Goshen360: ^^^ So my simple kweshion has suddenly defiled your "logic" .... . Answer that kweshion now before I flog you....

I give up.

You want me to interpret some ambiguous bible quote that you didnt put in context?

Logicboy03:

I give up.

You want me to interpret some ambiguous bible quote that you didnt put in context?

WHAT!

This is the least I expected from you boy. Don't tell me you want to run away o...... . Okay, for this reason, I'm following henceforth.... . Oh, my bad....I'm already following you, at least to monitor your "logic"...

Goshen360:

WHAT!

This is the least I expected from you boy. Don't tell me you want to run away o...... . Okay, for this reason, I'm following henceforth.... . Oh, my bad....I'm already following you, at least to monitor your "logic"...

lol....if only you knew the truth of the situaton

Logicboy you need a break.

Goshen360: Frostyzone and Logicboy,

Matthew to John are foundational to the NT, they weren't written when Christ was physically alive. What you have in Matthew to John was fully developed in the epistles and fully revealed. This is not to throw the words of Christ away but what was meant in the words of Christ were revealed in the epistles. This is where the church of God belongs, not the OT. The NT church was revealed on the day of Pentecost.

I showed you from Hebrews that "the death of a testator MUST be proved in order to effect a testament" and Christ is the testator of the NT. So how can Matthew to John be NT when Christ still was physically alive then? All you have to do is bring up scriptures from Acts upward.

New Living Translation (©2007)

That first covenant between God and Israel had regulations for worship and a place of worship here on earth.

Hebrews 9:1

you are on point bro.

The activities of christ while he was on earth was under the law and the law convanant came to an end only at the death of christ that the curtain in the holy of holiest in the temple split in two.

Jesus while a life tried as much as possible not to break the law but use his life to set the ground work for the new covanant that came into effect when he died/shade his blood.

Well done

@Logicboy,
as an alter boy you did not get this detail befor becoming an atheist, besides you were focusing more on mary.

Logicboy03:


You are not making any sense bro.

he made a lot of sense.

That was why when christ was a life he did not condemned the law intoto rather he pointed out what was not well done under the law as not to be guilty of breaking the law.

But after his death this old mosaic law cease to be the norms for christians and that is why things like tithing also cease to be of effect to christian and was not commanded for christians since it was of the past.

You should have rather have told Goshen thank you if you are the type that appreciated spiritual things.

Goshen and Truthislight,


The kind lies that you guys have to tell just to defend your faith is just shocking. To state that matthew, mark, luke and john are not new testament is one of the most shameful positions I have ever seen.


Your claim that Christ's death was the beginning of the new convenant still fails you. Jesus's death and ressurection are covered within the four gospels.


The beginning of the convenant was during Jesus life and sermons. Did he not change the laws of an "eye for an eye"? Did he not tell people not to stone prostitutes because we are all sinners? Jesus changed the laws during his lifetime.

Goshen360: Frostyzone and Logicboy,

Matthew to John are foundational to the NT, they weren't written when Christ was physically alive. What you have in Matthew to John was fully developed in the epistles and fully revealed. This is not to throw the words of Christ away but what was meant in the words of Christ were revealed in the epistles. This is where the church of God belongs, not the OT. The NT church was revealed on the day of Pentecost.

Hebrews 9:1

Goshen is only one step away from Joagabaje. Is christianity christ's teaching or the church? You want to focus on preaching in tongues and the evangelizing activities of the early church instead of following the lessons of christ.

Christ's life, death and rsssurrection all happened within the four gospels, a shame that christians are more concerned with treaching the activities of the the church in acts of apostles and letters of Paul.

truthislight:

you are on point bro.

The activities of christ while he was on earth was under the law and the law convanant came to an end only at the death of christ that the curtain in the holy of holiest in the temple split in two.

Jesus while a life tried as much as possible not to break the law but use his life to set the ground work for the new covanant that came into effect when he died/shade his blood.
he made a lot of sense.

That was why when christ was a life he did not condemned the law intoto rather he pointed out what was not well done under the law as not to be guilty of breaking the law.

But after his death this old mosaic law cease to be the norms for christians and that is why things like tithing also cease to be of effect to christian and was not commanded for christians since it was of the past.

You should have rather have told Goshen thank you if you are the type that appreciated spiritual things.

1) You christians are now claiming that Jesus teachings about stopping "an eye for an eye" and stopping stoning did not change the old testmanent law?

2) You would have to write a new bible to prove that Jesus death stopped tithing and not the fact that tithing was never something that Jesus did nor his disciples commanded.

3) How could Jesus be under the law when his whole sermons were about explaining and tweaking to law to incorporate more love?

Logicboy03: Goshen and Truthislight,


The kind lies that you guys have to tell just to defend your faith is just shocking. To state that matthew, mark, luke and john are not new testament is one of the most shameful positions I have ever seen.


