John 3:16 says Jesus was sent to be the savior of all mankind. But Jesus' own words and actions prove otherwise.

Bonnie

Super Member
oh ok. Then it means the statement "whoever believes in him shall not perish..." also doesn't really mean all who believe in him. The problem is just moved to the other part of the verse.
There is a difference of opinion among some Christians. Some think Jesus died only for the "elect" while others, including me, think He died for the sins of the whole world, as 1 John 2:2 says. The reason not all are saved is that they reject Jesus Christ and that gift of the forgiveness of sins, and salvation in Him. However, believing or not believing in limited atonement are not salvific issues. And we both still believe in the core doctrines of Christianity. I will not argue with anyone about that, however. Ever. Since it is not a salvific issue.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Jesus came to save us from our sins by dying on the cross. Before the fall, Adam was perfect and had perfect fellowship with God.
Actually Adam didnt know God or His SPirit at all until he gained that knowledge . God demand of us all that we become like Him to know this difference and it started in Adam Gen 3:22.

Jesus was the very same, he didnt know God or His heaven until God came to him by His SPirit and opend all of His heaven to that man, you can read that in Matt 3:16.

You and I are no different at all from having to receieve from God that what these did. Moses recieve the same SPirit, inofrmation, the same. Abraham recieved the same information by Gods SPirit, 120 in an upper room recieved the same information.

The first man Adam was of flesh, just as Moses, Abraham, Jesus, 120, was. The secobnd man adam was of Gods SPirit just as Adam, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, 120, and we all , and no one, are who recieve information to become like Him, , and no one comes to the Father but this way,. no one, not Adam, not Moses abraham, not Jesus nor you. He is the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father any other way. Jesus was very clear about that.
Abraham was the ancestor of the Jewish people, through whom the Messiah would come. Moses came to lead the children of Israel to the promised land, and to give the people the Law. All that was fulfilled in Christ Jesus and His sacrifice of Himself on the cross. Now we can have the ultimate promised land after death--heaven, with Jesus Christ.
Abrahm recieve the same SPirit Adam did, Moses did, Jesus did.
Jesus did not come to show us a "better way of understanding". Jesus came to suffer and die for our sins, on the cross, so we can have forgiveness of sins and be reconciled to God.'
Sure he did Heb 10:20 by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; Good News Translation He opened for us a new way, a living way, through the curtain--that is, through his own body. GOD'S WORD® Translation Jesus has opened a new and living way for us to go through the curtain.
Honestly, why do you make so complicated what is so simple?
God who is Love isnt complicated at all in fact so simple that man in his beliefs complicates it throught their religious minds. What can be more simple that a God who is Love and man is the temple of Him? Love never changes, is the same yesterday as today and will be the same tomorrow. Love is perfect and never fails that is why Jesus commanded that you be ye therefore perfect even as your father inheaven is perfect. Ask just about anhyone in this forum if thay are perfect and see what kind of a responce you get. The fact is they do not know Gods perfection at all or they would be prefect as He is perfect He in you and you in Him a sone. That is so simple but you say it is so complicated.

Do you know why that is so complicated for you? I do.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Jesus' ministry on earth was brief. It only lasted for a little over 3 years. In His earthly ministry, He came for the lost sheep of Israel. He knew full well that after Him, the Jews would take the Gospel message to the Gentiles. In John 10:16, He said He had other sheep not of this fold, who would listen to His voice, and they too would be u der one Shepherd. He meant the Gentiles.

He healed the Gentile Centurian's servant, and drove a demon out of a Gentile woman's daughter, who wanted only a crumb of healing for her. The greatest praise He ever gave to anyone for faith was to these 2 Gentiles. NOT to Jews.

In Luke 4, Jesus shows the people in the synagogue that God cares even for Gentiles. He pointed out that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, but during that terrible drought, God did not send him to an Israelite woman, but to a Gentile woman in Sidon, to stay with her. He then reminded them that Naaman the leper, a Syrian, and thus, a Gentile, was cleansed of leprosy--while lepers in Israel remained sick. His listeners were so furious at this, that they tried to throw Jesus off a cliff. They were outraged at the idea that God cares even for Gentiles.

