- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 20 2010,14:44) Proverbs 26:
4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
WJ, WJ,WJ…
You raise this as a defence when you were soundly trounced…how quickly you forget…or hope that others have forgotten…
WJ, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit….
Not only is it a spurious verse…there is nothing akin to it anywhere else in Scripture, and, it doesn't fit in with what the Apostle taught, and 'Name' means 'power'.Alarm bells are ringing but your ears are deaf, and your eyes are blind.
Why did you raise this verse as a defence? Were you so desparate for a retort?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,14:27) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 20 2010,14:37) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,12:55) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 20 2010,13:45) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,11:09) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 18 2010,17:42) first lets be clear i am not your brother in your faith,
Yes I know that and that is why I said the Spirit of God does not run around accusing “the brethren” like it seems you do so often.WJ
WJthis is my reasons;;
Mt 16:11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
Mt 16:12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
saying: “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.IF YOU DO NOT PREACH THE TRUTH OF GOD,THIS MEANS YOU USE GOD WORD FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT.this will prevent me to support you.
Pierre
Pierre
I know in whom I have believed, but you seem to think when ever someone disagrees with you then they are not a believer or are saved.Well you are right, in that you serve a different Jesus than I do.
Paul warned us against those who preach another Jesus.
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 2 Cor 11:4
It seems that my Jesus is bigger than yours.
WJ
WJi did not knew that Christ was preaching the trinity.
and that he had taught his disciples ,could you digg out those scriptures and show them to me ,
Pierre
PierreGo ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of “the Father“, and of “the Son“, and of “the Holy Ghost“: Matt 28:19
Now take note that they all have the definite article and share a singular name, right?
Jesus did preach about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit didn't he?
That is a Trinity isn't it?
WJ
WJI have answered you way back ,many months ago;
but you are a men of words not of spirit so you deal with what you know best ,and so do not understand the spirit of the WORD of God,truth is not in you ,your understanding is limited to what you see and touch,carnal sences.
for those reasons I will not deal in you game.
Pierre
Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 20 2010,16:00) WJ, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit….
Not only is it a spurious verse…there is nothing akin to it anywhere else in Scripture, and, it doesn't fit in with what the Apostle taught, and 'Name' means 'power'.Alarm bells are ringing but your ears are deaf, and your eyes are blind.
Why did you raise this verse as a defence? Were you so desparate for a retort?
JAWe have been over this. There is nothing spurious about the verse but only to those who do not believe Jesus words.
Show me proof that the verse is spurious. It is found in every extant manuscript and even quoted by many of the early Forefathers.
WJ
Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 20 2010,15:53) WJ, WJ,WJ… You raise this as a defence when you were soundly trounced…how quickly you forget…or hope that others have forgotten…
JAI believe all of the scriptures and apparently you don't.
WJ
Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 20 2010,16:27) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,14:27) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 20 2010,14:37) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,12:55) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 20 2010,13:45) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,11:09) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 18 2010,17:42) first lets be clear i am not your brother in your faith,
Yes I know that and that is why I said the Spirit of God does not run around accusing “the brethren” like it seems you do so often.WJ
WJthis is my reasons;;
Mt 16:11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
Mt 16:12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
saying: “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.IF YOU DO NOT PREACH THE TRUTH OF GOD,THIS MEANS YOU USE GOD WORD FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT.this will prevent me to support you.
Pierre
Pierre
I know in whom I have believed, but you seem to think when ever someone disagrees with you then they are not a believer or are saved.Well you are right, in that you serve a different Jesus than I do.
Paul warned us against those who preach another Jesus.
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 2 Cor 11:4
It seems that my Jesus is bigger than yours.
WJ
WJi did not knew that Christ was preaching the trinity.
and that he had taught his disciples ,could you digg out those scriptures and show them to me ,
Pierre
PierreGo ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of “the Father“, and of “the Son“, and of “the Holy Ghost“: Matt 28:19
Now take note that they all have the definite article and share a singular name, right?
Jesus did preach about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit didn't he?
That is a Trinity isn't it?
WJ
WJI have answered you way back ,many months ago;
but you are a men of words not of spirit so you deal with what you know best ,and so do not understand the spirit of the WORD of God,truth is not in you ,your understanding is limited to what you see and touch,carnal sences.
for those reasons I will not deal in you game.
Pierre
Just as I thought.When it is convenient or doesn't agree with your theology then cry “corrupt”!
You claim to be a folower of Jesus and the scritpures yet you do not believe all of his words.
WJ
Ja and Pierre
I give you scripture and all you guys can do is puke up insults. HMMM, thats what they did to Jesus.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,16:12) Ja and Pierre I give you scripture and all you guys can do is puke up insults. HMMM, thats what they did to Jesus.
