A Study of Acts 15 (by 119 Ministries)

[Studyman]

Hi thanks for the reply.



1 Peter 2:9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

The old order of Levites has passed away. Beleivers are considered the temple of the Lord .

Our high Priest Christ dwells in our earthen bosies

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

Paul explains how this happens for Gentiles.

Rom. 11:
16 For if the firstfruit (The Christ) be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

Why was the Christ Holy? What was special about this man, over all others? Was it not because He didn't do as the Levite Priests and reject God's Words? Did He not follow His Fathers instructions perfectly? Isn't this the very reason He qualified to pay for my sins in the first place.

So He was Holy, because He followed God's Holy instructions because these instructions (Root, foundation) is also Holy. So everything that grows from this foundation is Holy as well. (See Faith Chapter).

17 And if some of the branches (Rebellious Jews) be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, (Gentile) wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

This is not taught today just as the Mainstream Preachers of Christ's time did not teach it.

The Pharisees who rejected God's Laws were broken off, giving a spot open for a Gentile who wants to be "Grafted in among them, and with them "Partake" of the same Root that the Christ Partook of, the same root they rejected in favor of their own religious traditions..

But Paul warns;

19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

This teaching goes against almost every mainstream religious tradition on the planet. And the next verse even more so.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.


I can see the modern priesthood leading folks astray today. They have created their own High Days and Sabbaths, and have rejected God's Ways. They preach that the New Covenant is the removal of God's Laws they have convinced folks are against them. They have created images of God in the likeness of man and are shameless.

Will they be corrected? No. They have been convinced that they shall surely not die, and that God's Laws make them blind. Their path is broad and there are "Many" who will choose to go in thereat.

My hope is not for the masses because the Bible says from the beginning to the end that the "masses" will reject God. My hope is that you might consider.

 

[Dino246]

Paul explains how this happens for Gentiles.

Rom. 11:
16 For if the firstfruit (The Christ) be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

Why was the Christ Holy? What was special about this man, over all others? Was it not because He didn't do as the Levite Priests and reject God's Words? Did He not follow His Fathers instructions perfectly? Isn't this the very reason He qualified to pay for my sins in the first place.

So He was Holy, because He followed God's Holy instructions because these instructions (Root, foundation) is also Holy. So everything that grows from this foundation is Holy as well. (See Faith Chapter).

17 And if some of the branches (Rebellious Jews) be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, (Gentile) wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

This is not taught today just as the Mainstream Preachers of Christ's time did not teach it.

The Pharisees who rejected God's Laws were broken off, giving a spot open for a Gentile who wants to be "Grafted in among them, and with them "Partake" of the same Root that the Christ Partook of, the same root they rejected in favor of their own religious traditions..

But Paul warns;

19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

This teaching goes against almost every mainstream religious tradition on the planet. And the next verse even more so.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.


I can see the modern priesthood leading folks astray today. They have created their own High Days and Sabbaths, and have rejected God's Ways. They preach that the New Covenant is the removal of God's Laws they have convinced folks are against them. They have created images of God in the likeness of man and are shameless.

Will they be corrected? No. They have been convinced that they shall surely not die, and that God's Laws make them blind. Their path is broad and there are "Many" who will choose to go in thereat.

My hope is not for the masses because the Bible says from the beginning to the end that the "masses" will reject God. My hope is that you might consider.

Respectfully, your reasoning with regard to the holiness of Christ is flawed. He is not holy "because" He followed He Father's instructions perfectly. He is holy because He is God. He began in a state of perfect holiness and never left it by reason of sin.

The Pharisees were never holy; they began in a state of unholiness and sought to attain holiness by following the Law. They didn't grasp that following the Law didn't (and couldn't) make them holy.

The reasoning that follows is also flawed by over-generalization. You speak of "the modern priesthood" and "mainstream religion". Who are these nameless "modern priests" who allegedly have such vast influence? Where would one find this "mainstream religion" that allegedly teaches what you decry? Have you been to such churches? How would you know what is taught in churches you don't attend or follow? Consider whether you would accept being identified together with "legalists" and "Judaizers".

 

[Studyman]

Respectfully, your reasoning with regard to the holiness of Christ is flawed. He is not holy "because" He followed He Father's instructions perfectly. He is holy because He is God. He began in a state of perfect holiness and never left it by reason of sin.

The Pharisees were never holy; they began in a state of unholiness and sought to attain holiness by following the Law. They didn't grasp that following the Law didn't (and couldn't) make them holy.

