Discrepancy in Church Practice

[donfriesen1]

I have completed reading Dom's post's up to 47. After this my reading of posts has been intermittent.

Should I be faulted for not having done a complete reading of every post? Perhaps. Most of his posts have contained large volumes of words which attack me. This is a waste of everyone's time, since this forum is designed and expected to be about Bible discussion.

Reading the personal negativity takes great effort to wade through, producing no feelings of desires to read what else may have been written. Thus Dom's methods produce a lack of receptivity, to the Word of God when he actually does share from the Word. This from a man who should have desires to share the Word of God with those who he sees as lost, me. Thus Dom's methods defeat what he as a preacher of the Gospel would say are his purposes in life. Why this method Dom, which is contrary to you stated purpose in life?

That Dom had not yet defeated my views in the first 47 posts, to conteract that which is the meat of my points, then doing so afterward in other posts (he has subsequently said that he has in later posts) leads to wondering about Dom. Dom, if you have information to share which will defeat the main points of post 1, when would be the right time to share this info? Post 2 or post 102? The obvious answer is he has not had the info in his earlier posts. He is learning as he goes. This is a good thing. I wait for Dom to catch up in learning, to the understanding of what I present in post 1. If there's life and an openness to the Word, then this learning may just happen.

In the past I've much chided Dom for posing as the AFF authority which all should give honour to. He does actually have a great wealth of knowledge. But, here he is, demonstrating that he actually is not this completed authority of a wealth of info, the epitomy of learning, because the first 47 posts did not portray the info he says is contained in later posts, which he says puts down my views as presented in post 1.

Up to post 47 Dom has not said much to conteract the views I present in post 1. What he has said has been mostly about the suface teaching of Ro14. I have indicated that I agree with this view, as it makes sense.

My view finds its weight in what comes by reading between the lines, also called deductive reasoning. Paul says that those who hold conflicting conclusions of doctrines (days and foods are only examples. Many things fit in this category) are Ok to do so. The natural conclusion of seeing Paul say that it is OK for those to hold conflicting conclusions leads to thinking: 1) he is OK if someone would hold false doctrine, because two conflicting views can't both be solid gold pure doctrine, can they? OR 2) Paul believes that God does not always write his Word in such a manner that it would naturally only lead to one conclusion. It is well known that people make various conclusions reading the same passage of God's Word, lending some credence to the thought that God has purposely written somethings in a way which naturally leads to more than one conclusion. Which of these two is the most acceptable? Most, who have no bias, would say that 2 is the more acceptable. But is 2 also the wrong conclusion?

If 2 is the wrong conclusion, then Paul would have taught these Romans which is the right conclusion to hold concerning days and foods. He doesn't take the time to do so. Obviously he believes that some passages naturally lead to multiple conclusions or he would teach the Romans which views to hold as the kosher view. That he doesn't, speaks to something. He says in Ro14 that he is OK with the holding of conflicting doctrine. Accept and don't judge the persons who do. Like Dom does. He judges me not an Apostolic and that I am lost.

I'll keep reading Dom's post. I'll find out if what he claims is true. He says he has defeated the views I present in post 1. I'll keep you posted.

Matthew 5:44 love your enemies but you don't have to love their ideas.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Don, all you are doing is pontificating.
You have failed to point out how my rebuttal of your views are incorrect. In your above post all you are doing is griping. You need to prove how I’m wrong, give the rebuttal to my answers to your position. Learning as I go? Don, this is why you have no friends. Also, why you are incapable of making any. Due to your passive aggressive behavior. Not, that I mind, because I don’t regard you as even being sentient. Through I’ve tussled with others, and gained respect for my opponents. Even becoming good friends, and brothers. You, I don’t see how that would happen, because you believe you have some special calling no one else on this planet has. Therefore, I will keep up my position in this discussion. Meanwhile you are tasked with trying to SHOW, where I am wrong in my thoughts concerning your position. Which you have failed to do.

While you quote Matthew 5:44, please also keep in mind, 2 John 8-11.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, all you are doing is pontificating.
You have failed to point out how my rebuttal of your views are incorrect. In your above post all you are doing is griping. You need to prove how I’m wrong, give the rebuttal to my answers to your position. Learning as I go? Don, this is why you have no friends. Also, why you are incapable of making any. Due to your passive aggressive behavior. Not, that I mind, because I don’t regard you as even being sentient. Through I’ve tussled with others, and gained respect for my opponents. Even becoming good friends, and brothers. You, I don’t see how that would happen, because you believe you have some special calling no one else on this planet has. Therefore, I will keep up my position in this discussion. Meanwhile you are tasked with trying to SHOW, where I am wrong in my thoughts concerning your position. Which you have failed to do.

While you quote Matthew 5:44, please also keep in mind, 2 John 8-11.

