DrummaBoy: Thank you debosky for your observation. I have told Image that he does not have what it takes to do an expose of any kind on Romans. How do you read Romans, talkless of teach it, and still be bound to obsolete laws like tithing. It is still this false understanding that is making him think that saints of old took everything that is taught in the OT. If this is so, like you pointed out, why did Paul write all the letters he wrote? Why did he write Galatians?!

No need to be dismissive of a fellow believer DrummaBoy - that we don't agree on everything doesn't mean we can't learn from each other.

Image123:

i categorically and specifically told you that your questions had little or no bearings on the thread but were more of a diversion. i have taken a lot of time and space to answer many of your questions on this same thread. If you have issues concerning Romans, kindly present them here. If you have other issues, kindly open another thread and refer me to it, thanks.

Hmmm... That particular question has a lot to do with your perspective on this book of Romans. It is obvious you are a defender of the law of Moses, you have shown that in most of your interpretations. If you don't understand or if you look at the book from the view of the law, you would be getting the entire thing wrong which is what is happening right now.

shdemidemi:

Hmmm... That particular question has a lot to do with your perspective on this book of Romans. It is obvious you are a defender of the law of Moses, you have shown that in most of your interpretations. If you don't understand or if you look at the book from the view of the law, you would be getting the entire thing wrong which is what is happening right now.

a defender of the law of Moses? :hehehehe, that surprises me.

shdemidemi:

No..No..No I don't think I have ever agreed with you on most things you try to infer and add to what is in the book.

I asked you a simple question that you have refused to answer, Its strange that the same you would say we have talked so much on this issue.

I can as well ask you again.....I want to ask you a simple question, please answer sincerely.

When the spirit of death was to come upon Egypt, God told the children of Israel to kill a lamb and put the blood on their doorpost and lintels. The bible makes us understand that the spirit of death will passover at the sight of the blood of the lamb.

I believe we both agree with the above statement. if pharaoh and his family were under the blood, that is in one of the houses that is covered by the blood , would the spirit of death ignore the blood of the lamb ?

Isn't Christ our Passover lamb?

Please address my questions cos I have more observations we can discuss about.

i'm really of strong opinion that your questions are a diversion. BTW, i hope that the numerous ones you asked before this would not be rehashed later or elsewhere. As to your question, i want to be clear, are you asking me to infer or add to the passover passage/account?

Image123:

i'm really of strong opinion that your questions are a diversion. BTW, i hope that the numerous ones you asked before this would not be rehashed later or elsewhere. As to your question, i want to be clear, are you asking me to infer or add to the passover passage/account?

I being reading u so far n da other brother is right.u interpret da Romans from da viewpoint of d law.u hv no deep understanding of dat book at all,else you would hv given "salient" points from d viewpoint of your deep understanding.

Da brother asked you a simple and straight question n u can't give a simple reply?Really?the brother even gave you an hint to da question dat "Christ is our Passover lamb" n u asking if he wants u infer or add to da account?really?do u know da meaning of what u said or u just playing games here?

flourishG: I being reading u so far n da other brother is right.u interpret da Romans from da viewpoint of d law.u hv no deep understanding of dat book at all,else you would hv given "salient" points from d viewpoint of your deep understanding.

Da brother asked you a simple and straight question n u can't give a simple reply?Really?the brother even gave you an hint to da question dat "Christ is our Passover lamb" n u asking if he wants u infer or add to da account?really?do u know da meaning of what u said or u just playing games here?

don't confuse sacrificial laws with spiritual laws.Spiritual laws are God's characters and attributes that do not change because God is love. You can find them embedded in the 10 commandments.Sacrificial laws are the laws of the ordinances of priesthood which are in the book of Hebrews and are done away with.Christ is our once and for all passover lamb..hence the termination of the sacrifices since we have a new priesthood..Christians are commanded by Jesus to keep other laws.

