Transgressing the Law

As usual you just flat out messed up again. He was lost and dead, but was not a sheep, so that is why the Father did not go seeking him.
If he was not a sheep, then he was a goat, which is what he was until he was found. He certainly was not a sheep, the life he lived.

Also, when you have no answer you use your famous quote "out of context".

BBob,

 

Luke 15:4-6 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.

He was not a sheep, Bob? Scripture please. Where does the passage say that?
He was a goat, Bob? Scripture please. Where does the passage say that?
There is no mention of goat at all.

What it does say is that there were 100 sheep.
One of those sheep went astray, missing.
The shepherd left the ninety-nine to look for the missing sheep.
When he found that one sheep, he came back rejoicing that he had found his sheep.

There is no mention of a goat; only sheep; only the saved.

 

What was the prodigal son, a sheep or a goat DHK, do you know?

BBob,

 

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

The son (a sheep) knew his father (the shepherd); and his Father knew him; and was willing to give his all for him. There is no doubt that he was a sheep; that he was saved, a child of the Father, an heir of the Father, restored in fellowship once again.

 

Wonder why the father did not leave the ninety nine and go look for him?

Jhn 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

Jhn 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

BBob,

He was a "goat"!

 

HP: I agree! :thumbs: ............………and then squandered it until it was completely exhausted. At that point he had none left, it was gone. He had wasted it until it no longer existed. No 'once an inheritance always an inheritance' found here.
Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

 

The believer is an heir and joint heir with Jesus Christ.
That inheritance of course can never be lost.
In the Scripture that you refer to, the unsaved never had an inheritance to begin with.

Remember that Jesus is speaking in parables. Try not to stretch it too far. Both the fact that he is a son and had an inheritance point to the fact that he is a son, and saved. He may have squandered his inheritance, or acted irresponsible with what he had, as many of us do. That doesn't mean he wasn't saved. One cannot read too much into a parable.

BTW, what does the broom represent in the parable of the woman who lost the coin?

 

Our salvation is a gift. (Eph. 2:8);

Our 'inheritance' is a "reward." (Col. 3:24)

The two are not the same thing. (Ac. 26:18)

Ed

 

Also:
Num 16:14Moreover thou hast not brought us into a land that floweth with milk and honey, or given us inheritance of fields and vineyards: wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? we will not come up.

One among very many.

BBob,

 

Yes, one among thousands of Scripture verses in the Bible that has no relevance to the topic at hand. I have a four year old that can do the same thing. Copy and paste--at random.

 

The 'physical' inheritance of the land, among Israel (Num. 26 & 27; Deut. 15:4; Josh. 1:6; 11:23; 13:7- 19:49) is not the same as the 'spiritual' inheritance of the church. (Eph. 1:11, 14, 18; I Pet. 1:3-4)

BTW, the land was given to Abraham and his seed, long before the law was ever given. (Gen. 15:18)

Ed

 

I don't know what you are trying to say. Are you attacking me for the scripture or what. Did the Prodigal son receive a physical inheritance or a spiritual inheritance. I believe he received a physical inheritance to which he spent it all. Therefore the scripture that I posted is just to show that there is a physical inheritance in the Bible.

Why the hostility? Is it your nature or what.

BBob,

 

Oh, but it does have relevance to the topic at hand, why not ask your 4 year old, maybe he can enlighten you. You need help from someone, that is for sure.

You have to know of the scripture before you can copy and paste. I guess you never do such a thing as copy and paste, or are you just being hypocritical? Surely you would not copy and paste and then insult one of your brothers for knowing of scripture and instead of typing it all out, they use the tools that God has given to man, so they don't show their stupidity. Its like digging yourself in a hole and not having the sense to stop digging.

I saw in another thread where a poster left the thread because of your remarks.

BBob,

 

All I am saying Bob is that Scripture from the Book of Numbers, dealing with the nation of Israel has nothing to do with this topic. Please keep to the topic, and don't derail it with some red herring to the OT.
As I have mentioned before, when posting a verse explain the purpose of the verse. Why did you post it. What was its relevance? What did it have to do with the prodigal son or the one sheep that left the ninety and nine. There was no connection at all.
Be relevant. Keep to the topic. If we are speaking of Christ, salvation through Christ, Christ and his sheep, eternal security, sheep always being sheep, then the quote from Numbers is totally irrelevant. There is no difference between that quote and let's say quoting Genesis 1:1. It is a red herring--nothing to do with the topic.

 

I am "attacking" no one, here. I am/was merely pointing out there is a difference between the inheritance for Israel and that for the church, originally in response to the post of Heavenly Pilgrim, who was, I believe, equating the inheritance with salvation, according to what he had posted, along the thread.

And I went on in a later post, to point out that the 'inheritance' of the land, for the seed of Abraham (which incidentally, includes that of Ishmael, as well as that of Isaac, hence the presence of those we today identify as "Arabs" in areas such as Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia is a part of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham given in Gen. 15:18) was given long before the law, as well.

In the example Jesus then gave for all to hear, after he had specifically spoken the parable of the sheep and coins to the Scribes and Pharisees (Lk. 15:3), for the words "Then He said" in Lk. 15:11, show the break in His direct quotation (incidentally, this example was a specific Father and two sons, who were known to Jesus, and not just an 'illustration', for this is not said to be a parable), the inheritance of both sons was indeed physical. And there is a physical, earthly inheritance for Israel, certainly.

But I do not see there is any such, in that sense for the church, for the church's inheritance is heavenly, as I Pet. 1: 3-4 tells us, and I have not ever been promised, nor am I to receive so much as one square inch of land in Israel.

I do see a bit of hostility manifesting itself on this thread, but it is certainly not arising from me.

Frankly, I am to lazy to waste my time with getting hostile.

Ed

 

The specific phrase "the Law" in the NT, at least, is a specific refrence to the written law, as found in the Torah, and which is what I refer to as the Mosaic Law.

I have never transgressed this law, FTR, for I never had it to transgress, in the first place (Rom. 2:14), because I was a Gentile, and not of the seed of Israel. I could no more transgress this law, than I could transgress the Law of Germany of that of England, for a couple of examples, for I do not and have never lived, or ever even been under such, as I have never been outside the United States. Same principle.

Second, I cannot transgress this Law today, for as a Christian, I am not under it, No. 1 (Rom. 3:19; 6:14-15): and No. 2, it has been (a.) fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ, who "kept it" perfectly, in my stead (Mt. 5:17-18; Lk. 21:44-47; Jn. 8:29, 46, 55; Gal. 4:4,5; Heb. 4:15; I Pet. 2:22), (b.) abolished it in his flesh on the cross (Eph. 2:11-17), (c.) personally blotted it out and nailed it to His cross, forever taking it out of the way (Col. 2:13-15), and hence He is the complete and total end of the law for righteousness for the believer (Rom. 10:4).

No longer is "the Law" the issue, for any.

The topic of this thread is "Transgressing the Law," I believe.

Ed

 

And I explained that it has everything to do with this topic on the Prodigal Son. If you are having trouble understanding some of the posts, I will be glad to help you out, if you will only ask?

BTW; was the Prodigal Son "under the Law"? It is not a red herring and goes to show that Israel received an inheritance other than spiritual, as did the Prodigal Son.

BBob,

 

There was a time you were not a Christian.

Who me???

BBob,

 

Bob,
'Fess up and admit your mistake. The inheritance of the Promised Land for the nation of Israel has as much to do with the monetary inheritance given to the prodigal son by his father, as the tea that is sold in China. There is no relation.

 

Why don't you answer a simple question? Was the Prodigal Son, under the Law?

BBob,