Why you should live everyday with Jesus

We were made to be like Jesus—but how is that different than trying to be like Buddha or Confucius? How is Christianity different from other religions that tell people to imitate a highly respected role model? It is different in several ways.

First, most religions teach some form of works as the path of salvation—saying the right prayers, doing the right things, hoping it will be enough. They imply that people can be good enough if they try hard enough.

But Christianity teaches that we all need grace because we cannot be good enough no matter how hard we try. The point of grace, and of Jesus’ sacrifice, is that no amount of good works or religious deeds can ever save anyone. If such a path could have been designed, then God would have done it (Galatians 3:21). The Christian gospel teaches that no one can earn salvation, and yet it is available to all, because Jesus gives it to us.

Second, most religions tell us to change our behavior, and they expect us to supply all the effort. Christianity says that God himself will supply the power we need to change our lives. We humans have gotten ourselves into this mess, and we can’t rescue ourselves. The power of salvation must come from God.

We are not trying to transform ourselves into the image of Christ—we want to let God do it in us. The Bible describes this as the Holy Spirit living in us, God living in us, or Jesus Christ living in us. The power to change our behavior comes from him, not from within ourselves. It is his work, not anything we can take credit for.

Third, most religions motivate people through threats and desire for reward. Christianity motivates us through grace and love. We obey God not out of fear, but out of love and thankfulness for what he has done. And we are confident that he has given us the best instructions possible on how to live.

Christianity says that we were created for a purpose, and that purpose is eternal happiness living with a supremely loving God (Psalm 16:11). Jesus is not just an example of how we ought to live—he is also an example of what salvation means. He lives in eternal glory, and says that we can join him in that glory, if we trust him.

Spiritual growth
Over the centuries, Christians have found several ways to let God do his work in our lives. God does not force us to love him—love by definition has to be willingly given; it cannot be programmed into us or forced out of us. We have to choose it. God works in us as we submit to him. "It is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose" (Philippians 2:13).

How do we invite God to do his work in our lives? How do we become more like Jesus Christ? In several ways:

In worship, we are reminded of God’s greatness, his mercy and his desire to do good in our lives. We are reminded that we can trust him and that we depend on him, just as Jesus did.

In prayer, we acknowledge that we depend on God, and we ask him for the help we need—needs such as food, intervention, and spiritual change. "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God" (Philippians 4:6).

In Bible study, we read and think about the works and words of God. Jesus studied Scripture and used its words to help him resist temptations (Matthew 4:1-11). He said that humans do "not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" (verse 4). Spiritual life needs spiritual nourishment.

In the church, we interact with other people in the same Christ-focused training program. We learn from our interactions about how to express love, and we grow in appreciation for people who have talents and abilities different from our own. Jesus created the church not just to preach the gospel, but to help us grow, because that is also part of his work and purpose.

In service, in helping others, we act the way Jesus would. We learn by experience that service gives us more life satisfaction than selfishness does. Being involved in the work of God is the most satisfying feeling of all, for it will be of eternal value. When we die, we can’t take physical things with us, but we can take relationships.

Toil and trouble
In the day-to-day experiences of life, we have opportunities to learn to be like Jesus, to choose to be patient, to be considerate, to help others, to pray. On the job and in our homes, Jesus has something to say about what we do.

What about the trials and difficulties of life? We wish they’d go away, but Jesus never promised that. Instead, he promised us problems: "In this world you will have trouble" (John 16:33). "No servant is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also" (John 15:20).

Deuteronomy 6 verse 3 explained..............

The problem in translating this verse is not the meaning of the Hebrew term for “one,” but the division of the sentence “Yahweh Elohim Yahweh echad.” Since the Hebrew text has no punctuation, various renderings are possible, all requiring the addition of the verb “is.” The four most important possibilities can be found in the New Revised Standard Version and its footnote on this verse:

Yahweh (is) our God, Yahweh alone.
Yahweh our God (is) one Yahweh.
Yahweh our God, Yahweh (is) one.
Yahweh (is) our God, Yahweh (is) one.
These versions have major differences in emphasis. The question here is not about the psychological effect created by each possibility, but the meaning of the passage for its theological import.

