Goshen360: @ Bidam,

I asked you to explain this but you refused and was going in circles,

V



Galatians 4:4
Amplified Bible (AMP)

But when the proper time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born subject to [the regulations of] the Law,

If He, Christ was born subject to the regulations of the law, Is that the NT

Second,

Hebrews 9:15-20
Amplified Bible (AMP)

15 [Christ, the Messiah] is therefore the Negotiator and Mediator of an [entirely] new agreement (testament, covenant), so that those who are called and offered it may receive the fulfillment of the promised everlasting inheritance—since a death has taken place which rescues and delivers and redeems them from the transgressions committed under the [old] first agreement.

16 For where there is a [last] will and testament involved, the death of the one who made it must be established,

17 For a will and testament is valid and takes effect only at death, since it has no force or legal power as long as the one who made it is alive.

18 So even the [old] first covenant (God’s will) was not inaugurated and ratified and put in force without the shedding of blood.

19 For when every command of the Law had been read out by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of slain calves and goats, together with water and scarlet wool and with a bunch of hyssop, and sprinkled both the Book (the roll of the Law and covenant) itself and all the people,

20 Saying these words: This is the blood that seals and ratifies the agreement (the testament, the covenant) which God commanded [me to deliver to] you.

Bidam, can you please explain how the "contents" of Matthew to John (though written AFTER the death and resurrection of Christ we both agree) is NT following the text from Hebrews and answer the above question (in RED, embolden and quoted from my previous post) please. There is NO error in what I teach here, you only need to understand the truth and then I will explain further on the teachings and words of Christ in Matthew to John.

i have already explained what ur heb 9:15-17 is saying may be u re blind, obstinate or hell bent in winning dis argument i dnt understand..any way i will expose ur heretical teachings for wat it is worth..all dis very insidious teachings are propounded by ur heretical father dan billingsly.. U tactical dodge d salient points i raised about Christ teachings...but lemme ask u again.. Another question..when John the baptiser taught repentance and baptism..what old testament law did Jesus obey when he was baptised?

Bidam: i have already explained what ur heb 9:15-17 is saying may be u re blind, obstinate or hell bent in winning dis argument i dnt understand..

I went through all your posts on this thread to see if I missed something. The only place I found that "looks like" you you said you already explained what Hebrews 9:15-17 was saying is what I quoted below and you obviously didn't explain anything. The issue you have is, you can't seems to parallel these scriptures together. Again, I will explain the teachings of Christ and why I was quoting the changes Christ was making from the laws of Moses to the new testament standard which will effect into the NT AFTER his DEATH. A testament IS NOT IN EFFECT UNTIL DEATH OF THE TESTATOR IS PROVED AND CHRIST IS THE MEDIATOR IS THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Bidam: u still have not yet explained how the books of mathew-john are old testaments..pardon my ignorance but based on my understanding of the scripture u quoted..the sayings of jesus or what jesus taught in mathew 5:21-48.(He was changing the law of moses and bringing His own laws)..were not written until after He died. Yet what you are trying to point out is that the events occured and the words were spoken while he was alive(under the law)..pardon me but that is obvious na...for the words that Jesus spoke while he was on earth to be be in FULL EFFECT, HE had to die. The scripture is saying i have a personal last will and testament(mathew-john). They are words that i have declared while i am alive..however they do not take effect until i die.. Look at mat 19:3-9, jesus added to and changed the words of moses..infact He proclaimed that His words, while on earth would be used in d judgement(john12:48). If mathew-john are part of the old law, you have to condemn Jesus as a false teacher who added to God's words and we know He is not.

Bidam: any way i will expose ur heretical teachings for wat it is worth..all dis very insidious teachings are propounded by ur heretical father dan billingsly..

I really and honestly await you to expose me, please do! I will stay with you on this thread and not necessarily winning an argument as against your assumption and false claim about me. We will teach and our readers will understand, okay. Besides, I don't know what the heck the name you mentioned is. I take personal time to do my studies.

Bidam: U tactical dodge d salient points i raised about Christ teachings...but lemme ask u again.. Another question..when John the baptiser taught repentance and baptism..what old testament law did Jesus obey when he was baptised?

I didn't dodge any question even though you are asking another one to derail the point we are teaching here. We will get to the teachings of Christ later and we will tie everything together. Don't be in a haste bro. You did dodged this question and pretended you never saw it,

Goshen360:

The question is, DID THE EVENTS RECORDED ALSO HAPPENED AFTER THE DEATH/RESURRECTION OF CHRIST OR DURING I gave you biblical text right in front of you and you denied such truth. I seriously need you to answer this question please!

Again, I await you to answer this question and really expose me please.

Goshen360:

I went through all your posts on this thread to see if I missed something. The only place I found that "looks like" you you said you already explained what Hebrews 9:15-17 was saying is what I quoted below and you obviously didn't explain anything. The issue you have is, you can't seems to parallel these scriptures together. Again, I will explain the teachings of Christ and why I was quoting the changes Christ was making from the laws of Moses to the new testament standard which will effect into the NT AFTER his DEATH. A testament IS NOT IN EFFECT UNTIL DEATH OF THE TESTATOR IS PROVED AND CHRIST IS THE MEDIATOR IS THE NEW TESTAMENT.






I really and honestly await you to expose me, please do! I will stay with you on this thread and not necessarily winning an argument as against your assumption and false claim about me. We will teach and our readers will understand, okay. Besides, I don't know what the heck the name you mentioned is. I take personal time to do my studies.




I didn't dodge any question even though you are asking another one to derail the point we are teaching here. We will get to the teachings of Christ later and we will tie everything together. Don't be in a haste bro. You did dodged this question and pretended you never saw it,



Again, I await you to answer this question and really expose me please.

NOW TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND TELL ME IF I AM WRONG:
There is an insidious teaching on the rise that says because the New Covenant of Christ was established at the cross (this part is correct, Heb 9:15-17) the teachings of Christ spoken prior to the cross are Old Testament and were done away with the rest of Old Law. It's correct that the New Covenant went into force at the death of Christ but we can't agree that all of Jesus' teachings prior to the cross were therefore only part of the Old Covenant. The false teaching to erase many of Jesus' teachings is motivated not in the interest of sound exposition, but rather by a desire to strip away the teaching by Jesus on divorce and remarriage - because it falls chronologically before the cross.

