The title of this debate might not be very clear at first because most of us, I think, know right were the Gospels are in our Bible. They are right after that page that says “The New Testament Of Jesus Christ.” That is where I believe they are supposed to be. They are part of the New Covenant Scriptures and, rightly, begin the New Testament record. Most of you reading this are probably thinking, “well where else would they go?” That will be the topic of discussion for this debate.
Let me set for the propositions for both sides and if I have made any mistakes in the way it is stated Mickey can correct it for us.
I affirm that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are New Testament books to be taught and included with the New Testament of Jesus Christ. Mickey Skidmore denies this.
Mickey Skidmore affirms that these are Old Testament books that apply exclusively to the dispensation of Moses. I deny this.
I deny that these books have ever been, or should now be, considered part of the Old Testament Cannon or Hebrew Bible. Mickey Skidmore affirms that biblical doctrine requires that these books be included in the Old Testament Cannon, not the New Testament.
Again, if I have made any mistakes in laying out the propositions Mickey is free to correct them. However, before we begin the discussion we will both agree to a set of propositions that will be affirmed and denied respectively and will not be altered throughout the course of this discussion. Of course, either party is free to abandon his affirmations at any time but the propositions will not be altered once we begin our discussion.
Mickey, please agree to or offer any amendments to the propositions in the comments section below.
Readers are free to ask questions or make comments throughout the course of this discussion as long as they pertain to the propositions or a specific argument being made.
Mickey, its all yours.
Hi Norm
Thanks For Taking The Time To Set This Debate Up.Yes The Books Of Mathew-John Describing Jesus Before The Cross Is All Old Testament Doctrine Just Like Jesus Boldly Said He Came To Fulfill And Teach.Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12. The Word Cannon Is No Where Found In Any Scriptures Be It Old Or New Covenant, That Is A Term Applied By Man.The Misplaced Title Page Put In Our Bibles In The Year 1486 by satan using The Corrupt Roman Catholic Church Has Deceived Countless Souls. Revelation 12:9
Yes Where Else Could These Books Go But In The Old Covenant Law Of Moses That Jesus Lived And Died Under. Romans 15:8 King James Version.Yes Norm I Agree With The Way You Stated The Terms Of Debate, So Lets Get This Debate Going. Also I Might Ask Norm If For Some Reason I Cannot Answer You Back Is There A Time Limit On Each Of Our Rebuttals. I Will Try Hard To Be Prompt As Possible.Also Folks Be Patient With My Capitalization Of Each Word, It Is Just The Way I Always Write. God Bless Us All On This Most Important Bible Issue.
Mickey
Mickey,
It would be good, for the readers, if we make timely responses in the flow of the discussion. But if you need more time to respond then I don’t see a problem. I don’t think we need to set time limits on responses. As you know, I get busy with stuff and may take a while to reply also.
If you are comfortable with propositions as they are stated then please proceed with your first argument. It would help the readability for all, I think, if you would take the time to use proper capitalization and punctuation. I don’t know about others, but I find it difficult to read as it is.
Thanks,
Norm
Ok
Well as You all know I strongly stand with the position that Mathew-John describing Jesus before the Cross is all Old Testament. This non sense that when they were written has No bearing as to what they teach, and when Norm brings that issue up as I believe He will, I will prove My point. First clearly We can all read that Jesus Himself Stated Clearly and to the point He Came only to fulfill and teach the Law of Moses. Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12. No where before the Cross did Jesus ever say once He was teaching New Testament Doctrine. Galatians 4:4-5 bears this out clearly as well as Romans 15:8 King James Version. Jesus was born under the Law to (Redeem) those (Jews) under the Law. Jesus was a Minister Of the Circumcision. Question how do You Redeem Or bring back to God those Jews under the Law, unless You teach them the very Law or Covenant they were still under? Notice here also in Mathew 1:21 sais clearly He will save His people from there Sins. Who was Gods People when that statement was made, and who only did Jesus come for under the Law? Mathew 10:5-6 Mathew 15:24. Find one passage just one where Jesus states He is teaching New Testament Doctrine, You will never find it before the Cross. There was no Gentile salvation in Mathew-John before the Cross. Amos 3:2 This is why Jesus came to Israel only. I will stop here and let Norm reply. This will be My last reply tonight as I will shortly be in bed in a little while, but rest assured I have lots more proof to back up what the Scriptures actually teach about these Old Covenant books.
Mickey
a testament doesn’t start unless the testator dies!
Joseph,
Please read the propositions for this discussion. The debate is not about when the New Testament, New Covenant, began. It is about whether the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are New Testament books or Old Testament books. That is why I wanted Mickey to be very clear about his propositions. If he asked me what the historical setting for the Gospels was, I would agree with him that these books record the life of Christ as he lived under the Law of Moses. However, that is not the same thing as saying that the Gospels are Old Testament books. Yes, the New Testament began with the events recorded in Acts 2. The Gospels, and Acts for that matter, were written AFTER the events of Acts 2. They were written to record what was done in fulfillment of the Old Testament and in preparation for the New Testament. Much like Moses wrote Genesis, recording events prior to the coming of the Law – i.e. the Patriarchal Age. However, the book of Genesis does not belong to another Testament. It is an Old Testament book, not an Old, Old Testament book. Moses wrote it to reveal the background, preparation for, and leading up to the giving of the Law. In the same way, the Gospels record the preparatory events for the establishment of the church. The Gospels do not belong to the Old Testament any more than the book of Genesis belongs to a Old, Old Testament. The Gospels were written during the Christian Age for the use of Christians, not Jews living under the Law of Moses. Mickey says they were not intended for Christian use. Then what are they for?
These have been my questions to Mickey regarding the Gospels:
Let us get the answer to those questions! But, please do not confuse the propositions for this discussion. It is not about when the church was established, what the historical setting of the books is, or anything else about the chronology of events. It is about where the Gospels belong in our Bible and how they are to be taught. Are they to be placed in the Old Testament record or are they part of the New Testament? Are they to be taught as pertaining to New Testament doctrine or Old Testament doctrine?
Thanks,
Norm
Norm
I will gladly answer all Your questions.
1.When were the old testament Gospels of Mathew-John describing Jesus written.of coarse during the new covenant age. How would You write about the events until after they happened? Comen sense dictates after they happened, so of coarse they were written in the new covenant age.
2.Who were the Writers? New testament Christians
3.Who were they written for? Former old covenant Jews showing the close of the Mosaic covenant age.
4. What were they written for? To show former old covenant Jews that they cannot go back to the law of Moses Jesus taught before the Cross for justification after the Cross and the new covenant age. Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 Galatians 2:16 Galatians 5:4 Romans 3:19-21 Romans 10:1-6.
Now I told You if You brought up the non sense of when they were written I was going to deal with that, and I will. lets use comen sense folks. if I write about someone in the past lets use George Washington for an example. If I write about Him 1 Year ten years Or 100 years after,telling His life story would it matter how long the time period was? Of coarse not because I am telling of past events that already happened.This foolishness of when they were written holds no water at all folks.That non sense has been traditionally satanicly planted in your head.
What is it with You traditional brethren and when the books were written non sense? Norm falsely and ignorantly claims these old testament books were written for new testament Christians, You got to be kidding Me? Lets see first Jesus will save His people from there sins Mathew 1:21? Question Norm who were Jesus people at that time? Jews of coarse, Galatians 4:4-5 sais clearly Jesus was born under the law to redeem those under the law, well comen sense dictates if You redeem those under the law the only way You can do that is teach only the law of Moses.Also Jesus would not allow those Jews to go to any Gentiles under the law. Mathew 10:5-6, and Jesus Himself came only for Jews before the Cross.Mathew 15:24. How much plainer can it get folks? John 1:29 John 3:16 Talking About Whosoever In The old covenant world of Israel.Exodus 31:15 Jesus Never took any gentiles sins away before the Cross.
Norm Fields and our die hard traditionalist have a hard time figuring out just exactly what is going on in these old testament books. Mathew 19:16-21 Here is a classic passage where the rich young ruler asked what He had to do to have eternal life. Notice Jesus told him keep the ten commandments,He mentioned 5 of them, and to Love His Jewish Neighbor as Himself.Notice He also told him to follow Jesus in Verse 21. Now since He had to do these things to have eternal life, which was keep the law of Moses, and to do that He had to follow Jesus, Because We already read Jesus was born under the law to (save) redeem same thing those under the law.Norm sais this is for new testament Christians today, because to follow Jesus before the Cross was to keep the law.Romans 15:8 king James version.
Our traditional brethren cannot grasp that first Jesus was teaching the old testament limited Gospel to Jews only still under the law.Mark 1:1 Mathew 4:23 It was the Gospel of the old Mosaic covenant Kingdom.When Jesus sais repent the Kingdom is at hand.He meant repent under the law and believe this old testament Gospel, until the new testament kingdom arrives.Mathew 4:17.What our traditional brethren fail to grasp or teach is there was no Gentile salvation before the Cross.
John 4:22 Ephesians 2:11-12 Now folks according to Norm fields it is not what the books say, but when they were written that is how You rightly divide Gods word. 2 Timothy 2:15. You got to be kidding Me here Norm, surely You have more Bible knowledge than this? Can You not understand before Jesus can even deal with new covenant doctrine He has to first deal was fulfilling the old testament law perfectly, and bring it to and end first. You cannot have two different covenant teachings in the same covenant.
A man Named Joseph brought up a testament is not in force until after the death of the testator.Bingo You hit it straight on the nail.Those Jews in Mathew-John were following Jesus teaching only the law. John 8:31-32 were these Christians here Norm or old testament Jews when that statement was made? He told them not Christians if they abide in His word they would know the old covenant truth and it would make them free.Galatians 4:4-6 Can’t be much plainer than this folks, but Norm would have You believe that old covenant truth, because it was written in words after the Cross sets us free. I don’t think so Norm. Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 The law kills today Norm. Why because it is a dead letter, a dead covenant, taken away by Jesus.
Colossians 2:14 Romans 7:4 Romans 10:4. How in the name of comen sense can Malachi be the last book of the old testament if Jesus is the end of the law?Romans 10:4. it is about time You folks woke up and understand the covenants of God.
Again explain what Jesus is Doing after His death in Acts 1:1-3 after the death of the testator? Looks like He is teaching all new testament truth just like He said He was going to do.John 16:13
Norm thinks Jesus here means all the things Jesus taught before and after the Cross. Nope it was Jesus taught after his resurrection, The things concerning the new testament kingdom.
Mathew 28 Mark 16 Luke 24 John 20-21 Acts. You ask most brethren about this time period in the scriptures,they would not have a clue. It is the time period between the covenants. The law of Moses is ended, but the new covenant has not begun yet. There is no salvation in this 50 day time frame, check it out folks.
Norm I asked You clearly to show Me just one verse where Jesus sais He is teaching new testament doctrine, You failed to produce that for Me. I am still waiting for that passage before the Cross, and Jesus death.Ephesians 3:3-5 sais Your not going to find it.