The reasoning that follows is also flawed by over-generalization. You speak of "the modern priesthood" and "mainstream religion". Who are these nameless "modern priests" who allegedly have such vast influence? Where would one find this "mainstream religion" that allegedly teaches what you decry? Have you been to such churches? How would you know what is taught in churches you don't attend or follow? Consider whether you would accept being identified together with "legalists" and "Judaizers".

I have been to churches, and I have studied their doctrines just as I have studied yours. So your assumption that I don't know what they, or by extension, you preach is not accurate.

You are a perfect example of modern religious influence on man. I mean no disrespect, just replying to your posts.

"... I see the Law as historical. It does inform how I live my life, but I don't consider obedience to it to be part of the Christian life-not for salvation, not for sanctification, not for God's blessings or favour."

The Christ said: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that Proceeds from God", as He lived. Does this mean God is pleased by those who Have His Sayings, but refuses to follow them? "Historically, is God pleased with those who obey Him? Or disobey Him? I can see a stark disconnect in your statement above, and the very Word's of God the Christ says we are to live by. No disrespect intended, can you see my point?

2 Tim. 3:
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

But if a person has been convinced the scriptures don't really matter, then what good are they.
There are "many" who believe Jesus was not human at all, but a God. That He had supernatural powers none of us have. So when the going got a little rough He just kicked in some superpowers no one else has. I don't believe the implication of this religious doctrine that He didn't really resist sin, and struggled as do we all. That He had nothing to lose by offering Himself as a human sacrifice, or the implication that He wasn't even human.

You imply that God created Him as a robot, not capable of leaning on His own understanding as the rest of us, not capable of making a wrong choice as the rest of us.

I don't believe the Christ "cheated" in His Role as a human being in our Salvation. I don't believe He was any different than Adam, other than the choices He made. I don't believe He instructed us to "Walk even as He walked" knowing we are not God's but He is. My Savior is not a hypocrite or a cheater or cruel. What He did as a human was a great thing worthy of a great reward, and He promises the same reward of others who Choose Him and His Path over the religions of the land.


Your description of the Mainstream Preachers of Christ's time also goes against the very Word's of the Christ.

"The Pharisees were never holy; they began in a state of unholiness and sought to attain holiness by following the Law. They didn't grasp that following the Law didn't (and couldn't) make them holy."

The OT scriptures surely don't teach this doctrine.

This is another Mainstream teaching that is opposite of what the Christ taught.

Matt. 15:
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.

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.

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

Matt. 23:4 For they (Pharisees, not God as many preach)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.

Matt. 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

I have not even posted all the old testament scriptures which prophesy of a Priesthood which is exactly opposite of the one you preach here.

Yet religious man, to promote their religious traditions, reject all these scriptures and choose to twist a sentence from Paul instead to prove obeying God is somehow against God.

Rom. 9:
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Religious man refuses to understand that the Pharisees didn't Love the God of the OT, therefore they didn't believe in His Son. So they continued in their own version of the sacrificial "Levitical Priesthood "Works of the Law" for justification of sins even after the Messiah had come.

Mainstream Christianity preaches that their version of this scripture over powers, and supersedes all that the Christ and the Prophets revealed about the corrupt Priests which led God's people astray. The very reason for the New Covenant according to His Word.

Preaching just the opposite of the same Christ, they claimed has saved them, by preaching the Pharisees were "Following the Law" not omitting, breaking and transgressing the Law as the Christ and the Prophets clearly teaches.

There was a Jew who tried to please God by following His Instructions. His name was Zechariahs. You can read about him in Luke 1. Note that he knew the Christ when He came, but the Pharisees didn't.

So I expect by your posts that you will not acknowledge any of these things. That even though the scriptures bring these doctrines into question, it will not matter. I hope to be proven wrong on this point. But it didn't matter to the Mainstream Preachers of Christ's time, and the Christ said it would matter to "many" today.

I believe it should.

in closing, you asked a question:

"Where would one find this "mainstream religion" that allegedly teaches what you decry?"

My brother, just read your own posts.

 

[Dino246]

I have been to churches, and I have studied their doctrines just as I have studied yours. So your assumption that I don't know what they, or by extension, you preach is not accurate.

You are a perfect example of modern religious influence on man. I mean no disrespect, just replying to your posts.

