Belief in god and the right to homosexuality? - Page 5

mfblume · #41 07-15-2016, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

you gotta be kidding me if post 34 is all you got.

34 is all I need! : ) you never asked what all i had. u asked where you said what i claimed you did. but I showed far more of your words than that. read how I repeatedly pointed out several phrases where your beliefs are false. .

do you stand by that statement I quoted?

shazeep · #42 07-15-2016, 08:27 PM

i don't get it; i mean, how much traction do you really think you're going to get by trying to elevate Paul over Christ? And let's not quibble, that is exactly what you have already tried to do at least 3 times., and as i recall you were quite nonplussed by the results. The last time you didn't post for a couple days, if i remember right. You are certainly entitled to your interpretation, and i didn't push it at the time, but really, what is the point here?

read how I repeatedly pointed out several phrases where your beliefs are false. .

um, where, exactly? recently?

shazeep · #43 07-15-2016, 08:35 PM

this does explain why you render "love your neighbor" into such hash. You actually still maintain that "love your neighbor fulfills all the law and prophets" is really some admonition by Christ against attempts at salvation by fulfilling the law, huh? I could tell by your reply at the time. Is there a name for this doctrine? Does anyone else hold these views? I've never heard it said in all of my OP experience, tbh.

mfblume · #44 07-16-2016, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

i don't get it; i mean, how much traction do you really think you're going to get by trying to elevate Paul over Christ?

Elevate Paul over Christ?

WHAT???!!!

lol

Are you not reading anything I say? I said THEY'RE EQUAL. EQUAL does not mean one is ELEVATED over the other.

This is an example of how you consistently twist what I say. Why, I don't know.

If John Doe wrote some words in Germany, and then John Doe wrote some other things in Japan, in both cases it's John Doe and one set of writings is no more elevated over the other, because the same man wrote them both. Well, Christ spoke through Paul and wrote as well as spoke through the body born in Bethlehem of a virgin and spoke. In both cases it is Christ. One set is no more superior than the other. Surely you have heard about divine inspiration. Inspiration literally means GOD-BREATHED. God breathed through these people as much as He did through the body of the man we call Jesus Christ. In all cases it is GOD. What God says in one instance is not superior over what He speaks in another instance. It's all GOD.

Quote:

And let's not quibble, that is exactly what you have already tried to do at least 3 times., and as i recall you were quite nonplussed by the results. The last time you didn't post for a couple days, if i remember right. You are certainly entitled to your interpretation, and i didn't push it at the time, but really, what is the point here?

What is my point? Wow. You really don't read my words, do you?

Quote:

read how I repeatedly pointed out several phrases where your beliefs are false. .

um, where, exactly? recently?

"Where"? "Recently"? I WROTE OF THEM IN THIS VERY THREAD!

(sigh) OKay here goes... AGAIN:

Quote:

The quotes attributed to Christ must take precedence over anything you read from Paul,

Here is how your statement is antichrist: Christ spoke through Paul and every other writer of the bible. So, when you say Christ's recorded words take precedence over Paul's you are implying Christ was not speaking through Paul. It was not PAUL'S writings, but Christ living through Paul and speaking those writings through him.

Quote:

You cannot fulfill Paul and not Christ.

i would say that we have many Scriptures that suggest one can,

Again, this is severe false speaking. Christ's words were written through Paul, making your distinction severely false.

Quote:

I will say that i was frankly as surprised as your elder no doubt was at finding Christ manifest in even the most Pauline passages, somewhere, but i have not tested this for every passage in the epistles.

"Tested" this? This again demonstrates your inability to realize Christ wrote through Paul, and Paul's words were actually Christ's. Hence, the antichrist spirit prevalent in this sort of thinking. It's really applicable to call this antichrist, because the context of the spirit of antichrist in 1 John 4 is that it speaks against the fact that Christ came in the flesh, and is manifest through people. His life through people is in many ways, and in every case, denied to actually be Christ who is manifesting. So, when Paul';s words are put on a lower level than Christ's, and the implication is that there is a distinction between Paul speaking and Christ speaking, because it is Christ in both cases that distinction is antichrist.

Now are you still going to say you find no statements I made that took your words and showed where your error was? What else did you not read?
__________________

mfblume · #45 07-16-2016, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

this does explain why you render "love your neighbor" into such hash.

I do not render "love your neighbour into any hash" or anything else. That's your refusal to realize God's love and God's written word do not contradict coming through again. It's the same error of reasoning you manifest when you claim the written word and standing by it is legalism, when in reality legalism is salvation by works. No wonder you cater to salvation by works, since you are unaware that IT is legalism and IT is going by letter of LAW.

Quote:

You actually still maintain that "love your neighbor fulfills all the law and prophets" is really some admonition by Christ against attempts at salvation by fulfilling the law, huh?