Mickey
What our traditional brethren fail to grasp or teach is there was no Gentile salvation before the Cross. – Mickey Skidmore
Uh, Mickey. Would that include Job? Seeing he was a Gentile and all (Job 1:1, 8; 42:8). Hmm, how about that. You might want to be a little more careful with what you say. I know I wouldn’t want a quote like that with my name after it. Just sayin’.
A man Named Joseph brought up a testament is not in force until after the death of the testator.Bingo You hit it straight on the nail.
Mickey, the Gospels were written after the death of Christ and the establishment of the New Covenant. So, what’s your point about when the Covenant comes into force? I thought this debate was over whether or not the Gospels were New Testament or Old Testament books. Well, according to what you claim is hitting the nail on the head you have just defeated yourself. They were written after the death of the Testator by those living under that law.
Now, we’re not debating over when the events recorded in the Gospels took place. I made sure the propositions were very clear on that fact. We are debating about whether the Gospels are to be understood as part of the New Testament doctrine of Christ. You say they are not. All you have been referring to is the historical setting of the events recorded and we both agree that they record events prior to the establishment of the church. That is not what you need to be proving. What you need to prove is that we are not to take anything Christ said prior to the Cross as New Testament doctrine. Get to it!
He told them not Christians if they abide in His word they would know the old covenant truth and it would make them free.
He told them that if they would abide in his word then they would be his disciples indeed (Jn. 8:31-32). So, they would be disciples of who? And, whose disciples were first called Christians? (Acts 11:26). So, whose word were they abiding in to be his disciples indeed when they were first called Christians?
Let me get this right. Jesus taught them to be good disciples of Moses and when the church was established then they became disciples of Christ. Is that right?
Please, you’re going to have to do better than that!
Let me start out by addressing Mickey’s answer to the four questions I have put to him. I’ll deal with his further comments in separate posts to keep the threads easy to follow.
Matthew was most likely written in the mid to late 50s AD. That’s over 20 years after the establishment of the church in Acts 2.
Mark was probably written sometime between the late 50s to early 60s, around 30 years after the establishment of the church in Acts 2.
Luke is typically dated between 58-60 AD, 28 to 30 years after the establishment of the church in AD 30 (Acts 2).
John is traditionally dated to be the latest of the Gospels, supposedly being written in the mid 90s. I reject this late date in preference of a much earlier dating of late 60s. Either way, that would be from 40 or 70 years after the establishment of the church in AD 30 (Acts 2).
So, the Gospels that Mickey wants us to place in the Old Testament were written from 25 to 40 years after the conclusion of the Old Testament!
Now, Mickey can go back to Genesis and point out that it was written after the establishment of the Mosaic Law, and that would be true. But, was the book of Genesis written for the purpose of teaching Patriarchal doctrine? No! If so, then were exactly would we go in the book of Genesis to read the law God gave to the Patriarchs? If Mickey tries to say there was no legal code under Patriarchy then he will have to explain passages like Gen. 26:5, where it says that Abraham kept the commandments, statutes and laws of God. So we know that Abraham had commandments, statutes and laws from God to keep. We also know that there was an organized priesthood prior to the Law of Moses (Gen. 14:18; Ex. 2:16; 3:1; 18:1; 19:6, 22, 24). If Genesis was written for the purpose of teaching Patriarchal doctrine then where is it? We find more Patriarchal doctrine taught in Job than we do in Genesis. While the book of Genesis most certainly records events that took place prior to the establishing of the Mosaic Covenant, it was written to be part of the Torah – The Books Of Law – to show where Israel came from. It does not belong to another covenant, it belongs to the Covenant of Moses.
Likewise, I wholeheartedly agree that the Gospels record events that took place prior to the establishment of the church. However, they were not written to teach Old Testament doctrine. They were not written to help people live as faithful Jews! They were not written to convert people to Judaism. And, they were never intended to be Old Testament books! Such a division of the Scriptures is absolutely ridiculous.
How absolutely absurd to say that the Gospel of Christ belongs to the Old Testament.
So, according to Mickey, New Testament Christians were writing Old Testament books. If Mickey was simply saying that New Testament Christians recorded events that took place under the Old Testament, I wouldn’t have a problem with that; I would agree with that. But that is not what Mickey is saying. He is saying that New Testament Christians were writing Old Testament doctrine. My questions is, to what end? For what purpose would New Testament Christian writers write Old Testament doctrine 25 to 40 years after the conclusion of the Old Testament? I’ll say it again – ABSURD!
Notice, Mickey admits that the books were written for Christians. What were former Old Covenant Jews? If they were former then they were Christians. Now, I’m just pointing out the terminology Mickey used. I’m not agreeing with it. Matthew is really the only one of the Gospels that was expressly written for evangelism among the Jews. The fact that he shows the fulfillment of no less than 65 Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah in Jesus shows that he intended his book to be used in converting Jews to Christ.The other three were targeted at different audiences. Mark to the Romans, Luke to Gentiles in general, John to the philosophical Greeks. The reason for four Gospels is seen in the audiences they were addressed to. John expressly states that they were an evangelistic tool to bring people to Christ (John 20:30-31). Even though John expressly states the evangelistic nature of the Gospel records, Mickey says, no, they were written as an addition to the Old Testament books. Seriously? Really? Is this a joke or does he actually expect rational people to believe such an absurdity?
Let me just say here that Mickey Skidmore’s claim about the Gospels is so ridiculous that I strongly suspect this debate will quickly change focus to a specific doctrine taught by Christ that Mickey doesn’t like. Because he doesn’t like something that Jesus taught he will attempt to make the claim that because Jesus taught it prior to the establishment of the church it doesn’t apply to Christians today. Wait, you’ll see.
Wait a minute! I thought, according to Mickey, that Jesus didn’t teach New Testament doctrine. But Mickey says here that Jesus taught before the Cross for justification after the Cross. Well I can agree with that. But what Mickey has said is that there is no New Testament doctrine in the Gospels and, therefore, they belong to the Old Testament. If I’m wrong about that then please correct me. But I think I’m justified in my understanding of what Mickey has been saying because he agreed to the proposition, Mickey Skidmore affirms that these are Old Testament books that apply exclusively to the dispensation of Moses. I deny this.
He explicitly stated in his Aug. 18th comment, Yes The Books Of Matthew – John Describing Jesus Before The Cross Is All Old Testament Doctrine.
Ok, I need Mickey to explain how everything in Matthew – John is all Old Testament doctrine yet is also Jesus teaching before the Cross for justification after the Cross. That seems to be a contradictory statement. According to what Mickey has said, I should not be able to find any New Testament doctrine in the Gospels. So, let me pose the following questions about the teaching of Jesus:
I’ll deal with the remainder of Mickey’s comment in another post, lest this one become tediously long.
Mickey,
Can you give me one example of something that is taught as New Testament doctrine that comes from the Gospels? That is, something that you do not believe the church should be following today because Jesus taught it prior to the establishment of the church in books that you believe belong to the Law of Moses.
Norm Norm Norm I have never seen a more mixed up and confused lost soul. I really need a brick wall to bang My head on after reading Your jumbled up mess.
Notice folks ol Norm thinks Mathew was written for Jews to be converted to Christ, not Moses.Mathew was written for Jews to be brought back to the Law of Moses for which they departed from.Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 Norm sais Luke was written Romans to Christ not Moses.You got to be kidding Me? See how mixed up and confused this poor Man really is.Mark 1:38-44 Where are these Romans being converted Norm. Jesus healed some Gentiles before the Cross, but He never forgave any Gentiles in Mathew-John before Cross.Oh by the way Norm Job lived under the Patriarchal age not the Mosaic age. The book is out of Chronological order.Norm falsely claims Luke was written for Gentiles to convert Gentiles.For goodness sake Norm You got to be kidding? Luke was written for Jews Norm HELLO.Luke 5:12-14 Does this look like a Gentile Conversion Folks? Norm Ignorantly believes John was written to convert Greeks to Jesus. Again Norm are You really this out of touch with the Scriptures? John 8:31-32 was it Greeks or Jews here Norm? Oh by the way a Greek is a Gentile. John 1:29 Where is this Greek conversion Norm, since Jesus Only took the sins of Israel away. John 3:16 Exodus 31:15 John 4:22 Your getting desperate now Norm. Jesus even said samaritans Worship was vain, and Salvation was only for Jews under the Law Norm. Mathew 1:21
Norm You cannot even understand My replies to You.I said Mathew-John Describing Jesus before the Cross was written to former Old Testament Jews to Show They cannot on this side of the Cross be justified by the Law of Moses Jesus taught before the Cross. In Mathew-John before the Cross Jews could be justified by the Law thus Galatians 4:4-5 Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 not hard to under stand when You rightly Divide Gods Word by the Covenants.Jeremiah 31:31-34 Hebrews 8:8-13 Romans 3:19-21 Romans 10:1-6.
Norm ask are the Beatitudes Old or New Testament Doctrine? Old Testament of Coarse. Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 Can You not read what Jesus Plainly said He came to fulfill?
Norm asked where is Baptism for the remission of sins taught in the Law of Moses.Luke 3:3 Right here Norm under the Law of Moses.Galatians 4:4-5 Also Norm when Moses gave the Law to Israel in Exodus 20 then after He dies are there more conditions added to the Law as Time goes on? Hebrews 9:10 also explains this as well.I bet You when Jesus as the final Old Covenant Prophet to Israel was telling Jews what God the Father required them to do for remission of there sins.John 4:34.Also Norm read Acts 19:1-5 tell us here Norm about these former Old Covenant Jews, and Why they had to be re baptized Into Jesus Death, Burial, and resurrection after the Cross.
1 Corinthians 15:14 Romans 6:3-6 Were The Jews before the Cross being Baptized into Jesus Death, since He was still alive then? Has any One heard of New Testament baptism of Repentance? Acts 2:38 is Repent AND Be BAPTIZED, not a Baptism of repentance. Once again Norm shows His ignorance of the Scriptures clearly Here Folks.
Norm asked When Jesus cites Old Testament doctrine and then says But I say unto you, what is he doing? Simple Jesus was Fulfilling The Law when He said I say unto You.Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 The You have heard it said was the false rabbinical teachers of the Law. The I say unto You was Jesus telling Jews the True teaching of the Law.Example Mathew 5:27-28 Lusting after a Woman was in The Law of Moses Norm Exodus 20:17 Covetousness is UNLAWFUL DESIRE.You die hard traditional teaching
Men never see the light of day in Your false ideas of Jesus here. Also if You want to bring up the Eye for an eye bring it up Norm I will deal with it like all Your false notions.
