Why does God send people to hell?

[Rhema]

Hello @Rhema,

You are talking to the wrong person.

I have no more to say to you.

Goodbye

No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.​

- Luke 5:39 KJV

 

[Rhema]

God sovereignly before the foundation chose who would go to hell and who would go to heaven.

What always befuddles me is why people think "before" means "prior to" rather than "in front of." Foundation is a noun, not an event. The text is NOT written "prior to the FOUNDING of the world."

Take the common phrase, "He put the cart before the horse." This cannot possibly mean the cart was "prior to" the horse. That doesn't make sense. The horse could have been standing there for hours prior to (before) someone brought along a cart. But the phrase certainly means that the cart was put "in front" of the horse, (rather than behind the horse where it belongs).

In both English and Koine Greek, the word "before" can either denote a time relation to a verbal event (prior to), OR a location referent to an object (in front of).

So what (or who) is your FOUNDATION? Who is the Foundation of the World but Christ? We build upon a Foundation.

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.​

- 1 Corinthians 3:11 KJV

According as he hath chosen us in him, in front of Jesus Christ, the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:​

- Ephesians 1:4 KJV-advanced

Indeed,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

That He has forgiven me for all my sin, and cleansed me from all unrighteousness, and has given me the hope of eternal life, in Christ Jesus, my risen and glorified, Saviour, Lord and Head.

Just a short question, Chris.

Why did He forgive you all your sin?

Thanks,
Rhema

 

[complete]

You seem confused. you are the one that loves to add subtracting the true meaning of one word

Define the word apostle? Is Jesus the Son of man an apostle or what some say an angel?

'Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling,
consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession,
Christ Jesus;
Who was faithful to Him that appointed Him,
as also Moses was faithful in all his house.'
(Heb 3:1-2)

Hello @Garee,

The word apostle means 'a sent one', therefore we read in the verse above that the Lord Jesus Christ was,
'The Apostle and High Priest of our profession.'
'He that receiveth you receiveth Me,
and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me.'
(Mat 10:40)

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[complete]

No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.​

- Luke 5:39 KJV

Hello @Rhema,

This was spoken in reply to a question asked by the Scribes and Pharisees in verse 33,

'And they said unto Him,
Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers,
and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees;
but thine eat and drink?'
(Luke 5:33)

'No man also having drunk old wine
straightway desireth new:
for He saith, "The old is better."
(Luke 5:39)

* The disciples, like Mary, the sister of Martha, chose that good part:-

'And she had a sister called Mary,
which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard His word.
But Martha was cumbered about much serving,
and came to Him, and said,
Lord, dost Thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone?
bid her therefore that she help me.
And Jesus answered and said unto her,
"Martha, Martha,
Thou art careful and troubled about many things:
But one thing is needful:
and Mary hath chosen that good part,
which shall not be taken away from her.'
(Luke 10:39-42)

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[complete]

Just a short question, Chris.

Why did He forgive you all your sin?

Thanks,
Rhema

Answer:- He forgave me because He loved me.

Hello @Rhema, (reply #374)

Thank you for your question. I do praise God for it, for it caused me to look at the Scriptures regarding forgiveness and the Lord was able to show me that I should not have spoken to you as I did. So, I ask you to forgive me for reacting badly towards you, and saying 'Goodbye': For the Lord would never turn away from you.

'To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light,
and from the power of Satan unto God,
that they may receive forgiveness of sins,
and inheritance among them which are sanctified
by faith that is in Me.'
(Act 26:18)

Within the love of Christ our Saviour,
Our risen and glorified Lord and Head.
Chris

 

[Garee]

'Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling,
consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession,
Christ Jesus;
Who was faithful to Him that appointed Him,
as also Moses was faithful in all his house.'
(Heb 3:1-2)

Hello @Garee,

The word apostle means 'a sent one', therefore we read in the verse above that the Lord Jesus Christ was,
'The Apostle and High Priest of our profession.'
'He that receiveth you receiveth Me,
and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me.'
(Mat 10:40)

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Yes jesus as the Christ the husband the one good teaching master and not Jesus as the Son of man our brother in the Lord a disciple .The dynamic dual

The Son of man Jesus displayed the power of the unseen Father. The Son of man Jesus became a son of God (born again).

The Son was not the source of eternal. Let there be faith and it was good .

 

[complete]

Yes Jesus as the Christ the husband the one good teaching master and not Jesus as the Son of man our brother in the Lord a disciple .The dynamic dual

The Son of man Jesus displayed the power of the unseen Father. The Son of man Jesus became a son of God (born again).

The Son was not the source of eternal. Let there be faith and it was good .

Hello @Garee,

The Lord Jesus Christ was indeed the Messiah promised in the prophetic writings of the Old Testament. Son of God (God's only 'Begotten' Son) and Son of Man, 'In Him was life, and the life was the light of men'. He is the Head of the Church which is His Body, 'the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.'
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Garee]

Hello @Garee,

The Lord Jesus Christ was indeed the Messiah promised in the prophetic writings of the Old Testament. Son of God (God's only 'Begotten' Son) and Son of Man, 'In Him was life, and the life was the light of men'. He is the Head of the Church which is His Body, 'the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.'
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hi Thanks .

