NathanH

I don't think her errors are as massive as one might think. And I think your seeing that, but cannot reconcile it with your own personal beliefs. Jesus indeed saw her heart, not her flesh(although He drew her attention by using things of the flesh). So in this manner He brought out the "heart of the matter", which is the very cornerstone that the rest of the faith should be built on(although it is often times not). He "corrected" her in the one point that is needed for true faith to grow, the rest of her heart needed no 'soil work' done. God set up the lineage of the Jews in order to keep a 'line' from begining to end of who and where the Messiah would come. The rest of the things that are apart of the Jewish faith were simply, and totally, ment to be used to point to the Messiah. Jesus saw her heart, and how it was 'pointed' toward the coming Messiah, and that was all that mattered. Now, the real good question you brought up is how does it shine a light on how we deal with others ourselves.

Well technically... We are 'in' the third day if your looking at things the way you are. Day 1 - 0-1000 a.d. Day 2 - 1001-2000 a.d. Day 3 - 2001-3000 So if your going from the verse, it states 'in' and not 'at the end' of the third day. Just something to think about.

I have viewed revalation a good many ways over the years. But the one thing that always gets me is this statement; The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, And this one; Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this. And then tie it into this one; After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this." Three phrases - must soon take place, are to take place after this, and must take place after this. I believe it is a continual unfolding that started with the writing of the book itself. I believe that since the time of the emergence of the last church we see described things have been unfolding ever since. When did it emerge? Who knows for sure, I have never looked real hard. So as far as where exactly, I think somewhere mid chapter 13. I think the beast who rises from the "earth" has done so and now we will begin to see what takes place from this. My thoughts anyways.

I think it's interesting that Jesus actually gave a parable concerning this, I believe. Luke 12 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 44 Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. 45 But if that servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed in coming,' and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. 47 And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. 48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.

I have read the book. And while the writers pull out a lot of far stretches, they do provide a lot of facts that are simply overlooked now days. I would have to say that I agree with more of it than I do not. The simple fact of it all is that what we view "church" as is certainly not what the church was and still is today. The one thing I find disturbing is that they seem to try to lead people toward a specific line of thinking about how to 'meet' with others. And in doing that all they do is set up another 'form', rather than just leaving it as it is...which is simply nothing but people who have been called out. I am not a big book reader, but this one is worth reading. It does expose a lot of tradition modern churches look at as doctrine.

We come to God through Christ because He calls to us. The "prayer", I believe, is unbiblical and can be deceptive. More often than not it is 'tecited' by those who are scared, not those who are repentive.

I have always wondered myself about this subject. I would not word the title of the thread the way it is, personally, though. It seems to say that there are other "gospels" out there. And I am a stickler for words, and "gospel" means "good news". But personally, I would rather substitute the word 'gospel' for 'books' or 'letters'. Anyways, I have not personally read through all the other books and letters that have come around. So I cannot comment specifically on them. However, what I would like to comment on is that there is a clear and very distinct difference between the "scriptures" and the rest of the Bible. I personally do not hold to the authority of a group of men who decided a specific 'group' of books should be included or not. But, I do find that what is in the "Bible" is enough for me. I have read a few of the other books left out. I personally find the book of Enoch very interesting. But what is in the Bible is plenty enough for me. And what I mean by that is I personally have no desire for any more information. I do find it interesting to read other material though. But, I think the reason why other 'gospels' were not included is the simple fact that they did not "fit". The men in charge of putting together the "Bible" just could not see how the other writings fit in. What I would do, though, if I were to desire to know if the other writings were true or not, is to hold them up to the light of the known Scriptures. And by that I mean what we call the "old" testament. If they are completely contradictory, then I would dismiss them, if not, then take them with a grain of salt.

