Don't know why someone in my company always 'attack' me and seem like wanted me to leave the company or my position so badly.

Now i get a deeper understanding about psalm: better is 1 day in your court dan 1000 days elsewhere.

i used to understand that 1 day in his court i can get so many revelations knowledge, but not breakthrough. apparently there are more than just what i wrote.

tqvm.

Thanks for the lengthy reply
I'll try to deal with your concerns systematically so that hopefully not just you, but the readers here, would be able to see where I'm arguing from more clearly:

The blessings of Abraham and Job

Both verses that you've quoted only say this: Abraham was rich. Remember, no one is denying that God doesn't bless people or give anyone money. If it is God's will that you drive a BMW, then you will drive a BMW. If it is God's will that you drive a proton Saga, then he will give you a proton saga.

What I said about using these OT figures still applies: We cannot derive a theological principle simply by saying that "Job was rich, therefore we will be rich too". You argument MIGHT work against someone who argues that God *will not* bless *anyone* with *Anything*. Again I must reiterate the point that this is not my position, nor is it Sylar's position.

Let me make clear our position again: We are simply against the belief that Jesus' death on the cross means we will *not* be sick and poor. <<< This statement does *not* mean that we believe that God cannot bless any of his children.

The Messiahnic prophecy of Isaiah 53

The question here now is :"Did Christ die for my diseases?" You affirm this, I deny this. So let's dig into the text...

Firstly, this is where I have to bring back the hermeunetical principle of "context is king". Yes, the Hebrew word used *may* refer to physical healing, but it can also refer to a figurative healing. To determine what Isaiah meant when he used those words, we have to look at the context to determine what he meant. E.g. He uses it to figuratively to describe how Israel would be "healed" (remember, Isaiah was a prophet to the Israelites, he heard from God to warn the Israelites) if they "see with their eyes, hear with their ears and understand with their hearts (cf. Isaiah 6:10)

So what is the surrounding context?
The surrounding context seems to demonstrate that what Isaiah was getting at was the forgiveness of sins! To plug in "healed" to mean "physical healing" would be odd because then the rest of the text doesn't seem to fit that reading.

Also, something you should note is that "iaomai" can refer to both physical healing (your luke example for instance) OR figurative healing (Jn 12:40 etc.). So just because the greek *can* mean one thing, you would need contextual arguments to support your use of the word because the greek could mean something else.

In fact, someone from The Master's seminary who probably knows both the greek in the LXX and the hebrew better than the both of us has written a very solid argument against your position that Christ died so that we may attain physical healing: http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj6e.pdf Take some time to read it.
Note how he argues from what the OT sees atonement as too. Remember, your position is that Christ died as an atonement not just for sins, but for physical healing. But the whole idea of atonement in the OT is explicitly about the propitiation of sin, and in Hebrews, the author describes how Jesus died as a propitiation for our sins and how Jesus "atoned" for our sins. This strong definition of atonement doesn't permit you to add "for our physical healing" as well.

Luke and John
Now here's where another hermeunetical principle has to be introduced. When we're exegeting scripture, we have to look at the immediate context first, before looking at the context of the whole bible. To interpret the bible with the bible is correct practice, but to skip the immediate context first is not.

In Luke 10, we have a specific command from Jesus to the 72 disciples (it's explicitly clear that this verse is specifically for the 72). There could be better arguments against your position, but I suppose the immediate context of Luke 10 already casts doubt on your exegesis of the text. You already provided a defense that the command of Jesus in Luke 10 was for us as well, but you're using a different isolated verse that is in a different book of the Bible, so you cannot use that to defeat the immediate context of Luke 10.
But let's deal with your use of John 14. First, let's establish the context: John 14 seems to follow after the events of John 13. In John 13, we see Jesus talking about his betrayal (cf. John 13:21-30) and this seems to put the events during the last supper; The disciples were probably confused and scared as to what was going to happen.

Thus it seems fitting that in John 14 the first thing Jesus says is this :"Let not your hearts be troubled..." So here he comforts his disciples with spiritual truths and promises about how the "helper" will come, and we know that the Holy Spirit didn't come until Jesus has departed (day of pentecost).

Now bearing all of this in mind, here's what W. Hall Harris III, a professor of NT studies at Dallas Theological Seminary has to say about the verse:
Source https://bible.org/seriespage/17-exegetical-...mentary-john-14



And note that *even* IF your interpretation is correct that Jesus is asking all of us to heal people just as he did, this does not mean that he died so that Christians may be healed. Remember what we're disagreeing on at this point: That Jesus died so that we maybe healed.
Nick Vujicic and etc.

No, UW ):, I don't think I'm misunderstanding you here. Yes you claimed that we live in a fallen world, and I wholeheartedly agree. But the claim that you're making is that Jesus died not just for our sins, but so that we can be healed. Here's a breakdown of it

(1)Jesus died so that we may be physically healed and have protection in life <<< Your belief that I disagree with
(2)Jesus died for Nick Vujicic <<< we both accept this premise
(3)Nick Vujicic did not grow his limb back.
(4)Therefore, either (1) or (2) is false.

The logic here is pretty simple: Either (1) Jesus died so that we may be physically healed is false or (2) Jesus died for Nick Vujicic is false. You have to choose.

The reason why I'm re-emphasizing Christ's atoning work on the cross here is because you need to see the difference between what I believe the gospel to be and what you believe the gospel to be:

My belief: (a)Jesus Christ came to die on the cross for the sins of sinful men
Your belief: (b)Jesus Christ came to die on the cross for the sins of sinful men AND that they will be physically healed in this life.

