It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Romans;- Knowing and keeping the law

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

No man in this era is, "saved by by virtue of keeping the law written in our hearts".

Disraeli as gone to great lengths to make sure you understand that in every Era man is Saved by Grace. I will add this, Under era of law those who believe and by grace were saved had to do works (keeping the Mosaic law) in order to enter into the promised Kingdom. The majority of them were Jews or their patriarchs.

In this age for those who believe, there is no gender, no race, no prominence of one over another, no we are all one in Christ, to receive the benefits of Christ's work and the rewards for what is done in this life in his name.


edit on 9/21/2019 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 04:25 PM
link   
oops!
edit on 9/21/2019 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Disraeli, the 144 who are marked are literal Jewish male virgins preserved in and from the Great Tribulation to be the servants of Christ in his Kingdom forever, and that is yet to come. The context of Revelation suggest the only answer is a literal application not a spiritual application.


edit on 9/21/2019 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY

The whole book of the Acts of the Apostles is a historical recording of the transition from the age of Mosaic Law to the Church age in the context of the Bible as a whole.

Genesis 1:3- chapter3 is a transition from Genesis 1:1-2, Genesis 8 is a transition from before the flood to after the flood and some new rules and eating habits were given. Exodus-Joshua is a transition from nomadic Israel to the Nation of Israel with new rules added for Israel alone. Matthew is a transition from scattered Israel to the call of their Messiah. Acts is a transition from Law and the Messianic calling to the church Age, Hebrews through Rev 19 is a transition from church age to the Great Tribulation. Revelation 20-22 is the transition from the tribulation to the final Kingdom and then the Eternal Kingdom.

You will note in the books or sections of them that marks the transitions you will find new rules to live by in that age.


edit on 9/21/2019 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny

Paul redefined 9 of the ten commandments for the church but never did he redefine what it meant to be a Jew.



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Great thread.
Even though I don't agree 100% its well articulated ,now I'll have to go through you other threads.thanks for the brain/soul food



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Yes, we are. Part of that Law is recognition of God (i.e., recognition of Christ Jesus, and His work on the cross). It's Commandment 1 - No other Gods before me.

Recognition of Christ who is the greatest work and gift of God to all of us is part of that Law.
edit on 21-9-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2019 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn
The symbolic explanation of the details in the "144,000" passages is the one that works. I gave reasons for this in that thread, and I will stand by them. There's no need here to go into the details again. I'll just observe that their celibacy is spiritual, because it is patently in contrast with the "harlotry" of Babylon and her acolytes, wich is also spiritual.



posted on Sep, 22 2019 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn
The term "israel of God" comes from Galatians ch6 v16, where it is an alternative label for "all who walk by this rule" (i.e. the declaration that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision count for anything, but only a new xreation). The additional word "and", which seems to turn them into two groups, is a mistranslation. "That is, upon the Israel of God" would be better.

Whatever labelling is used, those who belong to God are one group in the sense that they have all come to God in the same way, because there IS only one way. That is Paul's point, that the access to God is by faith. It is not desirable to make the message of God more complicated than it really is.


edit on 22-9-2019 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2019 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
In the next chapter, Paul distinguishes between "the law of works" and "the law of faith" (ch3 v27)
So I'd like to suggest that you are both right, because you're talking about different laws. Chester is talking about the law of works. You are talking about the law of faith.



posted on Sep, 22 2019 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

My belief and position has always been that if the Law is written in our hearts, then faith brings out that Law and the works thereby. To me this is the only way that the sheep will know the Shepherd and His people will be of all peoples and nations, and it explains how people of different faiths can dream of Him and be called and come to Him through faith alone in that powerful experience.

He works in us in different ways, but we all have come to know His voice.



posted on Sep, 22 2019 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
In other words, it's not the legal code that counts. Exactly.



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

I know that it comes from Galatians, but Romans 2 says not all who are Israel are Israel, pretty much a cross-reference to Galatians 6. But in context it is still talking of Israel of God which is those Jews who are saved. The KJV preserves the fact that Paul is speaking of two people those who walk he says peace be on them, and Mercy and the Israel if God. It is not calling Gentiles the Israel of God and if you compare all the scripture with scripture Roms 2, Roms 9 and Gal 6 you will see that is how Paul spoke of Israel. Paul literally leads us to John 8 when Jesus Said their father was the Devil.


quotingDISRAELI The additional word "and", which seems to turn them into two groups, is a mistranslation. "That is, upon the Israel of God" would be better.
You will notice what our did? My claim of you in the passed now comes openly to the light and reveals the fruit of your tree. Your change changed God's words from two groups to one.

IN doing this, you are claiming by your actions, that God is not powerful enough to preserve his word to this generation and forever, when you make the false claim that the word "And' is a mistranslation and claim something else added by you and the scholars is a better translation, then you set up yourself and those who taught you that as the ones who are far more superior to God and you all changed the meaning to make it Gentiles and not Israel, and added to the words of God. You made yourself god in place of God and changed his words. A very dangerous place you are. Beware lest you fall into the hands of God, all I know who follow the "SCHOLARSHIP ONLY CULT" and change the words of God bring upon them a curse here and after life. I have seen many like you never grow in the wisdom and knowledge of God because of this very thing I had said about your for years. God's wrong your right and that is it.

