Mungo
Member
And that may be your opinion but I disagree.O' dear. His work goes on in heaven, but His work here on earth as regards salvation is finished. That is what he came to do.
.
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
And that may be your opinion but I disagree.O' dear. His work goes on in heaven, but His work here on earth as regards salvation is finished. That is what he came to do.
.
Why?And that may be your opinion but I disagree.
Jesus would not celebrate with wine until He is celebrating with them in His kingdom.And why did he drink the sour wine vinegar before his death on the cross? This part of the gospels has been confusing me lately and I have been struggling to understand what he meant
Matthew 26:29- 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Mark 14:25- 25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
Luke 22:18- 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
E-Sword is a good tool. And it is free.Jesus would not celebrate with wine until He is celebrating with them in His kingdom.
Its not about drinking wine per se, its about abstaining from celebrating with wine UNTIL they celebrate with Him in His kingdom.
If this were not so, Jesus wouldn't mention the disciples at all. He would have said: I won't drink wine again until the Kingdom comes. So its not about wine alone, its Jesus showing love to His disciples.
Therefore, the "sour wine" given to Him on the cross, did not contradict His promise.
29 Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth.
30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit. (Jn. 19:29-30 NKJ)
Some argue Jesus didn't drink it, but the Greek word translated "received" implies He did. But "sour wine" isn't what Christ promised not to drink.
I believe you are under demonic attack. Making someone confused, causing them to believe contradiction exists in scripture, is a favorite device of the Devil:
"Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. (Lk. 8:12 NKJ)
Devil and demons can telepathically argue against believing in scripture so subtly, their victim will believe "they are arguing with themselves."
lest Satan should take advantage of us; for we are not ignorant of his devices. (2 Cor. 2:11 NKJ)
Free Bible software with commentaries are a great way to deal with demonically inspired doubts about the scripture:
e-Sword: Free Bible Study for the PC
e-Sword is a feature rich and user friendly free Windows app with everything needed to study the Bible in an enjoyable and enriching manner!e-sword.net
And its reasonable to add commentaries etc. Although I have Logos 9 now, E-Sword is great.E-Sword is a good tool. And it is free.
.
Verse 19 is about placing spiritual things inside a new born again person. Spiritual things will rupture the carnal man.Leaving Dodge
Ephesians 5:17 kjv
17. Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is.
18. And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
19. Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
20. Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
21. Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
I suppose it is time to check in with what this thread is really about.
It really is not about wine, sour wine and vinegar. Verse 17 is about wisdom.
Verse 18 is about excess. Excess in what? Excess in the human man. We are really a body of death that changes enough to have Christ in us and us in Christ. We will be delivered from this body of death at the last trump. In the mean time we daily put to death the flesh, and fill ourselves with the spirit. for_his_ glory really understands the change that has to be made in us.
More later
eddif
John 19:30 “It is finished!” The work he had come to do was finished. He had poured out of His soul as an offering for sin which was the work of redemption and of atonement he had come to do.
It is true that He had not yet died, but His death, burial, and ascension were as certain as if already accomplished. So the Lord Jesus could announce that the way had been provided whereby sinners could be saved. We need to thank Jesus today and every day for the finished work of the Lord Jesus on the cross of Calvary!
.
On the one hand:But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. Heb 9:11-12
But you believe what you want.
John 20:17 kjvOn the one hand:
"It is true that He had not yet died, but His death, burial, and ascension were as certain as if already accomplished."
And on the other:
"he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. Heb 9:11-12
The middle clause is subordinate to the first clause, not the last clause. That is standard grammatical method. That means that the last clause pertains to the first clause, not the middle clause. Therefore, in English at least, the sentence may be read as if the middle clause is in parenthesis. So, the question of whether "entered" or "blood" is of primary importance in this sentence is clear; "entered" is primary. That does not mean that "blood" is irrelevant. Both are needed to effect the intended consequence.
I suppose that this would fall under the heading of transition theology, like the OT/NT transition, so it is relevant.
There are two aspects to this, the physical completion, and the spiritual completion.
It's that simple.
The physical completion of the Lord's work coincided with the completion of the fourth cup.
The teaching of the fourth cup is a wonderful aspect of God's plan as it unfolded in time.
The number four is very significant, and this goes far deeper than is generally known.
The spiritual completion of the Lord's work occurred when entering the heavenly Holy Place.
Everything that happened between these two points is not soteriologically relevant, as;
Everything that happened between these two points was soteriologically determinate.
So, in terms of salvation, it's as if Jesus said, "It is finished", then entered the Holiest.
It really is that simple. Or is it?
