Lee Stoneking Addresses UN

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Where many of us tangle is when we slighty reword each others posts. A room full of empty seats (I said) is not necessarily an empty room (you said I said).

Guilty of that myself. Its difficult to not do that. Do you to feel free to call me out on it when I do.

Why can't Art get that same consideration?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I believe you are coming from the premise of "opinion" as judgment - even going so far as calling that righteous judgement.

I am speaking truth. There is ONE Gospel that we will all answer to. It is that black and white.

I can say a rosary 5 times a day. That doesn't make me know truth.

I can chant this prayer 5 times a day - it isn't truth - Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death. Amen.

yes, regardless of that, you put yourself in the place of God in judging someone else Godless, when God judges the heart. God is not a Christian, to be bound in your judgement; this is putting the cart before the horse. Haven't you basically just stated that no one who doesn't believe what you do is doomed? That someone with a different dogma is surely doomed--when God judges his heart?

With the judgement you give, it will be given to you. This truth of yours,

"In the NT covenant, there is no one going to be saved outside of Acts 2:38. If the Jewish people don't embrace that truth, they will be like you - denying that God has come to seek and to save that which are lost..."

is clearly out of line, and

"Not believing that God has manifest himself in flesh is anti-christ."

is surely true, but that doesn't mean that you get to define this. Using Acts 2:38 as a detector or some sort of verbal mantra that must be verbally agreed to i order to proceed is poorly applying Scripture at least, and as we see, leads to pride, and judgement. You are not God, that you can say this.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by shazeep

yes, regardless of that, you put yourself in the place of God in judging someone else Godless, when God judges the heart. God is not a Christian, to be bound in your judgement; this is putting the cart before the horse. Haven't you basically just stated that no one who doesn't believe what you do is doomed? That someone with a different dogma is surely doomed--when God judges his heart?

With the judgement you give, it will be given to you. This truth of yours,

"In the NT covenant, there is no one going to be saved outside of Acts 2:38. If the Jewish people don't embrace that truth, they will be like you - denying that God has come to seek and to save that which are lost..."

is clearly out of line, and

"Not believing that God has manifest himself in flesh is anti-christ."

is surely true, but that doesn't mean that you get to define this. Using Acts 2:38 as a detector or some sort of verbal mantra that must be verbally agreed to i order to proceed is poorly applying Scripture at least, and as we see, leads to pride, and judgement. You are not God, that you can say this.

Let's look at what truth says, regardless of "feelings":

"Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. Matthew 15:12-14

There is no pride here. Judgment is weighed by truth. Jesus teaches a principle we can stand on - truth that we are assured of - there is only ONE DOOR.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." John 10:1

You will notice that Walks is telling us what the Bible is saying. We are responding in kind.

It is true that God judges the heart, but He never tells us not to teach truth in the meantime. You will notice I have stated:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Apparently, the writer of the book of Hebrews knew something you don't see nor, at this time, can comprehend - God was manifest in the flesh.

I realize that there may be a time wherein Walks could have a revelation of who Jesus Christ is. Until that day, I will defend what I believe is truth when I am challenged. He is trying to explain the Bible from a Trinitarian point of view. I am not a Trinitarian.

And I am fully aware, as I stated, there is ONE DOOR and there is ONE GOD.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Let's look at what truth says, regardless of "feelings":



There is no pride here. Judgment is weighed by truth. Jesus teaches a principle we can stand on - truth that we are assured of - there is only ONE DOOR.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." John 10:1

You will notice that Walks is telling us what the Bible is saying. We are responding in kind.

It is true that God judges the heart, but He never tells us not to teach truth in the meantime. You will notice I have stated:



I realize that there may be a time wherein Walks could have a revelation of who Jesus Christ is. Until that day, I will defend what I believe is truth when I am challenged. He is trying to explain the Bible from a Trinitarian point of view. I am not a Trinitarian.

And I am fully aware, as I stated, there is ONE DOOR and there is ONE GOD.

Excellent posting, Po...

[n david]

Originally Posted by Dante

Lee Stoneking has a history of lying, and the UPCI has a record of sweeping his homosexuality under the rug.

smh

[n david]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Taking a break from researching just how many countries (wow so many) have permanent delegations to the UN.

The UN was pretty busy on the 21st. Just how busy involves audience screenshots.

I say he knows and knew that fantastic story wasnt true. Relating an untrue story from someone who relates an untrue story is called perpetuating a lie.

Which is also what I said. It wouldnt be perpetuated further on the internet if he had not used his self serving non annointed mouth to say it and put it out in the public arena.

With that said I only have to post the untrue story and the man telling it and the physical facts about the man and the marriages of that man to make my case. You say this is libel? Bleh.

