which commandments?

November 25, 2004

You don't understand what it means to fulfill. To fulfill means to satisfy and to fill up. Accordingly, Christ said He is Himself the resurrection.

Christ said He had come to fulfill the prophets.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

The Greek word for fulfill is pleroo and means to fill full.

You had to look up the Greek to find out what I had already said, as though I hadn't said it?

It means the opposite of abolish, in both English and in Greek grammar. "I am not come to destroy, BUT to fulfill." The terms destroy and fulfill are used as opposites.

Nice try. "Destroy" is never an opposite to "fufill". The opposite to "Destroy" is "preserve", or "maintain".

Christ's fulfillment of the prophets was Himself, and His death at Calvary. It was at Calvary that both the law and the prophets were fulfilled. Thus Gal 3:19: "[the law] was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to Whom the promise was made".

Note that the promise was made to Christ, not Israel.

The problem is, you are still looking at events rather than a person.

Edited November 25, 2004 by Colossians

November 25, 2004

Can you show me anywhere that "the peoples" was a term to reference the Jews?

Just show me where there was a covenant made with anyone else. I'm all ears.

(Show me from either the new or old testament.)

Still waiting.

November 25, 2004

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

An often misunderstood verse.

“Establish” does not mean “keep”. The law is established in our coming to Christ: its utility is verified.

Once in Christ, the law is redundant (Gal 3:24,25)

November 25, 2004

The prophecy of Jeremiah that in Rama Rachel would weep for her children:

1. Tell us why this is so given that Judea was of not Rachel's progeny, but Leah's?

(Why doesn't it say "Leah weeping for her children"?).

Because Ramah is in the Tribal allotment of Benjamin, not Judea, and Benjamin was the hindermost son of Rachel.

This is beside the point: the primary killings were in Judea, beginning in Bethlehem. (Mt 2:16). And most of the killings were in Judea. Why doesn’t Leah get a mention?

2. What was the symbolism in the death of Rachel when giving birth to Benjamin?

3. Why is it Jacob chose to be buried with Leah and not Rachel?

See, the difference here is that I don't go looking for symbolism that is not inferred by Scripture. People run around and apply symbolism where the Bible does not explicity denote that symbolism is applied.

So you don’t know.

The whole OT is metaphorical or allegorical in its expression of the NT. Even Hagar/Ishmael refers to Sinai, (thus proving that the Arabs are Semites).

Jacob, Rachel and Leah are one of the chief foundations. These events I have asked you about are extremely significant with regard to the NT. I will refrain from letting you know the answer yet.

Edited November 25, 2004 by Colossians

November 25, 2004

Why have you ignored these Scriptures?

Romans 11

1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not!

To not cast them away simply means to not ban them from the opportunity to come to Christ, carte blanche.

It does not mean that God is still wishing to save them based on who they are.

For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Paul proves that God has not banned them outright, for he himself used to be one. And the way he was saved was the same way we are: faith in Christ. Nothing more. Nothing less.

2God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.

Yes that’s right: “foreknew”. And we understand “foreknew” as “know in the now, beforehand”. Thus, “as many as he foreknew, He also predestined”. Only those individuals whom He predestines, will be saved. The same with the Gentiles.

5Even so then, at THIS PRESENT TIME there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

At the time of writing, and onward. Which necessarily excludes any corporatising of them as a unit: they are necessarily individuals who exist throughout the ages.

6And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

The chief/primary work of man is to reproduce himself. Thus this verse tells us that salvation has nothing to do with who we are according to the flesh, which is why God is no respecter of persons.

7What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8Just as it is written:

"God has given them a spirit of stupor,

Eyes that they should not see

And ears that they should not hear,

To this very day."

Thus these Jews were rejected by God, and went to hell. Along with the 600,000 or so who fell in the wilderness. God was not interested in who their great grand daddy was.

"The Deliverer will come out of Zion,

And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;

27For this is My covenant with them,

When I take away their sins."

You haven’t yet noticed that this NT verse is deliberately misquoted by the Holy Spirit from the OT.

Note the OT: “The Deliverer shall come TO Zion, and TO those in Jacob WHO turn from their sin”.

What is the Lord telling us here in equating Paul’s quote with that in the OT?

What can we conclude about the equating of “Jacob” with “those in Jacob”?

Hint: Refer Rom 9:6.

Edited November 25, 2004 by Colossians

November 25, 2004

The OT is not the veil. The veil is what is over their hearts when reading the OT. And the veil was that which stopped them seeing the NT.
There is only one testament that is valid: that which entails the death of the Testator.
Once that Testament is in force, the old is redundant.

The veil, again, was blindness, and hardness of heart.

The Bible is one book. The New Covenant is a Renewed version of the Older version.

In the old days, people used to de-seed cotton by hand, and it was tedious. Along came Eli Whitney with the cotton gin, which de-seeded cotton quicker and more efficiently. The cotton gin did not do away with the need to de-seed cotton, but provided a better way to do it.

The New Covenant did not do away with anything. It did not do away with the need for a sacrifice, it provides a better sacrifice, Messiah. It does not do away with the need for the shedding of blood; rather, it provides us with better blood, namely the blood of Jesus. The NT does not do away with the need for a priesthood; rather it provides us with a better priesthood and a better High Priest, namely, Jesus.