WJ
WJthere is hundreds of quotes if not more and you still deny truth ,you try deceit it would not work.
Pierre
WJ,
And yet in our debate you quailed. And then ran after me begging to continue the debate because all the world could see you were siundly beaten. And then you raised how many debate threads and 'n o o n e p o s t e d i n y o u r f a v o u r' and here you are again after waitng till you think everone has forgotten. Yeah, you been doing the same for ten years and you still on base one.
Extant Scripture rendering…look at it…remove your blinkers…it doesnlt read right….it doesn't follow that he said. In the name of three…and then they only do in the name of one.Yah, you say 'it shows…' poppycock…it means 'in the power of and authority', and that power and authority is what God his father GAVE him. God gave him the power of the Holy Spirit 'without Measure' to give to whom he will. And the Holy Spirit gives to 'him' as much as it wills according to the guidance of Christ.
Jesus is 'in charge' of God, his father, 's Holy Spirit and the power contained within.
Yes, the power and auhority of all three…but the power and authority vested ib him by God almighty, just as Joseph was vested with 'all' the power and authority of Pharoah, yet Joseph was not Pharoah.
I notice you never seem to offer scriural opinion on that fractal story…are you frightened that it shows you are wrong.
And what of Ahesereus and Haman/Mordecai. You seem competely oblivious of the significance of that book's story, Book of Esther. Why,why WJ, Why…because it is proof that you are wrong so you avoid comment so as not to get drawn in…wriggle man. Wriggle…for me, you are on a hook and i wont state where that hook is hooked in you but you can swivel all you like.Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 20 2010,18:29) WJ, And yet in our debate you quailed. And then ran after me begging to continue the debate because all the world could see you were siundly beaten. And then you raised how many debate threads and 'n o o n e p o s t e d i n y o u r f a v o u r' and here you are again after waitng till you think everone has forgotten. Yeah, you been doing the same for ten years and you still on base one.
Extant Scripture rendering…look at it…remove your blinkers…it doesnlt read right….it doesn't follow that he said. In the name of three…and then they only do in the name of one.Yah, you say 'it shows…' poppycock…it means 'in the power of and authority', and that power and authority is what God his father GAVE him. God gave him the power of the Holy Spirit 'without Measure' to give to whom he will. And the Holy Spirit gives to 'him' as much as it wills according to the guidance of Christ.
Jesus is 'in charge' of God, his father, 's Holy Spirit and the power contained within.
Yes, the power and auhority of all three…but the power and authority vested ib him by God almighty, just as Joseph was vested with 'all' the power and authority of Pharoah, yet Joseph was not Pharoah.
I notice you never seem to offer scriural opinion on that fractal story…are you frightened that it shows you are wrong.
And what of Ahesereus and Haman/Mordecai. You seem competely oblivious of the significance of that book's story, Book of Esther. Why,why WJ, Why…because it is proof that you are wrong so you avoid comment so as not to get drawn in…wriggle man. Wriggle…for me, you are on a hook and i wont state where that hook is hooked in you but you can swivel all you like.
JAYou are arguing against scripture on which I base my faith.
Matt 28:19 is scripture and as I said prove it isn't other wise keep your insults and accusations to yourself.
I don't expect antitrinitarians to agree with me, but if you deny Matt 28:19 as Jesus speaking of a Trinity then you are denying his words.
I have given you understanding about the name, but you have chosen to stick your head in the sand and shut your ears to the truth.
So conntinue on with your mean judgmental Spirit.
WJ
Kathi:
Quote Mike,
Someone could be the firstborn of ten children but nine of them could have been adopted. Get it. It doesn't mean that the firstborn was adopted does it?
But it does mean the firstborn is a part of the “group of those ten children” doesn't it?Kathi:
Quote Yes, it does and this proves it: Col 1:16
call things have been created through Him and for Him.
NASU
Are “the reason things were created” and “the cause of creation” the same thing? Everything was “CAUSED to exist” by God……including His Son.Kathi:
Quote You don't think the verse following that prove that He is preeminent? You are joking, right? Read this: Col 1:18
…so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
NASU
Doesn't preeminent mean first place, Mike? Give me a break.
