₦airaland Forum

promisechuks:
Please why changing the OP?

Because that is the message of the thread as alluded to in the Op:

What then is Grace? Grace transcends forgiveness to an entitlement to partake of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:3,4)

vooks:
Have you sinned today Scholar8200?

No, I cant recall the Spirit or my conscience bearing witness to the contrary.

truthman2013:
Hmmn.. Another nice lie. The son of an High Priest is also called an High priest..

Nice lie

It is alright to express your opinion. Until you can prove it with facts, it remains your opinion!

Sweetnecta:
@Frosbel, Olaadegbu, Aletheia, Bukatyne, Tiarabubu, etc: There are many threads about Another Comforter/Holy Spirit. Each has not brougt the christians to a consensus in the same form as Jesus being a prophet, for example. Now is your chance to clear the air. So tell us the truth

By just showing us how the Holy Spirit, without bodily form to identify "him" and mouth to "speak" with was able to accomplish the duties of "the teacher, corrector, etc" of the another comforter to man. The duties consist of first "hearing from God", then "speaking to believers of Jesus; his disciples". The above will correct mistake/wrong, lead to all truth, teach new things, convict the world of sins, etc, proclaim Jesus by praising him. None of these can be done without being able to speak in audible voice. Or is? Please tell us how and why would Jesus say he will hear and speak, if not a voice speech?


The verse in the Gospel of John is clear enough, stating Jesus said the Another Comforter was to hear from God and speak to man, only whatever he hears, without adding or removing from it. I wanna know how did this Holy Spirit God heard from God after hearing spoke to men.


I bet the moderator will know that this is not a muslim thread or meant to bash the christians or anybody for that matter. there is no reason therefore to move it to muslim section, since it is addressed to the knowledgeable christians so that I can gain some needed knowledge.

This was to be the pattern:

11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost
Mark 13:11

Besides, Abiathar was the son of an high priest, and succeeded his father in the office: and might be at this time his deputy, who acted for him, or he by has advice; and according to a rule the Jews (l) themselves give,

"the son of an high priest, who is deputed by his father in his stead, , "lo! he is called an high priest".''

So that Abiathar might at this time be called the high priest; and is the rather mentioned, because he was the more eminent and famous man; and whom the Jews call (m) Urim and Thummim, because there was much inquiry made by them; in his and his father's days, and very little after:

BY
John Gill
biblehub.com


Reference:

(l) Siphra, fol. 17. 2. apud Kidder's Demonstration of the Messiah, par. 2. p. 73.

Summary means Jesus spoke using a style familiar to the Jews. That is why they made this accusation:

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
John 5:18

They saw the son as equal to the father.

vooks:
You are dangerous tottering on the brink of a works salvation.

This is where I stand:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Ephesians 2:8-10

We are saved by faith NOT works. However, a proof of that faith is a life of good works else that faith is a hoax.

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

James 2:14,17,26

The work here referred to is what Paul described as the work of faith:

3 remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ
1 Thessalonians 1:3

In another place he says faith worketh by love! Galatians 5:6b

In fact, Grace purifies us and makes us zealous of good works (Titus 2:11-14) hence he who truly receives Grace will have these evidences except he is a reprobate:

ElCount:
Grace is more than just "unmerited favor" infact the term "unmerited favor" is over-simplifying grace.

Very Good!!! This summarises the thread and its purpose!!! Stay Blessed.

Now going back to Jer 31:31 God talked about a new convenant and that was when the first convenant was still effective that is the law of Moses. In a bid to establish this new convenant God sent His son Jesus Christ to die for us thereby bringing "grace", that is to say the law was brought to us through Moses and "Grace" through Jesus Christ. Wouldn't want to go into so much details cause a lot can be said about grace and it cannot be exhausted, but as for people seeing grace as a license to commit sin that's wrong because it is written in Rom 6:1-3 that as Christ died we died with Him and have become dead to sin and also resurrected with Him. And in verse 6 it tells us that our old man was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be destroyed and hence no longer slaves to sin.
Again you can't talk about grace without talking about faith cause its written in Rom 4:16 "it is of Faith that it might be by Grace, to the end that the promise might be guaranteed to all seed..." Also in Rom 5:1-2 we find out that it is Faith that gives us access to Grace
Well I just recommend the book of Romans for a better insight into grace it inexhaustible

Indeed, NO ONE merits Grace but they only gain an entrance therein who repent and believe. They only continue therein who watch, hold fast and overcome! They only enter into its final end who endure to the end!

