Lee Stoneking Addresses UN

[Servant's <3]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Anyone can take what they hear you or anyone else teach this and if what you teach directly contradicts what the book you teach from says anyone can, with reference, challenge it.

Sure go ahead challenge away, in the debate room area.... where it belongs... not here....

Make a new post with whatever topic you wish to argue/debate/etc about.... NOT here... I'm sure there are plenty of people who will argue/debate with you... (hopefully without making personal attacks)

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Servant's <3

The Ten Commandments of the AFF:

1. Don't argue about basic Apostolic doctrines anywhere except The Debate Room.

2. Don't make fun of any basic Apostolic doctrine or any member who adheres to those doctrines.

You are doing both Walks in Islam.... While neither "side" so to speak has been following the rules that is not an excuse to further break them.

I challenged the doctrine of holy hair and imaginary converts. Is this now basic Apostolic doctrine? I say it is not.

Otherwise, does copying, pasting, and posting verses attributed to Jesus truly challenge basic Apostolic doctrines?

Should you stop and think about that?

[Servant's <3]

Purpose
Apostolic Friends Forum is a discussion forum created by and for people of the Apostolic faith and friends of Apostolic heritage. All under the banner of 'Apostolic', whether current or former, are welcome here, as well as those who may just consider themselves 'Friends'. We welcome you all!

The main emphasis of the forum is cordial discussion and keeping up-to-date on current events relevant to the Apostolic believers and their friends.
Discussion
Discussions related to core doctrines of the Apostolic faith are seen as controversial and are welcome, but limited to "The Debate Room." And while discussion is allowed, no mockery or disrespect of these core doctrines or the people who hold them dear will be allowed.

Those who wish to avoid controversial discussions should avoid The Debate Room. Topics of a doctrinal nature that are started in any other area will be monitored and moved to the appropriate area if necessary.

For the purposes of pinpointing which discussions need to be limited to The Debate Room, the AFF has defined "core Apostolic doctrines" as those relating to salvation, baptism in Jesus' name, tongues as the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost (or infilling) and the nature of God's existence (Oneness Doctrine).
"Apostolic" as defined by AFF
Apostolic doctrines have been defined as the following:
There is one person of God revealing Himself as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form, or "God manifested in the flesh."
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
The Holy Ghost baptism is for Christians today and may be received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.

Furthermore, we believe in the Oneness message, and that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God, is without error, and that it is completely relevant for today. These core doctrines can only be discussed in the Debate Room.

Bolded by me.... copied and pasted directly from the rules for the forum. To the debate room with your arguments please.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Servant's <3

Sure go ahead challenge away, in the debate room area.... where it belongs... not here....

Make a new post with whatever topic you wish to argue/debate/etc about.... NOT here... I'm sure there are plenty of people who will argue/debate with you... (hopefully without making personal attacks)

Are you suggesting I started this nonsense? If this belongs in the debate room move the thread. I answer posts, good, bad, insulting, or indifferent, that are directly posted to me.

I do not actually recall doing, saying, or challenging you or anything you have ever said.

[Servant's <3]

I neither know nor care to know who started this... from my point of view those making the personal attacks and those continuing the argument and those making new arguments are all breaking the rules of the forums....

I do not wish to rules lawyer but 72 pages of bickering is ridiculous.

I choose not to take a side and merely point out what the rules say....

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Why do you need “proof” posted of mismatches that you can read yourself?

On the crucifixion:

Story in Matthew

In Matthew, Jesus did not carry his own cross, both of those crucified with him heaped insults on him, there was an earthquake and walking dead. This is the only version with earthquake and walking dead. No mention that the sun stopped shining.

32 As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross.
44 In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Story in Mark

In Mark, Jesus did not carry his own cross, both of those crucified with him heaped insults on him, no earthquake mentioned, no walking dead, no darkness mentioned.

21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross
Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

Story in Luke

In Luke, Jesus did not carry his own cross, one of those crucified with him insulted him, but the other one was said to defend him. The sun stopped shining, but there was no earthquake, and no walking dead. Jesus’ last words were recorded, though not in Matt and Mark

26 As the soldiers led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus.
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. .
45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.