I tell You people I have never seen so much mixed up Non sense that you traditionalist bring up. Norm You accused Me of not liking some things Jesus taught before the Cross, is Why I teach what I do. No way Hosea. You hate Jesus real New Covenant Truth like all traditional teaching false teachers.Yes folks Mathew-John describing Jesus before the Cross You better believe they belong to the Old Testament. John 20:30-31 If only Norm could grasp here that these things were written to show Old Covenant Jews they could have eternal life in Jesus name under the Law of Moses.Remember the Jews while under the Law of Moses did not have these things written Norm, so there goes Your when
the books were written Non sense.Mathew 19:16-21 Tell us Norm here is the Rich Jewish leader asking what to do to have eternal life under the Law of Moses.Explain to us what was required? looks like the 10 Commandments, and to follow Jesus Verse 21, now since Jesus was born under the Law to (redeem) (save)those Jews still under the law Mathew 1:21 what has been written here Norm? Galatians 4:4-5
Looks like Norm is batting a great big zero folks, and by the time this debate is over He will be grasping for straws to teach His Foolish Heresy. lets Hope ol norm Writes back before the year 2013.Also still waiting for You to show just one verse before the Cross where Jesus states He is teaching New Testament Doctrine?
Mickey
Norm
asked is there was something Jesus taught
in the Old Testament Gospels of Mathew-John before we cannot follow today, if I understand His mumbo jumbo? Yes Norm None of the Law of Moses Jesus taught before the Cross Applies to any one today folks Romans 7:4 Romans 10:4 Mathew 18:17 I bet You ol Norm thinks this here is New Testament Doctrine folks.He would be DEAD wrong.These are Jewish brethren settling there differences under the Law of Moses, there were no OTHER BRETHREN here.Acts 7:37-38 This was God the Fathers Old Testament Church folks.Read Romans 3:19-21 Romans 10:1-6 How much plainer can it get Norm????
John 8:31-32
Whatever am I going to do with You Norm? Norm asked about these Jewish disciples. Well Norm were they following Jesus teaching the Law or New Covenant?
Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 If We Christians follow Jesus today this side of the Cross are We not Disciples to? 1 Corinthians 11:1 was Paul with Jesus in Mathew-John before the Cross Norm? Acts 2:42 How do We Christians follow Jesus today Norm? Do we follow the Law of Moses He taught before the Cross, or The New Covenant Doctrine He taught After the Cross? Mathew 28:18
Acts 1:13 When was All authority given to Jesus Norm?Looks like after ,not before the Cross. What is Jesus teaching after the Cross here Norm Acts 1:1-3
Folks read what Jesus sais Plainly before the Cross John 6:38 I Did not come to do My will.John 7:16 My DOCTRINE NOT MINE.Argue with Jesus on these Clear passages Norm.Harmonize John 7:16 with 2 John 9-11 Cannot be done.So tell us Norm since Jesus is not Head of His New Covenant Church before the Cross. He is Not doing His will or teaching His Doctrine, John 6:38 John 7:16 How do We Abide in Doctrine that is Not his before the Cross?
2 John 9-11 Acts 1:1-3 Acts 2:42?
Mathew 18:17 I bet You ol Norm thinks this here is New Testament Doctrine folks. He would be DEAD wrong. These are Jewish brethren settling there differences under the Law of Moses, there were no OTHER BRETHREN here.
Mickey says this is Old Testament doctrine belonging to the Law of Moses. So, where was this taught prior to Jesus teaching it here? If it is new with Jesus then wouldn’t that mean that Jesus was adding to the Law of Moses? Now we might say that causes a problem with such passages as Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Pr. 30:6. But you’ll probably say something to the effect of Jesus being a prophet like Moses so he could add to the Law of Moses (Dt. 18:15). That means, if Jesus is giving something new to the Jews here then it would be something new and applicable specifically to them only until the church would be established in less than three years time. Is that right?
Of course, any rational person, without an agenda to uphold, would look at who Jesus was talking to (Matt. 18:1) and what he said to them right after this (Matt. 18:18) and understand that Jesus was giving New Testament doctrine to be applied in His church (Matt. 16:18-19) by His Apostles.
Speaking of Matthew 16:18-19, wouldn’t the Headship and Ownership of the church be New Testament doctrine? No? Please explain why not.
The fact is that Jesus told his Apostles that they would bind the doctrine of God, which is also the doctrine of Christ and Heaven, on earth in His church (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). The Greek more literally says, …whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven…will have been loosed in heaven. The meaning being that the Apostles would be applying the laws of Heaven in the Kingdom of God on earth, the Church of Christ.
Jesus told the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance everything that He HAD taught them (Jn. 14:26). The words I said are from one word eipon and it is in the aorist active indicative, which basically means past tense. So, when the Lord was telling the Apostles what the Holy Spirit would do for them, He said that the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance everything that the Lord had taught them while they were with Him. Was that so they could apply that Old Testament doctrine in the New Testament church? Ridiculous!
Now, Mickey and Daniel, this is an example of a concise and to the point post. Please follow it and quit rambling around. And Mickey, the reason I’m not throwing posts at the wall every five minutes is because, unlike you, I try to be careful that what I write is not only true but also clearly written and easy to read.
Mickey, you keep referring to the events recorded in the books as the reason why they are Old Testament books. I already said that I am very well aware that the events recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are events that occurred under the Law of Moses. I also said that the historical setting of the books no more makes them Old Testament books than the historical setting of Genesis makes it an Old, Old Testament book.
Now, let me get this right. You are saying that Matthew was written for the purpose of bringing Jews back to the Law of Moses in the year 56 AD! Seriously? Matthew wanted the Jews to be faithful Jews after the establishment of the church. Are you seriously saying that?
It seems to me that you are unable to distinguish between the historical setting of the books and the purpose for which they were written. You used a history book on George Washington as an example that the time of writing doesn’t matter. But, couldn’t I write such a history book as a set of lessons and teachings for how people are supposed to be good Americans today? Of course I could! And that is what the Gospel writers were doing, among other things, when they wrote their books long after Judaism was fulfilled and the Christian Age had begun.
You need to start debating your claim that there is no New Testament doctrine in the Gospels and stop trying to convince me that the historical setting of the Gospels is prior to the establishment of the church. I already know what the historical setting is, what I deny is your claim that Jesus did not teach any New Testament doctrine.
I have asked you for an example of something that Jesus taught prior to the Cross that we wrongly teach as New Testament doctrine for the church today. Are you saying that we should not be preaching the Beatitudes as crucial elements of the Christian lifestyle? Are you saying that we should not be using the words of Christ for baptism (Mark 16:16; Matt. 28:19-20)? Are these things we are wrongly teaching in the church today?
How am I, as a New Testament Christian, supposed to follow His steps if He did not teach anything for New Testament Christians? (cf. 1 Pet. 2:21; 1 Cor. 11:1; etc.). How is a New Testament Christian supposed to imitate Christ if Christ didn’t teach New Testament doctrine? I can’t believe anyone would even attempt to make such a claim as Jesus never taught New Testament doctrine.
In any case, you need to start debating the propositions you agreed to because people are telling me they can’t make heads nor tails out of what you are getting at. Or, even why you would want to make such an argument in the first place. So, to help you get to the point, just tell us what the church is teaching today that has you up in arms about whether or not the Gospels apply to Christians today. What is it? Give the example? How am I a lost soul because I look to the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels for the direction of my life today? Where is the offense, false teaching, damnable heresy? Get to the point!
Norm
If I made it any plainer I would have to Kindergarten You.What does it take to get through that Head of Yours?
When We follow Jesus example it sais to follow His example of not threatening when threatened by someone. 1 Peter 2:21, it sais Nothing of following the Law of Moses Jesus taught before the Cross.Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12. You got nothing here Norm.You cannot follow Jesus in two different Covenants.Mark 16:16 Mathew 28 Is after the Cross.The time period between the Covenants.The Apostles Preached Christ Crucified, Not His Earthly life before the Cross.
The reason You folks cannot understand what I am clearly teaching is because You folks have been satanicly blinded by satan Revelation 12:9 it just cannot be any plainer.
Mickey
I thought there was no New Testament doctrine in the Gospels? That’s what you said. Now you are changing what you said to that’s after the Cross. So, now we need to cut the Gospels up and put part of them in the Old Testament and part of them in the New Testament. Is that where you’re going now?
Please get to the point and tell me what I am teaching as New Testament doctrine, from the Gospels, that causes me to be a lost soul, heretical false teacher. Hurry up and get to it!
Mickey,
Was Jesus not teaching “New Testament” doctrine when he instituted the Lord’s supper?
Lu 22:16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
instituted the Lord’s supper??? There no such word in any of the Bible of the word “instituted” that is Roman Catholic added translation. Like everything
your debating on. WOW!
So, Jesus didn’t institute the Lord’s Supper in Matt. 26:26-29? What exactly is it you’re saying about the corruptions of the Roman Catholic church here? And, I just want to make sure that I understand you to be agreeing with Mickey, that the Gospels belong in the Old Testament. Is that right?
Mickey who? I just ran across your “institute the Lord’s supper” That word comes from the Roman Catholic Church, so does the “Lord’s Table” Jesus was “Prophesying” Notice, “My Blood of the New Testament, But I can’t eat or Drink of the cup until I am new in my Fathers Kingdom. The Kingdom started in Acts 2, Not Matthew 26. Thanks Norm.
Norm, your not Mine, but your Church Fathers are explained and exposed.
“… before 250 AD (which is long before the Roman Catholic Church) believed that the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were NEW Testament books…”
Let’s take a look at YOUR church fathers shall we?
Irenaeus:
He supported the authority of the bishop as a ruler over many churches.
He defended church tradition beyond what the Scriptures allow (it is for this reason that he is claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as one of their own).
?He taught the Catholic heresy of “real presence” saying, “The Eucharist becomes the body of Christ.”
?Tertullian:
Though he fought against Gnosticism, he also exalted the authority of the church beyond that allowed by Scripture. He taught that the church’s authority comes through apostolic succession.
He believed that the bread of the Lord’s Supper was Christ and worried about dropping crumbs of it on the ground.
He adopted Montanism, believing that Montanus spoke prophecies by inspiration of God.
He taught that widows who remarried committed fornication.
He classified sins into three categories and believed in confession of sins to a bishop.
He said that the human soul was seen in a vision as “tender, light, and of the colour of air.” He claimed that all human souls were in Adam and are transmitted to us with the taint of original sin upon them.
He taught that there was a time when the Son of God did not exist and when God was not a Father.
He taught that Mary was the second Eve who by her obedience remedied the disobedience of the first Eve.
Origen:
He denied the infallible inspiration of Scripture.
He rejected the literal history of the early chapters in Genesis and of Satan taking the Lord Jesus up to a high mountain and offering him the kingdoms of the world.
He accepted infant baptism.
He taught baptismal regeneration and salvation by works.
He believed the Holy Spirit was possibly a created being of some sort.
He believed in a form of purgatory and universalism, denying the literal fire of hell and believing that even Satan would be saved eventually.
He believed that men’s souls are preexistent and that stars and planets possibly have souls.
