A Clear Presentation of the Gospel

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

You don't even believe the Bible. How can you understand it if you don't believe it? Who are you to tell me what it says and means? Quit trolling my thread and go somewhere else.

originally posted by: graphuto
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

I don't know what "new scripture" you're talking about.

Nothing has been removed or changed. There are thousands of copies that can be compared one to another. If someone tried to change something, don't you think everyone else that owns a copy would notice?

It's a ridiculous assertion.

So you still follow the old Testament? Man. Good for you. In that case you'll know that there are old laws. Breaking these laws grants you a one way ticket to death. Usually by stoning.
-Adultery.
-Being the victim of rape.
-Being a rapist.
-Homosexuality.
-Incest.

-Worshipping idols.
-Going to work on Sunday.
-Practicing magic.
-Trying to convert people to religions.
-Human sacrifice.
-Being a false prophet.

-Striking your parents.
-Cursing at your parents.
-Being a stubborn and rebellious son.

-Murder.
-Kidnapping a selling man.
-Perjury.
-Ignoring the verdicts of a judge.

-Being man who is not 'cut,' (if you catch my drift and I think you do.)
-Manufacturing anointing oil.
-Engaging in animal sacrifices.
-Sexual activity with a woman on her period.
-Consuming blood.
-Going to the temple in an unclean state.
-Eating a cheeseburger or anything else that mixes meat and dairy.
-Eating fat.
-Eating pork.
-Eating aquatic creatures lacking fins and scales.
-Planting different seeds in one field.
-Wearing clothing woven of different fabrics (Denim is a big one.)
-Touching the dead carcass of a pig (Football anyone?)
-Crossdressing.


I sincerely hope you haven't broken any of those rules because they are all punishable by public stoning according to the Old Testament. There's this thing called the "New Testament" Which is what most Christians follow now, and more than half of those laws are now invalid under that. When Jesus died on the cross, he put an end to the Old Laws.

So that's what I mean by old Scripture and new Scripture. But you know... If you still want to follow the old Scriptures I won't try to stop you. Please, invite me to your public stoning though, if we're playing that game. >Sarcasm.

a reply to: Lyxdeslic

I'll save you some time.

Him and I have discussed all those punishments in my morality thread.

In short, if the law allowed, he would approve of following them.

"A few public executions will scare people into shape"

Or something along those lines.

a reply to: graphuto

Not trolling, for the record. I also don't have to believe the Bible to understand it. In fact understanding it, more or less, is the reason I don't buy into it. You may remember that I used to be a Christian. Though iirc I was never a true Christian by your standards. Your holier than thou attitude is duly noted and appreciated. Who am I to tell you what the Bible says and means? Just someone who has read it without an indoctrinated bias. I'm not sure why you want to disregard the thought of hell not actually being fiery torment for eternity, without even studying it. It's as if you're excited by the thought of heathens burning.

Exactly. You don't have to believe the Bible to understand it. It's as simple as "Live like Jesus lived."
Some "Christians" will be in for a rude awakening if it is real, and atheists and homosexuals and the like are saved before them.

lol you two are funny...

In keeping with your topic here...

Sometimes I do wish Jesus would come back....

He'd be handing out a load of bitch slaps to many who claim to be "Christian"

Actually, you DO have to believe the Bible, and be indwelled with the Holy Spirit, to understand it. It plainly says as much.

I'm not excited about that fact, I just wish it would act as more of an incentive to not want to go there, and believe the Gospel.
It breaks my heart that people will have to endure that.

a reply to: graphuto

nonsense...

the bible didn't even exist when the documents were written...

the only evidence of such a statement is from Paul... and he was talking about the OT not the NT

Being a Pharisee that is quite understandable, even though he contradicts that very statement by rejecting the very laws that were given

a reply to: Akragon

That is a misleading title... It should be called the doctrine of Christianity based around Paul... I was expecting an outline of the actual gospel not the bible... whatever though a star for your time

The actual gospel? Why don't you define gospel? Tell us where the Scriptures agree with the "actual" gospel that you present?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

All that came before me were thieves and liars...

And Paul didn't know Jesus...

that pretty much says it all...

a reply to: graphuto

Every post I've ever read of yours reeks of pontification and the idea that you have some "higher knowledge" than is available readily to the rest of us, from reading the Bible.

It's called reading comprehension, and not believing in any theory out there that might seem personally appealing. Either the Bible says something, or it doesn't. If it doesn't support your theory, rather than attacking the person pointing that out, you may want to rethink your theory and try to figure out where it originated from exactly.

a reply to: jmdewey60

I'm GOING to attack you, and curse you, and rebuke you, for teaching a false gospel and spreading confusion, as I'm commanded to.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


I'm sure now you're going to wax poetic about how the above words don't mean what they say.