The King James Version of 1611 and the Revised Version took option 2, probably because the repetition of the subject of the sentence (“Yahweh”) in 3 and 4 seems forced, unnatural. Option 1 has the disadvantage of using “echad” (one) in a sense that is unusual and unexpected. In other passages, a different word is used for “alone.”

Theological importance
The theological possibilities behind Deuteronomy 6:4 are two. The first is that this verse stresses God’s unity, and the second is that it stresses God’s uniqueness. “Unity” means oneness (a state of being single). In a theological context, it does not mean harmony among people (unity of mind, etc.) – it means that there is only one God. “Uniqueness” means a state in which there is no equal. Although many gods may exist, only one is to be Israel’s God.

This passage, then, is announcing either that there is only one single being in the Godhead, or that Israel is not to worship any of the other (existing) gods. A possibility of the combination of the two need not concern us, because it does not alter anything significant, as will become clear below.

In determining which of these meanings is correct, it is necessary to give some thought to the second possibility, the notion that the Israelites are to accept Yahweh as their national God (rather than any other existing deity). This can be held by those who take Deuteronomy to be an anthropological account (one that explains the ideas current in a polytheistic Israel) rather than an actual revelation from the true God. Or it can be held by those who believe that God limited his self-revelation to accommodate the polytheistic ideas of the day. Both of these approaches clash with Deut. 4:35 and 39, which assert that only the Lord is God, and there is none other besides him. Deut. 6:4 should not be interpreted to imply that the people thought that other gods might exist, but that only Yahweh should be worshiped.

Although God is unique, Deut. 6:4 is not about his uniqueness. It is about God’s unity. This is not to assert that the Israelites totally understood the true God, or that they abstained from the worship of other (false, non-existing) gods – far from it; the record indicates the opposite. It would be equally wrong to assume that Deuteronomy 6:4 says that God is pure spirit. This concept is the result of abstract reasoning concerning God, which was foreign to the society that received and read the Torah.

Irrespective of what Israel thought about God (or about Deuteronomy), Deut. 6:4 is a divine revelation. It proceeds from the true God. The meaning is that there is no other divine being in existence, and that Yahweh is that being, a single being, whom we should worship.

Why do we have three Gods; God's son, God,Holy spirit, God, The father, God.Truth Here...........

Some people take issue with the use of the word “Person” in the doctrine of the Trinity when the word is applied to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They wrongly assume that the doctrine of the Trinity inadvertently teaches that three Gods exist. Their reasoning goes something like this: If God the Father is a “Person,” then he is a God in his own right (having the characteristics of being divine). He would count as “one” God. The same could be said about the Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, there would be three separate Gods.

The Trinity doctrine has the opposite intent – to preserve the biblical witness to the oneness of God’s Being, yet at the same time accounting for the divinity of the Father, Son and the Spirit. When we speak of God’s divine nature, we must not confuse tritheism with the Trinity or think of “persons” as we do in the human sphere. What the Trinity says is that God is one with respect to his essence but is three with respect to the internal distinctions within his Triunity.

Here is how Christian scholar Emery Bancroft described it in his book Christian Theology, pages 87-88:

The Father is not God as such; for God is not only Father, but also Son and Holy Spirit. The term Father designates that personal distinction in the divine nature in virtue of which God is related to the Son and, through the Son and the Spirit, to the church.
The Son is not God as such; for God is not only Son, but also Father and Holy Spirit. The Son designates that distinction in virtue of which God is related to the Father, and is sent by the Father to redeem the world, and with the Father sends the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not God as such; for God is not only Holy Spirit, but also Father and Son. The Holy Spirit designates that distinction in virtue of which God is related to the Father and the Son, and is sent by them to accomplish the work of renewing the ungodly and sanctifying the church.

When we are seeking to understand the Trinity doctrine, we need to be careful how we use and understand the word “God.” For example, whatever the New Testament says about the oneness of God, it also draws a distinction between Jesus Christ and God the Father. This is where the above formula from Bancroft is helpful. To be precise, we should speak of “God the Father,” “God the Son” and “God the Holy Spirit” when we are referring to each hypostasis or “Person” of the one God.

