Lee Stoneking Addresses UN

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I didn't see any tweets and only a few photos posted here without captions

I dont see using other images as unethical when they are not copy written. I do see mis-representing them as something they are not as unethical but I am willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt that it was not their intent.

It could be just a case of thoughtlessness...which as evidenced from this topic, is quite common.

It could be you're right. I dont know exactly what was said on the minister's forum after this was highlighted. I saw the tweets yes. On the forum it is said that he had real photos a few weeks later, but I didnt see any pictures anywhere prior to August, 2014 - a year later.

Often a clear, detailed explanation removes all doubt and rights to doubt. What one does not say is often as important as what one does say. Not a single word about it before it was exposed and then there was no explanation, at least not a public one, provided. The explanation that was provided was taken from a forum that nobody but fellow ministers can view. Since no doubt has been cast, at least not publicly, it is difficult to generate the benefit of it. Its his job to cast it, not these two or three on this forum.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Ironically I will defer the above in favor of what Jesus did and said.

One cannot know what Jesus did and said except by the testimony given by his disciples.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Esaias

One cannot know what Jesus did and said except by the testimony given by his disciples.

The book of Hebrews unfortunately cannot be traced back to His disciples. It is my understanding that this book cannot be traced to anyone, leaving whatever it says that is contradictory to what sources CAN be traced in question.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Hebrews 5:7 "Who in the days of his flesh..."

You are trying to imply that this says what?

5. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

6. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

7. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Hebrews 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens

Which is consistent with exactly where Jesus said He would be. On the right hand of the throne of the Majesty. The Majesty - is God.

Is there a point to be gleaned from this repeated fragment? Perhaps to demonstrate that Hence, making two persons of them (God and Jesus), denying the work of God, i.e, denying that Jesus is truly God manifest in the flesh is antichrist.

If so it was a terrible reference. Find another one. Jesus Himself made two persons of them.

Mark 16:19 says: After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

You are trying to imply that this says what?

5. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

6. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

7. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Hebrews 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens

Which is consistent with exactly where Jesus said He would be. On the right hand of the throne of the Majesty. The Majesty - is God.

Is there a point to be gleaned from this repeated fragment? Perhaps to demonstrate that Hence, making two persons of them (God and Jesus), denying the work of God, i.e, denying that Jesus is truly God manifest in the flesh is antichrist.

If so it was a terrible reference. Find another one. Jesus Himself made two persons of them.

Mark 16:19 says: After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.

Walks, you have to take the WHOLE Word of God to get understanding.

Also, Paul would have issue with separating God from Jesus Christ when he experienced his moment on the road to Damascus.

Acts 9:9 "And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord/supreme in authority? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord/supreme in authority, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."

I had my own Damascus experience as a new convert. Early one morning before I was awake, I heard a woman's voice say, "Who is the father, who is the son, who is the Holy Ghost?"

A man's voice responded, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

You'd be hard pressed to convince me that Jesus is not God manifest in the flesh. Nice try though. I see everything as Hebrews 5:7 - "In the days of his flesh..."

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord/supreme in authority both of the dead and living.

10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Walks, you have to take the WHOLE Word of God to get understanding.

Also, Paul would have issue with separating God from Jesus Christ when he experienced his moment on the road to Damascus.


I had my own Damascus experience as a new convert. Early one morning before I was awake, I heard a woman's voice say, "Who is the father, who is the son, who is the Holy Ghost?"

A man's voice responded, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

You'd be hard pressed to convince me that Jesus is not God manifest in the flesh. Nice try though. I see everything as Hebrews 5:7 - "In the days of his flesh..."

Understanding a whole sure isnt exampled by drawing conclusions based on fragments. Just saying.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Walks, you have to take the WHOLE Word of God to get understanding.

Also, Paul would have issue with separating God from Jesus Christ when he experienced his moment on the road to Damascus.


I had my own Damascus experience as a new convert. Early one morning before I was awake, I heard a woman's voice say, "Who is the father, who is the son, who is the Holy Ghost?"

A man's voice responded, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

You'd be hard pressed to convince me that Jesus is not God manifest in the flesh. Nice try though. I see everything as Hebrews 5:7 - "In the days of his flesh..."

A story of Paul with three separate and contradictory version (2 in the same book) is not a good choice either. Wanna use it, use the whole, all three, contradictions and all. No fragments. This is a fragment free zone.

[Sister Alvear]

Even the Jews understood He was God....Holman Christian Standard Bible
“ We aren’t stoning You for a good work,” the Jews answered, “ but for blasphemy, because You  — being a man  — make Yourself God.”

New American Standard Bible
The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out [to be] God."

King James Bible
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

John 10:33....

[Sister Alvear]

The Jews only knew one GOD....

[shazeep]

amen. And, being human, they also insisted upon defending their definition of God, and misunderstanding God manifest in Christ, imo.