Lol. I think that there is not much to be said that has not been said already. To continue will be unfair to the topic of the thread. Obviously this has gone past the original intent and into personality conflict. After this post I will not venture into this thread again. But I am completely open to personal conversations. One last thought that sums up the rest of the posts I have made. It revolves around your statement; Sinners have plenty to worry about. In fact, while sinners may portray an outward appearance(physical) of being nonchalant, their soul(spiritual) is anything but at peace. They can, and do, try and remove that 'feeling' - but it never goes away. Sometimes we as believers forget what it felt like to be 'lost'. And there is a good reason why the Bible calls them 'lost'. Eph 2:11-12 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. Sinners will continue to indulge regardless of anything else. Lets use the person who does believe in eternal torment for example. Lets say this person is a believer in Christ. Lets say he is a "Christian". Is this person ever going to sin again while alive on this earth? Does his belief in eternal torment for the lost not break him to the point of sickening disgust of what sin does to a person? Sinners have no hope. They have no direction. Belief or disbelief in eternal torment is not the deciding factor for them. Hope, peace, and life will be what changes them. No one here knows what hell is like for an absolute, and no one here knows how one 'exists' there, because no one having gone there ever returns. But what we can do is what Paul did; Act 24:24-25 After some days Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, and he sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. And as he reasoned about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment, Felix was alarmed and said, "Go away for the present. When I get an opportunity I will summon you." There is a coming judgment when all will be judged. The righteous will go on to eternal life and the unrighteous to eternal death. Its as simple as that. Persuasion based upon the physical nature of pain and suffering is trying to intertwine the physical and the spiritual. And when we do that we loose perspective of both. Because, as you have stated yourself, they cannot be 'mixed' together, they are different realms.

.Repentance has nothing to do with salvation! Repent of what, being lost, it doesn't work like that. Of sins, Sinners don't repent of sins, Christians do. The depraved person doesn't have the Holy Spirit - he can't truely repent. Through man's pride he trys to make himself part of salvation, the sinner's prayer is all wrong that says, forgive me of my sins. What else is wrong is, Jesus come into my heart. MHO Calling for back-up. Back up has arrived!!!..... lol. Just playing a little. But to be serious, this is a whole different topic. I brought it into discussion to help clarify my beliefs about hell and eternal torment. However, it is a "worthy" topic and is quite interesting to discuss. Maybe you could start another thread. If you do, I would be more than willing to engage in conversation.

I was not going to respond because there really is not anything to respond too. I assume that you are finished with the conversation. But I did want to understand what exactly you meant by this statement. I am not trying to make 'my' point. I was answering a question posed by the OP and while this thread has taken a few turns here and there I have always tried to stay on topic. I thought of something on the way home this evening. What you have stated is that consequences should be known. And I agree. So the difference between us is what the consequences are. My belief is that the consequences are the same for all sinners. Death is the consequence. But what got me to thinking is if you believe there are different 'levels' of consequences for sin? To me it would seem that if its a matter of 'repayment' of the evil done or anything like that then there would have to be a direct reflection of it. So, then the one who only sinned once(very unlikely) would not have to suffer as grave of consequences as the one who sinned all their life and was as evil as the day is long. But I think you would agree that the Bible is clear there is no different 'levels'. The teenager and the 100 year old man will suffer the same fate. I think that maybe we are getting mixed up with the first and second death. I believe that after the first death there is place called 'Hades'. And yes, I do believe there is torment in that place. I believe that is where the soul is placed until the time of the second death, the final destruction of the soul. So maybe that is where we have common ground in our belief, but are unable to put into words. But don't get me wrong, I still do not think that it should be a main issue in presenting the Gospel. And at the same time I would not leave it out completely. However, because we know that death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire, second death, I will never be able to state that hell is torment for eternity.

