₦airaland Forum

Gombs:
Read it up bro. God bless you

There is nothing to read up on bro

What debosky, MightySparrow, I and maybe others, are trying to draw your attention to
is that its only you and at the least, KJV, that interchangeably use testament for covenant
There is a distinction to agreement (i.e. covenant) and last will (i.e. testament)
Instead of you and KJV to use covenant, you are using testament

All last wills or testaments are agreements but not all agreements or covenants are last wills or testaments
Read up more on this bro. Brush up your Bible, else you'll have a truth decay. God bless you too

MuttleyLaff:
There is nothing to read up on bro

Slow it down, cowboy! There's a truckload for you to read up.

What debosky, I and others are trying to draw your attention to

So, you're the new spokesman? Well, since debosky has gone AWOL, I don't have a problem tutoring the whole lot.

is that its only you and at the least, KJV, that interchangeably use testament for covenant

So, it's me and KJV now, eh?

OK, a quick quiz, shall we?

Instruction: carefully read the below information, and promptly answer the preceeding question.


Heb 9:15 KJV
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Q1.What's the need for a new testament if there wasn't an old one? (kindly keep it in one sentence.) 20marks

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Q2. Why was there a need for a change in priesthood if there wasn't a change in the testaments? 20marks

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Q3. Whose death was hinged on the effectiveness of the OT? 10marks
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Good luck.

There is a distinction to agreement (i.e. covenant) and last will (i.e. testament)

Dont bore us now, would you?

Instead of you and KJV to use covenant, you are using testament

Dont blame I and KJV... Blame your inability to get study bibles.

NB: the Greek for the word 'testament', 'diatheke' was used interchangeably 20 times for the word covenant... What sayeth Thou to this, considering the above writ by you?

All last wills or testaments are agreements

Q4. Who was Jesus agreeing with? 5marks

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

but not all agreements or covenants are last wills or testament

Do you read what you typed at all?

Read up more on this bro. Brush up your Bible, else you'll have a truth decay. God bless you too

[/quote]I think you should call for back up!

Gombs:
Slow it down, cowboy! There's a truckload for you to read up.

Obviously, the truckload is for you to read up

Gombs:
So, you're the new spokesman?

Brother's keeper rings a bell or sound familiar to you?

Gombs:
Well, since debosky has gone AWOL, I don't have a problem tutoring the whole lot.

If so, then suck it up and just roll over

Gombs:
So, it's me and KJV now, eh?

Though you read me right the first time,
I reiterate, its only you and at the least, KJV, that interchangeably use testament for covenant

Gombs:
OK, a quick quiz, shall we?

Instruction: carefully read the below information, and promptly answer the preceeding question.

Heb 9:15 KJV
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Q1.What's the need for a new testament if there wasn't an old one? (kindly keep it in one sentence.) 20marks

Dont worry if you're ignorant about this, it isnt you alone and KJV obsessed with the testament word
You see, where you see testament, every other version used correctly used covenant.
So answering you correctly, God promised a new covenant and not a new testament

There is no first testament, there however is, a first and new covenant. Capisce?

No one dies before a covenant's application, like does, with last wills or testament. SMH

Gombs:
Q2. Why was there a need for a change in priesthood if there wasn't a change in the testaments? 20marks

Non sequitur

Gombs:
Q3. Whose death was hinged on the effectiveness of the OT? 10marks

Non sequitur

Gombs:
Good luck.

At the rate you're going and on the path you are on, trust me, you need it more than I do

Gombs:
Dont bore us now, would you?

As you can read, you've done a good job of boring all, particularly me, already

Gombs:
Dont blame I and KJV... Blame your inability to get study bibles.

At least you cant blame me for not warning you about truth decay, if you dont brush up your Bible properly

Gombs:
NB: the Greek for the word 'testament', 'diatheke' was used interchangeably 20 times for the word covenant... What sayeth Thou to this, considering the above writ by you?

Non sequitur

Gombs:
Q4. Who was Jesus agreeing with? 5marks

Another non sequitur

Gombs:
Do you read what you typed at all?

Do you really know what a last will (i.e. testament) is?
Is this how it is taught in your fellowship?

OK, is the agreement to Adam a testament?
Is the agreement to Noah a testament?
You do remember the rainbow sign, dont you?
Is the agreement with Abraham a testament?
You do remember the bloody circumscision, dont you?
If you do, then why is this difficult getting round your head then?

Gombs:
I think you should call for back up!

That's a recommendation for yourself

I've not gone awol by any means. . . just unable to engage in lengthy rebuttals right now.

debosky:
I've not gone awol by any means. . . just unable to engage in lengthy rebuttals right now.

Whenever you are ready, bro!