This teaching is just one more deception of Satan as there's no shortage of counterfeits, but there's but one truth. Dan Billingsly is a champion of this grievous error.

Billingsly pretending to be correcting a Catholic error thrust upon us all, he claims that the New Testament title page is the big problem. If only the title page was at the end of the Gospel at the crucifixion of Christ, all of the confusion would be erased. But this is smoke and mirrors by a talented Sophist.

The graphic below depicts the Biblical view to understand the correct view of the Old and New Law. The Old in effect until the cross. The New being ratified at the cross of Jesus, but it was introduced during the ministry of Jesus. The point we see is that what Jesus introduced concerning the Gospel and His Kingdom is not nullified and made obsolete at the cross. This simple truth is ignored by Mr. Billingsly.



We learn from Jesus' words that chronology - whatever is before the cross is Old Law teaching and whatever is after the cross is New Testament teaching - is not the only factor for determining what is Old or New Testament teaching. Consider a few important verses that establish that it's more sophisticated that Billingsley would like to admit:

Hebrews 9:15-17 the covenant or testament of a man is ratified when a man dies, but it is written while he lives - i.e. Jesus' spoke of New Testament things in the Gospels prior to the cross. This passage alone refutes the premise of the error. True to form, the New Testament of Jesus Christ was being written and communicated during the lifetime ministry of Jesus. This is an inconvenient truth for Billingsly and his handful of defenders.

Consider also Luke 16:16 that says the gospel of the kingdom was being preached from the time of John the Baptist. It would not be ratified until the death of the testator, but it was being proclaimed before the cross.
See also what Jesus said about church discipline before the cross, Mt 18:15-18.
15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." - Mt 18:15-18
Since the church was established after the cross, this passage on church discipline is clearly New Testament teaching smack dab in the middle of the Gospels.

See that in John 3:3-5 the "new birth" was already declared though it is clearly New Covenant teaching being previewed before the cross, see also 1 Pt 1:3, 23.

See also Mt 28:20. Though these words are spoken after the cross and the ratification of Christ's new covenant, is it reasonable to conclude that disciples only obey Jesus' words uttered after the cross? I say no.
Though the Gospels do in fact include much exposition on the Old Covenant, they also include teachings by Jesus concerning His New Covenant which was ratified at the cross.

See Luke 10:7 where Jesus teaches the validity of the preacher being supported for his labor. And compare that with 1 Timothy 5:18 where Paul shows that Jesus' teaching is New Testament teaching.

So we see that the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ, with particulars of the New Covenant that would be ratified at His death, was being taught and commanded prior to the cross in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Consequence of the truth that the Gospels contain New Testament teachings....

1. Mt 19 teaching on divorce and remarriage is valid - especially since the teaching is based on God's design and intent from the beginning of creation.
2. Mt 10:24-33 and the command to confess Jesus is valid as New Testament teaching.
3. Mt 16:24 and requirement to take up your cross is valid still.
4. Lk 13:3 and command to repent is valid.

Keep alert for this insidious teaching is spreading. Dan Billingsly is sending his teaching to churches across the country asking church secretaries to pass on his message to the Elders and Preachers. But his teaching is insidious and dangerous. I pray that I do a little to correct this error before it spreads.

@GOSHEN, This is where you got your heresy from: Are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Old Testament Books?

By Justin Johnson
Most every casual Bible student would know that the New Testament section of the Bible begins with the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. We may also know that the origin of this division comes from the different languages from which they were translated.

However, naming the Greek portion of Scripture as the New Testament could possibly be the origin of many problems people have in understanding Jesus’ earthly ministry. For according to the Scripture, the majority of these four narratives of the life of our Lord Jesus are indeed Old Testament.

Hebrews 9:15-17 says:

“And for this cause he is the mediator of the New Testament that BY MEANS OF DEATH, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also OF NECESSITY BE THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR. For A TESTAMENT IS OF FORCE AFTER MEN ARE DEAD: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.”

Hebrews 9:15-17 explains that it was after Jesus’ death that the New Testament took force. Galatians 4:4 explains:

“…when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, MADE UNDER THE LAW,…”

The Mosaic Law was the order of the Old Covenant. According to Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born and lived under the Old Covenant. It was not until his death that the New Testament could be made available. Since the large majority of each book and Jesus’ entire earthly ministry occurred before his death then it should be considered that these four books are still in the context of the Old Covenant.

This would explain why Paul wrote that Jesus ‘was a minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers’ (Romans 15:.

This would also explain why Jesus operated according to the Old Testament:

Was circumcised (Luke 2:27)
Water Baptized (Matt 3:15)
Taught Conditional forgiveness (Matt 6:14)
Taught Levitical Sacrifice for Healing (Matt 8:4)
“Follow the commandments” (Mark 10:17-19)
“Obey the Pharisees” (Matt 23:2-3)
Observed feast days (Matt 26:17)
In order to better understand the Scriptures we need to understand the context of the passages we read. Therefore it is important to realize that the events leading up to the cross in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are under the Old Testament.

we all are learning and i took alot of time to research this matter...oga goshen can you pls explian all the points raised by this article?

Are Matthew, Mark, Luke, And John In The Old Testament
By: Brian A. Yeager

Jesus said: “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:21-26).

In the Scriptures above you can see that one’s salvation is dependent upon following that which Jesus spoke while He was on this earth. Furthermore, you can see that the Holy Spirit was going to bring to remembrance what Jesus had said while He was on earth. Folks this is consistent with the “Great Commission” (as it is called): “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Matthew 28:18-20).

We know that the Old Law was not done away with until after Jesus died (Romans 7:1-6 and Colossians 2:14). That being said, that does not mean that the teaching of our Lord was Old Testament doctrine (John 1:17). Not all things contained in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John directly apply to us today (i.e. Matthew 10:5-10 and Matthew 21:21). The same is true of some things written in the “epistles” (Acts 1:15-26, Acts 19:1-7, and I Corinthians 12:3-11). Does that mean the “epistles” are not part of the New Testament? When Jesus was on earth He was not teaching things that fell into the Old Testament. In fact, even prior to Jesus coming to this earth the Old Law had begun to be set aside. The Bible plainly says so and this is where we’re going to begin diving a little deeper into our study.

