Post by RobertThis is the portion I did not see that I am now replying to. Sadly it is
written with the same attitudes and assumptions that preceded it.
YES, He did. He did so based on the Biblical definitions of Days.
Post by AndrewJesus repedly said He would rise on the "third day".
The Bible says that Sunday was the "third day" Luke 24:21.
Again, it did not say that it was Sunday.
Look at this. This is what I'm talking about. These are Robert's word
games. He slaps quote marks on some English word like "Sunday", and
concludes that since the Bible doesn't say "Sunday", then it's not
Sunday. That's it. Your view is now disqualified, because it doesn't say
"Sunday". Well it also doesn't say "Wednesday" was the day Christ was
crucified. They didn't use our words for days. They used what day of the
week it was. Sunday was the first day of the week. It started around 6pm
on what we call Saturday evening.
“Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first
to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons.” (Mark 16:9, NKJV)
See that? It plainly states Jesus rose ON the "first day of the week".
That's Sunday. Yet Sunday was on the "third day" (Luke 24:21). It was
not at 5:59pm on Sunday evening that Christ rose. He rose "early" in the
morning on Sunday. That means the third "day" was only the slim part of
a day during "early" morning, not a full 24 hour period.
Post by Robert“But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and
beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.”
(Luk 24:21, KJV)
Which means Sunday (first day of the week) was the "third day" on which
Christ rose.
Post by RobertPost by AndrewBut Robert clings to a false theology contrary to
the Bible, which helps explain why he refuses to
answer the question.
Sorry, I do not ascribe to, nor hold dear to the theology of men.
The Bible itself declares Christ rose on the "first day of the week"
(Mark 16:9). This is Sunday. That's not the "theology of men". That's
what the Bible plainly states.
Post by RobertI am not
into theology,
Theology means the study of God. Anthropology is the study of men.
You're saying you're not into the study of God. That's evident.
Meanwhile, the question is whether the teaching comes from the Bible.
The Bible says Christ rose "on" the "first day of the week", which was
Sunday. That shows both that Sunday was the day Christ rose, as well as
that a slim part of a day was reckoned as a "day". It doesn't have to
include the whole 24 hour period to be called a "day" or "night".
Post by Robertbut I am into a personal relationship with the Godhead.
Those who worship God must worship Him in Spirit and "truth" (John
4:24). God's word is truth (John 17:17). You cannot worship God apart
from a study of what God says about Himself in Scripture. The study of
God in Scripture is theology. Your word games just make you look like an
idiot.
Post by RobertPost by AndrewPost by RobertPost by AndrewAnother one if you will.
2. Please state what Jesus means to you personally.
He is the creator of this world and the universe surrounding it, as well as
the creator of all life forms that lives in this world. He is the Way, the
Truth and Life, and no man can come to the Heavenly Father but through Him.
As Saviour, he is that not only for Spiritual life everlasting, but also for
deliverance from all things evil. Part of which is physical healings, a
direct relationship with God the Father and throne room access to Him now and
ever after, if we walk by Faith Believing. Also a whole host of additional
things that go part and parcel to those who are His Disciples.
_________________________________________
Another simple question that Robert does not answer. The question
was not who Jesus is, but, "What does He mean to you personally?"
The Devil knows full well who Jesus is (James 2:19). But does not
know Jesus personally. There is an intimate relationship between
Jesus and the born again Christian.
I am and have stated already, that I am a Born Again, Spirit filled believer
to you many times.
You do not exhibit the walk that follows the talk.
This shows you recognize your mere statements about what you are,
doesn't automatically prove your claims. Your talk does not become
credible with men until they see the walk.
Post by RobertLike MM and others, if a
person does not believe and follow your particular creed, dogma
• You mean like agreeing with you that the crucifixion must have
happened on Wednesday rather than Friday? That's you, hypocrite. You do
things like this constantly over a span of decades.
• You spent a year playing devil's advocate for MM's Gnostic heresy,
claiming to the effect a real believer doesn't even have a sin nature,
because it's "gone"¹. When I showed how the believer is repeatedly
called on to yield to the new nature rather than the old, you tried to
poison people's minds against the idea that a believer even has a sin
nature at all. John 1:8-9 shows that those who deny having a sin nature
have neither the truth nor the word of God in them, but make God out to
be a liar.
Post by Robertand false Gospel you considerer them bad and you good.
• The one and only true gospel is that Christ died for our sins and God
raised Him from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Men are justified by
faith in Christ, apart from their works (Galatians 1:8-9), but unto good
works (James 2). Good works are the evidence of saving faith, not a
condition men must meet to become right with God in the first place.
That _IS_ the only true and saving gospel. It is the one Andrew and I
proclaim, and which you seldom if ever even mention to people. The fact
you label that true and only gospel a "false" gospel, and try to poison
people's minds against those who are accurately proclaiming it,
thoroughly convinces me you operate on the basis of the bitter envy that
demonic-wisdom promotes in people (https://christrose.news/demonic-wisdom).
