rep thread

[Sherman]

She claims Christ but preaches heresy.

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;-- Titus 3:10

 

[IMJerusha]

Sometimes meshak may come up with a gem of a post.

And here she made a very astute post which I commented to.

But most of the time her statements are heresy.

I have not nor will I state that I agree with Meshak on every aspect of the faith but to each their due in terms of gem-like posts. I am not now nor will I ever be someone to berate everything a person posts simply because they do not agree with me doctrinally on every point.

 

[IMJerusha]

It's been my observation that you side with her quite a bit and yet she's in the face of Christians over the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus. I question whether you should be siding with someone who behaves like an enemy.

Well, I understand your concern but there is no demand on the part of Yeshua to uphold Him as anything but Mashiach, the Son of God. Anyone who does this can not be deemed an enemy. Are you requiring that I consider her an enemy in spite of her declaration of faith in Yeshua as the Son of God? I did go so far as to ask her about it. May I not show love toward anyone who can not or does not accept the doctrine of the Trinity?

 

[Sherman]

You post answers my questions as to why you tend to side with her. Denying the Divinity of the Messiah is heresy.

 

[Sherman]

Denying the Divinity.. BTW is a doctrine very common in the Messianic movement. It is why I left it.

 

[IMJerusha]

You post answers my questions as to why you tend to side with her. Denying the Divinity of the Messiah is heresy.

No one who believes that Yeshua is the Son of God can deny His divinity because He has divinity by virtue of His Sonship. It was given Him by the Father. Everything Yeshua has was given Him by the Father by His own Words in John, Chapter 5.

 

[IMJerusha]

Denying the Divinity.. BTW is a doctrine very common in the Messianic movement. It is why I left it.

Denial of the Trinity perhaps, but not the divine attribute of Yeshua. That being said, there are, in Messianism, many "conferences," so to speak, as you well know. You didn't need to leave on that account. I am not affiliated with a Messianic group that denies the divinity of Yeshua or the Trinity and neither of the two largest Messianic groups, the MJAA and the IAMCS deny the divinity of Yeshua.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

She claims Christ but preaches heresy.

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;-- Titus 3:10

Amen!

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Meshak has called the Apostle Paul an, "anti-Christ." She only
trusts in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and sometimes John.
She rejects the rest of God's Word. She's not a child of God. She's
an enemy of God's truth.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I don't believe so, Sister, but you know I'm always open to discussion.

As long as you're posting with somebody who agrees with you. Which are few and far between.

 

[IMJerusha]

Amen!

You know, when people were declaring Town a real heretic a year or two ago, I posted this in defense of him:

"If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9

and

"Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, 'Jesus be cursed,' and no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12:3

and I was made fun of for believing these Words of God. One guy, an atheist, posted "Jesus is Lord" and laughed but I KNOW that the Ruach was in his post whether he believed in Him or not because God's Word said it.

If all we want to do is slap each other around and declare that specific doctrinal understandings are what saves us, then we're in serious trouble. There are a lot of people who can not grasp the concept of the Trinity and the divinity of Yeshua but I can't find anywhere in Scripture where this is a requirement so I continue to hold with God's Word as found in Romans 10:9 and 1 Corinthians 12:3. I figure that, in time, if He means to, God will help them to understand.

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm sorry but I don't see that approach in any of these posts of hers in this thread:

Well, to begin with I spoke directly to this remark by you:

Sorry, it's just that Yeshua sided with the minority and Meshak's point was that the majority is not typically moral or correct, at least from a Christian perspective.

I think that's dangerously over broad. For instance, the majority of the apostles were right about Jesus, or the majority of Christians can be absolutely right and will tend to be, on matters of faith, where their counsel is the word of God.

And meshak typically uses that blunderbuss to condemn mainstream Christianity, essentially using the narrow gate in a way that I don't believe is intended or defensible by the light of scripture. It tends to be a part of her larger heresy concerning the trinity, in relation to Christian orthodoxy, by which I mean the overwhelming agreement of the majority of the faithful throughout the life of the Body.