I see that differently

God is not a dying Jewish man as King of kings and Lord of lords

Christ the teacher or anointing Holy Spirit represents the husband. . . .Abba our unseen Holy Father.

One person did bow down to the son of man Jesus and called him Good Master .

Jesus the son of man who when born again became the Son of God he would never dare blaspheme the name of the father. Our living God

Mark 10:17-18;And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?;And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Jesus the Son of man was reckoned born again because of the resurrection power of the father. Not his first birth ( the flesh)

Philippians 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his (the father) resurrection, and the fellowship of his (the father) sufferings, being made conformable unto his(the father) death.

No power is attributed to the son of man. Jesus revealed the born-again power of the Father

 

[complete]

Hi Thanks .

I see that differently

God is not a dying Jewish man as King of kings and Lord of lords

Christ the teacher or anointing Holy Spirit represents the husband. . . .Abba our unseen Holy Father.

One person did bow down to the son of man Jesus and called him Good Master .

Jesus the son of man who when born again became the Son of God he would never dare blaspheme the name of the father. Our living God

Mark 10:17-18;And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?;And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Jesus the Son of man was reckoned born again because of the resurrection power of the father. Not his first birth ( the flesh)

Philippians 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his (the father) resurrection, and the fellowship of his (the father) sufferings, being made conformable unto his(the father) death.

No power is attributed to the son of man. Jesus revealed the born-again power of the Father

'Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord,
which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
And declared to be the Son of God with power,
according to the spirit of holiness,
by the resurrection from the dead:'
(Rom 1:3-4)

Hello @Garee,

You say that our Lord Jesus Christ was 'born again', but He had no reason to be born again, because He was born from above, because He was the Son of God. He did not 'become' the Son of God, for He was born the Only Begotten Son of God.

The resurrection from the dead confirmed, by the spirit of holiness, that our Lord Jesus Christ, now risen and glorified and sat at God's right hand, which in itself is a position of Great authority and power, is indeed the Son of God with power.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Rhema]

This was spoken in reply to a question asked by the Scribes and Pharisees in verse 33,

Hi Complete,

Jesus brought the New Wine, a metaphor for the Gospel that He alone taught. It wasn't just about pedantic religions ritual. Most Christians are caught in their old wine of a Pauline interpretation of the crucifixion, and truly cannot abide the New Wine that Jesus brought. As the Jews were in bondage to their blood rituals, so are those calling themselves Christian.

* The disciples, like Mary, the sister of Martha, chose that good part:-

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.​

- Mark 1:14-15 KJV

If Jesus came preaching the Gospel, then the Gospel is what Jesus taught (and none other).

Thank you for your question. I do praise God for it, for it caused me to look at the Scriptures regarding forgiveness and the Lord was able to show me that I should not have spoken to you as I did. So, I ask you to forgive me for reacting badly towards you, and saying 'Goodbye': For the Lord would never turn away from you.

That wasn't my purpose or intention, dear Sister, but any and all who ask my forgiveness, (whether truly needed or not) have my forgiveness:

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.​

- Matthew 6:14-15 KJV

But I really do understand that my posts challenge the fundamental beliefs of others, and I've become accustomed to "goodbye" whether it be getting kicked out of church, or receiving a credible death threat (three so far). The New Wine of Jesus was not popular to those who considered themselves the representatives of God. While Jesus may have been Jewish by lineage, of the Royal House, even, He did not preach Judaism - any of the four or five sects of Judaism existing during his time.

You quote Acts 26:18. I quote Mat. 28:20

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

- Matthew 28:20 KJV

Nothing was added to the Gospel teachings and commandments after this verse.

Answer:- He forgave me because He loved me.

And I thank you for the answer. I admit, though, I wasn't quite expecting that one. It sounds somewhat Universalist in nature, since, if God loves everyone, then God forgives everyone.

Have I misunderstood?

Kindly,
Rhema

 

[complete]

Hi Complete,​

​

Jesus brought the New Wine, a metaphor for the Gospel that He alone taught. It wasn't just about pedantic religions ritual. Most Christians are caught in their old wine of a Pauline interpretation of the crucifixion, and truly cannot abide the New Wine that Jesus brought. As the Jews were in bondage to their blood rituals, so are those calling themselves Christian.​

Hello @Rhema,

I don't understand what you mean by, 'a Pauline interpretation of the crucifixion'?

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.​

- Mark 1:14-15 KJV​

​

If Jesus came preaching the Gospel, then the Gospel is what Jesus taught (and none other).​

* What is the gospel of the Kingdom of God that was taught by the Lord Jesus Christ? How does it differ from the gospel of the grace of God, by which we are saved?