“Preeminent means “peerless”. It means the highest of the high. If Jesus is “preeminent over all creation”, then his God who created all of creation is not. Only one can be the most supreme. Only one can be the “Almighty”. Which One is “preeminent over all creation” Kathi? The Son…….or his God? NETNotes says:The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prwtotokos) could refer either to first in order of time, such as a first born child, or it could refer to one who is preeminent in rank. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (EGGNT), 43, expresses the meaning of the word well: “The ‘firstborn’ was either the eldest child in a family or a person of preeminent rank. The use of this term to describe the Davidic king in Ps 88:28 LXX (=Ps 89:27 EVV), ‘I will also appoint him my firstborn (πρωτότοκον), the most exalted of the kings of the earth,’ indicates that it can denote supremacy in rank as well as priority in time.
I agree that David was given the “firstborn rights” that used to belong to Saul. But we know that this case of “firstborn” meant “firstborn rights” because we know Saul was the first of God's “kings of the earth”. Plus, it flat out says these rights were “appointed”. The problem is, who was the REAL “firstborn of all creation” whose “firstborn rights” were “appointed” to Jesus?
Kathi, it is YOU who brilliantly said, “If there is not a directly stated or clearly implied referrence to a 'firstborn' being appointed the firstborn rights of the REAL firstborn, then the default definition must remain “the one who was born first”.
Do you now disagree with your own rule? Jesus either was the one of creation that was born first, or he was appointed those rights OVER THE REAL FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION, right?
Kathi:
Quote They don't think he was created so they don't agree with your understanding that you desire so badly for it to mean.
Eusebius does, and I showed it to you. I can also show you the letter to his Diocese after signing the Nicene Creed where he explained that the Son is a completely different substance than the Father. And you say I'M the one “desiring”? I'M the one who needs to remove a log? All I'm doing is taking scripture as it is written……and following YOUR rule about “firstborns”. It is YOU who desires for Jesus to be put in a higher position than the one he and all of scripture teaches Kathi.Don't you ever think about all those scriptures that have God foretelling about His anointed one saying, “and he will be their ruler, and I will be their God”? Or “and he will be their King, and I will be their God”? What are the two main meanings of “proskuneo” again? It either means “homage paid to God” or “reverrence shown to someone other than God”. God Himself keeps saying that Jesus will be someone other than our God, but you still want to give him homage that is only due to our God.
I asked:
Quote Is there any instance in the Bible where a “firstborn” – whether literal or one who received those rights from another – was NOT a part of the group of things he was the firstborn of?
You said:Quote Mike, a firstborn can be a part of a group of things without being what that goup of things is.
What does that even mean? Give an example please….something other than this one below that you gave:Kathi:
Quote For instance, I have four siblings and my oldest child is…get ready…the firstborn of all the siblings. Does that make him one of my siblings? NO! The firstborn is my son, the siblings are my brothers and my sister and me.
Wow Kathi, really? You are speaking of two different groups here. Your oldest is the firstborn of the “group of your children”. He is not even a part of the “group of your siblings”, so how could we expect him to be the firstborn of that particular group? So once again:Is there any instance in the Bible where a “firstborn” – whether literal or one who received those rights from another – was NOT a part of the group of things he was the firstborn of?
Please give a scriptural answer this time Kathi.
mike
Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 20 2010,18:29) And then you raised how many debate threads and 'n o o n e p o s t e d i n y o u r f a v o u r' and here you are again after waitng till you think everone has forgotten.
JAAnd who cares, I would rather believe Matt 28:19 than all of your friends who do not believe his words.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 20 2010,17:31) Mike,
This whole thing about God alone creating the heavens and the earth and then we find out that the Father and the Son were both involved is all about gaining new revelation as we go from OT to NT and also perspective.
Hi Kathi,I agree that the NT sheds light on the OT. But when did the NT ever prove something said in the OT to be false? The Israelites were given an inkling that there was another involved in the creation by the “Let US make man in OUR image” statement. And it was revealed later who that other one was. But even after the “Let US”, it went on to say that only God created. And it says it over and over in both the OT and the NT.
God alone created everything THROUGH His Son Kathi. Nowhere does scripture say we have “Creators”. No where does scripture say “Jesus created”.
I recognize how you are putting this and that together to come to that conclusion. And my flawed human brain agrees that it is a logical conclusion. But I can't put my logic up against scripture Kathi…….and neither should you or Ignatius or whoever else. Scripture says ONE Creator, so I believe ONE Creator.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,04:14) Mike When Jesus touched the lepers (leprousy was a type of sin) he did not get infected by it, instead the essence or substance of God left him and healed them just as it left him and healed the woman with the issue of blood when Jesus said “who touched me” though he was being thronged by a crowd.