He believed that Jesus was a created being and not eternal.
He denied the bodily resurrection, claiming that the resurrection body is spherical, non-material, and does not have members. He was condemned by the Council of Constantinople on this count.
“… then we will have further proven the above argument and its author to be wrong again and making a false claim…”
You have proven one thing and one thing only: you follow men; Roman Catholic men who were heretics! In fact, YOUR church fathers are actually the fathers of the Roman Catholic Church. They are the men who laid the foundation of apostasy that produced the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, the term “church fathers” is a misnomer that was derived from the Roman Catholic Church’s false doctrine of hierarchical policy. These men had no divine authority. In fact, their teachings contain not one jot or tittle of divine revelation. Their’s is not what the Lord has revealed to us through scripture. No, it is merely the traditions of men which go completely against and make void the Word of God.
The idea that you, Mr. Benton, would even consider the thought of arguing for the Roman Catholic Church (never mind your denial that they, with no authority, intentionally inserted a title page into the Bible) tells me one thing: you are an insidious enemy. This includes anyone who agrees with you (even those who place your teachings on their websites). If I did not know any better I would say you are a Roman Catholic too. After all, no once can be committed to both the teaching of the New Testament and of the church fathers. One thing is for certain: you are NOT a member of the Lord’s church. The church that follows the Apostles doctrine that was given by divine inspiration and recorded in the Holy Scriptures – the final authority in the life of believers in the church. Argue with that one, Mr. Benton.
Daniel Ross – preacher
http://www.newcovenanttruth.com
Daniel,
Why are you calling Irenaeus, Turtullian and Origen my church Fathers? Where have you ever heard or read me crediting any authority to these men? The authority for what I teach and practice comes from Jesus Christ and His inspired doctrine, not men. The men you cite did have a lot to say that is very valuable, as they lived much closer to the original Apostolic teachings of the first century. However, they were also men who were being effected by the prophesied Apostasy (Acts 20:29-30). So, I’m not sure what your point is about them being my church Fathers. I don’t think you will be able to find a single example where I ever referred to any of those men as church Fathers.
Dear Norm, Thank you for your reply. Many within the Brother-Hood will Cite these people, the Roman Catholic Church Loves them. But they were never a member of the Lord’s Church. Our Colleges Teach this fatal false error, I had a dealing with Terry W. Benton from La Vista Church of Christ, He to was taught this error in bible College. it truly does amaze me Norm, the Apostles Never quote Jesus’ Teachings at all before the cross is this New Testament of Acts 2. Reading through this thread, I see Mr Skidmore is doing what the New Testament teaches, witch is rare. I know Norm, and you can Hide it from man, But don’t hide it from our Lord, You do follow after them second Century Men, that’s why many are not gonna make it to Heaven. I watch your debates on the baptist, you did GREAT! but, The thief on the Cross Jesus forgave, Under the Old Law. Many thanks Norm, I hope you have a WONDER day.
Really? 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
What about Acts 20:35? Can you say that this quote was not prior to the cross?
Is this Daniel Ross of the “seventh day adventist” church which is no where in scripture and stems from Roman Catholic???
Okay, how about this Mickey and Daniel, Was Jesus not teaching “New Testament” doctrine when he “executed” the Lord’s supper?
why am I getting Hooked up with Mickey? also Mark, I am a Member of the Church, Acts 2. When Jesus Told Peter, And I say also unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it Matthew 16:18 was the Church Built? NO! Once again, Jesus was Looking into the Future, But His work was doing the will of His Father. <- "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness" 1 Cor 1:23. That's We or at Least I preach. Please I am Danny, not Mickey. Thanks Mark for your question.
Daniel, I think the reason you are getting hooked up with Mickey is that it looks like you are both saying the same thing. That is, the Gospels are actually Old Testament books and do not contain any New Testament doctrine. Is that your view?
Norm, whats with Mickey???? Look at your log, I am new here. I was reading through, Mickey is teaching Right, please don’t tie me in this, I was answering what you said about the last Passover in Matthew 26 you call it “the Lord’s supper” And I am telling you, you are adding to the word, that’s all.. Please this is Daniel, Not Mickey.. Thanks, I don’t want to sound mean, but Please if someone is Preaching sound Doctrine, Praise be to God. Thanks Norm. oh, don’t be a hard head, they do teach that in the Colleges as well. Love you.
Daniel, I think the reason you are getting hooked up with Mickey is that it looks like you are both saying the same thing. That is, the Gospels are actually Old Testament books and do not contain any New Testament doctrine. Is that your view?
Norm, First off, Let’s be real, You need to get your facts strait on how you assume I am with Mickey, Just Like how you read and take what the Bible say’s and what the translators added in, Know the differences! What Peter Preached is what Paul Preached, do you think them to just ran into one another is said “WOW PAUL, YOU PREACH THE SAME THING I DO?” I don’t think so, duh.. It’s what the Lord commanded. WOW, Norm, you are a member of the Church right??
Daniel, I will say this – you and Mickey both have the same problem. I can’t make heads or tails out of most of what you’re saying. Slow down and take a breath. Try to write your thoughts in a more coherent manner so I can understand what it is you’re trying to say. Whew!
Daniel, I will say this – you and Mickey both have the same problem. I can’t make heads or tails out of most of what you’re saying. Slow down and take a breath. Try to write your thoughts in a more coherent manner so I can understand what it is you’re trying to say. Whew!
That Folks this a Classic example of a Guy who cannot answer the simple questions. instead he’s making this out to be something More than what it is, and he can’t even answer it. instead, what they teach him in those bible colleges is this, “don’t get to far over your head, but if you do, just make it look as though the another person is way out of line” Nice try Norm. I hope you post this here so All can see it. WHEW?? I am breathing Just fine, I am looking at the future not the past Norm. Titus 1:9
What question have you asked me that I haven’t responded to or answered? I’ll put it to you the same way I did to Mickey, what is it that we are teaching in the church today from the Gospels that is not New Testament doctrine? Give me an example. Mickey has said something we teach from the Gospels as New Testament doctrine is damnable herresy and causes me to be lost but he hasn’t given me a specific example of that. Can you?
OK, watch for it folks. Here it comes.
NORM please find this from before the cross, I want Book, Chapter and Verses before the cross of Jesus saying this.. Acts 20:35
35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
and when Paul was teaching, it was “23 ¶ For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread:
24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament Jer. 31.31-34 in my blood: Ex. 24.6-8 this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.
LISTEN to what Paul was saying “For I RECEIVED” Not what Jesus told Him in Mathew 26, Paul was not even their. Norm, I really think you are so confused that it’s really showing, and I don’t mean that as to be mean to you, But I have to ask, ARE YOU FOR REAL? or his this a web site Bot?
Wow! So Paul isn’t really quoting what Jesus said in Matt. 26? Alrighty then (that’s sarcasm, not agreement).
You asked me to show you book, chapter and verse for where Jesus said Acts 20:35 before the cross. I can’t because I don’t know when he said it and neither do you. So are you going to make a doctrinal statement that he said it after the cross? Where exactly would you get that?
Norm, your programmed to believe a Lie! I am Man enough to say, I was just Like you, for many years! I had to Break away from Colleges, you know Mans way, Paul was reminding them of what Jesus was saying about The Lord’s supper of the New Testament, it was “received, Not quoted” also thank you, I could not remember the word I wanted to use, “sarcasm” and you do that so well Norm.. No, Norm you cannot not answer anything about the Apostles teaching Jesus from before the cross, what you gave in Acts 20:35 is what Jesus told His New found Apostle Paul in the New Testament! but you teach that from before the cross, you think all of Jesus’ teachings from before the cross is for us today? WHAT? you are of Campbell and Stone BIG TIME! I will Pray if it’s the Lord’s will, a Door would open up for you..
OK, now give me an example of what I teach from the Gospels, from the teaching of Jesus, that is not New Testament doctrine? Regardless of what you say from here on out, I’m just going to keep asking you for an example. One example of what I teach from the Gospels that IS NOT New Testament doctrine. Get to it!
Thank you Norm, for Giving me this time with you, this is not to hate one Another I do not hate you, I just hate it when Good people are brought up in their family’s and Or Colleges being programmed to believe a lie. Jesus Christ was sent to the Jews Only (Matthew 1:21) That’s a Gospel, you can agree with that right? ” Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers” Romans 15:8 <– you can agree that's good news for the Jews, the Gospel. "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" Matthew 15:24 That's wonder News for the Jews, you know, the Gospel to the Jews. "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not" Matthew 10:5 so Norm, we preach this today? Oh Norm, Let's Preach this as well Brother "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews" John 4:22 Now Norm, son, if I can call you that, Let me take you to school and eat your lunch… Those Gospel before the Cross what Israel Gospel of Jesus the Messiah sent to them Under the Law of Moses Gal 4:4 Paul Warns Those who would teach a different Gospel another than what (WE) YOU KNOW, the Apostles Doctrine of the Death, Burial and Resurrection would be cursed "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" Gal 1:8 Norm, ONE GOSPEL <—- what is that One Gospel? Baby Jesus? No! Jesus the Messiah of the Jews in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John before the cross? NO! "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles." 1 Cor 15
Hmmmm, Norm, That's the Gospel we as Christians are to Preach. Love you Norm, Hope you Understand this.
So, where is the example of something I teach from the Gospels that IS NOT New Testament doctrine?
Norm, son you have been mislead with your up bringing of the Lord, being the Messiah to the Christians, you are so very blind, I truly feel sorry for you, I do. Acts 20:35 is New Testament, Jesus Taught 40 days after the cross, I am sure there was plenty of things said, but if we were to know, would you not think God would allow it? I asked you, quote me the apostles teaching Jesus from before the cross, and you come up with 2? and they are not even it. I really to Pitty you.
2 Peter 1:17-18, Peter refers to the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-8) to teach Christians. And, what exactly do you mean when you say that I am so very blind because I believe that Jesus is the Messiah to the Christians? Do you not know that Messiah and Christ mean the same thing? (Jn. 4:25). Christ is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah. So, are you saying that Jesus is not the Christ? Surely not!
Now, please give me an example of something I teach from the Gospels that is not New Testament doctrine.
Norm, to whom was Peter talking to when He said that? (Jews) that Knew the Law, Gentiles could not even Know the Law of Moses Norm Eph 11-12 Norm.
So, 2 Peter wasn’t written to Christians? How about 1 Peter? (1 Pet. 4:16). Now, where is that example of something I teach from the Gospels the IS NOT New Testament doctrine?
Norm, I just told you.. you cannot answer it! cause you can’t.
Norm you preach from the LAW OF MOSES GOSPEL! The Jews were told NOT TO! GAL 5:4 GET IT NORM? what is so hard about that? you pick and choose, it’s a “Classic” Method of what we are trained to do in our Bible Colleges.. Paul warns, you will fall from grace Norm. Norm, you must re-program yourself, format your brain, and I am not trying to be a smarty pants, I was Blind just like you are now. Love you Norm, and I Love your Soul, Please Norm, the time is at hand. study!!!!!