Jesus sent Paul to preach the Gospel mainly to Gentiles. Peter brought the Gospel to a Roman soldier and his family and friends.

So no, Jesus did not come to suffer and die ONLY for the Jews, "not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2 :22)... For "God so loved the WORLD..." Not just the Jews.

Never, ever isolate Bible verses, but take the entire Biblical witness into consideration. Then you will get the whole picture.:)
Something more, Skorpion...


This brings up a couple of things I had not thought of, as to what He meant by "lost sheep of Israel". Partly it was to show that He was fulfilling prophecy. I hope you will take the time to read the link. Thanks and God bless you. :)
 

Timket

Active member
Jesus did not come to show us a "better way of understanding". Jesus came to suffer and die for our sins, on the cross, so we can have forgiveness of sins and be reconciled to God.

That brings a question to mind: Why, then, did he preach about morals? Why not just go to the Praetorium and say "I'm greater than Caesar" and be crucified?

Thank you in advance for your answer!
 

Timket

Active member
Some think Jesus died only for the "elect" while others, including me, think He died for the sins of the whole world, as 1 John 2:2 says

I believe Theo1689 would say this is an "unbiblical opinion" - but you're the wife of a pastor, you've surely been through decades of Bible studies and church services, and your seminary-trained husband also. So, who should Skorpion believe?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I believe Theo1689 would say this is an "unbiblical opinion" - but you're the wife of a pastor, you've surely been through decades of Bible studies and church services, and your seminary-trained husband also. So, who should Skorpion believe?

First of all, it seems pretty lame (not to mention unChristian) to try to pit two good Christian friends against each other, especially since you rudely IGNORED what Bonnie said about it:

Bonnie said:
I will not argue with anyone about that, however. Ever. Since it is not a salvific issue.

As for which of us Skorpion should believe, you demonstrate yourself so ignorant that you apparently don't understand the fallacious argument of "appeal to authority".

If "Skorpion" wants to learn what the Bible teaches, the best way of learning that is to simply READ THE BIBLE himself, rather than blindly accepting what other people think.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Jesus came to save us from our sins by dying on the cross. Before the fall, Adam was perfect and had perfect fellowship with God.
Actually he didnt comne to save you at all he came that ye MIGHT be saved. All Jesus could do is be the example for gods salvation which is God manifest in you.

Yes Jesus can save you IF, IF, IF, you follow him to Gods salvation which is God manifest in you as He was manifest in Jesus.
Are you actually saved to be as He is with God manifest in you -- or are you saved because of a belief that says you are?
Abraham was the ancestor of the Jewish people, through whom the Messiah would come. Moses came to lead the children of Israel to the promised land, and to give the people the Law. All that was fulfilled in Christ Jesus and His sacrifice of Himself on the cross. Now we can have the ultimate promised land after death--heaven, with Jesus Christ.
Moses was just as Jesus, a type of Christ anointed of God. And like Jesus only 2 out of a million actually entered into the kingdom Moses reied to lead them to. Jesus didnt even have that many. Every single one of Jesus disciples flat out denied him to be identified with him in his trials and tribulations. Not one came to him. At least Mose has sucess with two.

You say you have the promise of the poromised land. Moses, Jesus, tried with their lives to lead people to it. But because of religious beliefs people seek a physical kingdom when in fact jesus was very cler that kingdom doesnt come with observation but is withn you.

It isnt a matter of going to a heaven for the sweet by and by -- it is a matter of living in it this day. The kingdom fo God really is within and it is that not very many believe Jesus that it is. Luke 17:20-21 They look for a physical kingdom instead of living it this day.

And guess what? 120 finally got that message and entered into it in an upper room. Who can hear it? Few who can.
Jesus did not come to show us a "better way of understanding". Jesus came to suffer and die for our sins, on the cross, so we can have forgiveness of sins and be reconciled to God.
Are you a sinner? If so how did God fail to take away your sin as He is capable of and sent jesus to show you what it is to be the righteousness of God who is without sin?

