Kobojunkie:
You already pointed out in your previous comment that you are indeed aware of what God said of His New Covenant through His prophets, so why do you need me to give you what you already have?
And since you already conclude that Jesus is not the New Covenant, how do you intend to show that any of what I have stated so far about the New Covenant experience is untrue?

I just.want to understand what your.convictions are....maybe there is something i have missed.

[quote author=sonmvayina post=100585341]

Did God ever asked any one to believe in another man other than God himself?
Will God ever share his glory with any other person or thing ?

To believe in Jesus is just like saying to believe that Prophet Jeremiah was a true prophet and to heed his warnings.

Did any prophet ever asked anybody to believe in the death of the messiah as against obeying Gods commandments?

No, and believing in the death of the messaiah is not as important as repentance ( Acts 3) and the Kingdom of God. The death of the messaiah is part of christian message of course, but believing in it is not what Jesus came to teach majorly.

There is so many conflict between what God commanded in the jewish bible and the christian bible.

Why so?

I would have taken you seriously if you actually quote the Christian Bible, but you hardly quote the Christian bible.

shadeyinka:
There was no law against murder before Can killed his brother but this didn't stop Cain from being guilty.
Cain's sacrifice was not accepted not because of his sacrifice but because he HAD not done well! WHat God rejected was Cain himeself and it seems not about his sacrifice. If Cain was accepted, his sacrifice would also have been accepted.

It seems that Gods law was already written in their conscience at that time to know what is right and wrong.

Duh!

shadeyinka:
If you check carefully, there was no instruction from God that Cain and Abel should make a sacrifice.
Gen 4:5-7
“Cain was very angry and dejected [that God did not regard his sacrifice]. Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? Why are you dejected? If you act rightly, you will be accepted; but if not, sin lies in wait at the door; its urge is for you, yet you can rule over it’ ”

Cain was expected to act against his compulsion for sin: Just like with Abel, by Faith, Cain could rule over this nature.

Finally!

So, no we realize that we cannot assume there was no Law given them just because the details of said Law were not provided to us, right? What we do know however is that Abel was declared righteous because he chose obedience to God and Cain chose to become a murder and instead. Hope we can now both see it all comes down to "CHOICES" where Faith again means choosing to obey the commandments of God and sin refers instead to choosing disobedience of the commandents of God instead.

So here I ask where the idea of the inherited "nature of sin" comes from?

sonmvayina:
I just. want to understand what your.convictions are....maybe there is something i have missed.

Read again... what I posted in response to your earlier post...

Kobojunkie:
God may have given your forefathers rules and commands to pass down to you, but when I arrived on the scene, the information was long lost. Instead, what was left to pass on were nothing doctrines and commandments of men, ..that which we refer to as culture and traditions, meaningless lies of men that have nothing to do with God or the things of God.

The jews may have written God's command to them down in their Torah but you and I are not jews for us to pretend that what God gave specifically to the Jews automagically should apply in any way to us. God even made this clear in His agreement with the Jews that only those of the blood of Jacob can lay claim to any of that which He has given to them. Even the foreigners who live in the land of Canaan do not benefit as much. So, I don't why anyone who is not of the blood of Jacob and does not live in Canaan should pretend he/she can steal that which God has given only to His people, Israel.

God, from the time of Abraham, promised that He would bless the nations through the seed of Abraham, and the world waited to be blessed by God too. In Deuteronomy, He promised to send another like Moses, a Lawgiver. Then through His prophets, He declared that indeed a New Covenant was to come, like the Old Covenant but different in many ways. And that New Covenant arrived in the person of Jesus Christ to bless the Nations.

What is wrong with that as far as convictions go?

Kobojunkie:
Read again... what I posted in response to your earlier post... What is wrong with that as far as convictions go?

Shallow and hollow...

Kobojunkie:
Duh!
Finally!