Her response came:

It's right here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4440404&postcount=110

Oh, that one. Well here's the answer to her mixing in here.

and it is her response to your statement:
"I've said it was a necessary evil, legally speaking and one I find morally objectionable."

Right.

I understand Meshak's questioning, which seemed very polite, btw.

I'd say seemed was the optimal word in that sentence. As I recall she began by stating I "seemed" to be supporting same sex marriage. At best that's a pretty gross error in judgment. I've set out the distinction between recognizing a right at law and a moral judgment of it. I suppose I'll do it again in a moment.

It's very hard to understand how a Christian can find same sex marriage a necessary evil legally speaking while finding it morally objectionable.

It's hard for me to understand how it's in any way hard to understand. I can understand the law because I'm trained in it and I'm approaching it rationally.

The state does any number of things, legally, that can be considered morally objectionable. It sells licenses and facilitates industries that essentially addict and kill people.

With me it's always been this simple: we have a right to contract. One of those contracts is marriage. Marriage isn't a religious pact so far as the state is involved, which is why the state doesn't object to two atheists getting married in a judge's chambers without a hint of religious trappings. And there's no more reason to deny the homosexual that contract than there is the atheist as both are secular contracts and both outside of the blessing and intent of God where the institution is concerned.

Yet no one ever raises alarm at the crumbling of moral structure within the Republic because atheists are getting married. No. But change the anatomy and you'd think the four horsemen were galloping full tilt. I think it's more to do with hard wired repulsion than religious principle for most, or it's the most peculiarly myopic and selective outrage I've ever witnessed. In any event it's inconsistent, rationally and as a matter of principle.

For my part, I've been as clear as to my moral objection as I think anyone can be.

Harder still to understand is the need to bash the Christian asking the perfectly legitimate question about that action, throwing her integrity into question because she asked.

I don't think she was bashed by me. I replied in kind. I was mild where I could be and stronger where it seemed justified and I explained my rebuttal of chrys and her defense at every point.

Scripture doesn't support dual-sided attitudes toward sin.

Good, because anyone who says I have a dual attitude toward sin would be as confused as meshak was, assuming the best.

Mostly I think she's a little fond of chrys and was attempting to defend what I see as indefensible behavior, but to each his own.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Well, to begin with I spoke directly to this remark by you:

I think that's dangerously over broad. For instance, the majority of the apostles were right about Jesus, or the majority of Christians can be absolutely right and will tend to be, on matters of faith, where their counsel is the word of God.

And meshak typically uses that blunderbuss to condemn mainstream Christianity, essentially using the narrow gate in a way that I don't believe is intended or defensible by the light of scripture. It tends to be a part of her larger heresy concerning the trinity, in relation to Christian orthodoxy, by which I mean the overwhelming agreement of the majority of the faithful throughout the life of the Body.


Oh, that one. Well here's the answer to her mixing in here.


Right.


I'd say seemed was the optimal word in that sentence. As I recall she began by stating I "seemed" to be supporting same sex marriage. At best that's a pretty gross error in judgment. I've set out the distinction between recognizing a right at law and a moral judgment of it. I suppose I'll do it again in a moment.


It's hard for me to understand how it's in any way hard to understand. I can understand the law because I'm trained in it and I'm approaching it rationally.

The state does any number of things, legally, that can be considered morally objectionable. It sells licenses and facilitates industries that essentially addict and kill people.

With me it's always been this simple: we have a right to contract. One of those contracts is marriage. Marriage isn't a religious pact so far as the state is involved, which is why the state doesn't object to two atheists getting married in a judge's chambers without a hint of religious trappings. And there's no more reason to deny the homosexual that contract than there is the atheist as both are secular contracts and both outside of the blessing and intent of God where the institution is concerned.

Yet no one ever raises alarm at the crumbling of moral structure within the Republic because atheists are getting married. No. But change the anatomy and you'd think the four horsemen were galloping full tilt. I think it's more to do with hard wired repulsion than religious principle for most, or it's the most peculiarly myopic and selective outrage I've ever witnessed. In any event it's inconsistent, rationally and as a matter of principle.

