Disprove Calvinist Soteriology

[EmSw]

I only see one instance where Paul described what happened. Where's the other?

Blindness is no excuse.

 

[Hammster]

Blindness is no excuse.

It's not blindness. Only in the chapter 22 passage is Paul speaking. Where do you see him speaking in Chapter 9? The exact quote would be most beneficial.

 

[EmSw]

It's not blindness. Only in the chapter 22 passage is Paul speaking. Where do you see him speaking in Chapter 9? The exact quote would be most beneficial.

So, are you saying Acts 9 is not inspired of God?

Boy are you getting desperate?

 

[Hammster]

So, are you saying Acts 9 is not inspired of God?

Boy are you getting desperate?

You said Paul lied because he said two different things. He didn't.

 

[EmSw]

You said Paul lied because he said two different things. He didn't.

Look Hammster, I know you aren't that dense. You know he lied, but just can't bring yourself to accept it. You know if Paul lied with this story, then the rest of his words are highly suspect.

Do you think lies are God-inspired, whoever may have written them? Do you think Luke was the liar, or was he just writing what Paul said? You are stuck Hammster, and God has given me insight into how people who love liars act and what they say to justify lying.

 

[Hammster]

Look Hammster, I know you aren't that dense. You know he lied, but just can't bring yourself to accept it. You know if Paul lied with this story, then the rest of his words are highly suspect.

Do you think lies are God-inspired, whoever may have written them? Do you think Luke was the liar, or was he just writing what Paul said? You are stuck Hammster, and God has given me insight into how people who love liars act and what they say to justify lying.

So what is your argument now? Was Paul lying or was Luke lying?

 

[EmSw]

So what is your argument now? Was Paul lying or was Luke lying?

Nope, I'm not going to play your games Hammster. If you can't understand what I wrote above, then head to the skies without wings.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Nope, I'm not going to play your games Hammster. If you can't understand what I wrote above, then head to the skies without wings.

I've been following your posts for a few pages now.

You've really gone off the deep end.

 

[EmSw]

I've been following your posts for a few pages now.

You've really gone off the deep end.

I figured you would come here to justify a liar.

Has Paul become your father too?

 

[Marvin Knox]

I figured you would come here to justify a liar.

Has Paul become your father too?

Paul was a chosen vessel of the Lord.

He's used him greatly in my life -- just as it was predestined to happen.

 

[EmSw]

Paul was a chosen vessel of the Lord.

He's used him greatly in my life -- just as it was predestined to happen.

I'm happy for you Marvin. At least you are doing what gives you pleasure. Your desires are important to Him.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

You've really gone off the deep end.

Which is why we probably shouldn't engage her, for her own good. Clearly, something is amiss. Maybe it's best to let this go.

 

[redleghunter]

And how does all this justify lying?

Which passage in the conversion accounts are you calling a lie?

 

[redleghunter]

Look Hammster, I know you aren't that dense. You know he lied, but just can't bring yourself to accept it. You know if Paul lied with this story, then the rest of his words are highly suspect.

Do you think lies are God-inspired, whoever may have written them? Do you think Luke was the liar, or was he just writing what Paul said? You are stuck Hammster, and God has given me insight into how people who love liars act and what they say to justify lying.

@Hammster is pointing out what I did earlier. The Acts 9 account is not Paul speaking but the "narrator" Luke. Acts 22 and 26 is where Paul is quoted by Luke.

It's why I mention exegesis is so important when we have conflicting events.

Let's go back to Acts 1 which sets the stage with Luke narrating the story of Acts:

Acts 1: KJV

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Luke is narrating the story, the historical accounts. Paul is not dictating Acts but an historic figure of many Luke gives account of.

Point? How can Paul be lying if Luke is giving the account in Acts 9? Do you think Luke interviewed more witnesses to the conversion account? Meaning more than Paul?

 

[redleghunter]

Really Hammster, you are getting desperate now.

Acts 9:7
And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.

Acts 22:9
And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me.