There are limitations of using the word “person” when explaining the nature of God. Do we really understand how God can be one in Being and three in Person? We have no experiential knowledge of God as he is. Not only is our experience limited, but so is our language. Using the word “Persons” for each of the three hypostases of God is in some ways a compromise. But, when speaking of God’s nature, we need a word that emphasizes his personalness in relationship to us human creatures and within himself, and yet carries with it the concept of distinctiveness. “Person” is the most appropriate word we have in the English language to do this.

Unfortunately, the word “person” also contains the notion of separateness when used of human persons. How can we deal with this? We understand that God does not consist of the kind of persons that a group of human beings do. Human persons are separate from each other and have separate wills because they only have external relations with each other, while the Persons of God have internal relations and share the same essence.

The Trinity doctrine uses the word “Person” for each hypostasis of God because it is a personal word, and God is a personal being in his dealings with us. Only a personal being can love, and love is the defining essence of God, according to the biblical witness (1 John 4:8; John 3:16; 15:9-10)

The word “persons” distinguishes between the three Persons of God and the one Being of God in the sense that the three Persons constitute his one Being. Thus, the doctrine preserves both the biblical revelation that there is but one God and no other, as well as its testimony that the Father, the Son and the Spirit are all equally divine and true God of true God.

Those who reject the Trinitarian explanation of God’s nature are in a quandary. If they reject the theology of the Trinity, they have no explanation that preserves two biblical truths about God’s Being: God is One Being and also he is plural in his Being. If they accept the biblical fact that Jesus is divine, they need some way of explaining that God is one, yet has more than one Person.
That is why Christians formulated the doctrine in precise technical language – so that we could rightly speak of God, according to the witness he has left us of himself through Christ and in the Spirit, as attested to by the New Testament. The church confesses the biblical testimony that God is one divine Being. But Christians also confess that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are divine, true God of true God, according to the New Testament.

The Trinity doctrine was developed with the intent of explaining, as well as human words and thought would allow, the reality that God has existed from eternity both as One Being and yet as three Persons. The Trinity doctrine says that God is one and that in his oneness he is Triune.

Explanations of the nature of God other than the Trinity have been put forth throughout the history of the Church. Arianism is one example. This theory claimed that the Son was a created being. The Arians thought they had preserved the oneness of God in their explanation, but created a heresy that did not rightly speak of God’s nature. The Arian conclusion was fundamentally flawed in that if the Son was a created being, he would not be divine, of the same essence of God, and therefore, could not be our Savior and could not be worshipped. Only God can save us and make us new creations. All other theories advanced to explain God’s nature in terms of the revelation of the Son and Holy Spirit have proved equally unfaithful to the gospel and the nature of God.

On the other hand, the Trinitarian explanation takes into consideration the divinity of the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit – and the biblical truth that there is only one God. That’s why the doctrine of the Trinity has survived for centuries as the explanation of God’s nature that preserves the truth of the biblical witness of who God is – and that he has saved us in himself through the Son and in the Spirit.

Is Eternal damnation already predestined by God for some people?

“I am wondering about predestination. Are some people predestined to be saved and the rest predestined not to be saved?”

The doctrine of predestination is sometimes referred to as “election,” in the sense that God chooses people for his own purposes. For example, Abraham was chosen, or elected, by God, as were his son and grandson, Isaac and Jacob. Other chosen ones included Moses, Joshua, David, the prophets, and the Israelites were the “chosen people.”

The apostle Paul wrote about predestination, or election, in several passages. In Romans 8:28-30 and Ephesians 1:3-6, he emphasized that election is “in Christ,” and that it is a matter of God’s own choice for God’s own purposes. In Romans 9-11, Paul takes the topic of election further by exploring Israel’s rejection of her Messiah. In the course of his argument in Romans 9-11, Paul asks the question,

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:22-24)

This passage has been much debated over the centuries. Taken out of context, it might sound as though some people are predestined to be saved and the rest are predestined for destruction. But that is not what the passage says, nor is it the argument Paul is making. Paul argues in Romans 9 and 10 that Israel has failed to be found righteous before God because they sought after righteousness their own way instead of putting their trust in Christ (9:31-32; 10:3). This does not mean that God’s covenant promises have failed, however, because God is free to have mercy on whomever he chooses (9:15) and is using Israel’s unfaithfulness to draw the Gentiles to himself though faith (9:16, 22-26, 30; 10:11-13).