The Law And The Prophets Were Until John
“For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come… The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it” (Matthew 11:10-14 and Luke 16:16).

What Old Testament Law was fulfilled when John the baptizer taught repentance and baptism (Matthew 3:1-12)? What Old Testament Law did Jesus obey when He was baptized (Matthew 3:13-16)? Remember, His baptism was pleasing to the Father (Matthew 3:17), though it was not Old Testament teaching! Those who rejected the teaching of John transgressed the will of God (Matthew 21:25-32). In fact, those who rejected the teaching of John were said to have been rejecting the counsel of God against themselves (Luke 7:29-30). John was teaching baptism (of which the Law of Moses said nothing about). Clearly, from John the baptizer forward, a new covenant was being put in place. To say it wasn’t is to say that John was adding to the Law of Moses, for he was teaching things that the Old Testament does not mention (Joshua 1:7). In fact, the same would be true of Jesus and Paul. Let’s notice this point next.

Are Jesus and Paul False Teachers?
Moses wrote: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you… What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32). Jesus certainly added to and changed the words of Moses (Matthew 19:3-9). In fact, He proclaimed that His words, while on earth, would be used in the Judgment (John 12:48). If Matthew - John are part of the Old Law, you have to condemn Jesus as a false teacher who added to God’s words!

In addition, if Matthew - John are part of the Old Law, then Paul would be a false teacher. Paul used what happened the night in which the Lord was betrayed as our authority to partake of the Lord’s Supper (I Corinthians 11:23-26).
The original accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, as Paul used the same wording, are found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, and Luke 22:14-20). If one concludes that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are in the Old Testament they have to conclude that Paul was a false teacher for teaching us to observe an Old Testament memorial.

[b]Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Were Written After Jesus Died
I have a personal last will and testament. They are words that I have declared while I am alive. However, they do not take effect until I die. What Jesus taught in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written until after He died. Yet, one will quickly point out that the events occurred and the words were spoken while He was alive and another law was in effect. Pardon me, but that’s obvious. For the words that Jesus spoke while He was on earth to be in full effect, He had to die. Notice the Scriptures: “And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (Hebrews 9:15-17[/b]).

Conclusion
In Matthew chapter five we find Jesus taking the Old Law and changing it to His Law. We read the phrase, “Ye have heard… But I say unto you” when Jesus taught His Law rather than Moses’ Law on various matters. Jesus taught a new law on anger, adultery, divorce, swearing, carnal revenge, etc. (Matthew 5:21-48). This, as well as all we’ve covered, proves that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are New Testament books. Any of these points should be enough to convince the honest seeker!

Bidam:

NOW TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND TELL ME IF I AM WRONG:
There is an insidious teaching on the rise that says because the New Covenant of Christ was established at the cross (this part is correct, Heb 9:15-17) the teachings of Christ spoken prior to the cross are Old Testament and were done away with the rest of Old Law. It's correct that the New Covenant went into force at the death of Christ but we can't agree that all of Jesus' teachings prior to the cross were therefore only part of the Old Covenant. The false teaching to erase many of Jesus' teachings is motivated not in the interest of sound exposition, but rather by a desire to strip away the teaching by Jesus on divorce and remarriage - because it falls chronologically before the cross.

This is where you operate with your fellow Christians by "assumption". Have you heard me saying the teachings of Christ were done away with because I said it was still in the Old Testament? You are operating by assumption. Since you agree that the NT went into effect at the death of the testator, then we are now on the same page and truth. Does that throw away the words and teachings of the testator? NO! As you said, it is these teachings of the testator (though under the the law, OT) that was carried into the NT for his followers, they were established during the OT, it's a time of TRANSITION!

Bidam:

This teaching is just one more deception of Satan as there's no shortage of counterfeits, but there's but one truth. Dan Billingsly is a champion of this grievous error.

Billingsly pretending to be correcting a Catholic error thrust upon us all, he claims that the New Testament title page is the big problem. If only the title page was at the end of the Gospel at the crucifixion of Christ, all of the confusion would be erased. But this is smoke and mirrors by a talented Sophist.

The graphic below depicts the Biblical view to understand the correct view of the Old and New Law. The Old in effect until the cross. The New being ratified at the cross of Jesus, but it was introduced during the ministry of Jesus. The point we see is that what Jesus introduced concerning the Gospel and His Kingdom is not nullified and made obsolete at the cross. This simple truth is ignored by Mr. Billingsly.

We learn from Jesus' words that chronology - whatever is before the cross is Old Law teaching and whatever is after the cross is New Testament teaching - is not the only factor for determining what is Old or New Testament teaching. Consider a few important verses that establish that it's more sophisticated that Billingsley would like to admit:

Hebrews 9:15-17 the covenant or testament of a man is ratified when a man dies, but it is written while he lives - i.e. Jesus' spoke of New Testament things in the Gospels prior to the cross. This passage alone refutes the premise of the error. True to form, the New Testament of Jesus Christ was being written and communicated during the lifetime ministry of Jesus. This is an inconvenient truth for Billingsly and his handful of defenders.

Consider also Luke 16:16 that says the gospel of the kingdom was being preached from the time of John the Baptist. It would not be ratified until the death of the testator, but it was being proclaimed before the cross.
See also what Jesus said about church discipline before the cross, Mt 18:15-18.
15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." - Mt 18:15-18
Since the church was established after the cross, this passage on church discipline is clearly New Testament teaching smack dab in the middle of the Gospels.

See that in John 3:3-5 the "new birth" was already declared though it is clearly New Covenant teaching being previewed before the cross, see also 1 Pt 1:3, 23.

See also Mt 28:20. Though these words are spoken after the cross and the ratification of Christ's new covenant, is it reasonable to conclude that disciples only obey Jesus' words uttered after the cross? I say no.
Though the Gospels do in fact include much exposition on the Old Covenant, they also include teachings by Jesus concerning His New Covenant which was ratified at the cross.

