Love One Another and the Cross

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i can tell you, for what it's worth, that you are insisting upon a very legal definition for that idea, when Christ is a Spirit, and is not bound by your understanding.

well, it might be bald, but it is true in a sense, even for me; although i have a less legalistic definition of this now, centered around love. You say you want to talk Bible, but there is obviously quite a bit of Scripture that you don't accept;

Present the scripture. Talk about those verses. i accept them all.

But everytime I ask you figure some way to not do so.

Consider this. Your theology proposes the bible is written in such a way that YOUR ideas will stand no matter what scripture says. What I mean is, you feel if anyone sees something in scripture that counters your view, then that scripture is considered by you to have been intentionally written by God so as to deceive the one presenting it to you. In this way you can never be wrong! So in reality it is YOUR ideas being forced upon scripture, and no one can counter them since you have that same argument every time. I present scripture that flatly contradicts your beliefs, and instead of actually discussing the scripture to see if it really counters you or not, you disregard such and discussion and simply repeat a strawman argument that it's MY ideas for which I am seeking agreement.

But you should know I do not think like you do. In reality you're projecting YOUR way of approach onto everyone else who disagrees with you, by accusing them of insisting THEIR beliefs are right and all others are wrong.

But to someone who believes the Bible is not written to deceive, but considers the distortion of the word an incidental result of dishonest hearts, the bible is something to learn from and gain our beliefs from. You spent over half your life, I think it was, with Muslims whom you've come to appreciate as anyone would. But you disregarded plain scripture that states denial of the Son of God is antichrist, and took the plain teaching of the Word and made it of none effect. You expose this by lack of willingness to actually talk about those scriptures.

which might be true for anyone, i guess, but a point is that i think you see, or at least have been shown, where you do not even really believe all of your dogma, either. And hopefully are less certain about "proving" povs with Scripture?

You do this all the time. You make all these claims, and when I ask you to prove it and discuss the very scripture with which you claim I do it, you bail. You refuse. In short you make strawman arguments and cannot deal with my actual claims of faith.

What is the fractionation into countless Christian sects, but an endless string of egos focused on the unimportant, the seen, and determined to shine a "new" truth?

There is no new truth for the last two thousand years since the New Covenant came into being. IN fact, it was n't really new then, either, just revealed from mystery.

But this is how the Kingdom advances, i guess. It is a process, just like salvation. If you can find me one, single quote where someone in the Bible "was saved, that day," then i would have to reconsider.

I did. I showed you the bible saying people WERE saved, are being saved and will be saved. You never so much as acknowlewdged that proposition.

Do you really think you just picked the "right" religion, and that most people are doomed because they picked the "wrong" one?

And here goes the strawman arguing again. It has nothing to do with picking. It has nothing to do with desiring a faith that claims most people are in the wrong religion.

That is how the natural minds thinks, S. They look at all the religions, and consider the truth to be a needle in a haystack. So, instead of believing there is a God who really can guide a sincere heart to truth, they consider what THEY THINK it should be. That's why you keep projecting all these inapplicable accusations against me. They're actually YOUR beliefs. You WANT the bible to include muslims and anyone else, despite plain attacks in their faith to what the word demands as foundational truths. And because YOU WANT that so much, you convince yourself any scripture presented to you to counter that view is not saying what your critic claims it's saying. IN reality, you cannot explain what the verse actually says, but you've convinced yourself it cannot be saying what you disagree with. So you don't even look at the verse and deal with it.

This way you continue on in your presumed "truth", and continue to strawman every argument you encounter, and keep yourself from actually dealing with scriptures presented to you.

Once again, you avoided actually discussing scripture. Go ahead, and continue to build your strawmen. I guess one can only pray for you. You certainly won't discuss scripture.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

But to someone who believes the Bible is not written to deceive, but considers the distortion of the word an incidental result of dishonest hearts, the bible is something to learn from and gain our beliefs from. You spent over half your life, I think it was, with Muslims whom you've come to appreciate as anyone would. But you disregarded plain scripture that states denial of the Son of God is antichrist, and took the plain teaching of the Word and made it of none effect. You expose this by lack of willingness to actually talk about those scriptures.

it is not from lack of willingness, but lack of social context, which i hope i have made plain. The Muslim refusal of the iconography rampant in Constantine's church is taken to mean refusal of Christ by Christians looking to pick a fight, or legalistically insisting upon differences, when all that may be meant is "don't be praying to Mary." Or Christ, for that matter. "God has no Son" means something different to them than to you, and the Qur'an's declarations that one must follow Christ or be doomed demonstrate this. And i never said that the first Muslim had ever been "saved," anyway--i said that anyone declaring someone else "lost" lacks humility, and should be re-examining their own dogma, because they are hypocrites.

Originally Posted by mfblume

There is no new truth for the last two thousand years since the New Covenant came into being. IN fact, it was n't really new then, either, just revealed from mystery.

you got that right--but it is still, apparently, a mystery to us whether Peter said that baptism is essential or not!