OK, give me an example.
Answer
The word ‘Messiah’ comes from the Hebrew word ‘ Mashiach’ in the Old Testament meaning ‘anointed’ and originally applied to the kings of Israel who were anointed with the holy oil. The word ‘Messiah’ also refers to the expected Prince of the Chosen who was to complete God’s purposes, and to redeem them, and of whose coming, the prophets of the Old Covenant, spoke. He was the Messiah, ‘The Anointed’, consecrated as the King and Prophet by God’s appointment. In the New Testament the word ‘Messiah’ is called ‘Christos’ in Greek or ‘Christ’ in English.
Joh 1:41 WEB He first found his own brother, Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah!” (which is, being interpreted, Christ).
Joh 4:25 WEB The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah comes,” (he who is called Christ). “When he has come, he will declare to us all things.”
Luk 24:21 WEB But we were hoping that it was He [ie Jesus Christ] who would redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened.
Look NORM Messiah Jesus came to do (His Fathers Will) Remember when Peter was Preaching the Good News, you know the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ? you Know the Keys to the Kingdom? “36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” Acts 2:36 Who was Peter talking to? JEWS! that Understood what Law they were raised in, But NOW, the Law ENDED Romans 10:4 Lord and Christ, Not Lord and Messiah, after the Cross from Acts 2 through Revelation 22, Messiah is not even mentioned Norm, WHY????? we are Not Jews of Israel NORM!
After giving the definition showing Messiah and Christ to mean the same thing you turn around and say they aren’t the same thing.
OK! So where is that example of something I teach from the Gospels that IS NOT New Testament doctrine?
as I stated Norm, Messiah is not mentions in the New Testament of Acts 2 through Revelation 22. you know that, I know that, we ALL Know that. I will leave your Rubbish talks with Mr Skidmore, Thank you Norm for the time I wasted on you, if you want to be Ignorance, than you will be Judge on the last day. But if you repent of your foolishness than I will be more than happy to have lunch with you sometime..
when I leave, don’t sneak one of your fast ones in Norm, that’s another thing they teach us at the bible colleges.
So, despite the definition yourself gave, Messiah and Christ are not the same thing? So, where is the example of something I teach from the Gospels that is not New Testament doctrine? Give it!
It would seem to me that the Old (Mosaic) Covenant was for one group of people only, that being the Israelites (note that they were NOT called “Jews” until centuries later). ONLY Israelites, under that covenant relationship with Yahweh, would have been under the responsibility to keep it. That doesn’t mean anything about Gentiles. Were any saved? Quite possibly. We just aren’t told because that’s not the focus. The books were written as a historical record (and Lawbook if you take into account Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy) for the Israelites.
When Jesus came he challenged the thinking of that time period. Many times he said, “You have heard it said……..” and followed up with, “But I say unto you……..” Undoubtedly he never spoke against the Mosaic Law, for he was the fulfillment of it.
However, there are some very new things, that can not be described as either the “word of” or the “heart of” the Law. For instance, what of the whole discussion and inception of the Holy Spirit, recorded in John 15-17? What of the transfiguration? Peter was right that under Old Testament Law, they had every right and even a responsibility to build alters to Elijah and Moses there – but Yahweh said only of Jesus, “Hear him!” That’s as good as any evidence that the time of the Law and Prophets was at an end.
Most of all, we can not ignore what Jesus said before he ascended. He said to teach them ALL things he had commanded. ALL things! Therefor Jesus’ teachings are the basis for the entire New Testament age.
Wow
I just got off work today to find out my inbox was full of norm Field replies.
Norm wants an example of what He teaches as New Testament in Mathew-John before the Cross as Old Testament Doctrine. He we go Norm. What Did Jesus say He is teaching before the Cross? Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 Mathew 5:27-28 Exodus 20:17 I already showed You that the I say unto You verses was Old Testament Norm.You insist they are New Testament Doctrine, Jesus sais other wise.
Lets try the Ol Traditional Norm approach to Mathew-John before the Cross and see if it works.When was those books written Mickey? Norm I told You in The New Testament Age. That is Correct Mickey Why were they written Mick? To show the closing of the Mosaic age and the end of the Law.Now here is why this is so stupid to Rightly Divide gods word by folks.This is Jesus talking folks. I DID NOT COME TO DO MY WILL. JOHN 6:38. The Norm approach is well since these books are written after the Cross Jesus did do His will even though He said he didn’t do it.Watch again folks.My DOCTRINE NOT MINE. JOHN 7;16 The Norm Traditional approach sais these books were written after the Cross in the New Testament age so Jesus is teaching His doctrine, because We have been satanicly Deluded into believing Jesus is teaching his New Testament Doctrine before the Cross Although it was written after the Cross.Let Me get this straight Norm. According to Your warped way of Rightly dividing Gods word of truth. The words Jesus plainly said Don’t matter according to the die hard traditional way of rightly Dividing Gods word correct? It is You not I that is teaching this ridiculous way of Not being able to Prove anything Your trying to get across.
Watch again Folks. Norm sais Jesus is teaching Grace and truth before The Cross, watch how this when they are written bits Him in the bud.John 1:17 The Law came by Moses, but Grace and truth were realized Through Jesus Christ. Now watch closely Folks. Norm here The writer is making a Clear distinction Between Jesus as a Minister of The Circumcision Before the Cross. Romans 15:8 K J V and Jesus New Testament Grace and truth after the Cross. Question Norm did Jesus ever Once use the Word Grace before the Cross? A Great big no Folks, Yet look how many times it is used by the Apostles after the Cross.Acts 2-Revelation 22. This Blows Your when they are written plumb out of the Water Norm.
Mark was asking about the Lords Supper. Here is Your answer Mark.
Luke 22:14-20 Question Mark is This the Passover, The Lords Supper, or Both? Comen sense Dictates The Passover.Can You not see the Difference between A Short Range Prophesy, And a Command Sir? How in the Name of Comen sense could it be the Passover, if Jesus has not died yet? Show us the Word Institute Anywhere in the Bible Sir.Here are Both Short and Long Range Prophesies to prove My Point. Jeremiah 31:31-34 Hebrews 8:8-13 Long Range. here are Short Range Prophesies. Mathew 16:18 Jesus was not building His Church under the Law of Moses. He built it begging in Acts 2.John 3:3-6 Short Range Prophesy about what A Jew who was under the Law would have to do in the New Covenant age.Only Former Old Covenant Jews could be born again. They were Fleshly Born into that Old Covenant, But had to Be Both Spiritually Converted from the Law Of Moses Jesus taught them before the Cross And Converted to The New Covenant, By Water Baptism into Jesus Death, Burial, and resurrection.
Mickey
Quick Correction Mark I Should Have said How in the name of comen sense could it be the Lords Supper since Jesus has not died yet. Sorry Folks.
Mickey, does your computer not have a spell checker? Just askin’.
Yes It does Norm
Sometimes I get in a big hurry to thrash Your false Doctrine and mess up. Sorry Norm I am not big on Words being Just so so.
Well, thanks for having a sense of humor about it. You are joking, right? 🙂
Of Coarse Norm
But I really do get in a hurry sometimes and goof on some words. HA HA
Norm if I delay a Reply to You it is because I have to go from here to my other email site to get into our Bible study room tonight, but rest assured Ol Mick will be thrashing some more tonight. HA HA
Norm
wants more proof that what He is teaching is a Damnable heresy. Ok Norm You asked for it.
If You teach something that contradicts the Word of God You are teaching a Damnable heresy. Norm and His traditional bunch all teach the Old Testament Gospels Jesus Preached and limited to the Jews belongs in the New Testament. His only so called false proof, is because these books were written in the New Testament age. You talk about lame, this folks is as lame as it gets.You keep asking show Me Old Testament Doctrine and I have done just that. I ask You to show us New Testament Doctrine Norm. Where is it? This is What the Word of God sais. Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 John 6:38 John 7:16 how do You get Jesus teaching his New Testament Doctrine if He is Doing the Will of God The Father? John 4:34 How do You get Jesus as The Law giver before the Cross when He is Fulfilling only The Law Of Moses? How do You get Jesus teaching His New Testament Doctrine When He was guided by the holy Spirit? Mathew 4:1 In The New Covenant Jesus guides the Holy Spirit.1 Cor 12:3
You traditionalist are confused on many fronts.You cannot understand Mathew-John describing Jesus before the Cross Is Old Mosaic Covenant Kingdom Gospel to restore Jews back to The Law from which they departed from.Luke 19:10 That which was Lost was Jews, The Gentiles had No Hope at all during this time period folks. John 4:22 Ephesians 2:11-12. Job as Norm Mentioned lived in the Patriarchal age not the Mosaic age.Gentiles could be saved in this time period, but not during the Law of Moses as Jesus and Paul make Very Clear.You must understand this.Mathew 21:43 Jesus told Israel they would Eventually Loose there Old Testament Fleshly Born Kingdom after they reject Jesus and His Death on the Cross.Why can’t You brethren Understand this?
How ridiculous and false to claim Jesus before the Cross is teaching New Testament Doctrine, When He said No He Did Not. John 6:38 John 7:16 Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12.Did Jesus Preach His Death, Burial, And Resurrection Before The Cross? You know He didn’t, But He taught a Gospel.The Apostles Preached Christ Crucified After The Cross, so How can The Gospel Jesus Preached To the Jews Only Be the same Gospel The Apostles Preached?Galatians 1:6-9 is Very Clear here PREACH NO OTHER GOSPEL Than The APOSTLES.Acts 2-Revelation 22. Wake up Traditional Brethren before it is to late.I Plead With You to See this Clear Truth.
Mickey
Let Me also add
In the Year of 1486 satan and The Roman Corrupt Catholic Church Put that Stupid Miss placed Title page in Your Bibles to throw off the Protestant Movement and look at all the Confusion it has caused.The devil is laughing His guts out at You traditional Brethren Who Know That Jesus has only one Church, And Know About getting all the Worship Doctrine Right, But You cannot see past Your heresy on Rightly Dividing Gods Word by The Covenants. 2 Timothy 2:15. How do You think Jesus feels about all this non sense?
2 John 9-11 Verses John 7:16. How sad to Know Jesus died For His New Covenant Doctrine, and You folks try to bring back that Old Covenant Law of Moses That Jesus fulfilled and Done away with. colossians 2:14, Romans 7:4 Romans 10:4. When will You Brethren ever Die to that Old Law?
