Discrepancy in Church Practice

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Bowas

In that you referenced Jesus and Paul in your defense to read between the lines, (which they did not) this verse immediately came to mind, as you seem to be elevating yourself to their status.

Can you read between these lines?

Act 19:15.. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?..

Elder, that pretty much sums it up.
The Delphic oracle who followed Paul and Silas in Acts 16:16-18, was telling the truth concerning the Apostolic duo. “these men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. The “Pythia” was a Delphic oracle who was able to give out insight, or tell possible outcomes concerning future events. Yet, in this circumstance she is advocating the Truth of God concerning Paul and Silas. Paul doesn’t turn and commend the woman. Paul turns and rebukes her and casts out the spirit. Paul wanted no association with the woman, even if she proclaimed “a” Truth. Don, doesn’t care about what is Truth. Don, just wants a word serving position. Can Don read between the lines? That’s what his whole mantra is about. You see, Don is the spiritual egghead here. We all need to just sit back and shut up while he drops golden nuggets of his carnal mind into our cups. In Acts 19:11-20, the seven sons of Sceva used the name of Jesus as a talisman, and ended up getting corrected by a demon. Because devils believe in One God and they tremble, James 2:19. Don, wants so badly to be the one who has the answers to “restore” the Apostolic Church. He wants us to believe him for how he describes himself, and not draw conclusions from his posts, which tell a different story.

Now, Don, if one man calls you a horse, ignore him. If two men call you a horse, think about it. If three men call you a horse start shopping for a saddle. Don, your hypothetical B. Smith ( if he believes and behaves ) like you, has an ice cube’s chance in a Nevada summer, to get a word serving position.

The Bible is plain, the Word is crystal clear, and just because you and I disagree concerning Romans 14, doesn’t mean your nonsense about reading between the lines is legit. You are wrong, and can’t be corrected. The seven sons of Sceva thought they were correct in their assumptions as well as the Delphic oracle. Yet, the conclusion of their surmisings ended in disaster. Peter said this about people like you, in 2 Peter 3:15-16, “and account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” I’ve explained countless times what Paul was trying to convey in Romans. I’ve done my part, you haven’t disproved what I presented. Yet, constantly post how I’ve never refuted your “read between the lines” nonsense you present, concerning your Gospel of Inclusion. You see, Paul wasn’t content to allow the woman to follow himself and Silas. Even though what she said was Truth. She sullied the message, because what she believed, to everyone around her, the most high god was Apollyon, the destroyer of the great serpent. Paul put an end to it immediately. She wasn’t a new convert, or weak in the faith, or needing guidance to “read between the lines.” She just needed a devil cast out of her.

Don, rightly dividing the word of God, doesn’t mean “reading between the lines” it means being able to accurately present the truth of the Bible. Book, chapter, and verse.

Elder Bowas, don’t waste your time with individual. But, if you feel led to give Don a little correction. I applaud your efforts.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Bowas

.

In that you referenced Jesus and Paul in your defense to read between the lines, (which they did not) Thx, Bowas. My reading between the lines abilities tells me you think we are done.

But plz, perhaps we should digress. Do we use different definitions of 'reading between the lines'?

I'd already given an example which should provide my definition. Could you provide yours, plz, for comparison purposes. Perhaps readers would also be interested in yours. Act 19:15.. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?.. You are very sharp in providing this reference which relates to both Paul and Jesus in one verse. There can't be too many of these to choose from. My hats off to you, Bowas.

Got the following from the Internet.

"To read between the lines means to find a hidden meaning in what someone says or writes, rather than just looking at the literal words. It is a form of inferential reading where you use context, tone, and cues to understand someone's real feelings or intentions.

Key Aspects of the Phrase
Implied Meaning: Understanding what is suggested rather than what is explicitly stated.
Subtext: Detecting underlying messages, such as dissatisfaction disguised by a polite tone.
Observation: It often involves paying attention to non-verbal cues like body language and voice tone in conversation.