That wasn't my purpose or intention, dear Sister, but any and all who ask my forgiveness, (whether truly needed or not) have my forgiveness:​

​

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.​

- Matthew 6:14-15 KJV​

​

But I really do understand that my posts challenge the fundamental beliefs of others, and I've become accustomed to "goodbye" whether it be getting kicked out of church, or receiving a credible death threat (three so far). The New Wine of Jesus was not popular to those who considered themselves the representatives of God. While Jesus may have been Jewish by lineage, of the Royal House, even, He did not preach Judaism - any of the four or five sects of Judaism existing during his time.​

​

You quote Acts 26:18. I quote Mat. 28:20​

​

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

- Matthew 28:20 KJV​

​

Nothing was added to the Gospel teachings and commandments after this verse.​

* Thank you.
* I agree that nothing was added to the gospel of the Kingdom of God, that the Lord Jesus Christ taught while on earth, no: and the Apostles that He chose while on earth only confirmed what He Himself had said (Heb. 2:3). However there was a great deal more taught by the risen Christ, wasn't there, through Paul particularly, to whom He appeared on more than one occasion, as we are told in Acts 26:16, which became the subjects of Paul's epistles, both those written during the period covered by the approx. 40 yrs of the Acts of the Apostles, and those written after Acts 28.

And I thank you for the answer. I admit, though, I wasn't quite expecting that one. It sounds somewhat Universalist in nature, since, if God loves everyone, then God forgives everyone.​

​

Have I misunderstood?​

​

Kindly,​

Rhema​

* Isn't it true though, Rhema, considering the price paid, that our forgiveness was indeed and act of love, for, 'while we were yet sinners Christ died for us': and 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.(2 Cor. 5:19), so that Paul could say, in 2 Cor. 5:20b-21, '... we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.' Yes, God has done His part, hasn't He? It is now for mankind to be reconciled to God, by faith in the all-sufficient sacrifice of His Beloved Son.

Thank you, Rhema,
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Rhema]

It is now for mankind to be reconciled to God, by faith in the all-sufficient sacrifice of His Beloved Son.

For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.​

- Jeremiah 7:22 NRSV

He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.​

(Isaiah 66:3 KJV)

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.​

(Psalms 40:6 KJV)

The sacrifice of Jesus was that he did not live life for himself, but rather for the Gospel - and he did so despite suffering, torture and death, without recanting a single thing that he taught. There is but one Gospel - the Teaching of Jesus. Yet there is nowhere in the Teaching of Jesus where he said that he would die for your sins. It's not there. And no one, not even Paul needed to come along and "fix" the Gospel that Jesus taught. Christ was adamant that the Gospel he preached was sufficient, and that that Gospel should be taught to all mankind.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

(Matthew 28:19-20 KJV)

* I agree that nothing was added to the gospel of the Kingdom of God, that the Lord Jesus Christ taught while on earth,

Wait. Are you saying that the Gospel that the Lord Jesus Christ taught while on the Earth was incomplete and insufficient? If not, then... I would kindly ask where the "common" Christian message of salvation as found within, well, all of Christianity, was taught by Jesus. (Please note I have run into "Christian" who teach that Jesus had no clue what the Gospel truly was, and that only Paul was given the truth by Revelation.)

I don't understand what you mean by, 'a Pauline interpretation of the crucifixion'?

And yet all the scripture you quoted was from Paul, and not Jesus. The reason, of course, is that such cannot be found in the Words of Jesus - the Word.

However there was a great deal more taught by the risen Christ, wasn't there, through Paul particularly,

According to Paul.

to whom He appeared on more than one occasion,

According to Paul.

as we are told in Acts 26:16

A testimony of Paul.

which became the subjects of Paul's epistles,

So ... Why? What do these add to the Gospel message? Or do they change it? If one cannot find in the Words of Jesus that Jesus taught his blood would pay for your sin, then the words of Paul change the Gospel, because they add to the Words that Jesus taught. And again we are left with an impotent Christ who couldn't adequately teach the Gospel even to his closest Apostles.

* What is the gospel of the Kingdom of God that was taught by the Lord Jesus Christ? How does it differ from the gospel of the grace of God, by which we are saved?

There is only one Gospel. There is not a "weird" Gospel of the Kingdom of God and a separate Gospel of Grace. (Is there? Are there two Gospels?)

Are you able to explain to me the Gospel of Grace by which you are saved? And I mean ... are you able to explain to me the Gospel of Grace in the very Words of Jesus Himself, by which we are saved?

I am routinely condemned as a "Red Letter Christian" even by those who claim that Jesus is their Messiah and Saviour. Yet I confidently reply that I am an Acts 2:38 Christian, and my salvation is affected not one wit by anything that Paul had written.

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.​

(Acts 2:37-38 KJV)

However there was a great deal more taught by the risen Christ,

Then the Gospel that Jesus commanded the disciples to preach in Mat. 28 was incomplete to provide Salvation? (These are all serious questions.)

I find it suspicious that God had to come along and teach a new "my gospel" to some guy named Paul, and that Paul himself claimed that what he taught was learned by direct revelation, not by what the Twelve taught. Paul strongly denied that he was taught by any of the Twelve.

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.​

(Galatians 1:11-12 KJV)

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead​

(Galatians 1:1 KJV)
This was a repudiation of Matthias, whom Paul thought was selected by men through gambling.

Why did He forgive you all your sin?

Answer:- He forgave me because He loved me.

I'll admit I'm a bit disappointed that you somewhat avoided the issue of Universalism. From what I can tell, though, God's love for us provided a means by which we can be forgiven by having faith in ...???

It is now for mankind to be reconciled to God, by faith in

Wouldn't it be faith in the teachings of Jesus (as opposed to Moses, or anyone else)?

