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!
The entire thread didn't need to go past post #90 on page 5 Jack.
It's got all the scripture in it it needs to prove that something is catastrophically wrong with your system that does not follow God's Word at all.
Irrefutable.
And post #212 for your system was unrecoverable as it stripped away the protection from the system and showed how warped and theologically crazy it all sounds. Literally Eusebius, the "Father of Church History" refutes your system, as does the NT in post #90.
How dare you tell Christians that Jesus Christ was wrong about His own prophecy implying he was fallible.
That's antichristic. Your entire system implies that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God!
Jack I mean for the love of God, wake up.
Last edited:
I don't have a system. God does. It's called the Bible. See, you're wrong as usual!
Massive LIE indeed!
Rev 21 All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire!
Pay attention: I don't have a system!
You don't seem to have a clue about anything!
They’ve trained you into becoming passive, system-dependent Christians who barely follow God’s Word at all... just sitting around waiting for Jesus to appear in the sky and rescue everyone in a magical second “rapture” that somehow disappears the moment you remove the system used to manufacture it.
While you’re knowingly or unknowingly spreading a theology that implies Christ is fallible, that His prophecy remains unfulfilled, and therefore that He’s arguably not the Son of God.
It’s a horrific implication, but you’ve got to make it.
Otherwise your system says His words as written “will be wrong.”
While you’re knowingly or unknowingly spreading a theology that implies Christ is fallible, that His prophecy remains unfulfilled, and therefore that He’s arguably not the Son of God.
It’s a horrific implication, but you’ve got to make it.
Otherwise your system says His words as written “will be wrong.”
Last edited:
They? Who's they? Are you hallucinating, as usual?
Another MASSIVE LIE!
Rev 21 All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire!
Jesus is always right! See, you're wrong as usual!
Last edited:
Ask yourself.
“Why am I defending a theological system that can only survive by correcting, relocating, or explaining away the plain words of Christ Himself? At what point do I stop correcting Jesus to save my doctrine; and start correcting my doctrine to obey Jesus?"
“Why am I defending a theological system that can only survive by correcting, relocating, or explaining away the plain words of Christ Himself? At what point do I stop correcting Jesus to save my doctrine; and start correcting my doctrine to obey Jesus?"
When you listen to the ONLY Christ selected Apostle for today you will no longer be confused
That still doesn't answer the question.
You just introduced another premise that you now have to prove:
“Paul is the ONLY Christ-selected Apostle for today.”
Where does Paul say that?
Where does Jesus say that?
Where does Scripture say the words of Christ in Matthew 25 are not for Christians today because Paul later replaces or restricts their authority?!?
And where does Paul say Matthew 25 belongs to a different salvation program?
Book. Chapter. Verse. >
You can't answer a challenge about an unproved dispensational premise by introducing an even larger dispensational premise and treating that one as self-evident too.
If your answer to:
“Why are you overriding the plain words of Christ?”
is:
“Because only Paul applies to us today,”
then you haven't solved the problem.
You've simply moved the problem one level deeper.
Now prove that claim from Scripture.
Show where Paul declares himself the only apostle whose doctrine governs Christians today. >
Show where he tells believers to set aside, relocate, or dispensationally quarantine the teachings of Jesus and the Twelve. >
Show where he says Christ's teaching must be filtered through a later Pauline system before Christians are allowed to take Christ's words at face value. >
(The Apostolic Fathers would have been appalled by that premise, by the way. They did not teach a Christianity in which Paul displaced the words of Christ or the witness of the Twelve.)
Until then, this is not Paul correcting Jesus.
It's your system using Paul as permission to correct Jesus.
And that's exactly the issue you were asked to confront in the first place in the other thread.
Which you still have not.
Book. Chapter. Verse. Please >
Last edited:
I mean, otherwise we’re just out here stringing biblical details together until the conclusion we wanted magically appears.
Elvis is one of the Two Witnesses
Malachi 4:5 says Elijah is coming.
