Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[glorydaz]

1Th 3:12
And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you:

"For God so loved the world that..."... go and do ye likewise.

And only in your mind is someone with a slightly different view of what the Bible says, an "enemy of the Gospel".

1Jo 2:9
He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
1Jo 2:11
But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
1Jo 3:15
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1Jo 4:20
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar:

Save your lectures. You're clearly too ignorant to understand the meaning of the verses you quote.

We aren't talking about a "slightly different view of the Bible" here, and we aren't talking about those who are brothers in Christ. So, if you're choosing up sides, you'd best pick correctly. How is it that some are to be accursed?

Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.​

And you'd best study up on the love we have for our brothers, and that which we have for all men.

Not the same at all. We love our enemies by speaking truth, not by smoothing their egos or pretending like they are not preaching error.

Our desire is that all men will be saved. That is the "TOUGH" love we are to have for all men. Those who are not saved are children of darkness, and their father is the god of this world. That's why we stand against them and the message they bring.

I don't care if it's uncomfortable or unpleasant, or if it hurts your feelings. It's what is right.

 

[glorydaz]

Actually, the scriptures were quoted. We weren’t instructing you. But you reject that counsel.

Yes, you can quote verses you don't trust and don't understand, and I can straighten you out. Gotcha.

 

[Lon]

Not testy?

No “reading into” was required of this:
You can't think out of a paper bag and assume everybody else is just as bad. Be truthful, C's and C- in school, right? It shows...You can go sit in the back of the class now and put your head down in shame for your disobedience...You are too thick to be taught...Were you raised in a one room school house where they had to pass you because you were all below par?...I'm smarter than you...you are not intelligent enough to talk to me.


Deny again?

Hurt a lot did it? You PREVIOUSLY said it didn't :think: As nicely as I can, "Can you PLEASE make up your mind?"

Thanks. -Lon

 

[Lon]

Why do you have such great fear of talking with people who believe the scriptures concerning the charismatic gifts?

First, and shown here, it is because they second-guess about everything THEN accuse of all things, THEN assume THEY took the high ground. lain: See? I can't win and there is no point. It is nearly always this conversation THIS way. Next: Look at the thread... AND I'm no prophet. It is just a very predictable pattern. I get to be 'unholy' while you get to be 'holier than thou.' See, I don't really care about academic degrees, just studious and a willingness to do as scripture says and walk a mile with those you disagree with. A Charismatic NEVER does this. You are in a world where pedestals are created. We have some well-knowns on our side and they are all about being 'studious.' Your side? Who has a specific 'gift' especially the 'exceptional' ones. Everybody gets a heyday in the Charismatic church, they just have to express one.

Did the previous discussions harm you that much?

See what I mean? Your world is conjecture AND most of you want to believe the conjecture. It is more 'sensational' and, of course "charismatic" to do so. It is fraught with emotionalism AND emotionalism in guise of spirituality.
A couple of you have even given the 'trust me, I'm a (fill-in charismatic office blank). It is an 'asserting' and 'lording over' position. I don't believe Apostles are extent today. It is a stark world of contrast. We really don't have much of a meeting of ways and there is not much point. Perhaps rather a thread "Conservative OR Charismatic."

I have asked you to discuss the scriptures, not personal charisma, and you will not.

Untrue. Read back a few posts. I out-quote you scripture about 10 to one. I can count and prove so if you like.

Rather, you are only interested in your file cabinet of 'errors.' Yeah, not really worth my, or frankly, your time. It is a house of cards as I've said. Once the Apostle Paul 'doesn't agree with Jesus' those scripture are suddenly 'fallible' too then we get to pick-n-choose our theology and it is no longer "Christian" but something catered to our personal whims and ideas. We become our own gods, or you can be god to a few that will follow you along. What is to discuss after that? :think:

So I ask again. Did Jairus ask Jesus to resurrect his dead daughter or to heal his sick daughter? It is a simple question. Why do you fear answering?

