BelieveTheSign

The September 2020 Debate - Part 2: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

The September 2020 Debate - Part 2 (view source)

Revision as of 18:34, 22 March 2021

34,785 bytes added ,  3 years ago
→‎Transcript
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
=Transcript=
=Transcript=


'''Jay Cox: [00:00:00]''' Alrighty. So we'll just go ahead and jump into some of the questions then.  I think since we let  pastor Smith go first with the introductions, perhaps we should let you go first
with the questions.


'''Rod Bergen: [00:00:12]''' I'm happy either way and let's just keep going. Cause then we won't get confused. So I will ask pastor Smith, a question, and then he can respond to it.  That will work fine for me.
'''Jay Cox: [00:00:22]''' Yeah, absolutely.
'''Rod Bergen: [00:00:23]''' Jesse  you appear to believe, and  I got this from something  you had on online, in the King James version, only doctrine, which surprisingly William Branham himself didn't hold.  However, in Christian fundamentalism, it is somewhat of a cult in and of itself.
But what I would ask about your support of the King James version, only position, how do you support this? Given that first, the underlying Greek manuscript on which the King James version is based, which is called the TextUs Receptus. It was produced by Erasmus, a Roman Catholic monk. And I know people in the message really don't like the Roman [00:01:00] Catholic church.
The TextUs Receptus was based on six, quite late incomplete Greek manuscripts. Where there were holes in the final manuscripts, Erasumus back-filled the Textus Receptus by translating parts of the Latin Vulgate into Greek.
Since the Textus...  that's hard to say really fast. Since the Textus Receptus was completed by Erasmus in 1516, there have been over 5,800 Greek manuscripts that have been discovered, some dating back to the early second century. But the Textus Receptus ignores them. So how do you support your stance with respect to the King James version and the Textus Receptus.
'''Jesse Smith: [00:01:44]''' All right. Is there a five minutes? Uh, brother Jay?
'''Jay Cox: [00:01:46]''' Yes, sir. I got that all set up for you.
'''Rod Bergen: [00:01:48]''' Give or take.
'''Jesse Smith: [00:01:50]''' Yeah. Give me a minute. Wait a wave at one minute. Yeah. Well, I could be wrong about this, but at this point I am a King James version [00:02:00] only, um, follower. And not because I've studied it out or because I'm a scholar.
Um, You know, I, I, honestly, I haven't felt led to the Lord to devote a huge study on the King James version. It's hard to find time at this time of my life. I have eight children. I pastor full-time, I preach three times a week. Um, I usually before COVID, I taught to, uh, before and afterschool Bible clubs as well.
Um, And then I'm a public school teacher. So I haven't had a lot of time. So whatever I study, I have to preach basically. But at this point I am King James only. I think it's the best version a and here's how I support my, uh, my position. I, I read parts of this book. It's called a which version is the Bible by.
Floyd Nolan Jones Jones rather. Sorry. And I've just read bits and pieces of it. Um, but you know, he does a good job of comparing the versions. And my main concern is that many of the, the [00:03:00] modern versions of delete from God's word and Proverbs 30 verse five says add down, not nor take away. We know revelation 2218 and 19 says the same not to add or take away.
Uh, so that's the greatest dangers. We don't want to add to the word or take away from it. Now, as far as Erasmus, I haven't studied too deeply on him, but, um, I'm sure he was way smarter than me. I'm sure he knew multiple languages. Um, he was used by God to preserve God's word, um, which I greatly respect, uh, you know, from my research and comparing it with the seven church ages that brother Branham uh, taught. He was one that was doing the greater works. Jesus talked about in the third tier church age, the last, any more than the first and these men at the end of that fourth church age were warriors like John Wycliffe, John hus, uh, Gutenberg. And Erasmus, they risked their lives, uh, to [00:04:00] get this Bible in English, um, Erasmus was well-known.
He said this, he said, I wish that even the weakest woman might read the gospels and the epistles of Saint Paul. He said I long for the day when the husband and can, shall seeing portions of them to himself.
My research on Erasmus, the rest of his life was devoted to translating scripture and his works, his words made possible the future Bible translations of Luther and Tyndale.