I cannot say I "like" discussions of this nature, but deep down I do see a need for them. Its hard though, because many times emotions get involved and then the discussion goes out the window. Semantics do sometimes get in the way sometimes. But lets play with them a little. Belief and repentance are the same thing. Its simply a matter of what a person has believed. lol On one hand you have the person who has believed they are sinful and deserve a life of eternal torment, burning in hell. Ouch! What do they then repent of? Well, following the logical train, they have repented of their sin. However, because their focus was on the past wrong and future punishment they lack the belief that Christ came to save from sins here and now. Then on the other hand you have the person who has believed they are sinful and desire the eternal life God gives. Woohoo! What did they repent of? Themselves...see, to have life eternal one must die to himself here and now. Their focus is past, present, and future. They have the focus of a Savior who saves from sin and with that comes life. Now, does that mean that one 'repentance' cannot follow another 'repentance'? Certainly not. It can, and often times does. It did with me. But, and thats a big but, often times it does not. These are the ones who you see in "church" for a while, then turn around only to see them living the same ole life they lived before. There was repentance, but not the saving kind. The idea of repentance revolves around a 'life' choice. Repentance is not an "event" that takes place, it is a "choice" that takes(ongoing) place. And when someone looks toward the future they miss the here and now. Eternal torment 'grabs' the attention away from the spiritual, and puts it onto the physical. And until someone can understand they are 'dead'(spiritually) in their sins, they can never reach true repentance. They may repent physically, but they are likely not to repent spiritually. Is this all that important? It was important to Jesus. Read John 8. Not once did Jesus speak of eternal torment. However, He did speak to them about life, death, sin, and freedom. Some believe the Gospel to be the good news that we do not have to go to hell. But the truth of the Gospel is that Jesus the Christ paid the price for our sins and we are free in Him. The outcome of this freedom is life for us, but death to those who do not choose Him. Another thought to chew on is this; Why sin? The majority will say because it gives man a choice and therefore he is not a 'robot'. Yes there are different lines of thinking, but thats another topic. But if thats the case, then how much more of a choice would it be for someone to choose to live for Christ over just living for themselves and then going "poof" in the end? Personally, I would say it would be a BIG choice. See, we think that...get that..."we"...think that "we" are doing God a favor and "growing the kingdom" by doing whatever it takes to "win" souls. Jesus had a different method...tell them the truth...tell them the good news...then let them decide. The truth? Hell, eternity, torment, burning, non-existence, etc...whatever, the truth is that life is available to those who choose a Savior who can save them and they choose Him now. Those who just want a 'savior' from hell are not going to find one.

I hope you don't mind, but I get lost in the multiple quote thing. I would like to respond with three parts instead. #1 - The scripture that clearly states it is the same scripture you are stating does not. I cannot convince you, or point anything new out. To destroy something is to destroy something. Something that is dead, is dead. It is the opposite of alive. Lets define the word "exist". If you take a piece of paper and burn it, does it still exist? Existing is to "have real being, whether physical or spiritual"; "to continue to be"; "to have life or the functions of vitality". Death is a cessation of existing. When a person, physical human dies, do they exist here on earth anymore? Their body does for a while, right? Until it goes decomposes and turns back into that which it was to begin with. Death is to not exist. Adam and Eve died the very day they disobeyed. Right? But they were still alive physically, and they still had a soul. So what died? Their spirit. Their spirit ceased to exist. Now I know that "soul" and "spirit" are interchangeable depending on who your talking to. Each one has a different opinion of each. Please don't get lost in the words, but rather look at the full picture. #2 - I think that you answer your own question and are fighting against your own thoughts. "heat - cold", "up - down", "in - out", "light - dark", "good - bad", and yes "life - death", "existence - non-existence". There is no way around it. It is the truth. The only way it could be possible is if God gave eternal life to those who He was going to punish. But you will never find that, but always find the opposite of that. #3 - The consequence is death. Humans are created to live. That is why we do not think about each breath we take, and we do not think about each heart beat our heart makes. To consider eternal death is quite enough. I will not lie. Eternal torment does sound worse than eternal death. But we are not to try to persuade people based upon earthly physical matters, the feeling of torment. For if that is so, then when persuaded they will only think of that which is physical. They have no desire for a savior from sin, just a savior from the punishment of sin. This is where the professing believers are today. The ones who desired a savior from punishment are quite content in their 'position' of not having to 'suffer' in hell. All the while making excuses after excuses for the sin they live in. Where as the ones who desired a savior from sin, are the ones who walk in the light and live lives pleasing to God. You can call me anything you like. You can say I do whatever you like. But I have not called God a lier, nor have I indicated that He has to 'make something up'. He did give us something to compare eternity with Him against, and that is eternity away from Him. In Him is life. Without Him is death. People can continue to 'turn' people toward God with anything they want. But what it will not do is turn them away from their sin. And until someone turns away from their sin, they CANNOT turn to God. That is repentance at it's simplest definition. Repentance is not a turning away from what you do not want to experience, future tense. Rather, repentance is turning away from something, present tense. And I can claim without a shadow of a doubt that until someone repents they cannot believe. And that, friends, is what Jesus and His disciples preached - repentance.