Bidam: don't confuse sacrificial laws with spiritual laws.Spiritual laws are God's characters and attributes that do not change because God is love. You can find them embedded in the 10 commandments.Sacrificial laws are the laws of the ordinances of priesthood which are in the book of Hebrews and are done away with.Christ is our once and for all passover lamb..hence the termination of the sacrifices since we have a new priesthood..Christians are commanded by Jesus to keep other laws.

is dat the answer to the question asked? by the way,arent you d same guy that teach tithing?if u saying we have a new priesthood,doesn't da same book of hebrews say the law must also change the permits da priesthood?if you can't answer da shdemidemi question,allow it to d person directed to.

shdemidemi:

When the spirit of death was to come upon Egypt, God told the children of Israel to kill a lamb and put the blood on their doorpost and lintels. The bible makes us understand that the spirit of death will passover at the sight of the blood of the lamb.

I believe we both agree with the above statement. if pharaoh and his family were under the blood, that is in one of the houses that is covered by the blood , would the spirit of death ignore the blood of the lamb ?

dats da question.if you wanna answer.

flourishG: is dat the answer to the question asked? by the way,arent you d same guy that teach tithing?if u saying we have a new priesthood,doesn't da same book of hebrews say the law must also change the permits da priesthood?if you can't answer da shdemidemi question,allow it to d person directed to.

Let's not derail this thread.Tithes predates the mosaic laws. And for the other question it might interest to know that slaves who weren't even Israelite were saved from the plague.That was a shadow of what is to come.That is the beauty of the new covenant.You friend shdemidemi use to divide the gospel for two people jews and gentiles.The bible says their is neither jews nor gentiles under Christ, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved".

Bidam: Let's not derail this thread.Tithes predates the mosaic laws. And for the other question it might interest to know that slaves who weren't even Israelite were saved from the plague.That was a shadow of what is to come.That is the beauty of the new covenant.You friend shdemidemi use to divide the gospel for two people jews and gentiles.The bible says their is neither jews nor gentiles under Christ, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved".

Just answer the question if you can ansd stop the hide and seek game you are playing.

There is no jew nor gentile under christ according to whose gospel?

Have you come to agree with the Christ the apostle in the above question presented fully?

DrummaBoy: Thank you debosky for your observation. I have told Image that he does not have what it takes to do an expose of any kind on Romans. How do you read Romans, talkless of teach it, and still be bound to obsolete laws like tithing. It is still this false understanding that is making him think that saints of old took everything that is taught in the OT. If this is so, like you pointed out, why did Paul write all the letters he wrote? Why did he write Galatians?!

What do you know about Galatians?

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

The writer of the epistle is quite particular about the knowledge of the believer. It is not good to be ignorant. Even God's people are not spared from perishing due to ignorance. So we should seek to grow in the knowledge of God primarily. We ought to know that it is up to us, who we will yield to. Evil spirits love to possess the will and make you do things against your will, control, and even knowledge. But the Spirit of the child of God is subject to the child of God. So, its up to the individual, who he will allow/permit/yield to, to be his tutor, teacher, or master. Some people are servants of sin(under the law) in a new testament era. But we are expected to go to our new class and school, to yield and present ourselves UNDER grace(obedience to righteousness). Believers can choose to OBEY righteousness, or disobey righteousness. God's righteousness is OBEYED, not only imputed.

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

You were the servants of sin. We all were, all have sinned. But NOW, you can choose to be the servant of righteousness. Jesus came that He might save us from our sin (Matthew1v21). That is His primary purpose. Anyone that claims to have Jesus and is not yet saved from sin is joking. Apostle John is very frank about it, he says such a fellow has NEVER known Jesus. Little wonder, Jesus will tell some folks "I never knew you".
1Jo 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
Thank God, God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin. But things are different now. Now, ye have obeyed from the heart. Its good to obey, like a true soldier, whether we agree or understand or no. It's better and best to obey from the heart. it is bad and worst when we are disobedient. the Roman church obeyed from the heart. They obeyed the doctrine and teaching of the apostles. They were not independent christians, they were teachable.
Act 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