Further, it may well be that both things occurred simultaneously. There is nothing saying that Jesus had to wait until after He ascended to the Father (in His physical resurrection body). Jesus is the high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. As high priest, in Spirit He can enter the Holiest in Heaven when it is proper, even previous to His death. He had a juxtaposed existence, just as do we: "But God ... made us alive together in Christ, and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places" Eph2:4-6.
What I find interesting is that previously Jesus said, "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until I drink it new with you in the kingdom of heaven". Yet it is written in John19:29 that He drank sour (or common) wine from a sponge at the end of a hyssop branch. John prefaced this event with the statement that "Jesus, knowing that all things had been accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!". This is from Psa69:21 "They also gave me gall for my food, And for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink". The gall wine is recounted in the synoptic gospels, and the vinegar wine is recounted in John.
The fact that all things had been accomplished before the sour wine was received means that Jesus entered the Holiest in heaven just before He received the sour wine, and the reception of the sour wine was what was meant when He had said in the upper room, "until I drink it new with you in the kingdom of heaven". The fact that He was not just drinking sour wine on earth, but also drinking wine in the spiritual kingdom of heaven indicates that His blood had been received, and His blood was the wine of the new covenant, and it was being dispensed and consumed as He had previously said, "I drink it new with you in the kingdom of heaven". Therefore, as His blood had been given, and was being consumed, He died. He did not die because of the crucifixion, therefore, but because He had given His blood in the kingdom of Heaven. His death was the result of His sacrifice, and so it was not the case that his death provided the atonement. It was rather, His life which provided the atonement; his lifeblood.
This is the correct conclusion, and it may only be reached through the juxtaposition doctrine.
Here is that section of Scripture -- in context: Hebrews 9:11-14, "But now Christ has come as the high priest of the good things to come. He passed through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, and he entered once for all into the Most Holy Place not by the blood of goats and calves but by his own blood, and so he himself secured eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow sprinkled on those who are defiled consecrated them and provided ritual purity, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our consciences from dead works to worship the living God." NETI'm not aware that there are outstanding questions.
The English structure seems quite clear to me.
he [Jesus] entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
The thus follows from the entering the Holy place taking his blood.
Translated into English, in context...John 20:17 kjv
17. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God
eddif
Objection as to the method of entry? Here's how:John 20:17 kjv
17. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God
Jaybo was making a different point, but the text was the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.Here is that section of Scripture -- in context: Hebrews 9:11-14, "But now Christ has come as the high priest of the good things to come. He passed through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, and he entered once for all into the Most Holy Place not by the blood of goats and calves but by his own blood, and so he himself secured eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow sprinkled on those who are defiled consecrated them and provided ritual purity, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our consciences from dead works to worship the living God." NET
The word "thus" is in some translations but not others. It is poor exegesis to base doctrine on one translated English word.
Now consider who Jesus Christ is, who is made after the power of an endless life, that is the power He received of the Father, as it was not possible to hold the Prince of life in death.Objection as to the method of entry? Here's how:
Jaybo was making a different point, but the text was the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
I boldfaced the part that is relevant to the perspective of His entry into the Holiest in heaven just before the sour wine
(fourth cup).
Now consider this. I said that Jesus did not die as a result of the crucifixion, but rather His death was the result of the Him delivering His blood into the Holiest in Heaven, then dispensing His blood of the new covenant as believers drink it new in the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus was not put to death, because He could not be killed. He chose to die for the sins of the world.
John10:18 "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."
Now savor this, as you read it over.
"It is poor exegesis to base doctrine on one translated English word".Here is that section of Scripture -- in context: Hebrews 9:11-14, "But now Christ has come as the high priest of the good things to come. He passed through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, and he entered once for all into the Most Holy Place not by the blood of goats and calves but by his own blood, and so he himself secured eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow sprinkled on those who are defiled consecrated them and provided ritual purity, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our consciences from dead works to worship the living God." NET
The word "thus" is in some translations but not others. It is poor exegesis to base doctrine on one translated English word.
What is the matter with you? Why are you so combative?"It is poor exegesis to base doctrine on one translated English word".
I'll remember you said that.
I thought you would be pleased that I valued your advice.What is the matter with you? Why are you so combative?
I wrote: "The word "thus" is in some translations but not others. It is poor exegesis to base doctrine on one translated English word". I was referring to the word "thus", which obviously has weak importance.
Can you ban yourself for your nasty attitude or do you just ban me whenever you feel like it?
So now add sarcasm to your attitude. Where did you learn to be so hostile? Is that combative, nasty attitude taught by your priests?I thought you would be pleased that I valued your advice.
He banned me as well.So now add sarcasm to your attitude. Where did you learn to be so hostile? Is that combative, nasty attitude taught by your priests?
Quite obviously you are using your position as moderator improperly. You aren't discussing the OP subject. You're making it personal. I am reporting you to the site owner.