I think you've summed it up very well Kira.....
...The remenant is what's left of the MAIN garment.
...It's not what's left of a fractured mutation of several previous mutations.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What people believe does not change the truth...
- Thread starter k4c
- Start date
I think you've summed it up very well Kira.....
...The remenant is what's left of the MAIN garment.
...It's not what's left of a fractured mutation of several previous mutations.
Just my way of saying that I think both Victor and Soon are wrong. That's all. Is it cultish to disagree with more than one person? Or does that scripture hit closer to home than you would like it to?
Upvote
0
Kira Light
Shinigami love apples
I'm not at all threatened by this scripture. It has zero meaning without context or even commentary. I don't think you're even supposed to throw this scripture at the "blind" and expect them to see. It doesn't seem like it could possibly have been written for that purpose.
Upvote
0
I'm glad you are not threatened by this scripture, Kira. It is not even meant to be a threat, unless so taken. And I agree with you that this scripture is not supposed to be thrown at the "blind" (indeed no scripture should be "thrown" at anyone.) The purpose, I believe, is to caution the nonblind onlookers.
Upvote
0
Byfaithalone1
The gospel is Jesus Christ!
Perhaps we may be on the same page in the sense that I don't understand why the debate about Paul continues.
BFA
Upvote
0
Would someone PLEASE explain to me what Paul meant in the following few texts, when compared with what the eyewitness disciples said. I find the incongruity in these comparisons difficult to reconcile. There are MANY more, these are but a few.
". . . concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh . . ." Rom.1:3.
But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. Matt.1:20.
Paul states that Jesus was born of the flesh, a descendent of the line of David; meaning that Jesus was born of natural conception. Matthew states that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. The two cannot both be correct.
". . . and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom.1:4.
And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. (2) She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. (5) She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, Rev.12:1-2,5.
Paul states that Jesus BECAME the Son of God at the resurrection, by declaration not by right of birth. John in Revelation was shown that the Woman gave birth to a Son that was the Son of God by birthright, being called the Son of God. Which of these is correct?
By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, (20) among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. 1Tim 1:19-20.
(25) Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. (26) And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? (27) And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. (28) But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Matt.12:25-28.
Paul says that he handed over two men that disagreed with his gospel to Satan, so that Satan would teach them not to blaspheme. According to Jesus this is impossible because God does not use Satan for the purpose of promoting righteous behavior, and Satan does not use God for the purpose of promoting evil behavior. Is Paul really saying that he knows Satan well enough that Satan would teach these men to NOT do something that Satan does with regularity, ie. blaspheme? Why would this be so?
Which of these makes the most sense? Does any of this make sense?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Byfaithalone1
The gospel is Jesus Christ!
Do you believe the following texts to be accurate or inaccurate:
Matthew 1:1
Matthew 9:27
Matthew 20:30
Mark 10:47
Mark 12:35
Luke 18:38
These passages in the gospels (i.e. not written by Paul) describe Jesus as the son of David. In fact, Matthew 1 describes the geneology of Jesus as including David. If we should reject books of the Bible in which Jesus is described as being within the lineage of David, we will need to rip out at least 3 of the gospels as well.Matthew 9:27
Matthew 20:30
Mark 10:47
Mark 12:35
Luke 18:38
Paul is not implying that this was the first and only time that Jesus was declared to be the son of God. In fact, in the following passages, Paul confirms his belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God even prior to the resurrection:
Romans 5:10
Romans 8:3
Galatians 4:4
Romans 8:3
Galatians 4:4
Paul's writings make sense to me. It's fine by me if you don't view his writings as I do. I'm sure that you'll have some reason to reject what I've written above. Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not you believe Paul's writings were inspired. I cannot convince you to accept them any more than you can convince me to reject them. This is why I keep questioning whether there is any real point to this debate. When you don't have a shared starting point, there really isn't much to say.
BFA
Last edited:
Upvote
0
VictorC
Jesus - that's my final answer
- Mar 25, 2008
- 5,228
- 479
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
I think the manner in which Paul writes clear narratives causes some to attack the authorship when the message he conveys isn't palatable to an individual. We have seen this before, but not to the extent that so many authors have been discarded.