YHe can and does forgive you of sin but it is another matter to be cleansed from sin and born of God wich is impossible to be in sin. 1 John 3:9.
Honestly, why do you make so complicated what is so simple?
Again, complications are not from God, He semplifies His intent for man to be as He is and in His same image by His same SPirit be in you who was in Christ Jesus. that ios the only way one can know God at all. .
 

Timket

Active member
First of all, it seems pretty lame (not to mention unChristian) to try to pit two good Christian friends against each other, especially since you rudely IGNORED what Bonnie said about it:

Theo, I'm not trying to "pit" anyone against each other. I had a genuine question. I've seen your posts in the Arminian forum and I know you'd call this unbiblical. And I did read that part of Bonnie's post - but whether or not she believes the issue is salvific does not change the fact that she (as you said) "read the Bible herself to learn what the Bible teaches" and still came up with a different answer than you - one you have called unbiblical. So why is that?

Doesn't it undercut the notion that you can just study the Bible and will arrive at the correct understanding? If a Pastor's wife didn't, why should anyone be more certain they can?
 
Last edited:

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Jesus came to save us from our sins by dying on the cross. Before the fall, Adam was perfect and had perfect fellowship with God.
Actually he didnt comne to save you at all he came that ye MIGHT be saved. All Jesus could do is be the example for gods salvation which is God manifest in you.

Yes Jesus can save you IF, IF, IF, you follow him to Gods salvation which is God manifest in you as He was manifest in Jesus.
Are you actually saved to be as He is with God manifest in you -- or are you saved because of a belief that says you are?
Abraham was the ancestor of the Jewish people, through whom the Messiah would come. Moses came to lead the children of Israel to the promised land, and to give the people the Law. All that was fulfilled in Christ Jesus and His sacrifice of Himself on the cross. Now we can have the ultimate promised land after death--heaven, with Jesus Christ.
Moses was just as Jesus, a type of Christ anointed of God. And like Jesus only 2 out of a million actually entered into the kingdom Moses reied to lead them to. Jesus didnt even have that many. Every single one of Jesus disciples flat out denied him to be identified with him in his trials and tribulations. Not one came to him. At least Mose has sucess with two.

You say you have the promise of the poromised land. Moses, Jesus, tried with their lives to lead people to it. But because of religious beliefs people seek a physical kingdom when in fact jesus was very cler that kingdom doesnt come with observation but is withn you.

It isnt a matter of going to a heaven for the sweet by and by -- it is a matter of living in it this day. The kingdom fo God really is within and it is that not very many believe Jesus that it is. Luke 17:20-21 They look for a physical kingdom instead of living it this day.

And guess what? 120 finally got that message and entered into it in an upper room. Who can hear it? Few who can.
Jesus did not come to show us a "better way of understanding". Jesus came to suffer and die for our sins, on the cross, so we can have forgiveness of sins and be reconciled to God.
Are you a sinner? If so how did God fail to take away your sin as He is capable of and sent jesus to show you what it is to be the righteousness of God who is without sin?

YHe can and does forgive you of sin but it is another matter to be cleansed from sin and born of God wich is impossible to be in sin. 1 John 3:9.
Honestly, why do you make so complicated what is so simple?
Again, complications are not from God, He semplifies His intent for man to be as He is and in His same image by His same SPirit be in you who was in Christ Jesus. that ios the only way one can know God at all. .
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
And I did read that part of Bonnie's post - but whether or not she believes the issue is salvific does not change the fact that she (as you said) "read the Bible herself to learn what the Bible teaches" and still came up with a different answer than you - one you have called unbiblical. So why is that?

You have an incredibly simplistic (and IMO, naive) view. There is more to simply reading the text.

If you want to know why Bonnie came to the view she holds, you would best ask her, since I'm not a mind-reader. But she has already explained to you that she has no desire to argue the point, since (and I agree) it is not salvific.

I think you should stop trying to harass others trying to get them into discussions they have no desire to have.

Doesn't it undercut the notion that you can just study the Bible and will arrive at the correct understanding?

No, of course not.

