astronomical knowledge.

I Chronicles 12:32 "And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the
times, to know what Israel ought to do ..." Jewish commentators understand this to
mean mathematical and astronomical knowledge, including the body of information by
which the Hebrew calendar was determined and the annual festivals arranged.
-

I think we have a good idea of when Job lived, but when the book was written is still unclear.

you raise interesting points, but to me it's by no means a closed case.
the name Teman apparently simply means on the right, or south. so it may simply be saying this person was from the south, the south of where they currently were.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teman_(Edom)


according to the law of Moses, is sacrifice among any people anywhere in the world forbidden after the law is given at Sinai? Or only for the Israelites?
if the people in the land of uz hadn't heard of the law, then it wouldn't be wrong for them to sacrifice, any more than it would be wrong for them to mix linen and wool.

we also know that multiple people in the Bible can have the same name. Often it is separated by Joe the Son of Sam. but job doesn't have this.

here's an interesting story about someone sacrificing after Moses. not sure if it's the same word as used in Job.
1 Samuel 16: 1. And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons. 2. And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he Will kill me. And the LORD said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD.

also we don't know what tribe or ethnic group job was from.

I think when God wants us to have an exact date of something he tells us

Genesis 7: 11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep came bursting through, and the windows of heaven were open;

or

Ezra 3: 6. From the first day of the seventh month began they to offer burnt offerings unto the LORD. But the foundation of the temple of the LORD was not yet laid.

or a general idea
Isaiah 1: 1. The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, which he saw about Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

so in my opinion, it's not a good idea to build a Doctrine based on the dating of something that seems to have been left purposefully vague.

 

[Dan_473]

LOL, that is the "Go to" for mainstream preachers. "Strawman" and "you must be SDA. JW, Mormon.



I do indeed need a Savior, but how is it you preach what He instructs me to do is impossible? Aren't all things possible with the Christ? And how is striving to do as Jesus instructs trying to be justified by my own hands? You preach God created instructions impossible to follow, but He says His Commandments are not Grievous. Which of God's instructions were impossible for Jesus to follow?

Did Zechariahs do the impossible? Did Abraham? Is this not a relevant question?

And what were the "Works of the Law" that were specifically instituted for the justification of sins, "until the Seed should come"?

I have asked this question many times but you and many on this forum refuse to answer.

What did Moses specifically instruct a person to do for his sins to be atoned for? Did they have to find a Levite Priest? Did the Levite Priest perform certain "Deeds or Works" for the remission of sins.

Was Israel ever given instructions to cleanse their own sin? Or were they required to "Find the Priest" for their sins to be atoned for?



What did Jesus say about the Pharisees? That they followed the "Written Law", or that they transgressed the "written Law"? Did Zechariahs keep the "written Law"? Are you saying God wasn't pleased with Abraham and Zechariahs or anyone else who repents and choose His way or the religious ways of man?? Are you preaching that it doesn't matter if we Glorify God or not?

Are these question incoherent? Am I a reprobate because I consider what the Bible says, and am not interested in consensus among various religious men? There are folks on this forum that see things just as I see them. Not "many", I'll give you that. Should I consider other voices in my decision whether or not to follow God's instructions?

I believe you have been hoodwinked by modern religions regarding what the "Works" of the Law for remission of sins were before Jesus changed the Priesthood. This foundational issue is important since some much doctrine is placed on it.

And I'm not sure the Apostles gave the Gentiles command to follow 4 of God's Commandments in order not to offend a religious people who just killed Stephen. Maybe, just maybe, the Apostles gave the Gentiles those commands because they were God's Commandments, not traditions of man that the Pharisees taught and called "the Law of Moses".

if I say you are using a straw man argument, it basically means it doesn't make sense in that situation for me to defend a position that I don't hold. now, and I mean this gently, if you hear it a lot it may be because you use a lot of straw man arguments.

here's an example
people like Studyman believe that two plus two equals five. is there any reason for you to even respond to that?