So, no we realize that we cannot assume there was no Law given them just because the details of said Law were not provided to us, right? What we do know however is that Abel was declared righteous because he chose obedience to God and Cain chose to become a murder and instead. Hope we can now both see it all comes down to "CHOICES". So here I ask where the idea of the inherited "nature of sin" comes from?

Even after ones salvation through Faith, choices are important.
The issue of inherited sin nature is probably made plain in describing Seth!

Genesis 5:3-4
3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.

How came Seth was not described as having the image of God but of his father Adam?
Rom 5:12-14
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Would you agree that we inherited death through Adam?
Would you disagree that we did inherit sin in this world through Adam?

shadeyinka:

Even after ones salvation through Faith, choices are important.
The issue of inherited sin nature is probably made plain in describing Seth!

Genesis 5:3-4
3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.

How came Seth was not described as having the image of God but of his father Adam?
Rom 5:12-14
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Would you agree that we inherited death through Adam?
Would you disagree that we did not inherit sin in this world through Adam?

What has Seth being of the image of Adam to do with anything? I honestly do not see a connection between Seth and that mentioned in Paul's letter to the Roman's you point to there.

Since man was not created an eternal being from the beginning, death(end of life on earth) is part of the original design.

However, the judgment/curse of Death(Perishing in the grave) - condemnation of sin - placed on mankind beginning with Adam is not inherited since it skips over the righteous,even from the time of Adam(Abel did not perish in the grave).

And Death is not to be confused with sin itself, no it is not for those condemned are not under law for they are dead to the law.

sonmvayina:

Shallow and hollow...

Maybe you should ask better questions then.

Kobojunkie:
Maybe you should ask better questions then.

Ovbiously, the gospels are not eye winess account. And the fact is nobody really knows who wrote them. Where did the catholic church get the idea thst they are inspired and that it is what God wanted when no such idea emanated from the jewish bible ?

Why did they add it at the back of the jewish scriptures?

Kobojunkie:
What has Seth being of the image of Adam to do with anything? I honestly do not see a connection between Seth and that mentioned in Paul's letter to the Roman's you point to there.

Since man was not created an eternal being from the beginning, death(end of life on earth) is part of the original design.

However, the judgment/curse of Death(Perishing in the grave) - condemnation of sin - placed on mankind beginning with Adam is not inherited since it skips over the righteous,even from the time of Adam(Abel did not perish in the grave).

And Death is not to be confused with sin itself, no it is not for those condemned are not under law for they are dead to the law.

I think the scripture is very clear on this
Rom 5:12-14
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Through one man sin entered into the world:
Because of this same one man, death came into the world
Through this same man, death spread to ALL men.

Can you not see that sin and death was inherited in the world through one man Adam?

Is it not obvious that the punishment of Adam was inherited by even those who didn't sin according to the transgression of the likeness of Adam?

sonmvayina:
Ovbiously, the gospels are not eye winess account. And the fact is nobody really knows who wrote them.

How much of scripture is based on "eye witness" accounts?

sonmvayina:
Where did the catholic church get the idea thst they are inspired and that it is what God wanted when no such idea emanated from the jewish bible ?

You'd have to ask the Catholic Church about that. What I know instead is that All Knowledge, be it of Good or of Evil, belongs to God, and so is all inspired by Him.

sonmvayina:
Why did they add it at the back of the jewish scriptures?

Given that the Jewish scriptures do in fact speak of the coming of a New Covenant and that Jesus Christ arrived a the New Covenant initially with a mission to only the lost sheep of Israel, and then upon His resurrection, to all of the worlds, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure the New a continuation of the old stories.

shadeyinka:
I think the scripture is very clear on this
Rom 5:12-14
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Through one man sin entered into the world:
Because of this same one man, death came into the world
Through this same man, death spread to ALL men.

Can you not see that sin and death was inherited in the world through one man Adam?

Is it not obvious that the punishment of Adam was inherited by even those who didn't sin according to the transgression of the likeness of Adam?