Thats just it, words are only as meaningful as the one listening gives it. I do not believe what I do because I think God would be "mean" if He tormented a sinner forever. That argument could be made about everything within the Bible. Why sin in the first place? And why hell in the last place? "perpetual directions", precisely. We have no idea of either of them. What we do know is that it is a fixed direction based upon the word "eternal". Luk 16:26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' This text defines the "fixed" nature of it, but at the same time defines the 1st death. And if the 1st death is fixed, then so is the second. Here is another way of looking at things. Why two deaths? Is one not good enough? Is death not...death? The 1st death refers to the death of the physical body. The second death refers to the one of the soul. But you ask, "what about the spirit"? For a sinner, it is already dead. Something cannot die if it is dead already. In the end, who knows exactly what will happen. We can speculate, but will never know. However, I will refuse to try to "convince" someone to believe in Jesus by means of scaring them of burning alive forever. I simply do not see that as being the way Jesus talked with people about their sin. I once heard it put this way. People who are dead in their sins are going through a 'hell' of sorts in the present tense. No, I do not think that its the hell referred to in the Bible, but they are still in misery. They are separated from God. For a creature created by Him, that is very miserable. If those people are not going to be swayed by the preaching of good news about a savior who will save you from the sin your in, present tense, then why would they be concerned about a savior who would save them from their sins for eternity, future tense? However, if then we scare them past the point of seeing the sin their in now, to the eternal sin, then what they do is seek a way out, not the way out. They have not believed because of their sin, but they have believed because of their fear.

There are two things I would like to point out in regards to the above post. #1 - All it takes is a look back to the first book of the Bible to see that the very idea of death, complete death, was used in the original deception of Adam and Eve. Gen 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." God did not lie, period. However... Gen 3:1-4 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. Satan lied, period. So tell me. Did they or did they not die? Let me answer my own question, they did die. But we do not have the complete understanding of the totality of their death. We will never have it because we are not like God...another lie of Satan. Obviously Adam and Eve did not 'disappear' from existence. But they did die. Their spirit died. What God said would happen, happened. Let me pose another question. How can you live in death? How can something exist that is dead? #2 - The reason people turn from their sin is not because of fear, but because of love. When Jesus spoke to sinners it was in a manner of offering them peace from weariness. Mat 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. When Jesus spoke about hell and eternal punishment He was doing so to those who had the notion in their head that they were going to live eternally because of their righteousness. It does not negate the fact that there is a hell, and there is eternal punishment. However, Jesus did not call the masses to Himself through fear, but out of love. People turn from their sin when they realize there is nothing they can do to 'make up for it'. It cannot be fear of death, or punishment, because the man or woman without Christ is already dead. Now, I will agree with you that it does seem counter intuitive with the whole "live like nothing else matters because we will just die, cease to exist" mentality. But ponder on this for a moment; Adam and Eve were alive at one point. They knew exactly what God said to them, but obviously they did not believe it to be true or they just did not care. Who knows for sure. So in all actuality they simply believed what they wanted to believe, without serious regard to what 'could/will' happen. The atheist and every other unbeliever is going to believe what they want regardless. It is not till the Spirit of God comes to a person and convicts them of their sin, and the consequences, that they will believe. And the Spirit of God is not going to lie to that individual. So what we(you and I) believe about hell and the life their-in, really has no forbearance on the situation. Let me clarify that last statement. It is up to us to tell the truth. Nothing more, nothing less. And that is what we will be judged on. I have never stated, and never will, that there is not eternal punishment or that there is not a hell. There is. No doubt in my mind. But what I do state is that there is not life in that hell, and that the soul and body are both destroyed there. What I believe is that while it is easy to 'think' that someone could care less about how they live in this "life", because they will just 'cease' to exist, that the fact is God has put "eternity" into the heart of man. Ecc 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. And because He has put that there, man's desire is going to revolve around that in a sense. In other words, the thought of eternal death and punishment, is something that can only be contrasted with eternal life. The thought of eternal death and punishment, the cessation of life, is simply not appealing to creatures designed to live. And that is what we have to wrap our minds around, to the degree we are given the ability. Mankind, no matter who he is, wants to live forever. It has nothing to do with bad things happening to them, but rather the inability to live. The use of eternal "heat and torment" to win someone to belief in Christ is simply not the way He did it nor the way He taught His disciples. If you would not mind, I would like to see some examples of it if you have the time.

