How Important is Truth?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

no, rather YOU Daniel Alicea have drawn a conclusion and used your conclusion as the basis of your assertion. That's called circular reasoning. I am simply pointing out a biblical truth that I have done more than enough to substantiate...that jews called each other brothers because they were Jews.

Originally Posted by rrford

This one is beyond me why he can't just admit that the term "Brother" as referecned had nothing to do with the Body of Christ. (I can assure you the Jews Simon was speaking to DID NOT consider themselves to be in the body of Christ. )

Originally Posted by stmatthew

"Brother"

adelphos {ad-el-fos'}


1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother

2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman

3) any fellow or man

4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection

5) an associate in employment or office

6) brethren in Christ

a) his brothers by blood

b) all men

c) apostles

d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

Pride is a sin.

No Prax, I think it is you that have problems with logic, inferring and decoding

1. I made no assertion ... but asked a question ... albeit a rhetorical question "Is this the same Ananaias that called Saul a brother before baptizing him?

2. What biblical truth have you proven other than in the context of Acts 2 and 3, Paul addressed his national kinsman as 'brethren' ... a truth indeed ... yet RR would like to apply adelphos to " admit" that the term "Brother" as referenced in Acts 9 had nothing to do with the Body of Christ.

If this assertion be true than adelphos must apply as national kinsman in all cases it is used in the NT... he insists it's a tautology.

Is adelphos, a word with multiple meanings' ... that ALWAYS mean a kinsman?? ... or does Paul and other writers also use it to mean ... brother of blood or brother in Christ ... am I to now state this applies in the cases where Paul addresses the Church?

Example:

The word "set" had over a dozen meanings in the English language ...

If I use CIRCULAR REASONING then I will pick one from my handy dandy dictionary and apply it in all instances ... HOW FOOLISH IS THAT???

3. When examining words with multiple meaning all GOOD READERS must use context clues to examine and infer it's significance.

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.

1. Aldephos is one used in the plural ... in Acts 2 and 3. Peter is formally addressing a crowd of national brethren in an attempt to convert them to the Gospel ... understandable considering the public venue, purpose and audience of non-Christian believers.

Futhermore in no way however ... as Praxeas implied does the fact that he states that they murdered Jesus ... imply that he DOES NOT THINK THAT ALL OF US ARE NOT GUILTY OF HIS DEATH.

2. Lets examine the usage of brother by Ananias in full context ...

There was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias, and the Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." He answered, "Here I am, Lord." 11 The Lord said to him, "Get up and go to the street called Straight and ask at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul. He is there praying, 12 and (in a vision) he has seen a man named Ananias come in and lay (his) hands on him, that he may regain his sight."

Notice God has used a supernatural calling of Ananias to go to pray for Saul's healing ... and confirms this vision to reaffirm it is divine.

13 But Ananias replied, "Lord, I have heard from many sources about this man, what evil things he has done to your holy ones 4 in Jerusalem. 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to imprison all who call upon your name."

Ananias protests at first .... he's scared of a murderous Paul and says he has done EVIL THINGS TO YOUR HOLY ONES. He fears for his life and/or possible imprisonment. He hasn't heard that Paul has converted ... he's still got old info.

15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites, 16 and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name."

God reassures Ananias once again that Paul has been chosen.

17 So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit." 18 Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized, 19 and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength. 5 He stayed some days with the disciples in Damascus

Ananias obeys God's command and enters the house Paul is in ... and uses the term "adelphos" as his first words to Paul.

Now .... there are some possible reasons for this greeting:

1. He was being polite and addressing a kinsman ... who by the way he feared and considered EVIL.


2. He was scared out of his mind and though he'd soften Paul up by calling him brother


or


3. He was convicted by the Holy Spirit ... based on the revelation of what Paul had experience already and God's purpose for Saul's life ... hence ... based on this totality of events and conviction calls Saul brother ... as in brother in the body of Christ.

