|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 3:54:47 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3095
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Do you not see that you demand concrete parameters and then belie them? Apparently, theo_book is unable to see his contradictory behavior.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 3:59:15 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
Do you not see that you demand concrete parameters and then belie them?
Are you referencing the parameters of time? They are not concrete but flexible. That is why they are so functional.
Allow an example. God demanded by covenant law, that the children of Israel obey the time elements of the covenant. i.e., keep the feast days on time as laid out in our covenant agreement.
There came a time when the children of Israel abandoned the covenant to the point they forgot it was even there. Upon discovery of the sacred scrolls in the temple, the priests read the scrolls to the king, who pleaded with God to allow them to keep the feast days even though the time of covenant agreement was past.
God made an exception one time because he read the hearts of his people and took pity on them for their zeal to please Him.
The TIME was flexible. Yet it was within the parameters of time that the covenant was designed, read, and agreed to.
Another time God sent Jonah to preach to Ninevah to warn them that in forty days Ninevah was to be destroyed. the people of Ninevah repented of their evil and God spared them. One generation later they again turned wicked and God destroyed them. It was an adjustment of time.
There is a reference in the Hebrew letter, to this concept of "adjusting the ages,"[Heb 11:3] "Through faith we understand that the ages were adjusted by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
The KJV translates it as "Worlds were framed" but that does not have any meaning such as what is in the Greek.
God constantly held man accountable to the time parameters of the covenant, and just as constantly made adjustments to the passage of times and ages, as they were lived out in the lives of men.
I do hope this helps understand the parameters of time as applied to creation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 4:10:11 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Do you not see that you demand concrete parameters and then belie them? Apparently, theo_book is unable to see his contradictory behavior.
Be nice Drmark.
It is not contradictory behaviour. It is all part of that "mystery" Paul spent so much time explaining. You can see it unfold for yourself if you look to the events as they unfolded in the old testament in the light of the explanations in the new.
Paul says God called things which are not as though they were. An example of this is found in the old testament, in the account of God's covenant with Abraham.
"As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee." [Gen 17:4-5]
Notice God said "thou shalt be" which is future tense, in verse 4? But immediately in verse five the tense is past as though it had already come to pass. "I have made thee" makes the event as real as reality itself.
As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations, before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were." [Rom 4:17]
"Through faith we understand that the (ages) worlds were (adjusted) framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." [Heb 11:3]
Thus do the parameters of time both control the covenants and allow for adjustments to be applied thereunto.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 4:22:24 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
The main problem is that you wax philosophical in your explanation and rely on personal perception to gain credence. The result is that your declarative is based on an interpretive pillar. The argument carries no weight as it lacks some fundamental logic as demanded by the parameters you have established. KWIM?
If by "philosophical" you mean I reference the scriptures.... maybe. If you mean I use philosophies of men instead of scrioptures, all I can say is read your bible and come up with your own.
As for the declaration being based upon an interpretive pillar, name one that is NOT. What do you perceive to be the parameters I have established. I only referenced parameters established by God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 4:40:41 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
But the truth of the matter is, Existence requires time, while time only allows for existence and measures it with duration.
For us, it does. For God, it does not. I still have not seen an explanation for time going in the other direction, and, by your premises, it must do so. What happens in that time as it becomes new history?
I fail to understand where this concept came from; "For us it does, for God it does not." God is the master of time, not time the master of God. It is God who exercises power in all that he does, while time only provides a medium for duration. All that God does, he does within the parameters of time. Since God is only concerned with today (Today while it is called today) and tomorrow, (feast days and the memorials of covenant), and the only use he has for yesterday is to remind us whence we have fallen, and been raised again; There is no reversal of time. There is no "going back" even for God. It is science fiction mixed with science phantasy. There is never an instance where scripture references such.
I find it interesting that many people who call themselves Christians never thought about an old earth until they were influenced by the beliefs of secular scientists who are ruled by Satan. 