"... I see the Law as historical. It does inform how I live my life, but I don't consider obedience to it to be part of the Christian life-not for salvation, not for sanctification, not for God's blessings or favour."

The Christ said: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that Proceeds from God", as He lived. Does this mean God is pleased by those who Have His Sayings, but refuses to follow them? "Historically, is God pleased with those who obey Him? Or disobey Him? I can see a stark disconnect in your statement above, and the very Word's of God the Christ says we are to live by. No disrespect intended, can you see my point?

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I have nowhere claimed that the Law is not instructive, but I recognize that the Law was given to Israel, not to the Church. As Paul taught, following the Law does not add anything to what Jesus has already accomplished on my behalf.

But if a person has been convinced the scriptures don't really matter, then what good are they. There are "many" who believe Jesus was not human at all, but a God. That He had supernatural powers none of us have. So when the going got a little rough He just kicked in some superpowers no one else has. I don't believe the implication of this religious doctrine that He didn't really resist sin, and struggled as do we all. That He had nothing to lose by offering Himself as a human sacrifice, or the implication that He wasn't even human.

You imply that God created Him as a robot, not capable of leaning on His own understanding as the rest of us, not capable of making a wrong choice as the rest of us.

You seem quite adept at reinterpreting what I write, adding your own spin to it by linking me to some hypothetical "many". I'll respond to comments on what I actually wrote.

I don't believe the Christ "cheated" in His Role as a human being in our Salvation. I don't believe He was any different than Adam, other than the choices He made. I don't believe He instructed us to "Walk even as He walked" knowing we are not God's but He is. My Savior is not a hypocrite or a cheater or cruel. What He did as a human was a great thing worthy of a great reward, and He promises the same reward of others who Choose Him and His Path over the religions of the land.

If you don't believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, we aren't on the same page, and further discussion of the role of the Law is irrelevant. I don't believe Jesus cheated either; that would be completely inconsistent with His righteousness.

Your description of the Mainstream Preachers of Christ's time also goes against the very Word's of the Christ.

"The Pharisees were never holy; they began in a state of unholiness and sought to attain holiness by following the Law. They didn't grasp that following the Law didn't (and couldn't) make them holy."

The OT scriptures surely don't teach this doctrine.

Interesting that you provide no Scripture to support your assertion. Here's Scripture to support mine:

Galatians 2:21 "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

Galatians 3:21-22 " Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."

Ephesians 4:23 "put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth."

I will grant that the first two verses mention righteousness and not holiness, but I believe the point is well-supported by them.

I have not even posted all the old testament scriptures which prophesy of a Priesthood which is exactly opposite of the one you preach here.

Correct... you haven't. The prophecies of a not-yet-existent priesthood are not instructions for the then-existent priesthood.

Religious man refuses to understand that the Pharisees didn't Love the God of the OT, therefore they didn't believe in His Son. So they continued in their own version of the sacrificial "Levitical Priesthood "Works of the Law" for justification of sins even after the Messiah had come.

I understand that quite well, therefore I am not in your "religious man" category.

So I expect by your posts that you will not acknowledge any of these things. That even though the scriptures bring these doctrines into question, it will not matter. I hope to be proven wrong on this point.

Your snark is inconsistent with the courtesy you claim to exercise in reading my posts carefully. If you continue to put this kind of manipulative garbage in your posts, I will not respond at all.

I haven't yet seen from you any rational response to the challenges I have given to you. You have sidestepped as you accuse me of doing. I think you should drop the "moral high ground" comments and stick to the basic discussion.

 

[Studyman]

="Dino246, post: 3718784, member: 223333"]I have nowhere claimed that the Law is not instructive, but I recognize that the Law was given to Israel, not to the Church. As Paul taught, following the Law does not add anything to what Jesus has already accomplished on my behalf.

What good are instructions if we have them, but don't follow them. This is what the Word has been teaching before He was a man, and after He was a man. From the beginning: "6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

From the middle: "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.

And at the end. :12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

The "law" doesn't give life, only the Christ can do that, but it defines the narrow Path the Christ walked and told us to walk. "Go and sin no more". Isn't that the mission?

You seem quite adept at reinterpreting what I write, adding your own spin to it by linking me to some hypothetical "many". I'll respond to comments on what I actually wrote.

If you don't believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, we aren't on the same page, and further discussion of the role of the Law is irrelevant. I don't believe Jesus cheated either; that would be completely inconsistent with His righteousness.

