Beware - "red letter" antichrists

Taking the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry as a whole, one must KEEP His word (commandments) for "eternal life" / the Kingdom of God.

Yes, but two things I notice:
1.) you use the phrase "as a whole" when you exclude words that you do NOT have the intention to believe or keep. For example, His speaking of the establishing of His new covenant with the pouring out of His blood for the forgiveness of sins.

You cannot glare down your spectacles at me wagging finger about keeping Christ's ministry "as a whole" and then reject so much of His crucial words about His work of redemption.

The "whole" you espouse is NOT the "whole" ministry. It is that selective portion you need to establish "another Jesus".

2.) It was demonstrated amply that the Apostle Paul was not in conflict to the emphsis of obedience to Christ for entering into the kingdom of God. Yet you imagine some conflict between the "red letters" of your favored selection and the epistles of Paul.

Cont. below.

Perhaps the most prevalent theme of the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry, is the importance of the words of He spoke while preaching His gospel:
Understanding His word.
Not just understanding His word, but believing His word.
Not just believing His word, but following His word.
Not just following His word, but keeping His word.

And His seeking to cause His disciples to UNDERSTAND His mission He INCLUDED His redemptive work.

"Then He opened their mind to understand the Scriptures; And He said to them, Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise up from the dead on the third day.

And that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem." (Luke 24:46,47)

What happens to your seeing His desire that we UNDERSTAND that aspect of His ministry?

Originally posted by @sonship

Taking the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry as a whole, one must KEEP His word (commandments) for "eternal life" / the Kingdom of God.

Yes, but two things I notice:
[b]1.) you use the phrase "as a whole" when you exclude words that you do NOT have the intention to believe or keep. For example, His speaking of the ...[text shortened]... t between the "red letters" of your favored selection and the epistles of Paul.

Cont. below.[/b]

1.) you use the phrase "as a whole" when you exclude words that you do NOT have the intention to believe or keep. For example, His speaking of the establishing of His new covenant with the pouring out of His blood for the forgiveness of sins.

Jaywill, I've posted on this many times before. In fact, the last time wasn't all that long ago.

Why do you dishonestly keep pretending that I haven't?

Once again:
To understand what Jesus is saying there, you'll need to understand it in context of other things He said.

1) The word given as "forgiveness" from Luke in your translation literally means "freedom".

2) In John 6 Jesus also speaks of "eating", "bread", "body/flesh", "drinking" and "blood". wherein Jesus uses the metaphor of "eating flesh", "drinking blood" to refer to " the words that I have spoken to you". In short, one "eats" and "drinks" His words so that they will abide in Him.

3) In John 15 Jesus explains that "abiding" in Him entails "keep[ing] His commandments" (words).

4) In John 8 Jesus explain that those who "abide in [His] words" will be made "free" from committing sin.

So when Jesus tells them to eat His body (flesh) and drink His blood, He is really speaking of them eating and drinking His words just as He does in John 6.

So what Jesus means in Matthew 26:28 is "for [these are My words] of the covenant, which is poured out for many for [freedom from] sins" which parallels what He said in John 8 about those who abide in His word being freed from committing sin.

This makes so much more sense than Him making some really awkward reference to His future death. Especially in light of Luke 22:19 where He says "do this in remembrance of Me." He's asking them to do it in remembrance of His words - NOT in "remembrance" of His death which hasn't happened yet.

Or if you want to look at it the other way around:
To keep His word, one must follow His word.

Why is not "that repentance for forgiveness of sins" a part of YOUR desire to "follow His word" ?

Rather than follow His word here you seem to intend to fight against His word - ie. "Christ did not teach anything about His work as a Redeemer."

This is the "red letter" presentation of an antichrist gospel attacking eternal redemption in favor of following the do's and don'ts of an deceased and absent Christ, Who is not available.

To follow His word, one must believe His word.

I believe His word on being redeemed by the blood of Jesus.
I also believe His word of Him coming to live in me that He may be expressed through me in living a kingdom of God life here on earth.

You pay lip service to believing. But you intend to teach how to disbelieve.
You pay lip service to His ministry "as a whole" but intend to discard large portions of the New Testament as "cleverly devised myths".

I think I'll fall off my chair on the day you come out and honestly admit that you don't believe the Gospel that Jesus rose from the dead.