Examples
Work: If a boss says your report was "interesting," you might read between the lines to realize they think it needs significant changes.
Relationships: When someone says they are "fine" while avoiding eye contact, reading between the lines tells you they are actually upset.
Politics: Analysts read between the lines of vague official statements to predict upcoming policy changes."

I asked Ai for a Biblical example. It gave me this, stating it was an outstanding example: Matthew 15.21 Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” 23 But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” 24 But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” 26 But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” 27 And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Ai is often proved wrong. Was it this time, Bowas?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Of course not. This would only come from a backslidden Paul.

You say "of course not" and then you offered three examples. Of which you agree with one which alludes to Paul allowing false doctrine to continue?
You see Don, this is where you get yourself into trouble. Then everyone believes you not to be "Apostolic." Then you start sniveling on how we are misrepresenting you? Don. like I keep saying, you are the gas, we just thrown in the match. You burn all by yourself.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

But when Paul tells those with opposing views on the same topic (days or foods) that they are OK to do so, two conclusions come to mind:

Don, the Apostle clearly states the weak saints are holding their "opinions" not doctrines. Opinions, which they can't even give a good argument concerning these opinions. Reason being Paul is telling the elders to cool it. Just welcome them and help them to grow, so the elder doesn't get in the way of Jesus Christ growing them. Don? Where is Paul saying that these weak saints are holding arguments of head coverings? We are pointed to food offered to demons, and honoring certain days. Not one word concerning theology, soteriology, or eschatology. Paul admonished the Corinthian church that if they were not to argue over head coverings. Due to Paul's teachings concerning head coverings was the final word, and couldn't be debated. He also pointed out that all the churches followed exactly how he taught it. End of discussion. Therefore Romans 14, and 15 doesn't even touch 1 Corinthians 11. We are admonished to follow Paul as he followed Christ. There is absolutely zero way you could cram 1 Corinthians 11 into Romans 14, and 15.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

1. Paul is showing acceptance of false doctrine (because both of their views can't be right at the same time). One or both may be wrong (false doctrine).
2. When Paul realises that God does not always clearly convey doctrine, he then informs that more than 1 interpretation is acceptable in these circumstances.

Of these two, the latter is the most acceptable/logical.

Don, you agree with number one, because you paste number two over the top of it and call it good. You are teaching that the Apostle Paul (an APOSTLE) couldn't teach, also couldn't believe that the Holy Ghost was the PRIMARY Teacher. The Spirit of Truth guides into all truth John 16:13. Therefore we are to test the spirits whether they be of God, because many false prophets have gone out among us. We are told to "test" those trying to teach, preach, prophesy, because if it isn't the Holy Ghost, it is going to set off alarms. You have an Apostle Paul who cannot trust the Holy Ghost, and cannot teach a lick. That's you Don, that is not the Apostle. That's you.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Even you and I, Dom, demonstrate that God doesn't always clearly convey doctrine - we don't agree on an interpretation of Ro14. Thus, this disagreement gives evidence to my view.

You are a mental case, it has nothing to do with God not speaking clearly when conveying DOCTRINE. It has all to do with you being out of your ever loving mind. I may be right, but you can't even consider that as an option. Because you are stone blind, because you see yourself as an Apostle, the leader of truth, a feeder of new converts, and a grower of olive trees. You see yourself as a restorer to bring restoration to the bride. Don, you are none of those things. But, I am not alone in that assessment.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I now conclude you've helped prove the point I'm making. Thank You.

There you go, patting yourself on the back. Like a good cult leader. Mix up the Kool Aid and pass it around. You are just silly man.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Only someone with a bias or an hidden agenda would say that the Word of God is always perfectly clear,

Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

The Book of Revelation takes the idea found in Proverbs 30:5-6 and says this; "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Don, how on earth can a man or woman be warned by God not to do something, they aren't capable of following those orders? You teach that they can't help themselves but to add and subtract. Because God's Word isn't pure. You teach that God's word is pretty muddy.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

showing only one possible conclusion in its words on one topic. God had done so purposely. To believe otherwise would insult the view saying the Lord has infinite abilities.

