It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conversation with the Body of Christ

page: 12
2
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by PrimeLight
 

Who decides what sin is
This link that you gave me is to a web site maintained by the Church of Great God, which is one of the spin-offs of Herbert Armstrong who was someone who preached something like that the English people were really the true Jews.
So it is saying this same sort of thing that you were saying, that Christians are obligated to follow the Old Testament.
I don't know if you belong to this church but you resort to appealing to them to find support for the theory that you believe in.
This sort of thing just reinforces in me this thing that I do (which I get a lot of flak for), which is telling certain people on this forum that they belong to cults. Armstrongism is a cult and is not normal Christianity.
And I feel personally offended by someone who is obviously a cult member telling me I have a wrong spirit and lack of discernment for being a normal Christian, and having this coming from someone who cannot even bring themselves to write the name Jesus.
edit on 29-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



I don't know if you belong to this church but you resort to appealing to them to find support for the theory that you believe in. This sort of thing just reinforces in me this thing that I do (which I get a lot of flak for), which is telling certain people on this forum that they belong to cults. Armstrongism is a cult and is not normal Christianity. And I feel personally offended by someone who is obviously a cult member telling me I have a wrong spirit and lack of discernment for being a normal Christian

I did not determine your discernment based on you being a 'normal' Christian (of which you provided no clear definition for me to even begin to understand what such even means), I determined it based on the PLAIN ENGLISH scripture provided that you ignored and gave no credence to as well as pertinent points of questioning throughout that were purposefully and 'conveniently' left unaddressed, and most importantly not basing your stances on any brought forth 'opposing/countering' scripture to even try to compare/determine validity Biblically. You instead in 2 examples just wanted to carry on about the word 'counter' I used and the timing referenced on when the Law is 'supposed' to be 'all written into our hearts', to tell me the 'old Law is now destroyed' as you promoted. You deflected on numerous other occasions off-handedly, and that is what you have shown throughout when I tested your spirit with the meat, hence discerning your alignments even further in all your mere ego based desirings to reveal that I was wrong with absolutely no valid backing in upholding the Word and fruitfully leading.

You resorted mostly on your own words, replying 'off point' time and time again without providing opportunity of testing the Word against further supporting scripture within the Bible (as those links I provided did that you ignore-antly bashed in turn)---instead offering an adolescent mindset that could only resort to infer and insult with 'cult member' innuendo because anything that you don't agree with in your beliefs is only 'theory' of course---also bore the bold nerve to accuse me of derailing the thread when you had a very large hand in exchanges, so that was quite rich.

Referenced openly here more than once I am outside ALL organised churches and I was not 'appealing' to the church either as you distort, the materials simply spoke to what I have already come to in my understandings. They served to save me a lot of writing and I am glad they did for you would have trashed the pearls regardless. Couldn't help but note you chose to focus not on referencing the scriptural points of the message, but the messengers. It reveals much.

I was the one who referenced the Word in support time and time again of which you chose not because it was clearly not in your interest even when respectfully requested. So shame on you and may we all reap what we sow in all judgement and accusation Known to be false by our Father.

I will pray for you, for you are on a dangerous road in all your 'freedom thinking' that you promote and in all that is against the Gospel teachings. Where at all did Christ promote 'free thinking' when teaching? You express in very worldly terms and I very much note that 'human logic/intellect' frequency base applied.

You showed me much of your 'fruit' throughout as a 'servant' of the Gospel in all you ignored, including not addressing or supporting the clear errors of the OP against valid and pertinent Gospel teachings. Revealing also, in your 'priorities' demonstrated here.

Curious, in all your disregard of the Old (First) Testament, are you one of these 'modern' 'Christians' that agrees with capital punishment? (Please just provide yes or no answers if you care to address).
That agrees with abortion (applying also to rape cases)?
That believes that 'Jesus' is also the Father as a singular Being?
That the Elect/144000 are men and women?
That the 'mark of the beast' is symbolic/metaphor?
That the 10 Commandments no longer apply, because they are 'Old' Testament?
That we are no longer Expected to observe the Sabbath?
That Sunday is the prescribed day of worship?
That the 'Rapture' is a false teaching?
That we are in the 'last days' currently?
That the return of Christ is metaphorical and not literal?
That infant Baptism is a legitimate rite in Acceptance of Christ?