Which of these scenarios is most REASONABLE ... all are possible ... but using CONTEXT ... which meaning of brother is being used????

Or will PRIDE GET IN THE WAY????

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by Chan

What's the matter?

Not a thing. But thanks for asking.

Originally Posted by Chan

Are you afraid to quote the rest of the passage (verses 27-32)?

Nope, cause perfect Love cast out all fear.

Originally Posted by Chan

Are you afraid of seeing what people's pet sins might be on that list?

Other's peoples pet's are their own problem.

Romans 1:1 - 32 (KJV)
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.
11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Note: All text in brown is sin that must be repented of wether you attend a church or not! See no fear here!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

You might want to find out what a fool is, Biblically speaking, so that you can know what the adjective "foolish" really means.

The context tells us it's in relation to sexual immorality

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Chan

But what exactly is the truth of water baptism?

Once again people THAT is beside the point. I am speaking hypothetically for everyone here that does not take the Oneness Apostolic view of Jesus name baptism and using it to discuss the topic of truth and it's necessity..I could have used the godhead or even eschatology like preterism and asked how important it is

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Chan

Is it truth that the name of Jesus is repeated over the baptismal candidate? Or is the very practice of repeating something (whether the words in Matthew 28:19 or the name Jesus) over the candidate using that something like a magical incantation*? Is the "truth" of baptism about saying words or about exercising authority?



*Main Entry: in·can·ta·tion
Pronunciation: "in-"kan-'tA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English incantacioun, from Middle French incantation, from Late Latin incantation-, incantatio, from Latin incantare to enchant -- more at ENCHANT
: a use of spells or verbal charms spoken or sung as a part of a ritual of magic; also : a written or recited formula of words designed to produce a particular effect

Please stop trying to change the topic. Start another thread and discuss it if you like

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Chan

If they were taught error and obeyed that error then they did not obey truth. So-called "gay Christians" sincerely believe they are being taught truth when they're taught that God accepts their homosexuality but their sincerity doesn't make the error truth.

But does it matter in that case that they did not obey truth? How much truth does it take to be saved? What about someone that believes in preterism and if preterism is NOT the truth how much does that truth matter? Is the eschatological truth irrelevant and trite?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Michlow

Truth is not doctrines. It's not rules, or standards or convictions. These are all subjective in some form.

But Truth, real absolute Truth is Jesus.

That's baloney. Truth means something is TRUE and not FALSE. IF Jesus says "you have to be born again" are you going to say that is not the truth? That would make Jesus a liar. Truth is not doctrine, but doctrine can be TRUTH. If it's true doctrine, if the doctrine is true then it's TRUTH.

Jesus is the truth so thus EVERYTHING he taught was the truth

[Sister Alvear]

if we did not call brother someone that may believe a little different that us then I am afriad some would have no brothers at all...

[Sister Alvear]

Truth means EVERYTHING to me...but we must consider there happen to be a million different opinions of what truth really is...Jesus is truth...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

No Prax, I think it is you that have problems with logic, inferring and decoding

1. I made no assertion ... but asked a question ... albeit a rhetorical question "Is this the same Ananaias that called Saul a brother before baptizing him?

They why do you protest so much when I suggest he could be calling him brother because they were both Jews unless you were making a point? come on Dan. It is OBVIOUS from scriptures that Jews called other kinsman brothers having nothing to do with being saved Christians. And that can very well be the case there. Do you agree or disagree and if you disagree WHY do you say he called him brother...why even ask the question if you did not have a point? Save your credibility here friend and stop playing games

2. What biblical truth have you proven other than in the context of Acts 2 and 3, Paul addressed his national kinsman as 'brethren' ... a truth indeed ... yet RR would like to apply adelphos to " admit" that the term "Brother" as referecned had nothing to do with the Body of Christ.

I proved that the term brother can very well imply kinsman and does NOT have to imply that Ananias thought Paul was saved. I have reiterated that over and over.