 

[Dan_473]

LOL, that is the "Go to" for mainstream preachers. "Strawman" and "you must be SDA. JW, Mormon.



I do indeed need a Savior, but how is it you preach what He instructs me to do is impossible? Aren't all things possible with the Christ? And how is striving to do as Jesus instructs trying to be justified by my own hands? You preach God created instructions impossible to follow, but He says His Commandments are not Grievous. Which of God's instructions were impossible for Jesus to follow?

Did Zechariahs do the impossible? Did Abraham? Is this not a relevant question?

And what were the "Works of the Law" that were specifically instituted for the justification of sins, "until the Seed should come"?

I have asked this question many times but you and many on this forum refuse to answer.

What did Moses specifically instruct a person to do for his sins to be atoned for? Did they have to find a Levite Priest? Did the Levite Priest perform certain "Deeds or Works" for the remission of sins.

Was Israel ever given instructions to cleanse their own sin? Or were they required to "Find the Priest" for their sins to be atoned for?



What did Jesus say about the Pharisees? That they followed the "Written Law", or that they transgressed the "written Law"? Did Zechariahs keep the "written Law"? Are you saying God wasn't pleased with Abraham and Zechariahs or anyone else who repents and choose His way or the religious ways of man?? Are you preaching that it doesn't matter if we Glorify God or not?

Are these question incoherent? Am I a reprobate because I consider what the Bible says, and am not interested in consensus among various religious men? There are folks on this forum that see things just as I see them. Not "many", I'll give you that. Should I consider other voices in my decision whether or not to follow God's instructions?

I believe you have been hoodwinked by modern religions regarding what the "Works" of the Law for remission of sins were before Jesus changed the Priesthood. This foundational issue is important since some much doctrine is placed on it.

And I'm not sure the Apostles gave the Gentiles command to follow 4 of God's Commandments in order not to offend a religious people who just killed Stephen. Maybe, just maybe, the Apostles gave the Gentiles those commands because they were God's Commandments, not traditions of man that the Pharisees taught and called "the Law of Moses".

also, I wasn't saying that you were a Jehovah's Witness. Rather, that your approach to the principle of faith was reminding me of what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach. that it is basically a set of works, just different works from what the Israelites were doing.

what Jesus instructs you to do is not impossible. but the law could not be borne by Peter, James, or their fathers.

all things are possible with Christ. But if you are attempting to be justified by the law, by doing particular works, then you are cut off from Christ.

if you are striving to be justified through Christ, on the principle of faith, and at the same time are attempting to do works with your hands to be justified by God, then I believe you have placed yourself in the position of the Galatians who went on to be circumcised.Galatians 3: 1. Foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you not to obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth among you as crucified? 2. I just want to learn this from you. Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by hearing of faith? 3. Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now completed in the flesh? 4. Did you suffer so many things in vain, if it is indeed in vain? 5. He therefore who supplies the Spirit to you, and works miracles among you, does he do it by the works of the law, or by hearing of faith?
Romans 3: 10. As it is written, "There is no one righteous; no, not one. 11. There is no one who understands. There is no one who seeks after God. 12. They have all turned aside. They have together become unprofitable. There is no one who does good, no, not, so much as one." 13. "Their throat is an open tomb. With their tongues they have used deceit." "The poison of vipers is under their lips;" 14. "whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." 15. "Their feet are swift to shed blood. 16. Destruction and misery are in their ways. 17. The way of peace, they haven't known." 18. "There is no fear of God before their eyes." 19. Now we know that whatever things the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God. 20. Because by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight. For through the law comes the knowledge of sin. 21. But now apart from the law, a righteousness of God has been revealed, being testified by the law and the prophets;
and again, apart from the law is written without a definite article in Greek. so, apart from law is also a possible translation.

given what Paul says in Romans 3, I think that when people are said to be righteous or good in the Old Testament it means relative to other people of their generation. we know that Abraham was considered righteous not because he kept all of The Commandments, but because he believed God. The principle of faith.