You said: "Respectfully, your reasoning with regard to the holiness of Christ is flawed. He is not holy "because" He followed He Father's instructions perfectly. He is holy because He is God. He began in a state of perfect holiness and never left it by reason of sin.

God incarnate? Does that mean a God who humbled Himself in the form of a man, tempted in all ways as we are, risking His Very Immortal Life for His People? Or does it mean as your preaching implies, that He really never humbled Himself at all, but was God still, that never "risked or gave" His Life for anyone, that He was God, not in danger of dying or losing nothing?

So is He given the crown of Glory simply because He is God? Is that His "Great Achievement"? He was God, came to earth as God, and not man. So then He really didn't die did He? God can't die. So in your doctrine the whole presence of the Man Jesus was a fraud. He wasn't a man at all as the scriptures say, so He had nothing to fear, nothing to lose. He didn't need faith because He was God. He followed God's instructions, not by "learning obedience" from the things He suffered as it is written, but because He wasn't like us at all, but a supernatural being.

Have you really ever thought what your teaching in this matter implies?

I believe this demeans His accomplishment, or worse, promotes "another Jesus" which was not a man at all, but a God.

I say this not to rile your feathers, but in response to ALL the warnings of false religions and false doctrines the Christ gave us.

I have already examined this teaching Dino, I am hoping you can overcome tradition enough to do the same.

Interesting that you provide no Scripture to support your assertion. Here's Scripture to support mine:

Actually I did post many scriptures in response to your statement and you completely ignored them, choosing instead to post other scriptures as if they somehow destroy some of God's Word. Pitting this Word of God against that Word of God. God's Word doesn't make Void God's Word.

""The Pharisees were never holy; they began in a state of unholiness and sought to attain holiness by following the Law. They didn't grasp that following the Law didn't (and couldn't) make them holy."

Here is what I posted in response to your religious statement.

The OT scriptures surely don't teach this doctrine.

This is another Mainstream teaching that is opposite of what the Christ taught.

Matt. 15:
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.

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.

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

Matt. 23:4 For they (Pharisees, not God as many preach)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.

Matt. 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

I have not even posted all the old testament scriptures which prophesy of a Priesthood which is exactly opposite of the one you preach here.

Yet religious man, to promote their religious traditions, reject all these scriptures and choose to twist a sentence from Paul instead to prove obeying God is somehow against God.

Why would you attempt to create the impression that I didn't provide scriptures in support of my understanding?

Correct... you haven't. The prophecies of a not-yet-existent priesthood are not instructions for the then-existent priesthood.

You have clearly misunderstood the reference to the Prophesies of the Levite Priesthood which you preach was "following God's Laws" to be holy.. Here I'll show you some.

Jer. 50:6 My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their restingplace.

Jer. 5:
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?

You said: " ""The Pharisees were never holy; they began in a state of unholiness and sought to attain holiness by following the Law. They didn't grasp that following the Law didn't (and couldn't) make them holy."

What the scriptures you ignored details, as well as all the Prophesies I didn't post, is that the Pharisees were NOT trying to earn Salvation, or become "holy" by following God's Laws. In order for your statement to be true, one must erase EVERY WORD of the Christ that describes them. then one must erase EVERY PROPHESY that speaks to them.

It is nothing personal, your preaching in this matter it is just a doctrine that comes from man, not from the Word of God. Shall I not point these things out to the brethren? Am I somehow "bad" because I raise the very valid points and questions?

Your snark is inconsistent with the courtesy you claim to exercise in reading my posts carefully. If you continue to put this kind of manipulative garbage in your posts, I will not respond at all.

I haven't yet seen from you any rational response to the challenges I have given to you. You have sidestepped as you accuse me of doing. I think you should drop the "moral high ground" comments and stick to the basic discussion.

And yet it is you who "cut out" the scriptures I used to show the difference between what you preach, and what the Christ Preaches.

I know religious tradition is hard to overcome. And if the Mainstream Preachers of Christ's time are any indication of how a religious man thinks, then you will never even address the points and valid questions posed, not to you personally, but to doctrines which are widely taught in modern religions.

It is my hope that you might consider what the scriptures posted say, and recognize the disconnect between what religious man teaches and what the Word which Became Flesh teaches. That is why I posted in the first place.

