Paul's Thorn In The Flesh=Not a Sickness but a Messenger of Satan to buffet me.

[Helen]

@Hidden In Him

 

[Hidden In Him]

@Hidden In Him

View attachment 2854

Well I appreciate that, especially coming from Charlie Brown and Snoopy!

 

[Hidden In Him]

@Hidden In Him

View attachment 2854

Then again, even Snoopy had his battles to fight.

 

[TheHolyBookEnds]

The Context:

2 Corinthians 12:1-21

The context of Paul's “thorn” [vs 7], was specifically said to be “in the flesh” [vs 7, Greek, “τη σαρκι”], and therefore was not an 'evil spirit', but an “infirmit[y]” [vs 5,9,10; Greek “ασθενειαις”, of body or mind] that was constantly with him, even though he had prayed to God “thrice” [vs 8] for “it”/”thing” [vs 8] to be 'removed' [vs 8; “depart”; Greek “αποστη”]. Jesus told him, that “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” [vs 9] The Greek word for “weakness” is “ασθενεια” and it means feebleness, weakness, disease of body or mind, and is the same root word used in vs 5,9,10 for “infirmities”. See again a mention in 2 Corinthians 11:30:

If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities. 2 Corinthians 11:30​

We see that Paul twice called it “my [mine] infirmities” [2 Corinthians 11:30, 12:9], which he says was “in the flesh” and not of spirit. The part where Paul says, “the messenger of satan”, is referring to the “infirmity of the flesh” [Galatians 4:13], which he says was “my temptation” [Galatians 4:14], through which “infirmity” the devil/satan tried to get to Paul with over this matter of the “eyes” [Galatians 4:15]. Satan always loves to attempt to cause us to doubt God in his allowing certain things to remain with us for a time. Yet, God's purpose is to demonstrate His love towards us, in that He knows what is best for our own salvation. Paul was to leave his infirmity with God, and trust Him and continue where the LORD led him.

Paul is contrasting his clear spiritual eyesight and the visions he received from Jesus, with that of his present poor physical condition, wherein he had to preach with such physical infirmity, that he may not be puffed up at receiving such blessing of God to even see Heaven [Paul, speaking of himself in the third person, the one that was caught up in visions and revelations, as was made known from his first encounter [Acts 9:3-16]].

It is when we recognize our need of Christ Jesus in all things, even though we may be granted great gifts, that we truly see. Therefore, this “thorn” “in the flesh” was “given” [vs 7, “there was given to me”] to Paul by God that he might not be exalted beyond measure, puffed up, by the great things shown unto him, done for him, etc and so trust in his own righteousness, works, flesh, etc and come to be destroyed of that which was to be a blessing. God allowed Paul's eyesight to remain in the condition it was, to keep humility in Paul, and to help him to always see his need of Jesus Christ.

The word for “thorn” in 2 Corinthians 7 is the Greek “σκολοψ”, which means thorn/brier/prickly/pointy [like a stake or pallisade], as we see again in the so-called LXX [Septuagint]:

But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell. Numbers 33:55

ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀπολέσητε τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ προσώπου ὑμῶν, καὶ ἔσται οὓς ἐὰν καταλίπητε ἐξ αὐτῶν, σκόλοπες ἐν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ὑμῶν καὶ βολίδες ἐν ταῖς πλευραῖς ὑμῶν καὶ ἐχθρεύσουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἐφ᾿ ἣν ὑμεῖς κατοικήσετε, Numbers 33:55 LXX
​

In this passage we see a clear connection with the “pricks” [thorn] of the “eyes” and “sides”, which are the exact words Paul also uses. Further, we also see:

And there shall be no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, nor any grieving thorn of all that are round about them, that despised them; and they shall know that I am the Lord GOD. Ezekiel 28:24

καὶ οὐκ ἔσονται οὐκέτι τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ Ισραηλ σκόλοψ πικρίας καὶ ἄκανθα ὀδύνης ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν περικύκλῳ αὐτῶν τῶν ἀτιμασάντων αὐτούς· καὶ γνώσονται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος. Ezekiel 28:24 LXX

Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths. Hosea 2:6 [LXX Hosea 2:8]

διὰ τοῦτο ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ φράσσω τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτῆς ἐν σκόλοψιν καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσω τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτῆς, καὶ τὴν τρίβον αὐτῆς οὐ μὴ εὕρῃ· Hosea 2:8 LXX
​

We, know that though Paul had been blinded by His encounter with Jesus [Acts 9:9], yet he later had his eyesight restored to where he could see [Acts 9:12,17,18], yet Paul had not clear physical eyesight, and this is witnessed in several places in the Scripture:

[1] Paul could not immediately distinguish the High Priest from the other Council Members:

And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. Acts 23:1

And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Acts 23:2

Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? Acts 23:3

And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Acts 23:4

Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. Acts 23:5
​

[2] Paul, in writing to the Galatians, speaks of their original love to him, in that they would have plucked out their own eyes and given them to him for use if they could:

Brethren, I beseech you, be as I [am]; for I [am] as ye [are]: ye have not injured me at all. - Galatians 4:12

Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. - Galatians 4:13

And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, [even] as Christ Jesus. - Galatians 4:14

Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if [it had been] possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me. - Galatians 4:15

Notice, how Paul uses some of the same terminology to speak of this “thorn”. He used the words “infirmity”, “of the flesh”, “in my flesh” and in this instance he clearly speaks of the “eyes” as being the source of the infirmity.
​

[3] Paul, though he personally wrote the letter to the Galatians [6:11], to show his great love for them, he normally used a personal scribe [amanuensis] to do so [see “I Tertius, who wrote this epistle ...” Romans 16:22] and usually just signed the letter once transcribed [see “The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand.” 1 Corinthians 16:21 and “The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.” 2 Thessalonians 3:17 and “The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen.” Colossians 4:18 and “I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.” Philemon 1:19], even though Paul was a thoroughly learned man in letters, writing, in several languages [1 Corinthians 14:18], etc [Acts 22:3, 23:6; Philippians 3:5].​

 

[quietthinker]

Thanks THBE, that was helpful.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Yes, Sunday is observed in honor of the resurrection, but it's purely by tradition, not a directive in Scripture. Jesus had a lot to say about the "vain" worship of tradition and "commandments of men" in Matthew 15.

Since the Old Covenant is the commandments of men, you are overlooking Matthew 12:1-7 for why Jesus is Lord of the sabbath day for why you and every believer are guiltless for profaning the sabbath day.

You're statement about "synagogue missionary work" is not factual. There are zero Sunday morning services recorded in the Bible.

1 Corinthians 16:1-2 is Paul giving an order for all the churches to follow in how they were to provide for the missionaries in the field and that is by taking a portion from the bounty collected so that there is no separate collection being asked for in that respect to supporting the saints. It is done on the first day of the week when they hold that collection during church service.

Acts 20 records a "first day of the week" gathering which was actually a Saturday night, post-Sabbath gathering, when the first day of the week began after the Sabbath sun had set, and this meeting continued well into midnight, after which the dawn came and Paul left for Troas and did not stick around for the non-existent "Sunday morning service" which everyone wants so desperately to be there, but just isn't there. The chapter is there to record the miracle of a dead man revived, not a change of Sabbath to Sunday.

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

It was upon the first day of the week, Sunday. Saturday as each day of the week does, begins at sunset to sunset. In other words, per creation week, each day was evening and morning each day. So the disciples were gathered on Sunday when they were breaking bread, and he preached until midnight, with intentions to depart sometime on Monday morning. It did not say on what time of the day Paul began preaching unto them on Sunday, but it hardly meant he was preaching after sunset on the sabbath day when they break their bread upon the first day of the week; Sunday.

Besides, even if Sunday observance did take place after Jesus died, it was one day too late to be included in the New Covenant - because Paul plainly says in Galatians 3:15 and Hebrews 9:16 that while a "testator" lives, his testament, or covenant, can be altered as much as he wants, but when the "testator" dies, the covenant becomes confirmed and unchangeable. The only way Sunday observance could have been included in the New Covenant as a replacement for the seventh day Sabbath is that the change be made BEFORE the "Testator" Jesus died, just as Communion, Baptism, etc., was established as part of the New Covenant before He died.

You are applying Him as a Testator of the Old Covenant rather than the New Covenant. As baptism and communion is of the New Covenant, then so His words regarding why His disciples are blameless for profaning the sabbath day in Matthew 12:1-7 and that is because Jesus Christ is with them.

Paul says we are not to judge any one in regards to any day of the week because Christ is able to make us stand for we are the Lord's.

Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

Paul gave no exception. If you seek to be justified fro keeping the sabbath day as not sinning against God then consider this; under the Old Covenant, Jews were to put to death any Jew violating the sabbath day as part of keeping the sabbath day holy. We do not see Jesus teaching how to keep the sabbath day under the New Covenant that is required for Him to say that believers are not to stone any believer for violating the sabbath day in this "new kind of observance" of the sabbath day. It is found wanting.

