A Question for all Christians, from a fellow Christian

reply to post by Myrtales Instinct

. . .then why is it impossible for John to proceed him in a spiritual sense?

As opposed to; in some other sense?
What happens is people accept the message of Jesus. repent and are converted, do good instead of evil, and work righteousness instead of working unrighteousness. The believers are what is the spiritual fulfillment of Jesus and whatever belief he presented.

Jesus was talking about his own words. He would say, "others say this, but I say this." or "The Law says this, but I say this." or "Moses said this, but I say this."

Examples please.

The Sermon on the Mount was Jesus being the second Moses, so when he said, "these words will not pass away." he meant his own words. You can not show where attached to this saying is anything like, "Moses' words", or "the words of some Old Testament prophet".

He didn't say "these words will not pass away." He said

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

What was "The Law" at that time other than what was written in The Torah?

As for things like "jot or tittle", that was a figure of speech which mean a small part, not that he was inferring that he meant something in scripture. As for "all is completed", that could mean the end of the age.

He was saying that not even the TINIEST part of the law would be null until ALL (the passing of heaven and earth) be fulfilled. I believe that "ALL" refers to the seven feasts of God, of which, it is commonly accepted, that 4 have already been fulfilled.

Originally posted by graphuto
Any time Jesus ever referenced scripture, what could he possibly have been talking about? Torah, of course, there was nothing else at the time!

I submit that you have this same blockage that you were talking about. Hit me up with some more scripture to back up your position.

Feel free to demonstrate what it is you are saying as a counter argument.
It is just the Gospels and you have to read them, but without focusing in on just what would support this ready-made result, while missing what it says.
The easiest way to get to what I mean is the question of divorce, where Jesus said this provision was added because of the hardness of your hearts. Here he was saying the written law had to be made in a certain way that allowed for loopholes, while the spiritual law does not because with it comes a change in heart.
So there he is contrasting one with another and he was referencing a fundamental law that the written law was based on.
People who reject Jesus will never get this.

reply to post by graphuto
Either you are a Christian or you are not.
If you believe in the Law of Moses as you righteousness, then good luck with that.

I never stated that I relied on the Law of Moses for righteousness. What I AM suggesting is that those laws COMPLIMENT ones belief in Christ. Since we're basically trying to spread the same message (Jesus, love) then I'll stop with the debate. The Law was NEVER about saving, but about blessings and curses.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Myrtales Instinct

 

. . .then why is it impossible for John to proceed him in a spiritual sense?

As opposed to; in some other sense?
What happens is people accept the message of Jesus. repent and are converted, do good instead of evil, and work righteousness instead of working unrighteousness. The believers are what is the spiritual fulfillment of Jesus and whatever belief he presented.

Well, yeah but.... what about actual commands he gave? Like "Watch!" Or, "Stay Awake!" Or worse, "If you don't wake up... I'll come like a thief in the night and you won't know what hour I come?"

The commands he gave are right there in black and white (and sometimes red). And to have eternal life we have to follow his commands. A thief in the night - comes at night, so, it's obvious he wants you to stay awake at night - just like he tried to get Peter, James and John to do. But their eyes were heavy and they kept falling asleep. He would go back over and wake them up.

What did he want them to see?

reply to post by Myrtales Instinct

What did he want them to see?

I may be missing your main point.
As for watching, I think of Jesus saying, "Could you not watch with me?"

reply to post by graphuto

The Law was NEVER about saving, but about blessings and curses.

One comes with the other and not your choice which one so if you want to throw the dice, like I said, good luck.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by graphuto

 

The Law was NEVER about saving, but about blessings and curses.

One comes with the other and not your choice which one so if you want to throw the dice, like I said, good luck.

What do you mean? I wholeheartedly agree that salvation comes from faith in Jesus Christ...

John the Baptist is Elijah.
Read it over and over again.
It will come to you.

Originally posted by MitchL61
There is a scripture in the Old Testament, Book of Malachi, chapter 4, verses 5 and 6

5 ¶Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Does anyone know if Elijah has returned, and if so, when and where?

I don't think anyone in this thread has really answered the question adequately yet, so... I'll give it a go.

I think that this prophecy has to be considered against Malachi 3:1, which states:

“I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty.

Malachi 3:1 was fulfilled by John the Baptist. Jews traditionally differentiated between this role (the Messenger who was to come before the Messiah) and the one who would come in the spirit of Elijah (as you've quoted in 4:5-6).

John the Baptist *did* fulfil the role of the messenger. Jesus Himself stated as much in Matthew 11:14 and 17:12, and he was certainly "the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, prepare the way for the Lord", but he did NOT "turn the hearts of the fathers to their children" etc., for as Jesus later states (Matthew 24), the exact opposite is to occur.

What does this mean?

Well, there's only one explanation, really. The prophet Elijah is yet to return; and no, he has not yet done so. For further information on that, you can refer to Revelation 11... which refers to "the two witnesses".

