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.
These types of verses are a favorite of every little christian cult. Just spam one with no explanation and claim victory. The smaller and more strange your cult is the better. Narrow is the way. The narrower your path the more correct you must be!
These types of verses are a favorite of every little christian cult. Just spam one with no explanation and claim victory. The smaller and more strange your cult is the better. Narrow is the way. The narrower your path the more correct you must be!
These types of verses are a favorite of every little christian cult. Just spam one with no explanation and claim victory. The smaller and more strange your cult is the better. Narrow is the way. The narrower your path the more correct you must be!
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?
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.
The purpose, I believe, is to caution the nonblind onlookers.
Perhaps we may be on the same page in the sense that I don't understand why the debate about Paul continues.
BFA
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.
Paul states that Jesus BECAME the Son of God at the resurrection, by declaration not by right of birth.
Does any of this make sense?
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.Perhaps we may be on the same page in the sense that I don't understand why the debate about Paul continues.
BFA
Do you believe the following texts to be accurate or inaccurate:
Matthew 1:1These 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
This goes directly to the nature of Jesus Christ as God. Yes, He was included in the line of David, this so He would be seen as King of Israel; Israel being the Kingdom of Heaven on earth at that time. Jesus was also mentioned as part of the Line of Levites through Mary, who was the cousin of Elizabeth, who was married to Zachariah, who was a Priest of the tribe of Levi. This so that together these would allow Him to be called a Priest/King. Yet, it is recorded that He was 'conceived by the Holy Spirit'. Paul says 'conceived of the flesh'. Conceived by the Spirit would mean that Jesus did not have any DNA in Him that was passed down from His earthly forbearers. Paul states otherwise. Please reconcile this.
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
Again as proof of what Paul says you use Paul as proof. This is circular reasoning. Show where Jesus is 'declared' to be the Son of God by the resurrection using OT texts or texts from eyewitness disciples.
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
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.
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.
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
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?
Soon144k, are you going to answer my question back in post #164?
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.
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.
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?
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?
Paul states that Jesus BECAME the Son of God at the resurrection, by declaration not by right of birth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?