And yet we find Jesus giving mercy to His disciples for profaning the sabbath day in Matthew 12:1-7 by citing 2 examples in the Old Testament how saints that HAD VIOLATED the sabbath day but were guiltless because they were in the Temple and from those 2 examples, Jesus said "One greater than the Temple was here," meaning Himself in why His disciples were guiltless.

So you are not required to keep the sabbath day in pleasing the Lord. You are required to keep the faith which is the good fight in pleasing the Lord because by your faith in Him as Lord of the Sabbath is why you are blameless for profaning the sabbath day as He alone is able to make you stand without having the need to keep the sabbath day.

 

[Phoneman777]

Since the Old Covenant is the commandments of men...

Sorry, friend, the OC consisted of God promising to bless Israel if Israel promised to obey His Law, not "man-made" commandments.

1 Corinthians 16:1-2 is Paul giving an order for all the churches to follow in how they were to provide for the missionaries in the field and that is by taking a portion from the bounty collected so that there is no separate collection being asked for in that respect to supporting the saints. It is done on the first day of the week when they hold that collection during church service.

Paul told them to "lay by him in store", which means "store up at your house" - not in a church collection plate - an oft overlooked, yet crucial detail, by those who want to find a Sunday morning church service in this verse.
Jews got paid at the end of the work week, but went home to get ready for Sabbath, not to handle financial affairs. They waited until "the first day of the week" to do that. No Sunday morning service here.

Acts 20:7... It did not say on what time of the day Paul began preaching unto them on Sunday

Of course it tells us what time he began preaching:
the dark part of the first day of the week, which we call "Saturday night" which is why there were "many lights burning". He left when the light part of the first day of the week arrived - what we call "Sunday morning". No Sunday morning service here.

You are applying Him as a Testator of the Old Covenant rather than the New Covenant.

I said most explicitly that Jesus is the Testator of the New Covenant - and the Bible agrees. His sacrifice ratified the New Covenant, just as Moses' sacrifices ratified the Old. The Sunday keeping world needs to recognize that Sunday cannot be part of the New Covenant because it wasn't established until after Jesus ratified it, and once ratified, it could not and cannot be altered. The New Covenant consists of God writing His laws including the Fourth Commandment on our hearts, as plainly stated in Scripture.

We are not to judge any one in regards to any day of the week because Christ is able to make us stand for we are the Lord's. Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it."

Consider for a moment that Paul repeatedly rejected the need for Christians to obey any laws having to do with Jewish ceremonies or sacrifices. Also consider that Paul enjoined several of the Ten Commandments as obligatory for Christians. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, the picture that emerges is that Paul here in Romans 14 was referring to "Jewish Feast Days", and certainly not one of the Ten Commandments that God wrote with His own finger in stone, which He then promises to write on our hearts as New Covenant Christians. The Sabbath commandment is just as important today as "thou shalt not kill, lie, commit adultery, covet, etc.

If you seek to be justified fro keeping the sabbath day...

You don't realize it, so I'll tell you plainly that it is highly insulting to accuse others of practicing paganism - which is what you do when you claim they're attempting to earn salvation by works. I keep the Sabbath because Jesus said, "If ye love Me, keep My commandments" and I love Jesus. Jesus Himself taught even perfectly executed works are "unprofitable", so how much less "profitable" are is our imperfect obedience?

And yet we find Jesus giving mercy to His disciples for profaning the sabbath day in Matthew 12:1-7 by citing 2 examples in the Old Testament how saints that HAD VIOLATED the sabbath day but were guiltless because they were in the Temple and from those 2 examples, Jesus said "One greater than the Temple was here," meaning Himself in why His disciples were guiltless.

1) Not one person was obligated to observe the erroneous Sabbath laws of misguided Jews, which laws those Jews accused the disciples of breaking.
2) Jesus' words that "one greater than the temple is here" wasn't a rebuke of the Sabbath, it was a rebuke to the hypocritical Pharisees who had no problem with David unlawfully entering the temple and eating the shewbread but had a huge problem with "One greater than the temple" healing and resurrecting on the Sabbath.
3) Yes, the priests profaned the Sabbath and were held blameless because their round the clock intercession was needed for the preservation of God's people. All others who are resting in the finished work of Jesus our High Priest are to evidence this inner, spiritual rest by outwardly and literally resting from our labors every Sabbath from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday, according to Hebrews 4:9 KJV

So you are not required to keep the sabbath day in pleasing the Lord. You are required to keep the faith which is the good fight in pleasing the Lord because by your faith in Him as Lord of the Sabbath is why you are blameless for profaning the sabbath day as He alone is able to make you stand without having the need to keep the sabbath day.

I'll let the Bible answer this one:
"If ye will enter into life, keep the commandments."