So to me, he was quite a servant of the Lord. I don't know if he was saved. I would imagine. I don't know, but I thank God for his work. Um, now, as far as the Texas Receptus, um, You know, we may ignore earlier scrolls, the, you know, the ones they found in the, since, since this one. Um, but I, I just believe God was keeping all of his word in the King James version.
I don't [00:05:00] believe we need to add to it as far as. At least God's revelation to us at this point, I think the danger is in taking it away, which we know like the NIV takes scriptures away, like first John five, seven, and it takes portions out of Mark 16, especially the end about, uh, signs, miracles and wonders.
So that's, to me, that's the great danger here. And here's a few more reasons. I believe that King James is the best version. It was actually an answer to prophecy when William Tyndale was being burned at the stake, he prayed. He was being strangled and he prayed, God opened the eyes of the King and within the next year, uh, God anointed the next King.
I forget who it was. I have it on here, but I'm probably running out of time. Um, I can't find it now, but, um, God opened now. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, the next year it was a King Henry. The eighth gave permission to license John Rogers to print the English Bible. So this Bible is through the [00:06:00] prayers and prophecy of, of a man of God.
Um, I believe it's also a word for word translation, as far as I know, I know a lot of versions are thought for thought and that's dangerous because you might inject the wrong thought. But word for word is important because the Bible said every word of God is pure. Um, I know Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield, wonderful men of God use the King James version with.
Tremendous results. Um, my mother was healed of cancer, quoting the King James version Bible, Psalms one 18, 17. I shall not die, but live and declare the works of the Lord. Um, King James version is not, uh, there's no copyright on it now. Of course the time has passed. Um, I think with a lot of the modern versions, money is a motive to have a different version.
Uh, and again, I'm no scholar on these things, but just as I was researching it, this is what I found. And then I've just, I've seen the [00:07:00] results of the King James version of my life. I prayed for the sick, uh, they've recovered.
'''Jay Cox: [00:07:05]''' All right. We are at time. Um, go ahead and finish your thought real quick though.
And then we'll just. Cause we don't want to cut you off.
'''Jesse Smith: [00:07:13]''' I'm open to God doing another translation, of course, but I just know the power of the King James version. The completeness of it is sufficient. Um, I've cast out devils. I spoken to the mountains or certain mountains and they've moved as far as spiritual obstacles.
We prayed for a woman with a blood issue and or blood issue instantly dried up. Um, and so I just believe God has anointed that version and I'm going to make the best version for those reasons.
'''Jay Cox: [00:07:43]''' Alrighty. And then I got the five minutes set up for you as well. Um, Mr. Bergen, if you need to go over a little bit of time, that's fine as well.
'''Rod Bergen: [00:07:50]''' I'm just gonna ask a follow-up.  From my perspective, why this is such an important issue and such a critical issue.  Before I actually started looking at [00:08:00] the message, I went back and looked and said, what version of the Bible can I trust?  I honestly thought that,  if the Bible is my absolute, this is one of the most critical issues  I can address.
What I found out  was that where there were an error occurred in  copying a manuscript, the errors were often corrected and the corrections were put into the margin of the manuscript. These notes in the margins are referred to us as a gloss, or Glossa, but the gloss could also simply be a comment.
And so over the thousand years, or 1500 years, from the time that the texts were written to the time that Erasmus came about,  these errors got in. And you mentioned1 John 5:7 to 8,  which is referred to as the Comma Johanneum. In the first 800  years of manuscripts this doesn't appear in it.  And it's really interesting to ask the question  why would Trinitarians pull this  passage, which [00:09:00] deals specifically with three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word and the Holy ghost. Why would Trinitarian people pull that out?    And there is a science of textual criticism  that  really looks at all of  the manuscripts that exist.
My question is, Why wouldn't you want to use the most accurate translation available with today? And you're right. There are formal equivalents, which is word for word. And that would include like the ESV, the NASB  the King James version. I'm not saying the King James version, a bad version.
I'm just saying. The reason that some things were taken out is because actually in the manuscripts, things were added in. So it's not that they're taking out, they're actually trying to get back to the original  which  the textual critics believe is the most. That's what we want. So why would you not want [00:10:00] the most accurate translation available today?
And that is in my view, not the King James version, not a bad version. It's just not the most accurate.
