The Bob Enyart Live forum

[Knight]

Welcome to the new forum. In this forum we will be adding a daily link to the newest Bob Enyart Live radio program.

The show's are in MP3 format.

With this new forum you will be able to discuss specific episodes of Bob's show instead of just discussing topics in general.

It is also a convenient way of finding the most current Bob Enyart Live show!

[Jefferson]

Great idea Knight.

[Poly]

Excellent!!:up: :up:

[Knight]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Great idea Knight. Thanks but... it was Poly's idea! All I did was ask Bob if it was ok. :D

[Poly]

I just had a feeling that you would be thinking of it really soon so I just jumped the gun.:D

[Freak]

Great idea I'm surprised this wasn't here many years ago.

Though I was in the dark about Bob until arriving to TOL. I have listened to a few of his shows(since arriving on TOL many years ago) and appreciate his service to God.

[Jefferson]

Freak:

Have you listened to this show with John Lofton?

[Poly]

I was curious if anybody has listened to any of Bob's special tapes such as:

Predestination vs. Freewill
God's Criminal Justice System
Get out of the Matrix (One of my all time favorites)
Divorce and Remarriage

I've seen all of these and HIGHLY recommend them!!

[firechyld]

Perhaps a link to a transcript of each show would be a welcome addition? Some can't download shows in MP3 format, and some (like me!) have to save our download cap for vital things like Buffy the Vampire Slayer (tongue firmly in cheek). :)

[Goose]

Originally posted by Polycarpadvo
I was curious if anybody has listened to any of Bob's special tapes such as:

Predestination vs. Freewill
God's Criminal Justice System
Get out of the Matrix (One of my all time favorites)
Divorce and Remarriage

I've seen all of these and HIGHLY recommend them!! I've seen just about all of them. Some more then once, like "Video Fruitcake". :D I REALLY REALLY REALLY enjoy listening to his "Genesis: The Fall" series. It's mostly just on Predestination vs. Free Will and I love it! I HIGHLY recommend it to any who is interested in this topic. I'm going to convert it all to mp3 someday so I can listen to it in my car.

[Poly]

Yeah the Fall is one of my favorites! I haven't seen Video Fruitcake. Maybe I'll have to get that one next.

[Goose]

Originally posted by Polycarpadvo
Yeah the Fall is one of my favorites! I haven't seen Video Fruitcake. Maybe I'll have to get that one next. Oh man. It's a must have.

[Poly]

Wasn't there some joke about it being passed around to different people since it was after all the "fruit cake" video and that's what you do with fruitcake?:D

I think I'll order it today.

[Goose]

Originally posted by Polycarpadvo
Wasn't there some joke about it being passed around to different people since it was after all the "fruit cake" video and that's what you do with fruitcake?:D

I think I'll order it today. Well, I do remember it being a hot item around Christmas time. :D Nicer than God Christians and liberals don't like it though. :rolleyes:

[Poly]

Originally posted by Goose
Nicer than God Christians and liberals don't like it though. :rolleyes:

So what you're saying is just about everybody hates it.:D

[Goose]

Originally posted by Polycarpadvo


So what you're saying is just about everybody hates it.:D hehe Uhm....yes.... :D

:cool:

[Lion]

Jefferson-You asked:Have you listened to this show with John Lofton?
Yes and it was awesome, only it should have been longer. Maybe two or three hours longer. I could have listened all day. The sad thing was that Lofton was really sounding like a Jew hating liberal. Very sad for a Christian.

[s9s27s54]

Knight,

I think that's a great idea. I can find out how he believes.

[firechyld]

Grrr @ lack of transcripts....

Do they not exist? Should I volunteer my services as transcript maker? I promise not to break down in the middle and start quoting random people as saying "blah blah blah, I am super weine man".

[Goose]

Originally posted by firechyld
Grrr @ lack of transcripts....

Do they not exist? Should I volunteer my services as transcript maker? I promise not to break down in the middle and start quoting random people as saying "blah blah blah, I am super weine man". haha I've never found any transcripts. It's also an hour long show. Compensate me for shipping, and I'll burn as many as I can to cd in mp3 format!

[firechyld]

Originally posted by Goose
haha I've never found any transcripts. It's also an hour long show. Compensate me for shipping, and I'll burn as many as I can to cd in mp3 format!

Nah, I can listen to them... I just have to do so when my flatmates haven't blown our netstats through online gaming and downloading movies.

I just prefer to be able to read transcipts sometimes... especially when some of Bob's guests have very thick American accents.

firechyld

[Goose]

Originally posted by firechyld
I just prefer to be able to read transcipts sometimes... especially when some of Bob's guests have very thick American accents.

firechyld LOL Do we really sound that bad? :)

[Poly]

Thick=hick?

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally posted by Goose
I've seen just about all of them. Some more then once, like "Video Fruitcake". :D I REALLY REALLY REALLY enjoy listening to his "Genesis: The Fall" series. It's mostly just on Predestination vs. Free Will and I love it! I HIGHLY recommend it to any who is interested in this topic. I'm going to convert it all to mp3 someday so I can listen to it in my car.


What a great idea!

But someone will have to explain to me what equipment one would need to get it off the tape and onto mp3, because that would be great.

I'm also a little unsure if that would violate any copywrite laws, or how Bob Enyart Live Inc. would feel about that.

[Goose]

Originally posted by ApologeticJedi
What a great idea!

But someone will have to explain to me what equipment one would need to get it off the tape and onto mp3, because that would be great.plug your tape player into your 'line in' jack of your sound card, get a program that records in wav format. Then convert the wave to mp3.

I'm also a little unsure if that would violate any copywrite laws, or how Bob Enyart Live Inc. would feel about that. As long as I don't distribute it, I think I'm cool.

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally posted by Goose
plug your tape player into your 'line in' jack of your sound card, get a program that records in wav format. Then convert the wave to mp3.


Ugg ... I was hoping that was not the answer.

[firechyld]

LOL Do we really sound that bad?

*grin* Fraid so. At least some of you do.

Don't fret, it's a problem I have with a lot of American and European broadcasts that aren't internationally broadcast.

[ddevonb]

They are in the process of having all of the teachings available on CD/mp3.
Some are now available...all will be eventually.
I believe the first two parts of the Revelation series is ready now.

[RBrown]

Yes, Bob's Bible studies are being made available in mp3 as previously mentioned. I would add that they are much better quality than the cassettes for a few reasons.

There re no analog (cassette) generations involved since the masters are (with rare exception) on Minidisc. Also even the digital masters are being re-edited and processed to further enhance quality.

Another thing worth noting is that the mp3 files are encoded at a sampling frequency and are short enough in length that they can be easily burned into standard audio cds for listening in the car or whatever. Do check with BEL ministries before making copies for anyone besides yourself though because the studies are copyrighted.

Even better.. the mp3 cdroms contain extras that go along with the studies. In the case of the Revelation study there is a comprehensive "spirituality test" included that the cassette study did not include.

[ddevonb]

FYI... All BEL shows can also be listened to or downloaded at the Information Radio archives. These files are not as high quality but they are much smaller files ... a big benefit for those with slow dial-up speeds or download restrictions.
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/enyart/insert/

[Brenda]

This is my first post to TOL. I just heard about this site on Bob Enyart Live a few days ago.

I am also a new listener to Bob Enyart Live. I usually just catch half his show on Monday nights when I happen to be in the car, but I find him entertaining and intriguing.

I'll probably watch here quietly for a while.

Brenda

[Brenda]

Okay, clearly I don't get how to use this board yet. Bear with me!

- B

[Poly]

Originally posted by Brenda
Okay, clearly I don't get how to use this board yet. Bear with me!

- B
It looks like you are doing just fine. We're glad you're here. Welcome aboard!!:thumb:

[Zakath]

Come on in, Brenda! The water's fine

(Though a bit piranah infested at times.)

They only take out small chunks, though. :D

[Knight]

Originally posted by Zakath
Come on in, Brenda! The water's fine

(Though a bit piranah infested at times.)

They only take out small chunks, though. :D Sometimes (like in Zakath's case) there is nothing left to "bite". :D

[Zakath]

Knight's just jealous because I've got so much scar tissue that all the weak little fishies are breaking their teeth...
:D

[Nova]

I've been listening to the show, too. Its like a combination of Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell. He mentioned that you were going to call in and debate him, Zak, I'd be interested to hear that. :cool:

[Knight]

Originally posted by Nova
I've been listening to the show, too. Its like a combination of Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell. He mentioned that you were going to call in and debate him, Zak, I'd be interested to hear that. :cool: I wish!!!

I would love to have Zakath call Bob but Zakath wants no part of that.

So they are going to debate here within the safe walls of a web forum!

Cool for us!

Battle Royale VII starts June 16th!

[Nova]

Does Bob Enyart and the other guy who has a show come on these forums a lot? I wouldn't mind calling into either of the shows, I just really can't think of anything to say...they obviously are very set in their views and I have mine and never the twain shall meet.

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Nova
Does Bob Enyart and the other guy who has a show come on these forums a lot?Bob only has 4 posts on this forum so far. Here they are:

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=216686#post216686

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=212918#post212918

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=193951#post193951

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=27705#post27705

[Knight]

Originally posted by Nova
Does Bob Enyart and the other guy who has a show come on these forums a lot? I wouldn't mind calling into either of the shows, I just really can't think of anything to say...they obviously are very set in their views and I have mine and never the twain shall meet. Bob would LOVE to have you on the show.

Monday - Friday...

1-800-8Enyart

7 to 8:00PM Mountain Time.

Make sure to tell him you are a TheologyOnLine regular!