If this assertion be true than adelphos must apply as national kinsman in all cases it is used in the NT... he insists it's a tautology.

My assertion was that it CAN very well refer to kinsman and that anyones assertion or veiled assertion that it meant Paul was already saved before his sins were washed away is a fallacy

Is adelphos, a word with multiple meanings' ... that ALWAYS mean a kinsman?? ... or does Paul and other writers also use it to mean ... brother of blood or brother in Christ ... am I to now state this applies in the cases where Paul addresses the Church?

You are once again not paying attention and putting words in my mouth Dan.

If I use CIRCULAR REASONING then I will pick one from my handy dandy dictionary and apply it in all instances ... HOW FOOLISH IS THAT???

Concentrate Dan. Take a deep breath. I never once asserted that it HAS to have only one meaning. My point was that the assertion that Paul was already saved because he called him brother is fallacious because the term COULD be referring to kinsman

3. When examining words with multiple meaning all GOOD READERS must use context clues to examine and infer it's significance.

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.

Exactly! You should pay attention also to what people are actually saying. We can deal with context once it has been established by honest intelligent people that the term is used in scriptures between Jews of kinsmen. Can you do that Dan?

1. Aldephos is one used in the plural ... in Acts 2 and 3. Peter is formally addressing a crowd of national brethren in an attempt to convert them to the Gospel ... understandable considering the public venue, purpose and audience of non-Christian believers.

Futhermore in no way however ... as Praxeas implied does the fact that he states that they murdered Jesus ... imply that he DOES NOT THINK THAT ALL OF US ARE NOT GUILTY OF HIS DEATH.

The ISSUE here Dan is that the term is used between Jews to indicate Kinsman because they are both Jews. When you are intellectually honest enough to stop pussyfooting around and just admit we all agree on that then we can examine Paul and Ananias more closely and then you can make your case as to what the word meant there and use the context too and even a handy dandy dictionary

2. Lets examine the usage of brother by Ananias in full context ...

Notice God has used a supernatural calling of Ananias to go to pray for Saul's healing ... and confirms this vision to reaffirm it is divine.



Ananias protests at first .... he's scared of a murderous Paul and says he has done EVIL THINGS TO YOUR HOLY ONES. He fears for his life and/or possible imprisonment. He hasn't heard that Paul has converted ... he's still got old info.


God reassures Ananias once again that Paul has been chosen.

Then Ananias has no reason NOT to call Paul a kinsman as a Jew

Ananias obeys God's command and enters the house Paul is in ... and uses the term "adelphos" as his first words to Paul.

Now .... there are some possible reasons for this greeting:

1. He was being polite and addressing a kinsman ... who by the way he feared and considered EVIL.

Woah...you mean even after he KNOWS Paul is called by God Ananias still fears him and considers him evil? What precedent is there for a Jew NOT calling someone a kinsman because they fear him anyways? You are just making an assertion when you do that but you have no evidence to support it

2. He was scared out of his mind and though he'd soften Paul up by calling him brother

or


3. He was convicted by the Holy Spirit ... based on the revelation of what Paul had experience already and God's purpose for Saul's life ... hence ... based on this totality of events and conviction calls Saul brother ... as in brother in the body of Christ.

Which of these scenarios is most REASONABLE ... all are possible ... but using CONTEXT ... which meaning of brother is being used????

Or will PRIDE GET IN THE WAY????

Once again Dan resorts to a logical fallacy. In this case he limits the possibilities to exclude the fact that they were kinsman and additionally he suggests that Ananias would be in fear and consider Paul so evil that he would not address him as a kinsman. Yet he at the same time suggests Ananias KNEW Paul had repented enough to be a brother in the Lord! That is incredible! And before you protest again Dan it is clear this is your assertion don't pretend you did not make an assertion.

Please explain how it is Ananias can tell Paul to rise up and wash away his sins when his sins must have already been washed away if he is in the body of Christ