Replies

Well, let's look at the record accorded by the thread to date. Anytime I've supplied scripture backup for what I have said, when you respond, it is not to the effect of "what does scripture say" but on the contrary, it's to the effect of "how can we get around this and prop up our teaching".

It isn't a matter of the Holy Spirit leading me, you or anyone else at this point. It's a matter first and foremost of your attitude toward scripture.

Next, I didn't say the Holy spirit gave anything "Only to me". That is a strawman argument that you use on the extreme to single me out in order to try and besmirch me. It has nothing to do with whether the Spirit is involved or not. It is an argument tactic you are invoking for incredulity. You're belly button may pucker; but, you don't give a whit about what scripture says or whether the Holy spirit is involved or not. You've aptly demonstrated that here. And it is expected. Your bone of contention is why you should be ruled by scripture rather than your own philosophies. And I say, be ruled by your philosophies if you will; but, don't claim that is Christianity.

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

I've done nothing more than show your clergy has been found a liar. That has consequence. Scripture says

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Now, is one guided into all truth by starting out rejecting it? No. Nor is truth established by pointing to something that is true, adding assumptions to it that are not born out in the passage, then proclaiming the assumption as support for anything. Case in point Matthew 17:9. Pointed out to prove something that it doesn't prove. And when we point out that Jesus notes it was a vision, oh boy. Finding ten verses that don't mention that fact doesn't nullify it. I even gave a secondary reference to show that the meaning is intended and still you argue. Your point isn't what scripture says or you'd be happy to agree and learn from the scripture. Instead, the name calling commences. The Holy Spirit in action? No.

What gripes you is the authority I have - not of myself - but in proclaiming the word of God and refusing to back down from it to agree with you. I cannot do both. Nor will I. The scripture and the Apostles are claimed by your organization for authority. Most of that scripture is given to CORRECT the church and keep it from error. If the scripture isn't heeded, then the church wanders off into error. No different than the Israelites. So, I'll not apologize for my stance. Nor do I owe you anything. My authority is the testimony of Christ and the word. And that is why you are to check that word and hold me to it.
If I speak what is not in scripture and have claimed otherwise, then you have a beef. But so long as I'm in line with scripture, you have none. And that is the measure by which you are judged for your message as to whether you teach another Gospel or not. It is a measure I've quoted to you at least twice on this thread with scripture references. I stand by them and the commands and teachings of the Apostles on that very matter. If you can't accept that, then you must reject the apostles, your popes, ministers, etc; because it is the basis on which any of them can claim any authority before God at all. And it is why the Bible is cited by them. Without it, they have NO authority. Without Christ and the Holy Spirit and the word bearing witness, no one claiming christianity has any authority.

Your beef ain't with me, it's with scripture. The reason you have a beef with me is that I've pointed out your diversion from scripture. But I've done it using scripture in context. Can't refute the scriptures, so as the pharisees with christ, you attempt to refute me with personal attacks and slurs. Bring it on. I'm happy to suffer for the Gospel's sake. If He could take the beating He took, I don't sweat you.

Anytime I've supplied scripture backup for what I have said...

But you misinterpret scripture so badly, then you insist that your abortively-bad misinterpretation is "what scripture says."

...And when we point out that Jesus notes it was a vision, oh boy....

And yet you keep repeating your errors over and over. The only thing left for the reader to do is consider whether your errors represent profound ignorance or the shabby lies of a hate-filled heart.

Your beef ain't with me, it's with scripture.

His beef is with YOPIOS.

Well, let's look at the record accorded by the thread to date. Anytime I've supplied scripture backup for what I have said, when you respond, it is not to the effect of "what does scripture say" but on the contrary, it's to the effect of "how can we get around this and prop up our teaching".

Are you familiar with Omarosa? She, too, thought she was doing the Lord's work and got upset when others dared to question her. It seems awfully familiar. She also lacked a sense of her actual place in the group dynamic.

Case in point Matthew 17:9. Pointed out to prove something that it doesn't prove. And when we point out that Jesus notes it was a vision, oh boy. Finding ten verses that don't mention that fact doesn't nullify it. I even gave a secondary reference to show that the meaning is intended and still you argue.

You actually argued against your own point, and showed how the word used in the Scripture could be taken in one way or in another. So you have still, to this day, provided no justification for taking what is given as a secondary meaning for the word "vision" instead of the primary meaning.

It isn't as simple as you saying that your interpretation is "Scripture" and ours isn't. You'll need to address this honestly sometime. Why did you choose that one particular definition?

SD

Anytime I've supplied scripture backup for what I have said,

Actually you haven't answered any queries put on your links (post #901)

Anytime I've supplied scripture backup for what I have said, when you respond, it is not to the effect of "what does scripture say" but on the contrary, it's to the effect of "how can we get around this and prop up our teaching".

Back that lie up or drop it. I have never posted anything of the kind.

It isn't a matter of the Holy Spirit leading me

Boy! You got that right!

It's a matter first and foremost of your attitude toward scripture.

And just what IS my attitude toward scripture, oh omniscient one? Since I have never stated anything about my attitude toward scripture, how do you read my mind? Do you just continue to KNOW in your special mystical way again, or do you have some evidence to present here?

You're belly button may pucker; but, you don't give a whit about what scripture says or whether the Holy spirit is involved or not.

How, specifically, do YOU KNOW what I give a whit about unless I tell you? How, exactly, do you read other men's minds? Why doesn't every person have this mystical ability? Do you see just how nutty your claims sound? Probably not.

Your bone of contention is why you should be ruled by scripture rather than your own philosophies.

No. My bone of contention is why you insist that everybody who is not ruled by your peculiar gratuitous interpretations of sacred scripture is wrong and not Christian. Just how and when did you become the defining touchstone of Christianity?

Nor is truth established by pointing to something that is true, adding assumptions to it that are not born out in the passage, then proclaiming the assumption as support for anything.

Then why do you do it?

What gripes you is the authority I have... [the authority you gratuitously claim. Exactly!].

< My authority is the testimony of Christ and the word.

I read that with mouth agape! Where did Jesus testify of the coming of the Havoc? Gotta say, "WOW!"

Your beef ain't with me, it's with scripture.

Non sequiter. You have not shown this, just asserted it without proof or support other than your implications of special authority, over and over and over and over and over, ad nauseam ad insanity.

The reason you have a beef with me is that I've pointed out your diversion from scripture.

Show me where you have pointed out MY diversion from scripture? Show me.

I'm happy to suffer for the Gospel's sake. If He could take the beating He took, I don't sweat you.

But you don't suffer for the Gospel's sake, you whine for the Havoc's pride and megalomania. Listen, I know Jesus Christ, and you are no Jesus Christ.