For my part, I've been as clear as to my moral objection as I think anyone can be.


I don't think she was bashed by me. I replied in kind. I was mild where I could be and stronger where it seemed justified and I explained my rebuttal of chrys and her defense at every point.


Good, because anyone who says I have a dual attitude toward sin would be as confused as meshak was, assuming the best.

Mostly I think she's a little fond of chrys and was attempting to defend what I see as indefensible behavior, but to each his own.

Good post

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The Deity of Jesus is a critical issue. Meshak denies the divinity of Jesus.

Yep.

 

[glorydaz]

I thought I was stating plenty and making sense in the process.

You thought wrong.

Who governs your life, Gdaz, God or man?

There ya go....just talkin' to be talkin'. But, I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to turn your yabbering into a teachable moment.

My answer is.....BOTH. The Lord Jesus Christ governs my life and He is both God and Man. :first:

A point was made about "necessary evil". Do you believe there is such a thing for a Christian?

Sure do....it's a necessary evil that Christians have to listen to people who claim to be Christians but have no idea what that means.

 

[IMJerusha]

I think that's dangerously over broad. For instance, the majority of the apostles were right about Jesus, or the majority of Christians can be absolutely right and will tend to be, on matters of faith, where their counsel is the word of God.

Except that I posted Yeshua's own words as found in Matthew 5:3-12 to clarify my statement and I wouldn't state that He was being dangerously over broad.

And meshak typically uses that blunderbuss to condemn mainstream Christianity, essentially using the narrow gate in a way that I don't believe is intended or defensible by the light of scripture. It tends to be a part of her larger heresy concerning the trinity, in relation to Christian orthodoxy, by which I mean the overwhelming agreement of the majority of the faithful throughout the life of the Body.

That may be but there was no evidence of it. If you're going to start going on about Christian orthodoxy, you had best be about understanding that a whole lot of Christians are considered outside of Christian orthodoxy, Town, mostly Protestants! And then there's folks pushing different flavors of the doctrine of the Trinity on top of that.

Oh, that one.

Yeah, that one.

Well here's the answer to her mixing in here.

Yes, I knew you had responded to her which is why I couldn't figure out why you were disavowing knowledge of her post.

Right.
I'd say seemed was the optimal word in that sentence.

Well, I don't see a problem with giving someone the benefit of the doubt on a particular post until they prove otherwise.

As I recall she began by stating I "seemed" to be supporting same sex marriage. At best that's a pretty gross error in judgment.

No, not really, not for someone who is holding solely with a Christian perspective.

I've set out the distinction between recognizing a right at law and a moral judgment of it. I suppose I'll do it again in a moment.

Unfortunately, God doesn't set out that distinction for those within the faith. I understand that you think as an attorney but the fact is that's not how God views things if Scripture is to be believed. Sadly, the law profession is often at odds with the faith.

It's hard for me to understand how it's in any way hard to understand. I can understand the law because I'm trained in it and I'm approaching it rationally.

No, you're approaching it secularly.

The state does any number of things, legally, that can be considered morally objectionable. It sells licenses and facilitates industries that essentially addict and kill people.

With me it's always been this simple: we have a right to contract. One of those contracts is marriage. Marriage isn't a religious pact so far as the state is involved, which is why the state doesn't object to two atheists getting married in a judge's chambers without a hint of religious trappings. And there's no more reason to deny the homosexual that contract than there is the atheist as both are secular contracts and both outside of the blessing and intent of God where the institution is concerned.
Yet no one ever raises alarm at the crumbling of moral structure within the Republic because atheists are getting married. No. But change the anatomy and you'd think the four horsemen were galloping full tilt. I think it's more to do with hard wired repulsion than religious principle for most, or it's the most peculiarly myopic and selective outrage I've ever witnessed. In any event it's inconsistent, rationally and as a matter of principle.