 

[gb9]

John 10- Jesus- speaking of His life- " no one can take it from Me, I lay it down of my own accord. I have the authority to lay it down, I have the authority to take it up again. this command I received from My Father.

so, what were you saying about His life being in danger?

maybe you should read the Bible instead of printing our posts and reading them.

oh, and this verse is just another proof of the truth of Trinity that destroys your lie of oneness.

 

[Dino246]

God incarnate? Does that mean a God who humbled Himself in the form of a man, tempted in all ways as we are, risking His Very Immortal Life for His People? Or does it mean as your preaching implies, that He really never humbled Himself at all, but was God still, that never "risked or gave" His Life for anyone, that He was God, not in danger of dying or losing nothing?

So is He given the crown of Glory simply because He is God? Is that His "Great Achievement"? He was God, came to earth as God, and not man. So then He really didn't die did He? God can't die. So in your doctrine the whole presence of the Man Jesus was a fraud. He wasn't a man at all as the scriptures say, so He had nothing to fear, nothing to lose. He didn't need faith because He was God. He followed God's instructions, not by "learning obedience" from the things He suffered as it is written, but because He wasn't like us at all, but a supernatural being.

Have you really ever thought what your teaching in this matter implies?

I believe this demeans His accomplishment, or worse, promotes "another Jesus" which was not a man at all, but a God.
...
I have already examined this teaching Dino, I am hoping you can overcome tradition enough to do the same.

I have examined Scripture. Scripture teaches me that Jesus is God incarnate. You don't believe that, therefore I will not waste any more of my time with you discussing the role of the Law. There can be no agreement on the lesser matter when there is disagreement on the primary matter.

 

[Studyman]

I have examined Scripture. Scripture teaches me that Jesus is God incarnate. You don't believe that, therefore I will not waste any more of my time with you discussing the role of the Law. There can be no agreement on the lesser matter when there is disagreement on the primary matter.

I believe in the Word which became Flesh in "ALL" ways as we are, as the scripture teaches. I ask you questions and you deflect.

Heb. 2:
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; (Immortality) but he took on him the seed of Abraham. (Mortality)
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

God can't die but Jesus did, that was the whole point. God raised the man Jesus from the dead. You strip Him of His reward if you preach He really didn't die, couldn't die, didn't offer His Life, didn't lay down His life, which is impossible for an immortal God to do by definition..

I don't think you have examined scriptures, but are simply promoting ancient religious traditions.

You are right about one thing though, if you can't accept what the Bible says about Him, and if you can't accept what the Christ and the Prophets said about the Priests of their time, then we will surely not come to agreement on the Rest of the Word's of the Word which became Flesh.

Religious tradition is a hard thing to overcome.

 

[Nehemiah6]

God can't die but Jesus did, that was the whole point. God raised the man Jesus from the dead.

Jesus was always the GOD-MAN since His conception. So it was the GOD-MAN who died and the GOD-MAN who rose from the dead.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Tim 3:16)

 

[Dino246]

Religious tradition is a hard thing to overcome.

It certainly is. It is blinding you to my crystal-clear statement regarding learning from Scripture.

 

[garee]

I have nowhere claimed that the Law is not instructive, but I recognize that the Law was given to Israel, not to the Church. As Paul taught, following the Law does not add anything to what Jesus has already accomplished on my behalf.

Seeing all Israel is not born again Israel as a inward Jew born of the Spirit of Christ. Which Israel? The one he renamed "Christian" or the one that glories in the flesh and requires a sign before they will believe??

John 4:48Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

 

[Studyman]

Jesus was always the GOD-MAN since His conception. So it was the GOD-MAN who died and the GOD-MAN who rose from the dead.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Tim 3:16)

The point of this particular conversation is the preaching that the Messiah didn't risk His life. That He didn't struggle with His Flesh in the same way we do. That He was born Holy, and His "not sinning" is really nothing because He had access to powers we don't have.

He didn't accomplish anything, He was created an immortal who didn't have the same choices we all have.

I don't believe this is the Christ of the Bible. Your one verse doesn't change this.

I believe the Bible teaches that this man, Jesus, made right choices that the other son of God, Adam, did not make.

By the "choices" of the first Adam, all men die, but by the "choices" of the 2nd Adam, all man can be raised from this death.

To say Jesus was a "God" in that He was incapable of sinning, is demeaning to Him and takes away His Crowning Victory. "The Wages of sin is death" so death couldn't hold Him because He didn't sin. If you preach this is because He couldn't sin, that He had superpowers others don't have access to, and it wasn't His Faithfulness and commitment to His Fathers Mission that made Him special, but that He was a God unlike the first Adam, I believe this is a false Christ.