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?​

(Luke 6:46 KJV)

What are those things we must do by which we become saved? (It's rather the same question as why did the Father forgive your sin.)

Using the Words of Jesus only, why did the Father forgive you all your sins?

Thanks kindly,
Rhema

 

[complete]

Hello @Rhema,

I am not a universalist. I do NOT believe that all will be saved. I believe God has opened up the way to Himself, through the death and resurrection of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ: Now it is for mankind to believe and respond to His grace, by being reconciled to Him, and trusting Him to save them from the consequences of sin, and raise them up with Christ to life eternal, by the resurrection out from among the dead.

For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.​

- Jeremiah 7:22 NRSV​

​

He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.​

(Isaiah 66:3 KJV)​

​

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.​

(Psalms 40:6 KJV)​

​

The sacrifice of Jesus was that he did not live life for himself, but rather for the Gospel - and he did so despite suffering, torture and death, without recanting a single thing that he taught. There is but one Gospel - the Teaching of Jesus. Yet there is nowhere in the Teaching of Jesus where he said that he would die for your sins. It's not there. And no one, not even Paul needed to come along and "fix" the Gospel that Jesus taught. Christ was adamant that the Gospel he preached was sufficient, and that that Gospel should be taught to all mankind.​

​

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

(Matthew 28:19-20 KJV)​

​

​

Wait. Are you saying that the Gospel that the Lord Jesus Christ taught while on the Earth was incomplete and insufficient? If not, then... I would kindly ask where the "common" Christian message of salvation as found within, well, all of Christianity, was taught by Jesus. (Please note I have run into "Christian" who teach that Jesus had no clue what the Gospel truly was, and that only Paul was given the truth by Revelation.)​

​

​

And yet all the scripture you quoted was from Paul, and not Jesus. The reason, of course, is that such cannot be found in the Words of Jesus - the Word.​

​

​

According to Paul.​

​

​

According to Paul.​

​

​

A testimony of Paul.​

​

​

So ... Why? What do these add to the Gospel message? Or do they change it? If one cannot find in the Words of Jesus that Jesus taught his blood would pay for your sin, then the words of Paul change the Gospel, because they add to the Words that Jesus taught. And again we are left with an impotent Christ who couldn't adequately teach the Gospel even to his closest Apostles.​

* The Lord Jesus Christ came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and taught them accordingly. His disciples, during His lifetime, also were sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. They were not to go into the way of the Gentiles, and the gospel they preached was, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand '(Matt. 10:5-7).

​

There is only one Gospel. There is not a "weird" Gospel of the Kingdom of God and a separate Gospel of Grace. (Is there? Are there two Gospels?)​

​

Are you able to explain to me the Gospel of Grace by which you are saved? And I mean ... are you able to explain to me the Gospel of Grace in the very Words of Jesus Himself, by which we are saved?​

* I can't, Rhema, no. For I was saved by grace through faith in the gospel of God concerning His Son, as delivered by Paul, by instruction from the risen Christ. For I am a gentile believer, and if I had been alive in the day of Christ, I would have been described as being, ' without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:'

​

I am routinely condemned as a "Red Letter Christian" even by those who claim that Jesus is their Messiah and Saviour. Yet I confidently reply that I am an Acts 2:38 Christian, and my salvation is affected not one wit by anything that Paul had written.​

​

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.​

(Acts 2:37-38 KJV)​

* 'These words were spoken to the house of Israel:-

'Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,
that God hath made that same Jesus,
Whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.'
(Act 2:36)

* Are you of this house Rhema?

Then the Gospel that Jesus commanded the disciples to preach in Mat. 28 was incomplete to provide Salvation? (These are all serious questions.)​

* Yes, they are serious questions, I agree.

'And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.'
(Mat 28:18-20)

* I believe that this has an application that has yet to come. When the gospel of the Kingdom will be preached yet again, at the end of the age (Matthew 24:14). The disciples of the Lord did go out among the nations, but their hearers were their own countrymen, they were of the house of Israel, who were scattered among the nations. (Heb. 2:3-4)

* The baptism described (above) is not recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, or in the letters written by Peter. They baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus only, not in the name of, 'the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' This has yet to come.

I find it suspicious that God had to come along and teach a new "my gospel" to some guy named Paul, and that Paul himself claimed that what he taught was learned by direct revelation, not by what the Twelve taught. Paul strongly denied that he was taught by any of the Twelve.​

​

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.​

(Galatians 1:11-12 KJV)​

​

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead )​

(Galatians 1:1 KJV)​

This was a repudiation of Matthias, whom Paul thought was selected by men through gambling.​

* Yes, Paul was taught by the risen Lord.
* I do not agree that this was a repudiation of Matthias.

Wouldn't it be faith in the teachings of Jesus (as opposed to Moses, or anyone else)?​

​

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?​

(Luke 6:46 KJV)​

​

What are those things we must do by which we become saved? (It's rather the same question as why did the Father forgive your sin.)​

​

Using the Words of Jesus only, why did the Father forgive you all your sins?​

​

Thanks kindly,​

Rhema​

* I will have to consider this, Rhema, and come back to you.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Garee]

'Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord,
which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
And declared to be the Son of God with power,
according to the spirit of holiness,
by the resurrection from the dead:'
(Rom 1:3-4)

Hello @Garee,

You say that our Lord Jesus Christ was 'born again', but He had no reason to be born again, because He was born from above, because He was the Son of God. He did not 'become' the Son of God, for He was born the Only Begotten Son of God.

