The Difference Between the PCI of the Merger and the Current Counterfeits

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by Ronzo

If they weren't seekers, they wouldn't have stuck around... it was seeker friendly in that culture.

He was preaching to men that knew the Law and studied it from the age of 5 or 6. They were looking for Messiah.




Did you ever think that the reason you can't preach the "you killed Jesus" message to your average Sunday morning crowd (or that it wouldn't go over well) was because they DIDN'T kill Jesus?

Oh? But we did, Ron, just as sure as they did, so did you and I. It was my sin He died for, my transgression caused His wounding, my iniquity caused His bruising.

I can tell you that this message has crossed my lips and many have repented and been baptized because of it. This is the Gospel, the Good news, that our sin should be paid with death and it was. Jesus paid our bill on Calvary!

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

I am only following the statement you made. You said no one was questioning the necessity. I was curious as to what you really meant.



How many threads ever stay on track?

This time ... it wont get sidetracked since folks have thrown the thrown around words like backslider ... comprimisers ... walking away from the truth ... being lost .... I will discuss whether today's PCIers and PAJCers are true to their historical counterparts ....

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Can this be said about the obvious historical bias of Bernard's books???

Why not? Do we not make "assumptions" of history based upon the research of many and draw our own conclusions?

it would be foolish to say that authors, for the most part, do not write from bias.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

This time ... it wont get sidetracked since folks have thrown the thrown around words like backslider ... comprimisers ... walking away from the truth ... being lost .... I will discuss whether today's PCIers and PAJCers are true to their historical counterparts ....

And germaine to that is exactly what those from the past and the current believed concerning the necessity of Holy Ghost baptism.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

Why not? Do we not make "assumptions" of history based upon the research of many and draw our own conclusions?

it would be foolish to say that authors, for the most part, do not write from bias.

so why bring it up, then??? ... but to crucify Fudge .... it's predictable already.

Originally Posted by RevDWW

Oh? But we did, Ron, just as sure as they did, so did you and I.

Bro... not LITERALLY like they did just two months before.
That was his point...

Anyway........ never mind.

Originally Posted by RevDWW

It was my sin He died for, my transgression caused His wounding, my iniquity caused His bruising.

I can tell you that this message has crossed my lips and many have repented and been baptized because of it. This is the Gospel, the Good news, that our sin should be paid with death and it was. Jesus paid our bill on Calvary!

So do you suppose I forgot that? Do you suppose I no longer believe that?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

And germaine to that is exactly what those from the past and the current believed concerning the necessity of Holy Ghost baptism.

Yeah God necessarily gives it to us ... because it's a gift ...

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

so why bring it up, then??? ... but to crucify Fudge .... it's predictable already.

Not at all. If you will remember I said I had no interest in discussing the Fudge book.

And hey, you were the one who brought him up.

[Felicity]

Every author writes from some sort of bias. It's impossible not to. So do we throw every book written out because of this? I don't think so.

There was enough fact reported in Tom's book for it to be considered a historical record and to be taken seriously .... in spite of bias which I will admit was there.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Yeah God necessarily gives it to us ... because it's a gift ...

I have no problem with that. Is life/breath a gift?