How many times are you gonna tell that LIE?
Rev 21 All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire!
When Doctrine Corrects Christ
- Thread starter The Gospel of Christ
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
And now we're right back to Bosom Buddies theology from a couple pages back:
Tom Hanks was really a woman pretending to be a man while secretly being a woman.
At some point, the interpretation becomes so tangled that the system has to keep explaining why the obvious meaning isn't really the obvious meaning all while never producing the Book. Chapter. Verse. that actually establishes the premise in the first place.
That isn't clarity.
That's the doctrine surviving by endlessly rewriting the premise instead of proving it from the text.
So...
Book. Chapter. Verse. Please >
Tom Hanks was really a woman pretending to be a man while secretly being a woman.
At some point, the interpretation becomes so tangled that the system has to keep explaining why the obvious meaning isn't really the obvious meaning all while never producing the Book. Chapter. Verse. that actually establishes the premise in the first place.
That isn't clarity.
That's the doctrine surviving by endlessly rewriting the premise instead of proving it from the text.
So...
Book. Chapter. Verse. Please >
I'm not interested in your gay fairy tales. No Christian is! Maybe you should find a gay forum to spew.
I'm sorry Jack, but if you can't produce a single Book. Chapter. Verse. to corroborate the central claims of this dangerous theology, then I have no reason whatsoever to treat it as biblical. Nor should anyone else.
Calling an analogy “gay” does not magically turn your assumptions into Scripture.
It just advertises that you still don't have the verse.
You're defending a system that repeatedly has to relocate Christ's words, override their plain meaning, manufacture distinctions the text never states, and then call those additions “the Bible.”
And worse, its implications make Christ fallible; which means your system ultimately collides with the very claim that He is the Son of God.
So spare me the insults and the theatrical outrage.
Show me the text.
Book. Chapter. Verse. >
Last edited:
That was YOUR 'gay analogy'. Remember?
Rev 21 All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire!
Rev 21 All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire!
Spare me your gay analogies!
A Baphomet statue is easy to recognize.
A theology that quietly makes Christ fallible while claiming to defend Him is far more dangerous.
I think you're a TROLL. I wonder how many have you on ignore. Take your gay agenda somewhere else.
Calling me a troll and inventing a “gay agenda” still does not produce the Book. Chapter. Verse.
You were asked to prove your theology from Scripture.
You still haven't.
Every time the question gets tighter, the answer gets more personal and the Scripture gets more absent.
That's becoming impossible not to notice.
Still waiting, Jack.
Book. Chapter. Verse. >
I'm not interested you your gay agenda. Go away.
This thread is not about gays. You're off topic, to be kind! I'm not interested in your gay agenda. Go away.
Correct, Jack.
This thread is not about gays. You made it about gays because you still can't answer the actual question.
Nobody asked you about sexuality.
You were asked for Book. Chapter. Verse.
Instead of producing it, you introduced “gay agenda,” called me a troll, and told me to go away.
That's not me going off topic.
That's you dragging the thread off topic because the theological challenge is still sitting there unanswered.
So remove every reference to “gay” from your last several posts and what remains?
Nothing.
Still waiting.
Book. Chapter. Verse. >
Jack, we've now gone from insults, to “gay agenda,” to calling me Satan.
And through all of it, you still haven't produced the Book. Chapter. Verse.
Calling the person asking for Scripture “Satan” is not an argument.
It's what happened when the argument ran out.
Still waiting.
Book. Chapter. Verse. >
And through all of it, you still haven't produced the Book. Chapter. Verse.
Calling the person asking for Scripture “Satan” is not an argument.
It's what happened when the argument ran out.
Still waiting.
Book. Chapter. Verse. >
Last edited:
Your system..
Makes Christ fallible.
Makes Christ wrong about the timing of His own prophecy.
Makes His own words bend until they finally fit your system.
And if Christ can be wrong about His own prophecy, then your theology has created a Christ who is not infallible; which strikes at the very claim that He is the Son of God.
All so Jesus can somehow be talking to you, thousands of years later (in perpetuity no less), while Scripture gets cut apart, relocated, reclassified, and stitched back together into a theological Frankenstein-nightmare assembled between the verses.
That's not a harmless interpretive quirk.
That's a doctrinal monstrosity.
Absolutely outrageous and beyond dangerous.
The Apostolic Fathers would have recoiled from it.
And the ugliest part is this:
You're not saving Christ from contradiction.
You're saving your system by making Christ the one who was wrong.
Repent
Makes Christ fallible.
Makes Christ wrong about the timing of His own prophecy.
Makes His own words bend until they finally fit your system.
And if Christ can be wrong about His own prophecy, then your theology has created a Christ who is not infallible; which strikes at the very claim that He is the Son of God.
All so Jesus can somehow be talking to you, thousands of years later (in perpetuity no less), while Scripture gets cut apart, relocated, reclassified, and stitched back together into a theological Frankenstein-nightmare assembled between the verses.
That's not a harmless interpretive quirk.
That's a doctrinal monstrosity.
Absolutely outrageous and beyond dangerous.
The Apostolic Fathers would have recoiled from it.
And the ugliest part is this:
You're not saving Christ from contradiction.
You're saving your system by making Christ the one who was wrong.
Repent
Last edited:
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Or JESUS was pointing to His Resurrection on the 3rd Day
Which is pretty clear when HE says: "the third day I shall be perfected"
I wasn't referring to you. But you did answer to the name Satan.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
ScottA
Well-Known Member
Yes, of course. What I was addressing rather, was Jay Ross's referring to "this generation" as a future generation, against what Jesus said of His own salvation schedule of events.
Similar threads
