- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Nick,
The covenant of Abraham is in Genesis 17.
Galatians 3:15-18New King James Version (NKJV)
15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,”[a] who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Hi KW,
Then why do you not let the law lead you to Christ and the new covenant?
The schoolmaster cannot take you further.
A CHALLENGE FOR JW’S TO EXAMINE WATCHTOWER TEACHINGS ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE
“Unfortunately, as a Jehovah’s Witness, you are only encouraged to study what the Watchtower and Awake magazines tell you to study. That means you can’t really check up on all it false prophecies on your own. Instead, you must trust what it tells you about its own false prophecies. In addition, you are instructed to not take any literature from ‘apostate Christendom.’ This way, you will have far less opportunity to be challenged, something the Watchtower organization doesn’t want to happen.”
Nick,
I know more about the new covenant than the law because even among those that call themselves Christians the Law of Moses is often condemned.
The Law of Moses “is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, ” (2 Timothy 3:16)
Hi KW,
Indeed the Law is still in existence and those who submit to it must obey it perfectly.
So it is not knowing about it or the new covenant that does anybody any good.
But preferring it to the way of Christ ? You foolish Galatians
What does “merely a man” mean? using that word suggests somehow it is lacking but was Elijah merely a man? Or Moses? If so, at what point are you finding the distinction between them?
bodhitarta,
A soulish/natural man is a mere man while a Spiritual man is a son of God. Neither of the ones you mention were soulish men though Moses succumbed to that nature at times. Elijah did to since he was under the Law of Moses and not the covenant of Christ.
Nick,
Those that are Christian; whether they are Jews, whom are zealous for the Law, or Gentiles whom were not given the Law; are to live by the Spirit.
In Acts 21 Paul is accused of teaching Jews to abandon the Law of Moses and found innocent of that crime and to reveal he was still zealous for the Law he went to be purified at the Temple.
Your doctrine is therefore in disagreement with Scripture and do not teach a Jew they must be a Gentile in order to enter the kingdom of God.
Some people like to link Jesus as a man, the son of God to being a “mere man”
However, man was not designed to be mere, he was designed to have dominion over the earth.
Indeed, Adam took that and gave it away, but Jesus Christ, the man, the son of God,showed that man in his rightful place, by believing God, was well equipped to have dominion over the world.
Hi SOG,
Adam did not have the Holy Spirit to enable him to succeed.
He was doomed to failure against the clever prince of this world.
God had to demonstrate that nothing is possible without His help.
What does “merely a man” mean?
Hi BD,
Every time we talk about this it goes into the abyss. I started a new thread especially for you… … (Link)
_______________
God bless
Ed JHi,
2Tim 2.20
“Now in every large house there are not only gold and silver vessels but also vessels of wood and earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the master, prepared for every good work. Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart”
Jesus was a man but also a god as being a divine son,so the point of following him as being a man has no bearing on following him at all. And if ye follow him today ye follow not that physical christ but rather that spirit being of Paul.For we can no longer know a fleshly Christ.
Hi,
Lk 24
After his resurrection Jesus said
Lk24…
And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself
; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
40And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.…
At this stage he was yet to become the life giving spirit.
Hi,
So by the definition of Jesus a SPIRIT does not have flesh and bones.
So what of the angelic spirits that ate with men?
Both of these questions are rhetorical – meaning to NONE of the Angels.
How do we know they are rehetorical? It seems at looking at the other scriptures above it, its meaning None of the other Angels, because verses 3-4 show that the position given to him by his father, is what made him superior to the angels, just as superior of a name he was given. It seems that he is just being distinguished from ordinary angels. Could you help me understand why you say these questions are rhetorical? Also, could you give me your thoughts on 1st Thessalonians 4:16?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