As per the highlighted, it is for such that this thread was opened! Those whose understanding of Unmerited favour is that which needs no appropriation and is just an act of forgiveness! And afterwards calls forth no labouring to enter into that rest but a passive sauntering on the broad way claiming unmerited favour, not as what the Bible reveals it is, but as a waiver to be presented at the narrow gate!

Nadheer15:
The biblical verse you provided talks about a "Samarian" which means "an inhabitant of the city of samaria", whereas the Quran speaks of "[size=14pt]Samaritan" which literally means "keepers"[/size]. They're totally different from each other, the Samaritans exists today and they claim they're descendants of Joseph, remember that Joseph was born 100s of years before Moses.

This still points to my request for clarifications as Joseph had only two sons- Ephraim and Manasseh and the descendants of both together with those of the other 11 brothers were all in Egypt before Moses came as a deliverer. And does the highlighted not suggest that Samaritan-inhabitant of Samaria?

Concerning the amplified text, what were they Keeping? Were they also with Israel in Egypt? If yes, how did they become a people? and what were they known to be keeping?(IT VERILY CANT BE THE TORAH) If no, whence came they such that one of them could wield such a great influence on the whole Israel in the wilderness? Since God sent Moses and Aaron to pharaoh, it means Aaron was in charge (and Miriam led the women) when Moses left, could they have just surrendered to a total stranger?

Wikipedia states:

Ancestrally, Samaritans claim descent from the Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (two sons of Joseph) [b]as well as from the priestly tribe of Levi[/b]

If you agree with wikipedia then it corroborates the fact that there was no Samaritan until perhaps centuries after Moses. The part highlighted purple further underscores this fact. Levi was one of the sons of Jacob and was the father of the Levites, a consecrated tribe in Isreal, whence came Aaron hence they have no claim on Levi just as they were never priests or Levites that were samaritans.






As regards your first post/picture, Jews are those that belonged to the second half. Remember Israel was split in two after Solomon died, on one hand we had Judah (Jews) and Jerusalem on the other we have the remaining Israelite tribes. So The Jews are the ones from the former.

mkonzaphineas:
The Bible indicates that the community brought strong allegations against Samuel' sons but he too did not rebuke his sons
There were no curses and anger from God why?

Nice question. Well, Samuel was not a descendant of Levi and was not under God's oath to Levi and his descendants concerning priesthood as Eli was. The sons of Samuel were more of administrators but Eli's sons were under a very sacred covenant.

Nadheer15:
Don't cry, they're Samarians not Samaritans. Samaritans are different people who descended from Joseph, check their holy books, you've no right to argue about their origin when it is found in their books.



Looks like you want to cry! Anyways, sorry if it's hurting you. I've given my proofs and any objective person can see how truthful they are.

Cc Rilwayne001, lexiconkabir, yazach, etc come and see truthman2012 o, he wants to cry!

Now Joseph got married bare Manasseh and Ephraim and died in Egypt. His children and that of his 11 brothers all grew up still in Egypt till Moses was sent as a deliverer. Whence these descendants of Joseph called Samaritans?

Can you clarify this. (If you have already, do quote and highlight)

It is just like saying an Israelite attacked Esau when we all know that there was no Israel nation then, and Esau's brother was Israel!

vooks:
Question is, do their 'notion' subtract anything from the FACT that Grace is Unmerited Favor?

You concede Grace is Unmerited
You also concede Grace is favor
Why is Grace not Unmerited Favor?

But the false notion that emphasizes one aspect and despises the other aspect has to be corrected!That's the purpose here.

There is this hymn that some saints sang at a meeting," It Pays to Serve Jesus". After the singing, the speaker came up to say," It Costs to serve Jesus". Point? There are perspectives that must be balanced!

vooks:
How does any of what you did or the definition you gave of grace demonstrate that grace is not unmerited favor?

The focus of this thread is to correct the notion that grace is no more than forgiveness(what people actually mean this days when they say Grace is unmerited favour). Sure, we can never earn/merit grace however, we have a role to play in receiving and abiding therein by faith.