I have explained to you before that the opinions expressed by Paul in his letters hold water only if they are backed by the Word of God or other witnesses. So, until you have back up for the claim he made there, it remains just his opinion and nothing else. The law of 2 or 3 witnesses in the establishing of a Truth(part of both the Old and New Covenants mind you) demands this.

Find additional scripture for your claims and we have a go.

Kobojunkie:
I have explained to you before that the opinions expressed by Paul in his letters hold water only if they are backed by the Word of God or other witnesses. So, until you have back up for the claim he made there, it remains just his opinion and nothing else. The law of 2 or 3 witnesses in the establishing of a Truth(part of both the Old and New Covenants mind you) demands this.

Find additional scripture for your claims and we have a go.

Then case closed. I have nothing more to say to you!

shadeyinka:

Then case closed. I have nothing more to say to you!

Again, there is a law regarding the establishment of a Truth given that we are to stick to even as far as scripture is concerned. Unfortunately or fortunately, most of the declarations made in the letters attributed to Paul fail that test.

Paul himself invoked the same law in 2 Corinthians 13, meaning he was aware of that law and its use.

1Sharon:


He believes in jesus

Facepalm for you really, a cursory glance through his posts should show you that he does not believe in Jesus or the Bible. A careful look will produce the same result, just that it is so glaring. Well, maybe because i've known him for a while. Okay, to spare you the work, read his posts on this page and look for just 3 christians you know who share his weird koboko thoughts.

Image123:


Facepalm for you really, a cursory glance through his posts should show you that he does not believe in Jesus or the Bible. A careful look will produce the same result, just that it is so glaring. Well, maybe because i've known him for a while. Okay, to spare you the work, read his posts on this page and look for just 3 christians you know who share his weird koboko thoughts.

I am confused, if not the Jesus of the bible ( the 4 gospels), then which Jesus does he believe in?

Kobojunkie:
Again, there is a law regarding the establishment of a Truth given that we are to stick to even as far as scripture is concerned. Unfortunately or fortunately, most of the declarations made in the letters attributed to Paul fail that test.

Paul himself invoked the same law in 2 Corinthians 13, meaning he was aware of that law and its use.

You have no right to restrict what I use as the authority for the justification of my points. Even though I don't believe in the Quran, in engaging Muslims I can't say "don't quote the Quran!" Or restrict them only to quote from hadiths by Al-Buhari alone. It is not done! Hold your bias to yourself about Paul's writings. We are aware that Jesus didn't write a word of the scriptures neither did God dictate any chapter in the Bible: all were written by men in the language of men for men for correction, edification, teaching, warning and instruction in doing righteous deeds as inspired by God to the writers


2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Even Peter did not reject Paul's writings which some people have been twisting as they do the rest of the scriptures.

shadeyinka:

You have no right to restrict what I use as the authority for the justification of my points. Even though I don't believe in the Quran, in engaging Muslims I can't say "don't quote the Quran!" Or restrict them only to quote from hadiths by Al-Buhari alone. It is not done! Hold your bias to yourself about Paul's writings. We are aware that Jesus didn't write a word of the scriptures neither did God dictate any chapter in the Bible: all were written by men in the language of men for men for correction, edification, teaching, warning and instruction in doing righteous deeds as inspired by God to the writers

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Even Peter did not reject Paul's writings which some people have been twisting as they do the rest of the scriptures.

I didn't create the restriction here, God made the law.. I simply prefer to obey it rather than running around chasing butterflies in the wind.

Where Sin and its consequences are concerned, God is the authority and so we look to God's commandments and Laws, even declarations, for answers on related issues, not the words of men. Where we are forced to consider the accounts of men, then the Law says that by the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses shall a matter/Truth be established. This law exists in both the Old and New Covenants, albeit in different forms, but the same basic principle.