Mickey
The 1486 Title Page Error
In 1486 AD, Johann Pruss of Strasbourg, France, a member of the Catholic denomination, added his own unauthorized (yes, he went against God’s Will) New Testament title page to God’s perfect Word (Greenslade, 1975, p. 421). Pruss placed the New Testament title page in between the books of Malachi and Matthew. This intentional act (the Catholics wanted to confuse the Protestants) has caused people to not only divide the Bible in the wrong place, but to believe that Christ’s words in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (before the cross) are New Covenant. How can this be when God’s Old Covenant was given to us for learning purposes only (Romans 15:4)? The Bible clearly states in Romans 7:4 & 10:4; Ephesians 2:11-12, and Galatians 5:4 that it is a sin to hold to God’s Old Covenant over Christ’s New Covenant which is found in Acts 2 through Revelations 22. Please do not be mislead. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not within God’s New Covenant. The following 18 facts prove this.
1. Every single word that Jesus spoke before the cross were the words of His Father. Jesus says so Himself in John 14:24: “These words you hear are not my own, they belong to the Father who sent me.” Before the cross, Jesus (God) was an Old Covenant prophet and prophets only spoke the words of the One who sent them.
?2. As an Old Covenant prophet Jesus was sent by His Father only to the lost sheep of Israel. Jesus says so Himself in Matthew 15:24: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” In other words, Jesus was not a New Covenant prophet or evangelist sent to the New Covenant church. After the cross Jesus sent His Apostles, the New Covenant prophets, to the church. In fact, Acts 2:42 clearly states that the church continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine.
3. Only a King on the throne of Heaven can originate covenant law. Jesus was not on His New Covenant throne nor was He King of His New Covenant Kingdom (i.e. the church) prior to the cross. Only after Jesus offered His perfect bodily sacrifice (i.e. his blood that would save those who would obey his Gospel) to His Father and ascended into Heaven did He become the New Covenant King; revealing all power and authority directly to His Apostles (as recorded in Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20:21; and Acts 1). It should be noted that these scriptures detail the 40 days that Jesus spent with his Apostles.
4. Before the cross, the Father was the law making King on the throne of Heaven. Jesus was His last Old Covenant prophet. Jesus (God) chose to leave Heaven and submit completely to the role of an Old Covenant prophet. Therefore, prior to His crucifixion (and becoming the New Covenant King on the throne of Heaven), Jesus, the Old Covenant prophet, could not give upcoming New Covenant Law. Old Covenant prophets could only uphold the covenant that they themselves were under. Jesus chose to be bound under the Father’s Old Covenant (as is recorded in John 5:19; John 5:30; John 8:26; 12:49-50; and John 14:24, 31).
5. Jesus was physically born an earthly (i.e. Old Covenant) King of the Jews on the throne of David. Only after His death, burial, and resurrection did Jesus became a Heavenly (i.e. New Covenant) King of His church on the throne of Heaven (Acts 2; 1 Corinthians 15:1-6; and Galatians 1:6, 11 references the New Covenant Gospel).
6. How can the book of Malachi be the end of the Old Testament (i.e. the Law of Moses) when Romans 10:4 clearly states that “… Christ is the end of the Law.”? In addition, Romans 7:4 says, “… ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ…” Furthermore, Colossians 2:14 says, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us and took it out of the way, nailing to it His cross…”
7. While Jesus was led by the Spirit under the Old Covenant, Jesus directs the Holy Spirit under the New Covenant. That is why Jesus could not send the Spirit to the Apostles until He became King; He was an Old Covenant prophet being led by the Spirit, and prophets cannot originate law of an upcoming New Covenant; they can only uphold and speak the laws of the covenant they are under. In fact, John 16:7 says, “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.”
8. It should be noted that while Jesus references God’s Old Covenant more than 100 times in Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, not once did He ever state that He was giving New Covenant Law.
9. Jesus and John the Baptist were not baptizing sinners into a New Covenant relationship with God. They were baptizing Israelites into Christ’s Old Covenant Mosaic Kingdom which ended at the cross.
10. Every single word Jesus said up to Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; and John 19:30 was nailed to the cross. Colossians 2:14 says, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross…”
11. How could Jesus be a New Covenant evangelist if the church did not begin until after He ascended into Heaven 40 days after His crucifixion (see Acts 1:9)?
12. When revealing New Covenant doctrine in Acts 2 through Revelation 22, neither Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Apostles or any writers of the epistles ever quoted Jesus giving New Covenant Law that Jesus spoke to them in the gospels. Not one single quote!
13. In order for there to be a change in the law, there had to be a change in the Priesthood. Jesus did not become High Priest of His New Covenant Kingdom until He was resurrected from the dead. If Jesus, before the Cross, had given New Covenant Law there would have been no new high priest to mediate it.
14. The new covenant, and the Kingdom it is bound to began on the Day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 through Revelation 22.
15. The New Covenant existed before the foundation of the world (John 1:1). An individual’s will cannot be written after his or her death. Such a will would never stand up in court. The same holds true for Jesus. Had He given a part of His new will in the Gospels (of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) it would have only been a partial will.
16. Jesus said that He came to Israel to fulfill the Law of Moses, not to reveal New Covenant doctrine.
Jesus said this in Matthew 5:17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
17. Even though Jesus was full of grace (and grace is the most prominent subject in all of God’s word after the cross), not once does Jesus ever use the word grace before the cross. Not once!
18. God’s Old Covenant ended the moment Jesus died on the cross. No covenant existed between Himself and man for the next 50 days. On the 50th day after Passover, the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out and the apostle Peter then opened God’s last eternal kingdom with the keys that Jesus gave him; the church and God’s New Covenant with man began (see Jeremiah 31:31-32 and Daniel 2:44).
Now ask yourself this: Did Jesus give the Apostles (or anyone) any part of His New Covenant Law prior to the cross? No, of course not! Don’t just take our word for it. What we want you to do is study this for yourself. If you research these 18 facts with an open mind and an open heart, you will be able to see for yourself that the New Testament title page has been placed in error. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not (and never have been) part of God’s New Covenant. On the other hand, if you feel you can refute any one of these facts then please feel free to contact us.
References
?Greenslade, S. L. (ed.) 1975, The Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume 3, The West from the Reformation to the Present Day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
for more infomation Please come and Visit http://newcovenanttruth.com/
Let Me say one more thing before I retire tonight.
There are two things I really hate. One is the devil. I hate Him more than anyone who has ever walked this Earth, and I hate His false Doctrine he spews out for People to be lost.
Brethren heed this warning. You better know Your enemy well, cause rest assured He knows You very well.Your enemy prowls around like a roaring Lion seeking Whom He may devour.
1 peter 5:8 He will do anything He can to make sure You never come to a knowledge of Jesus new Covenant Truth.Acts 17:30 K J V God winked at ignorance once, but commands all Men everywhere to repent, and that includes all false Doctrine.I am tired of this heresy destroying Our Honest seeking Brethren who want only to teach the truth of Jesus to a lost and dying World.
Heed the Dire warnings of Jesus New Testament while You still can.John 7:16 Verses
2 John 9-11 These passages cannot Harmonize.Galatians 1:6-9 Preach No other Gospel Than The Apostles Period. Acts 2:42 Acts 2-Revelation 22 Do not go Beyond What is Written in the New Covenant 1 Cor 4:6 New American Standard Version.Do not Depart From the Faith.
1 Timothy 4:1-3 Mathew-John describing Jesus before the Cross is NOT THE FAITH, it is The Law, Big Difference. James 1:25 The New Covenant PERFECT LAW Of LIBERTY is the Only Freedom We Have, No other.Romans 3:19-21 Is very Clear.
(WHATEVER THE LAW SAIS IT SAIS TO THOSE UNDER THE LAW) It just cannot be plainer Brethren, Now APART From The Law The New Covenant Righteousness Has Been Manifest. How much plainer can it be made to You?
Romans 10:1-6 A Clear Division on The two Covenant Righteousness Again folks.Wake up.
Ask Yourselves this question. Do You really know Your bibles, or do You just think You do? Are You really seeking Jesus New Testament truth, or just hiding by Your blind traditions? It is time to really give Yourselves a gut check on what You have been teaching all these years folks.
Mickey
Mickey says:
“Did Jesus Preach His Death, Burial, And Resurrection Before The Cross? You know He didn’t, But He taught a Gospel.”
Mickey, it’s obvious to everyone here that you may not be playing with a full deck of cards.
You do err not knowing the scripture………….Mt 16:21 ¶ From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Mr 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
And to say that Jesus did not teach “any” New Testament doctrine is absurd…………..
Joh 3:1 ¶ There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Compare…………
1Pe 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
NOTICE: “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth”
WHAT IS TRUTH? Joh 17:17 ¶ Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Wait a minute, Mickey and Daniel says common sense would tell us that this should read “he became the author of eternal salvation to the Jews only”
Come on guys, your ship is sinking.
Mark, thanks for spelling common correctly. And, of course, for your sound words! These guys have a very specific reason for trying to put the Gospels in the Old Testament, they’re just not willing to say what it is. They need to go get their leader, Dan Billingsley, to come over here and do their debating for them. At least he will be honest about why he’s trying to take away the authority of the Gospels.
I’ve debated Billingsley before. He gets to where all he does is insult and use ad hominem and straw men. Honestly, until I saw this, Norm, I thought Billingsley was the only person who believed such silliness. You are right, though – the whole reason for teaching this is to take authority away from what Jesus said.
Good catch, Mark. I was about to hit with Matthew 16 myself.
You guys are so lost, it’s beyond words.. Norm, and his bible college hypocrites brothers of Campbell and stone will never get it.. I will not waste anymore time with you fools.. it’s on your heads in the end.
There you go folks! Me, Mark and Vince are all deceived because we actually think Jesus taught doctrine for the governing of His New Testament church! But Dan and Mickey are the ones who have it all figured out because they understand that Jesus built His New Testament church but didn’t teach anything pertaining to his church. WOW!!!
Why don’t you guys just be honest about what it is you are trying to do. There is something specific you are trying to get rid of with your outrageous doctrine. Just be out with it already!
Once Again
Poor Mark can’t tell the Difference from a Prophesy and a command.He Foolishly claims Jesus preached His Death, Burial, Burial and resurrection before the Cross. HA HA. You got to be kidding Me? He can’t figure out the difference between The two.Mathew 16:21
Mark 8:31 Hello Mark Who’s Ship has Already Stunk I Mean Sunk? Has Jesus Died Yet? Is He Really Preaching His Death, before He Dies? HA HA. How bout a Short Range Prophesy Here?
Ol Slick Mark goes over to The New Testament and Quotes
1 Peter 1:21 Where Jesus WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD.They Purified there souls by obeying the New Covenant truth Mark HELLO.Mark Asked what is truth? Well obviously Mark has no clue. He cannot for the life of His soul distinguish between Old Testament truth, and New testament truth He quotes
John 17:17 Ignorantly
not distinguishing between the JEWS here being SET APART under the LAW.Does Mark know the difference between The 2 Covenants? Not in a Thousand Light Years.
Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 Does Mark know the difference between The PERFECT NEW COVENANT LAW Of LIBERTY, and the Law of MOSES ? James 1:25 Not In a Trillion Light Years, just look what He post. Acts 2:42 Does Mark know how to Continue STEADFASTLY In The APOSTLES DOCTRINE, And Stop Skipping From One Covenant to the Next? Does Mark know that Jesus said Plainly before the Cross He Did no come to DO HIS WILL? John 6:38 Does Mark know That the Doctrine Jesus taught in Mathew-John before the Cross WAS NOT HIS? John 7:16 Obviously Mark Norm and All His traditional Bunch have fallen and Follow the devil’s misplaced title page. The ignorance of these traditional Brethren is STAGGERING. Harmonize John 7:16 With 2 John 9-11 Sorry Boys it can’t be done, but according to the traditional Norm fields Mark and the rest of there Deceived gang because the books of Mathew-John were written after the Cross That alone makes them Jesus New Testament Doctrine even though Jesus sais other wise. Boys Your way out to Sea and Already drowned.
Mickey
Oh By The Way Mark Thanks so Much for correcting My misspelled common although it will not affect You getting defeated Thanks for helping there.
Ol Norm is Convinced that because We teach the truth in the covenants And these die hard deceived traditionalist cannot Stomach Jesus New Covenant truth they believe We Are trying to get rid of Something with Our SPOT On Rightly Dividing The Word Of truth Doctrine. John 7:16 Verses 2 John 9-11 Poor Norm just cannot deal with Jesus telling Him He is Not Doing or Teaching His New Testament Doctrine before the Cross, so He comes up with the Old Devil Solution and tells us You got to go by when The books are written, not what Jesus Actually sais, Right Norm?
Norm Mark And Vincent are so confused on there Heresy that satan has Blinded them to The truth of Jesus New Covenant truth.
1 Corinthians 14:38 king James Version
and 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 is Spot on for these Boys.The God of this World has really blinded these traditional boys and good.2 Cor 4:4.
Jesus tells them He is teaching the Law of Moses, But ol Norm Mark, and Vincent say Nope Jesus Your teaching New Testament here before the Cross, because these books were written after the Cross. Jesus Tells them I Did Not Come To Do My New Covenant Will, Or teach my New Testament Doctrine.
John 6:38 John 7:16, But Ol Deceived Norm Mark, and Vincent say yes Jesus You Are teaching Your New testament Doctrine because these books were written in the New Testament age.
Norm Mark And Vincent would argue with a brick wall to bring in there damnable heresies.Romans 3:19-21 sais Clearly in the New Covenant, You know boys the one we are under today. Acts 2:42 That Whatever Law sais it sais to those under the law and that no one today this side of the Cross Can Be justified by the Law that Jesus taught before the Cross. Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12.Norm Mark, and Vincent argue that since Mathew-John before the Cross was written after the Cross that Galatians 4:4-5 cannot be correct although it is and States Jesus Was Born under the Law to redeem Those (JEWS) Under the Law. Romans 10:1-6 Norm Mark, and Vincent Will Argue with the two different Righteousness Clearly explained in Romans, because Jesus could not be teaching the Law after all The Books were written after the Cross, so even Though The Scriptures PLASTER there STUPID HERESY these slick devil deceived traditional heresy teaching boys will argue with Jesus The Inspired Apostle Paul and try to Convince You if You can believe there Foolishness that some how Jesus is Magically Bringing New Testament Doctrine before the Cross Although Jesus sais Clearly He is Not. Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 John 6:38 John 7:16. You talk about Ridiculous You boys are off the deep end here.
Mickey
Let Me help You traditionalist out here ok. I can’t believe You silly Boys have not used Luke 16:16 Boys Your slipping when You don’t use this passage surely You think it gives You some credit Right? Wrong. Mathew 11:12-13 read it and weep Boys.How was The New Testament Kingdom Preached when it was not there Yet? HA HA HA. How was it Preached Slick Boys? It was Preached that it was at Hand, Not here yet but at Hand, But the slick boys insist that even though these Jews still under the Old Testament Kingdom That has not been taken from the Jews as of yet Mathew 21:43 it will be after Jesus death, but not when Luke 16:16 was spoken, but that;s Right it was written after the Cross Right Norm, so the Kingdom was taken from the Jews before Jesus death, and Although The New Testament Kingdom does not arrive until Acts 2, and Peter had not been given the new Covenant Keys to That Kingdom. Jesus and John Preached The Revealed Doctrine Of That Kingdom before it Got there Right Boys? Ephesians 3;3-5 Although Jesus and Paul say No New Testament Was Revealed In other Ages, and Even Slick Norm can’t fudge that Luke 16:16 is Another age, He would have us believe that The Law ended with John’s Ministry, even Though After John’s Ministry Jesus Plainly States No Dice on that one. Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12. and If the Law were until John, that would mean John was The end of The Law not Jesus Right Slick boys? Romans 7:4 Romans 10:4 Not in a Trillion Years, but keep em coming so the truth of JESUS SHINES BOYS.
Mickey
I am on a New Covenant roll tonight.
It is time to put these heresy devil deluded false teaching slick Boys in there place.
Norm Mark, and Vince the Three Omee-Goes have teemed up with there buddy say-10 to try to pull the wool over our eyes, but it will not fool us.
These false teaching dudes want us to believe that Mathew 1:21 is talking about us today instead of Jews Right Slick Omee-Goes? So Jesus comes only for Jews who are his Covenant People under The Old Law That Jesus was Born Under. Galatians 4:4-5 As A Minister of The Circumcision Romans 15:8 King James Version Teaching the Law of Moses. Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 Not Doing His Will Or teaching His New Testament Doctrine John 6:38 John 7:16 these Three false teaching Owe=MEE-GOES have Jesus teaching New testament Doctrine, saving Gentiles before the Cross even though Jesus sais No OMEE-GOES. John 4:22 Amos 3:2.Jesus revealing New Testament Doctrine during the Mosaic Age, because these books were written after the Cross. Ephesians 3:3-5 even though Paul Disagrees With them Whole Heartily.They have Jesus Building His New Covenant Church in Mathew 16:18 because of a Short Range Prophesy verses A Long Range Short In there Heads, and before Jesus Church or Kingdom arrives in Acts 2.John the end of The Law Instead of Jesus because of Luke 16:16 Verses Mathew 11:12-13even though Jesus is The End Of the Law Romans 10:4. So they come up with this traditional Mumbo Jumbo trying to Make Jesus something Other than what the scriptures Actually teach.They falsely claim We are out of reality when they have been Dumb ed Down to believe there Non Sense.They laugh at there own Ignorance because they refuse a Love of The New Covenant truth, and are sent Strong delusion as You can Clearly see by there Foolish replies.2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. they have John 3:3-6 as New Testament Doctrine, well then where is anyone born again in Mathew-John Slick Boys, Please Show us that Passage? Did Nicodemus Know how To Be Born again there Slick Boys? Ephesians 3:3-5 sais a great Big No.These Slick boys are turned up side down and back words with there devil heresy teaching Baloney.
If we are To Observe All Jesus Commanded Slick Ome-Goes
Mathew 28:20 hint Boys this was After The Cross.Acts 1:1-3 You know where Jesus spent 40 Days teaching all HIS NEW COVENANT COMMANDS.
2 John 9-11 Verses John 7:16 Well now Remember all that Jesus Commanded Right Slick Boys. How Bout Mathew 8:4 Don’t give Me that traditional Pick and Choose Baloney, and Get to it Boys Obey This Command. HA HA Mathew 6:2 Get to it Boys All Jesus Commanded Show us Some New Testament Alms. HA HA.John 13:1-17 Grab a towel Boys and wash My Dirty feet. HA HA Mathew 10:5-6 Don’t go to Yourselves Slick Boys Cause Jesus commanded the Jews not to do that so Remember All Jesus Commanded Right Slick Boys. HA HA.
How bout John 12:48 slick Boys are We going to Be Judged By Jesus Old Covenant Words Or Jews Still Under The Law? Remember Jesus Did Not Speak On His Own Initiative John 12:49 Only What God The Father Revealed To Him, So Now Don’t Go To Yourselves Mathew 10:5-6 Wash Some Dirty Feet John 13:1-17 Even Though This Gospel Is Not For You, And Jesus Is Talking About The End Of The Mosaic Age And Israel Only.Mathew 15:24 The New Testament age is Not here yet, and Jesus is Not Doing His Will or Doctrine John 6:38 John 7:16 according to Three Foolish Owe-Mee-Goes Christians will Be Judged By Jesus Old Covenant Words To Israel Only Right Slick Boys.How Bout Acts 2-Revelation 22 The Perfect Law Of Liberty James 1:25 I Be That Is What Judges Us Today Slick Boys.James 2:12 You know this side of the Cross Acts 2:42 Jesus New Testament Doctrine That They CONTINUED STEADFASTLY IN. 2 John 9-11 Verses John 7:16 Bang Bang Out Goes Your Traditional Lights.
Mickey
Hi All, again, you add me to Mr Skidmore, and Now Dan Billingsly, witch by the way you can’t even spell his name right. There is clear cut Brothers, Satan has you in his grips, the sad thing is you allow it to happen. I have asked Norm to Please show me anywhere in the new Testament of Acts 2 were the apostles quote Jesus’ teachings from before the cross, Norm could only give me 2, and that was not even it. You guys are Campbell and Stone people, Now tell me i am wrong? I have much more of a background about what you teach then you do, I was once in your doctrine shoes.. your colleges has sent you down to the road of hell, and all the money you spent with it. you belong to a system, Not of Christ. Romans 7:4 Romans 10:4 “But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness;” 1 Cor 1:23, while you preach Jesus as Messiah, Baby Jesus, Jesus to the Jews Only Matthew 1:21 than you Mix that Gospel all into One Big jumble web, than add it that Gospel to Paul’s clear cut teaching “6 ¶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 ¶ For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” Gal 1:10 you guys are fools! Now, come back and say I am wrong there as well..
So, Daniel, who showed you the truth and saved you from the error that we are still in? Was it Dan Billingsly? It was, wasn’t it. Where did you first hear it taught and from who? Because you said you were where we are now, so who showed you the right way? Tell us please.
Thank Norm for asking me, First you need to study The New Testament of Acts 2, and not live in Old Covenant History. I got my teachings from the Apostles Doctrine, See, they never preached a System, Like Church of Christ people do, ” But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness” 1Cor 1:23. I have seen Dan Billingsly teachings, He to is a Campbell and Stone Junkie like yourself Norm, But Dan does teach the covenants right. Now you are thinking, “it’s funny, I never heard of such a teaching until Dan Billingsly came along” LOL, My thoughts to Norm. No, This was always taught, the problem is, we have been blind sided by a system called “Church of Christ” <–Not the Lord's Church of Campbell and Stone restoration movement. as for me, and Norm, let's be real now, our Bible colleges tell us, and trains our minds to believe in only One thing, Man! Not God. " let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That you might be justified in your sayings, and might overcome when you are judged" Romans 3:4 I debated Terry W Benton, He to is blinded Like you are Norm, when I started this, it had to do with the term "Institute the Lord's supper" and that word is not Of God, but of Man, Men of the second century, I laid it out for you Norm, you said "I never followed them" But oh you do, that's what those Bible College Teaches on the History of the Bible. 1952 a Brother (Elder) as well did what the apostles Preached, Long Before Mr Billingsly.. Oh Norm, I preach One Church, One Faith, One Baptism, your problem is, you teach "Church of Christ" <–Campbell & Stone, Romans 16:16 is Not "Church of Christ" It's Churches of Christ, a calling to the One Church, But you all named it Church of Christ, Campbell and Stone are paying a heavy price, and your following them.