While there are that will welcome Strong's definition of Grace as Favour, many are apt to deliberately over look the emphasis on Divine Influence and a result it should have in the life we live.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

grace, favor:

From chairo; graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act (abstract or concrete; literal, figurative or spiritual; especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; including gratitude) -- acceptable, benefit, favour, gift, grace(- ious), joy, liberality, pleasure, thank(-s, -worthy)

http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/5485.htm

Yes, you might have been told to come to Jesus just the way you are, correct. But you dont remain just the way you are after coming to Him else you never truly came! Or you came and left.

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
2 Corinth 5:17

vooks:
The simple question,
How does ANY of this mean Grace is not unmerited favor?
I have been waiting for scriptural proof that 'grace is not unmerited favor', but NOTHING you have adduced save your own baseless claims and headline shows this.

You can build all your arguments without going against 'grace is unmerited favor' statement because all you are saying does not in ANY way nullify this statement.

Next time you set to demolish words of wisdom, quips,quote,statement,definition and so forth, you had better be sure;
1. You understand the phrase
2. You know the phrase is WRONG
3. You know what is RIGHT


Once again, regardless of all your cliches and mishmash of scriptures and arguments, grace is unmerited favor. Those words are so profound and concise, they can't possibly be distilled further. Get a life apart from kicking against the goads

Your opinion is noted.

vooks:
As usual, you purport to aid Holy Spirit with inspiration by imagining stuff nonexistent from EVERY text you quote;
1. Where is forgiveness here?
2. Where is impartation of life?
3. Where is restoration of fellowship?
4. What is divine nature? The righteousness of God?
You get one cliche right out of four
You are more adept at recycling and regurgitating cliches than using scriptures

Alright.

Strong's definition of Grace has FAVOR in it. We know it is not of works, it is not earned, it is a gift. How wrong is it to say GRACE is unmerited favor? Is it that it is merited or it is not favor?

And that favour was , among other things, described not as passive permission but active enabling by the same Strong's concordance:
{That's the focus here. Note the word,"especially"}

◄ 5485. charis ►


Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

grace, favor:

From chairo; graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act (abstract or concrete; literal, figurative or spiritual; [size=13pt]especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life;[/size] including gratitude) -- acceptable, benefit, favour, gift, grace(- ious), joy, liberality, pleasure, thank(-s, -worthy)

http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/5485.htm

FAVOR btw means accepted

Yes acceptable but not without taking away that which is offensive to the Giver!

OLAADEGBU:
Are you saying that our involvement will determine the outcome of the warring angels and devils?

Depends on what is at stake. For example, Daniel's persistence in faith and prayer made the Angelic intervention possible. If Daniel had given up in unbelief, the story would have been different.

DeathStroke007:
Did I claimed Jesus didn't speak Aramaic?

Then the Aramaic should be your basis of research here, not the Greek.

DeathStroke007:
The original scripture written in Greek isn't in that site .... There is no way to be sure there translations is correct..



Besides, the site just copy translations from different Bibles

That is because you did not follow the link.

DeathStroke007:
So what did we learn here?

1- εἰμὶ, while it means "am", but it could also mean "have been, was", or be used in reference to something that happened in the past (before the present).

If we would be faithful to the context, all three meanings are correctly applicable.

2- As I already demonstrated in the previous main-section, the context of Jesus' response clearly and indisputably referred to Jesus have already seen Abraham before the latter was even born.

A FURTHER PROOF OF HIS DIVINITY!!!

3- So even if you still insist on translating it as "I am", you still couldn't deny that in both John 3:28 and John 8:58, above, the "I am" was 100% referring to the past, which in English it would be "I have".

4- In all of this, there is not a shred of evidence that suggests that Jesus was declaring to be the "I am What I am" of Yahweh Almighty in Exodus 3.

Even Yahweh's Statement in Exodus 3 is not only unique to Him. How many billions and trillions of times did humans throughout history and their lives say I am what I am, or I am who I am? How times did people say things such as: "Accept me for who I am" and other endless similar statements?
5- It is clear that those who insist on magnifying Jesus to this level (the level of Exodus 3), have no evidence whatsoever to support their claim, and they are nothing but desperate blasphemers. They constantly take gigantic leaps in blasphemy to prove their false religion of "conjecture", christianity, which Allah Almighty Had summed up this entire false religion into this Word.