MuttleyLaff has lost steam... Come with back up (just saying)

Dumbasses everywhere


Old testament = old written scripts by the Jews
New Testament = new written script by Europeans

macof:
Dumbasses everywhere in my mind.


Old testament = old written scripts by the Jews
New Testament = new written script by Europeans

Fixed

Gombs:
Hello Goshen, being a while! Good to have you around.

I'm fine but mostly viewing from offline except when necessary to comment and apart from the month of July when I was home for a one month visit....I no get NL time then o because my family I'd seen many years back needed my time most.

Goshen360:
1 - How should Christians learn exactly from the old if we're not suppose to live by what we learn from the old?

Gombs:
Let's look at what Paul wrote us in his letter to the Romans, chapter 15 and verse 4
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
The message translation renders it thus...
Even if it was written in Scripture long ago, you can be sure it's written for us. God wants the combination of his steady, constant calling and warm, personal counsel in Scripture to come to characterize us, keeping us alert for whatever he will do next.
It's clear as the noonday sun that God kept those records for us, to learn from the mistakes of others, to learn of his dealings with men of old... So that we will be in line with his workings.
For example, idolatry.
God shows us how nations were wiped for idolatry, how suffering and poverty were brought upon cities... How kings deviated from a course he set for them, because of idolatry. He shows us their end, and the lessons worthy of note.
*I didn't choose tithing as an example, so that we can have a smooth going thread. Thanks

Well, not to prolong matters. I think (in the light of scriptures) that Christians are suppose to learn from the old testament (not live by it) in the light of the complete revelations of Christ and his finished works. These people of old had great times and experience with God but they don't have Christ and him death\crucified, burial & resurrection. These are the 3 anchors of our faith as believers!

Goshen360:
2 - What should Christians do with lessons of old when it is no longer valid on this side of the cross; that is, issues of the old that doesn't balance out with Christ's teachings and His finished works

Gombs:
The lessons has a lot to guide us from... Take for example,Folks in the new testament read of these books and learnt lessons (notice the Plural) from it...
Jude 9 KJV
Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
Looks to me like someone learnt a lesson from the folks of old..don't you think so?
Hebrews 11 shows us our heroes of faith... It's there for us to learn... James told us about Elijah... Peter told us about prophets of old and how they sought a glimpse of our salvation.. Faith, was taught by Paul of Abraham... Esau's blunder was taught us to learn from... So on and so much to learn.
Giving was taught to churches by Paul, from the old testament folks... Etc
You're in good hand then!

I don't think you answered the question - What should Christians do with lessons of old when it is no longer valid on this side of the cross; that is, issues of the old that doesn't balance out with Christ's teachings and His finished works

Take for instance, there're teaching of Christ that contradict the teachings of Moses and lifestyle people had been living before Christ came - e.g, Elijah calling down fire from heaven on God's\his enemies but Christ's teaching clearly kicked against that when He corrected His disciples. But today, we have churches and their G.Os mounting pulpit and leading prayers of fire on enemies and we see this is contrary to the teachings\revelations of Christ on this side of the cross & his finished work. How should Christians handle these teachings is what I'm asking.

Bottomline, Christians should understand that it is in Christ that we're complete and need no addition. If the word of God says I'm complete in Christ...I don't know what else I should believe if not the word. So, if the teachings of old or examples of old are not valid on this side of the cross, Christian are to follow Christ and not the old! It's like following shadows when the substance is available. There're many things wrong in the church today but I'll save some issues for another time.

debosky:
I disagree with this cut-off point. Jesus' teachings in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are for us to live by, not just to learn from. We cannot discard those as only for us to learn from.

Yes! You're right in the sense that, Jesus' teaching (even though it's in\under the old testament) are revelation and truth that him, being mediator of the new covenant came to establish that will take effect and carry into the new covenant. You'll agree that most of his teaching are new to the folks then to the point the marveled at his teachings as called it "new teachings"....in other words, teachings strange to what they've been taught. These teachings and more are what was expanded as revelation by the Apostles after Christ. So, we also need to put Christ's teaching in a proper place in the old testament.

Goshen360:
I'd fine but mostly viewing from offline except when necessary to comment and apart from the month of July when I was home for a one month visit....I no get NL time then o because my family I'd seen many years back needed my time most.

Good to hear that.

Well, not to prolong matters. I think (in the light of scriptures) that Christians are suppose to learn from the old testament (not live by it) in the light of the complete revelations of Christ and his finished works. These people of old had great times and experience with God but they don't have Christ and him death\crucified, burial & resurrection. These are the 3 anchors of our faith as believers!

.. But their salvation was hinged on the same Jesus, not so?