Moses and Elijah are seen as possibilities for the two witnesses due to the witnesses' power to turn water into blood (Revelation 11:6), which Moses is known for (Exodus chapter 7), and their power to destroy people with fire (Revelation 11:5), which Elijah is known for (2 Kings chapter 1). Also giving strength to this view is the fact that Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:3-4). Further, Jewish tradition expected Moses and Elijah to return in the future. Malachi 4:5 predicted the return of Elijah, and the Jews believed that God’s promise to raise up a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18) necessitated his return.

I hope that helps!

Originally posted by MitchL61
There is a scripture in the Old Testament, Book of Malachi, chapter 4, verses 5 and 6

5 ¶Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Does anyone know if Elijah has returned, and if so, when and where?

I don't think he has come yet. Thankfully the "Day of the Lord" hasn't either. That's an OT nickname for the 1,000 year reign of Christ beginning w/ Armageddon.

Originally posted by DaemusAlphae
reply to post by michaelwpayton

 

Alright, still off topic but I disagree with every bit of information that I read in your post. So, If I do not believe in YOUR god, I am doomed to a horrible place, but if I do believe in him and love him, then I am good to go? He sounds like an angry child who gets mad at his friends for not wanting to do what he wants to do. None of that sounds fair at all. What you just posted in your post is exactly why I am not a Christian. I am sure there was a point to you posting all of that, but I just did not pick up on that. I do not mean to turn this into a debate, but every thing I just read nauseated me. Especially when it is written that "we are all his children" and he loves us all equally, but if you do not believe in him and worship him, your soul burns for eternity.

Your god sounds like an egotistical, sadistic prick.

If you would like to continue this in another thread we can so that we are not off topic in this one.

I'm not sure if you're inferring that I'm asking you to believe in a version of god that I created based off of scripture or if you're just referring to the Christian God, but I'm not to worried about it because that will sort itself out as we go.
It's not that we are doomed to a horrible place just because we don't believe in Him and Love Him, we were doomed already because of sin. The wages of sin is death. It's not because of who God is, but because of how grievous sin is by nature. We must understand what sin really means for us. If a judge were to sentence a serial murderer/rapist to death, not many would question whether or not it was just to do so. No one would call the judge a prick because they understand the nature of the crime and know very well the individual deserves death. Suppose a miracle happens and the murder/rapist has a change of heart and is broken by the acts they committed. They could apologize but nothing they ever did would ever serve justice for the individuals actions. Suppose the judge saw the genuine heart of the person on trial and he was torn because he know that justice requires death and he must carry out the sentence of death. So out of mercy says, "I will take your place and receive your punishment for you if you will not return to the old way of life." The person need only accept the offer to have a chance at a new life. If the murder/rapist did not think they did anything wrong, why would they want change their life. Why would the judge offer mercy to a person who thinks they are blameless. It's not a matter of being friends with God or getting punched in the face by Him. It a matter of understanding our own sin and the seeing the need for His sacrifice in order that we might live.

And we are not all His children, Only those who accept His Son are called the children of God. For if you reject the Son, you are rejecting the Father. You can't be children of a father you reject.

reply to post by michaelwpayton

Suppose the judge saw the genuine heart of the person on trial and he was torn because he know that justice requires death and he must carry out the sentence of death. So out of mercy says, "I will take your place and receive your punishment for you if you will not return to the old way of life." The person need only accept the offer to have a chance at a new life.

Maybe a nice fantasy for you but not to me, seeing how it is just a philosophy and not truth.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by michaelwpayton

 

Suppose the judge saw the genuine heart of the person on trial and he was torn because he know that justice requires death and he must carry out the sentence of death. So out of mercy says, "Text Whitent for youif you will not return to the old way of life." The person need only accept the offer to have a chance at a new life.

Maybe a nice fantasy for you but not to me, seeing how it is just a philosophy and not truth.

That "fantasy" is historically referred to as the "gospel"? But whatever, you're not the first to consider it a fantasy, and you won't be the last.


"but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13

"He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification." Romans 4:25

"In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 1 John 4:10

reply to post by NOTurTypical

That "fantasy" is historically referred to as the "gospel"?

Yes, there was such a historical event where this philosophy came about around 1600.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

That "fantasy" is historically referred to as the "gospel"?

Yes, there was such a historical event where this philosophy came about around 1600.

Christ died for us, for our sins, as a substitute for us.

What am I missing here?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

That "fantasy" is historically referred to as the "gospel"?

Yes, there was such a historical event where this philosophy came about around 1600.

Christ died for us, for our sins, as a substitute for us.

What am I missing here?

What you are missing is the Bible.

reply to post by jmdewey60


jmdewey60 begone Satan! You know nothing of the bible, you speak of lies.

Originally posted by MitchL61
There is a scripture in the Old Testament, Book of Malachi, chapter 4, verses 5 and 6

5 ¶Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Does anyone know if Elijah has returned, and if so, when and where?

He returned as John the Baptist.