'''Jesse Smith: [00:10:16]''' Do I have like a minute to answer.
'''Rod Bergen: [00:10:18]''' Three minutes, we're good.
'''Jesse Smith: [00:10:21]''' Okay. Yeah. So give me three, Jay. You time me. Okay, buddy. Yeah. I might not even have that much actually. Um, you know, you said a number of questions there, rod. So forgive me if I forget some of them. Um, you know, I, like I said, rod, I haven't devoted a lot of time to this.
The the, the men I have listened to and read, like, here's a man who wrote a book. Um, it has hundreds and hundreds of references. It's over 250 pages. This man's dedicated his life to studying, uh, the King James. He says it is the most accurate, um, I'm sure there's other people that would agree. I'm sure there was obviously you're shaking your head, you know, there's probably some that just no doubt, lots of disagree.
Uh, what I've [00:11:00] done, rod is I've done this, you know, I've just with the King, James, I've tried going to other versions, but. When I compare them and I see that they take things out that I think are especially doctrinally important. Um, you know, even like, even literally just the name of Jesus, taking the name of Jesus out of there.
I just, I would just rather leave it alone if it takes things away. Uh, I still believe people can be saved under, uh, other translations as long as they're quoting apart. That's inspired of the Holy spirit. Um, So at this point in my life, I'm content to stay with the King James version. Now, if God would show me more and there is a, a version that it's completely in, in, in agreement with the King James version, I would say praise the Lord.
But at this point I, I'm not even sure how God would do me, would show that to me, you know, but I'm just staying with the King James. Cause I, for all those reasons, I believe it's, you know, prophetically, vindicated, um, It's [00:12:00] powerfully vindicated through those other preachers of the 17 hundreds, 18 hundreds.
And I've seen it, uh, manifest powerfully in my own life as well. Well,
'''Rod Bergen: [00:12:11]''' okay, go ahead. You can ask your question to me.
'''Jesse Smith: [00:12:14]''' All right. Now, let me pull this up here. I, don't not sure what I did with my questions here. If I change screens, can you, can you three still see me?
'''Rod Bergen: [00:12:22]''' It looks like it. Yeah,  it shouldn't hinder anything.
'''Jesse Smith: [00:12:25]''' Okay. Yeah. Cause it still has the camera there.
So yeah, like I said, I'm not very familiar with Skype here. Okay. So, um, and correct me, rod, if I asked you the wrong question. Okay. I'll try to go in order that I sent on the email. So my first question was, since your website says, you believe Deuteronomy 22, five does not apply to women and you think it's okay for women to wear pants.
Uh, where in scripture does God change to supporting cross-dressing. And do you support men like Bruce Jenner wearing women's clothing since women can wear men's clothing [00:13:00] along with the entire transgender movement.
Rod Bergen: [00:13:05] Okay.    Your question, Jesse, I think conflates two interesting, but separate issues, your first assertion concerns, women wearing pants and the second one concerns gender identity. Both of these issues  which you conflate, I don't think relate to one another in scripture. The first issue you brought forward is women wearing pants. Now, one of the fundamental problems with William Branham's theology is that he did not understand the difference between the old covenant and the new. In fact, he rarely used the term "new covenant."
We read in Hebrews 8:13 that, in speaking of a new covenant, God makes the first one obsolete and what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. The Greek word, palaioo, in this passage means to cause to become old, to wear out or become obsolete and therefore no longer valid. The old covenant is [00:14:00] out of date.
Paul tells us in  Galatians 5:4, "you who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ. You have fallen away from grace." Mixing the old covenant and the new covenant, as  William Branham did, alienates a person from  Christ. William Branham  served an angry wrathful God, a God who would kill your wife and daughter
if you didn't do what he wanted you to do. William Branham said,  "the Bible gives them any man, a right to leave and divorce and leave his wife. That'll cut her hair. That's the Bible. That's thus saith the Lord." But Jesus said in Matthew five 31, that whoever divorces his wife for any reason, except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery.
And Paul says in first Corinthians 7:11, that a husband must not divorce his wife, if they're both Christians. William Branham's interpretation, is it false doctrine? It might've been acceptable in the old covenant, but it is not acceptable in the new. It perverts the teaching of the new Testament. So Jesse, tell me  this is a question actually to you to answer, what are the [00:15:00] only laws in the new Testament that the apostles stated that Gentile Christians were required to keep?