As a possible witness, Peter may not have rejected Paul's writing but Peter never informs us of which of Paul's writings he, Peter, testifies to, nor does he explicitly state what views he in fact agrees with Paul on. What we are forced to do then is consider each view expressed in Paul's writings against the teachings of of Jesus Christ(the standard as far as Truth of God is concerned) and maybe those other apostles.

Same approach should be taken in validating any views expressed by the other apostles.

God never in fact wrote any of what is recorded in the Old Covenant either but we accept that He indeed spoke through His prophets, not because we believe in the prophets who are men. However, when we read their accounts, we eventually come to trust that those declarations said to be of God, are indeed God's very words given through His prophets - messages backed by the accounts of other prophets in many cases.

GeneralDae:

I am confused, if not the Jesus of the bible ( the 4 gospels), then which Jesus does he believe in?

Another Jesus, the one that doesn't count the Bible as truth or important, the one that sleeps with Mary and forgets himself until responsible Judas drums sense into him.

Image123:


Another Jesus, the one that doesn't count the Bible as truth or important, the one that sleeps with Mary and forgets himself until responsible Judas drums sense into him.

Did he claim the bolded?

GeneralDae:

Did he claim the bolded?

Image123:

I have never seen where he claimed such about Jesus, he only advocates that everyone should follow the teachings of christ, at least from what I've seen from his writings so far.

GeneralDae:

I have never seen where he claimed such about Jesus, he only advocates that everyone should follow the teachings of christ, at least from what I've seen from his writings so far.

He's not dead, is he? Good that we're agreed on the point you didn't bold. At least, that makes him not a Christian right? Have you seen Christians share his viewpoint like you see on this page?

Kobojunkie:
I didn't create the restriction here, God made the law.. I simply prefer to obey it rather than running around chasing butterflies in the wind.

God made a law for the compilation of the old testament!?
God told them to Remove some books such as the book of Enoch from the OT!?
How and When did God give the instructions because the books were written at different times by different people?

Kobojunkie:

Where Sin and its consequences are concerned, God is the authority and so we look to God's commandments and Laws, even declarations, for answers on related issues, not the words of men. Where we are forced to consider the accounts of men, then the Law says that by the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses shall a matter/Truth be established. This law exists in both the Old and New Covenants, albeit in different forms, but the same basic principle.

As a possible witness, Peter may not have rejected Paul's writing but Peter never informs us of which of Paul's writings he, Peter, testifies to, nor does he explicitly state what views he in fact agrees with Paul on. What we are forced to do then is consider each view expressed in Paul's writings against the teachings of of Jesus Christ(the standard as far as Truth of God is concerned) and maybe those other apostles.

Same approach should be taken in validating any views expressed by the other apostles.

You can use the same rule on the books of Hebrew, Jude, 1&2 Peter, James, 1,2,&3 John, and see how many will pass by the application of your rule.

Kobojunkie:

God never in fact wrote any of what is recorded in the Old Covenant either but we accept that He indeed spoke through His prophets, not because we believe in the prophets who are men. However, when we read their accounts, we eventually come to trust that those declarations said to be of God, are indeed God's very words given through His prophets - messages backed by the accounts of other prophets in many cases.

Same with every other scripture.

It is not of you to restrict with your bias documents the church Fathers with direct contact with the disciples and apostles of Jesus had circulated within the churches.

If you regard not the writings of Paul: too bad!

shadeyinka:

God made a law for the compilation of the old testament!?
God told them to Remove some books such as the book of Enoch from the OT!?
How and When did God give the instructions because the books were written at different times by different people?

You can use the same rule on the books of Hebrew, Jude, 1&2 Peter, James, 1,2,&3 John, and see how many will pass by the application of your rule.

Same with every other scripture.

It is not of you to restrict with your bias documents the church Fathers with direct contact with the disciples and apostles of Jesus had circulated within the churches.

If you regard not the writings of Paul: too bad!