In my view this undermines His crowning achievement, takes away the very reason why He was able to qualify to pay for the sins of others.

 

[Dino246]

The point of this particular conversation is the preaching that the Messiah didn't risk His life. That He didn't struggle with His Flesh in the same way we do. That He was born Holy, and His "not sinning" is really nothing because He had access to powers we don't have.

He didn't accomplish anything, He was created an immortal who didn't have the same choices we all have.

I don't believe this is the Christ of the Bible. Your one verse doesn't change this.

I believe the Bible teaches that this man, Jesus, made right choices that the other son of God, Adam, did not make.

By the "choices" of the first Adam, all men die, but by the "choices" of the 2nd Adam, all man can be raised from this death.

To say Jesus was a "God" in that He was incapable of sinning, is demeaning to Him and takes away His Crowning Victory. "The Wages of sin is death" so death couldn't hold Him because He didn't sin. If you preach this is because He couldn't sin, that He had superpowers others don't have access to, and it wasn't His Faithfulness and commitment to His Fathers Mission that made Him special, but that He was a God unlike the first Adam, I believe this is a false Christ.

In my view this undermines His crowning achievement, takes away the very reason why He was able to qualify to pay for the sins of others.

Jesus was not created. He was with God in the beginning, and everything that has been made was made through Him (John 1:3).

Some Christians do claim that Jesus was incapable of sinning, but it's certainly not what I believe, because it makes His sinlessness a sham. Only if Jesus could sin but didn't would His victory over temptation be genuine. He was faithful to His Father's mission, but He was not "a God". He "was God" as John 1:1 declares. He was fully human and fully God, but emptied Himself to some unspecified extent so that His divine powers were temporarily suspended. He could not, for example, be omnipresent while in the flesh.

With regard to His nature, I would encourage you to read John 1:1-18 carefully.

 

[Studyman]

Jesus was not created. He was with God in the beginning, and everything that has been made was made through Him (John 1:3).

Some Christians do claim that Jesus was incapable of sinning, but it's certainly not what I believe, because it makes His sinlessness a sham. Only if Jesus could sin but didn't would His victory over temptation be genuine. He was faithful to His Father's mission, but He was not "a God". He "was God" as John 1:1 declares. He was fully human and fully God, but emptied Himself to some unspecified extent so that His divine powers were temporarily suspended. He could not, for example, be omnipresent while in the flesh.

With regard to His nature, I would encourage you to read John 1:1-18 carefully.

You said: "Respectfully, your reasoning with regard to the holiness of Christ is flawed. He is not holy "because" He followed He Father's instructions perfectly. He is holy because He is God. He began in a state of perfect holiness and never left it by reason of sin.

As a man He could most certainly have chosen to sin, but He didn't. As a man He chose not to sin. It was "Because" of His choice not to sin, that He was able to pay for my sin. That He is sitting at the Right Hand of His God. Had He chosen to sin as the first Adam, He would not have been Holy. He would not have qualified to pay for my sin. He was "Righteous" because He did no unrighteousness as defined by the Righteousness of God which David, possessed by the Spirit of Christ, said was God's Laws.

This is important to recognize exactly what He risked and overcome for us. It troubles me When men demean His sacrifice by saying He was able to overcome the "wiles of the devil" and not sin because when the going got tough, as it gets with all men, He just kicked in some super powers no other man has. This falsehood is widely believed and implied in your statement. I'm glad you explained further.

Also, the seed in Mary which was the "beginning" of the Man Jesus was most certainly created by God. The Man did not exist until Mary conceived. To say the Man existed forever is a falsehood. God risked His Life for us by "becoming" Flesh and dwelling among men. If He failed, it was the end of Him. This is what made His Sacrifice so special in my view. He literally "laid down His Life" for me". To say or imply that He didn't risk anything because He was an immortal God, is common in Mainstream Christianity, but false just the same. For this reason we are to honor Him, not just with the lips, but with the body and soul as well. This is why I pay particular attention to "EVERY WORD" of God as He instructed.

You said: " ""The Pharisees were never holy; they began in a state of unholiness and sought to attain holiness by following the Law. They didn't grasp that following the Law didn't (and couldn't) make them holy."