You're mixing humanism with the faith as is the state. According to Scripture, God is the author of marriage and considering that, homosexual marriage is every bit the affront to God as homosexuality is. And if one doesn't believe in God, there's no point in getting married but because the state requires it for tax advantages, atheists do it.

For my part, I've been as clear as to my moral objection as I think anyone can be.

If we don't live it, Town, what good is our moral objection? We can't straddle the fence and consider ourselves faithful.

I don't think she was bashed by me.

Then you had no need to defend your bashing by bringing up her previous attacks against mainstream Christianity.

I replied in kind. I was mild where I could be and stronger where it seemed justified and I explained my rebuttal of chrys and her defense at every point.

She didn't bash your integrity as you did hers. You're making excuses.

Good, because anyone who says I have a dual attitude toward sin would be as confused as meshak was, assuming the best.

It wouldn't be the first time you've declared me confused. You do have a dual attitude toward sin. You don't see it as that but that is what you've stated a couple times here that I can see. You're serving two masters. I don't mean that to be insulting.

Mostly I think she's a little fond of chrys and was attempting to defend what I see as indefensible behavior, but to each his own.

Oh please, humans naturally gravitate toward people who agree with them on various subjects. You and I have shared common ground plenty of times. Common ground, however, in Christianity is not this ongoing pirannha fest when it comes to those we don't agree with theologically.

 

[glorydaz]

Good post

I agree. Town hit it out of the park. :thumb:

 

[glorydaz]

Except that I posted Yeshua's own words as found in Matthew 5:3-12 to clarify my statement and I wouldn't state that He was being dangerously over broad.



That may be but there was no evidence of it. If you're going to start going on about Christian orthodoxy, you had best be about understanding that a whole lot of Christians are considered outside of Christian orthodoxy, Town, mostly Protestants!



Yeah, that one.



Yes, I knew you had responded to her which is why I couldn't figure out why you were disavowing knowledge of her post.



Well, I don't see a problem with giving someone the benefit of the doubt on a particular post until they prove otherwise.



No, not really, not for someone who is holding solely with a Christian perspective.



Unfortunately, God doesn't set out the distinction within the faith. I understand that you think as an attorney but the fact is that's not how God views things if Scripture is to be believed. Sadly, the law profession is often at odds with the faith.



No, you're approaching it secularly, at least



You're mixing humanism with the faith as is the state. According to Scripture, God is the author of marriage and considering that, homosexual marriage is every bit the affront to God as homosexuality is. And if one doesn't believe in God, there's no point in getting married but because the state requires it for tax advantages, atheists do it.



If we don't live it, Town, what good is our moral objection? We can't straddle the fence and consider ourselves faithful.



Then you had no need to defend your bashing by bringing up her previous attacks against mainstream Christianity.



She didn't bash your integrity as you did hers. You're making excuses.



It wouldn't be the first time you've declared me confused. You do have a dual attitude toward sin. You don't see it as that but that is what you've stated a couple times here that I can see. You're serving two masters. I don't mean that to be insulting.



Oh please, humans naturally gravitate toward people who agree with them on various subjects. You and I have shared common ground plenty of times. Common ground, however, in Christianity is not this ongoing pirannha fest when it comes to those we don't agree with theologically.

:blabla: :blabla: :blabla:

"Common ground" in Christianity stands adamantly on the Deity of Christ....that those who deny it are outside the faith....not to be supported in any way.

 

[IMJerusha]

You thought wrong.

You would think so.

There ya go....just talkin' to be talkin'. But, I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to turn your yabbering into a teachable moment.

My answer is.....BOTH. The Lord Jesus Christ governs my life and He is both God and Man.

Yeshua is no longer man.

Sure do....it's a necessary evil that Christians have to listen to people who claim to be Christians but have no idea what that means.

That's not evil, Gdaz, that's immaturity in the faith; something displayed here on a regular basis.

 

[Town Heretic]

Except that I posted Yeshua's own words as found in Matthew 5:3-12 to clarify my statement and I wouldn't state that He was being dangerously over broad.

I was talking about meshak, your comment related to her and explaining my response on the point.