But, the scripture says He doesn't do it purposely! YOU and those who are insincere do it to themselves. You are silly man.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Can the conclusion in the last paragraph be shown wrong? I doubt any would try, when most would conclude the same.

I just did, I showed beyond a shadow of doubt that you need to be taught, and not to be teaching. God help the poor souls who would end up under the wheels of your chariot.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

In that you referenced Jesus and Paul in your defense to read between the lines, (which they did not)Thx, Bowas. My reading between the lines abilities tells me you think we are done.

But plz, perhaps we should digress. Do we use different definitions of 'reading between the lines'?

I'd already given an example which should provide my definition. Could you provide yours, plz, for comparison purposes. Perhaps readers would also be interested in yours. Act 19:15.. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?. You are very sharp in providing this reference which relates to both Paul and Jesus in one verse. There can't be too many of these to choose from. My hats off to you, Bowas.

Got the following from the Internet.

"To read between the lines means to find a hidden meaning in what someone says or writes, rather than just looking at the literal words. It is a form of inferential reading where you use context, tone, and cues to understand someone's real feelings or intentions.

Key Aspects of the Phrase
Implied Meaning: Understanding what is suggested rather than what is explicitly stated.
Subtext: Detecting underlying messages, such as dissatisfaction disguised by a polite tone.
Observation: It often involves paying attention to non-verbal cues like body language and voice tone in conversation.

Examples
Work: If a boss says your report was "interesting," you might read between the lines to realize they think it needs significant changes.
Relationships: When someone says they are "fine" while avoiding eye contact, reading between the lines tells you they are actually upset.
Politics: Analysts read between the lines of vague official statements to predict upcoming policy changes."

I asked Ai for a Biblical example. It gave me this, stating it was an outstanding example: Matthew 15.21 Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” 23 But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” 24 But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” 26 But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” 27 And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Ai is often proved wrong. Was it this time, Bowas?

Was Chat GPT supposed to help you defend your argument?

Don, this is laughable.

No Bible argument, no seeking help from the Holy Ghost, just Don, and the Internet. You are just silly man.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Bowas

How about not trying to bring back a topic that got stopped, under the guise of another topic?

Seems to me, that ship has sailed...let it go.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Long answer: Yes, and I've given multiple examples of such. Since you haven't read many posts I will give an example, taken from https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...ad.php?t=55053 which is my thread: 1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.

Reading 1Co11.2-16 sees Paul making a conclusion. See v3. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. He makes a statement but doesn't here say where it comes from. Apostolics call this conclusion God's Order Of Authority. It is: God as head, the man Christ under him, man - subordinate to God/Christ, woman - subordinate to both man and God/Christ.

It is understood that Apostolics should follow this order because it is given by God to obey.

Paul then refers, v8-12, to the Beginning as the basis for his conclusion. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. When we read in Ge we see no direct words from God indicating by words that he expects A&E to follow an Order Of Authority. Nothing at all indicates to all Men anything directly from God's mouth about God's Order of Authority, which later is seen as Paul's doctrine. Where then does Paul get his conclusion from, if God made no such statement/command there? It did not come from a command of God seen in the Beginning asking for it, did it?

I've said in other places that Paul makes it up. If I offend you using this phrase, which implies that it comes entirely out of Paul's imagination, then substitute the phrase with: Paul reads between the lines, by his own volition, to make conclusions. Paul gets meanings from events, specifically: Eve was created for Adam, Ge2.

This was only an event and it was not to command anything like that which is implied by v3 and God's Order Of Authority.

Yet using 'reading between the lines' shows that it indicates Eve should be submissive, but not because she was commanded to do so. If she was made for Adam's purposes, then it is logical to think she should be subordinate to the one she is made for. This understanding comes from logic, not words of a command.

What also is not said by command is that Adam should be subordinate to God. We assume this to be commanded but it is only an assumption. Obviously, Adam should be subordinate to the One who is vastly superior to him in every conceivable way. But this subordination is known to us/Adam not by command but by the use of the reasoning ability God gave to all Men. God did command other specifics, such as that certain fruit.