Insisting on obedience is no excuse for an antichrist teaching that Christ did not die a redemptive death and rise to a victorious resurrection.

To believe His word, one must understand His word.

Its your OPINION that you think you understand.
Your opinion you hold above the words of the Bible.

Presenting the clear words of Scripture holds no authority over you because your opinion is POPE.

Originally posted by @sonship
[quote]
Perhaps the most prevalent theme of the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry, is the importance of the words of He spoke while preaching His gospel:
Understanding His word.
Not just understanding His word, but believing His word.
Not just believing His word, but following His word.
Not just following His word, but keeping His word. ...[text shortened]... quote]

What happens to your seeing His desire that we UNDERSTAND that aspect of His ministry?

What happens to your seeing His desire that we UNDERSTAND that aspect of His ministry?

As you should well know, it was outside of the the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b]1.) you use the phrase "as a whole" when you exclude words that you do NOT have the intention to believe or keep. For example, His speaking of the establishing of His new covenant with the pouring out of His blood for the forgiveness of sins.

Jaywill, I've posted on this many times before. In fact, the last time wasn't all that long ago.

Why ...[text shortened]... John 8 Jesus explain that those who "abide in [His] words" will be made "free" from committing sin.

Once again:
To understand what Jesus is saying there, you'll need to understand it in context of other things He said.

1) The word given as "forgiveness" from Luke in your translation literally means "freedom".

2) In John 6 Jesus also speaks of "eating", "bread", "body/flesh", "drinking" and "blood". wherein Jesus uses the metaphor of "eating flesh", "drinking blood" to refer to " the words that I have spoken to you". In short, one "eats" and "drinks" His words so that they will abide in Him.

3) In John 15 Jesus explains that "abiding" in Him entails "keep[ing] His commandments" (words).

4) In John 8 Jesus explain that those who "abide in [His] words" will be made "free" from committing sin.

And once again, I demonstrated the inadequacy of using this kind of logic to oppose His offering of Himself for eternal redemption.

If that is all you have to negate so much of NT proclamation about the forgiveness of sins for eternal redemption, its is not impressive.

I see no need to immediately repeat my rebuttal to this line.
Saying you want to render "forgiveness" there as free, doesn't do the job you want.

The believers indeed have been RELEAESED from their sins in His own blood to be made a kingdom.

"To Him who loves us has has RELEASED us from our sins by His blood." (Rev. 1:5b)

If you have not been forgiven by God you have not been yet released. And you particularly have not been released from the sin of disbelieving the Son of God, who died, rose, and ascended to the right hand of God.

Even if you changed EVERY instance of "forgive" in the NT to "freed" you'd have no ground to deny the redeeming work of Christ's death.

Saying "forgive" there is "freed" doesn't establish your antichrist twist on the Son of God.

Have you studied how Peter preached opening the doors of the kingdom of God ?

" And Peter said to them, Repent and each one of you be baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts. 2:38)

Forgiveness FIRST.
Receiving the Holy Spirit to live by Christ subsequently.

What ThinkOfOne intends is to notice as many passages which speak of Christ's death with no specific reference perhaps to His blood. This to him is proof for dismissing anything about the blood of redemption.

So he goes for eating Jesus in John 6.

He fails to see that without redemption from alienation from God there is no way to receive Christ as our "food."

The tree of life was excluded from man because of his falling short of the glory, righteousness, and holiness of God. (Genesis 3:22-24)

The justified sinner has the boldness to enter into communion and fellowship with God only because of the blood of Christ's redemption.

" Having therefore, brothers, boldness for entering the Holy of Holies in the blood of Jesus." (Heb. 10:19)

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b]What happens to your seeing His desire that we UNDERSTAND that aspect of His ministry?

As you should well know, it was outside of the the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.[/b]

Speaking of Christ's review and instructions to His followers in Luke 24 ThinkOfOne says:

As you should well know, it was outside of the the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.

This is the closest he has come to admitting that Christ did not walk on earth or minister AFTER He rose from the dead.

As I am suppose to "well know" he says.

I well know that what follows Christ's crucifixion and burial in the four gospels is His resurrection and further ministry.

Is ThinkOfOne saying I should well know that Jesus did not rise from the dead and SPEAK more? I know well just the opposite.

Now, prior to His dying He PREDICTED that He would die and rise again several times.