Awesome referencing on 2 John 8-11, Dom. Such great advice John gives. Those verses are keepers.

As to my griping, I have learned from the best. I came to AFF as innocent and trusting as any other, and you have shown me by your example the excellencies of eviscerating.

Reader, Dom by this scriptural quote would have you believe that I am not an Apostolic. He finds it hard, no, not hard but impossible, to accept that I could be. But I am. I love Jesus name baptism and often quote Col2.9. I think I must be as much an Apostolic as Dom but without the negativity he effuses.

Dom, take a heavy burden off my back. Point to one post of yours which I could read, which summarizes how you have disproved my views. Do this as an act of setting bread before the enemy.

Loving enemies? How about Elisha's example from 2Kgs6: Shall I kill them?” “Do not kill them,” he answered. “Would you kill those you have captured with your own sword or bow? Set food and water before them...” When was the last time you ever did such as an Apostolic, Dom? You instead would lead me to the exit, ask me to open it, and boot me out when I do. I think Dom would do to me in a sec what the king wanted to do. Enough said?

Alas, I've again strayed from the threads purpose - Bible discussion. I have needed to defend myself from a bro which wishes to paint me as a non, which I must defend when his degradation as an AFF elite diminishes my views.

I'm looking for an exit strategy, from needless pointless wrangling. Dom, I started this thread and you started this wrangling. Quit your wrangling and I'll stop too. Let's stick to Bible discussion, shall we?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Awesome referencing on 2 John 8-11, Dom. Such great advice John gives. Those verses are keepers.

As to my griping, I have learned from the best. I came to AFF as innocent and trusting as any other, and you have shown me by your example the excellencies of eviscerating.

Reader, Dom by this scriptural quote would have you believe that I am not an Apostolic. He finds it hard, no, not hard but impossible, to accept that I could be. But I am. I love Jesus name baptism and often quote Col2.9. I think I must be as much an Apostolic as Dom but without the negativity he effuses.

Dom, take a heavy burden off my back. Point to one post of yours which I could read, which summarizes how you have disproved my views. Do this as an act of setting bread before the enemy.

Loving enemies? How about Elisha's example from 2Kgs6:Shall I kill them?” “Do not kill them,” he answered. “Would you kill those you have captured with your own sword or bow? Set food and water before them...” When was the last time you ever did such as an Apostolic, Dom? You instead would lead me to the exit, ask me to open it, and boot me out when I do. I think Dom would do to me in a sec what the king wanted to do. Enough said?

Alas, I've again strayed from the threads purpose - Bible discussion. I have needed to defend myself from a bro which wishes to paint me as a non, which I must defend when his degradation as an AFF elite diminishes my views.

I'm looking for an exit strategy, from needless pointless wrangling. Dom, I started this thread and you started this wrangling. Quit your wrangling and I'll stop too. Let's stick to Bible discussion, shall we?

Cry me a river

Don, like I’ve posted, SHOW where I have erred in my scriptural refutation.

You are as Apostolic as Justin Timberlake.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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

Of course! We must believe votivesoul is infallible! He thinks Dom is 'credited' and must also see Dom as infallible.

Paul writes about a woman not usurping the authority of a man. And what OT command does Paul quote for support?

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 1Ti2.

Quote a command? No, he quotes an event for support. Paul writes NT doctrine from that which is taken from events and not commands. He deduces NT doctrine from events which contains no statements or words expressing God's opinions about Eve needing to be in submission. They exist, but not here.

Paul does that which every person reading the Bible should: he uses deductive reasoning, logic, reading between the lines - whatever you may want to call it.

But the hoodlums of AFF will walk down dark alleys to discover something by the garbage cans, to throw at a fellow poster, hoping to crush their heads. Reading between the lines is gnostic philosophy, these hoodlums say. That would make Paul a gnostic by what is seen in this 1Ti2 passage. These hoodlums are either insincere, deceived, or lack cursory understanding of Biblical interpretive methods. Shame on you for calling someone a gnostic, they who interpret scripture in the same manner Paul does.

There is, in those who call themselves Christians, an evil. It causes those who hold it to defend to all lengths, against anything they see as contradicting their faith's concepts. And so, instead of standing up to defend truth and the right interpretation of the Word, they stand up to defend the doctrines of their faith if something else is seen to show it in a bad light. Lord Jesus, plz help!

Truth is of much more value than any church doctrine from earthly origin. Truth must be embraced as of more value than even the faith that is called Apostolic.