I don't think you answered the question - What should Christians do with lessons of old when it is no longer valid on this side of the cross; that is, issues of the old that doesn't balance out with Christ's teachings and His finished works

Hmmm... I'm reading on

Take for instance, there're teaching of Christ that contradict the teachings of Moses and lifestyle people had been living before Christ came - e.g, Elijah calling down fire from heaven on God's\his enemies but Christ's teaching clearly kicked against that when He corrected His disciples.

No na.. You're heading for the rocks,although you may be right in a light. Folks who rain than fire on their enemies don't know much of the scriptures... That's why we have to preach na.

What I'm trying to point out is... Thinks like;

Giving
Faithfulness
Faith (folks who did extraordinary things.. Samson, David, elisha/elijah etc)
Obedience
Etc

They all have lessons for us in the NT life.

But today, we have churches and their G.Os mounting pulpit and leading prayers of fire on enemies and we see this is contrary to the teachings\revelations of Christ on this side of the cross & his finished work. How should Christians handle these teachings is what I'm asking.

I understand... Most atimes, we pray to break such strongholds, that's what we get when we've being we've been wrongly indoctrinated... And we fight the devil like he's not been defeated by Jesus.

Bottomline, Christians should understand that it is in Christ that we're complete and need no addition. If the word of God says I'm complete in Christ...I don't know what else I should believe if not the word.

Can you then explain Romans 15:4?

So, if the teachings of old or examples of old are not valid on this side of the cross, Christian are to follow Christ and not the old! It's like following shadows when the substance is available

Now, that's your saying, not mine. Thanks

There're many things wrong in the church today but I'll save some issues for another time.

Pheeeew... Thanks for saving us the time.

Goshen360:
Yes! You're right in the sense that, Jesus' teaching (even though it's in\under the old testament) are revelation and truth that him, being mediator of the new covenant came to establish that will take effect and carry into the new covenant. You'll agree that most of his teaching are new to the folks then to the point the marveled at his teachings as called it "new teachings"....in other words, teachings strange to what they've been taught. These teachings and more are what was expanded as revelation by the Apostles after Christ. So, we also need to put Christ's teaching in a proper place in the old testament.

I'm not very interested in where the line is 'drawn' to separate old and new testaments, that is of secondary importance to me.

However, any claim that seeks to treat Jesus' teaching as not to be followed and just for us to 'learn from' is wrong, regardless of what 'testament' you place it in.

Jesus' teaching was to his disciples - the ones walked, talked, lived and learnt from Jesus, the ones who received the Holy Spirit in the upper room. They considered what Jesus taught them before his death as instructions to be followed, not just learned from. Granted they may have been limited in their understanding or even ability to follow them without the Holy Spirit, but the validity/applicability of those instructions to Christians today should not be in doubt.

debosky:
However, any claim that seeks to treat Jesus' teaching as not to be followed and just for us to 'learn from' is wrong, regardless of what 'testament' you place it in.

It's amazing how you lot twist someone's writings to suit your misconceptions.

The above bold is a figment of your imagination, I never said Jesus' teachings are not to be followed, I said.. Jesus couldn't really teach any new revelation, a feat i asked you to produce new revelations taught by Jesus, a feat you failed with flying colours.

Jesus said to us all that He was sent to the Jews o (Mat 15:24).. Is it that difficult to understand?

Jesus' teaching was to his disciples

Wrong... Read Matthew 15:24

- the ones walked, talked, lived and learnt from Jesus,

Wrong again.

the ones who received the Holy Spirit in the upper room.

Wrong again.

They considered what Jesus taught them before his death as instructions to be followed, not just learned from.

Fact is, they didn't even believe Him enough (don't come and say that I said they didn't believe Him o) ... They were even surprised to hear he was not in the tomb, even after He told them He was gonna rise again.

The disciples knew Jesus by the flesh. (2 Corinthians 5:16) They didn't know Him by the Spirit, for to them, He was to them a great Jewish teacher. Peter however said something by the Spirit, but he didn't really understand what he said. No wonder, after Jesus died, they all went to their different occupations, even though Jesus told them He'd be back again.

It was during Jesus' ascension (not before His death as you falsely claim) that He told them to make disciples of the nations, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever He commanded them:

Granted they may have been limited in their understand

They knew Him after the flesh.. Simple.

ing or even ability to follow them without the Holy Spirit, but the validity/applicability of those instructions to Christians today should not be in doubt

Can you point anywhere I said the validity or application of Jesus' teachings should be in doubt? Thanks

Gombs:
It's amazing how you lot twist someone's writings to suit your misconceptions.

The above bold is a figment of your imagination, I never said Jesus' teachings are not to be followed, I said.. Jesus couldn't really teach any new revelation, a feat i asked you to produce new revelations taught by Jesus, a feat you failed with flying colours.