Hi Keith,Do you remember the Priest Aaron laying his hands on the sacrificial lamb or calf before sacrificing it? Could that have been a figurative way that Aaron, to whom the sin of the whole nation was directed, passed that sin onto the lamb? Could it have been that God, knowing none of us could be completely free of sin, could consider us righteous again by letting us off the hook with this figurative gesture? As if all the sin for that day or week or month was atoned for and went up in flames along with the lamb that carried that sin? Could God's own substance, which you say Jesus had even as a man, come into contact with that sin……even if it was just figurative?
How about the strenuous regiment Aaron and his sons had to go through to be made holy before God? Even the priestly garments and tools could not leave the temple for fear they could become contaminated. Everything God made holy had to be kept in the place He made holy, so nothing unholy could ever enter the most holy place, where God was said to reside during the sacrifices.
Moses was told to remove his sandals because even the ground around the bush was made holy by God's “presence”.
Everything about the rules of worship in the OT say that God could not or would not come into contact with anything unholy……let alone unclean.
So how could this same exact substance of God that Jesus consisted of come into direct contact with so much sin and unholiness and uncleaness?
By the way, it wasn't as if Jesus' blood itself had an “anti-sin” agent in it and the sin was cleansed as fast as it gathered on him. That's not how it worked with the real lambs, and Jesus is the “once and for all time” sacrificial Lamb. When it is said our sins were “washed away BY his blood”, it is a figure of speech. Just like they could have said their sins had been “washed away by the blood” of the real lambs they sacrificed.
What do you think? I'm not an expert in this area……yet
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 21 2010,14:42) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,04:14) Mike When Jesus touched the lepers (leprousy was a type of sin) he did not get infected by it, instead the essence or substance of God left him and healed them just as it left him and healed the woman with the issue of blood when Jesus said “who touched me” though he was being thronged by a crowd.
Hi Keith,I overlooked this bolded part of your post the first time.
Are you saying there were times when Jesus was on earth that he WASN'T God? How can a being's own substance “leave him” on occasion?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2010,22:42) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,04:14) Mike When Jesus touched the lepers (leprousy was a type of sin) he did not get infected by it, instead the essence or substance of God left him and healed them just as it left him and healed the woman with the issue of blood when Jesus said “who touched me” though he was being thronged by a crowd.
Hi Keith,Do you remember the Priest Aaron laying his hands on the sacrificial lamb or calf before sacrificing it? Could that have been a figurative way that Aaron, to whom the sin of the whole nation was directed, passed that sin onto the lamb? Could it have been that God, knowing none of us could be completely free of sin, could consider us righteous again by letting us off the hook with this figurative gesture? As if all the sin for that day or week or month was atoned for and went up in flames along with the lamb that carried that sin? Could God's own substance, which you say Jesus had even as a man, come into contact with that sin……even if it was just figurative?
How about the strenuous regiment Aaron and his sons had to go through to be made holy before God? Even the priestly garments and tools could not leave the temple for fear they could become contaminated. Everything God made holy had to be kept in the place He made holy, so nothing unholy could ever enter the most holy place, where God was said to reside during the sacrifices.
Moses was told to remove his sandals because even the ground around the bush was made holy by God's “presence”.
Everything about the rules of worship in the OT say that God could not or would not come into contact with anything unholy……let alone unclean.
So how could this same exact substance of God that Jesus consisted of come into direct contact with so much sin and unholiness and uncleaness?
By the way, it wasn't as if Jesus' blood itself had an “anti-sin” agent in it and the sin was cleansed as fast as it gathered on him. That's not how it worked with the real lambs, and Jesus is the “once and for all time” sacrificial Lamb. When it is said our sins were “washed away BY his blood”, it is a figure of speech. Just like they could have said their sins had been “washed away by the blood” of the real lambs they sacrificed.
What do you think? I'm not an expert in this area……yet
peace and love,
mike
Sorry MikeThe Blood of Jesus is not figurative. God forbid.
Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And [having] an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled (by the blood) from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water (the Holy Spirit). Heb 10:19
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 1 Peter 1:2
Jesus is still our High Priest as well as King and Prophet.
Now it is done in the Spirit. The OT were types and shadows of the reality we live in today.
The Old Covenant was “figurative” of the real that we have today. That is why we can go into the very throne room of Gods presence through the blood of Jesus and the veil of his flesh.
The Spirit, Water and the Blood are one.
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:7
How does he cleanse us? With his own blood it still does the cleansing.
It is a reality for all believers and it is not figurative.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2010,22:53) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 21 2010,14:42) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,04:14) Mike When Jesus touched the lepers (leprousy was a type of sin) he did not get infected by it, instead the essence or substance of God left him and healed them just as it left him and healed the woman with the issue of blood when Jesus said “who touched me” though he was being thronged by a crowd.
Hi Keith,I overlooked this bolded part of your post the first time.