[donfriesen1]

I had asked votivesoul for specifics, in post 154. He had accused me in posts 131, 132, 133, making general attacks, but indicating a specific. When asked for quotes pointing to these specifics, he doesn't respond. Of course this 'no response' was expected; the reason being that there are none to be found, that which he accuses me of. It was only done as a baseless accusation. He had only wished to make an Apostolic look bad, when they hadn't done what he said they had done, because that is what weak people do when they have nothing from scripture or reason to counteract against others scriptural/reasoned arguments. Votivesoul will attempt to be seen as winning at all costs, including baseless accusations.

Votivesoul wants to be seen as against that which post1 reveals in wrong practices of Apostolics. Perhaps he has friends he covers for, or he himself is guilty. He would criticize any who would reveal these wrong practices. He is against that which Paul teaches in Ro14.

Why are you against the correct interpretation and practice of Ro14, votivesoul? What happened to your love for the truth of God's Word?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I had asked votivesoul for specifics, in post 154. He had accused me in posts 131, 132, 133, making general attacks, but indicating a specific. When asked for quotes pointing to these specifics, he doesn't respond. Of course this 'no response' was expected; the reason being that there are none to be found, that which he accuses me of. It was only done as a baseless accusation. He had only wished to make an Apostolic look bad, when they hadn't done what he said they had done, because that is what weak people do when they have nothing from scripture or reason to counteract against others scriptural/reasoned arguments. Votivesoul will attempt to be seen as winning at all costs, including baseless accusations.

Votivesoul wants to be seen as against that which post1 reveals in wrong practices of Apostolics. Perhaps he has friends he covers for, or he himself is guilty. He would criticize any who would reveal these wrong practices. He is against that which Paul teaches in Ro14.

Why are you against the correct interpretation and practice of Ro14, votivesoul? What happened to your love for the truth of God's Word?

I love Truth. I know Votivesoul loves Truth. I think you have a bit of a problem here Donny boy. Because you are blurring the line when you say we don’t love Truth. You are making the statement that anyone who opposes your thoughts concerning Romans 14, 15, and 1 Corinthians 10:20 are in opposition to the Apostle Paul? That’s pretty dishonest. But honesty isn’t one of your strong points.
Instead of all this ecclesiastical sniveling, why don’t you point out where I err in correction of your interpretation of Romans 14, 15, and 1 Corinthians 10:20?

You are stalling and with all your claims of wanting to discuss scripture you aren’t willing to do so. You see that’s why you are mocked, because you are mockable. You supply the material needed to wear the title of Mr. Potato Head.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Rabbinic Talmudic system teaches the subtext of Torah. This is referred to method called “Drash” (exposition/inquiry), Remez (hint/allusion), and Sod (secret/mystical meaning). Some rabbis posit that the text is not merely a historical or legal document, but a “multi-layered, living document containing infinite wisdom.” Rabbis teach that the true meaning often lies beneath the surface. Therefore requiring mystical interpretation to uncover the spiritual, psychological, and mysterious hidden truths which lay underneath. This isn’t how the Apostle Paul, or the other Biblical writers intended for students to glean God’s truth. Romans 14, Romans 15 is not trying to reveal secret meanings lying somewhere under the above text. Romans 14, Romans 15, and 1 Corinthians 10:20, have zero to do with head coverings. The matter of head coverings are plainly dealt with in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. The Apostle isn’t teaching subtextually to show the readers something deeper, something mystical hidden beneath his words. The Apostle Paul addresses head coverings that women should cover their heads while praying or prophesying, and men should not. The Apostle points to the practice as a symbol of God’s ordered headship. It emphasizes respecting divine, angelic order and gender distinction being paramount. Paul’s final word of strict admonition was if anyone had a problem with what he taught on head coverings, then tough luck, because that’s how all the churches practice the teaching. Romans 14, and Romans 15, 1 Corinthians 10:20 cannot help B. Smith, or Pastor J.D.. Paul made it all crystal, painfully so, and you can kick rocks as far as he was concerned if you had a problem with what he taught. So, this whole thread is built on the premise that B. Smith, and Pastor John Doe, can resolve their issue within the teaching of Paul concerning Romans 14, Romans 15, and 1 Corinthians 10:20. Therefore, one cannot claim some hidden meaning behind what the Apostle Paul said in Romans 14, Romans 15, and 1 Corinthians 10:20 to defend arguing over head coverings, or being allowed to challenge ministerial leadership over what they believe concerning 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. There you have it folks! I’ve posted it yet again! Anyone care to refute what I just posted? Paul wasn’t working an On The Job training with the Apostolic church trying to figure it all as he went along. The Apostle fully understood and was well aware of the scriptures concerning everything he taught. He made it as plain as rain. He wasn’t confused or teaching some Mithratic Kabbalah subtext mystery school baloney. No way can B. Smith go wee wee wee all the way home, because he and Pastor J.D. can’t see eye to eye on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Romans 14, Romans 15, and 1 Corinthians 10:20 cannot settle their issues concerning 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. It is what it is.