* * * The law of 2 and 3 witnesses is found contaned in the Old and then the New Covenants.

* I never stated that God said to remove some books.. don't know where you get that from

* The law is meant to be used in the case of all Truths that are not attributed to God Himself implying that even views expressed in the writings of the others apostles, extrabiblical scripture not excluded, should be subjected to the same test. This is not about how many views of their views pass the test, but about knowing the Truth from the views of men.

* Again, I don't restrict scripture - the God you say you serve made the Law and I simply follow it. Even Paul speaks of using it in 2 Corinthians Chapter 13.

* Speaking of the laws God made, You are also told that where the Kingdom of God is concerned, you are to call no man father. Just pointing out that you refer there to men as your "church fathers"

* As for Documents your "church fathers" circulated with direct contact with how many disciples? I am not certain what you mean there.

* The views expressed in Paul's letters aren't the only views that are to be verified, you know. Every work out there, like I said, including books such as the Book of Jasher, books of the apocrypha, the other gospels, the book of Enoch, etc. The same law ofcourse need be applied to the works of the apostles, so I am not certain why you keep bringing Paul up as if he is the only one who expressed unverifiable views in that book -views not claimed by the author to be God's direct declarations.

* This law was provided by God in order to aid in resolving of issues.

Kobojunkie:
How much of scripture is based on "eye witness" accounts?
You'd have to ask the Catholic Church about that. What I know instead is that All Knowledge, be it of Good or of Evil, belongs to God, and so is all inspired by Him.
Given that the Jewish scriptures do in fact speak of the coming of a New Covenant and that Jesus Christ arrived a the New Covenant initially with a mission to only the lost sheep of Israel, and then upon His resurrection, to all of the worlds, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure the New a continuation of the old stories.

So why are you wasting your life on it...the best any one can do is use it as a guide...not worship a man as god.

The new convenant is God making his laws easy for us to obey. He never said somebody was coming to die for sins. The messiah is an ordinary man like you and me, with father and mother...not a demi god...

Kobojunkie:
* * * The law of 2 and 3 witnesses is found contaned in the Old and then the New Covenants.

* I never stated that God said to remove some books.. don't know where you get that from

* The law is meant to be used in the case of all Truths that are not attributed to God Himself implying that even views expressed in the writings of the others apostles, extrabiblical scripture not excluded, should be subjected to the same test. This is not about how many views of their views pass the test, but about knowing the Truth from the views of men.

* Again, I don't restrict scripture - the God you say you serve made the Law and I simply follow it. Even Paul speaks of using it in 2 Corinthians Chapter 13.

* Speaking of the laws God made, You are also told that where the Kingdom of God is concerned, you are to call no man father. Just pointing out that you refer there to men as your "church fathers"

* As for Documents your "church fathers" circulated with direct contact with how many disciples? I am not certain what you mean there.

* The views expressed in Paul's letters aren't the only views that are to be verified, you know. Every work out there, like I said, including books such as the Book of Jasher, books of the apocrypha, the other gospels, the book of Enoch, etc. The same law ofcourse need be applied to the works of the apostles, so I am not certain why you keep bringing Paul up as if he is the only one who expressed unverifiable views in that book -views not claimed by the author to be God's direct declarations.

* This law was provided by God in order to aid in resolving of issues.

Any ways, there is no debate about it. Learn to accept it if you can. But you cant by any means FORBID people justifying doctrines from any book of the Bible

sonmvayina:

So why are you wasting your life on it...the best any one can do is use it as a guide...not worship a man as god.

The new convenant is God making his laws easy for us to obey. He never said somebody was coming to die for sins. The messiah is an ordinary man like you and me, with father and mother...not a demi god...

In God context, the word "worship" really means to trust and obey/serve.

An eye witness account is not as important to me as you think it is to you, so I am not wasting my life, and God's Covenant, particularly His New agreement, is not meant to be used as a guide but is instead a Living guide for those who want to become Sons of God. As God declared through His prophets, He has set Himself up as one and only Master/Teacher/Shepherd/Lead over those who belong to His New Covenant.