It is not your place to post what this man did or did not know or his intent. It is his place. I already said he has not and will not correct this story. Proud, unrepentent men are not Godly men and men who in their message do and say such blatently untrue things are not annointed men. God directs men to say what is good and true.

Even the Quran has example: 'Say, Oh Mohammed, I am but a Messenger'....more than once. The bible directs men towards humility and so does the Quran.

Add proud, self-serving, and not annointed to the libel lawsuit. Say what you want about my intent. When someone shines a light on a man you uplift and hold high in esteem and you do not like what you see you better be asking yourself why and buying yourself a full length mirror.

You don't know if he corrected the story or not, do you? Have you listened or been to every service he's preached the past few years? If your answer is no, and we know it is, then you don't know if he did or not.

mohammed is dead and burning in hell. I don't care what a dead false prophet had to say about anything.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

The meeting mattered to everybody and the topic was relevant to every religion. It was a global meeting. It had a specific agenda.

That agenda did not include some slimy self-serving message that had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

That's why it matters to me. This yo-yo isn't at "General Conference" anymore he has placed himself and his story on the world stage.

You would call Jesus Christ and the New Birth message a "slimy self-serving message." I'm not sure what you hate more - Stoneking and Wilson, or the message they preach.

Why are you on Apostolic Friends Forum? You just called the message Stoneking gave "slimy" and "self-serving." If you don't agree with the basic doctrine you shouldn't be on AFF.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by n david

You don't know if he corrected the story or not, do you? Have you listened or been to every service he's preached the past few years? If your answer is no, and we know it is, then you don't know if he did or not.

mohammed is dead and burning in hell. I don't care what a dead false prophet had to say about anything.

You need to go back and focus on telling me why posting the picture of the wrong room by me as General Assembly was a lie but the exact wrong room posted on Art's twitter a few months ago captioned General Assembly is OK. That will catch you up. Otherwise it will leave your motive in sidestepping that in question. Page up, read, explain. If you want to rant and rave and namecall with zero data or facts to back it you shouldnt be on AFF either. Every single thing I posted about this sordid story had a reference to go back to and explain why.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Let's look at what truth says, regardless of "feelings":



There is no pride here. Judgment is weighed by truth. Jesus teaches a principle we can stand on - truth that we are assured of - there is only ONE DOOR.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." John 10:1

You will notice that Walks is telling us what the Bible is saying. We are responding in kind.

It is true that God judges the heart, but He never tells us not to teach truth in the meantime. You will notice I have stated:



I realize that there may be a time wherein Walks could have a revelation of who Jesus Christ is. Until that day, I will defend what I believe is truth when I am challenged. He is trying to explain the Bible from a Trinitarian point of view. I am not a Trinitarian.

And I am fully aware, as I stated, there is ONE DOOR and there is ONE GOD.

these are all great, PO. I even agree that the Acts 2:38 message must be obeyed; but this doesn't mean that there are not Trinitarians, or countless others, who will not be accepted. When one's dogma becomes the basis for excluding others, rather than saving them, it becomes moot. You don't know but that Walks--for instance--may have a better revelation of Christ than you or i do, regardless of whether he has memorized Acts 2:38 or not.

You think you have been shown the Door, and that's great. You might surely even lead others to Christ using the same words; but the words are not the door. It is your example, before any words were said, that causes ears to hear. Will you still get some "converts" with this "put your feet exactly where i'm putting mine, or you will fall off a cliff" jazz? Surely; but what kind?

If you have a vision of the Door that works for you does not mean that you have discovered the only definition of the Door--or for that matter, even a very good one, being as how it seems so easily accepted, just a little phrase to repeat--better to assume that you have maybe a little glimpse, the slightest idea of what going through that door might be like, imo. You would (both) have Gandhi in hell here, but you say there is no pride involved. This is hypocrisy.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That's such a disparity between one who studies the bible to learn truth and its detractors.

Are you saying the truth is somewhere besides in what it says? I only posted what it said, drew no conclusions, and you see need to jump in to clarify what it intended to say? Why is that I wonder. Why do you feel you are in a position to define what was intended when your definition is different than what it actually says?

This is my problem with many of you. You dismiss what ia text or passage says and tend to insist that salvation of others is based on what it intends, and insist that you are the one who can determine both what it intends and what it means. Even in the face of reading what it says.

I ask should one follow what it says or a man who believes he is better fitted to say what it was intended to mean. I do not believe that the latter is right but few to none are out there who teach and follow what it says. The few that do are worth listening to true. But someone who sets himself up in a position to define that though it says this it really means that? Smh. No.