Luke 1:17 says John came “in the spirit and power of Elijah.”
Revelation 11:3 says God will raise up two witnesses.
Revelation 11:4 identifies them as “the two olive trees.”
David was a musician whose playing drove away an evil spirit — 1 Samuel 16:23.
Psalm 72:15 says of the king: “And he shall live.”
Therefore Elvis — the King, a musician, spiritually linked to David, and prophetically associated with a returning Elijah — must return during the Tribulation as one of the Two Witnesses.
Graceland is therefore prophetically one of the two olive trees.
And that's exactly the problem:
Every verse can be real, every quotation can be accurate, and the conclusion can still be completely invented if the connections between them were supplied by the system instead of by the text. That's what this method trains you to do - follow the system between the verses instead of following what the verses actually say.
Elvis is one of the Two Witnesses
Malachi 4:5 says Elijah is coming.
Luke 1:17 says John came “in the spirit and power of Elijah.”
Revelation 11:3 says God will raise up two witnesses.
Revelation 11:4 identifies them as “the two olive trees.”
David was a musician whose playing drove away an evil spirit — 1 Samuel 16:23.
Psalm 72:15 says of the king: “And he shall live.”
Therefore Elvis — the King, a musician, spiritually linked to David, and prophetically associated with a returning Elijah — must return during the Tribulation as one of the Two Witnesses.
Graceland is therefore prophetically one of the two olive trees.
And that's exactly the problem:
Every verse can be real, every quotation can be accurate, and the conclusion can still be completely invented if the connections between them were supplied by the system instead of by the text. That's what this method trains you to do - follow the system between the verses instead of following what the verses actually say.
Christ selected Paul and ONLY Paul to be your Apostle & Minister today to teach you how to be saved.
You reject that so I have no patience for you
Bye
Say you don't follow God's Word without saying you don't follow God's Word.
You were asked for Book. Chapter. Verse.
You couldn't produce it.
So instead, you repeated your theological system as if the system itself were Scripture, treated disagreement with your interpretation as rejection of Paul, and then walked away rather than prove the claim from the text.
Thats not Scripture correcting doctrine. That's doctrine insulating itself from Scripture.
You didn't answer the challenge.
You demonstrated it.
And saying this method teaches you to follow the system between the verses instead of following what the verses actually say may actually be an understatement.
This is how Christian forums end up with endless confused arguments where people throw hundreds of verses at each other, yet almost nothing ever gets resolved; because they're not necessarily arguing over what the individual verses say anymore. AT ALL..
They're arguing over each other's invisible systems connecting the verses together.
As already stated in this thread, imagine taking all six original Star Wars films, cutting them into thousands of twenty-second strips, throwing away the scripts, and then spending all day rearranging those perfectly authentic clips into completely different one-hour movies.
Every clip is really from Star Wars.
Every character is real.
Every line of dialogue may be quoted perfectly.
But the story you constructed from them is absolute nonsense.
That's how you eventually end up with:
Princess Leia secretly married Chewbacca, and their firstborn son was Wicket the Ewok.
Then somebody who actually follows the script says:
“That never happened. The Ewoks lived on the forest moon of Endor.”
And somebody screams back:
“NO! The creatures on Endor were actually the offspring of Princess Leia, Chewbacca, and an entire civilization of human-Wookie marriages!”
Then another theological schism appears:
“HERETIC! The Ewoks were indigenous to Endor. Leia and Chewbacca only had ONE hybrid child — Wicket — who merely LOOKED like the other Ewoks!”
And now you've got three denominations furiously quoting authentic Star Wars dialogue at each other to defend stories that
George Lucas never wrote!
That's the problem.
You can quote every verse correctly and still construct a theology the biblical authors never taught if the system is supplying the storyline between those verses.
At that point you're no longer interpreting God's Word.
YOU'RE LITERALLY EDITING IT!
God’s infallible Word... The 1909 remixes. Complete with a commentary track explaining that Chewbacca was secretly married to Princess Leia.