That may be but there was no evidence of it.

You must not read a great deal of her. Or maybe she's changing, but that's an impression over time based on a lot of posts and more than one conversation I've had with her on the subject.

If you're going to start going on about Christian orthodoxy, you had best be about understanding that a whole lot of Christians are considered outside of Christian orthodoxy, Town, mostly Protestants!

Not when it comes to the trinity and the divinity of Christ. Catholic, Protestant, there's no disagreement on the foundation of our shared faith.

Yes, I knew you had responded to her which is why I couldn't figure out why you were disavowing knowledge of her post.

I wasn't disavowing by saying I must not have read it. I hadn't made the connection. Once I did I did the "Oh here it is" bit with a link included.

Well, I don't see a problem with giving someone the benefit of the doubt on a particular post until they prove otherwise.

Me either.

No, not really, not for someone who is holding solely with a Christian perspective.

No, having a Christian perspective doesn't alter or shouldn't alter the ability to recognize and speak to an objective truth, which is what I do when it comes to the law.

Unfortunately, God doesn't set out that distinction for those within the faith.

God doesn't allow us to understand and relate an objective truth about the law of the land?

I understand that you think as an attorney but the fact is that's not how God views things if Scripture is to be believed.

I'm not arguing over how God sees it or the law states its case. I'm making a statement for myself on the morality and on the law as it stands on the point. Beyond that I have a historically fueled view of the wisdom of men mixing religion into politics to the point where a single religious voice moves the law.

Sadly, the law profession is often at odds with the faith.

How often? What's the percentage? How do you know? What's your expertise on the subject?

I know any number of Christians who are attorneys and their practices are terrific witness to their faith.

No, you're approaching it secularly.

That's what the law of our land is. You can't approach it, rationally, any other way. The moment you start talking about your moral judgment of how it should be or is in relation to God you're talking about something else.

You're mixing humanism with the faith as is the state.

No, I'm not.

According to Scripture, God is the author of marriage and considering that, homosexual marriage is every bit the affront to God as homosexuality is. And if one doesn't believe in God, there's no point in getting married but because the state requires it for tax advantages, atheists do it.

This may be hard for you, but many atheists find value in the traditions of marriage and the expression of legal and personal commitment. Many atheists find their own reasons and attachments to Christmas too.

But my point was that some Christians (maybe you among them) step around sin where the atheist and marriage are concerned but loudly declare God's purpose when it involves homosexuals.

And that strikes me as peculiar.

If we don't live it, Town, what good is our moral objection? We can't straddle the fence and consider ourselves faithful.

You think living the Christian conviction requires us to bend unwilling knees to a law fashioned to resemble our conscience and faith? I think you have the sort of mindset that burned a great deal of Europe to the ground the last time it had power. A lot of it well intentioned.

I live out my faith every day. I hope most people who love God live in gratitude for the joy of relation and grace.

Then you had no need to defend your bashing by bringing up her previous attacks against mainstream Christianity.

Again, I didn't bash her. I met her at every point, though I think your defense of her is as mistaken or biased as her defense of chrys. I noted your remark about meshak and my understanding of a habit of hers that anyone with a history of reading and responding to her is aware of...then we went down the rabbit hole of my response to her response to my response to chrys.

She didn't bash your integrity as you did hers.

That's just not true in either expression.

You're making excuses.

No, I'm not, but the problem with explaining yourself with someone who bears a grudge is that they're only going to hear the tone they mean to and see the truth that sustains their judgment.

I knew that going in, but I'm an optimist.

It wouldn't be the first time you've declared me confused.

See what I mean?

You do have a dual attitude toward sin.

You're a serial killer. :idunno: The Adriatic Sea is a cheese.

You don't see it as that

Because I don't have it. I have one attitude about sin. I also have a rational, working understanding of the law. I'm not divided on what the moral compass is or how the law works.

You're serving two masters.

No, but on the plus side you finally found a better insult. Way to go with that one. :thumb:

I don't mean that to be insulting.

Of course not. I imagine you put it on your Christmas cards.