Here's one instance:

" And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed and after three days rise." (Mark 8:31)

Maybe ThinkOfOne doesn't think Jesus taught this while He walked on earth. I don't know.

Maybe ThingOfOne considers this only a prediction of martyrdom and has nothing to do with a sacrifice for sins.
This could hardly be the case because He says in chapter 10 of the same Gospel He comes to give His life for a RANSOM.

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45)

To WHOM or to WHAT was a RANSOM paid for the purchase of sinners? The ransom was paid to the Law of God.

"Christ has redeemed us [believers] out of the curse of the law ..." (Galatians 3:13a)

Originally posted by @sonship
Read letter antichrists, IMO, are so-called teachers of the New Testament that regard (or appear to regard) only the quotations of Jesus. But their intention is to [b]contradict the New Testament proclamation concerning Jesus Christ.

One should beware of this trickery.[/b]

Do you stand by your claim that Rajk999 is under the influence of demons?

Originally posted by @divegeester
Do you stand by your claim that Rajk999 is under the influence of demons?

You and FMF should go play a game of hopscotch together.

Febuary 4th, 2018 was the last time I discussed something about demons I believe. on Thread the Gospel of Jesus vs the Gospel of Paul

FMF:

Do you think ThinkOfOne is engaging in "demonic activity"? It's a yes or no question.

sonship:

I don't know. Do you think this is something that I HAVE to know?

But while you want to talk about demons, did you notice that the demons were expecting to be tormented at SOME time? They just did not want to go to that destiny before the time.

Pretty sad.

Also related to that post I wrote:

The demons knew that the clock was clicking closer and closer toward "the time" - that awful time of final judgment.

How tragic for the evil spirits to KNOW that they CANNOT win to overthrow God's reign and that their destiny of defeat is only a matter of time.

Um, I do not know that ThinkofOne is participating in some kind of occult activity. It is sure that the demons are happy about the deception he teaches because men under deception only prolongs the time of their inevitable demise.

That I know.

If anyone suspects that he is under the influence of demons he should avail himself of the power of the blood of Christ.

For example, if YOU suspected that you might be under the influence of demons - unclean spirits - evil supernatural forces, you should ask that the blood of Christ would be your covering and protection against Satan's schemes.

Originally posted by @sonship
You and FMF should go play a game of hopscotch together.

Febuary 4th was the last time I discussed something about demons. on Thread [b]the Gospel of Jesus vs the Gospel of Paul

FMF:

Do you think ThinkOfOne is engaging in "demonic activity"? It's a yes or no question.

sonship:

I don't know. Do you think this is some ...[text shortened]... that the blood of Christ would be your covering and protection against Satan's schemes.

[/b]

All well and good that you typed a lot of text, but what is the answer to the question?

Originally posted by @sonship
You and FMF should go play a game of hopscotch together.

Febuary 4th was the last time I discussed something about demons. on Thread [b]the Gospel of Jesus vs the Gospel of Paul

FMF:

Do you think ThinkOfOne is engaging in "demonic activity"? It's a yes or no question.

sonship:

I don't know. Do you think this is some ...[text shortened]... that the blood of Christ would be your covering and protection against Satan's schemes.

[/b]

So jaywill, can you succinctly explain what you think is the purpose of this literal "blood of Christ", why it was necessary and what you think is required to make it efficacious?

No need citing any scripture. I'll trust you have what you think backs it up.

Originally posted by @fmf
All well and good that you typed a lot of text, but what is the answer to the question?

You are badly in need of some arguments.
When you have to scrap the bottom of the barrel hoping repeated questions will somehow accomplish, I don't know what, it must mean you're lacking in content.

it is dishonest to say "Do you stand by" what I did not exactly say. I said Rajk999's teaching that regeneration cannot take place before the millennial kingdom -

WAS PROBABLY ... a doctrine of demons.

I stand by that.

Press further? Do I know he is under demonic activity ??
Same answer for ToO - I don't know. I don't have to know for sure.

If I said definitely YES,YES, YES so--and-so is under the influence of demons, please tell me WHAT that will do for you?

If I wrote, Oh, No, No, No he is not under any demonic activity, What will THAT do for you ?

Now you answer both my questions.

Originally posted by @sonship
it is dishonest to say "Do you stand by" what I did not exactly say.

It was a question. And I cited your exact words. Do you deny them?