Originally Posted by mfblume

I did. I showed you the bible saying people WERE saved, are being saved and will be saved. You never so much as acknowlewdged that proposition.

ah, must have missed that. Can you show me one now? I don't think you can.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

it is not from lack of willingness, but lack of social context, which i hope i have made plain. The Muslim refusal of the iconography rampant in Constantine's church is taken to mean refusal of Christ by Christians looking to pick a fight, or legalistically insisting upon differences,

Here is your strawman argumentation.

Neither I nor anyone else here that I know of thought about Muslims and said, "What scripture can refute their beliefs?" and then hunted them down. We read the bible where it says denial of Christ as Son makes one an antichrist. And we said, "Wow. Look at that. I never LOOKED for it, but that verse right there is cause for the mulsim faith to be considered antichrist due to its repeated insistence in the Koran GOD CANNOT HAVE A SON."

We did not WANT to believe that. We had to! The bible said it! We did not LOOK for it. The bible presented it to us. But I can see why you refuse to accept that claim, because you seemingly refuse o let the bible teach you, and insist on demanding God's word not say anything that causes people like Muslims to be lost. Your only argument against the verse is the verse is not saying what we think it says. But to offer YOUR interpretation to what it actually says, is something you won't. more likely can't, do.

when all that may be meant is "don't be praying to Mary." Or Christ, for that matter. "God has no Son" means something different to them than to you, and the Qur'an's declarations that one must follow Christ or be doomed demonstrate this.

In your hopes it demonstrates it. I gotta hand it to you. You really WANT them to be saved. We all do. But you crossed the line where you reject plain statements in the bible that really CANNOT be twisted, and simply say it's not saying what we claim it's saying.

And i never said that the first Muslim had ever been "saved," anyway--i said that anyone declaring someone else "lost" lacks humility, and should be re-examining their own dogma, because they are hypocrites.

You still aren't getting our point. You just refuse to consider it. You made your mind up that you cannot be wrong about the reason a person says a group is lost, and refuse to consider it really is only repeating what the bible said, and not judging anyone at all. the Bible made the judgment. And to show you that such a situation is possible, which you rejected before and will only reject again, we showed you where Jesus said people are judged already and condemned already, and He simply came to save them from that. He said people are already condemned, so it's not Him condemning anyone. Did that mean He rejected the judgment as you are doing? Nope.

you got that right--but it is still, apparently, a mystery to us whether Peter said that baptism is essential or not!
ah, must have missed that. Can you show me one now? I don't think you can.

Mark 16:16 KJV He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Mark 16:16 KJV He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

shall be!

iow, future tense; and conditional, i might add. Is someone who takes it upon themselves to point out how everyone else is doing it wrong a "believer?" Not imo. They are accusers. Even satan quotes Scripture, so what.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

shall be!

iow, future tense; and conditional, i might add.

lol. That is because no one was baptized into the death of Jesus yet, since this was before the time period that would follow the day of Pentecost when the message of baptism for remission of sins was first preached 50 days after the passover's sabbath. And Jesus said when people would fill those conditions of believing a nd being baptized, they would be saved at that moment.

,. Is someone who takes it upon themselves to point out how everyone else is doing it wrong a "believer?" Not imo.

More strawmen. Hay is everywhere today.

They are accusers. Even satan quotes Scripture, so what.

So the bible is worthless. Satan can quote it, so why should we bother? After all, that's what you've decided. It's better to think YOU are right and everyone else is wrong, eh? No matter how much scripture might suggest otherwise, just deny it since satan can quote scripture. No wonder you refuse to chat bible. It's been devalued to an intentionally deceptive volume where we cannot pin down anything.

Phew!

[shazeep]

well, i'm sure that reading us from the outside is somewhat funny, yes. No harm meant.

Originally Posted by mfblume

So the bible is worthless. Satan can quote it, so why should we bother? After all, that's what you've decided. It's better to think YOU are right and everyone else is wrong, eh? No matter how much scripture might suggest otherwise, just deny it since satan can quote scripture. No wonder you refuse to chat bible. It's been devalued to an intentionally deceptive volume where we cannot pin down anything.

Phew!

that is your conclusion, not mine. I doubt you would care to go over "why do you answer like that?" again.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, i'm sure that reading us from the outside is somewhat funny, yes. No harm meant.that is your conclusion, not mine. I doubt you would care to go over "why do you answer like that?" again.

I'm only interested in learning what God wants me to know by His Word. You just won't go there, though.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by shazeep

shall be!

iow, future tense; and conditional, i might add. Is someone who takes it upon themselves to point out how everyone else is doing it wrong a "believer?" Not imo. They are accusers. Even satan quotes Scripture, so what.

ok, so Zaccheus was proclaimed "saved" that day by Christ, for readers, Luke 19.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ok, so Zaccheus was proclaimed "saved" that day by Christ, for readers, Luke 19.

Nope. Jesus came to him with salvation.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Nope. Jesus came to him with salvation.

, Mike, Christ said that salvation had come to Zaccheus, not me. Unless Zaccheus lost the salvation when Christ left? I mean, would you argue with a post or what?

Today salvation has come to this house.