Belief in god and the right to homosexuality?

[shazeep]

i'm not getting how you find reconciling Paul with Christ to be anti Christ, sorry. And wouldn't a false prophet be prophesying? Or something? Do you have any other complaints than that i suggest following Christ, and reconciling Paul to Him? You have been patient with me? What is that supposed to mean? Paul was a zealot, and the perfect person to write the Epistles, likely so a choice might be provided for all, but he is widely interpreted to say the least. And i would suggest that you must reconcile Paul to Christ nonetheless, or else who is your savior?

The quotes attributed to Christ must take precedence over anything you read from Paul, and your doctrine must be examined for anything not "sufficient for them" on a personal level if you hope to advance spiritually, and there are plenty of clues in Scripture to lead anyone seeking by the Spirit, so if you have some lie or prophecy of mine that hasn't come true? or something, b.a.m. spit it out, otherwise you are not being specific enough, sorry. You cannot quote any lie; maybe you just don't like the truth.

[shazeep]

um, i guess if you want you could try to find some Paul that doesn't culminate in Christ, but Mike tried like 3 times, so...ya, whatever. Is there even a direct quote alluding to this, such as we have for Love? I have been trying to think of one, and i don't think so.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

It's content and context . . . and not content alone!

I wrote: "WE surely will not condemn the world: but the unbelievers'
rejection of God's righteousness operating in the true Church will
condemn them(selves)."

Some people DO NOT truly believe in God. They believe (by their
own testimonies) that God erred in choosing Jesus as the ultimate
sacrifice, because Jesus erred in choosing the Ministry. How? By
insisting in the words of Jesus over the words of the apostles!
There is NOT AN IOTA OF CONTRADICTION or DIFFERENCE in the
Lord's and the apostles' doctrine.

If the apostles erred in content/context, then Jesus also erred; and
if the Lord Jesus erred, then the Father erred also. LISTEN UP: if
the Father erred, then He could NOT be God! It's that simple. I am
of the persuasion that the apostles followed ALL the Lord's doctrine
FULLY and WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION, because Jesus followed the
Father's mandate in the same manner: else Jesus could NOT be
"...the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

SHAZEEP: if you would follow the teaching of the Lord THROUGH the
Apostle Paul, you would do well. Now this:

"He who believes in Him is NOT condemned; but he that believes
not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the
NAME of the only begotten son of God."

What you're up against is the distorted reference to "law" in the Word, where it has been twisted to mean scripture. Law is not scripture. Law is efforts to attain salvation by works in the context where law is spoken negatively in the New Testament. Ironically, this is the same spirit that the world is currently wallowing in -- changing the definition of words like "marriage".

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

um, i guess if you want you could try to find some Paul that doesn't culminate in Christ, but Mike tried like 3 times..

This is the sort of distortion that I referred to in my previous post. To such as what you read in this quote, legalism and law is the Word of God saying what it says. But in the bible, law and legalism is working one's way to heaven.

Once words have lost their proper place in context of scripture, you get all sorts of error, like women's salvation by works through birthing children. And when pinned to explain it, the word is cast aside as something that is either a tool by God to confuse people, or something that cannot be explained, and one is allegedly proud if they think they can explain it. In effect, the word of God becomes moot.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

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.

2 Timothy 3:16 KJV All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Galatians 2:20 KJV I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

1 Corinthians 14:37 KJV (37) If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

2 Corinthians 4:5 KJV For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

Your value for the entire volume of God's word is lacking, and when you are corrected and shown to be in error with how you read the Word, you make an opponent of the person correcting your error, and claim such a person is being "legalistic," when "legalism" in the context of what the Word says about it has nothing to do with what you are resisting. Legalism is preaching salvation by works, which you are actually teaching people the way you falsely present the Good Samaritan and distorting passages that mention salvation by child bearing, and gentiles reflecting God's law (which doesn't save), and how you distort the words about those who do righteous are righteous. You are far from the type of person qualified to determine how to correctly correlate Paul's words with Christ, seeing as you speak of them as distinctly different, when they are one and the same words of Christ to begin with. You think legalistically, and distort the meaning of legalism to precisely the opposite of it's reference in scripture.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

Of course you're prophesying falsely!
To what would you have us believe that Paul needs reconciliation? Are
you so deceived by the god of this world (allah) that you think all you
say is "spiritual"? Well, it is spiritual, but certainly not by the Holy Spirit.

