|
|
 |
|
Reply
| | From:  Freeborn22 (Original Message) | Sent: 8/7/2006 9:40 PM |
~ Paul's Gospel ~ Gal. 1:6-9. Paul said if they received a gospel other than that which he preached it was a perverted gospel. He said let them be accursed who preach any gospel other than that which Paul preached. He was that sure he had the truth according to the revelation of God.
In Rom. 1: 3&4-Paul said Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh: and declared to be the SON OF GOD with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead... Here Paul declares that Jesus was of the seed of David according to the flesh, meaning he was a human being; a man. Then he declares that Jesus was the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead.
In Acts 13:33 &34- says that God raised up Jesus and said this is the day he said He beget Jesus as a Son of God. v34-that he would never return to corruption. So, these together prove that in the flesh Jesus was a man; a son of man: at the resurrection God beget him as a Son of God. He was raised in the likeness of God. Before that he was in the likeness of sinful man. That is the other gospel; that Jesus was God. Paul did not teach that. Neither did the other gospel writers. They all agreed, because they were writing God's Word.
You must go by what Paul wrote to know what the true gospel is. He said something other than what he taught was the other gospel. He taught Jesus was the Son of God.
Romans 8: 3-For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of SINFUL FLESH, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. See, made in the LIKENESS OF SINFUL FLESH!!! Please, try to understand, that this is the only way He could have taken our place. I have never said He committed any sin. No, He certainly did not; but he could have. It is not that He was God, therefore could not have sinned. NO!! He was fully human, in every sense, and could have sinned. No Scripture says He was divine. No Scripture says he was fully God. No Scripture says the man Christ Jesus was God. The Word said that the Word was in the beginning with God. This Word was not Christ Jesus. Men made up this lie. The Word is the thoughts of God. Those Words, God, was IN Jesus. Jesus said, I can of mine own self DO NOTHING. This is not God talking. God was in Jesus. Jesus did all he did by faith in God; just as we have to do. Phil. 2:7-But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; v8-And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Another Scripture says He was made in all points like unto his brethern. God gave Jesus all power in heaven and earth AFTER the resurrection; then set him on the throne of God; made Jesus to be our God. Jesus is one with God. But, no Scripture used the term-- God, the Son. It is not taught. ‘Second person�?in a Godhead is not taught either. It is made up doctrine. John the Baptist wrote Revelation; not the disciple. I will show you that in another post.
Traditions of men, history--so-called-- teach that John the disciple wrote Revelation; but the Word of God shows that it had to be John the Baptist. I Rev. 22:9--Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, = now this is saying this angel was also a 'fellowservant'-meaning the angels and the O.T. prophets worked together to receive and give out the Word of God in those days. Jesus did not call his disciples 'servants'; he himself told them that he called them 'friends'. Remember, in Hebrews 1:1--God said he had spoken to the people in the past =(O.T. times)-- by the PROPHETS, V2--Hath in these LAST =(N.T. times)-- days spoken unto us by his Son... Now, this means that after Jesus came, no more would God speak to the people by a prophet. This means that the prophetical book of Revelation had to be written BEFORE Jesus came, teaching. For after this time, God would no more use the prophets to give out the Word. All the N.T. writers did was tell what Jesus had taught them. That is all we are supposed to do. Indeed, it is all we can do. Now, back to Rev. 22:9-and of thy brethren - the PROPHETS... now, this places the person being addressed by the Angel, to be a PROPHET. John the Baptist was the LAST of those prophets. Remember, the law and the PROPHETS were UNTIL John. Remember, that John was in the 'wilderness' until the time of his showing to Israel. This was when he was in Patmos and received this revelation of Jesus. Also, remember that John said the one who sent Him, had also given him a sign by which he would know who Jesus was. John did not personally know Jesus, even they were slightly kin. God had kept it this way for His own purpose; so that John knew He had received this revelation from God, not man. There is not one single Scripture to link this book with any other John.