• Says the guy who tried to demonize the word "imitate" after I used it
in an article on Ephesians 5, but who then turned around and posted his
own article which uses the same word "imitate" for Ephesians 5, as if it
were a superior way to describe the passage. When I posted "imitate"
before you did, you objected the word is only in certain translations,
and tried to associate it with an evil definition that means
unregenerate, Gandhi-style imitation. Then later that day, you posted
what you purported was a superior understanding, citing a reference to
someone who used the same exact word "imitate"! See what an hypocrite
you are? When I posted it it was evil. When you turned around and posted
the same thing, it suddenly became a good and superior way to describe
the passage. You're such a self-evident idiot and hypocrite.
• You did that all on one day. And you do this all day long, every day.
You spent a year demonizing me every time I pointed out the believer has
both an old and new nature, claiming the old nature is "gone"¹, as if
believers don't even have an old nature that wages war against their new
nature. Then today you post an article where Wuest shows the believer
must not yield to his old nature, but to the Spirit. You don't even have
the sense to see your own self-evident stupidity and hypocrisy. And this
isn't a one-off. This is your standard mode of operation over a span of
decades.
Post by RobertAs to your reference to “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest
well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” (Jas 2:19, KJV)
That has no bearing on what I stated. What I stated is what he means to me,
personally, as well as experientially. You BTW are in no position to sit in
judgment of whether or not I am Saved.
He says after falsely claiming that the true gospel we preach is
"false". I don't see how you avoid consequences with God for that.
You've dedicated your life to attacking people who accurately proclaim
the one and only saving gospel, and trying to poison people's minds
against them and the true gospel they proclaim.
Post by RobertPost by AndrewPost by RobertLastly, when are you going to answer questions put to you, such as how many
Sabbaths were there the week that Jesus was sacrificed. Or the numerous
other questions put to you.
Yes, there was a special Sabbath that year, so there may well have been
two Sabbaths on the week Christ was crucified. It may have been on
Wednesday evening (Thursday by Jewish reckoning). This does not
invalidate the fact that the Friday, Saturday, Sunday view is also
completely legit. You are the one trying to disqualify people based on
your doctrine, rather than acknowledging the possibility of other views.
Post by RobertPost by AndrewAccording to the Bible, Jesus was crucified on the day of Preparation
for the Passover, which means it was the day before the start of the
Feast of Unleavened Bread. This puts the crucifixion on Friday, the
14th day of Nisan. The Passover meal would have been celebrated the
evening before, which is why Jesus and His disciples shared the Last
Supper on Thursday evening.
Wrong. Especially since you know not the definition of days in that day and
according to God and the Jews who followed His Word.
Says the village idiot trying to convince himself that it's everyone but
he who lacks understanding.
========================================
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 22:45:44 -0700
<vc5sa8$20nuk$***@dont-email.me>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=172650560200
Stupefaction Robert <***@no.way> wrote:
========================================
People that are already Born Again
Believers do not require faith to believe IN Jesus
Christ...
========================================
To "clarify", Robert added:
========================================
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 10:56:20 -0700
<vcsa44$2q5q9$***@dont-email.me>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=172719006300
Stupefaction Robert <***@no.waywrote:
========================================
As I said, many times and in a variety
of ways, all of which is based on scripture.
They already have faith. And you are to
smart to understand that.
========================================
Believe: to "have faith" from "pistis":
"faith" (Strong).
Stupefaction Robert: Believers don't
require the faith they "already have" in
Christ, to believe IN Christ...
And note, he says I'm "to [too] smart to
understand that"!
So I would have to be dumber to
understand and confuse his claims with
the truth?
This is the guy telling everyone else
they lack understanding and
comprehension, every time they fail to
agree with his nonsense and idiocy.
Post by Robert“Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to
escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son
of man.” (Luk 21:36, KJV)
Go ahead and expose what it is you know about that, and what you're
claiming it means.
_______________________
1.
========================================
Fri, 31 May 2024 12:01:20 -0700,
<***@news.eternal-september.org>
Robert <***@no.way> wrote:
========================================
The old sin-nature is GONE -- For the believer
========================================
--
Have you heard the good news Christ died for our sins (†), and God
raised Him from the dead?
That Christ died for our sins shows we're sinners who deserve the death
penalty. That God raised Him from the dead shows Christ's death
satisfied God's righteous demands against our sin (Romans 3:25; 1 John
2:1-2). This means God can now remain just, while forgiving you of your
sins, and saving you from eternal damnation.
On the basis of Christ's death and resurrection for our sins, call on
the name of the Lord to save you: "For 'everyone who calls on the name
of the Lord will be saved.'" (Romans 10:13, ESV)
https://christrose.news/salvation