All this is deductive reasoning at work. It is not reading of a command of God asking for Man to comply with his Order Of Authority. Even so, Paul has presented it in 1Co11 as an irrefutable doctrine all should follow. Even though he made it up by using deductive reasoning. (I've only used 'made it up' to indicate it came out of his thoughts. Paul uses God-given deductive reasoning abilities like it was designed by God to be used. Paul's conclusions are right and should be received as Truth with a capital T. Not everything which we should live by comes by a command of God.)

For what it's worth: Perhaps you noticed that Paul has included Christ, when Ge mentions nothing of him. Thus Paul adds to the Word of God, doing so by necessity because further events demand so.

So, Bowas, this is just one example where the scripture shows doctrine coming out of an event, and not from a command of God. It had come to Paul by way of reading between the lines of words written of the Beginning. Doctrine has come by way of reading God's Word but using deductive reasoning/reading between the lines to do so.

God's Order Of Authority was not given as a command of God, but it was indicated by events. Paul makes it authoritative when it is included in 1Co11. Yet even he does not command it. He says this: I want you to know. It is instructive, not commanding, info.

I can give examples of Jesus using reading between the lines. I have other examples also.

Well hardy har har, there you go Bowas! You were right on target from the beginning of this thread. Good man, I tip my hat to your prophetic abilities.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Matthew 15.21 Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” 23 But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” 24 But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” 26 But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” 27 And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

I know I'm opening another can O worms here, but can you explain to me the "hidden meanings" found in the above verses?

Matthew 15:21-28 is pretty clear, but I can only imagine the ecclesiastical rubber chicken you will explain to me concerning the above.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Apparently, Dom does not believe that reading between the lines exists for Christians, likening it to Mithraic practices. Really Dom? This must be Dom's conclusion. It's surely not mine.

Votivesoul's conclusion it was gnostic. Yes, Don, you are an ecclesiastical Mr. Potato Head.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Saying anything against shows Dom disagreeing with a valid, truthful statement. Why Dom?

Why what? Do they speak English in Canada? Do they understand the English language in Canada? Do you understand English?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Good exegesis here Dom.

May I suggest you learn how to exegete.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Now, how about some on what Paul reveals to those who read between the lines?

Don, I don't believe your story of an evolving Paul the Apostle. Who needed to mature between the time when he wrote the epistles to the Corinthians and the epistle to the Romans. You believe in an Apostle Paul who didn't hear from God, but he needed to try out different methods before he got it right. That would call into question every single epistel Paul ever penned. But, thank God we have a man like you who can figure it all out for us. Because God told you about your IV hooey? Right? You confessed that you only know of one person who believes that baloney, and that person is YOU? Get out of here, with your cyanide flavored Kool Aid.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Those who disprove this methodology would take the foundation from under the walls of the reason for this thread.

Ground Control to Major Tom, take your protein pills and put your helmet on!
I have refuted your nonsense, I have done it in almost every post. Yet, you have failed to disprove anything I have been posting. You are a silly person, and the more you post the siller you become.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom has yet to show why this method should be discarded,

Are you fibbing once again? Don, you stated that YOU HAVE NOT READ ALL MY POSTS!!! Therefore you can't make a comment stating victory, when you haven't proven you read all my posts concerning our discussion. All liars have their place in a lake of fire.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

though he has made efforts to mock it.

Don, I am just waiting for you to call fire down from the sky.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Ro14 was written for a guy like Dom. Dom says Ro14 is only about one view, his view. His view should then be the only view people hold - the 'weak' saint view-- and all other views he will put down. Thus, Dom limits the limitless God who wants to shine more and more. Dom says donfriesen1 is a nutjob with his other-than ideas of Ro14. Thus, Dom, is the 'strong' saint Paul writes about, who should not be ramming, should not dominate the 'weak' one.