Where's my 'blue in the face' icon? I've answered this three ways on Sunday. I COULD enumerate them but in three posts you are going to say you asked a simple question and I didn't answer again, kind of like you lambasted Daqq for saying 'dismissed' yet dismissing everything I've said out of hand. That's not dialogue. That's opinionated asserting itself. I've a God. I don't need another. I understand scripture just fine. I saw AND answered this question about Jairus long ago. I don't 'want' to answer it again for the umpteenth time. Titus 3:10 'seems' to me to apply :think: My answers given in thread apply to EVERY one of your 'errors.'
1) Yes I see a 'difference.'
2) No, I fundamentally disagree that difference automatically equates error. That's an assumption and a hasty one.
3) We are NOT supposed to be reading scripture for errors, they are authoritative and all a growing Christian needs for life and Godliness 2 Timothy 3:16
4) Psalm 19 and Deuteronomy 6 are talking about scriptures and they are esteemed by David, Moses, all the men of God and God Himself and FURTHER, He COMMANDS that they should be :noway:
5) Even 'if' it looked exactly like an error and I don't believe that necessary, there is NO WAY you are capable of chasing it down and NOT YOUR BUSINESS. If the Lord ever appoints you, He will surely let me know. That hasn't happened.
6) Lost in details and avoiding 'foolish controversy and genealogy. I have no problem answering honest inquiry. I have every problem posturing 'Christian/NotChristian" Or "Spirit-filled/Carnal Christian" with you or anybody else over the matter. Leaving before it is an ugly fight? Yeah, not going to be a part of that, regardless of how purposeful or inept you starting it winds up being. Nothing good will come of this. I'm no prophet, but mark my words. It will cause even some of us, to no longer fellowship across with Charismatics that are already here. Our 'ignore lists' will grow.

7) Anything I say to you, including this very post, will be used for fodder, poor-assessment, and example that is used to make yourself look 'AWESOME!" because that is what a lot of Charismatics do and then somehow try to 'claim' the moral high ground (has to, its a charismatic hallmark). We likely have the same sorts of disdains regarding such polarization. I'm sure we've our own patterns.

So, in a nutshell: I TRULY believe ONLY God can break down these walls. They are stark, high, thick, and between us? Insurmountable. We are so far removed from one another, I believe only in Christ will there be reconciliation and not until glory 1 John 3:2

 

[glorydaz]

Why do you have such great fear of talking with people who believe the scriptures concerning the charismatic gifts? Did the previous discussions harm you that much?

I have asked you to discuss the scriptures, not personal charisma, and you will not. So I ask again. Did Jairus ask Jesus to resurrect his dead daughter or to heal his sick daughter? It is a simple question. Why do you fear answering?

Sonnet, you give yourself away with this line of questioning. Repeating again what has already been answered, as if you never read what was said. Why do you do that?

 

[glorydaz]

Hurt a lot did it? You PREVIOUSLY said it didn't :think: As nicely as I can, "Can you PLEASE make up your mind?"

Thanks. -Lon

He can deny it, but anyone can see it's eating away at his very fragile ego. :chuckle:

 

[iouae]

Save your lectures. You're clearly too ignorant to understand the meaning of the verses you quote.

We aren't talking about a "slightly different view of the Bible" here, and we aren't talking about those who are brothers in Christ. So, if you're choosing up sides, you'd best pick correctly. How is it that some are to be accursed?

Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.​

And you'd best study up on the love we have for our brothers, and that which we have for all men.

Not the same at all. We love our enemies by speaking truth, not by smoothing their egos or pretending like they are not preaching error.

Our desire is that all men will be saved. That is the "TOUGH" love we are to have for all men. Those who are not saved are children of darkness, and their father is the god of this world. That's why we stand against them and the message they bring.

I don't care if it's uncomfortable or unpleasant, or if it hurts your feelings. It's what is right.

I would eat my non-existent hat if you, Glorydaz knew what "other Gospel" Paul was talking about in Gal 1:9. If you did, then you would know what sort of an issue comprised an "other Gospel".

In fact, consider that an invitation to all, to tell us what specific "other gospel" that was.

And just because folks disagree with the Gospel according to Glorydaz, does not mean they disagree with THE Gospel, and that we should treat them as enemies.

There is not one person on this forum who agrees with one other person on this forum on every single point of doctrine. And if they did, they would belong to a cult, doctrines are spoon-fed and they are brainwashed.

 

[glorydaz]

I would eat my non-existent hat if you, Glorydaz knew what "other Gospel" Paul was talking about in Gal 1:9. If you did, then you would know what sort of an issue comprised an "other Gospel".

Take a bite and put some non-existent pepper on it, too.

In fact, consider that an invitation to all, to tell us what specific "other gospel" that was.

Start a thread and show us what you got, vowels.

And just because folks disagree with the Gospel according to Glorydaz, does not mean they disagree with THE Gospel, and that we should treat them as enemies.

It's not my Gospel. It's Paul's, as revealed to him by our ascended Lord.

There is not one person on this forum who agrees with one other person on this forum on every single point of doctrine. And if they did, they would belong to a cult, doctrines are spoon-fed and they are brainwashed.