Your claim that Christ's death was the beginning of the new convenant still fails you. Jesus's death and ressurection are covered within the four gospels.


The beginning of the convenant was during Jesus life and sermons. Did he not change the laws of an "eye for an eye"? Did he not tell people not to stone prostitutes because we are all sinners? Jesus changed the laws during his lifetime.





Goshen is only one step away from Joagabaje. Is christianity christ's teaching or the church? You want to focus on preaching in tongues and the evangelizing activities of the early church instead of following the lessons of christ.

Christ's life, death and rsssurrection all happened within the four gospels, a shame that christians are more concerned with treaching the activities of the the church in acts of apostles and letters of Paul.





1) You christians are now claiming that Jesus teachings about stopping "an eye for an eye" and stopping stoning did not change the old testmanent law?

2) You would have to write a new bible to prove that Jesus death stopped tithing and not the fact that tithing was never something that Jesus did nor his disciples commanded.

3) How could Jesus be under the law when his whole sermons were about explaining and tweaking to law to incorporate more love?

hmmmmn...see as logicboy dey talk truth about Jesus...just reminded me about the gal with spirit of divination who spoke dat paul and silas were men of God sent to preach the way of salvation...the demon spoke d truth..but the motive is defiled...who wants d devil testifying of JESUS anyway.

Logicboy03: Goshen and Truthislight,





Christ's life, death and rsssurrection all happened within the four gospels, a shame that christians are more concerned with treaching the activities of the the church in acts of apostles and letters of Paul.

i did not say that christ gospel are not part of the OT o!

I said that the "new covanant came into effect after the death of christ cus it is the blood of Jesus christ that abolished the old covanant that God made with abraham that is called the law covanant.

Logicboy03:
1) You christians are now claiming that Jesus teachings about stopping "an eye for an eye" and stopping stoning did not change the old testmanent law?

i did not say that Jesus did not teach what you said.

We are talking about "when a law comes into force".

If a constitution committee should prepare a new constitution as a book, that it is in a book does not mean that it came into force the day it was written, but on a later date in the future.

Logicboy03:
2) You would have to write a new bible to prove that Jesus death stopped tithing and not the fact that tithing was never something that Jesus did nor his disciples commanded.

I dont know what exactly you are up to because the two things you are saying are the same thing.

Logicboy03:
3) How could Jesus be under the law when his whole sermons were about explaining and tweaking to law to incorporate more love?

Jesus was born when the mosaic law was still in force.

Jesus parent took him to the temple and made the mandatory law sacrifices after his birth.

He observed the passover with is disciples after which he introduced the details of the new covanant that he used bread and wine,

"Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new convanant in my blood, which is shed for you." (Luke 22:20).
^^^
please take note of that ^^^.

please, reconcile what i said with what you are accusing me.

And try and get the sense of what is being said here.

I belief what Goshen was saying is that the history of Jesus life in the four Gospel was while the law covanant was still in force.

If you cool down and use the bible in looking into this matter you will see the reason for what he said.

He did not say that the four Gospel should be in the OT, which is a different thing from "new covanant"
peace

Bidam: hmmmmn...see as logicboy dey talk truth about Jesus...just reminded me about the gal with spirit of divination who spoke dat paul and silas were men of God sent to preach the way of salvation...the demon spoke d truth..but the motive is defiled...who wants d devil testifying of JESUS anyway.

do you mind being more specific?

I hope it is not the "tith" part that have brought you here so that you will quote Luke 23?

Smh.

truthislight:

i did not say that christ gospel are not part of the OT o!

I said that the "new covanant came into effect after the death of christ cus it is the blood of Jesus christ that abolished the old covanant that God made with abraham that is called the law covanant.



i did not say that Jesus did not teach what you said.

We are talking about "when a law comes into force".

If a constitution committee should prepare a new constitution as a book, that it is in a book does not mean that it came into force the day it was written, but on a later date in the future.


I dont know what exactly you are up to because the two things you are saying are the same thing.



Jesus was born when the mosaic law was still in force.

Jesus parent took him to the temple and made the mandatory law sacrifices after his birth.

He observed the passover with is disciples after which he introduced the details of the new covanant that he used bread and wine,

"Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new convanant in my blood, which is shed for you." (Luke 22:20).
^^^
please take note of that ^^^.

please, reconcile what i said with what you are accusing me.

And try and get the sense of what is being said here.

I belief what Goshen was saying is that the history of Jesus life in the four Gospel was while the law covanant was still in force.

If you cool down and use the bible in looking into this matter you will see the reason for what he said.

He did not say that the four Gospel should be in the OT, which is a different thing from "new covanant"
peace

You have started again.