(1) You have spoken many things, but none of those things relate to the three
main doctrines of repentance, remission of sins, or being (spiritually)
endowed with the Holy Spirit. Many denominations have at least a "spirit of
repentance" abiding in them, and it shows in their witness and testimony.
You have shown none, at all.

I have been the most patient with you, desiring to see the bud of a fruit in
you. Instead, we have come to this. There is a smirk in the back of your
mind because "someone" has called you a "prophet'. No: you surely are no
prophet, but a "wannabe" prophet, that instead of truth mixes a small known
truth in order to introduce a LIE! "Take heed that no man deceive you. For
many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."

(2) So you will "agree" that one "cannot fulfill Christ and not Paul": and then
you add a caveat ("some adjustments").

I repeat: put yourself under the Ministry of the Apostle Paul, and you
will do well.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

This is the sort of distortion that I referred to in my previous post. To such as what you read in this quote, legalism and law is the Word of God saying what it says. But in the bible, law and legalism is working one's way to heaven.

Once words have lost their proper place in context of scripture, you get all sorts of error, like women's salvation by works through birthing children. And when pinned to explain it, the word is cast aside as something that is either a tool by God to confuse people, or something that cannot be explained, and one is allegedly proud if they think they can explain it. In effect, the word of God becomes moot.

oh, that is my personal take, and i said as much; if you have some Paul to offer, by all means be my guest.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, if i am a false prophet for suggesting that Paul be reconciled with Christ, then so be it;

Ah, but you mean Paul's words are inferior's to Christs when you say that, when in actuality Christ was writing through Paul. There be your extreme point of error. All the word of God in the bible is on the same level. Christ speaking through humanity.

i am not making any prophecies, so i don't quite get your position here, phnx, sorry. And if i have demeaned Paul, i am not understanding how.

You demeaned Paul by saying the words he wrote were inferior to Christ's when in reality Christ wrote them through Paul. And you fail to realize that a prophecy is not just predictive speaking, It is "inspired speaking," and is related in this reference to your words to your belief that you are correctly representing God's opinion when you state such a false statement that Paul's writings were inferior to Christ's statements.

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.

culminating in ...but if I don't have love... but i also have to agree with you in a sense, as every Pauline verse cast at me to prove a similar argument seemed to actually culminate in Christ in that same passage. It was a few threads ago, but i think we explored at least 3 examples of this, and i don't know if you were reading then? but 'your' side did not do well there, in the former sense, however i am willing to take another whack at that if you feel you have some Scripture to consider.

]

Your side failed then and shows the same failure here. You demean parts of the word of God as though they are not in essence the word of God, and you fail to see how they're saying the same thing as Christ's statements.

I would agree that you likely cannot fulfill Christ and not Paul--which strikes me as the more acceptable way to validate Paul, if that is the goal here--but this requires some adjustments to understanding Paul imo, who begs to be taken literally while speaking of spiritual things. 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.

[shazeep]

you are implying Christ was not speaking through Paul.

i imply no such thing, and have just recently directly stated the opposite. your post just goes further out on some limb from there, and i am not interested in being belittled by you. if you have a case, then state it, because i can go and dig up your previous attempts if you like, and let the reader decide.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

oh, that is my personal take, and i said as much; if you have some Paul to offer, by all means be my guest.

Paul did not write from himself. Christ wrote through him. So, do you still see his words and those of Christ as distinct?