The resurrection from the dead confirmed, by the spirit of holiness, that our Lord Jesus Christ, now risen and glorified and sat at God's right hand, which in itself is a position of Great authority and power, is indeed the Son of God with power.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hi Thanks

I would think same gospel Christ's nor served by hands as a will of dying mankind. a little different approach I hope same goal .

What I did offer was he was born from above because of the resurrection power of the Father. Not as the Son of man Jesus the fleshly dying seed of mankind. No power from birth. . .. plenty of resurrection power from born again.

As sons of God (Christians) we are not what we will be in any way shape or form the one the bride. Christ the husband

Easter the power Christmas the forerunner

.Romans 1:3-5 Concerning his Son (of man)Jesus Christ our Lord (father), which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

It would seem many mistake the use of the word virgin making it about sex and not the unmarried like that of born-again Timohty espoused to Christ a chaste virgin. As if Josef was not the biological father

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Satan the author of the lust of the flesh the lust of the eye would make it about sex rather than the spirit unseen faithful things of God .

Sexual sin has its own doctrine.

Mathew 1:16-23 ;And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.;So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.;Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together (where married) , she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.;But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that (Josef baby boy) which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.;And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,Behold, a virgin(unmarried) shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

The she shall bring forth a son as the born-again Son of God the eternal bride pictured in the parable below. The signified prophecy.

The woman signified as the bride of Christ it's the end of time under the Sun. On her head the crown of 12 all the nations as tribes or families of the world .Like Paul suffering in pains of birth preaching the gospel in a hope Christ's Holy Spirit would be formed a new creation

Revelation 1212 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

 

[Rhema]

I am not a universalist. I do NOT believe that all will be saved.

Thank you kindly for the reply. (I think I'm getting our conversation over two threads somewhat mixed together, sorry about that.)

I believe God has opened up the way to Himself, through the death and resurrection of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ:

I believe that God has opened up the way to Himself, through the Teachings of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whom God did confirm by his death and Resurrection.

Him, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.​

(Acts 2:23-24 KJV)

And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: ​

(Romans 1:4 KJV)

Most Christians I've met (not including the Catholics) don't rather give a crap about obedience to the teachings of Jesus, or even care to understand them. And yet:

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?​

(Luke 6:46 KJV)

The parable continues on to explain that the Teaching of Jesus is the foundation of our salvation.

Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:​

(Luke 6:47 KJV)

I know the foundation of my faith, and (though it may be rude) have been trying to tease it out of you.

Now it is for mankind to believe and respond to His grace, by being reconciled to Him, and trusting Him to save them from the consequences of sin, and raise them up with Christ to life eternal, by the resurrection out from among the dead.

Not if they don't obey Him.

* The Lord Jesus Christ came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and taught them accordingly.

So much for faith, then. Even Jesus did not limit himself to Jews. Regarding a Roman soldier, he said:

When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.​

(Matthew 8:10 KJV)

And it's obvious from Acts 10 that Jesus did not limit the Gospel only to the Jews, even though God did have to overcome their racism (though this was coming from James the brother).

Even before the ascension:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

(Matthew 28:19-20 KJV)

Did Jesus make a mistake here?

They were not to go into the way of the Gentiles,

For that specific mission, I agree. But are you saying that the entirety of the Teachings of Jesus were only for the Jews? And that they were all dispensed with upon His death? If so, why were the Gospel accounts, which were written after the ascension of Jesus, say this? Why don't those authors say so?

They were not to go into the way of the Gentiles, and the gospel they preached was, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand '(Matt. 10:5-7).

Indeed it was at hand, and started in Acts chapter two.

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.​

(Mark 1:15 KJV)

How could this be a different Gospel, if there is only one Gospel?

The Good News is that God sent His Son to teach us the ways of Repentance for the Forgiveness of Sin.

Do you believe that there are two Gospels? I've run into these, calling themselves Acts 28 Christians. But they present a Jesus that was clueless, teaching a useless Gospel, reducing Jesus to a pawn for mere slaughter to satisfy the blood lust of a God.

* I can't, Rhema, no. For I was saved by grace through faith in the gospel of God concerning His Son, as delivered by Paul, by instruction from the risen Christ.

Okay then, you realize that the Gospel which Jesus preached was different from that of Paul, and your reason to reject what Jesus taught is that you're a Gentile. Then these verses become very perplexing, no?

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.​

(Galatians 3:28 KJV)

Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.​

(Colossians 3:11 KJV)

What I hear, then, is you saying that since you're Gentile, you are saved through the teachings of Paul who said there is neither Jew nor Gentile. I'm sorry, but I find that really confusing.

But indeed, a saving grace as taught during the latter part of the ministry of Paul cannot be found in the words of Jesus, the Very Grace of God.

And the Word (LOGOS) was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

(John 1:14 KJV)

LOGOS, means Teaching. Yet if I understand you correctly, such LOGOS expired at Jesus' death?