The New Covenant is nothing more than a better, and modified version of the Old Covenant.

It means the opposite of abolish, in both English and in Greek grammar. "I am not come to destroy, BUT to fulfill." The terms destroy and fulfill are used as opposites.Nice try. "Destroy" is never an opposite to "fufill". The opposite to "Destroy" is "preserve", or "maintain".
Christ's fulfillment of the prophets was Himself, and His death at Calvary. It was at Calvary that both the law and the prophets were fulfilled. Thus Gal 3:19: "[the law] was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to Whom the promise was made".
Note that the promise was made to Christ, not Israel.
The problem is, you are still looking at events rather than a person.

OK now look at it again. The meaning of a word is determined by the context in which it appears. The word fulfill here is used as as the opposite of destroy. Look at it: I am not come to destroy, BUT to fulfill." In both the English and Greek is the same. Perhaps fulfill or pleroo does not always mean the opposite of destroy in other verses that it is used, but it is used that way here. The inclusion of the word "but" indicates that we are talking about opposite concepts. Christ is saying, "You are thinking that I am come to destroy the law, when in fact, I am coming to uphold or establish it."

You are trying to impose fulfill in the absolute sense such as fulfilled prophecy. Once a prophecy is fulfilled, then we no longer look to its fulfillment, but rather look at it as a past event. That, however is not what Christ is saying here. Part of the difference in our views, is that you are a preterist. A preterist believes that everything in prophecy has come to pass and has thus been fulfilled. That in part, shapes your perspectives here, since you try spiritualize a lot of things that I don't.

I do not believe all prophecy has been fulfilled. I do not believe that Armageddon is a spiritual event, I do not believe that this is the New Heavens and New Earth, and so on. Therefore we will always remain at an impasse. I start from a different frame of reference than you do, and therefore we will end up at different conclusions about Scripture and its relation to the Christian.

This is beside the point: the primary killings were in Judea, beginning in Bethlehem. (Mt 2:16). And most of the killings were in Judea. Why doesn

borntorebel · November 25, 2004

horizoneast says,

Remember earlier I said I knew who you were and I knew who sent you. I’ve watched you for some time now parroting your master’s message. A typical example is the thread you started on Is "eternity" really "eternal"? It comes straight out of Ray’s mouth. He borrows the worst errors from the Adventists, JWs, Mormons and other rejects; mixes it with his own peculiar babblings and then passes it off as the only true gospel. It’s really very pathetic; it is the “other gospel” we have been warned against.

No it comes from scripture. By your logic, all christians who believe we are saved by grace through faith are just parroting Martin Luther, and those who preach that faith without works are dead are just parroting John Wesley. That's the most ludicrous accusation I've ever heard. What Ray says agrees with what I found before I ever read his site. BUt of course, as you've proven before, and in this post, you don't listen to what I say, you just make up your mind and then stick it no matter how wrong it is. Since they're such grievous errors, too bad you don't the ability to refute or disprove a single statement I've made. Guess you're "true" belief doesn't even have the strength to refute "errors" as you call them.

horizoneast says,

You would have done better staying with the JWs. At least their integrity level is not as low.

Once again, proof of what I just said. I have told you I'm not a JW and have never studied their teachings while seeking truth, yet you still insist on sayihng I am one. Will your lies never end? Oh yeah, forgot that scripture that you do what your father does.

horizoneast,

Ron, you don’t have an original idea in your head. You merely go to your master and copy and past his every word. You need to change masters. Which will it be, L. Ray Smith or Jesus Christ? The choice is yours. The Book says you cannot serve two masters. It also warns of the danger of trusting the vain philosophies of men. L. Ray Smith is a dead-ender.

The only thing I've said that came directly from his site I quoted as being from him. Just because we agree doesn't mean he's my master. I don't consider him that and haver never said anything of the sort. My Lord and Master is the Lord Jesus Christ. Yes God's word does warn against trusting the vain philosophies of man. You should heed God's warning and ask Him to open your eyes to see His truth.

May God's grace, power and peace be with you,

Ron

nebula · November 25, 2004

Can you show me anywhere that "the peoples" was a term to reference the Jews?
Just show me where there was a covenant made with anyone else. I'm all ears.

(Show me from either the new or old testament.)

Still waiting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I gave you an answer.

nebula · November 25, 2004

You haven

nebula · November 25, 2004

It does not mean that God is still wishing to save them based on who they are.

Paul proves that God has not banned them outright, for he himself used to be one. And the way he was saved was the same way we are: faith in Christ. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Only those individuals whom He predestines, will be saved. The same with the Gentiles.

At the time of writing, and onward. Which necessarily excludes any corporatising of them as a unit: they are necessarily individuals who exist throughout the ages.

The chief/primary work of man is to reproduce himself. Thus this verse tells us that salvation has nothing to do with who we are according to the flesh, which is why God is no respecter of persons.

Thus these Jews were rejected by God, and went to hell. Along with the 600,000 or so who fell in the wilderness. God was not interested in who their great grand daddy was.

What is the Lord telling us here in equating Paul