Are you the Holy Spirit? No? Then why should I accept YOUR explanation when I have received from the Holy Spirit a different explanation. The explanation that I received, justifies my repeating what has been revealed to me. Now go ahead with your next false claim. I say false claim, because you have not proven that I have been speaking 'for God'. I specifically asked you to point out those verses. You are failing to do that, therefore, you are evading the issue and leaning entirely on your claim as evidence to support your claim. And I reject you explanation, on the same grounds that I have previously rejected your explanation,,, that being,,,, I am not speaking for God... that is a delusion that you are suffering from. I have also previously stated that I do not make claims, but only speak the truth. BTW: Keep things accurate... my comment was that I speak to the Holy Spirit. Jesus did say that He would send the Holy Spirit as a comforter. You are attempting to misrepresent what I actually said. More twisting of the record on your part. Holy Spirit... not God.. Keep your facts straight and quit misrepresenting what I have said. On those issues where the Holy Spirit has given me information, you are correct. On the other side of that coin, I never said that the Holy Spirit gave me an interpretation of the entire Bible. So keep the facts straight... and quit trying to misrepresent what I have stated. A 'claim' is not PROOF. A 'claim' is not necessarily accurate or true. That is correct. Knowing Gods Will for ones on life and mission is no sin. As for being an "emmisary" of God. If you prefer the word 'emmisary' that is OK with me: "2Cr 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." And your point? Not true. That is just your opinion. 2Cr 4:1 ¶ Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; 2Cr 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 2Cr 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 2Cr 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 2Cr 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 2Cr 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to [give] the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
LOL! You need to study more! Zac 3:1 And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of YHVH, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. 1 Cor. 7:5 - 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan (3985 peirazo) TEST you not for your incontinency. Again – least (4561) The Accuser/Adversary (3985) TEST, SCRUTINIZE, EXAMINE, ASSAY, PROVE, DISIPLINE you for your incontinency. Related to 3986 – To put to proof by experiment or experience! As for the Job story - I don't know why you would put that one up - as God points out Job to be tested! By the way - did you folks know that Job and Zechariah are the only OT texts talking about this "heavenly" Satan? All the rest of the "satans" are human accusers/adversaries, in war, etc. Interesting how much crap later people can make up about a being with only two references in the OT isn't it?
LOL! Who says Satan is mentioned in Adam and Eve story? It says serpent, who from then on slithers in the dirt! Where-as - Satan is called Satan in the OT! In the only TWO places he is actually mentioned in the OT!
But you should me mindful of the things that you have said: Yeppir... There be ole satan, standing there with another angel... but wait, he is supposed to be standing beside "god". Maybe satan got confused and thought that other angel was "god" Interesting how such a skilled translator of ancient texts who don't know what the vowels were ( which btw, would have been spoken vowels instead of written vowels) nor where to place those vowels can also make the error of thinking that the 'Angel of YHVH' is = God. Yes! Confusion abounds in the mind of that lady.
Matt 24 You come in the name of Jesus and act as the "emmisary of God" by claiming that you have direct contact (daily conversations) with God and know the Truth of things in the Bible because of it. This is what Jesus is talking about. The abomination of desolation was a King referred to in Danial and is an institution or person in the future that sets itself up as speaking for God. Matt 23 clarifies further: By claiming direct contact with God and "special Knowledge" of what God thinks one is exalting himself above others who do not have direct communication with God.
Yes! I come in the name of Jesus. Now pay attention to what that scripture says "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many". Now show me the posting made by me where I have stated that identifying comment in the scripture verse above. You can't, because I have made no such claim. Your statement, as it pertains to an accusation against me, is a deliberate non-truth. Wrong! In Daniel 12, there is identified a person of the future who attempts to identify himself 'as god'. Not one speaking for 'god'. What a twisted interpretation of things. Now show where I have claimed to be your 'father', your 'master', your 'rabbi', your anything. You can't because I have not. Those are all merely your perceptions. And now you are attempting to assign those labels to me, when I have claimed none of them and herein reject the offer as pertaining to all of them.
