The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Jesus told the pharisees they were of their father the devil.

He made a whip and violently ran the money changers out of the temple.

Is that rude enough for you?

Are you saying Jesus was rude? Yes or no?

You can believe it rude if you like, but Jesus is God. He can exercise righteous anger. Perhaps when you become Sovereign, you would qualify to act in like manner. But until then, you are tasked to exercise love. I, for one, doubt you can do those things in love. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

Your insult is noted.

It's sad that you have such a low opinion of the resurrection.

And you can do the same with my post. Again, I imagine others would see it as rude. But we are talking about Jesus here.
God can do as He pleases. Being rude on occasion does not always mean one is mean or that one does not care.
Jesus said he came not to send peace but a sword (i.e., division).

I don’t think any tone of voice would change the meaning here.

Well, I am not claiming Jesus is in any kind of sin here. Jesus is without sin and did no wrong. Men have created rules of what they think is rude. There are no such rules for God. Granted, I do not think Jesus was overly rude by man’s standards. If a person left the forums, and another person asked you, do you want to leave, too; You would take offense, and think that was rude and mean.

Some here on the forums would take offense if you did not answer the question. However, if you were to read Luke 20:2-8, and if it was not Jesus, they have a problem with them. Read Luke 20:2-8 and imagine this scenario happening on the forums between two random posters. Do you think a poster would be all happy if their question was not answered? Generally no.

There was another time where Jesus did not even give any words at all when asked a question. Again, many men in our world would see that as rude or impolite. Again, this is not a sin, but this is merely man's rules that he has made up.

May God bless you.

So is Passover for passover. The feast of unleavened is when the passover is eaten. Passover is not really the name of a holiday. Thus the yearling goat should be called Easter or an easter.

Easter would actually Purim since it is based on the book of Esther.

The passover is just the goat, then the feast of unleavened is the actual festival. So, this is more accurate.

And the book is not inspired at all. The name of God and words of God are not in it.

Passover prefigures the blood of Christ saving His people from death.

The spotless Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world.

Well, if you don't believe Scripture, I am going to call you out on it. I am not going to compliment you for unbelief or anything.

The opening words said, "to the outside natural man:" which shows you the perspective of the natural or outside man or when a Christian will sometimes employ natural man-type thinking in other areas of the Scriptures. By no means was I referring to myself or Christians who rightly divide. Nor was I implying this about you when it comes to the resurrection, either. I am merely making an analogy or comparison to make a point. Christians can sometimes approach certain places in Scripture with a carnal or natural-man perspective. They may believe in the resurrection, and the Rapture, but they may not properly believe other parts of the Bible plainly like a child and therefore they cannot see those verses in Scripture. They may not believe God is capable of doing certain things as mentioned in Scripture. So they reject certain verses in the Bible without even realizing it.

All that effort in the entire book, the Jews learn they can defend themselves anyway. It may be a true story, but it might be a pathetic one.

Scripture in what way? I don't think it is useful for anything other than history lessons.

It took me a long time to figure out the Passover. There are verses in Scripture that set up a contradiction to what people believe about the Passover. I have argued against a particular Anti-KJV only advocate a long while back and he tried to point out how there was an error in Matthew 26:17 (When there really wasn't one). He tried to point out that the 1st day of the feast of unleavened bread came after the Passover. Little does he realize that the Passover is a feast of unleavened bread. It's actually a 7-day feast. Anyway, the best article that explains the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread I discovered is this one here:

The Passover is a Feast & a Holy Convocation - IronSharpeningIron.com

As for the word "Easter": If you were to go to Etymonline, it gives you the origin of the word "Easter"

https://www.etymonline.com/word/Easter

It can have different meanings. Some of those meanings it lists as "Dawn" or "To shine", especially of the dawn. So its not stuck in having only evil or pagan meanings as many in the Anti-KJV-believing camp desire it to mean.

Do you believe 2 Timothy 3:16 when it says all Scripture is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness?
If not, you are simply in unbelief In what this verse says.