[Paradõsis]

I was curious if anybody has listened to any of Bob's special tapes such as:

Predestination vs. Freewill

If this is the debate tape with the Calvinist, then yes, I've seen it. Seems like they just spent the entire time talking past each other. At certain points I wondered if perhaps there was soundproof glass between them, and they just read a monologue when it was there turn. I suppose most debates on this subject sound this way though! :)

God's Criminal Justice System

As Bob's a theonomist, and a mid-acts dispensationalist, I don't see much point in watching it. ;)

Get out of the Matrix (One of my all time favorites)
Divorce and Remarriage

Haven't seen these, though Bob's ideas about divorce might be interesting considering his past (that's not a shot, I mean that seriously... we tend to look at things differently when we've gone through them ourselves).

I've also read The Plot, Judge Rightly, and a whole lot of other stuff (I had MY OWN video fruitcake, made from various shows of his I had taped, hehe). I threw most of that stuff away a couple years ago though.

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Paradõsis
If this is the debate tape with the Calvinist, then yes, I've seen it. Seems like they just spent the entire time talking past each other. At certain points I wondered if perhaps there was soundproof glass between them, and they just read a monologue when it was there turn.I agree. That wasn't a debate. It was just each person presenting his own view. The 2 "debaters" never asked each other any questions. There was no interaction whatsoever. Boooooorrrrring.

[wholearmor]

Bob's sidekick, Doug, is no Ed McMahon and needs to go in my opinion.

[drbrumley]

I like Doug, but tend to agree with WA. Of course, he isn't on during the week except Fridays, so Friday must be fun day at BEL. LOL!

In Christ,
DRBrumley

[Tye Porter]

Where is the question and answer thread for the DBC Sunday night Bible study?
Who was there tonight? (October 26, 2003)

Jason
Momma Enyart
Lion Clan (Sans Lion)

Anybody else?

[Tye Porter]

bump

[Beacon]

Lion was there too and the Sutherlands. and twelve others.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Beacon

Lion was there too and the Sutherlands. and twelve others.
Yall talking about the Last Supper? :chuckle:

[Bob Enyart]

Hello to all,
FYI, you can hear Dr. Walt Brown on Bob Enyart Live, show #33, Feb. 16, 2004 discussing creaton and the global flood. Brown has a PhD in mechanical engineering from MIT. Also, I judge his creation and flood theories to best fit the evidence. Thanks, -Bob

[SOTK]

Can I hear Bob Enyart Live in Washington state? Other than the Battle Royale, I haven't been able to hear any of your other positions.

[1Way]

SOTK4ever - You can get his shows on his web site at

kgov.com

His radio program is posted every day! But be forwarned, he's not nicer than God, and he does a great job of not being nicer than God too!

[Freak]

Originally posted by 1Way

His radio program is posted every day! But be forwarned, he's not nicer than God, and he does a great job of not being nicer than God too! Do Right and Risk the Consequences, 1Way.
:crackup:

[SOTK]

Originally posted by 1Way

SOTK4ever - You can get his shows on his web site at

kgov.com

His radio program is posted every day! But be forwarned, he's not nicer than God, and he does a great job of not being nicer than God too!

Okay. Thanks.

[1Way]

And Bob Enyart is no slouch when it comes to earth sciences, creationism, geo-chronometers and such. Walt Brown has some very interesting and somewhat unique perspectives on the geology of the earth, especially concerning the cataclysmic events surrounding the great flood.

That show should be outstanding!

[1Way]

Jefferson – You quoted Paradosis saying If this is the debate tape with the Calvinist, then yes, I've seen it. Seems like they just spent the entire time talking past each other. At certain points I wondered if perhaps there was soundproof glass between them, and they just read a monologue when it was there turn. to which you said I agree. That wasn't a debate. It was just each person presenting his own view. The 2 "debaters" never asked each other any questions. There was no interaction whatsoever. Boooooorrrrring. Bob was responsive to what Brian was saying, and Bob asked Brian questions yet Brian rarely gave much time and effort to them, especially towards the end, Brian became very unresponsive the more enraged he was because of Bob’s efforts. In fact, Bob even made a mention of an old question that was asked years before in a phone conference debate, and he asked it again during this debate, and Brian still remains unresponsive to the most damaging of questions for the individual predestination during the video taped debate! And it's over the holy grail of Calvinism "the Potter and the Clay", where God responds to the clay which is Israel and by extension man via NT use. Such fear from Bryan’s side of the debate was screamingly loud if you only had ears to hear it.

I agree that the debate over all was not very point-counterpoint, nor very personable, but to say that they were both guilty of talking past each other is a far cry from the truth. But even though Brian was a real let down, it still was a riveting exchange.


Looking back through some of these posts, it's seems obvious that BEL is not the most popular...

As to the comments about Doug's input on the show, I think he is great! Doug does his show without callers, which is arguably more difficult to do in terms of being interesting and such. Bob is an old vet doing media programs, from radio to TV and public protests and video teaching tapes, etc.

[1Way]

(Maybe I’ll have to make another thread for this.)

Ok, a slight correction, I’m listening to that debate right now. At around 37.8 minuets on the tape, Brian did make a response, but only by saying that Jer.18 was a national election not individual election, the visible church (Israel) being His chosen elected people, wheat and tares, so you handle Jer 18 completely differently than you do Romans 9.
Did God finish the first vessel, or did He have to make a second vessel?

Why did God not finish the first vessel, why did He have to make another vessel?
That is nearly half an answer, but specifically it did not answer the particular question, he never answer if the potter finished the first vessel! Brian missed the implication of the notion about how God’s election works! Brian posits that there are two very different sorts of election, basically 1) corporate and 2) individual, but, Jer 18 demonstrates that God responds to what man does in order to determine how God will treat man! That is a description of operation; it explains God’s action reaction dependency. Yet, that is the exact opposite of what Brian says throughout his entire presentation! He even said that it was NOT God’s plan that Israel would obey Him saying that ultimately Christ would be killed at the cross through their unbelief. You see, He denies man’s free will, and asserts that God does it all, so by Brian’s view, God was the cause making the vessel into another vessel, not the mar in the clay in the Potter’s hand which God says was Isreal! So by these consistent responses, Brian’s answer must be that no, God did not make a second vessel because of responding to the clay, God makes no mistakes, He just did what He did.

But the Bible is crystal clear, that God responded to what man did, and that was why God had to make another vessel, Israel did not conform to God’s will and plans to make her into an honorable vessel, so He had to make her fit as a vessel for dishonor. The Potter responds after man responds to God and His response is formed in accordance to man’s response. It is synergism personified. Brian’s view of God (Calvinism, individual predestination) denies the true God of the bible.
(Jer 18:1-10 NKJV)

The Potter and the clay


The Vision, figurative speech

“1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the
LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the
potter’s house, and there I will cause you to
hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the
potter’s house, and there he was, making
something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that
he made of clay was marred in the hand of the
potter; so he made it again into another vessel,
as it seemed good to the potter to make.


God’s explanation of the vision, literal application

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me,
saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with
you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look,
as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you
in My hand, O house of Israel!


The general principle of divine repentance, literal
didactic truism

7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation
and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up,
to pull down, and to destroy it,
8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken
turns from its evil,
(then) I will *relent of the disaster
that I thought to bring upon it.

9 "And the instant I speak concerning
a nation and concerning a kingdom,
to build and to plant it,
10 "if it does evil in My sight
so that it does not obey My voice,
then I will *relent concerning the good
with which I said I would benefit it.



* nacham = Strongs #5162 = repent

“(then)” supplied in verse 8 for emphasis on
the “if then” conditional arrangement.
So in summery, Brian was asked twice in the debate, wow, strike that THREE times this same question was specifically asked each time calling Brian by name emphasizing his attention to this question, including a dramatic historical build up because of Brian’s unresponsiveness from a debate from 3 years prior, and he still did not directly answer the question!!! Calvinists are afraid to address the very heart of their supposed proof texts, the mechanism of the Potter and the Clay, as they say, is all by God’s will and not man’s, yet the Bible does not support that view, in fact, the NT reference is derived from the OT first use principle, which establishes a synergistic relationship between God and man, where God waits for man to respond to know how God will respond to man in return.

Another note is that Bob asked pointed questions of Brian, and during the first entire half of the debate, (I’m pretty sure) Brian asked NO questions of Bob, certainly none on the onset or end of his segments like Bob did.

A very interesting debate “Bob debates Calvinist”. Individual predestination and a God who exists outside of time, is wrong.

That really cracks me up, Bob said

“Brian, ,,, did God finish the first vessel? or not?...?”

3 times!!! With NO "direct" response. :shocked: :freak:

[Scottb]

:thumb: 1way

[Scottb]

Originally posted by SOTK4ever

Can I hear Bob Enyart Live in Washington state? Other than the Battle Royale, I haven't been able to hear any of your other positions. http://www.kgov.com/ You can catch bob`s show`s right here off the web.:thumb:

[Scottb]

Originally posted by 1Way

SOTK4ever - You can get his shows on his web site at

kgov.com

His radio program is posted every day! But be forwarned, he's not nicer than God, and he does a great job of not being nicer than God too! Bob is cool, and he does a great job, and he speak`s out, and he does not hide behind christian polictical correctness! We need more Bob Enyart`s out there in TV land, and radio land.:)

[1Way]

Scottb - Thank you for your input! You recently joined TOL, welcome aboard! :thumb:

[1Way]

Jefferson - Scottb - waiting on your responses... :D

[Scottb]

Originally posted by 1Way

Jefferson - Scottb - waiting on your responses... :D Mine is off, isn`t it?:)

[1Way]

scottb - Yep, yours was corrected, and so is mine. Did you see the debate video, or was your thumb's up just about the post correction? My previous post to yours was commenting about the Bob debates a Calvinist video tape.