Jesus fulfilled the whole law; it was folded up and laid away. You are being completely deceived and led into destruction of your soul. I hope you will open up your heart to Jesus and repent and get free of this delusion. Jesus lived under the law. That time had not been fulfilled nor finished until His resurrection. He was made under the law. /so Everything He and the apostles did in His lifetime were still under the law; therefore, they did accordingly. Now, Paul was expressly chosen and taught by Jesus. That is all Paul is meaning; he knew that since He had not followed Jesus personally, others would doubt him. So he confirmed that His teachings had come directly from Jesus, just exactly as theirs had. But, the big difference is this: Paul brought in the new dispensation of Grace. He was the apostle to the Gentiles; to bring them into the family of God. Even Peter finally acknowledged Paul's teachings. He finally said they (Jews) wanted to be saved as the Gentiles were: by Grace; not law. Paul was the one chosen to bring the new teachings of Grace. The law period ended on the day of Pentecost. But those Jews did not get the revelation of the change to Grace: Paul did. There is no contradiction in the Word. We are no longer under the law; we are under grace. But if one puts themselves back under law, there is no salvation. All the Jewish converts had to change and come out from the law and come in by Grace; or still be lost. Paul was the one who taught this. If you do away with Paul, then you will be back under the law; which was done away with by God. You will be lost.
By: Jo Smith (this is one of my older messages, which is really a combination of several short posts to my group, in past time.)
| |
|
 First
Previous
2-14 of 14
Next
Last
|
Reply
| |
| What is the Jesus only lie? | |
|
Reply
| |
| From: joie | Sent: 6/20/2003 10:34 AM | | Hi Spiritwalker, I am glad you asked this question. There may be others who are unaware of this doctrine, althought it is very wide spread now. It has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 50 years. This teaching is anti-christ in that it flat denies the existence of the Father as a being apart from his Son Jesus. This teaching declares that Jesus is God and the only one. It says that Jesus is his own Father, and he is also the Holy Ghost. They declare that Jesus is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. In other words, he fathered himself. They say the Father, God, left heaven and came and got into Mary's womb and became Jesus. In other words the Father does not exist outside of Jesus. When God the Father spoke to Jesus from Heaven, see this (according to them did not happen; for the Father was inside Jesus; now mind you not as he is in us; no that is not what they mean). They are saying that Jesus's own spirit was the God the Father. In other words Jesus did not have a human spirit of his own. His insides (spirit) was God; and his outsides (flesh) was the human part. They plainly declare that Jesus had a DUAL nature. He was both God (100%) now mind you, yes 100% God and 100% man! See how foolish this is? If anything is 100% of anything that is the WHOLE of it. Anything that is 100% is all and no room for anything else. I declare to the whole world that no such evil is taught in God's Word. It is made up lies of the Catholic church. Back in the dark ages when the poor people did not have Bibles, to believe their lies was excusable. But in our day and time when Bibles are everywhere, there is just no excuse for anyone believing this lie. Nor is there any excuse for anyone believing the trinity lie. It all came from this trinity lie that Jesus was God, the Son. That God is manifested in 3 persons. Such a lie is straight from hell. And I tell you in the Name of the Lord both lies will end up back in hell. Satan is the originator of both lies. People are just too lazy and too uninterested to study the Word for themselves and see that all of this is nothing but lies. It is not in God's Word. The word trinity, the word dual are not even in God's Word. If you still do not understand let me know and I will try to explain it a little further. I have been in both doctrines or lies myself. But God himself spoke directly to me and told me it was lies. Jo | Reply
| | | From: joie | Sent: 6/20/2003 10:36 AM | | By the way, these Jesus onlies call themselves Apostolic, claiming that they teach exactly what the Apostles taught. But nothing could be further from the truth. Paul was an apostle and he declared over and over that God the Father is the Father of Jesus; that Jesus is the Son OF God. Peter also taught this. John taught this. They all taught this. So where and how could they be apostolic? No they do not teach what the Apostles taught. None of them taught that Jesus was God. They all said that Jesus was the Son of God. Jo | | |
|
Reply
| |
p.s. Here is some of the replies from the original message on Paul's gospel: | From: joie | Sent: 10/14/2001 11:18 PM |  Since we are in so much discussion of who Jesus really is, I thought this message would be a good one to bring back up. I hope many of you will study this and get into it. JO | Reply