Indeed, the false religion of christianity is no more than a conjecture of men!

opinion of yours.

For those who want proof to the contrary of the lies here, see:

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/8-58.htm

But Jesus spoke Aramaic, didn't HE? And you or your ilks have been campaigning for the Aramaic Bible all along!

This switching of sides reminds me of how the pharisees will join with the sadduccees just because of their hatred for Christ (in spite of the irreconcilable beliefs of both sects)!

Since you got your materials from answeringchristianity.com, why didnt you reference them?

DeathStroke007:
Show me some examples of thesee 'grave defects' in the Bible:

So if these highly esteemed 32 Christian Biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations tell us that through their study of recently discovered manuscripts of the Bible they have found many grave and serious defects in the King James Version of the Bible then where are some examples of these "defects"? A good question, let us have a look:

In 1 John 5:7 (King James Version) we find:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. (John 5:7)"

As we have already seen in much greater detail in section 1.2.2.5, this verse is the closest approximation to what the Church calls the holy Trinity. However, as seen in that section, this cornerstone of the Christian faith has been scrapped from the RSV by these thirty two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, once again all according to the "most ancient manuscripts." However, we find that the noble Qur'an (the Muslims' Holy Scripture) did not need to wait for 2000 years for these Christians to discover this fact. Indeed God revealed it to us fully fourteen hundred years ago:

High sounding adjectives is no proof of general acceptability! Already there are a number of caveat on these newfangled translations and their unfortunate omissions.
That passage 1 John 5:7 is IN the Bible. That is why we have 3rd Century christians quoting it. The newer translations and their omissions point to the effort of enemy of Truth since the beginning, the tactic remains the same.

"O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah, and his Word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from him so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not "Three" desist It will be better for you for Allah is one God Glory be to him Far exalted is he above having a son. To him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs. (The Noble Quran, 4:171)"

Interesting, why would God wait till circ 600 AD to correct David, Isaiah, Micah etc? After all the Jews are part of the people of the Book!

Are there any other examples? Well, how about John 3:16(KJV) ?:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life..(John 3:16)"

This verses is a cornerstone of Christian preaching the world over. Even at american football matches you will find people in the stands holding up massive signs declairing:

"JOHN 3:16"

But as seen in section 1.2.3.10, this fabrication "begotten" has now been unceremoniously removed from the Bible by these most eminent of Bible revisers. However, once again, humanity did not have to wait 2000 years for this revelation. In Maryam(19):88-98 of the noble Qur'an we read:

The pharisees were the most eminent of their time but were denounced by Christ. Once again, we are not dependent on them. These omissions have been denounced on NL a number of times.

"And they say 'Allah Most Compassionate has begotten a son!'. Indeed you have put forth a thing most monstrous! The skies are ready to burst (at such a claim), and the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin. That they should ascribe a son to the Most Compassionate. But it is not befitting [the majesty of] the Most Compassionate that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to the Most Compassionate as a servant. He has taken account of all of them and has numbered them all exactly. And every one of them will come to him singly on the day of judgment. On those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, will Allah most gracious bestow love. Verily, We have made this [Qur'an] easy in your tongue [O Muhammad] that you might deliver glad tidings to those who seek refuge [in Allah] and warn with it a people who are contentious. And how many a generation before them have we destroyed! Can you find a single one of them or hear from them so much as a whisper?"

Interesting, why would God wait till circ 600 AD to correct David, Isaiah, Micah etc? After all the Jews are part of the people of the Book!

The reader is encouraged to obtain a copy of the New Revised Standard Version and to compare it to the King James Version. Specifically, notice that the following 17 verses have been omitted outright in the newer and more faithful translations:

coming from a purveyor of the failed gospel of Barnabas?I am not surprised!

Remind your folks that this means just what it reads:

and if [size=16pt]any man[/size] shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book
Revelations 22:19

Any man no matter how 'eminent'.

Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; 17:36; 23:17; Jn. 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom. 16:24; and 1 John 5:7.

Further, in the NRSV Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53 - 8:11 are also marked as highly questionable since they do not appear in the most ancient copies of the Bible. This Bible also questions four other verses with footnotes-- Matt. 12:47; 21:44; Lk. 22:43; 22:44. This makes a total of 45 entire verses which are removed entirely or seriously questioned. In addition there are 147 other verses with significant portions missing (eg. Rev 1:11 etc.).