See Luke 10:7 where Jesus teaches the validity of the preacher being supported for his labor. And compare that with 1 Timothy 5:18 where Paul shows that Jesus' teaching is New Testament teaching.

So we see that the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ, with particulars of the New Covenant that would be ratified at His death, was being taught and commanded prior to the cross in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Consequence of the truth that the Gospels contain New Testament teachings....

1. Mt 19 teaching on divorce and remarriage is valid - especially since the teaching is based on God's design and intent from the beginning of creation.
2. Mt 10:24-33 and the command to confess Jesus is valid as New Testament teaching.
3. Mt 16:24 and requirement to take up your cross is valid still.
4. Lk 13:3 and command to repent is valid.

Keep alert for this insidious teaching is spreading. Dan Billingsly is sending his teaching to churches across the country asking church secretaries to pass on his message to the Elders and Preachers. But his teaching is insidious and dangerous. I pray that I do a little to correct this error before it spreads.

I do not know whose article you are lifting to defend your teachings but I agree all things said in this part are ALL CORRECT. Exactly what I was gonna say about the teachings of Christ. The teachings of Christ that was transitioned into the NT which took effect AFTER his death are what was established during the lifetime of Christ in the OT and the Law, it was still the old testament and the law was still in effect at that time. If the law wasn't in effect, Christ would not have any law to fulfill and end it.

One thing I want to point out though I agree with what is said above here as quoted is the misconception of Luke 16:16. Many think Luke 16:16 is saying the law and prophets ENDED (was until) at the time of John the Baptist. If this interpretation is taken, it will contradict these few scriptures. For instance, it will contradict,

New International Version (©1984)
Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.- Romans 10:4

New International Version (©1984)
But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, - Galatians 4:4.

If we take the interpretation of Luke 16:16 to mean that the law ended at the appearance of John the Baptist, the there will be no law for Christ to fulfil or end and Christ would not have been born under the law as we know Christ was born after John the baptist. Hence, we understand that the law and prophets was still in effect until the birth and death of Christ that will end it. That scripture, Luke 16:16 simple means the Law and prophets were still in effect and still functional until John came as a forerunner to begin a transition program for the kingdom of God. These translations confirm the truth of Luke 16:16,

Expanded Bible (EXB)
“The law of Moses and the writings of the prophets [ the Old Testament] were preached [or were in force;  were] until John [ the Baptist] came [ John is the transitional figure between the age of promise and the age of salvation]. Since then the Good News [Gospel] about the kingdom of God is being told [preached; proclaimed], and everyone tries to enter it by force [or is eager to get into it; or is strongly urged to enter it].

New English Translation (NET)
“The law and the prophets were in force until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is urged to enter it.

New Living Translation (NLT)
“Until John the Baptist, the law of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides. But now the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is eager to get in.

GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
“Moses’ Teachings and the Prophets were in force until the time of John. Since that time, people have been telling the Good News about the kingdom of God, and everyone is trying to force their way into it.

Good News Translation (GNT)
“The Law of Moses and the writings of the prophets were in effect up to the time of John the Baptist; since then the Good News about the Kingdom of God is being told, and everyone forces their way in.

So we understand the law didn't end at the appearance of John the Baptist but was in force, in effect until the appearance of John and still in effect until Christ was born and the death of Christ ended it.

Bidam: @GOSHEN, This is where you got your heresy from: Are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Old Testament Books?

By Justin Johnson
Most every casual Bible student would know that the New Testament section of the Bible begins with the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. We may also know that the origin of this division comes from the different languages from which they were translated.

However, naming the Greek portion of Scripture as the New Testament could possibly be the origin of many problems people have in understanding Jesus’ earthly ministry. For according to the Scripture, the majority of these four narratives of the life of our Lord Jesus are indeed Old Testament.

Hebrews 9:15-17 says:

“And for this cause he is the mediator of the New Testament that BY MEANS OF DEATH, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also OF NECESSITY BE THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR. For A TESTAMENT IS OF FORCE AFTER MEN ARE DEAD: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.”

Hebrews 9:15-17 explains that it was after Jesus’ death that the New Testament took force. Galatians 4:4 explains:

“…when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, MADE UNDER THE LAW,…”

The Mosaic Law was the order of the Old Covenant. According to Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born and lived under the Old Covenant. It was not until his death that the New Testament could be made available. Since the large majority of each book and Jesus’ entire earthly ministry occurred before his death then it should be considered that these four books are still in the context of the Old Covenant.

This would explain why Paul wrote that Jesus ‘was a minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers’ (Romans 15:.

This would also explain why Jesus operated according to the Old Testament:

Was circumcised (Luke 2:27)
Water Baptized (Matt 3:15)
Taught Conditional forgiveness (Matt 6:14)
Taught Levitical Sacrifice for Healing (Matt 8:4)
“Follow the commandments” (Mark 10:17-19)
“Obey the Pharisees” (Matt 23:2-3)
Observed feast days (Matt 26:17)
In order to better understand the Scriptures we need to understand the context of the passages we read. Therefore it is important to realize that the events leading up to the cross in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are under the Old Testament.

Again, you are jumping into conclusion by assumption. When we use Galatians 4:4 and Hebrews 9:15-17, it means Matthew to John are OLD Testament and as it is, Christ came to end the old so that the New can begin. The Old and the New cannot operate the same time. Christ had to first lived the old, born under the old and end it; then the new will effect. Matthew to John are "foundational" as to the teaching of Christ that was built upon in the NT and the Epistle. You need to understand your opponent before you argue a subject. I NEVER said the teachings of Christ should be done away with or are done away with because they were taught under the Old. This is where many don't understand - the teachings of Christ, thought taught under the old were foundational for the new and was built upon in the new. It is very simply as is it.

For instance,

New International Version (©1984)
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy'. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. - Matthew 5:43-45

What is the NT teaching that this verses were built upon?

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Therefore if your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink: for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head. - Romans 12:20.