There it is again, FREEDOM from sin. That is the primary and number one goal of the gospel and of Jesus.
Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
There are many things that folks propose freedom from today, but none would matter as to be free from sin. BEING made free from sin. Our freedom makes us SERVANTS again. The fact of life is that everyone is a servant to something. Either a servant to God or to money, or to sin, or whatever. People do not like to accept that they are servants anyway. They love to show their freedom. Some emphasize freedom in vain inconsequential things. Like a 'believer', shouting to the rooftops about freedom to have money, or freedom to worship anywhere, or to pray anytime and where, or freedom to use gadgets, or freedom to eat anything, smoke everything, and drink anything. Its becoming popular to hear from freedom from having a pastor, or from doing a job, or from giving money. Nothing compares to freedom from sin. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Rom 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh. this is generally the way and form in which the Bible is written. the Bible is god's Word to mankind. It is god speaking to us, communicating with us. the goal of speaking is to be understood, to communicate. If for instance, a professor or a medical doctor was to address school children, he would communicate efficiently when he 'comes' to the level of his audience. His words might not show off all his vast knowledge like it may if he were speaking with his colleagues or superiors. The same way, God's Word communicates with us as much as possible, on our level. If God's Word were to talk about DNA or protons and electrons, or about the intricacies of the galaxies, not many if any will profit from it. But god's Word and Spirit is given to profit.
As sinners, we yielded our bodies and minds to iniquity and uncleaness. Even so now, yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. Give your all to God. Your brain, time, intellect, body etc should be given toGod as priority. It's what a true christian should do, not just a missionary, pastor or church worker.

Rom 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
Rom 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

When YE WERE the servants of sin. A child of God is NO MORE a servant of sin. He is now free from sin. Before, he was free from righteousness, even though righteousness was around. Today too, sin is around, but we are free from it. temptation comes but we overcome it. Sin does not pay. it brings doom and shame in the end. The end and destination of sin is death, separation from God and His Spirit's fellowship. Now being made free from sin, and become servants to God. We need to align with the Now, many folks are living in the past. Our fruit, our goal and our destination should be holiness and everlasting life.

READING THE THREAD HAS BEEN REFRESHING.
@IMAGE, DON'T BE SUPRISED IF YOUR VIEW ON JUSTIFICATION IS REJECTED. I'M PERSONALLY SHOCKED YOU HOLD SUCH A VIEW, YOUR VIEW ON JUSTIFICATION is neither lutherian or calvinist, it is hardly protestant. remember this particular doctrine is the reason for the protestant "reformation", i advice you step back a little and do a little research and be convinced you really want to hold this view.

@she your theory on different gospel is remains so controversial.
everyone welldone

Ubenedictus: READING THE THREAD HAS BEEN REFRESHING.
@IMAGE, DON'T BE SUPRISED IF YOUR VIEW ON JUSTIFICATION IS REJECTED. I'M PERSONALLY SHOCKED YOU HOLD SUCH A VIEW, YOUR VIEW ON JUSTIFICATION is neither lutherian or calvinist, it is hardly protestant. remember this particular doctrine is the reason for the protestant "reformation", i advice you step back a little and do a little research and be convinced you really want to hold this view.

Thanks and God bless you too. i just need the scriptures' view, i'm not exactly partisan. i don't think that i've stated any justification view that is not already found in the book. i just zoomed in on it as it were.