I perceive your 'most ancient manuscripts' are the codex sinaiticus etc; Well, those mss are reputed to omitting massive portions too.

Prior to 1952 all versions of the Bible made mention of one of the most miraculous events associated with the prophet Jesus peace be upon him, that of his ascension into heaven. This great event is mentioned in only two places in the NT. They are:

"So then the lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19)"

and once again in Luke:

"While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. (Luke 24:51-52)"

In the 1952 RSV Mark 16 ends at verse 8 and the rest is relegated in small print to a footnote (more on this later). Similarly, in the commentary on the verses of Luke 24, we are told in the footnotes of the NRSV Bible "Other ancient authorities lack "and was carried up into heaven'" and "Other ancient authorities lack 'and worshipped him'". Thus, we see that the verse of Luke in its original form only said:

Without clear proofs, all the highlighted are LIES! Acts 1 and the record of Christ's ascension therein shows that Luke 24:51,52 indeed every thing in that chapter IS CORRECT!!!

"While he blessed them, he parted from them. And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy."

It took centuries of "inspired correction" to give us Luke 24:51-52 in their current form.

As another example, in Luke 24:1-7 we read:

"Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. (Luke 24:1-7)"

This is a feeble attempt but let me warn you:

Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
Matthew 18:7

We may not come after you nor call for your head but that is not to say your efforts are without consequences.

Well, the non-Christian sect that use the NWT know themselves.

Remember Lot's wife!

Namely, the righteousness of God which comes by believing with personal trust and confident reliance on Jesus Christ (the Messiah). [And it is meant] for all who believe. For there is no distinction,
Romans 3:22 (AMP)

That is Grace! It transcends just an act of forgiveness but it is followed by an Impartation of Life! It restores not just fellowship but the Divine Nature!

MrAnony1:
P/s: I will only respond to genuine and serious replies to the thread. I WILL NOT respond if your answer contains mockery, blasphemy, or use of foul language.
I want the conversation to be strictly about what Nature means and whether there is evidence of intelligence in the creation of natural things or not. Any replies that have nothing to do with the questions in this topic will be ignored.

Cheers

Apologies to the op, I am not an expert here.

However, I see nature as the response of all Creation to the ordinances/laws set by the Creator with respect to changes in the Divine order of creation, after the fall.

If it were all energies , chaos and then order, whence the perfectly reasonable and constant laws (eg Gravity)? Who set those laws?

(You mentioned the Goat? I believe those animals underscore the fact of a Creator! Why? If man evolved from Apes, I would have expected that Apes, NOT Goats, would have a goatee!)

cckris:
Many thanks for providing brilliant highlights of the
'gospel of barnabas'. I now have PDF copies. This forgery can be used to help sincere Moslems see how they've been MANIPULATED.

Indeed. We thank God.

Mrfahaz:
Did you know that the Bible, that is widely
considered to be one of the most sacred
books in the world, contains verses so
explicit and controversial you’ve probably
never heard them in church?
While some Bible scholars explain the
extremely bizarre verses by being mere
metaphors or specific historical context,
others are not so sure about ambiguity of
the passages of scripture and interpret them
rather literally. There are just some of the
verses that desperately need to be justified
as soon as possible:


1) 2 Kings 2:23-24; New International
Version (NIV)
From there Elisha [the prophet] went up to
Bethel. As he was walking along the road,
some boys came out of the town and jeered
at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said.
“Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around,
looked at them and called down a curse on
them in the name of theLord. Then two bears
came out of the woods and mauled forty-two
of the boys.
Does that mean God hates children mocking
his prophets and even sends bears to attack

2) 1 Samuel 15:3 (NIV)
“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally
destroy all that belongs to them. Do not
spare them; put to death men and women,
children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels
and donkeys.”
Is this gruesome verse endorsing genocide?

3) Psalm 137:9 (NIV)
“Happy is the one who seizes your
infants and dashes them against the rocks.”
Is the Bible encouraging brutal murder
of children?