So the major thing aside the miracles of Christ in Matthew to John are his foundational teachings that was laid for the new testament order. Major practices and religious activities in Matthew to John were still according to the law and prophets. That is the reason you still read verses like tithe in Matthew 23:23 still referring to tithe as "according to the law". And at the end of it all, Christ said, "A new commandment I give unto you". Who was he talking to? His disciples that will effect the New testament. We (Christians) don't operation according to the ten commandments, we operate by the new commandments of Christ. Why? Because He, Christ as made us competent as ministers of a new covenant. (2 Corinthians 3:6).

I'm not throwing away the words and teachings of Christ. And it doesn't change the truth that his teachings were still under the old testament. They were foundational to the new testament and both the old and new can't operate together. It was a transitional period.

Some people are just too silly, how will your understand message when you only pick a say e.g,(1.the wife poison the food of the husband 2.then the Lord show the husband in a vision what was about to happen 3. And the husband force his wife to eat the poison food. And she ate and died.) @op you will now pick no.3. How do you expect your reader to understand what really lead to the man giving his wife poison food..smh for you @frosbel long time

[quote author=Goshen360]

Again, you are jumping into conclusion by assumption. When we use Galatians 4:4 and Hebrews 9:15-17, it means Matthew to John are OLD Testament and as it is, Christ came to end the old so that the New can begin. The Old and the New cannot operate the same time. Christ had to first lived the old, born under the old and end it; then the new will effect. Matthew to John are "foundational" as to the teaching of Christ that was built upon in the NT and the Epistle.

You need to understand your opponent before you argue a subject.

of course i understand you perfectly well your ministry or calling if you really have one is to slander well meaning ministers of the gospel claiming they are teaching error thereby creating a followers of unbelievers who tend to agree with you rather than drawing them to CHRIST and to the knowledge of the truth. your post is full of it all over nairaland. i might be new here but i have enough sense to know your agenda.

Bidam: we all are learning and i took alot of time to research this matter...oga goshen can you pls explian all the points raised by this article?

Are Matthew, Mark, Luke, And John In The Old Testament
By: Brian A. Yeager

Jesus said: “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:21-26).

In the Scriptures above you can see that one’s salvation is dependent upon following that which Jesus spoke while He was on this earth. Furthermore, you can see that the Holy Spirit was going to bring to remembrance what Jesus had said while He was on earth. Folks this is consistent with the “Great Commission” (as it is called): “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Matthew 28:18-20).

We know that the Old Law was not done away with until after Jesus died (Romans 7:1-6 and Colossians 2:14). That being said, that does not mean that the teaching of our Lord was Old Testament doctrine (John 1:17). Not all things contained in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John directly apply to us today (i.e. Matthew 10:5-10 and Matthew 21:21). The same is true of some things written in the “epistles” (Acts 1:15-26, Acts 19:1-7, and I Corinthians 12:3-11). Does that mean the “epistles” are not part of the New Testament? When Jesus was on earth He was not teaching things that fell into the Old Testament. In fact, even prior to Jesus coming to this earth the Old Law had begun to be set aside. The Bible plainly says so and this is where we’re going to begin diving a little deeper into our study.

And doesn't it occur to you that the same Lord that gave the commandment of old also gave the new commandments?

Bidam: we all are learning and i took alot of time to research this matter...oga goshen can you pls explian all the points raised by this article?

The Law And The Prophets Were Until John
“For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come… The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it” (Matthew 11:10-14 and Luke 16:16).

What Old Testament Law was fulfilled when John the baptizer taught repentance and baptism (Matthew 3:1-12)? What Old Testament Law did Jesus obey when He was baptized (Matthew 3:13-16)? Remember, His baptism was pleasing to the Father (Matthew 3:17), though it was not Old Testament teaching! Those who rejected the teaching of John transgressed the will of God (Matthew 21:25-32). In fact, those who rejected the teaching of John were said to have been rejecting the counsel of God against themselves (Luke 7:29-30). John was teaching baptism (of which the Law of Moses said nothing about). Clearly, from John the baptizer forward, a new covenant was being put in place. To say it wasn’t is to say that John was adding to the Law of Moses, for he was teaching things that the Old Testament does not mention (Joshua 1:7). In fact, the same would be true of Jesus and Paul. Let’s notice this point next.

I have responded to this earlier. The above embolden in RED is error sir. The new covenant cannot be in place from the time of John the baptist. It was a time and period of TRANSITION. The new covenant did not go into effect until after the death of Christ. You are confused because because you lifted articles of two different people with different thought. One of your article agrees that the NT went into effect AFTER the death of Christ and now you are saying the NT was put in place from the time of John. See where you said the NT was in effect AFTER the death of Christ below:

Bidam: NOW TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND TELL ME IF I AM WRONG:
There is an insidious teaching on the rise that says because the New Covenant of Christ was established at the cross (this part is correct, Heb 9:15-17) the teachings of Christ spoken prior to the cross are Old Testament and were done away with the rest of Old Law. It's correct that the New Covenant went into force at the death of Christ but we can't agree that all of Jesus' teachings prior to the cross were therefore only part of the Old Covenant. The false teaching to erase many of Jesus' teachings is motivated not in the interest of sound exposition, but rather by a desire to strip away the teaching by Jesus on divorce and remarriage - because it falls chronologically before the cross.

I have responded to Luke 16:16 taken from different translations for you.

Goshen360:

One thing I want to point out though I agree with what is said above here as quoted is the misconception of Luke 16:16. Many think Luke 16:16 is saying the law and prophets ENDED (was until) at the time of John the Baptist. If this interpretation is taken, it will contradict these few scriptures. For instance, it will contradict,

New International Version (©1984)
Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.- Romans 10:4

New International Version (©1984)
But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, - Galatians 4:4.

If we take the interpretation of Luke 16:16 to mean that the law ended at the appearance of John the Baptist, then there will be no law for Christ to fulfill or end and Christ would not have been born under the law as we know Christ was born after John the baptist. Hence, we understand that the law and prophets was still in effect until the birth and death of Christ that will end it. That scripture, Luke 16:16 simple means the Law and prophets were still in effect and still functional until John came as a forerunner to begin a transition program for the kingdom of God. These translations confirm the truth of Luke 16:16,

Expanded Bible (EXB)
“The law of Moses and the writings of the prophets [ the Old Testament] were preached [or were in force;  were] until John [ the Baptist] came [ John is the transitional figure between the age of promise and the age of salvation]. Since then the Good News [Gospel] about the kingdom of God is being told [preached; proclaimed], and everyone tries to enter it by force [or is eager to get into it; or is strongly urged to enter it].