Now you are changing the dynamics of the previous claim. Previously you stated that I was speaking for God, now you are saying that I am putting myself in the position of Christ. Make up your mind Dude. BTW: What 'position' is Christ in? . Maccabees? Is that a new dish at McDonalds? Ok, so then Daniel was not speaking about me specifically. Now what? That would be an impossibility. Why. Antiochus did what Antiochus did, and all of us living today will do what ever it is or will be that we do. And your point? Only in your perception. If you feel that I am superior to you, then that is a perception problem of yours. That is not how I see my being. I am not exalted above anyone. Oh OK. Now I get it. The POPE you are talking about. Remember how people refer to the Pope and other priests as "Father"... when the Bible clearly states to not call any man "Father". Well, my kids (children) refer to me a "Dad" .. they are not allowed to refer to me as 'Father'. When they are questioned by someone in this manner "Who is your Father", they will respond by saying "you mean my Dad?" and then proceed to give my secular name. When talking to someone about me as a subject matter, they will always say "My Dad,...... ". I don't wear one of those black robes and therefore, no-one else has any need to call me 'Father'.
That's silly--all over the Bible people are called "father." Father Abraham? OBVIOUSLY, it wasn't a forbidding of using the word.
"Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. " Looks pretty explicit to me. And it is said to be the words of Jesus.
What about my biological father? Do I call him dad as opposed to father? For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel. - 1 Corinthians 4:15
My Priest had an argument with a young baptist preacher, and when asked what he call his father, he answered "daddy!".
I will only suggest to you that you be your own judge on that question, considering that you are using a version of the Bible that is obviously not the KJV. "1Cr 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. " On the use of the word "begotten": "1) of men who fathered children a) to be born b) to be begotten 1) of women giving birth to children 2) metaph. a) to engender, cause to arise, excite b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone c) of God making Christ his son d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work" At any rate, it appears that you will have to decide for yourself.
Putting yourself in the position of Christ "is" speaking for God. Jesus was Gods messenger. What Antiochus did up was what Jesus was referring to as the "abomination of desolation". His audience at the time would know the story well. His warning that this would come again in the future.
You keep repeating the same old chant, but I am not of the Hindu or any of the other religious affiliations that use Chants, and you still have not provided any PROOF of where I have been "putting" myself "in the position of Christ." So what gives with that. Someone who makes an affirmative claim, is required to prove the claim. You don't have any PROOF, just like you didn't have any PROOF that Jesus was a practitioner or user of sorcery? My oh my... Well, precisely what was it that Antiochus did that Jesus spoke against. If you were to explain that to me, then perhaps I might be able to assist you in determining if you are correct or in error yet again. Whose warning about what that would come again in the future?
Your argument is a hard one to make since calling elders "Father" is a well established tradition of the early church. Yeah, you know, those who were taught by the Apostles themselves. This is an example of not looking beyond the surface of Scripture to understand what is really being said. Jesus would become our one mediator and Great High Priest according to the order of Melchizadek. "Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus.." (Heb 3:1) What Jesus is announcing is God having a direct relationship with his people and not through a prophet. This was God's desire from the beginning but the Israelites wouldn't have it. "No, but let God speak to you and you speak to us," they told Moses. People didn't want that direct relationship by which God spoke to them personally. Jesus was announcing the end of the age of prophets, for both the law and the prophets are fulfilled in Him. Notice how every cult tries to bring back prophets, Mormonism, Islam, etc. They all bring back prophets as an intermediary between God and the people when God ripped the temple veil from top to bottom so that we could "boldly approach the throne of grace," (Heb 4:16). John the Baptist was the last prophet. There is no other. We have Christ. So no, this isn't about what to call our dads or any other such shallow renderings of the quoted scripture. This is about our unencumbered relationship to God, whether clergy or layman, through Jesus Christ. To read it any other way is to cheapen this teaching of Christ.
Probably as hard to PROVE as your claim "..those who were taught by the Apostles themselves." Like some of the Atheists and or non-theists saying that there are a lot of people out there by the name of "Jesus". Likewise there are a lot of people out there by the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter. Than coupled with the fact that there are no Birth certificates for those folk. You have a pretty big problem on your hand with that claim that you are making. Now you also claim that "the earl church" referenced its elders with the Title of Father. Can you show me that in the Bible? No? Then what I am seeing is a man-made group of people who have chosen to violate the teachings of Jesus. Now if you want to say that 'the church' compiled the writings we call the Bible, then "the Church" is in violation of its own laws... If those writings are a product of 'the Church' then those writings need to be called the Word of the Church as opposed to the "Word of God'. But where does it say to refer to Jesus as "Father"? Where does it say to refer to the Apostles as 'Father'? Where does it say to refer to anyone other than God as "Father"? At the emphasized text: I agree 100%. Subsequently there is no need for us to address any one other than God as "Father"; and at the same time, people did not want to be personally responsible, so they (the people) started a tradition of allowing someone else to go to God for them. The "Father" title as applied to anyone other than God is merely a tradition which goes against the grain of what even you have pointed out as being "what God wanted from the beginning." Again, I will say Amen to that entire paragraph above. I will point out however, that the end of that era (as you have described it) also did not usher in a new era where we are to go around calling other men "Father" because they claim to represent a way to commune with God. As for me, if I won't allow my own children to call me 'Father' why would I want someone else to call me "Father" (in any sense of the word)? Obviously, the officials of "the Church" hold a different opinion. See that emphasized text? Read it straight trough without the additional clause which can obscure what you are really saying. It does not authorize us to call anyone other than God "Father".