| | | Yes, Jesus is a wonderful subject! My Master, my God, My Saviour! How wonderful that David sang MIGHTY GOD, PRINCE OF PEACE, WONDERFUL COUNCELLOR, GOD MY SAVIOUR, CHRIST MY LORD. God is referred to as LORD so is JESUS, wow, do they just happen to have the same name, or ARE THEY ONE, LIKE THE WORD SAYS?! The disciples often referred to Jesus as "Lord" Isaiah 28:16 "Therefore thus saith the LORD GOD..." Luke 4:34 " I know who you are - THE HOLY ONE OF GOD" A demon said this of Jesus. God is referred to as the HOLY ONE a zillion times in the Old Testament too. 1 John 1 "That which was from the beginning (the WORD), which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched (talking about Jesus, the WORD) this we proclaim concerning the WORD OF LIFE. The life appeared, we have seen it and testify to it and we proclaim to you the eternal life which was the FATHER and HAS APPEARED TO US" Oh wow! Isn't that wonderful that God the Word became flesh and came to live amongst us and that Paul and his disciples got to see, feel and hear the living God, who became flesh and came to live with us? Yes, I agree, Jesus is a wonderful topic to talk about. | | |
|
Reply
| |
| From: joie | Sent: 10/22/2001 6:41 PM | | 1John 4:12---No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. John 8:54---Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me: of whom ye say, that he is your God.. John 8:17---It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. v18---I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. John 6:53----Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye EAT THE FLESH of the Son of man, and DRINK HIS BLOOD, ye have no life in you. John 5:37---And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice AT ANY TIME, NOR SEEN HIS SHAPE. Jo | Reply
| | | How sad that you would manipulate the Word of God to suit your false teachings! | | |
|
Reply
| |
Here is the first message on this: | From: joie (Original Message) | Sent: 9/23/2001 11:09 PM |  Gal. 1:6-9---Paul said if they received a gospel other than that which he preached it was a perverted gospel. He said let them be accursed who preach any gospel other than that which Paul preached. He was that sure he had the truth according to the revelation of God. In Rom. 1: 3&4---Paul said Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh: and declared to be the SON OF GOD with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead... Here Paul declares that Jesus was of the seed of David according to the flesh meaning he was a human being; a man. Then he declares that Jesus was the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead. In Acts 13:33 &34--It says that God raised up Jesus and said this is the day he said He beget Jesus as a Son of God. v34--that he would never return to corruption. s So, these together prove that in the flesh Jesus was a man; a son of man: at the resurrection God beget him as a Son of God. He was raised in the likeness of God. Before that he was in the likeness of sinful man. That is the other gospel; that Jesus was God. Paul did not teach that. Neither did the other gospel writers. They all agreed; because they were writing God's Word. You must go by what Paul wrote to know what the true gospel is. He said something other than what he taught was the other gospel. He taught Jesus was the Son of God. Jo | | |
|
Reply
| |
| From: james | Sent: 10/23/2001 3:07 AM | Where did David sing “Mighty God, Prince of Peace, Wonderful Councellor, God my Saviour, Christ My Lord�? I don’t think you are being very careful with your handling of scripture! In fact, although some elements of what you state are accurate, overall you are mishandling scripture! Look up and quote and give chapter and verse when you attempt to use scripture! Otherwise, you "manipulate the word of God to suit your" own purposes! Yes, God is sometimes given the title �?U>Lord�?which merely means ‘master�?and is given to those in authority, including kings, judges, owners of slaves, and even husbands. It is not surprising that his followers would call their leader, king, and savior, “Lord�?just as all the kings of Israel had been called “Lord." As for being called �?U>LORD,�?this is a clear and easily proven mistranslation of the Hebrew word YHWH (Yahweh or Jehovah) found in all the ancient manuscripts which are translated into the OT of our Bible. Every instance of “LORD�?in the many Bibles which use it is a mistranslation. Yahweh (or Jehovah in most Bibles which attempt to translate it correctly) means “He Who Will Be�?not “Lord�?(which is not YHWH but Adonai in the Old Testament language. Even the KJV occasionally translates the Hebrew YHWH correctly as “JEHOVAH�?�?see Psalm 83:18. All this is easily looked up in even Strong’s or Young’s Concordances, or a myriad of Bible commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other references by respected scholars of all religions and sects. You can find it translated correctly in the renowned American Standard Version; Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible; and Bibles translated by Jay P. Green (e.g., The Interlinear Bible, Baker Book House; The Modern King James Version; and The King James II Version). You can pick up an Interlinear OT and see the actual Hebrew used (YHWH) in every instance, nearly 7000 of them, (including Psalms 83:18) where ‘LORD�?is falsely used in most translations of this word in the inspired scriptures. Those many translators who replace YHWH in the original manuscripts with "LORD" are the ones of whom you could really say "would manipulate the Word of God to suit your false teachings!" | |