Isa 66:22-24 "For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the LORD, so shall your offspring and your name remain. From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the LORD. "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." This states that they will see the dead "bodies". If you destroy something, it is forever in that state of destruction. Therefore, the worm shall not die, and the fire shall not be quenched is a statement to the eternal nature of the destruction. This passage gives no indication that the man or woman who never is born again will live eternally in hell. You will not find any, any, passages that state a man or woman without Christ will receive the ability to live eternally - no matter the state they are in. Rev 20:10-15 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. The first death is that of physical death. The second death is that of the soul. Think of it this way. The first death kills the body, in other words, the body is "destroyed". Right? This even happens to believers. Our bodies are destroyed when we die. They are sinful. And destruction means it is no more. Gone. Obliterated. The second death, second destruction, is only for those who are not in Christ. This is the destruction of the entire 'kit and caboodle'. It only happens to those who's names are not written in the book of...life... Eternal death is just that, eternal...death. It is a state of death that will be forever and ever. Eternal punishment is just that, eternal...punishment. It is a state of being punished(suffering the consequences of their choice) forever and ever. What you have to do is contrast eternal death with eternal life. Then it makes a little more sense because that is exactly what it is.

Yes and no. I did not word that phrase right. The tree is perfect from the beginning, because the tree is Christ. What I meant to state was that Abraham was not an "Israelite". And furthermore, neither was Isaac. But yet we know and understand that God drew Abraham from the "wild" of the world. And from this "uprooting"(obedience of Abraham), the physical Israel was brought forth. Therefore, in the beginning, it was wild. However, the "seed" of true Israel(that which is physical is temporal, that which is spiritual is eternal) was "planted" in this cultivated ground. It was a perfect seed, and produced the perfect plant. So, I apologize for the confusion with the prior post, it was a bad choice of words.

Well, I would almost stay out of this one, but I have strong beliefs in this department. I believe the soul of the un-believer is destroyed. I believe it is an eternal destruction. But I find no where that it is eternal life in hell. There are two categories. Those who are in Christ and 'inherit' eternal life, and those who are found outside of Christ and do not receive eternal life. Mat 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Man is "Body, Soul, and Spirit". The spirit of man is dead, does not exist, until the Spirit of God give it life. This is called the "new birth". So, Jesus was not speaking hypothetically here when He says "both soul and body". The spirit, the 'eternal' part of man is not existent apart from the new birth. Now, just on a very basic level; what does "destroy" mean? If I "destroyed" a piece of paper, is it still a piece of paper? If I "destroy" my car, is it still a car? The fact of the matter is that the eternal aspect of it is that it is 'irreversible'. Once a person is destroyed in hell, they are gone. Its a done deal. But they do not live there eternally, because everything they are is destroyed.

Maybe this can also clarify it a little further; Abraham - conception - formation Issac - seed - plant Jacob - offspring - branches When you look at a seed you cannot always tell what it is. But everything that it will become is inside that seed. And when it grows it can be known by the branches, leaves, and fruit it produces.

Yes, you are right we do have to be wise about how we keep context within context. But at the same time we have to see the distinction of whether we are talking about spiritual matters, or we are talking about physical matters. There is a definite distinction there and it is best we make that when talking about such things that are built upon one or the other. We must...must...see our identity in Christ when speaking of spiritual matters. If we try to identify ourselves in Christ apart from that we loose perspective. When we look at the physical things we loose 'perspective' and are but "infants in Christ". The only thing that makes natural branches natural is the care and attention placed upon the plant at its conception. Figuratively speaking, when God formed the "plant." of "Israel" He did so in a specific way - from a wild plant. Gen 12:1-4 Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." So Abram went, as the LORD had told him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. Then, later we know that God made His promise through the seed of Abraham. That seed referring to Christ. So, all "nations" after the seed of Abraham can inherit the promises. Which is why we can inherit the promises, those who are in that seed - Christ. However, Abraham was not given the name Israel. See, it the "wild" plant had to be further "cared for" and "tamed". That plant was finally "tamed" in Jacob. Gen 32:28 Then he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." And so it is, through this "tamed" plant that the "natural olive tree branches" were "propagated" or "tended". But we can very easiely loose sight of the big picture when we think that "natural olive tree" itself is anyone other than Christ. Branches grew from this tree. See, in the plant makeup branches, and what grows on them, do not dictate what the actual tree is. You can graft an different tree's branches onto another tree and those branches will not necessarily produce the same fruit as the natural branches, but they share the same source of nutrients. True Israel, the tree itself, is Christ. There are "natural" branches that have and still do produce(give physical indication of) what the tree really is. That is why the Christ had to come from the 'seed' of Abraham. Because, there was another 'seed'. Remember? A 'tree' grew from each. Which, can be real interesting to think about in the BIG picture of the Bible and all the implications that come from it. So to boil it all down. The only reason physical 'Israel' is so is because she came from the 'seed' that was ordained by God in Abraham. But do not confuse the branches for the true tree itself. They are one, but the plant can live without the branches, however the branches cannot live apart from the tree. And branches who had not grown from a tree can be placed onto it and become 'one' with the tree. Therefore, Jew(physical Israelites from one physical seed) as well as Gentile(those that came from other physical seeds) can be one(spiritually) in Christ(True Israel).