Bob did a wonderful job and tried to be as personable with Brian as Brian would allow, but Brian was typically indignant towards Bob, and even was called for mocking God’s sincerity concerning God’s feelings when His people go astray. And Brian did not even comment on that note either.

All in all, most of their point counterpoint was done indirectly; the direct question answer point counterpoint dialogue aspect was not very productive. And I think that the highlight was Bob’s then three year old (!!!) phone debate questions, which were dumbfounding in more than just the Potter and the clay issue, and the fact that he asked Brian 3 separate and very pointed times, about the potter and the clay, and Brian would not touch the question in a direct fashion.

Also, nothing Brian offered troubled or stumped Bob, well, the time when Brian mocked the idea that God was upset about Israel remaining unbelieving, Bob made a special notice of that and took offense at Brian’s derogatory remarks, he also said that attributing evil to God is blasphemous, and that since consistent Calvinism attributes everything to God’s will, Calvinism often borders on blasphemy.

Bob mentioned many passages that Brian did not even touch, not because Brian assumed Bob’s presentation of them were correct, but because he probably didn’t have a cogent biblically defensible response. (!!!) Bob however was able to not directly respond to some of Brian’s bible expositions, because they presented no problem for his views.

It is an excellent tape, but a bit advanced especially if you are not already familiar with Bob’s bible teachings. The Plot of the bible is a must “read”/”listen to” teaching resource. Or, if you aren’t too sure about Bob’s teachings, check out other things like “the NT support for the death penalty” or “divorce and remarriage”, or “is this man God” which is a tremendous example of Bob’s excellent teaching style and ability. I would have never thought I would benefit from such a commonly taught issue, yet Bob presents the case better than anyone I’ve ever heard of.

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by 1Way
I agree that the debate over all was not very point-counterpoint, nor very personable, but to say that they were both guilty of talking past each other is a far cry from the truth. But even though Brian was a real let down, it still was a riveting exchange.
It's true that Bob responded to more of Brian's points than the other way around but without both parties being forced (by the moderator if necessary) to respond to each other, the so-called "debate" comes to a screeching halt. I've heard a lot of debates that go back and forth until one party gets backed into a corner and pummeled unmercifully (eg. Enyart vrs. Zakath). This was a far cry from that. The moderator should have called Brian on the carpet for not responding to direct questions.

[1Way]

Jefferson - Some debates are more point counterpoint, and others are more like hearing two separate monologues, yet the form of the debate is hardly the essence of what is debated. For example, sometimes Jesus debated His opponents by answering His game without answering their questions point counter point style, and He remained very interesting and convincing. And, sometimes He addressed their points head on, yet I see no better debate tactic in either case. The individual debate parties are usually the more responsible for their responsiveness.

I think I understand about what you are saying about point counterpoint Q and A exchanges. In general I prefer them too, monologues are just not as interesting. But then again you can go too far that way and it can get bogged down in the arguing about who said what and when and why and so on. So there are up sides of the sort of debate tactics in the “Bob debates a Calvinist” video.

I was there, it was a tremendous night, and there was no noticeable amount of personal camaraderie between Bob and Brian. I wish that Brian had arrived earlier, but he arrived at the last minuet so we extras had no time to get acquainted with him, and after the debate, which took a long time to do, it was late and he had to leave, but their parting disposition was somewhat strained (yet very late night too) though I think Bob did a good job of getting over the uneasy salutation bit, Brian did not have much at all to say, and did not seem to be in a very personable mood.

Ultimately, even if you have a moderator acting more in the role of a facilitator, you the audience still has to judge for themselves how the debate faired. If there was more time for the debate, then perhaps John could have played a bit more of a master of ceremonies and encouraged the debaters towards a more Q & A dialogue.

Thanks for bringing up this whole issue. I was really blessed by reviewing it again, and it was still shocking by the way Brian would dance around Bob’s questions, particularly the ones around the Calvinist’s infamous potter and the clay teaching.

Other than my not getting much sleep, that was one of the most enjoyable weekends I have had in years and decades. It was almost like what I would imagine a TOL gathering of the minds would be like. Bible’s were opened, folks were discussing Christian doctrine, sometimes arguments got a bit carried away, but the level of care shown for our Lord despite our differences was immense. Bob really was a hit that weekend. What I loved was the personal exchanges that showed an intense desire for serving one another. A few of us like minded mid acts open viewers that showed up that weekend really turned some heads and made at least some of the well oiled wheels of tradition come screeching to a sudden halt! :o

I think that much of our personal time together at John’s house was just as exciting and provocative as the debate was. John and his wife really put on a great show for all of us, and has a great bunch of local folks that hang out for the heresy club thing whatever he called it.

Peace

[Scottb]

Originally posted by 1Way

scottb - Yep, yours was corrected, and so is mine. Did you see the debate video, or was your thumb's up just about the post correction? My previous post to yours was commenting about the Bob debates a Calvinist video tape.

Bob did a wonderful job and tried to be as personable with Brian as Brian would allow, but Brian was typically indignant towards Bob, and even was called for mocking God’s sincerity concerning God’s feelings when His people go astray. And Brian did not even comment on that note either.

All in all, most of their point counterpoint was done indirectly; the direct question answer point counterpoint dialogue aspect was not very productive. And I think that the highlight was Bob’s then three year old (!!!) phone debate questions, which were dumbfounding in more than just the Potter and the clay issue, and the fact that he asked Brian 3 separate and very pointed times, about the potter and the clay, and Brian would not touch the question in a direct fashion.

Also, nothing Brian offered troubled or stumped Bob, well, the time when Brian mocked the idea that God was upset about Israel remaining unbelieving, Bob made a special notice of that and took offense at Brian’s derogatory remarks, he also said that attributing evil to God is blasphemous, and that since consistent Calvinism attributes everything to God’s will, Calvinism often borders on blasphemy.

Bob mentioned many passages that Brian did not even touch, not because Brian assumed Bob’s presentation of them were correct, but because he probably didn’t have a cogent biblically defensible response. (!!!) Bob however was able to not directly respond to some of Brian’s bible expositions, because they presented no problem for his views.

It is an excellent tape, but a bit advanced especially if you are not already familiar with Bob’s bible teachings. The Plot of the bible is a must “read”/”listen to” teaching resource. Or, if you aren’t too sure about Bob’s teachings, check out other things like “the NT support for the death penalty” or “divorce and remarriage”, or “is this man God” which is a tremendous example of Bob’s excellent teaching style and ability. I would have never thought I would benefit from such a commonly taught issue, yet Bob presents the case better than anyone I’ve ever heard of. No, I have not got that tape yet, but I do plan on getting that one, and many more. I have been listening to bob on and off now, for about 10, 11 year`s now. I have learned alot from him.

[1Way]

scottb - Great. Warning, blunt question is about to be uttered. :) Are you saved? So, what about His bible teaching materials? I would "imagine" (although my imagination is not always accurate :o ) that if you were saved and had at least some of his bible teaching materials, then you would have a good reason to share about that too, but you did not. If you have been missing out on Bob's bible teaching materials all this time, then you have really been missing out the best of Bob's stuff. His conservative ideology is centered on an accurate view of scripture.

[Scottb]

Originally posted by 1Way

scottb - Great. Warning, blunt question is about to be uttered. :) Are you saved? So, what about His bible teaching materials? I would "imagine" (although my imagination is not always accurate :o ) that if you were saved and had at least some of his bible teaching materials, then you would have a good reason to share about that too, but you did not. If you have been missing out on Bob's bible teaching materials all this time, then you have really been missing out the best of Bob's stuff. His conservative ideology is centered on an accurate view of scripture. OH yes, I`am saved, and no I do not have any of his teaching`s. I do have some material from other great teacher`s.

[1Way]

Scottb - In my humble opinion, Bob's bible study resources are the best available.
:thumb:
If you are going to get into that stuff, excepting for a few topical references like the one’s I mentioned earlier, get “The Plot” first, it is the basis for his overall approach to bible study such that if you don’t have that as the foundation, then it may make understanding and accepting subsequent teachings much more difficult. Having a solid understanding of the overview of the whole bible is crucial to getting the many details correct!

[Nimrod]

After hearing Bob say that we no longer need to observe the sabbath. This comes from his dispensational view of Scriptures. I would seriously re-think about getting any of his Bible studies.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Nimrod

After hearing Bob say that we no longer need to observe the sabbath. This comes from his dispensational view of Scriptures. I would seriously re-think about getting any of his Bible studies.

You just broke it.

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Sozo

You just broke it.


How so? Or do you run and hide from direct questions.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Nimrod

How so? Or do you run and hide from direct questions.

That's not a very "holy" thing to say?

Are you working on your computer?

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Sozo

That's not a very "holy" thing to say?

Are you working on your computer?

Sozo can't answer a simple question., is it too difficult?

So first you point out I am breaking the sabbath, then give no answer as to how I am doing so. Instead you run from answering a simple question and say I am speaking unholy. Oh brother!

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Nimrod

Sozo can't answer a simple question., is it too difficult?

So first you point out I am breaking the sabbath, then give no answer as to how I am doing so. Instead you run from answering a simple question and say I am speaking unholy. Oh brother!

You really are dense aren't you.

[Sozo]

From the dictionary...

Nimrod: A person regarded as silly, foolish, or stupid.

[Sozo]

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine a s s , nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.


See, it says right there in bold that you should not be working!

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Sozo

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine a s s , nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.


See, it says right there in bold that you should not be working!