For I am a gentile believer, and if I had been alive in the day of Christ, I would have been described as being, ' without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:'

Says who?

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:​

(Ephesians 2:12 KJV)

Weren't the Jews who rejected Christ (or never having heard of Christ) also without Christ? And again, weren't the disciples sent to all the nations? Every one who did not hear the Gospel of Jesus could be said to be without Christ, not merely Gentiles, and there were Gentiles who adopted Judaism as their faith. How else could the following even happen?

And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,​

(Acts 8:26-27 KJV)

The eunuch was most certainly not Jewish.

* 'These words were spoken to the house of Israel:-

'Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,
that God hath made that same Jesus,
Whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.'
(Act 2:36)

* Are you of this house Rhema?

Did God make this same Jesus both Lord and Christ only for the Jews?

Of course the house of Israel should know. As should all nations.

I am of the house of Rhema - the spoken Word of God as taught through His Son the Lord Jesus Christ.

To whom else should one listen?

The disciples of the Lord did go out among the nations, but their hearers were their own countrymen, they were of the house of Israel, who were scattered among the nations. (Heb. 2:3-4)

Hebrews is not in our canon, because it contains two great errors. Just as with the Trinity, it is strongly discouraged here to speak truth about these. Maybe by PM.

The disciples of the Lord did go out among the nations, but their hearers were their own countrymen,

That's not what the text actually says. It does not say, go throughout all nations to teach the Jews. It literally says to Teach ALL Nations.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

(Matthew 28:19-20 KJV)

And I find no translation problems here. The text could not be more clear.

* I believe that this has an application that has yet to come. When the gospel of the Kingdom will be preached yet again, at the end of the age (Matthew 24:14).

Interesting. Why do you believe that? What in the text could possibly give you that impression? Where does it say "will be" or "shall be"?

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.​

(Matthew 28:18 KJV)

There's no future tense or subjunctive mood in this passage. Technically "is" was written in the Aorist tense, which is typically rendered as past tense... "was given unto me." I'll provide the Young's Literal for comparison.

And having come near, Jesus spake to them, saying, 'Given to me was all authority in heaven and on earth;​

(Matthew 28:18 YLT)

Was he? Or wasn't he? This is either true now, or it is not. Again, what would make one think differently?

* The baptism described (above) is not recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, or in the letters written by Peter. They baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus only, not in the name of, 'the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' This has yet to come.

People have been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost for centuries. Some scholars think this was a later addition by Catholic scribes to prove the Trinity. I believe that by the time Matthew penned these words, the rite of baptism had expanded so that none could think the Father was not part of this:

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.​

(Acts 2:42 KJV)

Things got so bad that Paul even started to reject water baptism completely.

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.​

(1 Corinthians 1:14-15 KJV)

While this might be an interesting discussion for later, I would note that the word "name" is singular. The text doesn't say in the Names of the Father (YHWY) the Son (Y'shua) and ... (does the Holy Spirit even have a name?).

But in Matthew 28, there is no indication whatsoever that it applies or should apply to a future date. I am curious, though, did you hear this teaching from somewhere, is it something that just makes sense to you, is it a church tradition? (We can put a pin in it.)

* Yes, Paul was taught by the risen Lord.

Then those things he taught ought not to have been different from that which Jesus taught. Can we agree on that?

* I do not agree that this was a repudiation of Matthias.

This is a view held in America by some rather fundamentalist believers who claim that there can only be 12 Apostles, and that Paul was selected by God to replace Judas. As for myself, it would seem that Paul had to fight for recognition as an Apostle, and he certainly protested a bit too much about it.

* I will have to consider this, Rhema, and come back to you.

My apologies for the Socratic Method, I know it tends to irk a lot of people. But I'd rather understand what you believe the basis to be for your salvation, than me just spouting off what I think everyone ought to believe.

And I thank you for your patience.
Rhema

(So, why were all your sins forgiven?)

 

[complete]

Thank you kindly for the reply. (I think I'm getting our conversation over two threads somewhat mixed together, sorry about that.)


I believe that God has opened up the way to Himself, through the Teachings of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whom God did confirm by his death and Resurrection.

Him, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.​

(Acts 2:23-24 KJV)

And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: ​

(Romans 1:4 KJV)

Most Christians I've met (not including the Catholics) don't rather give a crap about obedience to the teachings of Jesus, or even care to understand them. And yet:

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?​

(Luke 6:46 KJV)

The parable continues on to explain that the Teaching of Jesus is the foundation of our salvation.

Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:​

(Luke 6:47 KJV)

I know the foundation of my faith, and (though it may be rude) have been trying to tease it out of you.


Not if they don't obey Him.


So much for faith, then. Even Jesus did not limit himself to Jews. Regarding a Roman soldier, he said:

When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.​

(Matthew 8:10 KJV)

And it's obvious from Acts 10 that Jesus did not limit the Gospel only to the Jews, even though God did have to overcome their racism (though this was coming from James the brother).

Even before the ascension:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

(Matthew 28:19-20 KJV)

Did Jesus make a mistake here?


For that specific mission, I agree. But are you saying that the entirety of the Teachings of Jesus were only for the Jews? And that they were all dispensed with upon His death? If so, why were the Gospel accounts, which were written after the ascension of Jesus, say this? Why don't those authors say so?