I don't understand your question "And what were the "Works of the Law" that were specifically instituted for the justification of sins, "until the Seed should come"?"

I think that the law of Moses does provide for ways for the Israelites back then to have their sins forgiven. I'm not sure if they achieved justification in the sense that Paul uses that word in Romans and Galatians.

Jesus said a lot of things about the Pharisees. what did you have in mind?

what I'm saying is that people who lived under the old Covenant did just that, live under the old Covenant. we know that only through Jesus of Nazareth can we actually get to the father.John 14: 6. Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me. 7. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on, you know him, and have seen him."
from now on, indicating a change.

I didn't say your questions may be incoherent I was saying that what you are saying may be.

 

[Dan_473]

LOL, that is the "Go to" for mainstream preachers. "Strawman" and "you must be SDA. JW, Mormon.



I do indeed need a Savior, but how is it you preach what He instructs me to do is impossible? Aren't all things possible with the Christ? And how is striving to do as Jesus instructs trying to be justified by my own hands? You preach God created instructions impossible to follow, but He says His Commandments are not Grievous. Which of God's instructions were impossible for Jesus to follow?

Did Zechariahs do the impossible? Did Abraham? Is this not a relevant question?

And what were the "Works of the Law" that were specifically instituted for the justification of sins, "until the Seed should come"?

I have asked this question many times but you and many on this forum refuse to answer.

What did Moses specifically instruct a person to do for his sins to be atoned for? Did they have to find a Levite Priest? Did the Levite Priest perform certain "Deeds or Works" for the remission of sins.

Was Israel ever given instructions to cleanse their own sin? Or were they required to "Find the Priest" for their sins to be atoned for?



What did Jesus say about the Pharisees? That they followed the "Written Law", or that they transgressed the "written Law"? Did Zechariahs keep the "written Law"? Are you saying God wasn't pleased with Abraham and Zechariahs or anyone else who repents and choose His way or the religious ways of man?? Are you preaching that it doesn't matter if we Glorify God or not?

Are these question incoherent? Am I a reprobate because I consider what the Bible says, and am not interested in consensus among various religious men? There are folks on this forum that see things just as I see them. Not "many", I'll give you that. Should I consider other voices in my decision whether or not to follow God's instructions?

I believe you have been hoodwinked by modern religions regarding what the "Works" of the Law for remission of sins were before Jesus changed the Priesthood. This foundational issue is important since some much doctrine is placed on it.

And I'm not sure the Apostles gave the Gentiles command to follow 4 of God's Commandments in order not to offend a religious people who just killed Stephen. Maybe, just maybe, the Apostles gave the Gentiles those commands because they were God's Commandments, not traditions of man that the Pharisees taught and called "the Law of Moses".

I doubt if you are a reprobate. it sounds like you believe that Jesus is the Christ. of course you should follow God's instructions. Believe in him whom he has sent.

I would assume that the works of the law that you're referring to are the system of sacrifices talked about in the law of Moses. but we know that no one fully does the works of the law because Romans 3: 9. What then? Are we better than they? No, in no way. For we previously warned both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin. 10. As it is written, "There is no one righteous; no, not one.

the instructions given an acts 15, I believe, are intended to help believing Jews and believing gentiles Gather in the same church. Not the people who were going to Stone Stephen.

 

[posthuman]

For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the Law.​

(Galatians 3:21)​

True, there was not a law that was given that could grant life to a dead person. I am in full agreement with this scripture.

then you err.

God presented Him as an atoning sacrifice through faith in His blood, in order to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over the sins committed beforehand. He did this to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and to justify the one who has faith in Jesus.​

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of works? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.​

(Romans 7:25-26)​

man is justified by the 'law of faith' - so that He is just and the one who justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.
the 'law of faith' is exactly this: He justifies the one who has faith in Him. if: believe, then: He justifies. that's His law. grace, mercy, peace, true rest.

and what is justification?