|
Reply
| |
| From: joie | Sent: 10/23/2001 8:35 PM | | It is not the Scripture which is being 'twisted' but your understand of the Scripture. How can you say I twist Scripture, when every verse in my post above was accurately quoted and I said not one word of my own. I did this to show you that the Word says what I teach. IF the Word says it, you either have to say amen, or call God a lie............. I don't think you wish to do that. James, the King James Scritpture is the most perfectly translated word we have. When you really see the full truth of it, you will see this. God showed me this great truth straight out of that book; I read no other. The word, when spelled thus: Lord---refers to Jesus, the Son. When spelled thus: LORD = it refers to the Father. God himself taught me this out of the King James. I never heard anyone else say this before God showed me. That is one thing causing so much misunderstanding as to who Jesus really is: the fact that when one reads this: Lord--- they THINK God. But this is not what that word means. LORD (all caps)= God. = Father. Hope this helps someone. Jo | |
|
Reply
| |
| From: james | Sent: 10/23/2001 9:45 PM | Yes, 'Lord' can refer to Jesus. It's a title, adonai (Hebrew) or Kurios (NT Greek). It can be (and is) used in scripture for God the Father, King David, King Solomon, judges, prophets, owners of slaves, husbands, etc. Please, just look it up in a concordance or an interlinear of the actual text that has been translated by KJV (and all other translations.)! And, yes, 'LORD' is a device used to refer to God the Father (and not Jesus), but it also has a meaning in the original OT Hebrew manuscripts from which the KJV (and all other translations) was translated. And that meaning is not "Lord." It is the four Hebrew letters represented in English by YHWH (the tetragrammaton). The meaning of that Hebrew word is something close to "He Will Be" or "He will Be (with us)" or "He will Become (whatever he wants to)." But more than that, it is not a title or a description; it is a personal name: the only personal name of God! (Just as 'Jesus' - which means 'Yahweh is Savior' - is the only personal name of the Christ, and 'Mary' - which literally means "bitterness" or "obstinacy" is the only personal name of his earthly mother!) This name does not mean "Lord" (which is Adonai in the Hebrew), but, regardless of meaning, is properly written in English as "Jehovah" or "Yahweh." (Just as we always call Christ by name in English "Jesus," regardless of its actual meaning or original pronunciation! There is simply no argument to this basic truth. Anyone can look it up in the very Hebrew texts used by all translators to make all English bibles (including the KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, etc.)! Please look up Psalm 83:16 and 18 in any interlinear OT Bible or Concordance just as I pleaded for above and compare it with the KJV! | Reply
| | | From: james | Sent: 10/24/2001 12:48 AM | | Dear Jo and looknlisten, If, somehow, you can't get hold of Strong's Concordance or one of the other Bible aids I have mentioned, go to http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/bible.cgi and (1) type in "LORD; (2) select "whole Bible"; (3) select "KJV Strong's Version"; then (4) click on "Find." You will find 6,749 total results starting with Gen. 2:4. Pick any one (or more) of them and click on "LORD" in the verse you have selected (Psalm 83:16 would be a good one). Read the information that pops up (from Strong's Concordance) very carefully. Then go back to the beginning and replace "LORD" with "JEHOVAH" and click on "Find" again. You will find only 4 total this time (in KJV). Click on "JEHOVAH in any one of those verses (especially Psalm 83:18). Carefully read the information which pops up from Strong's Concordance. | | Reply
| | | From: joie | Sent: 10/24/2001 5:41 PM | | Dear James, I have a Strong's concordance. The Word of God is sufficient. I do use the concordance; but mostly to help me find a particular passage quicker. The Word itself teaches the Word. God showed me the LORD refers to the Father. I know who the Father is. If you call him Jehovah it makes no difference. I call him God. I see clearly the distintsion in the Word between Jesus and His Father. I know that Lord refers mostly to Jesus. A few times they are interchanged; but once you see this, you can discern how it is meant. Thanks for your help in this subject. I know we both see it alike. The only difference being as I stated before, I know that Jesus did not come to this earth as a 'god'. For that would have been in defiance of the true God. He came here as God's servant. Most people do not see this. Jo | | |