Simple question; are matthew, mark. luke and john part of the new testament?

Truthislight,

Abeg leave logicboy joor. The things we say are foreign to his logic.....

@ Bidam and logicboy,

Again, can you explain what is going on in the scripture below?

New International Version (©1984)

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:38-39

Can any of you tell us what Christ was doing here

Logicboy03:




You have started again.



Simple question; are matthew, mark. luke and john part of the new testament?

who said it is not?

Yes it is.

truthislight:

who said it is not?

Yes it is.

Then tell brother Goshen

Goshen360: Truthislight,

Abeg leave logicboy joor. The things we say are foreign to his logic.....

lol.

But i sincerely wish he sees where we are coming from.

@ Logicboy,

You are a confused fellow. Matthew to John in context that is by event is under the old testament. It was placed under the NT by Chronological arrangement. Na so so communion you dey serve for catholic before....you no sabi anything.

Goshen360: @ Logicboy,

You are a confused fellow. Matthew to John in context that is by event is under the old testament. It was placed under the NT by Chronological arrangement. Na so so communion you dey serve for catholic before....you no sabi anything.

you are delusional. I made a comment about the gospel of Mark and then you claimed that Mark was not new testament. How can the life of Jesus be old testament? The person that gave lessons that are opposite of the old testament?

@OP
Please what is the problem with the Mark story? A young man about to be arrested dropped his wrapper and ran for his life? How does this diminish the Bible?

jcf: Careful Guys, We are talking about God's word..

No we're not.

We're talking about what SOME CLAIM TO BE God's word.

We have NO REASON AT ALL to believe that God has or had anything whatsoever to do with the bible.

Of his alleged influence on, or involvement in this book, there is not a single shred of evidence.

ROSSIKE:

No we're not.

We're talking about what SOME CLAIM TO BE God's word.

We have NO REASON AT ALL to believe that God has or had anything whatsoever to do with the bible.

Of his alleged influence on, or involvement in this book, there is not a single shred of evidence.

what is your reasons/evidence for saying this?

For starters, the bible itself claims to be God's word.

So, if you say that the claim is wrong can you give your reasons?
Peace

honeychild: @OP
Please what is the problem with the Mark story? A young man about to be arrested dropped his wrapper and ran for his life? How does this diminish the Bible?

Abi o. Some people just quote verses of the Bible they don't like without taking time to go through the whole passage or story. Anything to spite the Bible makes them happy.

Goshen360: @ Bidam and logicboy,

Again, can you explain what is going on in the scripture below?

New International Version (©1984)

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:38-39

Can any of you tell us what Christ was doing here

i just don't understand you..sometimes u teach truth mixed with falsehood...just be careful with the cistern you are drinking from..becos there are false teachers out there...am not ur bible student so don't ask me irrelevant queshion..stick to d topic.. at least ur unbelieving friend seems to agree with u, lapping unto your heresies'

Goshen360: @ Logicboy,

You are a confused fellow. Matthew to John in context that is by event is under the old testament. It was placed under the NT by Chronological arrangement. Na so so communion you dey serve for catholic before....you no sabi anything.

falsehood. Mathew, mark , Luke and john epistles are new testament scriptures written after the death and resurrection of our LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST. the apostles were witnesses to these events..while the gospel of luke was graphically illustrated by doctor Luke who was with apostle paul

Bidam: @ Goshen360
i just don't understand you..sometimes u teach truth mixed with falsehood...just be careful with the cistern you are drinking from..becos there are false teachers out there...am not ur bible student so don't ask me irrelevant queshion..stick to d topic.. at least ur unbelieving friend seems to agree with u, lapping unto your heresies'

who are his unbelieving friends?

Why are you afraid to mention names?

Please state clearly who the are, thanks.

Bidam: falsehood. Mathew, mark , Luke and john epistles are new testament scriptures written [size=15pt]after[/size] the death and resurrection of our LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST. the apostles were witnesses to these events..while the gospel of luke was graphically illustrated by doctor Luke who was with apostle paul

Sometimes I don't know if you are beginning to read me with a bias mind or something. I mentioned the same thing here (I will get the post later after this post) that the events in Matthew to John are OLD TESTAMENT and ARE STILL UNDER THE LAW and I gave bible reference to testify to that truth.

Bidam: i just don't understand you..sometimes u teach truth mixed with falsehood...just be careful with the cistern you are drinking from..becos there are false teachers out there...am not ur bible student so don't ask me irrelevant queshion..stick to d topic.. at least ur unbelieving friend seems to agree with u, lapping unto your heresies'

I don't mix any error with the truth. I only use biblical text to explain biblical text. My source is the teacher, Holy Spirit and spend much time studying and proving the truth and biblical text. Now, you agreed that Matthew to John were written AFTER the death and resurrection of Christ. The question is, DID THE EVENTS RECORDED ALSO HAPPENED AFTER THE DEATH/RESURRECTION OF CHRIST OR DURING I gave you biblical text right in front of you and you denied such truth. I seriously need you to answer this question please!