I bet you play your 'calvinist' game by saying Acts 9 does not say 'did'.

At the heart of desperation lives deception.

What's the issue with the verses you posited above?

Luke in Acts 9 in general says they heard a voice.

Paul in Acts 22 says specifically they did not hear Christ speaking with Paul.

Can both accounts be true? Yes of course.

 

[EmSw]

So what is your argument now? Was Paul lying or was Luke lying?

Does it matter? Lying proves it's not the inspired word of God.

 

[EmSw]

@Hammster is pointing out what I did earlier. The Acts 9 account is not Paul speaking but the "narrator" Luke. Acts 22 and 26 is where Paul is quoted by Luke.

It's why I mention exegesis is so important when we have conflicting events.

Let's go back to Acts 1 which sets the stage with Luke narrating the story of Acts:

Acts 1: KJV

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Luke is narrating the story, the historical accounts. Paul is not dictating Acts but an historic figure of many Luke gives account of.

Point? How can Paul be lying if Luke is giving the account in Acts 9? Do you think Luke interviewed more witnesses to the conversion account? Meaning more than Paul?

How do you get the Bible is inspired by God if it is lying? Can you trust anything Luke wrote? I am amazed how many people have a lie right before their eyes, and they try to desperately justify it. Do you not see there is an obvious lie? Luke dictated what Paul said. He certainly didn't make it up.

 

[redleghunter]

Well you can read for yourself, but I will ask you, did the men traveling with Paul on the road to Damascus hear or voice or not?

Now we are getting somewhere.

In Acts 9 Luke says they heard a voice but did not see any man.

In Acts 22 Luke quotes Paul saying "but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

That's a quote. Now how many people were speaking in the account? Two is the answer. Christ and Paul. Paul is saying the men with him did not hear the voice of Christ.

Back to Acts 9. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

"A voice." Whose voice? Paul's or Jesus's ? Luke does not say. However the supplemental information from Paul in Acts 22 says the men did not hear Christ, the one who was speaking to him.

Whose voice did they hear? Paul speaking to Jesus is a possibility. There were two people in dialogue according to both accounts.

As we peel the exegetical onion and look at the Greek used and possible grammatical renderings of voice we are offered sound as well. This was mentioned by previous posters which you shrugged off. Several noted scholars do take this position as well. Why? Because English translations from Koine Greek can be imprecise due to grammatical renderings and tone of the speaker.

That is why exegesis is important when comparing passages which on face value seem to be in contention with one another. The Holy Spirit inspired the text in Koine Greek not modern or early modern English.

Now if we were in a court of law and you slandered Paul and Luke for lying, the burden of proof is on you to argue your case. All you have is an English translation and your assertion. I then present other alternatives other than error and lying as I did above. You would lose this case in court hands down.

Here's why.

Two forward observers on different hills see the same valley below. But one can only see half of the valley and the other can see most of the valley. Both observers send in their report of seeing enemy tanks. The one who could see half the valley sees 20 tanks. The one who can see most of the valley sees 100 tanks. Which observer is wrong or lying? Neither. They are both sending accurate reports to their headquarters and the headquarters knowing the nuances of the terrain know this. This is what is called redundancy in eyewitness testimony. Now the one who sees only 20 tanks gives the type of tanks he sees which are T-72s. The other observer can't determine the type of tanks. Should headquarters assume all the tanks are T-72s? No they should go with what they know and not assume.

We should treat the texts we are discussing in the same manner. Examine what is actually there and the information available (exegesis) and not read into the information given and draw biased conclusions (eisegesis).

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for staff review

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

A clean up was done to remove a line of discussion.

As a reminder, the Statement of Faith includes this:​

Challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ who (although not one of the original twelve) was sent forth by Christ after his conversion [Acts 9:15-16], or arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon, is not allowed in any "Christians Only" forums (including the Controversial Christian Theology forum). You may disagree on the interpretation and application of his writings, but not their place as canon or Paul as an inspired author of Scripture.

reopening​