In fact, science is one of Satan's biggest tools now and I believe that Satan will use scientific technology to entice everyone but God's true elect to receive the mark of the beast. So as many people who call themselves Christians are being more enticed by the outside world to follow Satan all under the guise of science, than this is setting up the world to follow the final anti-Christ because Christians who believe the bible as written are falling into the ever-increasing minority.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 4:44:19 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 541
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
t_b,
I am interested what you think about extra-Christian concepts of listenin gto nature. One example is Nietzche's "halcyon tone." This may be interesting to you. I would suggest you read about it, though, because I am not really knowledgable enough to characterize it for you beyond placing it in the present context. Also, the "om."
I have personally regarded these as demonic, because in their reification (their recognition and then affirmation) they seem to entail despair of teh human situation, favoring a pre-human or extra-human condition (rebelling against God).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 4:46:15 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
t_b,
I am interested what you think about extra-Christian concepts of listenin gto nature. One example is Nietzche's "halcyon tone." This may be interesting to you. I would suggest you read about it, though, because I am not really knowledgable enough to characterize it for you beyond placing it in the present context. Also, the "om."
I have personally regarded these as demonic, because in their reification (their recognition and then affirmation) they seem to entail despair of teh human situation, favoring a pre-human or extra-human condition (rebelling against God).
To whom are you speaking? If it's me, anything that contradicts the bible is from Satan. Anything. That's because only the bible is the living word of God. And Paul tells us not to go beyond what's written.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 5:54:12 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
Your argument for God to exist within the limits of time is based on your limitations. You are essentially equating God to man in some respects because you do not comprehend eternity. In truth, none of us can because it is way beyond our capacities. I can see that time is a concept that would place God in a box of a sort, so I do not subscribe to the notion that He is thus bound.
You seem to want to place YOUR own limitations on ME. I have no problem understanding eternity, nor even infinity. I not only work with infinity, I developed one of the mathematical concepts dealing with it. It is NOT beyond our capacity as you allege. though it may be beyond YOUR capacity, I cannot speak to that possibility. Personally I think you could understand it if you would quit letting other people tell you that you cannot.
God is eternal. I only have eternity in promise but it is a pretty good promise based upon a perfect source. And no, I do not place my limtations upon unlimited God. God is only limited by those things or concepts to which he places himself within the parameters of those limitations. i.,e., His Covenants, his promises, his oaths, his sense of mercy and his sense of judgment, and etc.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 5:59:21 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
t_b,
I am interested what you think about extra-Christian concepts of listenin gto nature. One example is Nietzche's "halcyon tone." This may be interesting to you. I would suggest you read about it, though, because I am not really knowledgable enough to characterize it for you beyond placing it in the present context. Also, the "om."
I have personally regarded these as demonic, because in their reification (their recognition and then affirmation) they seem to entail despair of teh human situation, favoring a pre-human or extra-human condition (rebelling against God).
My friend, please do not take offense at what I am about to say.
I have no interest in philosophies or philosophers, do not read the books about philosophy, nor any of the millions of books about God. I read the bible. I study the bible. I eat and sleep and live the bible. NOTHING else holds any interest for me.
I do not read commentaries because from then on I would have to remember the source of my understanding, whether it is from scripture or from some book ABOUT the bible.
Forgive me if I offend. I only want to let you know the focus of my interest.
< Message edited by theo_book -- 7/11/2008 8:19:49 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 6:00:52 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
t_b,
I am interested what you think about extra-Christian concepts of listenin gto nature. One example is Nietzche's "halcyon tone." This may be interesting to you. I would suggest you read about it, though, because I am not really knowledgable enough to characterize it for you beyond placing it in the present context. Also, the "om."
I have personally regarded these as demonic, because in their reification (their recognition and then affirmation) they seem to entail despair of teh human situation, favoring a pre-human or extra-human condition (rebelling against God).
To whom are you speaking? If it's me, anything that contradicts the bible is from Satan. Anything. That's because only the bible is the living word of God. And Paul tells us not to go beyond what's written.