The New Covenant is God making His New laws easy? Where do you get this from?

As for God never saying He would send someone.... read the book for yourself. God did in fact say He was sending someone, but He never specified that the one He would send would not be a demigod. So, I am not sure where you get that from.

shadeyinka:

Any ways, there is no debate about it. Learn to accept it if you can. But you cant by any means FORBID people justifying doctrines from the any books of the Bible

I don't do doctrines and traditions of men since they are against the commandment of God, so don't expect me to accept your doctrines which have no basis in scripture .i.e. are supported by what amounts to mere views/opinions of men, and not Truth.

I made this quite clear on another thread, didnt I? I was clear that I do not believe your Bible to be the "inerrant word of God but instead that Jesus Christ is the Word of God, whereas your Bible is a book, like any other book, only it contains the written down Word of God, along with the views of men(including those of evil men and Satan's as well) . On the issue of "inspiration" , all knowledge belongs to God and God alone...every knowledge that we can breathe or come up with - good and evil - it all belongs to Him, and is hence inspired by Him. Meaning every knowledge, including the one contained in your Bible , is inspired by God.

Where God is concerned, I put my trust in Truth as declared by God. So, if a view expressed by your man or anyone does not pass muster(God's test), it simply means it belongs where the other views of men belong, but not on the shelf with Truth.

Kobojunkie:
I don't do doctrines and traditions of men since they are against the commandment of God, so don't expect me to accept your doctrines which have no basis in scripture .i.e. are supported by what amounts to mere views/opinions of men, and not Truth.

I made this quite clear on another thread, didnt I? I was clear that I do not believe your Bible to be the "inerrant word of God but instead that Jesus Christ is the Word of God, whereas your Bible is a book, like any other book, only it contains the written down Word of God, along with the views of men(including those of evil men and Satan's as well) . On the issue of "inspiration" , all knowledge belongs to God and God alone...every knowledge that we can breathe or come up with - good and evil - it all belongs to Him, and is hence inspired by Him. Meaning every knowledge, including the one contained in your Bible , is inspired by God.

Where God is concerned, I put my trust in Truth as declared by God. So, if a view expressed by your man or anyone does not pass muster(God's test), it simply means it belongs where the other views of men belong, but not on the shelf with Truth.

Then we have not much in common to discuss about.
But like I said, you don't have to accept what I have accepted. But you do not have the right to limit me to what to use as evidence in the scripture.
All scriptures in the Bible are truly stated for edification, correction, doctrine... but is not the direct speech of God!

shadeyinka:

Then we have not much in common to discuss about.
But like I said, you don't have to accept what I have accepted. But you do not have the right to limit me to what to use as evidence in the scripture.
All scriptures in the Bible are truly stated for edification, correction, doctrine... but is not the direct speech of God!

Ok. Maybe next time, I should make it known before hand that you should stick to posting only those views which pass God's test as far as the establishment of a Truth is concerned.

According to Jesus Christ, all doctrines and traditions of men which do not line up with His Truth are LIES which bring a curse on those who imbibe and practice them. Do you believe Paul over Jesus Christ in this? .

Hey! It's a commandment given by God Himself. Am I to ignore it where God and the things of God are concerned?

Kobojunkie:
Ok. Maybe next time, I should make it known before hand that you should stick to posting only those views which pass God's test as far as the establishment of a Truth is concerned.

According to Jesus Christ, all doctrines and traditions of men which do not line up with His Truth are LIES which bring a curse on those who imbibe and practice them. Do you believe Paul over Jesus Christ in this? .


Hey! It's a commandment given by God Himself. Am I to ignore it where God and the things of God are concerned?

Like I said, you can't box me into what you consider as appropriate for your own consumption.
Take it or leave it!