Show me where you stand, and just so you are aware, I am a Gentile and I do not subscribe to all the ceremonial laws of Judaism.
edit on 30-8-2013 by PrimeLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by PrimeLight
 

. . . you provided no clear definition for me to even begin to understand what such even means . . .
I find it kind of odd that you would have to have someone tell you what normal Christianity is.

. . . I determined it based on the PLAIN ENGLISH scripture provided . . .
At least part of the time you were quoting a so-called Jewish Bible that was inserting Hebrew words that do not belong in the New Testament.

. . . that you ignored . . .
Do you mean by "ignored" that I was not somehow swayed by them into agreeing with you?

. . . and gave no credence to as well as pertinent points of questioning throughout that were purposefully and 'conveniently' left unaddressed . . .
I have developed a habit on this forum of ignoring points when they have already been given at least twice previously, without any additional information added.

. . . and most importantly not basing your stances on any brought forth 'opposing/countering' scripture to even try to compare/determine validity Biblically.
As I already said twice before, it is not a matter of verses with you because you have already inserted false definitions for the words in the verses, apparently provided to you by whatever cult that you belong to.
For example the already mentioned quote from a Jewish New Testament that inserts "Torah" where in the original Greek it says "law".

You instead in 2 examples just wanted to carry on about the word 'counter' I used and the timing referenced on when the Law is 'supposed' to be 'all written into our hearts', to tell me the 'old Law is now destroyed' as you promoted.
What you were saying is that it is not possible to have the law (figuratively) "written" on your heart, because it would not fit, or at least that was what it seemed to me that you were saying.
Maybe your problem is that you never went to normal church and only to a cult, so you do not get normal Christian terminology.

You deflected on numerous other occasions off-handedly, and that is what you have shown throughout when I tested your spirit with the meat, hence discerning your alignments even further in all your mere ego based desirings to reveal that I was wrong with absolutely no valid backing in upholding the Word and fruitfully leading.
A forum like this is not the easiest medium for communicating, so I think you are being premature with charging me with deflection. That is a conclusion that should be made after about ten times as much posts as we have made to each other so far. If you think I am not answering something then just say so. I don't avoid those, just when I have already answered the exact same question twice already.
edit on 30-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by PrimeLight
 

. . . those links I provided did that you ignore-antly bashed in turn . . .
Talk about "resorting".

. . .
'cult member' innuendo . . .
It is not my fault that you are in denial. Anyone who will not admit to what church they belong to I have to believe is a cult member, that plus the refusal to write "Jesus" for the name of Jesus, that is a dead giveaway to cult membership. Saying that Christians are obligated to keep the Old Testament Laws is not normal, and is only taught in cults.

because anything that you don't agree with in your beliefs is only 'theory' of course---
I think that you have it the other way around. I "test" as you call it, a doctrine against the scripture and if it is not supportable by the Bible, then it is because it is a theory. When someone comes on a thread reciting one of these theories that I have already detected as such, I am happy to point out that it is only a theory, so as to help this person to check out why exactly they believe in it.

. . . also bore the bold nerve to accuse me of derailing the thread when you had a very large hand in exchanges, so that was quite rich.
Wow, testy a bit? What were you saying before about ego?
That was because you put in a highlighted quote something that was not in the post that you were replying to and I figured came from a post I had just earlier made on another thread. So if you were aware that I was writing things that you questioned, on another thread, why were you not replying to the post on the thread where it belonged?
edit on 30-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by PrimeLight
 

Referenced openly here more than once I am outside ALL organised churches and I was not 'appealing' to the church either as you distort, the materials simply spoke to what I have already come to in my understandings. They served to save me a lot of writing and I am glad they did for you would have trashed the pearls regardless.
How does any of this make any difference?
If you believe that you are the lone prophet of God on planet earth, may I suggest that you get used to typing "long" explanations of your message and not posting links?

Couldn't help but note you chose to focus not on referencing the scriptural points of the message, but the messengers. It reveals much.
It reveals that the only people hosting legitimate looking web sites with an actual church's name attached, agreeing with you on the law, is a known cult.

I was the one who referenced the Word in support time and time again of which you chose not because it was clearly not in your interest even when respectfully requested. So shame on you and may we all reap what we sow in all judgement and accusation Known to be false by our Father.
What? This sounds like you would enjoy me going to hell to prove that you are right.
Anyway, what was this "word" you were referencing, or do you just mean the Bible in General. I think that the Old Testament is irrelevant in discussing New Testament theology, you know, like killing goats, and that sort of thing. So if I skipped a couple, that is why.