Do you know which one it is or do you know what they are?
'''Jesse Smith: [00:15:10]''' Well, if you're referring to act, you're referring to acts 15, those four...
'''Rod Bergen: [00:15:14]''' Absolutely.
So most messages, believers  aren't aware of them because they don't actually focus on the Bible, but the apostles wrote a letter and said, these are the only four  laws that Gentile Christians are required to maintain.
Abstain from food offered to idols, abstain from blood, don't eat anything that's been strangled, so no road kill, and don't engage in sexual immorality. That's it? No 10 commandments, no tithing, no Deuteronomy 22:5ng women wearing pants.  I should add when I go into a clothing store, I don't buy women's pants.
I buy men's pants. If I were women's pants, then I would be cross-dressing. But a woman wearing women's pants is not. Paul tells us that women should dress modestly. I've seen women in the message  wearing dresses that were [00:16:00] immodest, and I've seen non-message women wearing pants that were modest.
If you have a problem with the latter, I honestly don't think you understand the new covenant. I don't think you understand the gospel. The second issue you brought up, which is completely unrelated, is that of trans genderism. Now I take it from your question that you'd like me to condemn people who are transgender, but honestly that is not what I'm called to as a Christian.
Our responsibility as Christians is not to condemn sinners. In fact, I read in John 3:17 that God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. To the women caught in the midst of adultery, Jesus declared, neither do I condemn you, go now and leave your life of sin.
If Jesus didn't condemn sinners why would I do that? We read in Matthew 11:16 that Jesus actually  admitted that he drank and was a friend of sinners. Jesus did not  condemn sinners, even though that is what I know the message wants me to do, the only person worthy of throwing a stone, [00:17:00] didn't. The only people that Jesus condemned were religious people, the Pharisees. They were legalists like those in the message. Satan is the accuser. Now I understand that love angers Pharisees. Love may rebuke legalists. It occasionally turns over tables, but love never throws stones never.
So what do true followers of Jesus do when they meet sinners, be they transgender or adulterers or thieves? We put down our stones. I know the message doesn't like this response. The message says, judge them by the word, brother. But I won't go there. William Branham went there, but Jesus didn't. The message condemns. But what I know is this, God loves sinners, for the Bible tells me so.
'''Jay Cox: [00:17:49]''' Pastor Smith and then you are, excuse me, I'm good. You ask a followup question if you'd like, um, Or kind of give a rebuttal period about three minutes? [00:18:00]
'''Jesse Smith: [00:18:03]''' Well, I would just respond. I don't know if I have any questions. Um, is it okay if I just respond?
'''Jay Cox: [00:18:08]''' Yeah. Um, and then after that, we'll give, uh, rod another three minutes to kind of respond to the response.
'''Jesse Smith: [00:18:14]''' Yeah. As far as Deuteronomy 22:5, I wrote a book on modesty. I'd be happy to email both of you a free copy.
Um, but I studied it and showed how. And if you study all the abominations in the, in the Bible, you'll see, uh, most of them carry over to the new Testament, such as beastiality homosexuality and things like that. So I believe Deuteronomy 22 five continues in the new Testament. Jesus Christ never sin. So Jesus Christ would have only wore male garments.
He would not have  cross-dressed and wore women's garments. Um, And I know we're not under the old Testament. I believe that it's waxing away and vanishing. I believe that, but yet we have new Testament scriptures to support all 10 commandments [00:19:00] for Moses. Now, the fourth or the, the Sabbath days different.
Uh, Paul says, uh, now the Sabbath day is entering into the rest of the Holy spirit, the baptism of the Holy ghost in Hebrews four. And Jesus said it in Matthew 11. So all the 10 commandments are still the righteousness of the law. And Paul says Christians fulfill the righteousness of the law. So the holiness of the Holy spirit from the law, the law that carries over now, and we keep those based upon love because Jesus said, if you love me, keep my commands.
Okay. So I want to let you know, brother, rod and brother Tim, I don't, I don't condemn anybody. The Bible says warn them that are unruly. I don't, I don't condemn Bruce Jenner, but the Bible says warn every man, the scripture says that. And the only way to warn them is to tell them. Uh, the, the truth about God's word.