Either God kept his word to preserve his words to all Generation or he did not. I say He did and you say He did not.

Ps 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
You also violate the three warnings found in Scripture not add or take away from the words of God when you diminished the word "And" and added the words "That is, upon the Israel of God" would be better."

Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Pr 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:


I hope now I have convinced you of your error in believing that Scholars have perverted God's words and have misled you into violating God's words, with false claims. This is what the serpent did to Eve he beguiled her, he took away God's words, he added to God's words and called God a liar.

Gen 3:1 ¶ Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Ge 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


I know you escheweth me every time I bring this to your attention but this time it is very clear, it is not subtil as it had been in the past, here you openly admit to believing that God's words are not pure, whole and preserved forever. I hope you now see this error and that you may repent of this your sin, and stick to the preserved Words of God as found in the Authorized Version.


edit on 9/23/2019 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Yes, I believe that God preserved his word. But there is not one scrap of evidence of any kind, no authority of any kind, to say that the Authorised Version is the place where he did it. You know as well as I do that this is the non-rational part of your teaching. It also comes from the legalistic side of your character, the part that wants to be able to cling onto something concrete, as to an idol, instead of having faith in the less tangible.
As long as my conscience does not accuse me, I am at ease on the point.



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Why does it work? because you say it does? The number one rule in Eschatology is to take it literally especially when there is no other explanation for it. It is once again the changing of Gods words. There is no way under proper interpretational rules and proper deduction of the text, that anyone can say it is Christian saved in the church age (except for those is the SCHOLARSHIP ONLY CULT), no you find them earlier in Chapter 5 under the throne and getting white garments to await God's wrath on those who killed them.

There is never a COMMAND for the Christian of be CELIBATE, these are 12,000 from Twelve Tribes meaning they are Jews not a gentile in the group. They may believe on Christ their Messiah is the True Son of God. But it is not the church. You will notice the church is not mentioned in Revelation after chapter 3. Your SCHOLARSHIP ONLY CULT say the church was ruptured in Rev 4:1.

Repent my friend.



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Dude, the PRESERVED word of God is the Authority. Only One Bible has all the Words, Verses, Phrases, Sections, Chapters in it the AV. Only One has a supernatural built-in Cross-reference the AV, only One defines every word by its context the AV.

God wont say something if it wasn't true. You claim there is no proof it was preserved, well it wont be found in SCHOLARSHIP's archives, it will be found in the Preserved WORDs of God and only one Bible meets that and it is the AV.

You don't want God to be true and every man a lair. No you want every SCHOLAR true and God the LIAR. If you cannot see this then you will not repent. And saved or not you will die in your sin.


edit on 9/23/2019 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Your SCHOLARSHIP ONLY CULT say the church was ruptured in Rev 4:1.

No, scholarship does not believe the church is "raptured" at all, except in the sense that we are all "taken up" to meet Christ on his Return, as described in Thessalonians. Any previous Rapture is a novel, modern, teaching, and therefore not part of the historic teaching of the church. But this is not for a thread on Romans.



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I did say that Paul did reiterate 9 of the ten. So yes the first Commandment would be spiritiually followed by the Christian today.



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

I can give you 400 years of Scholars who believe the church was raptured in REV 4:1. They believe in a rapture as found in 1Thess 4:13-18, 2Thess 2:1-2, and 1 Cor 15:51-54. Not only do they believe that and teach that.

Now I don't Hold to scholarships teaching as shown above. What is described in 2Thess 4 is supported by 1Cor15:51-54. And may force Rev 4 to teach it only because they have still not understood the Jewish church up unto Act 7 and after the Gathering of the saints into heaven, they wrongly assume the Call to John in REV 4:1 is that event. When it is not clear best to take in literally


The Book of Revelation is future events upon the earth. Not all are taken up there are 7 resurrections in the NT you would do well to learn them and their differences.

But if you cannot accept your changed Gods words then one day someone will come along and change them again. and yet another. Every version almost 350 version in English alone did just that. You are just the line of those who do not believe God preserved his words and so you and scholars alone at the only ones to correct God. But it will be God who corrects you. Beware less God rebuke thee.


edit on 9/23/2019 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn
if you're going to get on your high horse and start denouncing me, I'm going to have to remind you of what we discovered last year;
That your approach to the Bible has produced an egregiously FALSE interpretation of one of the parables, in that you invented, out of a misreading of the AV text, the idea that a man discovered a pearl in a field and went to hide HIMSELF. This would have been a pointless and meaningless action in the context of the story, and cannot have been what God intended to say to us. I tried to explain to you how the grammar of the sentence, properly analysed, leads into the more traditional translation, but you could not muster enough humility to admit to being at fault.

So you have deliberately brought us back to where we were at our last argument, when I had to point out that if you insist on dishonouring the meaning of God's word as you do in that silly "hid himself" interpretation, you are not in a strong position to criticise my own handling of the word. I try to be patient with you and treat your obsessive attacks with kid gloves, but perhaps you need to lay off a bit.






edit on 23-9-2019 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join