Search results

Jesus chose to presented two paths to follow. You chose Peter, rather than the spirit of God. Bad [finite] choice. But - go ahead...blame Jesus. See what that gets you. We don't have providence over God's word - He does. So...now you blame God for our choice. Nice.

You are either greatly troubled, or you have me confused with someone else. The church won't even consider what I have laid out for you. ...And the rest - that's not what I said.

This is the heart of your position and all that needs to be addressed - it is the one thing you have valued least: God is spirit. But you have chosen otherwise, that which is passing away, and continually speak against the increase of the spirit and the decrease of the flesh. Enjoy it will it...

Again, projecting... I have laid it all out for you, while you are cagey and accuse me of pretense. Be straight or be crooked, but so far you have not been straight.

No, you are mixing what is of time and the world, with that which is of the kingdom and timeless. Jesus spoke in both contexts. But to fully understand, one must rightly divide the word (which I have done for you...even if you did not understand it).

No. Yes. No. No. Those are the true answers from one who is alive. However, there is no timeline except in the world, and only because it is recorded (written) on a timeline. Therefore, if two who died yesterday asked questions 3 and 4, the answer would be, Yes. But if two who are alive ask...

This is what happens when there are fewer people of God and more people that are of the devil.

You are not making any sense. Nor do I believe Jesus and the thief never died. Here is what I said:

You accuse me of what you yourself are doing: you quote the scriptures and then say it isn't so. That is called Psychological projection, a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their...

There have been thousands of years of misunderstanding, but I said it correctly. "All" shall be judged, yet "some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt." But if you mean this: John 5:25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear...

The answer to this question has not been fully known until just recently. But neither answer in the above poll is correct. Rather...Christ "brings" all with Him when He comes into His kingdom ("today"), both the living and the dead.

You give men way too much credit on both sides of your conflict between the catholics and the protestants. God alone has providence over His word. It is not the church that is fallible, but wolves in sheep's clothing. But settling on that side of the Jordan does not separate you any more that...

Perhaps you can help me. I don't know their names...but they're the ones in the fancy robes and hats.

Again, you are mistaken. Those passages can be read two different ways: You say that Jesus was speaking "of" Peter. But the passages should be read as "to" Peter, but "of" the spirit and power of God...the [R]ock of ages, not Peter the [r]ock. You have been caught in the confusion. Bad choice.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." - You have your lot, accordingly. "One thing is needed"...and you have not chosen it. Obviously, you do not know what you are missing, or what might have been.

Oh but I said, I do not deny that the Holy Spirit guided the catholic church to declare the canon of scripture. But likewise you will receive what Israel got in Saul, having made the same choice. So then you do not accredit the Holy Spirit after all, but claim that the catholics are the keepers...

Thanks for carrying the water. But there is still the matter of choosing not to walk in the spirit, but rather in the ways of men, i.e., focusing on and promoting Peter, rather than exclusively focusing on the spirit of God. Which is not to say the Holy Spirit was not involved, for He was, just...

ETW, Welcome. There are many cautions against your take on the two witness and the woman. First, these are not the times of the flesh, but rather of God pouring out His spirit upon all people. And the greatest caution, is that we not join those who look "wherever the carcass is", for "there...

I agree. What the catholics did was very human - which we are all guilty of in some way. In fact...that is not what I would blame the catholics for at all. I simply blame them for being haughty about choosing the lesser choice. That's called: hypocrisy.

I am not denying that the catholics got the canon or how. I am saying you chose second place out of two choices...and got exactly what that entails. But, hey, you want to explain (concisely please) how you got the canon - please do.