Next, Paul asks, “Have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!” (11:11-12). Yes, Paul argues, Israel has rejected Christ and therefore, except for a believing remnant, falls under the covenant judgments.

But that is not the end of the story, even for those who rejected Christ. Paul declares in verse 23, “And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.” These people rejected Christ, yet God does not abandon them. The God who is forever faithful to his covenant love is so powerful that he can and does provide opportunity for unbelievers to become believers, even dead unbelievers (many of the unbelieving Israelites were dead, but God’s work of mercy involves all of them, see 11:32). We aren’t told how or when God does it, only that it is so.
read more why not all Jews will be saved

Will all Jews be saved.......................

Romans 9 and 10, Paul describes a theological problem: Most Jews are rejecting the gospel. Not only are they missing out on salvation, it makes other people wonder whether God is faithful to his promises. In chapter 11, Paul affirms that God has a surprising plan for the people of Israel.

The remnant of Israel
At the end of chapter 10, Paul described Israel as a people who heard the message but refused to accept it even though God pleaded with them. So Paul asks, “God has not rejected his people, has he?” (11:1). He answers: “Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.” Paul is living proof that God has not abandoned his people.

“God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew!” (verse 2). Foreknow here does not refer simply to advance knowledge, as if God knew some facts about the Jews. Rather, it refers to a relationship that God had with the Jews. He had a covenant with them. It is no longer valid as a source of laws, but the promises God made to them will still be kept. God has not given up on the Jews.

“Do you not know what the scripture says about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? ‘Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars; I alone am left and they are seeking my life!’” (verses 2-3, quoting from 1 Kings 19:10, 14). Elijah thought that everyone else had gone astray.

“What was the divine response to him?” Paul asks in verse 4. It was: “I have kept for myself seven thousand people who have not bent the knee to Baal.” [1 Kings 19:18] Paul draws a lesson from this: “So in the same way at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace” (verses 4-5). The situation wasn’t as bad as Elijah thought it was. In Paul’s day, too, thousands of Jews believed in Christ. There was a remnant, a small percentage, of Jews who accepted what God had done in Jesus Christ.

They are chosen by grace, he says, not by their zeal for the law. “And if it is by grace, it is no longer by works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace” (verse 6). Grace and works are opposites—we cannot mix the two.

Some were hardened
“What then?” Paul asks in verse 7. “Israel failed to obtain what it was diligently seeking, but the elect obtained it.” The Jews sincerely wanted to be righteous, but their efforts did not achieve what they wanted.

The elect—the chosen ones—obtained righteousness, Paul says. “The rest were hardened, as it is written, ‘God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, to this very day’” (verses 7-8, adapting Deuteronomy 29:4 and Isaiah 29:9-10). The minority accepted the gospel; the others did not because God gave them over to their own inclinations.
In verse 1, Paul asked a question as a springboard for his discussion, and in verse 11 he does it again: “I ask then, they did not stumble into an irrevocable fall, did they?” And again he answers: “Absolutely not! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make Israel jealous.” Their fall, their blindness, their hardening, can be revoked.

Jews who reject Christ are not hopelessly lost — they can still be saved. But in the meantime, salvation is being offered to Gentiles. Paul is alluding here to Deuteronomy 32:21: “I will make them jealous with a people they do not recognize, with a nation slow to learn I will enrage them.” Contrary to what most Jews thought, God would bless the Gentiles so much that the Jews would be envious. That is Paul’s hope and reason for ministry.

In verse 12, Paul reasons from a less-than-ideal situation to a better one: “Now if their transgression means riches for the world and their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full restoration bring?” If Jewish failure has brought blessings to others, won’t Jewish success bring even more? Paul is implying that there will come a day of success, when most Jews will accept Christ.

Paul believes the majority will be saved — first a remnant of Jews, then a good number of Gentiles, then the majority of Jews, and finally another blessing for the Gentiles — the salvation of the great majority. “Now I am speaking to you Gentiles,” he says in verse 13. “Seeing that I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I could provoke my people to jealousy and save some of them.” Although Paul was writing to Gentiles, he was addressing a question about Jews. He may be rehearsing what he will say on his trip to Jerusalem: He wants his people to accept their Messiah, so that they might be saved.