If a Pastor's wife didn't, why should anyone be more certain they can?

I really have no desire getting into an argument with someone such as you who only wants to be contrary.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Theo, I'm not trying to "pit" anyone against each other. I had a genuine question. I've seen your posts in the Arminian forum and I know you'd call this unbiblical. And I did read that part of Bonnie's post - but whether or not she believes the issue is salvific does not change the fact that she (as you said) "read the Bible herself to learn what the Bible teaches" and still came up with a different answer than you - one you have called unbiblical. So why is that?

Doesn't it undercut the notion that you can just study the Bible and will arrive at the correct understanding? If a Pastor's wife didn't, why should anyone be more certain they can?

If you want to learn what the Bible teaches, but you think that actually reading the Bible is not a good way to do it, I'm sorry but I can't help your ridiculous position.
 

Timket

Active member
If you want to know why Bonnie came to the view she holds, you would best ask her
I did ask her (post 25).

You have an incredibly simplistic (and IMO, naive) view. There is more to simply reading the text.

I didn't say Bonnie only "read". I said that she "surely been through decades of Bible studies and church services, and [her] seminary-trained husband also."

I really have no desire getting into an argument with someone such as you who only wants to be contrary.

I said once and I'll say again: This is a genuine question. Because I really don't understand how you can promote this method as a way to gain knowledge when Bonnie used it and came to what you have called the "wrong answer". You have not yet given me an explanation for this seemingly incredible problem, which would totally undercut the credibility of your method.
 
Last edited:

Timket

Active member
If you want to learn what the Bible teaches, but you think that actually reading the Bible is not a good way to do it, I'm sorry but I can't help your ridiculous position.

I have never once said it was wrong to read the Bible. But I have said - and this forum is a blatantly obvious example of it - that thinking you (through individual study) can come up with the correct interpretation of the Bible is not at all guaranteed. For one, it's been tried over and over for the last 500 years and the results are clear. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all studied the Bible on their own and created 3 different theologies. Charles Taze Russell founded the "Dawn Bible Student Association" and ended up as the Jehovah's Witnesses.
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
I have never once said it was wrong to read the Bible. But I have said - and this forum is a blatantly obvious example of it - that thinking you (through individual study) can come up with the correct interpretation of the Bible is not at all guaranteed.

I have NEVER claimed that one can be "guaranteed" to have a perfect interpetetation of the Bible. So you seem to be trying to FORCE me to defend a view I don't even hold.

Please stop harassing me.

For one, it's been tried over and over for the last 500 years and the results are clear. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all studied the Bible on their own and created 3 different theologies. Charles Taze Russell founded the "Dawn Bible Student Association" and ended up as the Jehovah's Witnesses.

I never asked you for a lesson on "Church history".
Please stop harassing me.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I did ask her (post 25).



I didn't say Bonnie only "read". I said that she "surely been through decades of Bible studies and church services, and [her] seminary-trained husband also."

Bonnie is perfectly capable of speaking for herself.
She doesn't need you to speak on her behalf, and try to force her into discussions she has ALREADY told you she's not interested in engaging in.

You seem to be oblivious to proper Christian manners. It is NOT appropriate to force yourself on people and try to force them into discussions that they didn't ask for, and have explicitly told you they aren't interested in.

The proper way to act is to give a "general" (i.e. not directed at anyone in particular, not "calling out" anyone) comment or question, and OTHERS can choose if they want to respond. If they don't respond to you, they proper response is NOT for you to "harass" them into responding when they have no desire to.

"No" means "no".
Learn the lesson.

"No" means "no".

I said once and I'll say again: This is a genuine question.

I don't care.
When people who harass me claim to be asking "genuine questions", I tend to lose my empathy.

Because I really don't understand how you can promote this method as a way to gain knowledge

I'm sorry for your lack of understanding.
Please stop harassing me.

when Bonnie used it and came to what you have called the "wrong answer". Y

I'm sorry.
I'll have to remember for future that you think I'm not allowed to have an opinion.