The Bible is not a point of doctrine, and the reliability of the Holy Scriptures is not a point of Doctrine. Is there some actual point you are attempting to make here? opcorn:

 

[glorydaz]

Where's my 'blue in the face' icon? I've answered this three ways on Sunday. I COULD enumerate them but in three posts you are going to say you asked a simple question and I didn't answer again,

This is Sonnet's MO. It's exactly what he did to me in his Gospel thread. The same exact thing over and over again, and as many times as I would answer and explain, he'd ask again as if I hadn't answered at all. Including telling others I was unable to answer.

If it walks like a duck..... :readthis:

 

[iouae]

Take a bite and put some non-existent pepper on it, too.

Start a thread and show us what you got, vowels.

You quoted Gal 1:9 at me Glorydaz, and even highlighted "other gospel".
So I expect you to know what "other gospel" means.
"Other gospel" is not some picky point of doctrine.
Skim through Galatians - you cannot miss the specific "other gospel" Paul was referring to.
And, it was not some small, picky point of doctrine.

It's not my Gospel. It's Paul's, as revealed to him by our ascended Lord.

And before one quotes Paul one has to have read the whole book of Galatians.
So my challenge stands. I could just tell you, but its so much better to spend five minutes reading it for yourself, since you might believe Paul, and I doubt you would believe me.

The Bible is not a point of doctrine, and the reliability of the Holy Scriptures is not a point of Doctrine. Is there some actual point you are attempting to make here? opcorn:

There is a time to go crusader on someone when they actually ARE preaching another gospel.
And even then, Paul was gentle on the Galatians, who were being suckered in to another gospel.

Paul may have gone ape if he arrived in Galatia to find these other preachers preaching their other gospel.

 

[daqq]

I am, but you aren't. I have explained this to you, and now I'm reporting you.

You can't even get the times and dates right on these posts.

Daqq's post was on Jan. 6 at 9:13 # 1777

My post was on Jan. 6 at 9:29 #1780


When Daqq was posting his response at 9:13, I was bouncing between the Trinity thread...Pops had quoted me at 9:03 and 9:06. I had been reading how he was wanting to debate AMR. Keypurr had responded to my post in the Jesus is God thread (9:11), so I responded to him at 9:15 # 2315.

Now, your claim that I rushed back here and saw Daqq's post, read what he posted (which didn't even say what I'd said), and then looked up scripture all so I could make myself look good in your eyes, is nothing short of insane. I was continuing to read and post, and YOU hadn't even crossed my mind.

You do think too highly of yourself, little man, but you won't be dumping your crap on me without getting it returned right back at ya. :wave:

Ahah, it appears that Zenn is not the only one who can call down fire, and it aint never friendly fire because the Shermanator never misses the intended target, and behold, all ye sinners, heathen, and reprobates who are watching: the Watcher on the wall is but a smoldering heap of glowing embers!

 

[glorydaz]

You quoted Gal 1:9 at me Glorydaz, and even highlighted "other gospel".
So I expect you to know what "other gospel" means.
"Other gospel" is not some picky point of doctrine.
Skim through Galatians - you cannot miss the specific "other gospel" Paul was referring to.
And, it was not some small, picky point of doctrine.


And before one quotes Paul one has to have read the whole book of Galatians.
So my challenge stands. I could just tell you, but its so much better to spend five minutes reading it for yourself, since you might believe Paul, and I doubt you would believe me.

I have thoroughly read Galatians many times, and I'm quite aware of what the "other gospel" is.

What? You think I'm supposed to bark when you clap your hands?

There is a time to go crusader on someone when they actually ARE preaching another gospel.
And even then, Paul was gentle on the Galatians, who were being suckered in to another gospel.

Paul may have gone ape if he arrived in Galatia to find these other preachers preaching their other gospel.

Oh, I see. Paul was gentle.....but he may have gone ape. Aren't you the clever one?

I gave the Gospel as an example of how and why we have enemies. We also have enemies who attack the word of God, and they, too, warrant going "ape" over. This thread... duh.

You should be careful when you pick your battles. The scope may be broader than the little parameters you insist on. My enemies are those who are enemies of God's word....be they those who preach a false gospel of works or those who attack the Holy Scriptures. In fact, those are God's enemies more than mine. I just happen to be a member of His Army. lain:

 

[daqq]

Well I have called down lightning, but it wasn't to kill anyone (no, Cobra wasn't there, but my wife and 9 others were).