Norm why do You pick On just Daniel?
Can You not Refute My Sound thrashing of Your damnable heresies? Deal with all The thrashing I gave You dude.
I Await Your reply to all My last comments Although You cannot refute them, and You keep blowing hot air. Deal with My last several replies Refute them I Dare You.Get with The Program Prove Me Wrong I DARE YOU.
Mickey
Don’t worry, Mickey. I’ll get to you shortly. It’s just easier to get Dan to come unhinged and make your side look bad.
How about I get us all together to do a live netcast. Would you guys be will to do that? Mark, Vince, could you guys do that? You will need a web cam, mic and Google account. We’ll use Google+ Hangout On Air to broadcast live on YouTube and this website. What do you say Dan and Mickey?
Mickey said:
“Heed the Dire warnings of Jesus New Testament while You still can.John 7:16 Verses
2 John 9-11 These passages cannot Harmonize.”
This is to easy.
Again Mickey, you do err not knowing the scripture.
Joh 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
Are you actually saying “the apostles doctrine” is NOT the “doctrine of the Lord”?
Ac 2:42 ¶ And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Ac 13:12 Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.
Norm,
the live netcast would be great if you can get Dan and Mickey to come out of the closet.
Ok, let’s see here. You are debating whether or not the four Gospel accounts of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are part of New Testament doctrine? Isn’t the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and how it completely saves us from our sins, and gives us the way to heaven, the whole point of the NT? If so, how can the four Gospel accounts not be part of NT doctrine?
Also, does any part of the Gospel accounts contradict any part of the rest of the NT? It’s my simple understanding that NO part of the Bible contradicts another part. If the Bible doesn’t contradict itself then what difference does it make if the Gospel accounts are in the Old or New Testament? Besides, the plan/way of salvation is the same in the Gospel accounts as it is in the rest of the NT. And, that plan is the same for EVERYBODY. If it’s not the same then you make more than one way to heaven. Jesus said, before the cross, “I am the Way, the Truth, the Life, no man cometh to the Father but by Me.” That means there is only ONE way to heaven and it’s the same way in the Gospel accounts and the rest of the New Testamnent.
Just a few thoughts from a humble, simple mind.
there No Doubt you have a simple mind, it’s just the fact you do not get it. Have you not been reading these Post? Norm, you still never answered my question on the Last Passover in Matthew 26..
Daniel, if you are rude to my readers again I will ban you from this discussion.
Norm, I am not being rude, you are just not answering my questions. I am sorry JsBrown, that was not to be rude to you Sir, I was just saying the most simple questions and Norm has not answered them.. Thanks Norm, and Sorry Mr Brown..
See! You can be short and concise. Ask me your question like that and I’ll respond to it. I’m tired of reading your rambling that makes my head hurt trying to makes sense of it. Thanks!
You are forgiven Daniel. I didn’t mean to insinuate that I was not very smart with the simple mind comment. Just that I was trying to make my argument simple and short. Not long, drawn out, and over people’s heads.
Yes, I’ve been trying to read these posts when I can. I just have very little time and attention span so these long posts lose me after a while. Again, I’m not saying I’m dumb, I just have a short attention span. I’m actually quite intelligent.
At any rate, speaking of not answering simple questions, I noticed that you, nor anyone else, answered my simple questions either.
Daniel, I trashed your last post because:
1) It was way, way too long.
2) Who in this post is answering to the title of Campbellite? I haven’t seen anyone using the term Campbellite but you and, certainly no one answering to that name. You are making claims, building straw men, that have nothing at all to do with this discussion. I know for a fact that me and Mark reject the such a title and have made the case for why such a title in no way applies to us at all. I know we have both proven that on live TV. And, I’m pretty sure that I could say the same thing about Vince.
You and Mickey need to get to the point and quit these long rambling nonsensical posts that nobody wants to read, or even could read if they wanted to. I have asked numerous times from an example of something I teach from the Gospels that IS NOT New Testament doctrine. I’m not posting any more nonsense. I think I have given you and Mickey both plenty of space to make your case and everyone can see very clearly what you are getting at. Now, answer my question in a clear and concise, that means short and to the point, manner.
Something like, “You teach [enter a passage from the Gospels] as New Testament doctrine and its not. Therefore, you are a false teacher.” That would be clear and concise and I could deal with it without having to dig around in all the dirt you’ve been slinging trying to find something coherent enough to respond to.
Thanks!
Mark Mark Mark
Whatever Will I do with you Dude.Du Hello Mark I been trying to get through that thick scull of yours that YES AMEN The Apostles Doctrine Is Jesus New Covenant Doctrine.Before the Cross it Was Not Jesus Doctrine John 7:16 HELLO.
Quit with holding My thrashing post Norm.
Put them out there for all to see.I told You clearly Mathew 18:16-17 was Old Testament. Read Deuteronomy 19:15
How bout those two or three witnesses in the Law there Norm. You keep ignoring John 7:16. If Jesus is NOT TEACHING HIS DOCTRINE, well common sense sais it is not New Testament.That short enough Norm. Post My reply to Mark.
“All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:15, NKJV)
Please read my other post regarding your attempt to say Matthew 18:16-17 is Old Testament doctrine. But, I didn’t refer to the two or three witnesses there because I didn’t actually think you would be so foolish as to say that’s not New Testament doctrine (cf. 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19). Or do you actually think that there is no such thing as universal doctrine, i.e. doctrine that God has always bound on His people in every dispensation. So is your proof that Matthew 18:16-17 is Old Testament doctrine really two or three witnesses, really?
You’re making this too easy. Why don’t you just go ahead and abandon your false doctrine and follow the New Testament of Jesus Christ. That would be Matthew thru Revelation, Mickey.
Folks watch
How Slick Norm hides behind His made up Doctrine He calls it Universal Doctrine.He is Really getting Desperate Now Folks.Norm cannot Deal with these passages and He knows it so He makes up universal Doctrine Wow Norm You talk about ridiculous. You bet Yu Yep universal Doctrine folks. I guess Romans 3:19-21 is Universal Right Norm? I guess Romans 10:1-6 is universal right Norm? I guess My Doctrine is not Mine is universal right norm, but since 2 John 9-11 Is Jesus New Testament Doctrine, even though Mathew-John before the Cross is not Jesus New Covenant Doctrine it is all universal according to Your Jumbled up mess.
Well, I already answered your attempt to make Jn. 7:16 and 2 Jn. 9-11 contradict by pointing out what Jesus said to His disciples when He was telling them what the Holy Spirit would do for them when He came (Jn. 16:15).
So, basically, what you’re saying is that since it is called the doctrine of God in one place and the doctrine of Christ in another place that they cannot be referring to the same thing? So the doctrine of God, the Apostles doctrine and the doctrine of Christ are all different things? Oh, no! Wait, you said the Apostles doctrine (Acts 2:42) is the same thing as the doctrine of Christ. So it is only the doctrine of God that is different from the Apostles doctrine and the doctrine of Christ, because you couldn’t have three different terms for the same thing. Like minister, preacher, evangelist – bah, ridiculous. Or elders, pastors, overseers. How absurd to think the Bible would actually use different terms for the same thing.
Are you seriously saying that there is not such thing as doctrine that was in force in every dispensation? Surely you cannot be saying that! I already gave the verses where two or three witnesses was applied in both Old and New Testaments, even according to your twisted definition. Did you read them? (2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19). Is the principle of two or three witnesses not New Testament doctrine? What about Romans 13:8-10, are these things not both Old Testament and New Testament doctrine? If that is where you are then your hobby horse has carried you much further into the dark than I thought.
I’m not even sure what your trying to say with Rom. 3:19-21 and 10:1-6, where Paul is dealing with Jewish converts (Rom. 2:1, 17) who were trying to cling to elements of the Law of Moses. What is the point you are trying to make from those passages?
Norm You need some serious help Boy. I have never seen so much ignorance in My life, and You call Yourself a Gospel preacher?
Mick I don’t understand where You are going with Romans 3:19-21 Of coarse You don’t You don’t understand alot of things Norm. It is like I am trying to debate a Child or better a Kindergarten Pupil. If You cannot understand Romans 3:19-21 Romans 10:1-5. John 7:16 verses 2 John 9-11 You need SERIOUS help.
Mickey, I didn’t say that I didn’t understand Rom. 3:19-21 and 10:1-5. I understand pretty well. What I said, as anyone who can read can clearly see, was that I didn’t what point you were trying to make from these passages. If your point is that Paul was dealing with Jewish converts on their problems with letting go of the Law then I’m with you. But if you are somehow trying to make these passages say that what Jesus taught prior to Acts 2 is Old Testament doctrine then you are twisting Scripture to your own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16).
I already answered your ridiculous claim that John 7:16 and 2 Jn. 9-11 somehow contradict each other. If you want to ignore my response that is up to you.
Mickey, you really should take more time and be more careful with your posts.
“All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:15, NKJV)
Mickey says:
Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
The Holy Spirit guided men to say that it was “his doctrine.” I will take their word over yours.
Mt 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
Mt 22:33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
Mr 1:22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
Mr 4:2 And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,
Mr 11:18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.
Mr 12:38 And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,
Lu 4:32 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power.
Joh 18:19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
Mickey, Notice this scripture:
1Co 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
Mickey, Simply because Paul said his judgements were not his own, does that mean he played no part in making judgements????
Norm, I can say the same thing back to you. This is getting Know where. You are Campbell and Stone. They teach 4 Gospels when their is Only One In the New Testament of Acts 2. Once again, WE are UNDER the WILL of Christ, Not the Old written word. You kids are lost in your ignorance of the scriptures and you Know it Norm. I would Love a Public debate with you, I will eat your Lunch and drink your Milk. You are stone Cold Bible college junkie.. anytime.. Norm, Just you and I and a Room full.. Let’s get at it Kid…
OK, Daniel. Use the contact form to send me an email and we’ll arrange the live webcast to have done with this. Any others that would be involved, I can have up to six people in the broadcast and as many viewers as YouTube and the Internet can provide. But I will say this, you start in with your Campbell Stone Bible College Junkie nonsense and I will cut you off so quick it’ll be like you weren’t even there. Just state your case and lets see where it stands in the light of Scripture. It won’t take me long enough to need a lunch and milk to put this to rest.