I can only hope that our memory will be wiped. There are a lot of things I would like to forget, and a lot of things I would like others to forget. lol God said He will "remember no more" our sins, so if He is able to do so I would think other would too; not remember things that is(people, sins, events, etc). But then at the same time, it would seem as though some things would always be in remembrance or else it would not have been much use of us having lived this life to begin with.

Let me start by saying I did not mean to assume, and I did not mean to make it sound like you said there were "2 sets of individuals". It stems from the thoughts I have heard over the years that it is what most think. It seems most do not give room for those who believe somewhere in the middle of the two extreme sides. I do not personally think anyone can find any authority to declare something absolute unless it states so in perfect form within the Bible. For instance, I can declare, with authority, that the Bible declares Jesus as the Son of God - the Messiah. Believe me when I say that I can completely relate to your feelings at this point. I too have a "first experience" with being reveled something from the Bible. And that revelation is one that no one will ever sway me away from. I physically and spiritually labored to come to the point of giving up all I thought and had been taught for the earnest desire of pure knowledge of the subject I was studying. I knew it was nothing that I had never been taught before, it was nothing I had even contemplated before, and for all intensive purposes it was something that most people do not teach at all. So please understand that I do not mean to take away from your experience in this subject matter, it is simply the way I see things. That subject for me was baptism. However, to get to the question. Clothes - I see the typology used in several places. The one that comes to mind the quickest is one of the parable's Jesus gave. Mat 22:2-14 "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.' But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.' And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests. "But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. And he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen." The wedding garment here is obviously the deciding factor in whether or not the man could stay at the feast. The man had obviously heard the call of the servants, but had not received a garment. The second place that comes to mind is in Revelation when Jesus is addressing the churches. Rev 3:1-5 "And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: 'The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. "'I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. Here again we see ones who have garments that are either soiled or unsoiled. The idea is that its a "black and white" thing. Either the garment is soiled or unsoiled. There is no in between. One last one on the clothes is the very first time it is used as an example, in my personal opinion, as righteousness. I think it stands alone, without need of explanation, of the typology used here. A sacrifice was made on Adam and Eves behalf, and the result of that sacrifice was placed upon them. Gen 3:21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them. Now, when it comes to the other two I started seeing something interesting last night. Wine skins and wine are two mutually exclusive things, yet they are two things that are pointless without each other. So with that thought in mind, Jesus was more than likely giving a three part example, not three individual examples. Make sense? One thing that points me in that direction is the conversation that led up to this example. The "Pharisees and their scribes" were asking why Jesus was spending His time around tax collectors and sinners. So He answered them, and then they asked Him another question; "The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink." So the question was not so much in regards to the law, as it was to the 'appearance' of outward righteousness. But this is where it gets interesting for me. And please understand that I am not claiming authority in this regard, just what I see. First Jesus gives the example, that I firmly believe, of righteousness. In other words, they do not have the outward appearance of this righteousness because it would be counter intuitive with the way people had looked at righteousness; the "new" righteousness would not match the old, and it would only serve to ruin(tear) the new. Then the next, wine skins, are that which wine is placed in. So here it seems He is dealing with the individual themselves. This example revolves more around the wine than it does the skin, but it is in reference to what it will do to the skin(container of the wine). I believe He was making reference to the disciples themselves and the filling of the Spirit that they would experience in time. They had not yet become "new creations" in Christ. They were "old" vessels and were unable to hold that which was a "new" thing; the indwelling of the Spirit of God. Up to that point in time the Spirit of God only came upon certain men through the ages, after Christ He comes upon all believers. Then last the specific issue with the wine itself. Which again, I firmly believe, is a repeated illustration of the Spirit of God. "Old" wine is good stuff...let me tell you. lol. Seriously, it tastes very, very good. But, we know that it also is a 'fleshly' taste and feeling that comes from "old" wine. And perceived(not actual) righteousness that comes from the "keeping" of the law is something that "feels" good; kind of like a glass of some really good wine. It just makes you feel good when you believe you have done something good. And so Jesus was referring to the fact that His disciples had not yet been fully trained(discipled) and if they were to partake of the "new" wine(righteousness) they would more than likely not consider it as good as the old stuff. So, there you have it in a very short(as short as I could get it) layout of what I think Jesus is saying. I firmly believe that they all refer to righteousness, taking into consideration that righteousness is what the Scribes and Pharisees looked at on the outward appearance of man. And this outward appearance is what Jesus was answering a question about.