In fact, Jesus, the Bible said Jesus and John, the Baptist first came preaching saying repent, preaching the good [00:20:00] news. Well for them to know good news, they got to know the bad news. They got to know their sin and thankfully Romans one and two says. And three God puts that conviction in their hearts so that men are without excuse.
Every man has this conscience where they know I'm, I'm sending here. I'm probably wrong here, but God still sends a preacher and love to warn them of their sins. And so, um, I'm not casting the stone. I'm pointing to the word of God and said, and saying, this is what the scripture says, this is, this is righteousness.
This is holiness. And, uh, it's based upon love. Um, So, I guess my question rod than is Bruce Jenner, is it okay that he dresses like a woman? Yes or no? Can you have a yes or no answer for that?
'''Rod Bergen: [00:20:43]''' You can't say yes or no. Here's the issue...  quoting the King James version    in the old Testament, it says the plowing of the wicked is sin.
Everything they do is sin. So it's just like going out and condemning people for specific actions. What I have a problem with is William Branham  [00:21:00] taking the old covenant and bringing it to the new. For example, William Branham said that a minister must marry a virgin, that is not in the new Testament. He's taking the old Testament and saying  ministers of the new Testament are Levites and he's making this confused analogy and bringing something from the old covenant to the new .
I honestly think that William Branham's whole view of the atonement was incorrect. For example, in 1965, he said in God's chosen place of worship,  God poured out his wrath upon that body.  This concept isn't found in scripture. The Bible says God, so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish and have eternal life for God did not send his son into the world, as I read before, to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
But the message version of this. This passage is like this.  "For God was so filled with wrath against the world that he sent his only son to take the [00:22:00] beating that we all deserved. And if a woman wants to escape eternal suffering, they simply have to raise their hand, repeat this prayer after me and believe William Branham who was a prophet, not wear pants or cut their hair for the rest of the lives, for the son was not send into the world to change our minds about God, but to change God's mind about us. And now that Jesus has taken the punishing for us, God can finally love us and forgive us."
That's not what I find in the new Testament. What I find is Jesus saying, and I actually, this goes to motivation. So would I steal? No. Why not? Because I love people. Not because I'm commanded not to steal. So this is the motivation. Jesus said, and it's repeated by John - "this is my commandment that you love one another."  It's not, "this is my commander that you keep all the 10 commandments." That's not the message of the gospel. The message of the gospel is not  God says you have to love me. The [00:23:00] commandment is thou shalt love the Lord, thy God. And  I understand Jesus said that because he was under the law prior to his crucifixion and resurrection.
So when I look at Jesus, he did, he fulfilled the law.  But what I see now is I am not under the law. I don't love God because I have to love God. The new Testament says... the new covenant says... I love him because he first loved me. So motivation in the gospel under the new covenant is completely different than the old covenant.
And this is where I think the message really misses the mark.
Tim Kraus: [00:23:39] Hey CJ,  I'm gonna add something for just a minute. Cause I, and I think this is an important issue. As I listened to Rod and pastor Smith talk, there's two separate issues that we're talking about, and I want to make sure we're clear. Pastor Smith talked about the old Testament versus the new Testament , that a lot of what the law was transcribed into the new Testament.
[00:24:00] Rod is talking about the new covenant. So I think there's a little bit of an issue there as it relates to the terminology. And I think we want to be clear about what that is. I would agree, as an example, with pastor Smith  that  when Jesus was there, his ministry while he was on the earth was to...
And I know it's not my job by the way that to add this. A little, let everybody know you can cut this out if you want. But I think it's really, I think it's important to talk about in terms of the clarity. For people that are listening to this.  Jesus' ministry was to the Jews. He was born a Jew. He was raised at Jew.
His ministry was to the Jews who rejected him. And it wasn't until after he ushered in the new covenant that actually that transition took place. So in the new Testament  while he was ministering to the Jews, Jesus referred a lot to the mosaic law and he referred a lot to that because that was his point of context.