|
Reply
| |
| From: james | Sent: 10/24/2001 7:13 PM | | We agree on a lot of the most important things, Jo. Please don't misunderstand. I also believe Jesus did not come to this earth as a god, but as a servant. However, John 1:1c is speaking of his pre-existence as the Word in heaven with God. Since even the angels in heaven are called gods in the scriptures, it should not be too disturbing if the Word in heaven was also called a god. And if Jesus himself can note that judges on earth were called gods (John 10:34, 35) because they were appointed by God Himself to do God's will, then the word "god" (in that sense only) could also be applied to Jesus. Anyway, let's stick to the important areas we agree on. We make a better team that way. | Reply
| | | From: flood | Sent: 10/27/2001 2:06 AM | | Yes Jo, Jesus is the Son of God...but John said very clearly that Jesus is God too. John 1:1 tells us that the word (logos) was with God and the word is God. Revelation 19 tells us that one of the names for Jesus is logos (the word of God) The same John that wrote the Gospel of John wrote Revelation. Jesus is God. With that being said, Philippians 2 also teaches us that Jesus was submissive to God. This si the triune part of God reveling itself. There is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy spirit. Within the triune nature, there is a hierarchy. There are things that God has not revealed to Jesus. This is made evident in Matthew 24 when Jesus is talking about the time of His return. He said the time is in God's keeping and not even the Son knows when that time will be. Jesus made it clear when He prayed in Gethsemane that He was submissive to the will of the Father. Beware when you say Jesus is not God. Also beware when you casually say that Jesus was in the form of sinful man when He walked the earth. While Jesus was indeed a man, He was still fully divine. He revealed that by the miracles He performed. No other prophet was able to simply speak and have it happen. They all prayed and asked God to do it through them. Jesus spoke...and it happened. If Jesus was actually in the form of sinful man, the sacrifice on Calvary would not work. Jesus would not have been pure, so there would have been no efficacy. If Jesus had been in teh for of "sinful" man, then He could not have taken our sins, because He would have had sins of his own to atone for...yet we never see Jesus observing the sacrifces for atonement. This is because He was without sin...and needed no atonement. That is why He could be the atonement for us. | | |
|
Reply
| |
| From: joie | Sent: 10/27/2001 11:34 AM | |  Flood, I know that you are new to my teachings; so I will try to show you some of the things God has shown in the Word. I have been through this so many time with others. I have several good messages on this subject which I will try to find and bring back up to the top. If you will take the time to study them, It will help show you more truth. Please, don't just say i am trying to put myself up, and not study; that is not the truth. I only want to help others see more truth of the Word. Now, please read Romans 8: 3---For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of SINFUL FLESH, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. See, made in the LIKENESS OF SINFUL FLESH!!! Please, try to understand, that this is the only way He could have taken our place. I have never said He committed any sin. No, He certainly did not; but he could have. It is not that He was God, therefore could not have sinned. NO!! He was fully human, in every sense, and could have sinned. No Scripture says He was devine. No Scripture says he was fully God. No Scripture says the man Christ Jesus was God. The Word said that the Word was in the beginning with God. This Word was not Christ Jesus. Men made up this lie. The Word is the thoughts of God. Those Words, God, was IN Jesus. Jesus said, I can of mine own self DO NOTHING. This is not God talking. God was in Jesus. Jesus did all he did by faith in God; just as we have to do. Phil. 2:7--But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; v8---And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Another Scripture says He was made in all points like unto his brethern. God gave Jesus all power in heaven and earth AFTER the resurrection; then set him on the throne of God; made Jesus to be our God. Jesus is one with God. But, no Scripture used the term God, the Son. It is not taught. Second person in Godhead is not taught either. It is made up doctrine. John the Baptist wrote Revelation; not the disciple. I will show you that in another post. Jo | | |
|
Reply
| |
| From: joie | Sent: 10/27/2001 12:08 PM | |  The book of Revelation is a prophetical book; therefore it had to have been written by a Prophet.