4) Deuteronomy 13:6-9 (NIV)
“If your very own brother, or your son or
daughter, or the wife you love, or your
closest friend secretly entices you, saying,
“Let us go and worship other gods” (gods
that neither you nor your ancestors have
known, gods of the peoples around you,
whether near or far, from one end of the land
to the other), do not yield to them or listen
to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare
them or shield them. You must certainly put
them to death. Your hand must be the first in
putting them to death, and then the hands of
all the people.”
Is the Bible calling to kill loved ones instead
of being tolerant and merciful? for being rude?

5) Leviticus 11:10 (NIV)
“But all creatures in the seas or streams that
do not have fins and scales — whether
among all the swarming things or among all
the other living creatures in the water — you
are to regard as unclean.”
Eating shrimps, lobsters or crayfish is sinful?

6) 1 Timothy 2:12 (NIV)
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to
assume authority over a man; she must be
quiet.”
Is the Bible openly promoting sexism
and gender inequality?

7) Matthew 19:24 (NIV)
“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go
through the eye of a needle than for someone
who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Does that mean as long as you are poor you
can enter heaven easily and if you are
prosperous prepare yourself for hellfire?

Jeremiah 9:19 (NIV)
“I will make them eat the flesh of their sons
and daughters, and they will eat one
another’s flesh because their enemies will
press the siege so hard against them to
destroy them.”
Cannibalism, seriously?

9) 1 Peter 2:18 (NIV)
“Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit
yourselves to your masters, not only to those
who are good and considerate, but also to
those who are harsh.”
The Bible promotes slavery?

10) Leviticus 19:27 (NIV)
“Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head
or clip off the edges of your beard.”
Why? Just why?

Disturb? NEVER! We know the context and the background .

God's Righteousness At Christ's Expense

Whatever meaning anyone wants to read to that verse, remember this came first:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,...will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9,10a

Now in the Op, Paul was simply saying:

But if they have not self-control (restraint of their passions), they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame [with passion and tortured continually with [size=15pt]ungratified[/size] desire].
1 Corinthians 7:9 (AMP)

This agrees with the moral context of the Epistle, nay, the whole Bible.

facheux:
The Jews of Palestine expected the arrival of a Prophet who’d overthrow the Roman government and destroy the occupation, not to be crucified by them! Jesus made it clear that the purpose of his mission was to preach the Law and the Gospel (only) to the Children of Israel:

That is not true. Besides, they had erroneous expectations. Where do you find that in the OT? So basing your claims on their erroneous expectations is wrong.

Jesus replied, "Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come." (Mark 1:38)

But he said, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent." (Luke 4:43)

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. (Matthew 18:11, KJV only)

For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. (Luke 19:10)

But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Matthew 9:13)

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:17-18)

So, what does this mean:

The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; 16 the people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up
MAtthew 4:15,16

Jesus was unwilling to die:

Jesus escaped crucifixion because he did not want to die, that was not the purpose of his mission, and GOD saved him. According to the Gospels, Jesus was quite unwilling to be crucified, or even stoned:

19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said
John 2:19,22
He knew from the onset why He came.

After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. (John 7:1)

Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. (John 8:59)

Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples. (John 11:54)

And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt].
(Matthew 26:39, Luke 22:42)

Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; (Hebrews 5:7)

Yes He had to do all that because of this reason:

Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. John 7:30

When His hour came He submitted to it even though He could have called for Angels.

The Jews and Romans never crucified Jesus, or else the mission would have failed, the Jews expected the Anointed One to be victorious the way David (the anointed) prevailed over his enemies; he was also betrayed by Ahithophel. Jesus could not have been the Messiah if he were executed. The Bible explicitly teaches that false prophets must die:

And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn [you] away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. (Deuteronomy 13:5)

So Who said this:

All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment:
and who shall declare his generation?
for he was cut off out of the land of the living:
for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And [b]he made his grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death;
[/b]because he had done no violence,
neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him;
he hath put him to grief:
when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,
he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days,
and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
Isaiah 53:6-10

This is clear enough.


IF GOD COULD TAKE ELIJAH TO HEAVEN WITHOUT NEEDING TO DECEIVE JEZEBEL/AHAB AND HER ARMIES, WHY WILL HE PLAY GAMES IF HE WANTED TO DO SAME TO JESUS BEFORE CRUCIFIXION? TO WHAT PURPOSE?

AND PLAYING GAMES TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DISCIPLES WERE PERSECUTED AND KILLED FOR BELIEVING AND TEACHING SAME??