"And why call ye Me, Lord Lord, and do not the things which I say?"

"Hereby we do know that we know Him if we keep His commandments. He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

"For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not grievous."

"Depart from Me, ye that work iniquity."

 

[Phoneman777]

@Hidden In Him

View attachment 2854

They accused Elijah of troubling Israel with his rude, critical, and argumentative preaching and teaching. Elijah told them it was actually their disregard of God's commandments and worship of the devil which was the source of the trouble - and the same is still true today.

 

[Hidden In Him]

They accused Elijah of troubling Israel with his rude, critical, and argumentative preaching and teaching. Elijah told them it was actually their disregard of God's commandments and worship of the devil which was the source of the trouble - and the same is still true today.

Oh brother! Phoneman, it was because Elijah prophesied no rain that Ahab called him a "troubler of Israel." (1 Kings 17:1).

 

[Phoneman777]

Oh brother! Phoneman, it was because Elijah prophesied no rain that Ahab called him a "troubler of Israel." (1 Kings 17:1).

Look, lets not pretend that Ahab who "did evil in the sight of the LORD above all that were before him" didn't know why Elijah was sent by God to stop the rain. Bound up in Elijah's brief meteorological forecast was an unspoken:

• rebuke by God for what Ahab was doing
• confirmation of disfavor with God into which Ahab had fallen
• pronouncement of divine judgment against Ahab and is entire idolatrous family.

While you scoff at the idea, Ahab and his entire cabinet thought otherwise, placing him on the royal FBI (Fervent Baal Idolaters) Most Wanted Criminal list as the most rude, critical, and argumentative subject in the entire kingdom.

Sometimes the silence of unspoken truth can be absolutely deafening.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Sometimes the silence of unspoken truth can be absolutely deafening.

Yes, but sometimes it can be completely imaginary, LoL.

Phoneman, please don't justify being rude, critical, insulting, argumentative, etc. I'm saying that atm for your sake, not anyone else's.
Unlike your "proof" text, I can show you numerous passages where the New testament writers very specifically taught NOT to do this.

For starters, this one right here:
"The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those who oppose him, if peradventure God will give them repentance unto an acknowledging of the truth" (2 Timothy 2:25)

 

[Nancy]

Hidden In Him : Love that Meme

 

[Phoneman777]

Yes, but sometimes it can be completely imaginary, LoL.

Phoneman, please don't justify being rude, critical, insulting, argumentative, etc. I'm saying that atm for your sake, not anyone else's.
Unlike your "proof" text, I can show you numerous passages where the New testament writers very specifically taught NOT to do this.

For starters, this one right here:
"The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those who oppose him, if peradventure God will give them repentance unto an acknowledging of the truth" (2 Timothy 2:25)

Hidden In Him, firstly, you seem to be under the supposition that as long as you include "LOL" or "funny" memes along with your rude, insulting, critical, argumentative posts, they cease to be such. They do not. Practice what you preach, please.

Secondly, while there's no excuse for yours or anyone else's rudeness or insults, being critical of and argumentative against false doctrine is action to which Paul plainly calls each and every one of us, according to Ephesians 5:11.

Thirdly, since my conclusions about how Ahab felt about Elijah are to you so scoff-worthy, you could find out if the rest of the community agrees with you of me by posting a thread asking people if Ahab's anger toward Elijah was limited only to the prophet having caused the drought --- OR --- if Ahab was angry because he knew the prophet was sent to rain on his pagan, Baal-worshiping parade. I'd be humble enough to admit I'm barking up the wrong tree, but I seriously doubt I am.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Hidden In Him, firstly, you seem to be under the supposition that as long as you include "LOL" or "funny" memes along with your rude, insulting, critical, argumentative posts, they cease to be such. They do not. Practice what you preach, please.

Oh come on! So I'm not supposed to laugh? As God is my witness and will testify on my behalf in eternity, I do so in a good spirit. If I were being insulting I would feel conviction in my heart about it, but I don't. In fact, by not getting offended with you but rather maintaining a joyful Spirit in such conversations, I'm leaving the door open for reconciliation, am I not?

Secondly, while there's no excuse for yours or anyone else's rudeness or insults...

Where on earth is this coming from now? How about if you back up and show me where I offended you. Do you mean by this?

[Meme deleted].

If so, then I apologize, and I'll erase it if you like. It wasn't meant to offend. I was keeping things light so as not to get into some heated debate with you over it. Is the above what offended you?

Ephesians 5:11.