Ahah, it appears that Zenn is not the only one who can call down fire, and it aint never friendly fire because the Shermanator never misses the intended target, and behold, all ye sinners, heathen, and reprobates who are watching: the Watcher on the wall is but a smoldering heap of glowing embers!

And no doubt it is more than a minyan who see the Watcher's name all aflame, (a minyan is ten: it takes a minyan plus one little horn with two eyes like a man to make a "synagogue", lol). :chuckle:

 

[iouae]

I have thoroughly read Galatians many times, and I'm quite aware of what the "other gospel" is.

What? You think I'm supposed to bark when you clap your hands?

Cannot or will not, they are one and the same to me.

Oh, I see. Paul was gentle.....but he may have gone ape. Aren't you the clever one?

I gave the Gospel as an example of how and why we have enemies. We also have enemies who attack the word of God, and they, too, warrant going "ape" over. This thread... duh.

You should be careful when you pick your battles. The scope may be broader than the little parameters you insist on. My enemies are those who are enemies of God's word....be they those who preach a false gospel of works or those who attack the Holy Scriptures. In fact, those are God's enemies more than mine. I just happen to be a member of His Army. lain:

Paul might have gone a little ape now and then when there truly was "another Gospel" being preached.
But he was not like Planet of the Apes all the time.
K:K:K:K:K:K:K:K:K:K:

 

[daqq]

Cannot or will not, they are one and the same to me.



Paul might have gone a little ape now and then when there truly was "another Gospel" being preached.
But he was not like Planet of the Apes all the time.
K:K:K:K:K:K:K:K:K:K:

Lol, another minyan, (ten).

 

[iouae]

And another thing Glorydaz, in #2169 you accuse Sonnet of stonewalling.

Yet when I ask you what that "other Gospel" was which Paul was speaking of in Gal 1:9, you stonewall me with this reply ...

"I have thoroughly read Galatians many times, and I'm quite aware of what the "other gospel" is.

What? You think I'm supposed to bark when you clap your hands?

Likewise when I ask you the difference between a glorified Christian's body and that of an angel, it goes strangely silent your end. Is it because you cannot, or will not answer that question too?

 

[daqq]

We can set this one aside, recognizing that it may have a potential reconciliation.

And then we can more on to Jairus.

Remember, it only takes one error to prove the doctrine of inerrancy false. And we have several with no potential reconciliation.

I don’t mind at all taking this one off the table.

So, let’s see who is willing to address Jairus. I am betting Lon and glory won’t even try (as is their custom). Daqq may spiritualize the text to the point that it is unrecognizable. I am still naively optimistic that JS will actually be willing to talk about what the text actually says. I think Watchman will seek the truth.

The story of Jairus is cut and dry. It will take a lot of unChristian denial to mask the error. Maybe that is why most will refuse to try to reconcile the various texts.

No doubt you are a hypocrite when it comes to how your mind auto-interprets what you read.
For no doubt you tell yourself that you observe some form of the well known saying:

"If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense, lest you end up with nonsense."

And yet there are many places where you do not do what you tell yourself you do. When you find a text that you do not wish to take for what you consider the plain sense your mind automatically converts it into some mystical spiritual sense: but since you have no spiritual sense, you ignore the passage and move on, having found no answer for what the passage truly intends. You make such decisions on a daily basis without even realizing what you are doing because your mind does it automatically for you without you even needing to think about it.

 

[daqq]

But he was not like Planet of the Apes all the time.
K:K:K:K:K:K:K:K:K:K:

Lol, another minyan, (ten).

Aren't there supposed to be eleven? "Stop the culling of Cape Town's baboons!"

 

[iouae]

Aren't there supposed to be eleven? "Stop the culling of Cape Town's baboons!"

Yes. They just culled a lovely baboon called "Dodger" in the last few days. The authorities only give baboons numbers, to make killing them impersonal. They have culled over 50 baboons in the last few years and it has got to stop.

If folks know only one thing about Cape Town, I want them to know that is the city where they cull baboons willy nilly.

 

[daqq]

Yes. They just culled a lovely baboon called "Dodger" in the last few days. The authorities only give baboons numbers, to make killing them impersonal. They have culled over 50 baboons in the last few years and it has got to stop.

If folks know only one thing about Cape Town, I want them to know that is the city where they cull baboons willy nilly.

I take it "number eleven" was your avatar? Is that "Dodger"? If so I kinda thought something like that since you just changed to that avatar in the past few days, (as far as I have noticed but I suppose I could be wrong). I see you take it very seriously so I will refrain from further jest.