3 edits
Originally posted by JS357=================================
There wouldn't be any choice about that. The choice would only be whether to be an outlaw.
There wouldn't be any choice about that. The choice would only be whether to be an outlaw.
===================================
That's true from the Gospel of Matthew's perspective. Matthew has a unique view. I believe that the angle of the Gospel of Matthew is somewhat different from the other gospels. It is different from the angle of John.
For example, I don't think you can find the word "repent" anywhere in the Gospel of John. But you find much about believing.
Matthew's has both John the Baptist and Christ introducing their ministry with the word to repent. It is a repentance for not being for God.
John the Baptist - "Repent for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near." (Matt. 3:2)
Followed by Jesus - "From that time Jesus began to proclaim and to say, Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near." (Matt. 4:17)
It is a repentance because of the kingdom of the heavens.
It is a call to change one's way of thinking - to repent for not being for God and God's government. It is to repent for not being for God's administration.
This is an example of mankind most basic problem - he is simply not for God. Man has come into a state in which he is invariably for something other than God. We as fallen people, are just not for God. We have to repent for not being for God in Matthew.
The book of Matthew, as the first book in the four gospels, is like the vestabule to the New Testament. In it there is the divine call to turn, to repent, for being for other things besides God and God's administration.
Evangelicals usually think in terms of repentance that a sinner may not perish in eternal punishment. And certainly there is that aspect of the New Testament. But I believe Matthew's angle is somewhat wider and deeper than that. Here is a call to repent for the kingdom. We must repent for the administration of God. We must repent for being an "outlaw" to the government of God, as you suggest.
While John's message may be more "Believe in the Son of God, that you would not perish forever" Matthew's introductory message is more "Repent, for not being under God's government." [paraphrased]
This is an important lense through which to understand Matthew's gospel. The reason is that everything as teaching about the kingdom is applicable to a person no matter HOW LONG he has been a believer in Jesus Christ.
Are you saved? Wonderful. Have you been saved for a long time? Very good. Still you need to repent for being for other things beside God and God's government. Even if I have been a Christian for many years, Matthew's Gospel is to me to "repent for the kingdom." .
Understanding this distinctive flavor of Matthew really helps in comprehending the book.
Originally posted by SuzianneGranted, the changes should not be made, but you seem to be trying to
Please read the end of the book of Revelation when it warns of adding to or removing words from this book. Then ask yourself if it is or is not a "big deal".
make a mountain out of a mole hill. It is not near as important as all
those changes that prevents them from seeing who Jesus really is, so
that they will give Him the worship and honor He deserves as God.
The additions of Jehovah in place of Lord is not really that big of a
change. Once the realize Jesus is Jehovah, that problem is solved.
Originally posted by Suziannewe are still waiting for you to produce a single reference where we have restored the divine name without reference or justification.
Please read the end of the book of Revelation when it warns of adding to or removing words from this book. Then ask yourself if it is or is not a "big deal".
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy have you not responded to the following post which I repeat below?
we are still waiting for you to produce a single reference where we have restored the divine name without reference or justification.
Am I not Right? If not explain.
Christ must allow time for the fulness of the Gentiles to come in. But when
that time is complete, He will not just dilly dally around in the heavens, He
comes back to earth, where He will undoubtable do more good. But let us
not get off the subject under discussion. You do not take the twelve tribes
of Israel as literal, but you do say the 144,000 number is a literal amount.
So if that is true, then maybe it is the 144,000 that are on earth to help
those born in the kingdom on earth during the 1000 year reign of Christ, if
that is to be a literal understanding also. The great crowd from every
nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues that no one could number,
that John saw in heaven, was in addition to the 144,000 of the tribes of
Israel. (Revelation 7) If as you say, Yahshua divides His sheep into two
groups according to this, then it would seem more logical that the much
smaller of the two groups would be the ones returning to the earth to act
as kings and priests for those born into Christ's literal 1000 year kingdom
on earth. How could there be room for such a large crowd of people on
earth? I can not see how this could be of much joy to them, if they must
try to live like sardines stuffed in a can.
Originally posted by RJHindsmaybe, could be, what if, pure speculation.
Why have you not responded to the following post which I repeat below?
Am I not Right? If not explain.
Christ must allow time for the fulness of the Gentiles to come in. But when
that time is complete, He will not just dilly dally around in the heavens, He
comes back to earth, where He will undoubtable do more good. But let us
not get off the subj ...[text shortened]... w this could be of much joy to them, if they must
try to live like sardines stuffed in a can.
2 edits
Originally posted by Dowardnope, it doesn't, in fact, given our limited experience and propensity for aberration one cannot know everything, with the exception of course, of you, RJHinds and the Pope. Next thing you'll be claiming to sit at the right hand of God if you've not already done so.
sucks when someone else knows more than you doesn't it?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLol...That's a good one.
nope, it doesn't, in fact, given our limited experience and propensity for aberration one cannot know everything, with the exception of course, of you, RJHinds and the Pope. Next thing you'll be claiming to sit at the right hand of God if you've not already done so.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiebitter much? as per usual you fall back to childish antics when you have been soundly drubbed. So I will give you yet another opportunity to engage in intelligent discussion:
nope, it doesn't, in fact, given our limited experience and propensity for aberration one cannot know everything, with the exception of course, of you, RJHinds and the Pope. Next thing you'll be claiming to sit at the right hand of God if you've not already done so.
Why are you so divisive?
Originally posted by Dowardsorry your eminence, let me kiss your ruby encrusted ring and touch your scarlet
bitter much? as per usual you fall back to childish antics when you have been soundly drubbed. So I will give you yet another opportunity to engage in intelligent discussion:
Why are you so divisive?
robes. . . . . .bows his head and shuffles our being careful not to break any of the
mirrors that fill the room.
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Lol, egomaniacs like Doward thrive on trying to get one over on another, this
Lol...That's a good one.
egocentricity practically prevents them from being able to understand another
perspective, thus what you get is this Pharisaical type of attitude. I know better then
you, exactly the same attitude that was displayed by the Pharisees who were always
trying to catch the Christ out by asking him controversial questions, based, apparently
on their superior knowledge of the law. Shame for them that knowledge puffs up the
ego, whereas as love builds up a persons spirituality.