If I understand the system at all, I think he was speaking to me. That little t-b up there at the top is me. Theo Book
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 11:39:41 PM
|
|
|
WesP
Posts: 2363
Joined: 11/28/2005
From: Where God needs me to be
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
Your argument for God to exist within the limits of time is based on your limitations. You are essentially equating God to man in some respects because you do not comprehend eternity. In truth, none of us can because it is way beyond our capacities. I can see that time is a concept that would place God in a box of a sort, so I do not subscribe to the notion that He is thus bound.
You seem to want to place YOUR own limitations on ME. I have no problem understanding eternity, nor even infinity. I not only work with infinity, I developed one of the mathematical concepts dealing with it. It is NOT beyond our capacity as you allege. though it may be beyond YOUR capacity, I cannot speak to that possibility. Personally I think you could understand it if you would quit letting other people tell you that you cannot.
God is eternal. I only have eternity in promise but it is a pretty good promise based upon a perfect source. And no, I do not place my limtations upon unlimited God. God is only limited by those things or concepts to which he places himself within the parameters of those limitations. i.,e., His Covenants, his promises, his oaths, his sense of mercy and his sense of judgment, and etc.
Sorry to offend. I was just relaying what the bible says. Peace!
_____________________________
Peace,
Wes
___________________________________
<--- BTW, this is the true function of corn! It is to help the oil industry and its functionaries, not detract from them! 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/11/2008 8:10:09 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3095
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
If by "philosophical" you mean I reference the scriptures.... maybe. No, we mean you interpret the Scriptures to suit your preconceived assumptions instead of reading the Scriptures for their original intent. This is the difference between eisegesis and exegesis. One of the best ways to minimize improper interpretation is to apply sound doctrinal tradition to personal understanding. You've made it quite clear that you disdain doctrinal tradition so that your "Lone Ranger" attitude is leaving you with significany contradictory behavior in this area. WesP and I are sorry that you seem unable to accept this simple fact and that's why I really have no further interest in wasting my time (or yours).
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/11/2008 8:12:39 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
Your argument for God to exist within the limits of time is based on your limitations. You are essentially equating God to man in some respects because you do not comprehend eternity. In truth, none of us can because it is way beyond our capacities. I can see that time is a concept that would place God in a box of a sort, so I do not subscribe to the notion that He is thus bound.
You seem to want to place YOUR own limitations on ME. I have no problem understanding eternity, nor even infinity. I not only work with infinity, I developed one of the mathematical concepts dealing with it. It is NOT beyond our capacity as you allege. though it may be beyond YOUR capacity, I cannot speak to that possibility. Personally I think you could understand it if you would quit letting other people tell you that you cannot.
God is eternal. I only have eternity in promise but it is a pretty good promise based upon a perfect source. And no, I do not place my limtations upon unlimited God. God is only limited by those things or concepts to which he places himself within the parameters of those limitations. i.,e., His Covenants, his promises, his oaths, his sense of mercy and his sense of judgment, and etc.
Sorry to offend. I was just relaying what the bible says. Peace!
My response probably has more offense than your post. sorry bout that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/11/2008 8:17:36 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
If by "philosophical" you mean I reference the scriptures.... maybe. No, we mean you interpret the Scriptures to suit your preconceived assumptions instead of reading the Scriptures for their original intent. This is the difference between eisegesis and exegesis. One of the best ways to minimize improper interpretation is to apply sound doctrinal tradition to personal understanding. You've made it quite clear that you disdain doctrinal tradition so that your "Lone Ranger" attitude is leaving you with significany contradictory behavior in this area. WesP and I are sorry that you seem unable to accept this simple fact and that's why I really have no further interest in wasting my time (or yours).
You know Doc, if you would put as much time into quoting the scripture and giving us YOUR interpretation for correction, it might be more productive; rather than just casting dispersion with anonymous accusations.
Which scriptures, what interpretations, what preconceived assumptions? Or are those just strawman arguments? Give examples and corrections. I certainly have never been shy about expressing where I thought YOU erred in the scriptures. Return the courtesy. Quit the accusations. Turn to constructive criticism instead of destructive analysis.