Again, for this very widespread and popular religious doctrine to be true, one must erase EVERY WORD that the Christ, as the Word of God, and as the Man Jesus, said about them. I posted many scriptures, not all of them, which expose this "leaven" in the hopes that you might also reconsider your position on this. The Pharisees were not "trying" to follow all of God's Laws for righteousness. The scriptures are clear on this. Zechariahs, the Wise men, Simeon, Anna all Loved God, the Pharisees were serving another god who had their version of His Laws, but had corrupted them.. I already posted the scriptures which support this truth.

It is this "leaven" which satan uses to convince people that God's Laws are against mankind. That they "make a person blind" as the serpent convinced Eve. It is, in my view, the lie that the Pharisees were following God's Laws and that is why the Christ rejected them, that is the foundation of many falsehoods being taught to the religious masses by Mainstream Preachers of this time. Like it is impossible to repent and follow the same Path Jesus walked because He only succeeded because He was God and not a man as you and I.

My hope is that you will acknowledge the Word's of the Christ where the Pharisees are concerned and consider "ALL" of the Word's of God regarding the Mainstream Preachers of His time, so that you are not furthering a religious doctrine that is not from the God of the Bible, but from the god of this world.

 

[posthuman]

If you don't believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, we aren't on the same page, and further discussion of the role of the Law is irrelevant. I don't believe Jesus cheated either; that would be completely inconsistent with His righteousness.

amen

if He is not God, there is no salvation.
anyone who claims He is merely a human does not know Him.

very man of very man, very God of very God.
the Son of Man is the Son of God, not some enlightened and exalted human.

 

[gb9]

John 10- Jesus- speaking of His life- " no one can take it from Me, I lay it down of my own accord. I have the authority to lay it down, I have the authority to take it up again. this command I received from My Father.

so, what were you saying about His life being in danger?

maybe you should read the Bible instead of printing our posts and reading them.

oh, and this verse is just another proof of the truth of Trinity that destroys your lie of oneness.

just wanted to bring this post down, to show what Jesus Himself said of His earthly life.

 

[posthuman]

He was God, not in danger of dying or losing nothing?

this Jesus brought dead men to life with a word from His mouth, walked straight through angry mobs seeking to seize Him and put Him to death and made lepers whole, regrowing lost flesh in the blink of an eye.

and you think He was in danger??
dude?
all things in heaven and on earth belong to Him and you think He stood to lose something??

 

[posthuman]

why is it that people who come to this forum thinking they are here to teach everyone are typically the ones with the most to learn? and the hardest to teach.

 

[Dino246]

You said: "Respectfully, your reasoning with regard to the holiness of Christ is flawed. He is not holy "because" He followed He Father's instructions perfectly. He is holy because He is God. He began in a state of perfect holiness and never left it by reason of sin.

As a man He could most certainly have chosen to sin, but He didn't. As a man He chose not to sin. It was "Because" of His choice not to sin, that He was able to pay for my sin. That He is sitting at the Right Hand of His God. Had He chosen to sin as the first Adam, He would not have been Holy. He would not have qualified to pay for my sin. He was "Righteous" because He did no unrighteousness as defined by the Righteousness of God which David, possessed by the Spirit of Christ, said was God's Laws.

This is important to recognize exactly what He risked and overcome for us. It troubles me When men demean His sacrifice by saying He was able to overcome the "wiles of the devil" and not sin because when the going got tough, as it gets with all men, He just kicked in some super powers no other man has. This falsehood is widely believed and implied in your statement. I'm glad you explained further.

Also, the seed in Mary which was the "beginning" of the Man Jesus was most certainly created by God. The Man did not exist until Mary conceived. To say the Man existed forever is a falsehood. God risked His Life for us by "becoming" Flesh and dwelling among men. If He failed, it was the end of Him. This is what made His Sacrifice so special in my view. He literally "laid down His Life" for me". To say or imply that He didn't risk anything because He was an immortal God, is common in Mainstream Christianity, but false just the same. For this reason we are to honor Him, not just with the lips, but with the body and soul as well. This is why I pay particular attention to "EVERY WORD" of God as He instructed.

Jesus was the acceptable sacrifice because He was sinless, righteous, holy, blameless, and spotless. You seem to be saying that He was acceptable only because of His choice not to sin. That is inadequate and overlooks the sin nature which all other humans inherited from Adam. We aren't sinful because of sinful acts chosen willingly; we are sinful in the core of our nature. Jesus was not.

 

[posthuman]

human sacrifice is forbidden sternly in the Law. this is something far, far different