I just reported this message to the board, lets see what they do.

[Turbo]

You posted on a Saturday morning that we ought to be keeping the Sabbath, and Sozo pointed out that you were working on your computer.

Then you said he ran from your question even though he answered it plainly, so he called you a nimrod and a KJV donkey. The text blocker was intended for that word's homonym.

Do you ever drive your car from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, Nimrod?

[Sozo]

Sorry Turbo, I couldn't resist.



























(p.s. I haven't laughed this hard in 10 years... I may have wet my pants)

[Mateo]

Any of you modern day Pharisee got any scripture to back up talking as violating the Sabbath?

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Mateo

Any of you modern day Pharesee got any scripture to back up talking as violating the Sabbath?

For you Mateo, even thinking is work!

[Mateo]

That would presuppose you are in anyway familiar with thought.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Mateo

That would presuppose you are in anyway familiar with thought.

Wow, you sure told me.

[Mateo]

Another brave dispie ducking yet another question.

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Turbo

You posted on a Saturday morning that we ought to be keeping the Sabbath, and Sozo pointed out that you were working on your computer.

Then you said he ran from your question even though he answered it plainly, so he called you a nimrod and a KJV donkey. The text blocker was intended for that word's homonym.

Do you ever drive your car from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, Nimrod?

Hi Turbo,

I didn't get the same info out of Bozo's response as you did. I should have realized that to some the sabbath is always a Saturday or a Sunday. I hold it to one day out of seven, not always having to be the same day. Some people have to work on those days.

Yes I do drive, be we know from Scriptures that God is merciful. David ate the shewbread when he was not allowed to. God is also merciful if I decide to spark a fire on my sabbath to cook a meal.

Matt 12:1-5 "they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?"

It is when I work on the sabbath for earthly gains. That is where I draw the line.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Nimrod

That is where I draw the line.

:darwinsm:

[1Way]

Nimrod – Sozo and Turbo are right, the level of incongruity concerning your adherence to keeping God’s commandments (from the previous dispensation) is pretty bizarre. God, not you, God drew the line at,

You shall not add to, or take away from His word and commandements.

And if you break my Sabbath, you are subject to the death penalty.

The issue of keeping the Sabbath the way God said it must be kept, was a matter of life and death, salvation and eternal damnation. Nu 15:30 ‘But the person who does [anything] presumptuously, [whether he is] native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people. 31 ‘Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.’" 32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. ...
35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." 36 So, as the LORD commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died. If that is what is going on at your church, trust me, I’m not going to visit, ever. I don’t want to be accused of breaking the Sabbath and then being put to death for something as arguably trivial as picking up some sticks. Maybe you see this teaching as somehow being wrong? Man does not have the standing to pick and choose which commandments to keep or modify.

Even Jesus in the NT said that you do not have the standing to pick and choose which commandments you will observe and keep, you must keep them all, “the greater and the lesser”.

Yes, the commandments were many and sometimes conflicted, and yes God had mercy for those who could not help but to brake one commandment in order to keep another, but you are not saying that, are you? You are altering the commandment to fit your lifestyle, perhaps like that guy picking up sticks thought, like it’s no big deal, it’s not that important, I’ll just pick up some smaller sticks and not heavier logs which might draw more attention.

If you are not living like a full blown law keeping Jew, then you are breaking the commandments of God, and if you broke the Sabboth, and you claim to be a law keeper because of keeping the Sabbath, but you willfully brake it according to your own tradition and not for another other reason, so then theoretically there may be biblical grounds for the death penalty in such a case.

God was “not” merciful on the man who willfully broke the Sabbath in the desert by picking up sticks. So, by what authority do you overturn the commandments of God? What makes you think you should be exempt from keeping the entire law the way God said you must obey?

[1Way]

Two examples, one theoretical but somehow familiar.

Theoretical example
Lord, congregation, wait, stop, but I wasn't riding my bicycle or jogging, I was just riding my car, it’s pretty easy to drive in a car, also I hardly drove for very long.

A biblical example
Lord, congregation, wait, stop, but I wasn't picking up logs and trying to collect any wages, I was just picking up a small amount of sticks, it’s pretty easy to carry these sticks, also I hardly did this for a very long time, stick picking is a modest short lived endeavor.

He (the stick man) died with his guilt remaining upon him, being “completely cut off” from God’s people.

Not a good picture. Gee, I wonder if those two examples are similar as opposed to being different, in terms of presumptuously disobeying God’s commandment about the Sabbath.

[Nimrod]

I have question listed as Q#) and again at the bottom for you 1 Way.

Originally posted by 1Way
The issue of keeping the Sabbath the way God said it must be kept, was a matter of life and death, salvation and eternal damnation.


I completely disagree about salvation. Breaking the sabbath today is not eternal damnation. You won't lose your salvation if you break the sabbath. No one is/was saved by observing the Law. This is a problem with dispensationalist, they think that the Jews were saved differently than the NT believers.
Gen 15:6 "And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness"
Q1)How were OT saints saved? Hmmmmmmm

Now here is the verse that looks like you will lose your salvation for breaking the sabbath.
Exodus 31:14 "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. "

It seems that the Jews would lose their salvation if they broke the sabbath. But notice the same instruction is given in circumcision.

But look in Genesis 17:14 "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant"

Abraham was righteous BEFORE circumcision came into effect.
Q2)Could Abraham lose his salvation if he didn't circumcize?

Romans 4:9-10 "Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision."

Summary: you wont lose your salvation for not keeping the sabbath.
Keeping the sabbath is for santification not justification.
God blessed the sabbath, therefore to receive a blessing, keep the sabbath.
"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. "

Q3)Did God bless the sabbath?
Q4)Is the sabbath for the Jews only?

Summary: The sabbath was in effect before the LAW and before the Jews, therefore it is/was not just for the Jews.

I think as Christian believers we need to correct people about their wrongful ways, but not hit them over the head with a hammer! IF someone sins, we should speak to them lovinly and hope they will correct themselves.

Q5)Out of the ten commandments, which of them do you feel we can break and is not a sin in todays dispensation? Thou shall not covet? Thou shall not make a grave image? It is amazing to me that you will pick 1 of the ten not to observe.

but you are not saying that, are you? You are altering the commandment to fit your lifestyle

As I said earlier, I looked at what Jesus said about the sabbath.

Matt 12:11 "What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? "

Luke 14:5 "Which of you shall have an *** or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day? "

Do you think I would miss going to service because the I am not to start the car on the sabbath? How silly that is. When God told Moses not to start a fire, in those days it was work. Yes there were grounds for being put to death, but lets face it, it doesn't happen today does it.
Q6)When David murdered, why then wasn't he put to death?
Q7)When Jonah prophized about the destruction of Nevenah, and it didn't happen, wasn't he a false prophet? Why wasn't he put to death? You think God had somethign to do with it? I think God did. When the man picked up sticks in Number 15:32, who told them they should be stoned? God or Moses?


The sabbath continues.
Matt 24:20 "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day"
I am really curious about this verse. How do you dispenationalist interpret this verse? I thought you believethe sabbath was done away with.
Q8)Isn't this verse about the future?
Q9)Does it only apply to Jews?


If you are not living like a full blown law keeping Jew, then you are breaking the commandments of God
What Jew did not break a commandment? Again, keeping the commandment, which none of us can do, is for santification NOT justification.

1 Way don't miss out the blessing of the sabbath!

---------------Questions---------------------
Q1)How were OT saints saved?
Q2)Could Abraham lose his salvation if he didn't circumcize?
Q3)Did God bless the sabbath?
Q4)Is the sabbath for the Jews only?
Q5)Out of the ten commandments, which of them do you feel we can break and is not a sin in todays dispensation?
Q6)When David murdered, why then wasn't he put to death?
Q7)When Jonah prophized about the destruction of Nevenah, and it didn't happen, wasn't he a false prophet? Why wasn't he put to death?
Q8)Isn't this verse about the future?
Q9)Does it only apply to Jews?

[Mateo]

:think:

[1Way]

Nimrod – 1 of 2
You said I completely disagree about salvation. Breaking the sabbath today is not eternal damnation. You won't lose your salvation if you break the sabbath. No one is/was saved by observing the Law. This is a problem with dispensationalist, they think that the Jews were saved differently than the NT believers. You state this completely backwards and in so many ways.

I did not say that “today” you will go to hell if you break the Sabbath.

According to God, if you broke the Sabbath as mentioned by the reference I already gave you, that person went to hell, so your wrong, braking the Sabbath could send to you hell, but not necessarily in every case.

God said to keep His law or be cut off from Him. How much more simple can it be? His commandments (=the law) were not superfluous, it was the way of salvation, and it includes loving and trusting (=faith) in God alone. It was faith plus works, not just works, and not just faith, you had to have them both! So if anyone argues about not being saved by doing just the works of the law, they are right, but if anyone did all of the works of the law, then they would have loved and believed God also, so faith and works are commanded by the law, you need them both.

This is the problem with non-dispensationalists, they mix together what God keeps separate.

Gen 15:6 is right and you understand it wrong. Abram is the father of TWO different groups of believers because he received the promise before being circumcised.

Ex 31:14 and the circumcision requirements can not nullify other scripture and the passage I gave you where the man died in his guilt for breaking the Sabbath, at God’s command, being “completely” cut off, i.e. no longer part of God’s people.

Circumcision was a covenant relationship between God and man, to be part of God’s accepted covenant people, you had to be circumcised, it was not an option, it was a requirement. God nearly went about to kill either Moses or his son (I think He was after Moses) because he had not yet circumcised his child! So I have only consistent biblical basis for maintaining that the law keepers had to keep the law or risk their own life and salvation.