Wow. Am I glad you asked this question. I just spent the last little while writing a reply only to have seen some new and interesting things about this very short illustration Jesus gave. While I still do not see it referring to the covenants directly, I do see some very interesting things concerning it. I do not have time tonight to write all I have in mind, so tomorrow will have to be the day. There is a lot too it now that I sit back and think. I am not sure how it will all fit on one post, but I will do my best to keep it short. I apologize for not being able to get to it quicker, I simply do not want to try and rush the reply.

Hi Nathan, excellent response. It shows that once again I wasn't clear enough in my post to put in to words what I was trying to convey. I didn't say there were only 2 sets of individuals. I said 2 covenants, which is true. The understanding of what sin is changed with the new covenant is all. Is it wrong to follow Gods righteous law from the Old Testament? Only if you are seeking your righteousness through it. I am not quite sure about Jews and the law. The bible is quite clear that once a covenant has been established no man can disannul it. The book of Acts speaks of those who told Paul that he should "do this thing" so that those who were concerned that he was teaching Jews not to follow the law would see that he was living lawfully as a Jew and Paul had no objection. The new Covenant changed 2 things, one is the need for animal sacrifices, the other is allowing Gentiles in without bringing them under the Old Testament law. Please help me understand something as I can't find it in scripture. Where does one find the authority to declare the clothes, wine skins, and wine as typologies of righteousness? I have to admit that my own understanding does not come from scripture itself but the spirit that dwells in me taught me. It was the first experience of revelation that I experienced upon asking to be given understanding of scriptures. I was shown that the parable represented the two covenants and the differences in righteousness and life in the blood. I expect those who have the same spirit I do to bear the same witness of the scriptures. The bible openly declares that doctrines of devils are here in our present day being followed by those who are persuaded by them. I have trusted God not to be sending me wrong information but who am I to say to the potter how he should form me? I only ask him to make me a vessel unto honor who bears witness to the truth. Have an excellent day in the Lord! Gary I appologize for the confussion. But I a glad you ask the questions you do. As soon as I get a chance to sit down in front of a bigger screen(using phone right now) I will be more than happy to show you the things I have seen in my studies.

Gary, I do not doubt there are some who indeed find it "easier" to try following the law over death to their flesh. However, to think there are only two sets of individuals - those who follow the law and those who follow Christ - is a very big assumption. I believe there is more. I believe there are those who still consider the law as a true and lasting testament of God. But they in no way seek their right standing with God as having anything to do with the law. There are numerous times the law is brought into consideration by the very ones who walked with Christ. But they never once look at it as a means for righteouness. There is no way to seperate the words of God from His Son. When Jesus refers to the wine analogy He is doing so in regards to righteousness, not daily life. In the passage Jesus gives examples of clothes, wine skins, and wine. All of them are typologies of righteouness. It would be a very long stretch to associate them with the law.

My wife sent me the link yesterday. Her comment was, "made me think of you". I am glad to see there is a follow up to it. I was curious about what happened after the fact.