"Wellll, if you go back to the Greeeek, you'd understand that "any other gospel" doesn't REALLY mean "any other gospel," it's more of a metaphor for..... blah blah blah"

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

All that came before me were thieves and liars...

And Paul didn't know Jesus...

that pretty much says it all...

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


This is a very direct and clear way of God telling us through the writer of Hebrews, he did speak through others before Christ came into the world. Where men in the old testament spoke in types and shadows, Jeus Christ, the reality, the final revelation of God's complete plan to redeem all mankind, has come.

Some have suggested all prophets before Jesus were fake and in the most respectful way I say that simply is not the case. To suggest this in fact puts God the Father and the Son in the peculiar position of being liars. For God the Father has told us through Christ and his apostles, Abraham was righteous through faith (Gal 3:6) and David was a man after God's own heart (Acts 13:22) or in Luke 4, Jesus reads out the words of Isaiah with boldness in the temple at Nazareth. Are we met to believe Jesus is both contradicting His Father and himself.

The NT writers were also in the habit of pointing out when Jesus would say "it is written" or "this is to fulfill this" To what prophecy or text is he referring to If all prophets before him were false.

The ramifications for this belief is a devastating blow to the truth in scripture and to Christ.

So what could this passage really mean, in particular who is being referred to as "thieves and robbers"?
Well as people have suggested on this page, before Jesus Christ, There were men who claimed to be the Christ and yet they died and did not rise.
Others have suggested Jesus is referring to the pharisees of Judaism in his day that claimed to be a way to God but were in fact evil men. Only serving for their own gain.

Both these two interpretations fit well within the context and do not contradict Gods work through the entire old testament.

May God help direct us all by His Word and Holy Spirit, away from myths and mystifying what is plain and clear in scripture. Things might not always be clear and obvious at our first reading but may God lead us away from presuppositions that corrupt His word.

originally posted by: graphuto
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

You know that no matter how many times el gato is translated to cat, is translated to el gato, is translated to le chat, is translated to cat....

Cat still means cat.

But the meaning of cat can have a completely different spiritual meaning when read in spirit state/awareness state or in the context of the people who wrote the bible.

Take the name Jehovah for example. How can you understand a text that say Jehovah when you do not know the spiritual meaning of the word is "the existing One"?

www.biblestudytools.com...

How can you understand the concept "I AM" when it is a spiritual title not the words I am in english?

How can you understand the blessed ones if you are spiritually blind? Here is a current I Am who wakes among us.

If you wanna condemn people with you view then that is your choice. From my point of view the log in your third eye and ego make you spiritually very blind and unaware.

Namaste (I bow to the divine in you and the being you will someday evolve into)

a reply to: graphuto

Yes I know the Christian answer to this issue...

I disagree with it... and as everyone knows (perhaps excluding Christians) people have a habit of twisting passages in the NT to suit the OT...

He said it quite clearly... I find it quite obvious..

also your article implies that the OT god was the Father, which he/she/it proves not to be

Jesus words stand on their own, without the OT... HE only used those books because he had to relate to his audience

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
If you wanna condemn people with you view then that is your choice. From my point of view the log in your third eye and ego make you spiritually very blind and unaware.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

a reply to: graphuto

I'm GOING to attack you, and curse you, and rebuke you, for teaching a false gospel and spreading confusion, as I'm commanded to.

Who commanded you to curse and attack people?

Jesus says, don't fight, but instead turn the other cheek:

"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." - Matthew 5:39, Jesus Christ

And don't curse, but instead love your enemies and bless those who curse you:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" - Matthew 5:44, Jesus Christ

a reply to: arpgme

Big difference between a normal, run of the mill "enemy" and false prophets who are perverting and twisting the Word of God.

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic
Exactly. You don't have to believe the Bible to understand it. It's as simple as "Live like Jesus lived."
Some "Christians" will be in for a rude awakening if it is real, and atheists and homosexuals and the like are saved before them.

I do believe you are right. The blessed ones will not allow "goats" among the sheep. And some Christians do not seem to get that can include them acting like sheep but being goats by works.

I do not believe in the hell concept as preached by religions. "The mirror" is bad enough.

Namaste.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: graphuto

Every post I've ever read of yours reeks of pontification and the idea that you have some "higher knowledge" than is available readily to the rest of us, from reading the Bible.

It's called reading comprehension, and not believing in any theory out there that might seem personally appealing. Either the Bible says something, or it doesn't. If it doesn't support your theory, rather than attacking the person pointing that out, you may want to rethink your theory and try to figure out where it originated from exactly.

I love how he attacked you instead of using scripture to back up the claim he made about Jesus going to Hell for three days. There's only one other person I've heard make that claim and it was Kenneth Copeland. I'm fairly certain the OP won't do the homework to find out where that claim originated from. It's all good though because I went ahead and did it myself.

It seems to have originated with the Apostles' Creed.