I doubt, and won’t even ask for any of you to explain that if Jesus is, as you say, God himself, who then does Jesus (assuming the above is the correct version) commit his spirit to? No, rather than explain this, you lot would gather a woodpile, set up a stake, buy a lighter, and burn / ban someone for asking the question. What you people don’t get is that the “debate room” is a place to debate, not to directly copy and paste factual information nor it is the place to ask questions, not that any of you can answer them. You just skip your needle to some other faraway verse that has nothing to do with the question asked.

Story in John

In John, Jesus carried his own cross. This does not match the other three versions. Jesus’ last recorded words were not the same as in Luke.

17 Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).
When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.”

I am not really interested in all of the theoretical reasons that these stories do not match. The chance to match was lost thousands of years ago. I have highlighted only what is directly contradictory.

Summary: Don’t tell me there is no “proof” of discrepancy as if I am an idiot, can’t read words, and need your help explaining them.

Next: Resurrection. It’s worse.

Luke 23:26 clarifies what is going on here - logically - if you are of the mind to be logical. Let's look at that.

"And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus."

"After" in the Greek is defined as - "from behind".

Soooo, logically, Jesus was too weak to carry the full weight of the cross and Simon carried ONE END OF IT.

You are never going to trump God. And you are especially not going to do it by finding some Christians you don't agree with, think they have lied or who have set a bad example for Christianity. Do you know why not?

"If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself."
II Timothy 2:13

It is not possible that He would be unfaithful to His Word. He is faithful.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Luke 23:26 clarifies what is going on here - logically - if you are of the mind to be logical. Let's look at that.

"And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus."

"After" in the Greek is defined as - "from behind".

Soooo, logically, Jesus was too weak to carry the full weight of the cross and Simon carried ONE END OF IT.

You are never going to trump God. And you are especially not going to do it by finding some Christians you don't agree with, think they have lied or who have set a bad example for Christianity. Do you know why not?

"If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself."
II Timothy 2:13

It is not possible that He would be unfaithful to His Word. He is faithful.

Nobody trumps God. Already said Matt, Mark, Luke pretty much match on this detail.

33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church

Even people who pick and choose what passages to and what passages not to follow and/or answer.

46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.

I doubt, and won’t even ask for any of you to explain that if Jesus is, as you say, God himself, who then does Jesus (assuming the above is the correct version) commit his spirit to? No, rather than explain this, you lot would gather a woodpile, set up a stake, buy a lighter, and burn / ban someone for asking the question. What you people don’t get is that the “debate room” is a place to debate, not to directly copy and paste factual information nor it is the place to ask questions, not that any of you can answer them. You just skip your needle to some other faraway verse that has nothing to do with the question asked.

With that said, I believe I will take my leave from this one. <3 is right. This has deteriorated to a verbal knife fight.

[Esaias]

This thread's still here?

WII, most of us believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. You will no more convince us it is "full of contradictions" than we will convince you the Koran is "full of contradictions and thus not the revelation of God."

As Servant pointed out, the only place on this forum where the infallibility of the Bible is to be debated is the Debate Room.

I predict this thread is going to get locked...

[Servant's <3]

As it probably should have been like 40 pages ago

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Nobody trumps God. Already said Matt, Mark, Luke pretty much match on this detail.

33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church

Even people who pick and choose what passages to and what passages not to follow and/or answer.

46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.

I doubt, and won’t even ask for any of you to explain that if Jesus is, as you say, God himself, who then does Jesus (assuming the above is the correct version) commit his spirit to? No, rather than explain this, you lot would gather a woodpile, set up a stake, buy a lighter, and burn / ban someone for asking the question. What you people don’t get is that the “debate room” is a place to debate, not to directly copy and paste factual information nor it is the place to ask questions, not that any of you can answer them. You just skip your needle to some other faraway verse that has nothing to do with the question asked.

With that said, I believe I will take my leave from this one. <3 is right. This has deteriorated to a verbal knife fight.

As Jesus never does or says anything that has not been written - please refer to Isaiah 53:10.

"Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand."

"Soul" in the Hebrew here is defined as " living being, life, self, person". He laid down mortality.

"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." I Timothy 1:17

"He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the Lord hath spoken it.

9 And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the Lord; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation." Isaiah 25:8-9