In verse 15, Paul again uses an argument from the lesser to the greater: “For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” If the failure of the Jews brought salvation to everyone else, won’t it be even better when the Jews finally accept the gospel? They might be spiritually dead now, but God can raise the dead.

Why you can go to church on any day and should go everyday?

Old Testament

One of the Ten Commandments says,

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. (NAS, Exodus 20:8-11)

The Sabbath day that the bible speaks about is Saturday, the seventh day of the week (Genesis 2:2-3, Leviticus 23:2-3). The Jews have always considered a day to be the interval from sunset to sunset, and they have always observed the Sabbath from Friday evening until Saturday evening. Modern Jews continue the tradition of observing a holy day of rest on the Sabbath (Shabbat in Hebrew) from sunset Friday until nightfall Saturday. The Old Testament law prohibited doing any work on the Sabbath, and one could receive the death penalty for breaking this law (Numbers 15:32-36).

New Testament

Jesus observed the Sabbath (Luke 4:16) and never suggested a change to Sunday. 

He did, however, reject a strict legalistic interpretation of the Old Testament commandment. 

He said Sabbath observance was not a duty that mankind owed to God. Rather, God made the Sabbath as a day of rest for mankind's benefit (Mark 2:27). Jesus and His disciples did not observe the strict Jewish rules against doing any work on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14, Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-6, Luke 6:1-11, 13:10-17, 14:1-6, John 5:1-18).

Why Don't Christians Observe the Biblical Sabbath?

Early Christians

The first Christians came from among the Jews. They continued to worship as Jews and continued to observe the Sabbath (Acts 13:14, 17:1-2, 18:1-4). But because Jesus arose from the dead on the first day of the week, Sunday, those early Christians called it the "Lord's Day" (Revelation 1:10), and also regularly met for their Christian worship on Sunday (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2).

Here is the first passage given to support this notion: “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight" (Acts 20:7). This text is part of a running narrative describing various incidents of Paul’s homeward trip to Jerusalem at the close of his third missionary journey. The whole story requires two chapters.

Does the fact that the disciples “came together to break bread” imply a communion service on a holy day? In Acts 2:46,we read that the disciples continued "daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart." It appears that breaking bread refers to the disciples eating their meals together, something they did every day.

Notice that no holy title is used for this particular day. It is simply called "the first day of the week."

Does the fact that Paul held a meeting and preached a message on this day make it a holy day? When we read the whole story of the journey, we find that Paul preached in various places along the way as he traveled to Jerusalem. Were all these sermons timed to come on Sunday?

 Look at the last half of Acts 20, which gives a summary of what was probably one of the most important sermons Paul preached on this trip—at least, it is the only one that is described in detail. An examination of the context, especially verse 15, indicates that it was probably preached midweek—certainly not on a Sunday. Therefore, shall we conclude that Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday is a holy day? Paul conducted so many services along his journey that this logic would cause us to conclude that Paul made almost every day of the week holy!

Paul’s meeting at Troas didn’t even begin on Sunday, but rather on Saturday night. We know that the meeting was held at night, for "there were many lamps in the upper room where they were gathered together" (Acts 20:8). The record also declares that Paul "continued his message until midnight" (verse 7). After ensuring that the young man Eutychus was alright, who had fallen asleep and then out the third-story window, Paul continued speaking "even till daybreak" (verse 11). So, the only reason any part of the meeting fell on Sunday was because Paul was so long-winded!

Another reason we know this meeting was held at night was because Paul was “ready to depart the next day” (verse 7). Conybeare and Howson, in their authoritative work, The Life and Epistles of the Apostle Paul, wrote: "It was the evening which succeeded the Jewish Sabbath. On the Sunday morning the vessel was about to sail" (One Volume Edition, 520). Paul took advantage of a last opportunity to speak to them, not because of a usual religious custom, but because of an unusual travel situation.

If Paul held this meeting on a Saturday night, why does the Bible call it “the first day of the week?” This is because of the well-known fact that the Bible reckons days from sunset to sunset, not from midnight to midnight, as we do today. (See Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; Leviticus 23:32.) For Paul and the believers, the first day of the week, as well as their meeting, had begun at sunset on the seventh day.

CONCLUSION:Observing the sabath does not in any way bring you closer to God, but being a new creature does.

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.