Image123:

Thanks and God bless you too. i just need the scriptures' view, i'm not exactly partisan. i don't think that i've stated any justification view that is not already found in the book. i just zoomed in on it as it were.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINTS, I JUST WANT YOU TO MAKE SURE YOU WANT TO HOLD THAT VIEW, THE PROTESTANT 'REFORMERS DECLEAED THA VIEW HERESY. MY ADVICE STILL STAND.TAKE A STEP BACK, AND STUDY JUSTIFICATION AGAIN.
PEACE

Ubenedictus: READING THE THREAD HAS BEEN REFRESHING.
@IMAGE, DON'T BE SUPRISED IF YOUR VIEW ON JUSTIFICATION IS REJECTED. I'M PERSONALLY SHOCKED YOU HOLD SUCH A VIEW, YOUR VIEW ON JUSTIFICATION is neither lutherian or calvinist, it is hardly protestant. remember this particular doctrine is the reason for the protestant "reformation", i advice you step back a little and do a little research and be convinced you really want to hold this view.

@she your theory on different gospel is remains so controversial.
everyone welldone

I do not see any reason why we should see the different gospels/good news in the scripture as being controversial atall. The good news Abraham got saved by is definitely different from the good news John the Baptist got saved by. The good news before the death of Christ is different from the good news after his ascension, only if we can rightly divide these things and see how God's programme with man kept changing at different dispensations.


Deuteronomy 29:29 (KJ21)
29 “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.


Apostle Paul said it more than once that these mysteries/ secrets were revealed to him by the risen Christ himself and not by man. Of course, I am not saying you have to agree with me but take time to check it again.

shdemidemi:

I do not see any reason why we should see the different gospels/good news in the scripture as being controversial atall. The good news Abraham got saved by is definitely different from the good news John the Baptist got saved by. The good news before the death of Christ is different from the good news after his ascension, only if we can rightly divide these things and see how God's programme with man kept changing at different dispensations.


Deuteronomy 29:29 (KJ21)
29 “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.


Apostle Paul said it more than once that these mysteries/ secrets were revealed to him by the risen Christ himself and not by man. Of course, I am not saying you have to agree with me but take time to check it again.

but paul never said those mysteries were revealed to him alone. to claim the apostles of the new testament has different gospels is as controversial as controversail can get

Ubenedictus: but paul never said those mysteries were revealed to him alone. to claim the apostles of the new testament has different gospels is as controversial as controversail can get

He actually did in many occasions, he personalise this gospel of grace like no one else

Romans 2:16

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (This means you and I will be judged strictly by this gospel of grace, that is if we believe this is the word of God)


1 Timothy 1:11

According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.


At a point he had to go defend this gospel of liberty and spirit of life in Christ in Galatians 2:2

"And I went up by revelation, (the Lord spoke it. Evidently the Lord told Paul, `Now Paul it's time to get up to Jerusalem and confront the Twelve. We have to settle this matter, otherwise we'll never be able to move out into the Gentile world.') and communicated unto them that gospel (if you don't mind, underline the word `that.' You might say that's not an important word, but in this verse it's all important. Because it was that Gospel ) which I preached among the Gentiles,..."


Not just that Jesus was the Christ as Peter preached, but now that he also died for your sins, He was buried, and He rose from the grave for you. I can boldly say Paul's gospel ends at rapture while the gospel proponed by the rest is associated to the great tribulation.

shdemidemi:

He actually did in many occasions, he personalise this gospel of grace like no one else

Romans 2:16

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (This means you and I will be judged strictly by this gospel of grace, that is if we believe this is the word of God)


1 Timothy 1:11

According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.


At a point he had to go defend this gospel of liberty and spirit of life in Christ in Galatians 2:2

"And I went up by revelation, (the Lord spoke it. Evidently the Lord told Paul, `Now Paul it's time to get up to Jerusalem and confront the Twelve. We have to settle this matter, otherwise we'll never be able to move out into the Gentile world.') and communicated unto them that gospel (if you don't mind, underline the word `that.' You might say that's not an important word, but in this verse it's all important. Because it was that Gospel ) which I preached among the Gentiles,..."


Not just that Jesus was the Christ as Peter preached, but now that he also died for your sins, He was buried, and He rose from the grave for you. I can boldly say Paul's gospel ends at rapture while the gospel proponed by the rest is associated to the great tribulation.

it is quite unfortunate that you lack understanding, those verses doesn't say the gospel entrusted to paul was not given to the others. you err.
and peter preached the bolded. try again.


