Members beameup Posted February 23, 2016 Author Members Share Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, wretched said: Sorry friend I am as dispensational as the next guy and probably more so but I cannot subscribe to this idea that any whole Book in the NT is non-applicable to every man and woman. Besides, Paul wrote Hebrews and that fact is beyond any shadow of doubt in my mind. Then Leviticus should be equally applicable, as it is part of the entire "Word of God", written to us Christians. I believe that 7th Day Adventists take this position. Since the Jews rejected Jesus, and hence their "inheritance", then all the Book is written to "us" and for "us" and there never was a group of disciples that believed that the King would return to immediately set-up his "earthly" Kingdom.. right? PS: They have been saying for 1700 years that the "Temple Mount" is where the Temple was located, so it MUST be so.... just like the King James translators put Paul's name on "Hebrews". Edited February 23, 2016 by beameup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MountainChristian Posted February 23, 2016 Members Share Posted February 23, 2016 6 hours ago, wretched said: Sorry friend I am as dispensational as the next guy and probably more so but I cannot subscribe to this idea that any whole Book in the NT is non-applicable to every man and woman. Besides, Paul wrote Hebrews and that fact is beyond any shadow of doubt in my mind. NT means New Testament 2 hours ago, beameup said: Then Leviticus should be equally applicable, as it is part of the entire "Word of God", written to us Christians. I believe that 7th Day Adventists take this position. Since the Jews rejected Jesus, and hence their "inheritance", then all the Book is written to "us" and for "us" and there never was a group of disciples that believed that the King would return to immediately set-up his "earthly" Kingdom.. right? PS: They have been saying for 1700 years that the "Temple Mount" is where the Temple was located, so it MUST be so.... just like the King James translators put Paul's name on "Hebrews". Leviticus is in the Old Testament Pastor Scott Markle and No Nicolaitans 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members beameup Posted February 23, 2016 Author Members Share Posted February 23, 2016 1 minute ago, MountainChristian said: NT means New Testament Leviticus is in the Old Testament So what? It's all the "Word of God". And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: Mark 9:43 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim 3:16 (all same-same, right?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members No Nicolaitans Posted February 23, 2016 Members Share Posted February 23, 2016 A right divider promoting not rightly dividing? swathdiver 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pastor Scott Markle Posted February 23, 2016 Members Share Posted February 23, 2016 6 hours ago, beameup said: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: Mark 9:43 AMEN! I myself am certainly prepared to express my "amen" to the preaching of our Lord Jesus Christ in Mark 9:43. Are you? Indeed, I myself am willing to accept that the point of this instruction from our Lord Jesus Christ is just as applicable today as it was when He preached it. I wonder do you disagree with the rest of the verse -- "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." Would it now be better for someone "having two hands" to go "into the fire that never shall be quenched," than "to enter into life maimed"? 6 hours ago, beameup said: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim 3:16 (all same-same, right?) (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle) So then, are you questioning the truthfulness of 2 Timothy 3:16? Yea, doth God's Word say -- "All Scripture"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members beameup Posted February 23, 2016 Author Members Share Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Tim 2:15 Edited February 23, 2016 by beameup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Jim_Alaska Posted February 23, 2016 Administrators Share Posted February 23, 2016 We get the point Beameup. Unfortunately the "point" has been rejected by you in favor of your own private interpretations. 1Ti 1:18 ¶ This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; 19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Pastor Scott Markle and swathdiver 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted February 23, 2016 Members Share Posted February 23, 2016 Rather like casting pearls before swine. Pastor Scott Markle 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pastor Scott Markle Posted February 23, 2016 Members Share Posted February 23, 2016 Titus 1:9-11 -- "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake." Jim_Alaska 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MountainChristian Posted February 23, 2016 Members Share Posted February 23, 2016 15 hours ago, beameup said: Then Leviticus should be equally applicable, as it is part of the entire "Word of God", written to us Christians. I believe that 7th Day Adventists take this position. Since the Jews rejected Jesus, and hence their "inheritance", then all the Book is written to "us" and for "us" and there never was a group of disciples that believed that the King would return to immediately set-up his "earthly" Kingdom.. right? PS: They have been saying for 1700 years that the "Temple Mount" is where the Temple was located, so it MUST be so.... just like the King James translators put Paul's name on "Hebrews". Jesus explaining Leviticus to the Jews Mar 7:18-23 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. "out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." No Christian is allowed to do these things. No Jewish Christian, No Gentile Christian. Does the law condemn any man who does those things? Yes. What happens when they do them? They sin. Who can save us from our thoughts? Jesus. Jesus can forgive a man when he sins in his thoughts. Jewish men and Gentile men. Jesus is merciful to both peoples when they sin and ask him to be forgiven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members swathdiver Posted February 25, 2016 Members Share Posted February 25, 2016 On 2/10/2016 at 5:16 AM, Ronda said: Here we go with the name-calling again. I don't know anyone here who quotes Ruckman. Yes, he did! Christ never said to call people names and unfairly categorize them with people they are not associated with. It's not name calling, it's marking them and identifying them. There's nothing wrong with that. And our Lord Jesus Christ certainly did call friend and foe alike names. Many of the heresies you promote are also promoted by Ruckman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Critical Mass Posted February 25, 2016 Members Share Posted February 25, 2016 2 hours ago, swathdiver said: It's not name calling, it's marking them and identifying them. There's nothing wrong with that. And our Lord Jesus Christ certainly did call friend and foe alike names. Many of the heresies you promote are also promoted by Ruckman. Ruckman, Ruckman, Ruckman, Ruckman.... On 2/10/2016 at 5:16 AM, Ronda said: Here we go with the name-calling again. I don't know anyone here who quotes Ruckman. Yes, he did! Christ never said to call people names and unfairly categorize them with people they are not associated with. There have actually been a few contributors to this forum in the past who were trained at Peter Ruckman's school. The majority of them were gracious and did no name calling. It's the baby bottler's that remain in this forum that do all the name calling. They are so spiritual. beameup 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted February 25, 2016 Members Share Posted February 25, 2016 Some years ago there were a few "Ruckmanites" here who were mostly civil but the more of them which came here the less civil they all became. This resulted in a mass banning. There is a big difference between discussion for the sake of learning and those who join a forum with differing views and attempt to push their views upon them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pastor Scott Markle Posted February 25, 2016 Members Share Posted February 25, 2016 6 hours ago, Critical Mass said: It's the baby bottler's that remain in this forum that do all the name calling. They are so spiritual. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle) And certainly, using the phrase "baby bottler's" is NOT name calling, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members No Nicolaitans Posted February 25, 2016 Members Share Posted February 25, 2016 9 hours ago, Critical Mass said: Ruckman, Ruckman, Ruckman, Ruckman.... There have actually been a few contributors to this forum in the past who were trained at Peter Ruckman's school. The majority of them were gracious and did no name calling. It's the baby bottler's that remain in this forum that do all the name calling. They are so spiritual. But you're an agnostic who believes that God can't be known. Therefore, one's spirituality shouldn't matter to you since spirituality is directly associated with one's relationship with God. swathdiver 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.