Abraham was righteous before being circumcised, so what? Paul was saved by grace through faith alone yet was water baptized, so what? God gave Paul progressive revelation about salvation even though when he was first saved he would have taught a salvation by keeping the law. God saves ignorant people and people who believe wrong things all the time. As for Abraham, you seem to not appreciate the brilliance of God making Abram the father of two different groups of believers, because this difference in when he was accounted for righteousness is why he is a good example for being the father of two (different) groups, so naturally we find that he can righteously be identified with both groups, but that in no way makes your point that therefore everyone under the law was saved the same way we are today who are “not” under the law and they were under the law.

Q2 – Yes, Abraham could have lost his salvation and life by braking the law, just like Moses almost did.

Q3 – Yes
Q4 – Yes, it’s for the Jews and proselyte Jews, i.e. those who were under the law, those of the circumcision, those who were God’s chosen and elect people/nation. Not for those who are in the body of Christ, Jewish or non-Jewish. As God through Paul said, were you called while circumcised, or uncircumcised, ok, then remain that way, the group you belonged to while you were called to salvation, that was where God drew the line of separation for starting the body of Christ. If you were already under the law and circumcision, then you were supposed to stay that way, while the new group of believers were to replace the previous group until God is done with this group and start back again with the circumcision “group” again.

You said Summary: The sabbath was in effect before the LAW and before the Jews, therefore it is/was not just for the Jews. Like God said, do not add nor subtract from His commandments, so you have no standing to invalidate what God said is commanded. God commanded that braking the Sabbath can be a matter of life and death and in the case of that man picking up sticks, the passage you seem afraid of, that was a picture of damnation because of him braking the Sabbath.

God changes things a lot, He seems found of appropriate change. Murder is a absolute moral wrong, yet, God reversed His commandment about what should happen to a murderer. Only God has the right to alter His commandments, you do not have that right.

Q5 Your question’s presuppositions are conflicting. God does not impute sin on the saved, so if you are talking about salvation, then you can brake them all and not sin, if you are talking otherwise, then you can brake none of God’s in force commandments and not sin. Do you think that practicing Jews are wrong for no longer doing the sacrifices since Jesus fulfilled that? Point is that some of the law has been fulfilled in Christ (a tremendous change) and so I do not pick and choose which one’s to obey and which not to obey, you are the one who does that since you claim to be a law keeper, not me. I do not keep the law of God, except for those God has placed us in the body of Christ under.

Continued next post...

[1Way]

Nimrod – 2 of 2

Q6 – Because God has the right to intervene in human affairs and do what man does not have the right to do, like forgive a murder and an adulterer.

Q7 – No, sorry, but I have to say, that seems really dumb to me. Or do you think that God’s word was in error when God said that Jonah did as God told him to do and say? Being a false prophet, means, you spoke falsely on behalf of God. I mean, that is one simple concept. Who knows, maybe you will be able to stand corrected on this mammoth and technically confounding issue. (LOL)

There is NO indication that Jonah was lying :eek: or otherwise falsifying God’s message. :dunce:

God told them to kill the man. So what is your (non) point? The story is presented such as for all to see understand the reason he was put to death. It was an example of the immediately proceeding teaching where God speaks of a person who willfully defiles the Sabboth will be surely put to death, being “completely cut off” and his guilt remaining upon him. The text gives no indication that the man was a special case exception like David was for example.

Q8 Yes and no, when it was first given, it was about the near future, like within the life spans of those Jesus was talking to, no, in terms of the fact that God changed His plans of dealing with national Israel due to their continued national unbelief. So He postponed their earthly Davidic Kingdom until He is done with us. If God had not postponed everything as He did, then that Sabbath teaching would have been for way back then.

Q9 I already answered this. Yes, it is only for those under the law for righteous faith in God.

You said What Jew did not break a commandment? Again, keeping the commandment, which none of us can do, is for santification NOT justification. I’m thinking :dunce: again. Your saying that God, who is wise and reasonable, commanded man to do what man can not do.
:confused: God gave the law so that they may live (forever with God) and be in a righteous relationship with God (=salvation). The commandments of God were serious life and death, salvation and damnation issues, they were not optional or insincere.

God never said, you either have to keep all of my laws perfectly without breaking any of them, or you will go to hell. That is pure fictional nonsense. God commanded that you keep his law with all your strength and mind and soul. And in God’s word, there are examples of godly men doing just that. It is not an impossible task to obey what God commands us to obey.

Also, God provided a way for forgiveness if (and often when) they sinned. So keeping the law had correction for human error built in.

And what about all the problems of inter-conflicting laws, doesn’t that also demonstrate that God never really meant for man to keep them all? No, God expected man to use his brain and trust in the goodness and righteousness of God and that when some commands came into conflict and contradiction, you were not held responsible for that problem. God created that problem, not man. And all of human history and God’s word demonstrates that under such conflicting circumstances, the law keeper was just fine. The rule of thumb seems to be that which ever was a positive command generally outweighed a negative one, and which ever command was more important or weightier should supercede a less one, but never to do away with any laws as optional.

You have a point about the various aspects of the law making it such that man could not always and perfectly keep the law, but you can not take that grace any further than God allows. I mean, how can you repeat a command of God that ends in,

if you don’t do this, you shall surely be put to death,

and then think that you could willingly break that command and remain in good standing with God.

Please directly answer what I have brought before you for consideration, especially the man picking up sticks. A positive teaching usurps an implied one. We know that man was in eternal jeopardy, all indications are that he went to hell. If you can not somehow undo that teaching, then it stands and you are found at odds with God’s word. Also, you forgot to deal with Jesus’ teaching, as well as Paul’s, that if you are under the law i.e. a “law keeper”, then you are bound to keep the whole law, you do not have the standing to decide which laws you prefer to keep.

That was funny, why wasn't Jonah put to death... Because he obeyed God and was not a false prophet,,, ??? What broke your thinking on that one?

[1Way]

Nimrod – Here’s an issue I forgot to raise. You probably know the word I am searching for, it’s when a person projects into the past some more recent idea or teaching that does not fit the previous time frame. Is it isogesis (spelling is way off)? Or something like that? Not that you are necessarily doing that, but I do wonder. :think: If you would be so helpful, would you please point out what you believe to be the gospel unto salvation for the OT saints starting from anywhere after God made His covenant relationship with Israel. I realize that the verbiage is different between the OT and the NT, but that is exactly at the point. ;) God said, keep my commandments that you may live ... , and I don’t think that was about physical life.

Also, you must treat Jesus’ words in the gospels about the gospel message in a strange way than how I treat them. Consider Mt 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one [is] good but One, [that is], God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Eze 20:11 "And I gave them My statutes and showed them My judgments, ‘which, [if] a man does, he shall live by them.’

Lu 10:25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?" 27 So he answered and said," ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’" 28 And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."

Le 18:5 ‘You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them : I [am] the LORD. Interesting isn’t is how even specific words can have profound significance. I find it interesting that Jesus did not mutually comply with the young ruler’s specific words “eternal life”, but instead Jesus gave the equivalent saying “enter into life”, or “you will live”. It is refreshing to see God being so faithful to His word.

Jesus did not come teaching a new way of salvation, He taught and did not overturn the OT teachings. Jesus Christ taught without hesitation nor inconsistency that “keeping the law” was the gospel requirement of salvation (In the previous dispensation). So how do you understand all that?

Looking forward to your response.

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by 1Way

Nu 15:30 ‘But the person who does [anything] presumptuously, [whether he is] native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people. 31 ‘Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.’" 32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. ...
35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." 36 So, as the LORD commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.

The problem is that a man was deliberately and flagrantly gather sticks in the open on the Sabbath day when God had commanded that no work be done on the Sabbath. This man was most likely the first to break the commandment, so Moses asked God what should the penality be. "Death"! This is to show the importance of keeping the sabbath. We no longer do the death penality for breaking the sabbath, but the importance remains that we should keep sabbath. It would be a sin to break the sabbath.

I still disagree that the man is sent to hell for breaking the sabbath. I do believe that the OT saint were saved by faith, and could not lose their salvation once they received it.


Did this answer your question about Numbers 15?

[Nimrod]

Thank you 1 Way for answering my questions. Lets take a look at your answers. Only the first 5 in this post.

Q1)How were OT saints saved?
A1)It was faith plus works

Q2)Could Abraham lose his salvation if he didn't circumcize?
A2)Yes

Q3)Did God bless the sabbath?
A3)Yes

Q4)Is the sabbath for the Jews only?
A4)Yes, it’s for the Jews and proselyte Jews

Q5)Out of the ten commandments, which of them do you feel we can break and is not a sin in todays dispensation?
A5) if you are talking about salvation, then you can brake them all and not sin, if you are talking otherwise, then you can brake none of God’s in force commandments and not sin.



Originally posted by 1Way
According to God, if you broke the Sabbath as mentioned by the reference I already gave you, that person went to hell,

Now 1Way you have told me not to "add" to God's word but nowhere does it state that the person went to hell. Do a concordance search though the Bible on "cut off". Since we both have different views on this, I really don't want to discuss it anymore. I hold that the OT saints were saved by faith. And any works of the Law that they disobeyed was a sin but not eternal hell. You hold that is was faith+plus work. I hear this from Mormons and Catholics, but not Christians, until today. Thank you for being honest in your belief.


Originally posted by 1Way
Yes, Abraham could have lost his salvation and life by braking the law, just like Moses almost did.

Romans 4:5 "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

It wasn't Abrahams works, but his faith that saved him.

Romans 4:9-10 "Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. "

Notice 1 Way that it by faith only that came righteousness, not faith plus works.