There is no misconception - if you say Jesus' teachings which are captured in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are part of the OT and say at the same time that OT teachings are for learning not for following, what other conclusion can be reached?

I've shown you a whole paragraph of new revelations yet you've not come back to say which one wasn't a new revelation. Are you to be taken seriously or are you just trolling?

Jesus said to us all that He was sent to the Jews o (Mat 15:24).. Is it that difficult to understand?

Please explain to me what Jesus meant. . . .it is difficult for me to understand what interpretation you're taking from that.

Fact is, they didn't even believe Him enough (don't come and say that I said they didn't believe Him o) ... They were even surprised to hear he was not in the tomb, even after He told them He was gonna rise again.

The disciples knew Jesus by the flesh. (2 Corinthians 5:16) They didn't know Him by the Spirit, for to them, He was to them a great Jewish teacher. Peter however said something by the Spirit, but he didn't really understand what he said. No wonder, after Jesus died, they all went to their different occupations, even though Jesus told them He'd be back again.

It was during Jesus' ascension (not before His death as you falsely claim) that He told them to make disciples of the nations, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever He commanded them:

Jesus made them his disciples before his death. Who mentioned 'disciples of nations'?

They knew Him after the flesh.. Simple.

No they didn't - they beheld His glory as that of the only begotten son of God. John 1:14. The same disciples by the inspiration of the Spirit declared He was the son of God. Mark 8:9, Luke 9:20.

Can you point anywhere I said the validity or application of Jesus' teachings should be in doubt? Thanks

Your opening statement stating that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are in the OT which are for 'learning from' casts doubt on the validity of Jesus' teaching.

Gombs:
The new testament therefore began with the Acts of the Apostles. Is the old Testament book then ineffective and useless? Nay, the old Testament is for us to learn from (Romans 15:4), not to live by. We will never enjoy Christianity by living by the old Testament.

There it is in your own words - Jesus teachings are not for us to live by, since Jesus teachings are part of the Old Testament by your definition.

debosky:
There it is in your own words - Jesus teachings are not for us to live by, since Jesus teachings are part of the Old Testament by your definition.

Comprehension is your deficiency o...

I can't help your comprehensive ability any further, bro.

debosky:
There is no misconception - if you say Jesus' teachings which are captured in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are part of the OT and say at the same time that OT teachings are for learning not for following, what other conclusion can be reached?

Comprehension o...
Jesus couldn't teach new revelations.. Is different from Jesus' teachings are to be ignored... Na wa o

I've shown you a whole paragraph of new revelations yet you've not come back to say which one wasn't a new revelation. Are you to be taken seriously or are you just trolling?

You see how people fail exams? Don't you understand what "list" "outline" is?

Please explain to me what Jesus meant. . . .it is difficult for me to understand what interpretation you're taking from that

It's as plain as white on rice... Weird you don't still get it.

Jesus made them his disciples before his death. Who mentioned 'disciples of nations'?

Comprehension o...
I don't even know how else to explain it to you.... Lol

No they didn't - they beheld His glory as that of the only begotten son of God. John 1:14.

That was after his resurrection na... Na wa o. Lol

See this.. I hope you'll understand o..

Joh 7:39 KJV
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

The same disciples by the inspiration of the Spirit declared He was the son of God. Mark 8:9, Luke 9:20.

For some reasons, you didn't notice this in the OP!

Your opening statement stating that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are in the OT which are for 'learning from' casts doubt on the validity of Jesus' teaching.

By your logic, that means I said the validity of the OT is in doubt!

Weldone o

I believe dt debosky and gombs can harmonize.
Both of are worded and sharp.
Can u pls learn to air d different understandings in a civil manner?
We r learning here

Gombs:
Good to hear that.





.. But their salvation was hinged on the same Jesus, not so?




Hmmm... I'm reading on



No na.. You're heading for the rocks,although you may be right in a light. Folks who rain than fire on their enemies don't know much of the scriptures... That's why we have to preach na.

What I'm trying to point out is... Thinks like;

Giving
Faithfulness
Faith (folks who did extraordinary things.. Samson, David, elisha/elijah etc)
Obedience
Etc

They all have lessons for us in the NT life.




I understand... Most atimes, we pray to break such strongholds, that's what we get when we've being we've been wrongly indoctrinated... And we fight the devil like he's not been defeated by Jesus.



Can you then explain Romans 15:4?



Now, that's your saying, not mine. Thanks




Pheeeew... Thanks for saving us the time.

All of those subjects you mentioned are taught differently to Christians in the new covenant in the light or revelation of the finished work of Christ....not as compliment or continuation to the old covenant.

Gombs:
the old Testament is for us to learn from (Romans 15:4), not to live by. We will never enjoy Christianity by living by the old Testament.

That is y we call tax collectors thieves.