New English Translation (NET)
“The law and the prophets were in force until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is urged to enter it.

New Living Translation (NLT)
“Until John the Baptist, the law of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides. But now the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is eager to get in.

GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
“Moses’ Teachings and the Prophets were in force until the time of John. Since that time, people have been telling the Good News about the kingdom of God, and everyone is trying to force their way into it.

Good News Translation (GNT)
“The Law of Moses and the writings of the prophets were in effect up to the time of John the Baptist; since then the Good News about the Kingdom of God is being told, and everyone forces their way in.

So we understand the law didn't end at the appearance of John the Baptist but was in force, in effect until the appearance of John and still in effect until Christ was born and the death of Christ ended it.

Bidam:

Are Jesus and Paul False Teachers?
Moses wrote: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you… What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32). Jesus certainly added to and changed the words of Moses (Matthew 19:3-9). In fact, He proclaimed that His words, while on earth, would be used in the Judgment (John 12:48). If Matthew - John are part of the Old Law, you have to condemn Jesus as a false teacher who added to God’s words!

You don't have to condemn Jesus as the false teacher who added to the word of God. This is blasphemy and lack of understanding on your part. Jesus was the one who gave the law in the first place. Before Abraham was, Jesus is. He is the "I AM" of the Old testament. He came and there was fault found with the people as regards the law. Hence, there is need for change and transition unto the new covenant. God doesn't work with your agenda bro. The time has come then and the purpose of the law was fulfilled. Hence, there is need for Grace and truth - for the law was given by Moses; Grace and truth CAME (not given, unlike the law of Moses) by Jesus Christ. Christ was the one who GAVE (the law was GIVEN by/to MOSES) the law to Moses and he was the same who CAME with Grace and truth. The same Christ gave a new commandment to the Apostle - A new commandment I give unto you. The new commandment is not according to ten commandments of Moses. They are called "the law of the Spirit, of life in Christ" in the Epistles.

Bidam:
Are Matthew, Mark, Luke, And John In The Old Testament
By: Brian A. Yeager

In addition, if Matthew - John are part of the Old Law, then Paul would be a false teacher. Paul used what happened the night in which the Lord was betrayed as our authority to partake of the Lord’s Supper (I Corinthians 11:23-26).
The original accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, as Paul used the same wording, are found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, and Luke 22:14-20). If one concludes that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are in the Old Testament they have to conclude that Paul was a false teacher for teaching us to observe an Old Testament memorial.[b]

You and this your article man sef! Na wha for una two..... . So the Lord's supper that Apostle Paul taught was based on what? Wasn't it based on the words of christ that, "do this in remembrance of me"? What I'm saying is the teachings of Christ were foundational to the NT. It doesn't changed the fact that this "will, teachings and doctrines" were established under the old. Matthew to John were the close of the old testament, not Malachi. Just as you agree the will of one that will effect AFTER his death were written during his lifetime. Same was, the life time of Christ were the old testament and his will/testaments effective in the new. Stop contradicting yourself because you depend on other people's article on the Internet. Sit down and do your own study bro. Hence, you will not be talking from two views and in the end, contradicting yourself. Okay! Apostle Paul is no false teacher. He carried on the memorial of Christ's word being effective in the NT. Same thing I've been saying!

Bidam: we all are learning and i took alot of time to research this matter...oga goshen can you pls explian all the points raised by this article?

Are Matthew, Mark, Luke, And John In The Old Testament
By: Brian A. Yeager

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Were Written After Jesus Died
I have a personal last will and testament. They are words that I have declared while I am alive. However, they do not take effect until I die. What Jesus taught in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written until after He died. Yet, one will quickly point out that the events occurred and the words were spoken while He was alive and another law was in effect. Pardon me, but that’s obvious. For the words that Jesus spoke while He was on earth to be in full effect, He had to die. Notice the Scriptures: “And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (Hebrews 9:15-17[/b]).

Again, here in the underlined; you agree that Matthew to John is obviously the old testament under the law and the law was still in effect. I'm sick and tired of your confusion but I'm trynna help you anyway.... . Stop lifting articles from online. You will end up being a confused person. Okay! Since you mentioned above that Christ had to die for new testament to take effect, then Christ under Matthew to John, was he under same NT or OT/law? His teachings and testaments were established under the old. It still doesn't change the truth that Matthew to John were old testament and the teachings of Christ were foundational therein to the NT. He cannot be under the NT at that time and be effecting the New, he had to be under the old to transit to the new.

Bidam:

Are Matthew, Mark, Luke, And John In The Old Testament
By: Brian A. Yeager

Conclusion
In Matthew chapter five we find Jesus taking the Old Law and changing it to His Law. We read the phrase, “Ye have heard… But I say unto you” when Jesus taught His Law rather than Moses’ Law on various matters. Jesus taught a new law on anger, adultery, divorce, swearing, carnal revenge, etc. (Matthew 5:21-48). This, as well as all we’ve covered, proves that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are New Testament books. Any of these points should be enough to convince the honest seeker!

You said Jesus was taking the old laws and changing it to His law Did I hear you and your teacher you lifted his article very well Again, if he was taking the old law and changing to new or his law; it therefore means he was under the old at that time. He cannot be under the new and still be changing to the new.....can you and your teacher listen to yourself For Christ to change from old means he is under the old at that time. What he was doing is TRANSITION from old to the new and the new will only take effect by His blood and death. Therefore, Matthew to John are OLD TESTAMENT, close of the laws and prophets. Christ could not have ended any law if the law was already ended in Matthew to John. If Matthew to John were NEW TESTAMENTS, then there will be no need for Christ's death and blood to effect the NT because the NT would have been already in effect.