Upvote
0
It is fine by me if you don't view Paul's writings as do I; as lies and deception. I am sure that you have some reason to reject the words of Jesus and take Paul's version over that of the Son of God. Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not you believe the words of Jesus over the words of Paul. Apparently, you do believe the words of Paul as premier, probably because Paul appeared AFTER Jesus made his exit from this world and you believe that Paul is a legitimate follow on to the words of Jesus Christ. I can actually see how you would believe this. However, I find it difficult to understand why you don't feel the same way about EGW, ie, Fundamental #18.
I am happy to let this discussion go; as long as you recognize that I will not be using Paul or EGW to prove Truth. You may do what you will.
Upvote
0
Byfaithalone1
The gospel is Jesus Christ!
OK. Good. I am glad that we are able to agree to disagree.
This seems rather harsh and is certainly unfounded based on the things I've actually written.
You seem to attribute a number of beliefs to me that don't really represent what I actually believe. I do not believe that the words of Paul are superior to the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. In fact, I wonder why we would feel the need to compare them in such a manner.
Not sure what you mean. I don't find Ellen White's writings to be authoritative in any manner. In fact, my long-term and careful review of her writings has left me with the conclusion that her writings are full of truth mixed with error.
I am glad. Since I'm not here to try to convince anyone as to what "truth" is, we should have no problems. You certainly won't find me lifting up Mrs. White's writings as an example of "truth."
Thanks for the open-mindedness. I wish you well.
BFA
Upvote
0
The need to compare the eyewitness gospels (does not include Luke) to the theology in Paul's writings comes from the evident fact that in numbers of cases Paul opposes what Jesus Christ states as truth. To claim that in every case the words of Paul are confirmed in the words and teachings of Jesus Christ puts Him 'en par' with Jesus, and this is just not so.
I did not in any way accuse you of supporting EGW, as I know for a fact from your writing that you do not; and that is my point. The writings of EGW contain a myriad of lies both prophetic and theologic. Yet to support Paul in the way you do also supports her writings, because she declared (in no uncertain terms) that Paul was the greatest apostle. Therefore, it appears to me that if you support him you also in some small measure support her. If this is too much of a stretch I am sorry. I am merely looking for some consistency in your positions, and I find this to be one of the few inconsistencies. You and I may disagree on any number of things but I do recognize in you well thought out theology, irrespective of those differences.
Thanks for your continued well thought out arguments. I enjoy them.
Upvote
0
If you believe that Jesus was both fully God and fully man (the mystery of incarnation), then there will be times when Jesus can be referred to as of the flesh, and times when He can be referred to as of the Spirit. No contradiction here.
right. Mary is of the flesh and that's where you get the term "Son of man" found in the gospels. But God is the Father of Jesus, and here is where the "Son of God (born of the Spirit) comes in. No contradiction between Paul and the gospels here.
was not Jesus born via Mary, who is the natural part of the conception? If you accept that Jesus is both God and Man, then none of these texts will be contradictory. A mystery, yes. A contradiction? No.
Was Jesus not declared to be the son of God at His baptism? "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." That is a declaration -- twice in Matthew, once in Mark, and once in 2 Peter. So no contradiction.
this is now symbolic imagery, so tread carefully.
Matthew and Mark also record a declaration that Jesus was the Son of God. Please quote where Paul says that Jesus BECAME the son of God at the resurrection.
As Peter says of Paul: "As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16.
In other words, I think you misunderstand and misinterpret 1 Timothy 1: 19-20 and Matthew 12:25-28, and wrest them to your own destruction.
Just my personal take on things, for whatever it may be worth.
Upvote
0
Paul was alive during the time when Jesus was on earth. If Jesus wanted to make Paul an apostle then why did He not do this BEFORE He ascended to Heaven? Why wait until after? Why not include Paul in the 12 and train him in the same way He trained the other disciples?
As to the text you quote as being from Peter in 2 Peter 3:16 according to historical record Peter was already dead at the time of the writing of 2 Peter, therefore Peter could not have said what you claim. And you have not explained in any way the 1Tim. 1:19-20 text in light of what Jesus said in Matt 12:25-28. All you did was say that I misinterpreted these conflicting verses. If I did then please show me from the words of Jesus where I did so. Paul (himself) said that he consigned two men to Satan. In order for that to be true and have any effect on the men Paul would have to be a servant of Satan.