[00:25:00] Where the new covenant becomes  an issue is that transition point  when Christ actually died on the cross. When the curtain was torn in the sanctuary from top to bottom, when the Holy of Holies was revealed. So I want to be sure that we're clear, there is a distinction between the new Testament, which is a literary distinction and the new covenant, which is a scriptural or a spiritual  distinction. Yeah. Does that make sense? I just want to, I just wanted to clarify that just so you know, so that we had a good distinction and then I'll, and I'll back out. Cause I know I'm not supposed to participate.
'''Rod Bergen: [00:25:34]''' Jesse, something I will add too, is that you might want to read. I just finished reading a book by NT Wright. Tom Wright wrote a book called, The Day The Revolution Began, and it's all focused on one thing, the cross and the difference the cross made.  Very good book, which I think you'd quite enjoy.
'''Jay Cox: [00:25:52]''' So I do want to move on to Rod's second question, but what I'm going to go ahead and do, cause I think it'll be a good wrap up here is I'm gonna ask [00:26:00] each of you a question that I believe  cuts to the heart of what you're each trying to say in this question. Cause I think there's a lot of back and forth.
That's  left on the ground, so to speak here    left on the cutting room floor as they say.    And  I think who just spoke last, it was you right, Rod. Yep. Okay. So  I'll let Jesse go first. You'll each get about three minutes and I don't want you to respond to what each other is saying.
I want you to respond to my question. If you need me to repeat the second speaker, that's fine. Sure.  So for Rod, my question  is it, the commands to, for example, not wear pants are null and void simply because they weren't mentioned again in the new Testament or in the new covenant, does that also apply, for example, to incest law and beastiality law. And my question to Jesse. And Jesse, if you need me to repeat this after rod speaks by all means  I'm okay with that is, do you think that Paul was in error, when he said in Galatians, very harshly that being under the law, if you were to add being [00:27:00] even one part of being under the law, namely circumcision, that you were accursed?
And so I defer to Rod first and again, broad. My question was  do you believe that the same rule applies for things like beastiality and incest and other laws explicitly mentioned only a single time in the old Testament?
'''Rod Bergen: [00:27:15]''' I think  what we are told to focus on is love. And if we actually live a life of love, We won't engage in any of these other things.
The critical thing... I don't ask myself the question, is this sin? and then I don't do this because this is sin, and I don't do that because that is sin. And I follow this list of rules. What I do is ask myself a simple question. What does love require of me? So as a person who lives a life of love and knowing that if I do something, it will offend people.
I don't want to offend them. I want to live a life of love if I do something else. And this is [00:28:00] what Paul says, if it offends somebody to eat meat, I won't eat meat.  This is how we are supposed to be motivated as Christians under the new covenant.  We are motivated by...  A motivation of love. And I, I understand, Jesus said, this is how people know you are my disciples, if you love one another.
And that is not how the church in North America is known and is not how the message church is  know. All you have to do is look at people who've left the message and say, yeah, you know what? People in the message really don't love people. And I understand this is most evangelical churches in North America.
This is not how we're known. But it is how we should be known. And this is what the new covenant is about. It is a motivation of love. I live my life. In fact, Paul says this in Galatians.  The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. That's the only thing that counts. Not living a bunch of rules.
The only thing that counts is faith expressing [00:29:00] itself through love.
'''Jay Cox: [00:29:03]''' All right. I appreciate that. And then  pastor Smith, just to reiterate my question for you was  do you believe that when Paul said to even add one thing he's talking about in Galatians, right. Just taught any speaking specifically about circumcision, which is, you know, um, the bedrock, if you will, of, you know, being a Jew, right.
That's the, that was given to Abraham 400 years before Moses ever walked the earth. And he says to add that to the gospels, to make one a cursed, literally a cursed. Um, is that an error or is that a, um, in other words, how would you want to rectify that with this idea that you must not wear pants in order to be a Christian or something like that?
Does that seem kind of like, as in, in vein with the Galatians? Um, but what the book of Galatians is condemning.
I don't know if I worded that. Right. But go ahead and answer.
'''Jesse Smith: [00:29:58]''' Yeah. Galatians 1 Paul says, if anyone changes the gospel, they're cursed. Okay. So, uh, Paul specifically named circumcision as legalism. And, uh, it says if you add that, he said you fail the grace of God.