Why not try it? You may even grow to like it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/11/2008 8:26:49 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 541
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
I do not read commentaries because from then on I would have to remember the source of my understanding, whether it is from scripture or from some book ABOUT the bible.
Forgive me if I offend. I only want to let you know the focus of my interest.
Hey, no problem. That's cool to concentrate on the Bible.
However, I did want to point out that those concepts I was talking about are not commentaries on the Bible -- they are completely non-Christian. I was wondering what you thought about "listening to nature" from a secular standpoint -- because I don't think it necessarily entails listening to God. I think, really, that it can instruct us -- even these pagan concepts I am mentioning -- but they are not necessarily "from God." Of course, it's also true that it is not necessary to think about them.
Basically, though, I feel I have to be careful when people talk about listening to nature or learning from it. There is one movie, a documentary, called "Grizzly Man": the fellow set out to learn from nature, and the last thing he learned after 13 years hangin' with bears is "nature will eat you." haha
later
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/11/2008 3:43:44 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
quote:
I do not read commentaries because from then on I would have to remember the source of my understanding, whether it is from scripture or from some book ABOUT the bible.
Forgive me if I offend. I only want to let you know the focus of my interest.
Hey, no problem. That's cool to concentrate on the Bible.
However, I did want to point out that those concepts I was talking about are not commentaries on the Bible -- they are completely non-Christian. I was wondering what you thought about "listening to nature" from a secular standpoint -- because I don't think it necessarily entails listening to God. I think, really, that it can instruct us -- even these pagan concepts I am mentioning -- but they are not necessarily "from God." Of course, it's also true that it is not necessary to think about them.
Basically, though, I feel I have to be careful when people talk about listening to nature or learning from it. There is one movie, a documentary, called "Grizzly Man": the fellow set out to learn from nature, and the last thing he learned after 13 years hangin' with bears is "nature will eat you." haha
later
I believe much good can come from just sitting and listening to the night. (I say night rather than day because there is usually less stress at night)
Look to the stars and all their glory. Look to suns and planets in the night.
And think on God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/18/2008 8:56:23 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(theo) If by "philosophical" you mean I reference the scriptures.... maybe.
(drmark) No, we mean you interpret the Scriptures to suit your preconceived assumptions instead of reading the Scriptures for their original intent. This is the difference between eisegesis and exegesis. One of the best ways to minimize improper interpretation is to apply sound doctrinal tradition to personal understanding. You've made it quite clear that you disdain doctrinal tradition....
O.K. Doc. I looked into your "sound doctrinal tradition" concept and I think it needs a little guidance. What exactly do you reference when you say "traditional denominational doctrine?"
Care to elaborate? I asked you in an earlier post to tell us who YOU think is the correct denomination, and you refused to cooperate.
So, I will try again. Will you help me sort out the trash to get to the "true sound doctrinal tradition?" (I've been taking a few side bets here)
Protestant denominations are dividedand conflicted. These divisions and conflicts are largely traceable to different methods of interpreting the Bible. Ranging from the most conservative to the most liberal Christians we see the following three belief systems:
Group a) believes:
The Bible is the actual Word of God. Its authors were directly inspired by God.
The first five books of the Bible were written by Moses.
Since God cannot make mistakes their writings are also inerrant -- without error -- in their original autograph version.
It is only when a person is saved -- they repent of their sin and trust Jesus as Lord and Savior that the Holy Spirit possesses them and shows them what the biblical text really means. Unless a person is first saved, their interpretation of the Bible will inevitably be in error.
All passages are useful for the believer.
Group B) believes:
The Bible contains the Word of God. However, it also contains material that we must reject because it has always been opposed to the will of God. This includes passages which condone slavery; exhibit religious intolerance; involve the torturing prisoners; treat women as property; require the execution of non-virgin brides, witches and gays; and which advocate genocide, sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc.
Group C) believes:
The Bible is a wide-ranging human document. It was written by very human and fallible people who were not directly inspired by God.
The motivation of the authors was to promote the beliefs of their religious groups.
