It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This link that you gave me is to a web site maintained by the Church of Great God, which is one of the spin-offs of Herbert Armstrong who was someone who preached something like that the English people were really the true Jews.
Who decides what sin is
I don't know if you belong to this church but you resort to appealing to them to find support for the theory that you believe in. This sort of thing just reinforces in me this thing that I do (which I get a lot of flak for), which is telling certain people on this forum that they belong to cults. Armstrongism is a cult and is not normal Christianity. And I feel personally offended by someone who is obviously a cult member telling me I have a wrong spirit and lack of discernment for being a normal Christian
I find it kind of odd that you would have to have someone tell you what normal Christianity is.
. . . you provided no clear definition for me to even begin to understand what such even means . . .
At least part of the time you were quoting a so-called Jewish Bible that was inserting Hebrew words that do not belong in the New Testament.
. . . I determined it based on the PLAIN ENGLISH scripture provided . . .
Do you mean by "ignored" that I was not somehow swayed by them into agreeing with you?
. . . that you ignored . . .
I have developed a habit on this forum of ignoring points when they have already been given at least twice previously, without any additional information added.
. . . and gave no credence to as well as pertinent points of questioning throughout that were purposefully and 'conveniently' left unaddressed . . .
As I already said twice before, it is not a matter of verses with you because you have already inserted false definitions for the words in the verses, apparently provided to you by whatever cult that you belong to.
. . . and most importantly not basing your stances on any brought forth 'opposing/countering' scripture to even try to compare/determine validity Biblically.
What you were saying is that it is not possible to have the law (figuratively) "written" on your heart, because it would not fit, or at least that was what it seemed to me that you were saying.
You instead in 2 examples just wanted to carry on about the word 'counter' I used and the timing referenced on when the Law is 'supposed' to be 'all written into our hearts', to tell me the 'old Law is now destroyed' as you promoted.
A forum like this is not the easiest medium for communicating, so I think you are being premature with charging me with deflection. That is a conclusion that should be made after about ten times as much posts as we have made to each other so far. If you think I am not answering something then just say so. I don't avoid those, just when I have already answered the exact same question twice already.
You deflected on numerous other occasions off-handedly, and that is what you have shown throughout when I tested your spirit with the meat, hence discerning your alignments even further in all your mere ego based desirings to reveal that I was wrong with absolutely no valid backing in upholding the Word and fruitfully leading.
Talk about "resorting".
. . . those links I provided did that you ignore-antly bashed in turn . . .
It is not my fault that you are in denial. Anyone who will not admit to what church they belong to I have to believe is a cult member, that plus the refusal to write "Jesus" for the name of Jesus, that is a dead giveaway to cult membership. Saying that Christians are obligated to keep the Old Testament Laws is not normal, and is only taught in cults.
. . .
'cult member' innuendo . . .
I think that you have it the other way around. I "test" as you call it, a doctrine against the scripture and if it is not supportable by the Bible, then it is because it is a theory. When someone comes on a thread reciting one of these theories that I have already detected as such, I am happy to point out that it is only a theory, so as to help this person to check out why exactly they believe in it.
because anything that you don't agree with in your beliefs is only 'theory' of course---
Wow, testy a bit? What were you saying before about ego?
. . . also bore the bold nerve to accuse me of derailing the thread when you had a very large hand in exchanges, so that was quite rich.
How does any of this make any difference?
Referenced openly here more than once I am outside ALL organised churches and I was not 'appealing' to the church either as you distort, the materials simply spoke to what I have already come to in my understandings. They served to save me a lot of writing and I am glad they did for you would have trashed the pearls regardless.
It reveals that the only people hosting legitimate looking web sites with an actual church's name attached, agreeing with you on the law, is a known cult.
Couldn't help but note you chose to focus not on referencing the scriptural points of the message, but the messengers. It reveals much.
What? This sounds like you would enjoy me going to hell to prove that you are right.
I was the one who referenced the Word in support time and time again of which you chose not because it was clearly not in your interest even when respectfully requested. So shame on you and may we all reap what we sow in all judgement and accusation Known to be false by our Father.
It just seems "dangerous" to you, probably because of the rather appealing theories that you have chosen to put your faith in.
I will pray for you, for you are on a dangerous road in all your 'freedom thinking' that you promote and in all that is against the Gospel teachings.
Jesus demonstrated it by example, in contrast to the dogmatic "doctors" of the law, and the Pharisees and the high priests.
Where at all did Christ promote 'free thinking' when teaching? You express in very worldly terms and I very much note that 'human logic/intellect' frequency base applied.
I think that enough criticism of the OP was going on without me adding to it.
You showed me much of your 'fruit' throughout as a 'servant' of the Gospel in all you ignored, including not addressing or supporting the clear errors of the OP against valid and pertinent Gospel teachings. Revealing also, in your 'priorities' demonstrated here.
Do you mean the "prior" testament, the one that was superseded and thus made obsolete?
Curious, in all your disregard of the Old (First) Testament,
Did you mean to say "disagrees"?
are you one of these 'modern' 'Christians' that agrees with capital punishment?
I don't think that God is a "being" in the classical definition of a being. I believe that "God" is composed of multiple distinct persons. I also believe that there is one particular person in the godhead who is to be addressed as God, who is the father of Jesus. I accept that God is to be called God, as a translation of the Greek word, Theos, as it is written in the Greek Bible.
Thatt believes that 'Jesus' is also the Father as a singular Being?
"symbolic/metaphor" to both.
That the Elect/144000 are men and women?
That the 'mark of the beast' is symbolic/metaphor?
See my comment at the top of this post.
That the 10 Commandments no longer apply, because they are 'Old' Testament?
It only makes sense to take a day off once a week, and in a lot of countries, it is the law that an employer will give their workers a day off like that. I think it is impossible to tell anyone what particular day that is exactly.
That we are no longer Expected to observe the Sabbath?
There is a rapture mentioned in 1 Thess. describing those who will be with Jesus being "plucked up" which is probably part of a visionary view of how things will happen at some point to those who are in Christ, but nothing like as described in modern pop-culture religion's version.
That the 'Rapture' is a false teaching?
The "last days" already happened, the end of the old age, and what we are in now has no end.
That we are in the 'last days' currently?
Jesus literally returned at the end of the former age.
That the return of Christ is metaphorical and not literal?
Why would you want to "subscribe" to any of them?
. . . I do not subscribe to all the ceremonial laws of Judaism.