Now getting back to Jesus. Yes, Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and yes, Acts 15 has four commands. But then if we keep reading the Bible, Paul was sent by Jesus Christ. To give the word, the whole council. He called it the whole counsel of God in Acts 20. So what I'm saying is those four commandments were just the beginning to get the people established in Acts 15.
And then Paul was led by Jesus Christ. He met Jesus Christ out in the desert of Arabia, or just somewhere in Arabia and revealed the revelation, the rest of the revelation. To the Gentiles. And then Paul, who said it was all by grace. Don't add one word, say by grace through [00:31:00] faith, then Paul, you can use his writings to show how all 10 old Testament commandments are still righteousness in the new Testament.
So, yes, I believe, uh, and rod I'll recommend a book to you. It's called, Women In Pants by Cynthia Greg and Catherine Smith. They're not Christians, they're not message believers. Um, But it shows the history of women, how they transitioned in the wearing pants and how it was. There was a huge uproar. It was a, uh, it was all the preachers were against it.
Um, and it was, it was a very sad event, I believe because I believe the righteous because the Bible says there's confusion. Whenever they mix the clothing styles, there's confusion. Um, and I believe that scriptural now also tithing is new Testament doctrine. It's in first Corinthians nine yet. And I believe that it is because Paul says those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel and uses the old [00:32:00] Testament priests as the example.
So that's clearly, they're clearly keeping the same way. Uh, there's a similar way of supporting the new Testament, priesthood or preachers, the five-fold ministry as the old Testament. And so I could go on and on about that. Um, but the righteousness of the law, the Holy spirit lead us to the things that he still wants us to obey in the new Testament.
And like rod was saying, I opened my Bible and I've got the love of Jesus Christ in my heart. And yes, this is my rule book. Because, uh, things I'm not aware of, this opens my eyes to the things I'm not aware of. I have the Holy spirit in my heart full of love and whatever my Lord says in the love letter, I want to do it.
Um, the Philippians says we must walk by the same rule, which means a standard. So the word rule is actually in the new Testament, but it's not by, it's not by a bad attitude. It's [00:33:00] by love is because I want, I want, I want God to protect me. I want God to keep me within his boundaries. I don't want to walk in the flesh.
I'm going to walk in the Holy spirit because Jesus died for me because he paid the price. The Bible said in Isaiah, It's about time, brother. So if you can wrap up your thought real quick, he says all the iniquity of us all was poured out upon Christ that we might be healed, saved, redeemed, all the blessings, all the benefits are through the cross of Jesus Christ, the payment of his blood, uh, to purchase us and to buy us and then his Holy spirit to live in our lives to help us live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
'''Rod Bergen: [00:33:42]''' So one, one really quick question, and this is not, I don't want a long response from you, Jesse. What did Christ redeem us from?
'''Jesse Smith: [00:33:51]''' The Bible says the curse of the law, the curse of it, and the curse is
Yeah, the curse is, Paul said, if you fail on one, you're guilty of all. So we [00:34:00] fall short of the glory of God.
Daily brother Branham said, I, I sinned thousands of times a year. We all fall short of the glory of God. Paul said, I hate the things that I do, but you said, Oh, wretched man, that am, but thanks. Be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
'''Rod Bergen: [00:34:15]''' That's right. But Paul speaking, the things I do, what I desire to do.
He's speaking as a man who's not a Christian yet. So we can't go into that in detail. We should probably move on to question two. Anyways.  I've studied this issue a detail, but yeah, that's interesting.
'''Jay Cox: [00:34:33]''' Well, and I appreciate the answers. They're both very, um, lucid responses.
I do want to ask just briefly, um, each of the speakers, do you, do you feel that. My questions were kind of fairly trying to get to the heart of each issue. So...
'''Rod Bergen: [00:34:45]''' yeah, no, they were good questions.
'''Tim Kraus: [00:34:47]''' Okay. Good. Great question, CJ.
'''Jay Cox: [00:34:49]''' Thank you. And I want to make sure it's just to say that, um, you know, we're getting to the actual heart of the questions here, and so I appreciate that.  We're able to do that.


{{Bottom of Page No Ref}}
{{Bottom of Page No Ref}}
Retrieved from "http:///index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/25125"