Indeed it was at hand, and started in Acts chapter two.

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.​

(Mark 1:15 KJV)

How could this be a different Gospel, if there is only one Gospel?

The Good News is that God sent His Son to teach us the ways of Repentance for the Forgiveness of Sin.

Do you believe that there are two Gospels? I've run into these, calling themselves Acts 28 Christians. But they present a Jesus that was clueless, teaching a useless Gospel, reducing Jesus to a pawn for mere slaughter to satisfy the blood lust of a God.


Okay then, you realize that the Gospel which Jesus preached was different from that of Paul, and your reason to reject what Jesus taught is that you're a Gentile. Then these verses become very perplexing, no?

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.​

(Galatians 3:28 KJV)

Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.​

(Colossians 3:11 KJV)

What I hear, then, is you saying that since you're Gentile, you are saved through the teachings of Paul who said there is neither Jew nor Gentile. I'm sorry, but I find that really confusing.

But indeed, a saving grace as taught during the latter part of the ministry of Paul cannot be found in the words of Jesus, the Very Grace of God.

And the Word (LOGOS) was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

(John 1:14 KJV)

LOGOS, means Teaching. Yet if I understand you correctly, such LOGOS expired at Jesus' death?


Says who?

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:​

(Ephesians 2:12 KJV)

Weren't the Jews who rejected Christ (or never having heard of Christ) also without Christ? And again, weren't the disciples sent to all the nations? Every one who did not hear the Gospel of Jesus could be said to be without Christ, not merely Gentiles, and there were Gentiles who adopted Judaism as their faith. How else could the following even happen?

And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,​

(Acts 8:26-27 KJV)

The eunuch was most certainly not Jewish.


Did God make this same Jesus both Lord and Christ only for the Jews?

Of course the house of Israel should know. As should all nations.

I am of the house of Rhema - the spoken Word of God as taught through His Son the Lord Jesus Christ.

To whom else should one listen?


Hebrews is not in our canon, because it contains two great errors. Just as with the Trinity, it is strongly discouraged here to speak truth about these. Maybe by PM.


That's not what the text actually says. It does not say, go throughout all nations to teach the Jews. It literally says to Teach ALL Nations.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

(Matthew 28:19-20 KJV)

And I find no translation problems here. The text could not be more clear.


Interesting. Why do you believe that? What in the text could possibly give you that impression? Where does it say "will be" or "shall be"?

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.​

(Matthew 28:18 KJV)

There's no future tense or subjunctive mood in this passage. Technically "is" was written in the Aorist tense, which is typically rendered as past tense... "was given unto me." I'll provide the Young's Literal for comparison.

And having come near, Jesus spake to them, saying, 'Given to me was all authority in heaven and on earth;​

(Matthew 28:18 YLT)

Was he? Or wasn't he? This is either true now, or it is not. Again, what would make one think differently?


People have been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost for centuries. Some scholars think this was a later addition by Catholic scribes to prove the Trinity. I believe that by the time Matthew penned these words, the rite of baptism had expanded so that none could think the Father was not part of this:

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.​

(Acts 2:42 KJV)

Things got so bad that Paul even started to reject water baptism completely.

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.​

(1 Corinthians 1:14-15 KJV)

While this might be an interesting discussion for later, I would note that the word "name" is singular. The text doesn't say in the Names of the Father (YHWY) the Son (Y'shua) and ... (does the Holy Spirit even have a name?).

But in Matthew 28, there is no indication whatsoever that it applies or should apply to a future date. I am curious, though, did you hear this teaching from somewhere, is it something that just makes sense to you, is it a church tradition? (We can put a pin in it.)


Then those things he taught ought not to have been different from that which Jesus taught. Can we agree on that?


This is a view held in America by some rather fundamentalist believers who claim that there can only be 12 Apostles, and that Paul was selected by God to replace Judas. As for myself, it would seem that Paul had to fight for recognition as an Apostle, and he certainly protested a bit too much about it.


My apologies for the Socratic Method, I know it tends to irk a lot of people. But I'd rather understand what you believe the basis to be for your salvation, than me just spouting off what I think everyone ought to believe.

And I thank you for your patience.
Rhema

(So, why were all your sins forgiven?)

@Rhema - reply #396
1) I know the foundation of my faith, and (though it may be rude) have been trying to tease it out of you.
2) (So, why were all your sins forgiven?)

Hello @Rhema,

Thank you for your response.

* You asked me in a previous post, to show you WHY my sins were forgiven, using only the words of the Lord Jesus in the gospels. Though I know that the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ did not end at His death, but continued after His ascension, through the ministry of those whom He appointed: but I believe that you require that I answer with the words of the Lord spoken during His earthly ministry (i.e.,from the gospel record)..

* In regard to the subject of forgiveness of sins, we must remember that the words spoken were obviously spoken prior to His sacrificial offering of Himself, as The Lamb of God, which said John the Baptist, 'taketh away the sin of the world.' (John 1:9) .