Luke 16:16--The LAW and the PROPHETS were UNTIL JOHN: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. Luke 7:28---For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. See, this is showing that prophets did not come into the era of the kingdom of God; the very least of us, are greater than the greatest prophet. There were no prophets, receiving the Word of God, since John the Baptist. Paul, and the other N.T. writters only wrote epistles; not prophet books. Revelation is the only prophet book in the N.T. Scriptures; therefore, it had to have been written by a prophet; of which John the Baptist was the last one. John 1:6---There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. v7--The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the LIGHT, that all men through him might believe. v8---He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. Rev.1:1--The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants (prophets)--things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his SERVANT JOHN: v2--Who bare RECORD of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Now, bearing witness and bareing record means the same thing. So, John the Baptist is the one whom God sent to bare record, witness of Jesus, the Light. Another thing, after the resurrection, Jesus opened the understanding of all his disciples, including John, the disciple. Jesus taught these men himself. But, notice, that the John who wrote Revelation was taught by an angel. The angel of the Lord brought this Revelation to John the Baptist; for this is the way the prophets received the Word: God gave the Word to angels (whom He called gods)---then the angels delivered the Word to prophets. N.T. people do not recieve the Word this way. We are taught by the Holy Ghost. He will lead you and guide you into all truth. John the disciple was taught by Jesus; not an angel. John the Baptist was the one who was sent to prepare the way for Jesus; he is the one who bare record of Jesus. He was the last O.T. prophet. Jo | | |
|
Reply
| |
| From: joie | Sent: 10/27/2001 6:31 PM | | Pillar, You are studying very good in the Word. But as you learn to discount 'traditions' and take only what the Word says, you will come into more light. Traditions of men, history--so-called--- teach that John the disciple wrote Revelation; but the Word of God shows that it had to be John the Baptist. I really don't see one single thing in the Scriptures you wrote which even remotely say the disciple wrote a prophetical book. For one thing, one of the Scriptures you give, prove it had to be a prophet, which the disciple was not. Rev. 22:9---Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, = now this is saying this angel was also a 'fellowservant'-meaning the angels and the O.T. prophets worked together to receive and give out the Word of God in those days. Jesus did not call his disciples 'servants'; he himself told them that he called them 'friends'. Remember, in Hebrews 1:1--God said he had spoken to the people in the past =(O.T. times)-- by the PROPHETS, V2--Hath in these LAST =(N.T. times)-- days spoken unto us by his Son... Now, this means that after Jesus came, no more would God speak to the people by a prophet. This means that the prophetical book of Revelation had to be written BEFORE Jesus came, teaching. For after this time, God would no more use the prophets to give out the Word. All the N.T. writters did was tell what Jesus had taught them. That is all we are suppossed to do. Indeed, it is all we can do. Now, back to Rev. 22:9---and of thy brethren ----- the PROPHETS... now, this places the person being addressed by the Angel, to be a PROPHET. John the Baptist was the LAST of those prophets. Remember, the law and the PROPHETS were UNTIL John. Remember, that John was in the 'wilderness' until the time of his showing to Israel. This was when he was in Patmos and received this revelation of Jesus. Also, remember that John said the one who sent Him, had also given him a sign by which he would know who Jesus was. John did not personally know Jesus, even they were sightly kin. God had kept it this way for His own purpose; so that John knew He had received this revelation from God, not man. There is not one single Scripture to link this book with any other John. God bless you in your studies. You are doing a great job with your posts. Jo | |
|
Reply
| |
| From: joie | Sent: 10/29/2001 9:01 PM | | Rod, Jesus fulfilled the whole law; it was folded up and laid away. You are being completely deceived and led into destruction of your soul. I hope you will open up your heart to Jesus and repent and get free of this delusion. Jesus lived under the law. That time had not been fulfilled nor finished until His resurrection. He was made under the law. /so Everything He and the apostles did in His lifetime were still under the law; therefore, they did accordingly. Now, Paul was expressily chosen and taught by Jesus. That is all Paul is meaning; he knew that since He had not followed Jesus personally, others would doubt him. So he confirmed that His teachings had come directly from Jesus ; just exactly as theirs had. But, the big difference is this: Paul brought in the new dispensation of Grace. He was the apostle to the Gentiles; to bring them into the family of God. Even Peter finally acknowledged Paul's teachings. He finally said they (jews) wanted to be saved as the Gentiles were: by Grace; not law. Paul was the one chosen to bring the new teachings of Grace. The law period ended on the day of Pentecost. But those Jews did not get the revelation of the change to Grace: Paul did. There is no contridiction in the Word. We are no longer under the law; we are under grace. But if one puts themselves back under law, there is no salvation. All the Jewish converts had to change and come out from the law and come in by Grace; or still be lost. Paul was the one who taught this. If you do away with Paul, then you will be back under the law; which was done away with by God. You will be lost. Jo | |
|
|
First
Previous
2-14 of 14
Next
Last
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Recommend
Delete
Return to On Jesus only