Q5)Out of the ten commandments, which of them do you feel we can break and is not a sin in todays dispensation?
A5) Originally posted by 1Way
God does not impute sin on the saved, so if you are talking about salvation, then you can brake them all and not sin, if you are talking otherwise, then you can brake none of God’s in [b]force[\b] commandments and not sin.

I haven't asked any questions so far, but this statment of your is confusing, could you please clarify what you mean.

Qa1) What are God's in force commandments? Out of the 10
commandments which ones are no longer in force?
Qa2) Are you saying I can break any sin and still be saved. (I think that is what you meant)
Qa3) What do you mean by "if you are talking otherwise"? Otherwise to what?

Ok 3 questions. I need more time to reply to all your statements. somewhat busy right now.

God Bless

[1Way]

Nimrod – You’r 96th post was certainly consistent with your views, but it did not barely even approach my question as it relates to my presentation to you on that issue. So no, that does not satisfy our ongoing discussion on that issue. Here is what I said about it, please respond. I’ll place little colorfull highlights where I’d like your specific response if you don’t mind. Notably, I formatted in highlights various aspects of this passaged, and in your response, you seem to indicate that you barely considered but one issue. If you do not voluntarily cover this passage sufficiently on your own, we can go there step by step together. Either way is fine with me. Nimrod – Sozo and Turbo are right, the level of incongruity concerning your adherence to keeping God’s commandments (from the previous dispensation) is pretty bizarre. (1a) God, not you, God drew the line at,

(1b) You shall not add to, or take away from His word and commandements.

(2) And if you break my Sabbath, you are subject to the death penalty.

The issue of keeping the Sabbath the way God said it must be kept, was a matter of life and death, salvation and eternal damnation. Nu 15:30 ‘But the person who does [anything] presumptuously, [whether he is] native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people. 31 ‘Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.’" 32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. ...
35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." 36 So, as the LORD commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died. .. (3) Maybe you see this teaching as somehow being wrong? (4a) Man does not have the standing to pick and choose which commandments to keep or modify.

(4b) Even Jesus in the NT said that you do not have the standing to pick and choose which commandments you will observe and keep, you must keep them all, “the greater and the lesser”.

Yes, the commandments were many and sometimes conflicted, and yes God had mercy for those who could not help but to brake one commandment in order to keep another, (5a) but you are not saying that, are you? (5b) You are altering the commandment to fit your lifestyle, perhaps like that guy picking up sticks thought, like it’s no big deal, it’s not that important, I’ll just pick up some smaller sticks and not heavier logs which might draw more attention.

(6) If you are not living like a full blown law keeping Jew, then you are breaking the commandments of God, ...

(7) God was “not” merciful on the man who willfully broke the Sabbath in the desert by picking up sticks. (7) So, by what authority do you overturn the commandments of God? (7) What makes you think you should be exempt from keeping the entire law the way God said you must obey? And it’s not just about work on the Sabbath, off hand I don’t know how many commandments of God there are surrounding the Sabboth, but I assume there are many, certainly over a dozen, probably dozens. For instance, as Turbo earlier alluded to, and you did not quite address, do you observe the Sabboth “when” God commanded it to be observed, i.e. Saturday not Sunday? Or what is it more exactly, Friday night to Saturday night (???). Do you walk or travel beyond the distance that is allowed by God? Etc.

[1Way]

Nimrod – You said Now 1Way you have told me not to "add" to God's word but nowhere does it state that the person went to hell. Context, not words hold the clearest more authoritative meaning possible. Like I already demonstrated for you, and maybe you have not learned yet, even the terms for salvation in the OT, especially in terms of expressing the gospel for salvation was a different set of expressions. Same with not being saved and many other issues.

I offer you now three times Nu 15 as sufficient evidence that God held obedience to His commandments for salvation. I agree that man can commit a terrible sin and still be saved, and I guess if I was pressed sharply on this issue, I could not say with absolute certainty that he had to go to hell since God let some folks live who should have been put to death for example, so I am not absolutely sure that that particular man went to hell. But, I am sure that God’s teaching on this issue indicates pretty clearly that you could loose your life and your salvation, or said another way, loose your life and not be saved.

Next you said Do a concordance search though the Bible on "cut off". (1) Since we both have different views on this, I really don't want to discuss it anymore. I hold that the OT saints were saved by faith. And any works of the Law that they disobeyed was a sin but not eternal hell. (2) You hold that is was faith+plus work. I hear this from Mormons and Catholics, but not Christians, until today. Thank you for being honest in your belief.

(1) Actually, that was the reason we both decided to discuss this issue, not because we agreed, but because we disagreed, and I thought it was you who honestly said, “I am curious about what you believe ...” No problem, many people get uncomfortable when others in the body of Christ seek inter-personal accountability for the sake of bible conformity verses manmade tradition. No one is forcing you to continue.

(2) Not accurate. They mix everything together, the previous way that God governed man, and the new current way. Many if not most cultic beliefs have sprung from confusing law and grace, circumcision and uncircumcision groups and dispensational teachings. The mormons and the Chatholics are cults in my view. As to your implied however loose association you infer between us and the cults, we do not have like beliefs, so your mishandling my beliefs is not appreciated.

You said It wasn't Abrahams works, but his faith that saved him. I know that, and I already answered all that which you totally avoided. Again, God did something different with him and with Paul, much like forgiving David, God has the right to make exceptions to His dealings with man. So again, like I already argued and you ignored, your passages do not overturn what God has established, only God has the right to make such exceptions, not you.

But you do continue this point by saying Notice 1 Way that it by faith only that came righteousness, not faith plus works. I agree with this scripture, but disagree with you. I’m not saying that God counted keeping the law as a work and not as faith, I’m saying that God required keeping the law as man’s way of displaying his faith. So like I said, faith and works were both an issue of faith, you could never earn your salvation by doing works, but if God required that in order to be a part of His people that you had to keep the law, then God had that right to do that, and in fact that is exactly what He did. Also, you left out the other HALF of that teaching! He was accounted for righteousness for the sake of the circumcision while circumcised and that righteous accounting was because of works of obedience to God’s commandment. (!!!)

You said I haven't asked any questions so far, but this statment of your is confusing, could you please clarify what you mean. Oh, that’s nice, you asked of me to look up all the occurrences of “cut off” (BRB) in the OT, and I ask of you to consider impute(d) sin, and it’s 186 to 2. Chuckles Pretty steep odds I’d say. ;) Oh, I forgot, my concordance is computerized and yours is probably paper, mine is dynamic and terribly functional, but yours is probably linear and very limited in functionality especially when it comes to more than single word searches. I highly suggest you spend anywhere from zero to $40 and be able to find what you are looking for. My free OLB lets me even do searches of a word where the second word is user selectable in terms of how many verses away it may be found. I can search for original words and strongs numbers and various translations and reference works, and even search numerous translations at once. :thumb:

You apparently are not familiar with grace teachings or if you were, you would never had asked that question. We who are not under the law, are presented to God blameless, we are clothed in the righteousness of Christ because the law was nailed to the cross on our behalf. God does not impute sin to Jesus, nor does He imput sin to us who are in Jesus. Just as the widow is no longer bound to the law to not marry another because of death, she is free to marry another and no one can say she is sinning because there is no law that binds (is in force against) her.

All these and more from God’s rusty word, opps, glorious word, rusty :chuckle: in your case. ;)

You said Qa1) What are God's in force commandments? Out of the 10
commandments which ones are no longer in force?
Qa2) Are you saying I can break any sin and still be saved. (I think that is what you meant)
Qa3) What do you mean by "if you are talking otherwise"? Otherwise to what?

Qa1) Like I said, all of them if you are talking about salvation. Otherwise we are only under the in force commandments of God for this dispensation, generally, we do not look to the old dead law to consider sin once we are saved, we are not law keepers, we are in Christ, we walk according to the spirit, we have the mind of Christ, we obey the commandments that God has given us which supercede the laws that we are no longer under.

Qa2) Yes, our great salvation is not what Jesus did plus, it’s by Christ’s work alone.

Qa3) Otherwise from the consideration of salvation, meaning every other consideration. For example. Although saved, we can and do sin, even though God does not count it as sin against us for the sake of salvation, we are without sin. But in all other ways of considering our moral behavior, if and when we do what is a otherwise called a sin, we hurt ourselves and/or we hurt others, and we always hurt/offend God. God does not want us to be carnal and sinful, He wants to bless us and be pleased with us, so because we want to bless God and love and honor God, we should want to please Him and not oppose Him.

Also, when we get to heaven, there will be eternal rewards to deal with. I mostly believe that this has to do with people and relationships and how we lived a life for God or against Him. Such that of course, any and all sins that we do even while saved will count against us and not for us. Here is God’s word on that. (1Co 3:11-16 NKJV)
“11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation [with] gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on [it] endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. 16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and [that] the Spirit of God dwells in you?” So the same basic morality exists in both dispensations, it’s always wrong to murder and do evil, but our salvation is not of works, yet theirs used to be a faith that required works to be included, keeping the law was not optional to be included in God’s people (=salvation).

You said I need more time to reply to all your statements. somewhat busy right now. LOL, no problem. We all have our rough edges but overall you seem like a sharp character. Also your way more concise than I am, which goads me well. Take it light and do what you can do. I’m currently enjoying a brief interlude of exceptional posting freedom because of being unemployed. But that is another story.

[Nimrod]

Hello there 1Way. As you can see every post I send, I have two more to answer. I can't continue like this because it is mathematically impossible. Therefore we will stick to one topic and finish it then move to the next. From reading your last posts, you really want to stay with the Number 15:30, you think you have something on me, but really it is just a disagreement, so lets there until you are satisified. There is so many things I would like to spend time on. Like why Jonah could be considered a false prophet, the faith of Abraham etc.

