Posted on 11/30/2013 1:46:42 PM PST by fwdude
We simply disagree. I don’t think you understand how God saves sinners.
I understand the words that are attributed to Yeshua and Shaul, what more can there be?
You would have us believe that there is secret hidden meaning, contrary to the face value of their words. That sounds like the gnosticism of the mormons and freemasons.
No! I would have you believe nothing secret. I would have you take the totality of their words into consideration, not just your pet passages.
Eisegesis
It is the totality that I posted every time, and that seems to be what angers you.
No room was left for squirming.
>> “Eisegesis” <<
Could you have meant Exegesis?
Oh no. I said what I meant.
Whatever. You seem to have totally misunderstood me, as well as the Scriptures. But maybe I’ve misunderstood you as well, so let’s end this.
Then what is “Eisegesis?”
What concerns me is your dismissal of Yeshua’s testimony in the gospels.
Too many people fail to grasp Paul’s comments, and then think that that misunderstanding trumps Yeshua’s commandments.
I dismiss nothing. I simply read it in light of the totality of Scripture.
A true Clintonian hand waving.
I’ll pray for you.
Hey, Sal, you are always quick to condemn anyone who speaks other than with ‘your voice’ on the ‘Catholic’ threads, and you claim it on the basis of it’s being a ‘Religion’ thread. How about showing Paul Crouch the same respect you demand for the Popes...
And yes, Paul Crouch and each of the Popes are only men. To elevate any to higher levels is not for you to do. God judges. He expects us to leave judgement to Him. If we were to judge men who happen to have been Pope, as you are wanting to judge Paul Crouch, we would find many wanting, and I am sure that God knows which Popes are ‘saved’ and which ones are not. Just as he know who any of us are ‘saved’ and who are not.
That being said, I know whom I beliveth, and I know who my Savior is...Yeshua, the Christ...the Son of the living God. There are two questions that Jesus asks of each of us...’Whom do men say that I am?’...and the second...’Whom do you say that I am?’
I often wondered about the “I am of Jesus” faction... didn’t they have the right chap? What could be the matter with that?
NOW I think I understand what was going on there.
Our dear editor is to all appearances still viewing Jesus “according to the flesh.” Which Paul said he once did, but no longer. That is to be able to brag of a certain degree of supposed allegiance, and anyone who seems to fall short of that HAS to be among the damned. Of course that game works only till someone who has even a better fleshly imitation of Christianity comes along. Then we have a cat fight. And heaven laughs at the presumption of both of them.
And anyhow... the gospels themselves confess that they are sharply limited accounts. If someone could have tagged along with and diaried the Christ in all his earthly moments as Jesus, we’d have a much more detailed picture... but what’s the point? We don’t have a philosopher here to obey in the flesh. What’s already there is enough of a temptation to try to obey in the flesh. The bible gives us enough to get the holy fire going and keep it tended.
Thank You!
I shall return the favor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.