The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.​

(Romans 4:23-25)​

it is the dead brought to life - even He:

I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.​

(Revelation 1:18)​

by this law of faith the dead are raised to life:

But because of His great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions — it is by grace you have been saved. ​

(Ephesians 2:4-5)​

because it is God who justifies, and those He justifies are brothers ans sisters of The Firstborn:

For those God foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified.​

(Romans 8:29-30)​

born into what? into life, from death. resurrected unto eternal life. how?

anyone who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, He cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over Him. ​

(Romans 6:7-9) ​

through His own death and resurrection: which we enter into, according to 'the law of faith' - by believing on Him.




oh but you think the law of faith is good works of the Law.
well, i suggest reading more than the one verse of chapter 2 of Romans that you are acquainted with.. and i suggest reading it in some version other than the SSV.

 

[Dan_473]

Romans 3: 21. But now apart from the law, a righteousness of God has been revealed, being testified by the law and the prophets;

Apart from what Law? "Love God and Love your neighbor?", don't steal?

No Dan. Paul is arguing with a religion who doesn't believe Jesus is the High Priest. They are still following their version of the Levitical Priesthood and it's "works of the Law" for justification of sins. This is talking about how Abraham was justified. Not by the "works or Deeds" of the Law given from Moses for the atonement of sins. But by Faith in God shown by His obedience. You have, once again, completely ignored the entire point of the post. Romans 4 doesn't make void the scriptures of my post. They make my point.

Abraham had God's Laws, heard God's Word's and followed them, Zechariahs did the same thing. AS a result of this "Glorifying God" Jesus manifested Himself to them.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

He said the same thing as the Word.

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Abraham's sin was atoned "apart from the Law" of atonement given by Moses 430 years after Abraham. He received a promise, not because some Levite performed a Work of the Law, but because Abraham believed in God enough to follow the instructions God gave him.

1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him;

For this "belief" he was blessed.

4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.


Your preaching that Abraham was justified apart from ALL of God's instructions is a deceit if the Bible is our guide. He was justified, not by atonement laws given 430 years later, but because he was faithful to God. Eve was given instruction as well, but she didn't believe in God enough to follow His instructions.

How is this not true?

actually I think we are Justified apart from laws about loving your neighbor. we are Justified freely. not on the basis of works that we have done. on the basis of the work that Christ did. once having been Justified, we pursue good works. not in order to be justified, but because we already are.


the thing that Abraham believed is that he would have a child, a son, through Sarah, and that by that he, Abraham, would become the father of many nations. I agree that Romans chapter 4 doesn't make void any scriptures. yes, no doubt Christ manifests himself to people who are righteous. but the New Covenant comes into effect with Jesus' blood.


do you believe that Abraham was born again?


Abraham was blessed because of his obedience. He was declared righteous because of his faith, because he believe God's promise about having a son.


looks like this is kind of a crucial issue here for us. What is it that Abraham believed for which he was declared righteous?


Romans 4: 2. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not toward God. 3. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."


I think this is the passage Paul is referring to
After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying, "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward." 2 Abram said, "Lord GOD, what will you give me, seeing I go childless, and he who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?" 3 Abram said, "Look, to me you have given no offspring: and, look, one born in my house is my heir." 4 Look, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This man will not be your heir, but he who will come forth out of your own body will be your heir." 5 He brought him outside, and said, "Look now toward the sky, and count the stars, if you are able to count them." He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." 6 And Abram believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.
what is it that Abraham believes God for, what is Abraham believing? it is that God will give him a son, and that he will be the father of a great multitude. And not end up childless. that's what Abraham believed.

 

[Dan_473]

This reply really doesn't address the post I wrote. If there is something you believe is Biblically incorrect, please reply as to what was written and why you believe it doesn't align with scriptures.

I was going through your post, and answering it point-by-point. there must have been something in your post that caught my attention that I was responding to with those scriptures. But of course, this situation is always a problem with long posts.