* Mat 6:12 ' And forgive (G863 - aphiēmi) us our debts (G3783), as we forgive our debtors.' This appears to be the first usage of the word, 'forgive' in the gospels: The word having the meaning:-

aphiēmi​

From G575 and ἵημι hiēmi [to send; an intensive form of εἶμι eimi (to go)]; to send forth, in various applications​

Translated variously as: - cry, forgive, forsake, lay aside, leave, let (alone, be, go, have), omit, put (send) away, remit, suffer, yield up.​

* Forgiveness was conditional during the Lord's earthly ministry.

'For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
(Mat 6:14-15)

* I, as a gentile, would have been 'without God', and 'without Christ' and 'without hope in the world' at that time. The door was only opened to gentiles in Acts 10, and that was only to make Israel jealous ( Romans 11:11) .Salvation was only sent to the Gentile, apart from Israel, after Acts 28:28. 'Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.'

* I have to leave this here for the moment, Rhema.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Garee]

I believe that God has opened up the way to Himself, through the Teachings of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whom God did confirm by his death and Resurrection.

Him, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.(Acts 2:23-24 KJV)

I believe you are blaspheming the name of the Holy unseen Father, Christ the husband of the bride by giving it over the faithful power of the Father to his disciple Jesus the Son of man

The teaching is exclusively of Christ not from the bride. Christ in us one good teaching master. Jesus the preacher or prophet.

Remember eternal God who remains without mother and father beginning of spirit life or end of life.

God is not a Jewish man dying mankind That would be the goal of Satan to deceive mankind to believe

Note. . . . Christ, the Holy Father our husband (invisible)

Note . . . .Jesus the Son of man the disciple apostle (visible)

Note. . . Unsaved (visible)

Mark 10:16-18;And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

 

[Rhema]

* I have to leave this here for the moment, Rhema.

No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.​

- Luke 5:39 KJV

* You asked me in a previous post, to show you WHY my sins were forgiven, using only the words of the Lord Jesus in the gospels. Though I know that the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ did not end at His death, but continued after His ascension, through the ministry of those whom He appointed: but I believe that you require that I answer with the words of the Lord spoken during His earthly ministry (i.e.,from the gospel record)..

This isn't hard. I am perplexed as to why my question confuses you.

The thing is, do we now nullify the Teachings of Jesus? Pauline Christians dispense with the Teachings of Jesus as being irrelevant to one's salvation. You do this by means of racism - Jew v. Gentile, a concept that even Paul rejected. While Jesus may have been sent first to the Jew, the Truth that he taught came from God for the whole World.

But since it seems that you really do reject (nullify) the Teachings of Jesus, then his (Jesus) command to PRAY can just be ignored. However, I can show you why my sins were forgiven using only the words of the Lord Jesus.

After this manner therefore PRAY (written in the Imperative Mood to signify a command) Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. ... And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.​

- Matthew 6:9, 12 KJV

But if you object to the word "debt" ....

And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.​

- Luke 11:4 KJV

My sins have been forgiven because I've asked the Father TO forgive them, placing my faith in the LOGOS (Teachings) of Jesus.

Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:​

- Acts 13:38 KJV

(Ahh... but I forget you think this applies only to Jews.)

It would seem that Forgiveness through Repentance is not part of your faith, since...

* Forgiveness was conditional during the Lord's earthly ministry.

So then your "Gospel" removes these words of Christ himself because they were "earthly." In the name of Jesus, your belief removes the words of Jesus? Where does one stop removing? Everything the Lord ever said was during his Earthly Ministry.

I can see why you would no longer wish to even think about the true Gospel that Jesus taught.

* In regard to the subject of forgiveness of sins, we must remember that the words spoken were obviously spoken prior to His sacrificial offering of Himself, as The Lamb of God, which said John the Baptist, 'taketh away the sin of the world.' (John 1:9) .

Once more, then, you have removed part of the Teaching of Jesus, thereby rejecting the Gospel that He taught. Is that wise?

Consider, though. Here, you have removed Jesus' teaching about the forgiveness of sins based on the phrase "Lamb of God" attributed to John the Baptist in the Gospel named John. So why is this phrase not found in Mark? Why is it missing in Luke? Why hadn't Matthew recorded John the Baptist teaching this since it is SO important that it literally has caused you to remove words from the Gospel of Christ Jesus?

If one is actually allowed to look at what is written, the Gospel named John is problematic. "John" states that Jesus was crucified during the time when the Passover Lambs were killed. Yet Matthew, Mark, and Luke clearly have Jesus eating the Passover meal. Well, it's hard to eat the Passover meal when one is dead. Whoever wrote John (and you'll find it's Lazarus if you look closely) was so enamored with the epiphany that Jesus was the Passover Lamb (something that Jesus never, ever taught), that he changed the narrative of the crucifixion.

This turns the Forgiveness of Sin by the Father through repentance (the very Gospel that Jesus and Peter taught) into a Payment for Sin by this "shed blood of Christ." Why would anyone turn the Son of God into a human blood sacrifice offered to the gods? (Okay, just one God.)

But I do understand why you would not like to continue. I would, though, like you to ask yourself -

How can you forgive a debt that's been paid?​

And how can one pay a debt that's been forgiven?​

In the Truth of the Lord's teaching,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

I believe you are blaspheming the name of the Holy unseen Father,

I believe you are clueless and have no idea about what I'm saying.