So here is another feable attempt to answer your questions.

You said
(1a) God, not you, God drew the line at,

Yes, that is why we live by His Word.
2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

You said
(1b) You shall not add to, or take away from His word and commandements.

Yes I agree.
Deut 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

You said
(2) And if you break my Sabbath, you are subject to the death penalty.

Yes I agree
Exodus 31:14 "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people."

You said
The issue of keeping the Sabbath the way God said it must be kept, was a matter of life and death, salvation and eternal damnation.

I disagree about losing salvation and eternal damnation.

But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 31 Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him. 32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. 36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

a)he has despised the word of the LORD
b)that soul shall be cut off from among his people

Well the man died alright. I just don't see how this man became eternally condemned.


You said
(3) Maybe you see this teaching as somehow being wrong?

No I don't

You said
(4a) Man does not have the standing to pick and choose which commandments to keep or modify.

That is correct
Duet 5:32 "Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left."

You said
(4b) Even Jesus in the NT said that you do not have the standing to pick and choose which commandments you will observe and keep, you must keep them all, “the greater and the lesser”.

I am sorry, I don't have "the greater and the lesser" as a quote in my Bible.
Qb1)Which verse are you referring to?

You said
Yes, the commandments were many and sometimes conflicted, and yes God had mercy for those who could not help but to brake one commandment in order to keep another,


Qb2)Could you please provide examples for this statement? Thanks.

You said
(5a) but you are not saying that, are you?

I don't know. Am I?

You said
(5b) You are altering the commandment to fit your lifestyle, perhaps like that guy picking up sticks thought, like it’s no big deal, it’s not that important, I’ll just pick up some smaller sticks and not heavier logs which might draw more attention.

Picking up sticks on the Sabbath is a sin. I believe God is stating that we are not to WORK on the sabbath. During that time picking up sticks was considered working. Moses asked God what he should do. And you agreeed that God gets to choose when to be merciful and He wasn't on this issue. God was not merciful to this man, so I say don't work on the sabbath.

You said
(6) If you are not living like a full blown law keeping Jew, then you are breaking the commandments of God, ...

I do not live like a full blown Jew, some of the Jewish laws are not needed anymore. For example the sacrifical law. But you are correct that I do break the commandments of God.
1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Even though I am saved (OSAS). I still sin, it is impossible for me to live a sinless life here during this lifetime. So yes I do break the Sabbath and in doing so I commit a sin.

You said
(7) God was “not” merciful on the man who willfully broke the Sabbath in the desert by picking up sticks.

No He was not. I beleive He was showing Israel how important to follow His commands.

You said
(7) So, by what authority do you overturn the commandments of God?

I don't.

You said
(7) What makes you think you should be exempt from keeping the entire law the way God said you must obey?

Keeping the Law or doing the best you can is for Santification, not Justification. No one is righteous for keeping the Law.
Isaiah 64:6 "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."

This is why I delight in the law of the LORD...
Psalms 1:2-3 "But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. 3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper."

Shall we make the Law void because we are saved by grace? I say God forbid
Romans 3:31 "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

You said
And it’s not just about work on the Sabbath, off hand I don’t know how many commandments of God there are surrounding the Sabboth, but I assume there are many, certainly over a dozen, probably dozens.

I suggest we should check them all out.

You said
For instance, as Turbo earlier alluded to, and you did not quite address, do you observe the Sabboth “when” God commanded it to be observed, i.e. Saturday not Sunday?Or what is it more exactly, Friday night to Saturday night (???).


Qb3) When did God command the Sabbath to be on Saturday and Sunday? References in the Bible would be nice.

You said
Do you walk or travel beyond the distance that is allowed by God? Etc.

I am afraid to say that I am sure I have. Good point, I'll be more careful next time.
John 8:11 "And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

Praise God!

Now to part 2

You said speaking about understanding Scriptures
Context, not words hold the clearest more authoritative meaning possible.

I am glad to hear that from you 1Way, all too often I hear dispensationalist say that they "interpret scripture LITERALLY except when absurb". We are making progress!!!

You said
I offer you now three times Nu 15 as sufficient evidence that God held obedience to His commandments for salvation.

No I am afraid you did not, you have not shown me. Yes God wants obedience to His Law but it is not for salvation. Here we disagree and we can agree on disagreeing. No need to get angry, we are two Christians discussing an issue.

You said referring to the man picking up the sticks, and now you are not absolutely sure he went to hell. Earlier you said Numbers 15 has sufficient evidence that God held obedience to His commandments for salvation. 1Way take a look at this, it's not consistent.
so I am not absolutely sure that that particular man went to hell. But, I am sure that God’s teaching on this issue indicates pretty clearly that you couldloose your life and your salvation, or said another way, loose your life and not be saved.

Now you changed from absolutely to "could".

OK, we are disagreeing on this. You feel strongly that the Word makes it clear that you can/could lose your salvation. You have stated your point.

I said
(2) You hold that is was faith+plus work. I hear this from Mormons and Catholics

Your reply
The mormons and the Catholics are cults in my view. As to your implied however loose association you infer between us and the cults, we do not have like beliefs, so your mishandling my beliefs is not appreciated.

I never called your system a cult, all I said that the "faith+works" issue is found in Roman Catholicism and Mormonism. That was the only similiarity I drew. I am sorry for making similiarites between false religions and your system. I'll refrain.


I said
It wasn't Abrahams works, but his faith that saved him.

You said
I know that, and I already answered all that which you totally avoided.

Actually you said it was faith+works
Q2 - Yes, Abraham could have lost his salvation and life by breaking the law, just like Moses almost did.
TO me this statment says, Abraham can lose his salvation if he does no "work"(circumcision). So Abraham, to you, was saved by faith+works yet the Word of God said it was by His faith, then your reply is that God made an exception for Abraham therefore making His salvation by faith alone. IN summary Abraham being the father of two people, was saved by faith, or faith+works. God decides and has the right to make exceptions.

As you can see I am having a hard time understanding your position.
Qb2) Does the Scriptures say that Abraham was saved by faith?
Qb3) Does the Scriptures say that Abraham was saved by faith+works?


You said
I’m saying that God required keeping the law as man’s way of displaying his faith. So like I said, faith and works were both an issue of faith, you could never earn your salvation by doing works, but if God required that in order to be a part of His people that you had to keep the law, then God had that right to do that, and in fact that is exactly what He did.

So God defined faith of Abraham as "faith+works". Interesting.


I said
Qa1) What are God's in force commandments? Out of the 10
commandments which ones are no longer in force?


You answered
Qa1) Like I said, all of them if you are talking about salvation. Otherwise we are only under the in force commandments of God for this dispensation, generally, we do not look to the old dead law to consider sin once we are saved, we are not law keepers, we are in Christ, we walk according to the spirit, we have the mind of Christ, we obey the commandments that God has given us which supercede the laws that we are no longer under.

I agree that keeping the Law or doing the Law, no one is saved under. But I am not talking about Salvation. I am asking about is it sin to break any of the ten commandments in the current dispensation?

Qb4)Not talking about salvation, of the ten commandments, which one(s) can we break as believers in Christ, saved by Grace, and will not be considered a sin?

Qb5) Which commandment(s) of the ten, does the new superceding commandments of Christ voids?




I said
Qa3) What do you mean by "if you are talking otherwise"? Otherwise to what?

Your answer

Qa3) Otherwise from the consideration of salvation, meaning every other consideration. For example. Although saved, we can and do sin, even though God does not count it as sin against us for the sake of salvation, we are without sin.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
continued....
[QUOTE]

---------------------------------------
Questions:
Qb1)Which verse are you referring to?(about the "lesser and greater")
Qb2) Does the Scriptures say that Abraham was saved by faith?
Qb3) Does the Scriptures say that Abraham was saved by faith+works?
Qb4) Not talking about salvation, of the ten commandments, which one(s) can we break as believers in Christ->saved by Grace, and will not be considered a sin?
Qb5) Which commandment(s) of the ten, does the new superceding commandments of Christ voids?

God Bless

[Nimrod]

Jonah a false prophet?

I believe that neither God, Jonah, or anyone else during that time felt Jonah was a false prophet. All I am saying is from the Word of God, one could think that.

Deut 18:20-22 " But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. "

Here we find in the Scriptures what to do with a person who is speaking for the LORD and it came not to pass. We are to kill that prophet.

Now what did Jonah say?

Jonah 3:4 "And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown....

Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. "

So what Jonah said did not come to pass. Nineveh was not overthrown. Somehow those people in Nineveh believed that it was God speaking to them through Jonah. Scriptures is silent on this. Nevertheless I believe noone at that time felt Jonah was a false prophet. Jonah was angry or mad for God not destroying Nineveh, but I doubt that had anything to do with him thinking people might kill him for being a false prophet. I think Jonah just wanted those people to be overthrown.

[Turbo]

Nimrod, God changed his mind about destroying Nineveh because the they repented of their wickedness, just as He said He would in Jeremiah 18:

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. Jeremiah 18:7-10

Jonah was no more a false prophet than Jesus was when He said:
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Matthew 24:34

[1Way]

Nimrod – Please forgive this extremely lengthy post. I think that I was fairly brief over each point of our discussion. I even skipped some parts that were somewhat superfluous, but also some parts are redundant because of the same issue being brought up in different ways at different times.