New International Version (©1984)
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. - Luke 22:20

You see, the NEW COVENANT is IN the blood of Christ and that blood will have to be shed in order to effect the new covenant we are talking about. So at the time Christ made this statement, the blood wasn't shed yet and that means the new covenant wasn't in effect yet, therefore it is the old that was still in operation. Both old and new cannot be in effect at the same time. Abeg, I don tire for long epistle joor. I wan go sleep......

New International Version (©1984)
Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. - Romans 10:4

Bidam: of course i understand you perfectly well your ministry or calling if you really have one is to slander well meaning ministers of the gospel claiming they are teaching error thereby creating a followers of unbelievers who tend to agree with you rather than drawing them to CHRIST and to the knowledge of the truth. your post is full of it all over nairaland. i might be new here but i have enough sense to know your agenda.

Chai...this one wey I say make I reply you and go sleep na eim you come up with another allegation again. My brother, this is dangerous. Only the word of God can judge the intention of a man. Okay.

First, I have friends here on this forum, Nairaland and I have made my intention known to them. I can call witness to this thread if you like. I have talked with many people by phone from this section and my intention is not to ridicule ministers of God but TO EXPOSE FALSEHOOD, LIES AND HERESY that have stayed too long in the body of Christ. I desire to be a strong Apostolic teacher of God's word. The body of Christ needs more teachers of God's word. My brother, God is raising his own army in this end time and you should be part of it. To expose falsehood, you cannot belong to falsehood for a house divided against itself cannot stand. Simply put, my agenda by my ministry, calling and vision is buried in this scripture when God gave me a mandate. Take a look,

New International Version (©1984)
I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.' - Acts 26:17-18

You haven't seen anything yet! In 2013, there shall be radical and aggressive Apostolic teachings that will deliver men and brethren from that power of Satan unto God; open the eyes of those that sit in darkness and bring them to the light of the glorious gospel. Again, I do not seek to draw disciples to myself but to Christ. In the Apostolic grace, the Apostles always point men to Christ, not to themselves and I understand this truth.

Goshen360:

And doesn't it occur to you that the same Lord that gave the commandment of old also gave the new commandments?




I have responded to this earlier. The above embolden in RED is error sir. The new covenant cannot be in place from the time of John the baptist. It was a time and period of TRANSITION. The new covenant did not go into effect until after the death of Christ. You are confused because because you lifted articles of two different people with different thought. One of your article agrees that the NT went into effect AFTER the death of Christ and now you are saying the NT was put in place from the time of John. See where you said the NT was in effect AFTER the death of Christ below:



I have responded to Luke 16:16 taken from different translations for you.






You don't have to condemn Jesus as the false teacher who added to the word of God. This is blasphemy and lack of understanding on your part. Jesus was the one who gave the law in the first place. Before Abraham was, Jesus is. He is the "I AM" of the Old testament. He came and there was fault found with the people as regards the law. Hence, there is need for change and transition unto the new covenant. God doesn't work with your agenda bro. The time has come then and the purpose of the law was fulfilled. Hence, there is need for Grace and truth - for the law was given by Moses; Grace and truth CAME (not given, unlike the law of Moses) by Jesus Christ. Christ was the one who GAVE (the law was GIVEN by/to MOSES) the law to Moses and he was the same who CAME with Grace and truth. The same Christ gave a new commandment to the Apostle - A new commandment I give unto you. The new commandment is not according to ten commandments of Moses. They are called "the law of the Spirit, of life in Christ" in the Epistles.



You and this your article man sef! Na wha for una two..... . So the Lord's supper that Apostle Paul taught was based on what? Wasn't it based on the words of christ that, "do this in remembrance of me"? What I'm saying is the teachings of Christ were foundational to the NT. It doesn't changed the fact that this "will, teachings and doctrines" were established under the old. Matthew to John were the close of the old testament, not Malachi. Just as you agree the will of one that will effect AFTER his death were written during his lifetime. Same was, the life time of Christ were the old testament and his will/testaments effective in the new. Stop contradicting yourself because you depend on other people's article on the Internet. Sit down and do your own study bro. Hence, you will not be talking from two views and in the end, contradicting yourself. Okay! Apostle Paul is no false teacher. He carried on the memorial of Christ's word being effective in the NT. Same thing I've been saying!



Again, here in the underlined; you agree that Matthew to John is obviously the old testament under the law and the law was still in effect. I'm sick and tired of your confusion but I'm trynna help you anyway.... . Stop lifting articles from online. You will end up being a confused person. Okay! Since you mentioned above that Christ had to die for new testament to take effect, then Christ under Matthew to John, was he under same NT or OT/law? His teachings and testaments were established under the old. It still doesn't change the truth that Matthew to John were old testament and the teachings of Christ were foundational therein to the NT. He cannot be under the NT at that time and be effecting the New, he had to be under the old to transit to the new.



You said Jesus was taking the old laws and changing it to His law Did I hear you and your teacher you lifted his article very well Again, if he was taking the old law and changing to new or his law; it therefore means he was under the old at that time. He cannot be under the new and still be changing to the new.....can you and your teacher listen to yourself For Christ to change from old means he is under the old at that time. What he was doing is TRANSITION from old to the new and the new will only take effect by His blood and death. Therefore, Matthew to John are OLD TESTAMENT, close of the laws and prophets. Christ could not have ended any law if the law was already ended in Matthew to John. If Matthew to John were NEW TESTAMENTS, then there will be no need for Christ's death and blood to effect the NT because the NT would have been already in effect.

New International Version (©1984)
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. - Luke 22:20

You see, the NEW COVENANT is IN the blood of Christ and that blood will have to be shed in order to effect the new covenant we are talking about. So at the time Christ made this statement, the blood wasn't shed yet and that means the new covenant wasn't in effect yet, therefore it is the old that was still in operation. Both old and new cannot be in effect at the same time. Abeg, I don tire for long epistle joor. I wan go sleep......

New International Version (©1984)
Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. - Romans 10:4

be like say ur american english dey confuse u my guy..what is difference between being and translation that u and i quoted claiming it was error? rather u re d guy getting confused here due to ur so called abundance revelations...the article i quoted are consistent with the view that mathew- john are new testament epistle..ok go sleep..no forget to consult JESUS for your dream sha..ask am say why our fathers of old put the four gospels for NT instead of OT?