This is how Christian forums end up with endless confused arguments where people throw hundreds of verses at each other, yet almost nothing ever gets resolved; because they're not necessarily arguing over what the individual verses say anymore. AT ALL..
They're arguing over each other's invisible systems connecting the verses together.
As already stated in this thread, imagine taking all six original Star Wars films, cutting them into thousands of twenty-second strips, throwing away the scripts, and then spending all day rearranging those perfectly authentic clips into completely different one-hour movies.
Every clip is really from Star Wars.
Every character is real.
Every line of dialogue may be quoted perfectly.
But the story you constructed from them is absolute nonsense.
That's how you eventually end up with:
Princess Leia secretly married Chewbacca, and their firstborn son was Wicket the Ewok.
Then somebody who actually follows the script says:
“That never happened. The Ewoks lived on the forest moon of Endor.”
And somebody screams back:
“NO! The creatures on Endor were actually the offspring of Princess Leia, Chewbacca, and an entire civilization of human-Wookie marriages!”
Then another theological schism appears:
“HERETIC! The Ewoks were indigenous to Endor. Leia and Chewbacca only had ONE hybrid child — Wicket — who merely LOOKED like the other Ewoks!”
And now you've got three denominations furiously quoting authentic Star Wars dialogue at each other to defend stories that
George Lucas never wrote!
That's the problem.
You can quote every verse correctly and still construct a theology the biblical authors never taught if the system is supplying the storyline between those verses.
At that point you're no longer interpreting God's Word.
YOU'RE LITERALLY EDITING IT!
God’s infallible Word... The 1909 remixes. Complete with a commentary track explaining that Chewbacca was secretly married to Princess Leia.
I don't think you have a clue what you believe! Jesus is God. Hell Fire is FOREVER. Hope you figure it out before it's too late.
I don't even want to be in the same solar system when your manufactured “rapture” happens.
If the whole thing has to be built by relocating Christ’s words, quarantining whole sections of Scripture, inventing separate salvation programs, treating Paul as permission to override Jesus, importing a future seven-year framework into passages that never state it, turning inference into doctrine, treating your theological chart as though it were part of the inspired text, making Christ say less than He actually said, making Paul say more than he actually said, and stitching isolated verses together until the system appears in the spaces between them -
then you haven't merely interpreted Scripture. You've constructed a parallel storyline and demanded that God's Word conform to it.
And at that point, I would be extremely careful assuming the event at the end of that construction is rescue.
You mean this that Paul got DIRECT from Jesus?
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
What would you like to know about the Bible? You need to start all over. You need HELP!
1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 teaches that believers will be caught up to meet Christ.
It does not say:
before a seven-year tribulation,
that Matthew 25 belongs to another salvation program,
that tribulation believers can lose salvation,
that only Paul governs Christians today,
or that Christ’s own teaching must be reassigned to another dispensation.
You're taking something Paul actually said and surrounding it with things Paul never said.
Paul wrote the verses. Your system wrote the spaces between them.
So no, I’m not rejecting Paul.
I’m rejecting everything you keep adding to Paul.
Save me the dangerous dispensational patchwork stitched together between the verses that would've had the Apostolic Fathers completely out of their minds.
Show me the Book. Chapter. Verse. Please >
Amen! You got something right!
NOTHING I said contradicted Paul? lol NOTHING!
I simply quoted God. Why does that UPSET you??? You need HELP!
Last edited:
I almost forgot...
On top of everything else.. you're proselytizing a theology whose implications make Christ fallible.
And if Christ is fallible, then He is not the Son of God.
That alone is staggering.
Yea, but I "need help."
Wow..
On top of everything else.. you're proselytizing a theology whose implications make Christ fallible.
And if Christ is fallible, then He is not the Son of God.
That alone is staggering.
Yea, but I "need help."
Wow..
Last edited:
How many times are you gonna tell that LIE?
Rev 21 All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire!
Similar threads