As to the text you quote as being from Peter in 2 Peter 3:16 according to historical record Peter was already dead at the time of the writing of 2 Peter, therefore Peter could not have said what you claim. And you have not explained in any way the 1Tim. 1:19-20 text in light of what Jesus said in Matt 12:25-28. All you did was say that I misinterpreted these conflicting verses. If I did then please show me from the words of Jesus where I did so. Paul (himself) said that he consigned two men to Satan. In order for that to be true and have any effect on the men Paul would have to be a servant of Satan.
Upvote
0
Check out the following information from the US Naval Observatory (link below) and an article on the Wednesday crucifixion. This makes sense to me, but what do I know.
U.S. Naval Observatory Data 
The Sabbath resurrection 
Upvote
0
Byfaithalone1
The gospel is Jesus Christ!
I respect that this is how you view the writings of the new testament.
As I've evaluated various claims relating to Paul's alleged failings (either brought by you or by others who came before you), I've not found anything that seems to hold water (at least not in my opinion). Our recent exchange about the lineage of David offers merely one example of a claim that -- for me -- doesn't seem to add up.
No. It puts them on part with the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I'm comfortable with that.
I agree with a number of things Mrs. White wrote. I also disagree with a number of things. This is why I characterized her writings as truth mixed with error. That's how I see them.
This seems to imply that Jesus has a "one size fits all" approach to making disciples. Even among the twelve he did not have a one size fits all approach. For example, Jesus' approach with Peter seems to be a bit different than his approach with others.
BFA
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Soon, you are placing yourself in the place of Jesus and deciding, from your own human standard, what Jesus should and should not have done. Why do you sit in judgment of what Jesus chooses to do and when He chooses to do it?
Rather than speculate as to why, just go with what Jesus said to His disciples -- that there was much that He could tell them but that they could not bear it at that time. It took a later time, with a later disciple, Paul, for more truths to be revealed.
Upvote
0
Originally Posted by Soon144k
Paul states that Jesus BECAME the Son of God at the resurrection, by declaration not by right of birth. John in Revelation was shown that the Woman gave birth to a Son that was the Son of God by birthright, being called the Son of God. Which of these is correct?
Leodicean wrote:
Matthew and Mark also record a declaration that Jesus was the Son of God. Please quote where Paul says that Jesus BECAME the son of God at the resurrection.
Read Romans 1:4 again: (4) and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
Now, Paul either said this and meant it or he didn't. You must decide if 'the Greatest Aporstle' (EGW) who was smarter than all the other apostles (by his own admission), and more articulate and learned in the law (sup. taught by Gameliel) was capable of not expressing himself EXACTLY as he meant. If Paul didn't mean what he said here (and other places) or didn't express himself well enough to be understood correctly then you have as big a problem (or bigger) than if he DID mean exactly what he said in this text. Again, you must choose the horn upon which your dilemma is hoisted.
Paul states that Jesus BECAME the Son of God at the resurrection, by declaration not by right of birth. John in Revelation was shown that the Woman gave birth to a Son that was the Son of God by birthright, being called the Son of God. Which of these is correct?
Leodicean wrote:
Matthew and Mark also record a declaration that Jesus was the Son of God. Please quote where Paul says that Jesus BECAME the son of God at the resurrection.
Read Romans 1:4 again: (4) and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
Now, Paul either said this and meant it or he didn't. You must decide if 'the Greatest Aporstle' (EGW) who was smarter than all the other apostles (by his own admission), and more articulate and learned in the law (sup. taught by Gameliel) was capable of not expressing himself EXACTLY as he meant. If Paul didn't mean what he said here (and other places) or didn't express himself well enough to be understood correctly then you have as big a problem (or bigger) than if he DID mean exactly what he said in this text. Again, you must choose the horn upon which your dilemma is hoisted.
Upvote
0
Byfaithalone1
The gospel is Jesus Christ!
No, Paul does not write this; he writes that Jesus Christ was declared the Son of God by the resurrection of the dead. Further, in other parts of his writings, he indicates that Jesus was the Son of God even before the resurrection (see post #208).
Let's move on to something new.
BFA
Upvote
0
Similar threads