I will pray for you, for you are on a dangerous road in all your 'freedom thinking' that you promote and in all that is against the Gospel teachings.
It just seems "dangerous" to you, probably because of the rather appealing theories that you have chosen to put your faith in.
As for "free thinking", I can back up my opinions with what happens to be the most prestigious Bible commentary series, written by the foremost living expert on the Book of Romans.

Where at all did Christ promote 'free thinking' when teaching? You express in very worldly terms and I very much note that 'human logic/intellect' frequency base applied.
Jesus demonstrated it by example, in contrast to the dogmatic "doctors" of the law, and the Pharisees and the high priests.

You showed me much of your 'fruit' throughout as a 'servant' of the Gospel in all you ignored, including not addressing or supporting the clear errors of the OP against valid and pertinent Gospel teachings. Revealing also, in your 'priorities' demonstrated here.
I think that enough criticism of the OP was going on without me adding to it.
Do you realize that an internet forum is for entertainment purposes only and it is not for preaching or pushing your own theology on other people?
The OP was providing a service of entertaining the readers, that is why the owners of this web site provide these internet resources to the users.

edit on 30-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by PrimeLight
 

Curious, in all your disregard of the Old (First) Testament,
Do you mean the "prior" testament, the one that was superseded and thus made obsolete?

are you one of these 'modern' 'Christians' that agrees with capital punishment?
Did you mean to say "disagrees"?

Thatt believes that 'Jesus' is also the Father as a singular Being?
I don't think that God is a "being" in the classical definition of a being. I believe that "God" is composed of multiple distinct persons. I also believe that there is one particular person in the godhead who is to be addressed as God, who is the father of Jesus. I accept that God is to be called God, as a translation of the Greek word, Theos, as it is written in the Greek Bible.

That the Elect/144000 are men and women?
That the 'mark of the beast' is symbolic/metaphor?
"symbolic/metaphor" to both.

That the 10 Commandments no longer apply, because they are 'Old' Testament?
See my comment at the top of this post.

That we are no longer Expected to observe the Sabbath?
It only makes sense to take a day off once a week, and in a lot of countries, it is the law that an employer will give their workers a day off like that. I think it is impossible to tell anyone what particular day that is exactly.

That the 'Rapture' is a false teaching?
There is a rapture mentioned in 1 Thess. describing those who will be with Jesus being "plucked up" which is probably part of a visionary view of how things will happen at some point to those who are in Christ, but nothing like as described in modern pop-culture religion's version.

That we are in the 'last days' currently?
The "last days" already happened, the end of the old age, and what we are in now has no end.

That the return of Christ is metaphorical and not literal?
Jesus literally returned at the end of the former age.

. . . I do not subscribe to all the ceremonial laws of Judaism.
Why would you want to "subscribe" to any of them?
edit on 30-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

I sincerely thank you for openly and honestly answering those questions. Genuinely I do not belong to any church group and never have other than being baptised into the Orthodox faith (non Jewish) as a babe, so the cult references I am trying to get my head around with those links being very recently discovered also. I'm sure I rubbed you up the wrong way to feel defensive in offense and I will accept responsibility for such if I was abrasive/not tactful enough in addressing you (and with regard to the OP).

I don't have a problem with those who desire to call our Lord Jesus, that name just doesn't jive with me at all at this stage of my alignment, and as I stated earlier each to their own. Would hope you would be as accepting in that also.

Blessings to you.

edit on 31-8-2013 by PrimeLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by PrimeLight
 


Welcome to the forum.
Have a good time.
Sorry for my sometimes making it a bit rough.
Don't want it to seem too easy, now, right?



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

This life certainly is not meant to be easy and without opposition. Thank you and I take no personal issue with you or any of those who disagree with what is shared. We bear our differences in belief based on a variance of choices and life experiences determining the conscious path and I accept that fully.

Fruitful Seeking to you and all us children who love and desire to know our Creator's Truth and Ways. May they Lead to Life.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by PrimeLight
 


Well, I was giving a little lecture at church today to the congregation on you, over the PA system, about how much better off you would be if you were a member of of our church.
Hopefully people will be praying for you.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

If exchanges work to Serve others in a Fruitful way, then they occurred for Good reason. No accidents.

Thank you for all prayer made in the Good Spirit of Christ and you will be in mine also.




top topics



 
2
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join