The first five books of the Bible were written by four unknown authors or groups of authors over a period of centuries and later redacted (edited) by a fifth person or group.
The Bible records the authors' evolution in spiritual and religious belief over a period of about 1,000 years.
They incorporated a lot of material from nearby Pagan religions, like the book of Genesis' creation stories and Noah's flood -- events that never happened.
The Bible contains a great deal of folklore, religious propaganda, and myth.
Stories of the great heroes of the ancient Hebrews (Adam, Abraham, Joseph, etc) are myths and involve characters who never existed.
Some of its content is profoundly immoral by today's religious and secular criteria, and must be ignored.
The Bible calls for justice and decent treatment of all persons. These themes are vitally important today.
With such a different approaches to the Bible it is extremely rare that conservative and liberal Christians will agree on anything about its message. By starting with such diverse beliefs about the Bible, conservative and liberal Protestants come to totally different conclusions about its contents.
There are over 1,000 Protestant denominations. However, the conservative / liberal split is seen also within Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc.
Faith Group.............tradition Founder............. Date (CE).........Location
Roman Catholic ......Jesus, Peter 1..................Circa 30....... 1 Palestine
Orthodox churches...Jesus, Peter 2 .................Circa 30........2 Palestine
Lutheranism........... Martin Luther....................1517...............Germany
Swiss Reformed Church.......Zwingli.................1523........... Switzerland
Mennonites......... No single founder.................1525............Switzerland
Anglican Communion....King Henry 8................1534.................England
Calvinism................... John Calvin...................1536.......... Switzerland
Presbyterianism.......... John Knox.....................1560.............. Scotland
Baptist Churches......... John Smyth...................1605................ Holland
Dutch Reformed..........Michaelis Jones...............1628.......... Netherlands
Amish....................... Jakob Ammann...............1693.......... Switzerland
Methodism................. John Wesley...................1739.............. England
Quakers.....................George Fox.....................1647.............. England
Moravians................ Count Zinendorf................1727.............Germany
Congregationalism.... John & Charles Wesley......1744...............England
Swedenborg..............Emanuel Swedenborg........1747...............Sweden
Brethren................... John Darby......................1828...............England
Latter-day Saints.......Joseph Smith....................1830.............. NY, USA
7th Day Adventists.....Ellen White.......................1860...............NH, USA
Salvation Army..........William Booth.................. 1865................England
Jehovah's Witnesses..Charles Russell.................1870................PA, USA
Christian Science..... Mary Baker Eddy.............. 1879................NH USA
Pentecostalism......... Charles Parham................1900................CA USA
Worldwide Church of God Herbert W. Armstrong 1933/1947....... OR USA
Unification Church.... Sun Myung Moon.............. 1954......... South Korea
Beliefs concerning the origin of the Roman Catholic Church differ: According to the Roman Catholic Church, the church was founded by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, some 50 days after Jesus' execution by the Roman Army, circa 30-APR CE. Peter moved to Rome, and became the first pope of the Christian movement. They believe that he was followed by a continuous succession of popes up to the present day. They teach that the Roman Church is the true church founded by God.
According to many liberal theologians and historians: Peter never moved to Rome. James, the brother of Jesus, headed the Jewish Christian Movement in Jerusalem after Jesus' execution, with Peter as an assistant. Paul returned to Palestine later and founded Pauline Christianity in competition to Jewish Christianity. Gnostic Christianity came still later. Only Pauline Christianity survived. They assert that centralization of church power in Rome did not occur until perhaps the mid 5th century CE. Pope Leo I, who reigned from 440 to 461 CE, claimed that the Bishop of Rome was highest ranking bishop. That time period should be considered as the start of the Roman Catholic church.