@image, are you now ready to discuss justification?

Ubenedictus: it is quite unfortunate that you lack understanding, those verses doesn't say the gospel entrusted to paul was not given to the others. you err.
and peter preached the bolded. try again.


@image, are you now ready to discuss justification?

How rude can you be without substance to back your self acclaimed understanding! Show me where Peter tells you how to be saved by believing Christ died, he was buried and he resurrected. If you can't find it just be quiet and wallow in ignorance.

shdemidemi:

How rude can you be without substance to back your self acclaimed understanding! Show me where Peter tells you how to be saved by believing Christ died, he was buried and he resurrected. If you can't find it just be quiet and wallow in ignorance.

sir, didn't you call frosbel half baked the other day? Why are you angry when some one says you lacked understanding?

Ubenedictus:

@image, are you now ready to discuss justification?

Hmmn..i would really love to hear about this justification from a biblical perspective.

Bidam: sir, didn't you call frosbel half baked the other day? Why are you angry when some one says you lacked understanding?

I called him half baked because like you, he has failed to show substance to bolster his convictions. The same problem I am facing this guy who feels he is right without verifiable passages in the scriptures to back his claims.

shdemidemi:

I called him half baked because like you, he has failed to show substance to bolster his convictions. The same problem I am facing this guy who feels he is right without verifiable passages in the scriptures to back his claims.

And what makes you think you are full baked to teach others?

Bidam: And what makes you think you are full baked to teach others?

I never said I am an authority/infallible here, in fact I am opened to corrections. You can show me through scriptures and I will totally agree with you but not through your own sensual postulations.

shdemidemi:

I never said I am an authority/infallible here, in fact I am opened to corrections. You can show me through scriptures and I will totally agree with you but not through your own sensual postulations.

Hehehehehe.Pls show me where my senses were postulated.Are you intolerable?

Bidam: Hehehehehe.Pls show me where my senses were postulated.Are you intolerable?

Bidam, we have crossed part in most issues on this forum:

Tithe or not to tithe
Health and wealth vs not conforming with the world
Law vs Grace

In all of these issues, you have never come up with scriptural substances to defend yourself beyond doubts, all I hear is 'kingdom principles'.

Move!

shdemidemi:

Bidam, we have crossed part in most issues on this forum:

Tithe or not to tithe
Health and wealth vs not conforming with the world
Law vs Grace

In all of these issues, you have never come up with scriptural substances to defend yourself beyond doubts, all I hear is 'kingdom principles'.

Move!

Also add your two gospel theory and pretribulation to the mix.That's what happens when you delve only on Paul's letters instead of treating the bible as a complete whole package.

Bidam: Also add your two gospel theory and pretribulation to the mix.That's what happens when you delve only on Paul's letters instead of treating the bible as a complete whole package.

The point here is that I have concrete and lucid proofs to back what I proclaim, I would not just come up with a shallow response as saying it is a 'kingdom principle'.

shdemidemi:

The point here is that I have concrete and lucid proofs to back what I proclaim, I would not just come up with a shallow response as saying it is a 'kingdom principle'.

My concrete proof is strictly and only the bible.What do you know about kingdom principles.Or did Jesus not tell parables? Are they applicable to us or the jewish audiences?

Bidam: My concrete proof is strictly and only the bible.What do you know about kingdom principles.Or did Jesus not tell parables? Are they applicable to us or the jewish audiences?

Jesus told parables.. His parables were relative. What is your point?

Ubenedictus:

@image, are you now ready to discuss justification?

boss i am always ready oh. But let's have it on nother thread for clarity and focus. thanks

shdemidemi:

Jesus told parables.. His parables were relative. What is your point?

Open a thread lets thrash it, we are derailing this.Apologies to bro.. image123,