Salvation cannot occur by fulfilling the law. Salvation by fulfilling law is salvation by works. Jesus was not saying how to be saved when he said love your neighbour. This is your whole core error. Salvation by works. This is also why you misrepresent John's words about those who are righteous are those who do righteousness. He never meant us to think doing righteous MAKES US righteous, but rather doing righteousness PROVES we are righteous. BiG difference. And we are made righteous by Christ FIRST, and the doing of that righteousness is AFTERWARD as a RESULt. You take these passages to mean how to be saved, and not the truth of them being INDICATIONS of salvation that's already present before we love and before we do righteousness. It's the most convoluted and twisted form of subtle salvation by works I have ever seen. This is why you cannot see those who believe the Koran's words that Christ never so much as died on a cross have a chance at being saved while they maintain that belief

Quote:

I could tell by your reply at the time. Is there a name for this doctrine? Does anyone else hold these views? I've never heard it said in all of my OP experience, tbh.

You obviously never understand hardly ANYTHING of OP views from what you are saying about this issue. Seriously...

mfblume · #46 07-16-2016, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

34 is all I need! : ) you never asked what all i had. u asked where you said what i claimed you did. but I showed far more of your words than that. read how I repeatedly pointed out several phrases where your beliefs are false. .

do you stand by that statement I quoted?

Well...? Do you?

shazeep · #47 07-16-2016, 07:53 AM

Christ spoke through Paul and every other writer of the bible. So, when you say Christ's recorded words take precedence over Paul's you are implying Christ was not speaking through Paul.

i never said that Paul could not be reconciled with Christ, but that ...well, everything, must be reconciled with Christ, at least imo. If you recall, you were pretty off-put by this reconciliation when it was revealed that your Pauline edicts culminated in Love in the same passage, 3 different times. What gives?

I do not render "love your neighbour into any hash" or anything else.

pardon me, that was my unkind opinion, but shall i repost it and you can fix it, or what?
How do you interpret
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" and its related verses?

Now are you still going to say you find no statements I made that took your words and showed where your error was?

if your argument is that since Christ manifests through believers, a believer's word may be taken as equal to Christ's? I don't see how i have any choice here.

shazeep · #48 07-16-2016, 07:56 AM

Salvation cannot occur by fulfilling the law. Salvation by fulfilling law is salvation by works. Jesus was not saying how to be saved when he said love your neighbour. This is your whole core error.

ah; ok, i'm totally comfortable with that.

mfblume · #49 07-16-2016, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

Quote:

Christ spoke through Paul and every other writer of the bible. So, when you say Christ's recorded words take precedence over Paul's you are implying Christ was not speaking through Paul.

i never said that Paul could not be reconciled with Christ, but that ...well, everything, must be reconciled with Christ, at least imo.

But that implies there's a chance Christ did not speak through Paul in Paul's words in the bible, and that simply is not so. You imagine things and believe them to be so, despite repeated indication and proof they're not.

Quote:

If you recall, you were pretty off-put by this reconciliation when it was revealed that your Pauline edicts culminated in Love in the same passage, 3 different times. What gives?

HOw can you say these things when they're absolutely incorrect? I never felt anything was wrong between what Christ and Paul stated. Never.

Quote:

I do not render "love your neighbour into any hash" or anything else.

pardon me, that was my unkind opinion, but shall i repost it and you can fix it, or what?
How do you interpret
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" and its related verses?

I already stated this, but it means the law, that tried to get man to love God and have faith but failed, tried to accomplish the same thing that faith accomplishes. It's not telling us what saves us. It's telling us that father and the New Covenant fulfills what Law tried to fulfil, so that the goal of every one of the laws of old is fulfilled without the law by grace. I referred to 1 Timothy 1 and Romans 8 to show that.

Quote:

Now are you still going to say you find no statements I made that took your words and showed where your error was?

if your argument is that since Christ manifests through believers, a believer's word may be taken as equal to Christ's? I don't see how i have any choice here.

Again you ar misrepresenting me. Not sure if you do that intentionally, or not. Seems like you did. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, let me clarify by saying it's not Christ speaking through any given believer. It's Christ speaking through the people who wrote the books of the bible.

Now, do you stand by your words when you said Christ's words are superior's than Paul's in the bible? You ask me all of these questions and I answer them, but you fail to answer most of mine.

mfblume · #50 07-16-2016, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

Salvation cannot occur by fulfilling the law. Salvation by fulfilling law is salvation by works. Jesus was not saying how to be saved when he said love your neighbour. This is your whole core error.

ah; ok, i'm totally comfortable with that.

Please elaborate. You admit you believe we are saved by loving, implying the cross is not necessary (for that's what I meant)? Or you agree with what I stated to be the case?