You missed it again Magoo ;) . And I already understand that you disagree with my take on Nu 15. Ok, I’ll isolate the part that has been beyond your consideration yet I have highlighted it numerous times for your thoughtful consideration, but your right, I did not explain it as much as allude to it, but I’m right for maintaining nothing beyond that all along. :chuckle:

‘Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.’"

Now, I’ll combine this part with it’s surrounding parts. v30 – You are no longer part of God’s people (sounds like a salvation issue to me)
v31 – being “completely cut off” (“from God”, not from your subscription to time magazine ;) ) with your “guilt remaining” (completely cut off from God, you are not forgiven, a solid concise description of damnation)
vv32-36 – The man died by God’s righteous condemnation for despising the word of the Lord (Jesus says you are “of the devil” because you have no room for His word, generally damning), sinning presumptuously by Braking the Sabbath which was a capitol offense, and his sin remained upon him (this is damnation for his soul, not just his body), he was unforgiven, he lost his life because of sin... (another idea of spiritual damnation) The entire context
Every single idea in that entire passage (just mentioned) denotes eternal not just temporal damnation to one degree or another! The only exception, and I already granted this, is that on an individual basis, God can forgive someone if He wants to, but in this case, the bible clearly indicates that God had no mercy, no compassion, no forgiveness upon him, he was “completely cut off” (from God), his guilt remained, and he is not part of God’s people.

Just physical death?
or clear spiritual condemnation!
My main point for continuation is v.31, and what it means to be completely cut off with your guilt remaining, and how that idea coupled with him not being one of God’s people, and being executed for his sin is a tremendous picture of spiritual condemnation, not just a physical death with involved.

Thanks for your time on this issue, looking forward to your response, and I agree, other things are at hand, some of which are also very interesting. I could do far better at demonstrating how the those who were under the law in the previous dispensation generally known as the Law, but that is not my specialty. However, “Keep my commandments/word and you shall live”, is hardly just about physical life(!), those were the words of eternal life and salvation prior to the NT Pauline expressions. So I think I am right for suggesting that keeping the law was God’s unambiguous requirement for salvation prior to this dispensation.

You said I am sorry, I don't have "the greater and the lesser" as a quote in my Bible. I don’t get you. What do you mean by your bible? I already brought up the ease and power of s/w bible searching in my post 99. But to be fair, there could be hundreds of reasons why you have not enhanced your bible study capabilities, including satisfaction with your present system, etc. Also, you may have not even read/contemplated that idea yet, etc. You can even find numerous really helpful online bible searches that may even use various bible translations and study aids. So I encourage you to broaden your method of bible study, especially if you sincerely want to find these passages that you say you can not find by your own resources, using a paper based concordance is like walking 20 miles instead of driving your car. Expand your horizons, experience growth and ... oh, ok, sorry, ,,, moving on now.

Greater and lessor, I was partly misleading, sorry, here’s the passages I have in mind. Mt 5:19 "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches [them], he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

(“Least and great”, “laws and law keepers”.)

Mt 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier [matters] of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

(weightier and lighter laws, you must keep them “all”, no neglecting any part of the law, leave none undone, do them all.)

Qb2) I thought you already did, Jesus broke it. Also, circumcision. I think that the Sabbath and circumcision are probably two of the most prominent features of being included as one of God’s people while in the dispensation of Law. So, consider the fact that on average, it is likely that 1 out of 7 (!!!) Israelites was born on a Thursday. You have to circumcise on the 8th day, so if your child was born on a Thursday, you had to do the work of circumcision on a Sabbath where you were commanded to not work! In order to promote more abundant life, Jesus healed on the Sabbath, etc. Lets say that the good Sameritan found the man lying in the road that was left for dead on a Sabbath day! Would he have not carried taken care of him because the Sabbath says do not work? Of course not, he would have done the right thing. And yes, I realize that I am agreeing with you in a huge way, but that is not the point of this particular issue. If you are keeping some of God’s commandements, then you are under the curse for keeping them all, you do not have the standing to pick and choose which one’s you feel it’s ok to keep and which one’s it’s alright to not keep. Listen to the law oh man, what it says. Rather, listen to God who says do not place yourself under the law.

You said I don't know. Am I? If you don’t know, then you are not keeping one law in order to keep another, you must know which law you are keeping in order to brake another, otherwise you are not doing this. Elementary my dear inquisitive.

You said Picking up sticks on the Sabbath is a sin. I believe God is stating that we are not to WORK on the sabbath. During that time picking up sticks was considered working. Moses asked God what he should do. And you agreeed that God gets to choose when to be merciful and He wasn't on this issue. God was not merciful to this man, so I say don't work on the sabbath. Oh, I see. Same with David, God decided to forgive him BUT DID NOT overturn the death penalty for capitol offenses. Same with this man, it is theoretically possible that God decided to save this man, but, God’s word indicates no such thing, and even if He did save this man, that does NOT overturn the teaching that dying in your sin is a damnation.

You said But you are correct that I do break the commandments of God.
1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Even though I am saved (OSAS). I still sin, it is impossible for me to live a sinless life here during this lifetime. So yes I do break the Sabbath and in doing so I commit a sin. Now you just broke another commandment, do not alter God’s word. God says that as a saved person, you are not under the law, the law has died to you, you do not live a life of faith by keeping the law of God, the commandments for the previous dispensation. If you place yourself under that system of faith, then you risk falling from grace and making what Christ did for you of no gain. All those words and commands of God you just broke by suggesting that you should be a law keeper instead of obeying the superceding teachings and commandments given to Paul for this dispensation.

You said Keeping the Law or doing the best you can is for Santification, not Justification. No one is righteous for keeping the Law. Pure and false conjecture on your part. Again, by your own admission, you do not have the right to pick and choose which laws to keep, you either have to be a full blown law keeper, sans the sacrificial system which has been fulfilled by Jesus, or you are not under the law at all. Make up your mind which one you are so that I can figure out what you are besides mixed up. :chuckles: God says there are two groups, you seem to want to belong to both as though there are only one group walking on both sides of the fence, ouch!

Qb3) What are you talking about? I asked you a question and you asked me a strange question that I don’t hardly understand. Do you keep the Sabbath when God says it must be kept? Yes or no. i.e. Saturday not Sunday.

You said I am afraid to say that I am sure I have. Good point, I'll be more careful next time.
John 8:11 "And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

Praise God! Wrong. You first admitted to committing a capitol offense, and then as though you have the standing, you say that next time you’ll be more careful. The reason you did not commit a capitol offense is because in this dispensation we are not under the law, i.e. we are not under the Sabbath commandment. If you put yourself under those laws for faith in God, then you are breaking this dispensation’s commandments/word from God saying not to do that. So you absolutely can not win by doing what you say you can do.

Also, it’s not praise God, wrong on that one too. Jesus did not forgive her, He did not condemn her to be immediately put to death. Concerning her sin, He said sin no more! I suggest that if she had been caught in adultery, and there was no doubt of her guilt, and they were of their own government, and the government honored God, then she would have been put to death just like the man picking up sticks was.

As to am glad to hear that from you 1Way, all too often I hear dispensationalist say that they "interpret scripture LITERALLY except when absurb". We are making progress!!! Don’t over exaggerate, it’s not polite nor necessary. The rule for accepting the literal meaning first is the case for all language, it is not just for bible study. Imagine trying to reverse this tendency and you may know for certain that the literal must be the overriding haulmark of communication. If figures was the first rule, the most common form of communication and the exception was the literal, then no one would know what anyone was saying, and figures would stack on top of and within and under other non-literal speech, and it would all be meaninglessness.

Secondly, the exception to when a passage should be taken figuratively instead of literally is when the literal does not fit, or it does not conform to the meaning of the wider context.

And frankly, it IS absurd to suggest a literal meaning that does not fit the wider contextual use. So you contradict reason and logic by disagreeing that a literal absurdity is a good cause to seek a non-literal meaning. I am VERY interested in your response on this issue. The Christian faith is anything but excepting of absurdities, it is a fully rational faith and as such falls perfectly in line with these rational beliefs. Not that you promote absurdity on purpose, but your opposition to understandings that oppose absurdities is bizarre to say the least.

As to your observation about my different approaches to the man picking up sticks. An exception to a rule does not invalidate the rule. The fact that I do not have absolute knowledge of that man’s eternal abode does not invalidate my claim that the rule for damnation for not keeping God’s law was still in effect.

You said TO me this statment says, Abraham can lose his salvation if he does no "work"(circumcision). So Abraham, to you, was saved by faith+works yet the Word of God said it was by His faith, then your reply is that God made an exception for Abraham therefore making His salvation by faith alone. No, God made an exception for Abraham therefore making him exempt from the faith only and the works plus faith for salvation groups. He is not in just one or the other, He is the father of both. God saved people in both groups, so it is certain that God can save one person who is not clearly in only one or the other.

Qb2&3) Yes, both, he is an exception to both also. He is the father of both groups, he is identified with both groups, you can not lock him into one or the other only. SEE THE FATHER OF BOTH GROUPS TEACHING for more. ;)

You said I agree that keeping the Law or doing the Law, no one is saved under. But I am not talking about Salvation. I am asking about is it sin to break any of the ten commandments in the current dispensation? If you are not talking about salvation, then if you brake any in force commandment, then you are sinning. Since I am saved, and I am not under any of the commandments you refer to, I can brake none of the commandments that has superceded those, that is, all teachings for this dispensation, I should break none of those, or else I am sinning.

You said Qb4)Not talking about salvation, of the ten commandments, which one(s) can we break as believers in Christ, saved by Grace, and will not be considered a sin? Your question contradicts what I believe to be God’s word, so I can not answer according to your presuppositions as previously stated.

You said Qb5) Which commandment(s) of the ten, does the new superceding