I'm also concerned about what kind of (lack of) morals you have that you think it appropriate to try to get Christians to attack each other.

ou have not yet given me an explanation

I don't recall owing you one.
Who do you think you are, that you think I am your slave, and you are my Lord, and I have to obey your commands?

I have one Lord.
His name is Jesus Christ.
And you ain't Him.

for this seemingly incredible problem,

I'm sorry you find it "incredible". I don't.
I'm sorry you find it a "problem". I don't.

which would totally undercut the credibility of your method.

You can hold whatever opinion you want.
I really don't care.
Please stop harassing me and trying to force me into discussions.
 

Timket

Active member
I have one Lord.
His name is Jesus Christ.
And you ain't Him.

Oh I certainly agree I'm not Him! 😄 I am the Chief of all Sinners. I don't lay claim to any virtue.

When people who harass me claim to be asking "genuine questions", I tend to lose my empathy.

I'm not here to harass anyone - I noticed two things that I don't understand and asked Bonnie for clarification. I also "thanked her in advance for her answer" (post 24) - that's not exactly a harassing tone! :LOL:


I have NEVER claimed that one can be "guaranteed" to have a perfect interpretation of the Bible.

I believe you stated on the other thread that you arrive at correct doctrine (not maybe correct or possibly correct) by "studying" the Bible:

(Source):
So that is how you determine correct doctrine.
You study the Bible.
(Source):
[So how do I know who] is interpreting Scripture correctly?
Read it.
As Jesus says, "Search the Scriptures!"





I'm sorry you find it "incredible". I don't.
I'm sorry you find it a "problem". I don't.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it seems clear that the results are in and it doesn't work and hasn't worked. Ten people on this board use this method and nine of them end up with "unbiblical opinions." The Protestants implemented it and now have thousands of denominations instead of the one they should've had if the Bible really was so plain and straightforward. This seems to make clear that studying the Bible on one's own is not the surest or safest method.
The Bible only called one thing the "foundation of truth" and it was the Church (1 Tim. 3:15) which Jesus Himself founded and declared it would never be defeated (Matt 16:18).

God bless you!
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
I'm not here to harass anyone - I noticed two things that I don't understand and asked Bonnie for clarification. I also "thanked her in advance for her answer" (post 24).

Please stop talking about Bonnie.
It's rude.

I believe you stated on the other thread that you arrive at correct doctrine (not maybe correct or possibly correct) by "studying" the Bible:

I stated that ONE arrives at correct doctrine by studying the Bible.
One certainly doesn't arrive at correct doctrine by IGNORING the Bible!

You agreed with me, and now you are MISREPRESENTING me, and trying to argue against a point that you initially AGREED with!

Do you now understand why it's pointless to play your stupid games?
Please stop responding to me.

You are entitled to your opinion,

Thank you!

but it seems clear that the results are in and it doesn't work and hasn't worked.

<Chuckle>
It's amusing to watch megalomaniacs proclaim themselves perfectly right and everyone who disagrees with them wrong.

You don't seem to understand that you offer nothing but OPINION.
It must be nice to think you're infallible all the time.

Ten people on this board use this method and nine of them end up with "unbiblical opinions." The Protestants implemented it and now have thousands of denominations instead of the one they should've had if the Bible really was so plain and straightforward. That conclusively disproves the idea that studying the Bible on one's own is not the surest or safest method.

Your false conclusion errantly assumes that the Bible is the ONLY consideration they used. Try to care to prove your ASSUMPTION?

(That's a rhetorical question, so no response is required nor desired.)

The Bible only called one thing the "foundation of truth" and it was the Church (1 Tim. 3:15) which Jesus Himself founded and declared it would never be defeated (Matt 16:18).

Yes, and that's another verse you apparently don't even understand.
The church is "the foundation of truth".
The church is NOT "the truth".
The church is "the foundation" of the truth.
The church HOLDS UP the truth.
And Jesus said the truth is found in the BIBLE.
 

Timket

Active member
Thank you for your reply, Theo, which I will read and contemplate. I will stop talking to you now as you requested. May God bless you, unworthy though I am to ask Him for anything.
 
Top