Beliefs concerning the origin of the Eastern Orthodox church also differ: The Eastern Orthodox church and most religious historians teach that there were five Patriarchates in the early years of Christianity. They were: Alexandria, Antioch Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome. Each was governed by a Bishop. With the advent of Islam, only Constantinople and Rome survived as major power centers. They were in a continual state of disagreement until they formally severed their relationship in 1054 CE by mutually excommunicating each other's leaders.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Bishop of Rome was universally recognized as the center of authority within very early Christianity. The Eastern branch of Christianity broke away from Rome in 1054 CE. However, the two groups both recognize the Apostolic succession and what the Roman Catholic Church considers to be "a valid Eucharist."
Herbert W. Armstrong (1892-1986) started the Radio Church of God in Eugene OR in 1933 -- one of many churches which contained the phrase "Church of God." He changed the prefix "Worldwide" in 1947.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/18/2008 9:31:34 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3095
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
O.K. Doc. I looked into your "sound doctrinal tradition" concept and I think it needs a little guidance. What exactly do you reference when you say "traditional denominational doctrine?"
Care to elaborate? I asked you in an earlier post to tell us who YOU think is the correct denomination, and you refused to cooperate.
So, I will try again. Will you help me sort out the trash to get to the "true sound doctrinal tradition?" (I've been taking a few side bets here) You have confused "doctrinal tradition" with denominational individualism. I cannot recall ever using the phrase "traditional denominational doctrine", although I've not reviewed all of my 3000+ posts. Your list of whatevers is meaningless as many "denominations" in it espouse heresy. Perhaps you would benefit from a review of essential Christian doctrine.
Feel free to collect your gambling winnings, if that is accepted under your doctrinal tradition.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/18/2008 12:58:28 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(theo) O.K. Doc. I looked into your "sound doctrinal tradition" concept and I think it needs a little guidance. What exactly do you reference when you say "traditional denominational doctrine?"
Care to elaborate? I asked you in an earlier post to tell us who YOU think is the correct denomination, and you refused to cooperate.
So, I will try again. Will you help me sort out the trash to get to the "true sound doctrinal tradition?" (I've been taking a few side bets here)
(drmark) You have confused "doctrinal tradition" with denominational individualism. I cannot recall ever using the phrase "traditional denominational doctrine", although I've not reviewed all of my 3000+ posts.
(theo) Welll... more to the point, do you bleieve it to be true? If it is truth, it will still be true. If it is not, you most probably did not say it.
quote:
(drmark)(Post #248) I've seen enough to once again realize the importance of denominational tradition in developing a correct understanding of essential Christian doctrine.
But then I only referenced your comment, I didn't quote it.
quote:
(drmark)(post #297) Your list of whatevers is meaningless as many "denominations" in it espouse heresy.
That has been my point for much of the discussion. YOU have "seen enough to once again realize the importance of denominational tradition in developing a correct understanding of essential Christian doctrine," even though "many "denominations" in it espouse heresy. Yup! Been my argument all along.
quote:
(drmark) Perhaps you would benefit from a review of essential Christian doctrine.
Perhaps you would benefit from a review of scripture without recourse to commentaries and theologians.
quote:
(drmark) Feel free to collect your gambling winnings, if that is accepted under your doctrinal tradition.
(theo) Already have. I only make bets with myself. I'll bet you do the same. (I bet I lose this one.)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/18/2008 1:20:14 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 541
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Why does God have a flag?
This is a rhetorical question, tho, so feel free to ignore it. Plus it is off topic. It justs strikes me as odd. A symbol in the cross, sure, but a flag? Why can't we just stick the cross on a piece of fabric and not call it a flag? Are we supposed to put this flag UNDERneath the American flag, as stated by law that all flags should below the US' on teh same mast? Isn't that how the law goes? Off topic off topic, I know!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/18/2008 2:50:12 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Why does God have a flag?
This is a rhetorical question, tho, so feel free to ignore it. Plus it is off topic. It justs strikes me as odd. A symbol in the cross, sure, but a flag? Why can't we just stick the cross on a piece of fabric and not call it a flag? Are we supposed to put this flag UNDERneath the American flag, as stated by law that all flags should below the US' on teh same mast? Isn't that how the law goes? Off topic off topic, I know!
Probably just one more way for some men to subjugate other men. Make them bow to their flag of God.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