Na wha for you o, Bidam... . Me, you and your article agree that Matthew to John were written AFTER the death of Christ. What about the events and teachings, were they ALSO AFTER THE DEATH OF CHRIST OR DURING Answer the kweshion before I caign you now.... . If my fathers placed Matthew to John under the New testament, what has that got to do with the content of events that we both agree occurred during the old. Stop confusing yourself bro....they were classified under the New probably because they were written AFTER the death of the testator and that's what makes it a testament.

Goshen360: Na wha for you o, Bidam... . Me, you and your article agree that Matthew to John were written AFTER the death of Christ. What about the events and teachings, were they ALSO AFTER THE DEATH OF CHRIST OR DURING Answer the kweshion before I caign you now.... . If my fathers placed Matthew to John under the New testament, what has that got to do with the content of events that we both agree occurred during the old. Stop confusing yourself bro....they were classified under the New probably because they were written AFTER the death of the testator and that's what makes it a testament.

ehen..na now u talk so there is no wahala calling mathew- john new testament then.

Goshen360:

Chai...this one wey I say make I reply you and go sleep na eim you come up with another allegation again. My brother, this is dangerous. Only the word of God can judge the intention of a man. Okay.

First, I have friends here on this forum, Nairaland and I have made my intention known to them. I can call witness to this thread if you like. I have talked with many people by phone from this section and my intention is not to ridicule ministers of God but TO EXPOSE FALSEHOOD, LIES AND HERESY that have stayed too long in the body of Christ. I desire to be a strong Apostolic teacher of God's word. The body of Christ needs more teachers of God's word. My brother, God is raising his own army in this end time and you should be part of it. To expose falsehood, you cannot belong to falsehood for a house divided against itself cannot stand. Simply put, my agenda by my ministry, calling and vision is buried in this scripture when God gave me a mandate. Take a look,

New International Version (©1984)
I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.' - Acts 26:17-18

You haven't seen anything yet! In 2013, there shall be radical and aggressive Apostolic teachings that will deliver men and brethren from that power of Satan unto God; open the eyes of those that sit in darkness and bring them to the light of the glorious gospel. Again, I do not seek to draw disciples to myself but to Christ. In the Apostolic grace, the Apostles always point men to Christ, not to themselves and I understand this truth.

wow apsotle goshen..thats a good one..tho..we might disagree on some doctrinal issues..we are still brothers na...ur expositions are tremendous i can't match them..thats not my calling sha..i flow more with the prophetic.

Bidam: ehen..na now u talk so there is no wahala calling mathew- john new testament then.

But what about the contents....old or new.... No let me flog you o, ....I nefa sleep because of you o....

Bidam: wow apsotle goshen..thats a good one..tho..we might disagree on some doctrinal issues..we are still brothers na...ur expositions are tremendous i can't match them..thats not my calling sha..i flow more with the prophetic.

Okay....make I dey smile small small now....thanks for the compliment now....na now you be good prophet....

Goshen360:

But what about the contents....old or new.... No let me flog you o, ....I nefa sleep because of you o....

from d beginning of our arguement i never said jesus operated in d new..He was under the law during His ministry na.

Goshen360:

Okay....make I dey smile small small now....thanks for the compliment now....na now you be good prophet....

why cal me good? There is only One GOOD PROPHET AND SHEPARD OF THE SHEEP.

Bidam: from d beginning of our arguement i never said jesus operated in d new..He was under the law during His ministry na.

Thank God you finally agreed. If Jesus never operated from the new, then where did he operate under or from? It's definitely the old because the old and new did not operate together; and your answer also confirmed he was under the law during his ministry. Please, stop blind argument henceforth!

Logicboy03:


Lies..........a christian resorting to lies when faced with an argument debunking the faith.

I would like to know how your pastor successfully constructed a discussion around the fact that God did not lik disabled people preaching


Deuteronomy 23:1
No one whose testicles are crushed or whose
male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.
.

read again, that isn't about a disability, it is abt castration! And yeah God pretty much had a problem with d practice.

Ubenedictus: read again, that isn't about a disability, it is abt castration! And yeah God pretty much had a problem with d practice.

God did not like castrated people?

Logicboy03:




God did not like castrated people?

i see, u want to twist and turn, i dont have time for that God didnt like castration(practice), he didnt hate people!

Ubenedictus: i see, u want to twist and turn, i dont have time for that God didnt like castration(practice), he didnt hate people!

The verse is there-


You are the one twisting. No where does it say that castration is a sin. It clearly says that such people are not allowed in the house of the lord.

Logicboy03:
The verse is there-
You are the one twisting. No where does it say that castration is a sin. It clearly says that such people are not allowed in the house of the lord.

http://m.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesley-explanatory-notes/deuteronomy/deuteronomy-23.html

Ubenedictus: http://m.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesley-explanatory-notes/deuteronomy/deuteronomy-23.html

^^^^ page not found.....error....error!

JESUS!!!

All of this is idiotic. Neither side will ever, ever be swayed. Athiests, and agnostics: no matter how many facts you sling, a Christian or person of any faith will die before they succumb to what is perceived as absolute truth and logic. Christians, no matter how hard you pray, and no matter how many bible verses you quote, no matter how hard you try, nobody who does not believe will be swayed. And to cram religion down the throats of others is so self defeating, its ridiculous and offensive to the religion. we need to accept and respect others for their differences In opinion. Not chastise them for it. Both sides are wrong in their approaches. Love and loathe equally.

THE HOLY BIBLE IS NOT JUST A "BOOK" YOU TOY or JOKE WITH....I DIDN'T FIND THESE FUNNY!!!...I PRAY GOD FORGIVE YOU & MAKE YOU REALISE WHAT YOU'VE DONE!!!!!*smh*

why do yall read the bible literally oops i forgot, the secret of the words is not revealed to heathens

Oh I see, but it is revealed to jet owning pastors, rogues, sycophants, adulterers, fornicators, divorcee and the foolish multitude right?

Ok, we have read your special quotes,mind you most of the verses are before the birth of Christ..He came that Old things are made new..What is your point??