Are you saying there were times when Jesus was on earth that he WASN'T God? How can a being's own substance “leave him” on occasion?
mike
MikeYou may have a point. The word virtue is “dynamis” which means Gods power.
Nevertheless Jesus could not have been tainted by sin or that would mean he was not the sinless Lamb of God.
WJ
Keith:
Quote Yes true, but the word “owlam” is there also which can be interpreted “forever”, a “long duration”, “antiquity”, or “ancient” depending on context.
What does that have to do with “yowm”? That's why the NIV says,Mic 5:2 NIV
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”They list both phrases from the Hebrew. One they translate “from of old”, the other “from ancient times”. I'm only asking about the word “yowm” in the one phrase.
Keith:
Quote Since the word “yowm” for day which can also be a “period of time” and since before “time” there was only “eternity” the NET rightly translates the verse as… As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah –from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf, one whose origins are in the distant past Micah 5:2
Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying you agree that Jesus had an “ORIGIN”?Keith:
Quote So take your pick Mike. My point is it has to be the english translation of the LXX or the the english translation of the Masoretic Text, “from everlasting” or “days of antiquity”.
But you are leaving out the fact that the LXX also has the word “days” in it. They both say “days” Keith. Just because the English translations don't say “days of eternity” doesn't mean that word isn't there in the Greek.Keith:
Quote First of all “eternity and antiquity” are not the same thing, so take you pick it can’t be both.
No, you take YOUR pick. Was Jesus' beginning:1. From “days” of antiquity:
a. Means “day” was a figure of speech and really meant “time period”…..just like it could mean in Psalm 2:7
b. Means “days” weren't created through Jesus at all, because they existed before he did.2. From “days” of eternity:
a. Means same as “a” above
b. Means same as “b” aboveKeith:
Quote Secondly you keep insisting that “mowtsa'ah” means beginning yet none of the translations render the word that way.
But the LXX DOES render it that way, right? “Yalad” means “brought forth” as in child birth. “Mowtsa'ah” means “goings forth”. Could it be saying the “bringing forth” of Jesus was from ancient times?Keith:
Quote Exactly Mike, days didn’t exist before Jesus therefore the “FIRST DAY” came into existence in Genesis 1:5. So no we can’t assume that the Psalmist meant that the day was a figure of speech especially in its context.
So you're saying that YES, it IS a “figure of speech” in Micah, but the same word can't be used the same way in Psalm 2:7?Keith:
Quote Is there any scripture where the word “day” is used as a figure of speech and precedes day one in Genesis?
Uh, yeah. How about Micah 5:2 that we're discussing?Keith:
Quote No because when you assume that Pss 2:6, 7 is in a particular “time period” or a “day” before time, then that is a contradiction of terms
Why exactly is it a “contradiction of terms”?Keith:
Quote besides the fact that Pss 2:6, 7 in context is when the King is set upon his Holy Hill and the Apostles in three places verify this scripture after the resurrection which you choose to ignore.
2:6 doesn't necessarily happen the same time as 2:7, and the apostle said a promise to our fathers was fulfilled by Jesus being raised. When did God ever promise that He would appoint someone as His begotten Son?We can deal with 2:6 and the apostles later. Right now, I just want to clarify that you agree the word “yowm” in Micah is NOT a literal “day” and that, your OPINION aside, it could have therefore also NOT referred to a literal “day” in Psalm 2:7.
We're not talking about your wishes for it to be a literal day in 2:7 here Keith. Were talking POSSIBILITIES. Can you solidly PROVE that it MUST be a literal day in 2:7, since we both agree that it is NOT in Micah?
Forget the rest of my post Keith. I only answered so you knew I wasn't blowing anything off. But the reason I brought up Micah in the first place was to get an honest answer about “yowm” in 2:7. So forget for a moment that 2:6 and the apostles even exist. Answer ONLY based on 2:7 compared to Micah.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,15:09) How does he cleanse us? With his own blood it still does the cleansing. It is a reality for all believers and it is not figurative.
WJ
Keith,You didn't post anything there that implies the actual physical blood of Jesus cleanses us as if it is “Mr. Clean” or something.
John says “the blood of Christ cleanses us from sin”. He is just saying that Jesus had his blood spilled as a sacrifice for us, and it is because of that sacrifice, not the physical human blood of Jesus, that we are cleansed.
You are right that the real lambs of the past were just foreshadowing what was to come. But it was the sacrifice of the lamb itself, not the lamb”s “magic blood” that was the atonement for the Israelites sins. It is like they put all their sins on that lamb, and the sins “disappeared” along with the lamb.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