I hold the view I hold because it is very simple to understand. I don't need your ecclesiastical ouija board or seer stone with top hat to view something deeper. God is limitless, but He has no problem explaining His rules and reasons to the people He wants to follow Him. It is just that simple. He doesn't have "New Light" He wants to spring on us, that He never gave the first century generation. The Bible can speak to all generations plainly, and doesn't need me, or some Jackleg guru like you to show them the way. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Him. Maybe you should read John 14:6? Jesus said, My sheep hear My voice, and I KNOW them, and they follow Me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand."
Don, those who are of a sincere heart, who love and desire Truth, have the Lord Jesus Christ who will make sure they receive it! Plainly, without fail. He knows His sheep, and they follow Him. Yet, to others He will say I NEVER KNEW you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom again shows he is still infatuated with discussing me and not the subject of the thread.

Don, I am always discussing the topic of the thread. Tell Pastor J. D. I think he is right.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Good exegesis again Dom, again avoiding the main topic of the thread. Why avoid?

Yet, you make that statement, but can't seem to prove how I'm not sticking to the subject.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom contradicts the teaching of Ro14 when saying his job is to mock and ridicule donfriesen1 for bringing his more and more ideas to AFF.

Mock you for bringing more and more ideas to AFF? Where did I ever post that you are mocked because you are bringing more and more ideas to AFF? Don, you better find that quote where I said I mock you "because you are bringing more and more ideas to AFF." You think you are pretty clever? Better find it.

I don't contradict Romans 14 you aren't a new convert weak in the faith and holding opinions on varying little items. You are an old dog, who has been in this movement long enough to know you won't get a pat on the back for teaching that Paul the Apostle was learning as he goes. You get the reception you deserve buddy boy. Now zipper up your sheep suit.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

'Those with revelations from the same scripture, which do not contradict the Truth of the Bible but contradict mine, should not write them here' is what reflects the tenor of Dom's words. As such, he shows he thinks he is AFF's cop.

Don, get off it. B. Smith didn't know his Bible and therefore Pastor J. D. bought him a ticket to the Island of Lost Toys.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

John offers good advice all should follow.

That's what is happening. I'm just taking John's advise.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Plz, do so. And start by showing the conclusions I've presented, as based on error. Your saying those things (which I've agreed to as true) has yet to show the error of methodology I've used as wrong.

Don, I have. I have done it over and over again. I also have posters who have come forward who agree with me. Don, how about enlisting some of your crew who believe as you, to log on and help you out? How many of the brethren in your church family believe the same as you?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Awesome! Critique of another's opinions is a healthy exercise none but the proud refuse. Those who refuse to do so civilly; who resort to name-calling for the most part; who resort to character degradation for the most part; those who identify others as sons of Baal when these are seen sharing scripture; when for many many posts they present no scripture or scriptural thought to counter those who identify themselves as Apostolic by sharing scripture and Apostolic thought and scriptural thought doing so, do not reveal theological arguments.

Don, who are you talking about? Not sharing scripture or scriptural thought? Don, you always resort to lying? Don't revel in theological argument? Don, I say this with the most sincerity I can muster. You are as Apostolic as Ram Dass.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

These who you mention are they who you say are your friends, and they model for you ways which you do not emulate, despising their example.

Is that a question? Or are you making a statement? Don, what are you trying to say?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Esaias got a little nasty at times,

Don? Why is it that you seem to have this affect on others? Esaias presented you book, chapter, and verse. You played the same games you play with one and all. Guess what? You lose credibility and respect with others. You claim Apostolic, but you come off as someone who believes the Bible to be a magic book. Esaias wasn't being nasty, that isn't fair to him.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

perhaps copying practices he learned from you.

Well, well, well, look at Mr. Don. You have graduated my boy. Now I have less respect for you than I ever had before. This is between you and I. What you said above was a classless act. You are not a brother, and you are certainly not a friend.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I'm no door mat,

No, you are just silly man, real silly.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

but if anyone wants to treat me like a door mat,

Then they have a perfect right to do so. Because Don, goes after posters who aren't even posting. Don, you dish it out? You have to be prepared to take it.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

then they may learn that what they use to start with, may be used in return, just like it was with you, Dom.

