Hi Greg - sorry I did not get back to you sooner, I had
a complete relapse of whatever it is I caught in China.
Only this time it was much worse - I was actually fearing
for my life for a while there. I was hospitalized for one night
and they finally put me on a very powerful antibiotic that
may be more harmful than what I actually have - go figure???
It reminds me of a particular scripture:
2 Chronicles 16:12 And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of
his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was
exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the
LORD, but to the physicians.
13 And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and
fortieth year of his reign.
I have been praying but these "physicians" can be pretty scary.
RE>>>Again you put quotes around words I did not use. This
Indicates either intentional deception, or ignorance of the
proper use of quotation marks.<<<
I am misusing quotation marks - I am in no wise trying to
misrepresent or deceive anyone Greg.
I am just trying to highlite a kind of thinking - in the way
people make quotation marks in the air when they are talking
without really referring to a quote someone said.
When I actually quote someone I use RE>> and then << as above.
I thought you would be rather used to this by now - forgive me
for presuming you would assume my upright intentions in these manners.
Allow me to affirm as God is my witness that if I teach error
if is not out of a spirit of seeking to deceive or cause any
to stumble - I would hope that you could at least grant me that.
RE>>Frankly the onus is on you<<
I think that is a false presumption - if the church is "grounded in truth" then is should be able to prove
their beliefs from scripture alone and not rest in previous
and consistent error as security of correct doctrines:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Frankly - allow me at this point to apologize for my lack
of patience with you Greg. If you knew just how sick I am
of false authority and edict - of people who think they are
"sola scriptura" who upon investigation are quite the contrary
perhaps you could cut me a little slack with the rude manner
in which I have treated you.
Christ has convicted me that unless I am actually helping someone
I should really leave them to Him but my flesh is just awful.
"BULLWORK TRUTHS" is a statement I thought you may be familiar
with - it was well used in the reformation and was coined to
refer to things that were not even open to re-examination.
I agree some things are "bulwark truths" - such as the deity of Christ.
However when people come to my door to deny that Christ was
indeed the actual son of God I do not tell them that the "church"
has always believed it so the "onus" is upon them to prove otherwise.
I am not saying that I am not interested in attempting to prove
ever thing I believe from scripture to anyone who is fair in listening
because I am more than happy to do so.
RE>>>It's obvious that you have no answer to Col 2:. The weak attempt to use Luke 3: <<<
When is a reference to a similar word being used in scripture a ..
WEAK ATTEMPT
I find that astounding - you use tradition - that is strong -
I use scripture - that is weak. I know you will say it was may
use of scripture not the scripture itself that is weak.
If that is true - why can you not hear me when I say the use
of that word in Col 2 is weak weak WEAK
Greg you say you are willing to look at what you believe but
and that you do not hold to "bulwark truths" but you say this:
RE>> The word in question from Colossians refers to a
physical body, and only a physical body<<
Greg if you are right then the matter is settled.
But the only "proof" you have ever offer is that "tradition"
has always said so.
I wish I could share in your confidence I can not.
I find that form of the word appear only in that verse.
I was trying to get an outside source for you that states the
word is in a adverbial noun form. It is not just noun form Greg.
If it was just in the noun form I would be greatly swayed by that verse.
To back up your argument about Paul's intent in using the word
you say this:
RE>>Paul was refuting early Gnostic beliefs that taught
physical matter was evil, therefore Jesus, (according to
them) could not have been raised in a physical body<<
Can you prove that to me???
RE>>Things had not changed in th twenty years between
the Resurrection and Colossians <<
Greg - believe it or not this may be the strongest part of you
argument however it is an argument from silence which is by nature
weak in that no where did it say that Christ's "shed" His physical body.
That is why most preterits believe Christ has a physical body to this day.
There is however some case to be made that Christ did not
keep the body which you so vehemently insist He kept.
Revelation 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
I am the last to insist on a literal interpretation of these
verses but it appears you think the Holy Spirit literally
had a physical body of a real bird??
The holy spirit had feathers - beak - claws ???
You say my case was weak and decide the Holy Spirit was a real bird in Luke 3??
The spirit entered Jesus - did the physical body of the bird
also enter Jesus or did it flop on the ground beside Him.
Did Jesus rise from the dead with eyes of fire and white hair?
Nothing changed in 20 years - how so?
Greg let me stop and say this from the bottom of my heart
Christ is my witness - I am not lying.
What men believe does not concern me sometimes as much
as the manner in which they believe it
To be honest - I can see the beam in my own eye - for that I am sorry.
I just get upset with men who use words like "heretic"
and "damnable heresy" - when they are unwilling to even take
a look at why the man believes what he believes with an open
bible
and heart.
"Defenders of the faith" is a good thing - if we are doing so
in a righteous and godly spirit.
Name calling is for condemnation - please forgive me for do such.
Brian |