Maybe I'm just to simple to understand your lofty argument because it went right over my whittle head. Could you dumb this down a bit? There's your mistake and departure from any sort of logic. I said "early church" and you said "Bible" as if the Bible were an exhaustive account of the teachings and practices taught by the apostles who were taught by Jesus. So here goes. The gospels are not and never could be an exhaustive account of what Jesus taught. The teachings of the Apostles recorded in the epistles reveal much of what they were taught that wasn't recorded in the gospels. But even the epistles themselves were not the teachings of the apostles in their entirety. In fact, they were letters sent to follow up on the oral tradition given to them by which teachings were coveyed. These epistles were an extention of the Apostles' authority and were not an authority in themselves. "Stand fast and hold to the TRADITIONS you were given," Paul says, "whether by word or our epistle."(2Thess 2:15) Clearly "bible only" was not enough. I guess that man made group of people includes 2000 years of Christians who called their fathers "Father". I'll take your most ridiculous argument to make my point. Papa or Abba or even Dad or Daddy are sentimental nicknames that refer to father. It refers to a father's position, authority, and relationshop to the child. If Jesus was against this, then the principle applies regardless of the word used. To have your children call you anything that hints at you being their father would be violating your own interpretation. Even most Protestants don't agree with your nonsensical application here. It would be easier for you to demonstrate that by priests being called "father" they are trying to supplant the fatherhood of God. An honorary title does not do away with our direct relationship with God that every baptized Christian has through Jesus Christ. Your moral indictment of Christians who have for centuries been called "father" by their children demonstrates how far afield your thinking is. The holy Church is my authority as long as we're talking about authorizing. "I should not even believe in the gospels themselves," says St. Augustine, "if it weren't for the authority of the Catholic Church." Your problem is you're trying to assert as axiomatic what you can't possibly establish, that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for Christians. This is, of course, a subject for a different thread. But make no mistake, I've never once failed to win that argument because "sola scriptura" cannot be proven using "sola scriptura."
Consider the name David. How many Davids were there at the time? (setting aside the art of language translations) There is your mistake, presuming that I did something which I did not do. The Bible (having been compiled by associated members of the 'church' or at least approved by the Church) is a 'Church' document. Therefore, the Bible is a collection of writings that were approved by the Church. Therefore, if that church document says to "call no man on earth Father", then where does the 'Church' gain its authority to address any of its own personnel as "Father" in direct contradiction to their own documentation.
Consider the name David. How many Davids were there at the time? (setting aside the art of language translations) There is your mistake, presuming that I did something which I did not do. The Bible (having been compiled by associated members of the 'church' or at least approved by the Church) is a 'Church' document. Therefore, the Bible is a collection of writings that were approved by the Church. Therefore, if that church document says to "call no man on earth Father", then where does the 'Church' gain its authority to address any of its own personnel as "Father" in direct contradiction to their own documentation.
I did not claim to have proof that Jesus was a Sorcerer. If he raised folks from the dead he was a Sorcerer by the definition I gave you. . Claimed to speak for God was one .. he also persecuted Jews. If you want to learn more read the link on him I gave you. . Your "yet again" makes me chuckle as it is you that is most often in error. Jesus is talking about an abomination of desolation that will come in the future.
There you go obscuring the quote function again. Seems like you do that most frequently when the alleged quoted is not on the same page as your message... forcing someone to do needless hunting to find the alleged quote. Correct your error, and I will respond when I know specifically what post oyur are attempting to quote.
You do not have to hunt at all. You just want to see your name posted numerous times and divert the thread.