Look, Don is a tiger.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I came new to AFF and did not start off by being snarky. I became snarky after others first became snarky with me.

No, Don, you do understand that these posts of ours don't delete after 24 hrs? People can go check what was said in all the threads? How you never hesitated to talk smack. snarky my foot. You lurked AFF for 4 years before coming out. You learned the lay of the land. You talk about me as if you been following me around the forum for sometime? Maybe you should read Votivesouls posts to you, but this time read them slowly. You seem like a slow learner.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I've then repeatedly badgered those who were first snarky, and continued to badger by asking that they should keep to Bible discussion. But here we are. You've again chosen to deflect from the main point of this thread.

Deflet from the main point of this thread? Get off that already, you've been proven dishonest on that point.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Plz, refrain from critiquing my character.

After what you said about Esaias learning his behavior from me!? You've lost any quarter I would've shown you.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Show the thought wrong: that reading between the lines in Ro14 shows truths all should receive.

I have shown your teaching is flawed. I did it again, and again, and again.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

You will then have something of satisfaction to warm your heart, which criticising someones character does not buy.

I'm always satisfied in knowing that God speaks to His children in perfect clarity, but to those insincere outside the gates, they hear Him only as white noise.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Well hardy har har, there you go Bowas! You were right on target from the beginning of this thread. Good man, I tip my hat to your prophetic abilities.

In my experience and my observation, those that cannot understand the lines written, or do not like what the written lines say, resort to the reading between the lines to extract what they want the Bible to say.

You posted a verse (2 Peter 3:16), where it reveals those that were twisting scripture, were doing so to their own destruction.
At least those in that verse were using scripture to twist, unlike what we see here, not twisting scripture, but something far worse, reading between the lines, which is not even scripture.

Well then you might ask is it?
Quite simple. Those that get their inspiration by reading between the lines, are cursed for adding to or taking away from the written word of God.

I have known more than one that have used that strategy to claim scripture in support of their view, and in every case, they are ministers trying to exert their views to manipulate others by claiming spiritual insight, but it is not that at all.

Those that employee that strategy are unworthy of any position in any church except for one, and that would be kneeling down or laying face down before the alter seeking forgiveness for ones error and pride.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Bowas

In my experience and my observation, those that cannot understand the lines written, or do not like what the written lines say, resort to the reading between the lines to extract what they want the Bible to say.

You posted a verse (2 Peter 3:16), where it reveals those that were twisting scripture, were doing so to their own destruction.
At least those in that verse were using scripture to twist, unlike what we see here, not twisting scripture, but something far worse, reading between the lines, which is not even scripture.

Well then you might ask is it?
Quite simple. Those that get their inspiration by reading between the lines, are cursed for adding to or taking away from the written word of God.

I have known more than one that have used that strategy to claim scripture in support of their view, and in every case, they are ministers trying to exert their views to manipulate others by claiming spiritual insight, but it is not that at all.

Those that employee that strategy are unworthy of any position in any church except for one, and that would be kneeling down or laying face down before the alter seeking forgiveness for ones error and pride.

Amen in Jesus name. You said correctly, the Bible absolutely forbides the adding to and taking away from God's Word. The whole idea that one can Mithratically read something into the text isn't new. With 45,000 different denomination and cults in the United States, it would seem to me that there are more people other than Don, quite busy in this endeavor. Anyone with the focus that God intended to be vague and not clear to His sons and daughters is wrong. God speaks clearly to His people, His Word is a lamp to their feet. So they can see where they are heading. We are told that we can hear the voice of our Shepard distinctively clear. If Don, is unable to hear that voice I would invite him to pray and make a strong connection with Jesus Christ. I've mentioned 2 Peter 3:16, quite a few times to Don, yet he has never touch top, side, or bottom, of that verse. How it contradicts his teaching on the vagueness of God, and reading between the lines. Yet, I don't expect him to ever deal with that verse because he can't.