When you pull Galatians 4:4 I referenced and Hebrews 9:15-20, you will need to explain how Matthew to John are NT. One thing I will encourage you as a brother is to always reason or tie up scriptural text together when you study for yourself. One scripture must compliment the other. I haven't said anything in error.

Goshen360: @ Logicboy and Frostyzone,

There is what is called "chronological" arrangement - based on how books were written. The context of Matthew to John wasn't NT, but OT. Christ is the MEDIATOR of the NT and without the death of a testator, a testament is NOT in force. Under the chronological writings, Matthew to John was written AFTER the death but the context is DURING the earthly life of the testator. Do people write you biography when you are alive or does your will take effect when you are still alive?

@ Bidam, this is for you!

Goshen360:

@ Bidam, this is for you!

u still have not yet explained how the books of mathew-john are old testaments..pardon my ignorance but based on my understanding of the scripture u quoted..the sayings of jesus or what jesus taught in mathew 5:21-48.(He was changing the law of moses and bringing His own laws)..were not written until after He died. Yet what you are trying to point out is that the events occured and the words were spoken while he was alive(under the law)..pardon me but that is obvious na...for the words that Jesus spoke while he was on earth to be be in FULL EFFECT, HE had to die. The scripture is saying i have a personal last will and testament(mathew-john). They are words that i have declared while i am alive..however they do not take effect until i die.. Look at mat 19:3-9, jesus added to and changed the words of moses..infact He proclaimed that His words, while on earth would be used in d judgement(john12:48). If mathew-john are part of the old law, you have to condemn Jesus as a false teacher who added to God's words and we know He is not.

Logicboy03:


So Jesus is not part of the new testament?


How did you win religious poster of the year as a christian?

By being a good bible teacher and very mature

Mee234:
By being a good bible teacher and very mature

Yes because the bible represents ALL religions.



People these days

Mee234:
By being a good bible teacher and very mature

that guy is falsehood personified abegi... If u re his bible student u better watch it...i hate extreme teachings.

Bidam: that guy is falsehood personified abegi... If u re his bible student u better watch it...i hate extreme teachings.

I am a student of any body on this forum. I understand not everything he post are correct, you still can not denail he has more than average knowledge of the scriptures

@ Bidam,

I asked you to explain this but you refused and was going in circles,

V

Goshen360:

I don't mix any error with the truth. I only use biblical text to explain biblical text. My source is the teacher, Holy Spirit and spend much time studying and proving the truth and biblical text. Now, you agreed that Matthew to John were written AFTER the death and resurrection of Christ. The question is, DID THE EVENTS RECORDED ALSO HAPPENED AFTER THE DEATH/RESURRECTION OF CHRIST OR DURING I gave you biblical text right in front of you and you denied such truth. I seriously need you to answer this question please!

When you pull Galatians 4:4 I referenced and Hebrews 9:15-20, you will need to explain how Matthew to John are NT. One thing I will encourage you as a brother is to always reason or tie up scriptural text together when you study for yourself. One scripture must compliment the other. I haven't said anything in error.

Galatians 4:4
Amplified Bible (AMP)

But when the proper time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born subject to [the regulations of] the Law,

If He, Christ was born subject to the regulations of the law, Is that the NT

Second,

Hebrews 9:15-20
Amplified Bible (AMP)

15 [Christ, the Messiah] is therefore the Negotiator and Mediator of an [entirely] new agreement (testament, covenant), so that those who are called and offered it may receive the fulfillment of the promised everlasting inheritance—since a death has taken place which rescues and delivers and redeems them from the transgressions committed under the [old] first agreement.

16 For where there is a [last] will and testament involved, the death of the one who made it must be established,

17 For a will and testament is valid and takes effect only at death, since it has no force or legal power as long as the one who made it is alive.

18 So even the [old] first covenant (God’s will) was not inaugurated and ratified and put in force without the shedding of blood.

19 For when every command of the Law had been read out by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of slain calves and goats, together with water and scarlet wool and with a bunch of hyssop, and sprinkled both the Book (the roll of the Law and covenant) itself and all the people,

20 Saying these words: This is the blood that seals and ratifies the agreement (the testament, the covenant) which God commanded [me to deliver to] you.

Bidam, can you please explain how the "contents" of Matthew to John (though written AFTER the death and resurrection of Christ we both agree) is NT following the text from Hebrews and answer the above question (in RED, embolden and quoted from my previous post) please. There is NO error in what I teach here, you only need to understand the truth and then I will explain further on the teachings and words of Christ in Matthew to John.