Note how there is nothing about (i)Whether Christians can be blessed or healed by God if God desires them to be healed.
Man I'm starving. Time for din dins

Amen

God's blessing on his people

I don't think any Christian believes that God doesn't bless who he wishes to bless; I know of many evangelical Christians, rich or poor, who are against the idea that Jesus died so that you can be healthy, wealthy and prosperous in your business. There's a difference between the two as I've highlighted above. But since you don't hold to the latter, good on you.
Matthew 8

Maybe you should reread the long textual argument I made: I was doing exactly just that, reading the OT in light of the new. Saying that Isaiah 53 is pointing to Jesus IS reading the OT in light of the NT.

Your argument from Matthew 8 is a interesting one but it is addressed in the paper I linked to you in my previous reply. Here it is again in case you missed it:

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj6e.pdf
I'd encourage you to read the whole thing because I personally learned alot from it, but if you want to skip to where he deals with Matthew 8, go to page 132  onwards(the link is linked to portion of a bigger journal and is only 22 pages long)
Dinner was good. I had roast chicken, I like roast chicken.

All this guilt ridden and shameful emotion overcame me when I went to church last weekend.

All these years when I thought that God didn't love me, but in fact, he actually love all of us. He paid for all of our sins, even though we are not worthy. But the pastor said that not all will repent and go to heaven. We must earn it.

He was there to cheer me up when I was sad.

He raised my hope when I lost hope.

He showed me the path when I was lost.

He opened my eyes when I was blinded by sins.

Now I hope that He will use me for a greater purpose.

Now I want to set a different priority in my life to a more God centric and maybe one day do God's work.

I hope I can serve God by using my talents.

Yes, I understand. Doing good works does not guarantee a one way ticket to heaven. I'm still learning, reading bible verses. I can't believe I got so many different bibles in my house. I prefer NIV though.
Uh, I, er had bad experience with churches like this too. No offense.

I attended a local church few years back, I can't remember the name but the pastor keep on repeating that IF a christian does not attend church regularly, he or she is a BAD SPIRITED CHRISTIAN. 

Sometimes, my work requires me to work overtime during the weekend. So how? This kind of pastor reminds me of those Pharisee.
It says "Page not found"? 

Uh ok, now the link is working. hehe.

So, I have to wait for the Holy Spirit to prompt me? Is that all? I should pray about it then.

That's a good verse to remember. Thanks!

I don't like these legalistic and ego-testicle pastors.

So now I need to find a decent church, and attend cell group or bible classes, join baptism class and perhaps later become a member and join a ministry.

If only I have the time for all of that. I will try, but definitely I will attend the baptism class and become a member.

Then later, find a soulmate. lel.

Ah, I was thinking about this verse Matthew 6:25-34, but you know girls worry about what dress to wear, shoes, hairstyle, etc...

But none of that is important, so today I checked out this bible app for android, it says that I can finish reading the bible in one year! Cool!

thanks :-)

I have a question, what is the Church's view on pre marital sex?

I know its wrong, so yeah, please don't judge. 

Hebrews 7:23-24 (NIV) 23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

Young's Literal Translation of the Bible

I download this material about Young's literal translation of the bible.
heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/bibles/ylt.pdf

I just read PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION, and here is the part that i am alarmed / scared

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a translation gives a "present tense" when the original gives a "past", or a "past" when it has a
"present"; a "perfect" for a "future", or a "future" for a "perfect"; an "a" for a "the", or a "the" for an
"a"; an "imperative" for a "subjunctive", or a "subjunctive" for an "imperative"; a "verb" for a
"noun", or a "noun" for a "verb", it is clear that verbal inspiration is as much overlooked as if it had
no existence. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does this means that tradition of men really... really has impact on translation ?

Some of you know that i am the guy who Ask for HS. It sounds not intellectual, it sounds childish, and it sounds irresponsible from scholar point of view. I understand. I am a professional and i cannot tell my customer i ask HS.  It just not professional.

But after reading Young's preface to the revised edition, all i can tell you is, i get paranoid

1. i will ask HS more. Instead of asking what's the rhema for me, i will ask more "intelligence question". John 10:10... I come to give you live... come is present tense in original greek or present continuous tense ? live is noun or present continuous aspect of living ?

2. then you tell me, that's why study bible properly. get concordance, get hermeneutics, don't interpret macam kacang. My questions: How do i know that tomorrow amazon.com will not release a new material that refutes all of today (or yesterday) understanding ? don't tell me check HS... yes i know check with HS... check what ? what to check ? what to ask HS ?

The idea is, check HS assumed you have question to ask. If you don't have question ? what to ask to HS ?

sorry for being angry, yelled and impatience. It's just alarming for me. if offended, kindly accept my apology. 

Yeah, I finally moved on. I have repented of my sins before God. Now, I just want to pray everyday and seek his help. I have realized that I cannot do everything based upon my own strength.

Now I feel less stress and I feel more at peace with myself. Its truly God's doing that He still loves me even though I have abandoned him long long time ago.

Today I heard Mark Virkler's "Hearing the voice of God". Well, I remember in Matthew 16:3 - 4 =

Pharisees and Sadducees Seek a Sign
…3"And in the morning, 'There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.' Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times? 4"An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah." And He left them and went away.

John 10:27

27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

Its not that I want to look for a sign or vision, but I feel as a new Christian, shouldn't we pray to God for mercy and other things besides asking for a sign and vision? I do not feel its important if I can't find the sign. As for me, I think to have that personal relationship with God is truly a wonderful thing. To understand the Word and live as Christ should.

Thanks UW. Now left 2 more months to work.

We need constant encouragement from our fellow Christians too so that we won't fall back. I think a group prayer helps too. Do you agree?