Certainly we're called to reprove sin. I agree. We're just not supposed to be insulting about it. So again, is the above what has you so upset? :

Thirdly, since my conclusions about how Ahab felt about Elijah are to you so scoff-worthy

"Scoff-worthy" is too strong. I do think you really goofed, but again what I said in response was not written in a bad spirit.

you could find out if the rest of the community agrees with you of me by posting a thread asking people

Phoneman, what gives you the impression that anyone around here posts a thread asking everyone else what they believe first before they come to a conclusion? Do you do this? If you do then fine, but how am I guilty of sinning if I do not depend upon clearing the things I believe with everyone else first? What are you proposing here, a ChristianityBoard Sanhedrin to tell us all what to believe?

As for what interpretation would have more support, I think most would likely take my view after the evidence was in, but I'm not out trying to embarrass you. I was simply having a dialogue. How is the matter so serious?

I'd be humble enough to admit I'm barking up the wrong tree, but I seriously doubt I am.

If it's something you want confirmation for your position on, do it. I have no problems with that. In fact, I hope for your view gets the most votes. But you may be a little disappointed to find I'm still not swayed by majority opinions sometimes. I always take other people's opinions into account, yes, but at the end of the day they are not the final say in what I believe.

 

[Phoneman777]

Oh come on! So I'm not supposed to laugh? As God is my witness and will testify on my behalf in eternity, I do so in a good spirit. If I were being insulting I would feel conviction in my heart about it, but I don't. In fact, by not getting offended with you but rather maintaining a joyful Spirit in such conversations, I'm leaving the door open for reconciliation, am I not?

What about others who, unlike you, feel that religious doctrinal errors are no laughing matter, who are as righteously indignant today as Jesus was when He saw how those entrusted with freely disseminating the light of salvation had so corrupted it in order to make merchandise of it? Should their sober, serious attitude towards error be grounds to accuse them of rudeness or insults, especially when they too feel no conviction of the Holy Spirit as you do?

Where on earth is this coming from now? How about if you back up and show me where I offended you. Do you mean by this?

If so, then I apologize, and I'll erase it if you like. It wasn't meant to offend. I was keeping things light so as not to get into some heated debate with you over it. Is the above what offended you?

Hold on, I'm no liberal snowflake - I absolutely could not care less about other's insults or accusations or silly memes meant to denigrate me. When you stand for truth, that comes with the territory, seeing that most "Christians" are going to end up shocked to learn Jesus doesn't have any idea who they are. I just have a problem with hypocrisy.

Certainly we're called to reprove sin. I agree. We're just not supposed to be insulting about it.

You keep insisting I've been insulting, but you have yet to post any examples. If my facts offend or insult you, it's time you learn that facts don't care about our feelings. My speculation that Ahab had a very low opinion of Elijah seems to have struck a nerve with you, though.

"Scoff-worthy" is too strong.

You posted a giant Jesus-facepalm meme - that's enough to peg any needle deflection scoff meter out there, even the ones with dead batteries in them.

Phoneman, what gives you the impression that anyone around here posts a thread asking everyone else what they believe first before they come to a conclusion?

I've draw my conclusions based on Scripture and the thoughts of competent religious thinkers. Your response to my Ahab/Elijah proposition broke the needle on the scoff meter, so I challenged you to find out what the consensus view is. But, I'm not holding my breath seeing that yours seems to be mostly made up of hot air LOL ("LOL" means "not insulting you", right?)

As for what interpretation would have more support, I think most would likely take my view after the evidence was in, but I'm not out trying to embarrass you. I was simply having a dialogue. How is the matter so serious?

OK, now you're really making me laugh. You actually think that Ahab's only problem with Elijah was that he caused the drought and not that Ahab knew Elijah was his spiritual enemy sent by God to rebuke and judge him for his devotion to Baal? Now I may have to post the challenge myself.

If it's something you want confirmation for your position on, do it. I have no problems with that. In fact, I hope for your view gets the most votes. But you may be a little disappointed to find I'm still not swayed by majority opinions sometimes. I always take other people's opinions into account, yes, but at the end of the day they are not the final say in what I believe.

Finally we agree on something. Majority opinion means squat when the Bible is crystal clear on a topic. Take the Sabbath, for instance. The fourth commandment is clear as to which day God considers the day of rest - the seventh day - a day which all Christians will observe for all eternity in the kingdom. The majority of Christendom chooses to reject this day, preferring to keep what the Catholic church claims is their "Mark of authority" - Sunday, which they find zero verses for which to substantiate this change, but bow in reverent obedience to the Catholic church anyway. Therefore, it doesn't matter if you're in the minority if your position lines up with Scripture.

 

[Hidden In Him]

What about others who, unlike you, feel that religious doctrinal errors are no laughing matter

Now wait a minute. Who said I don't take doctrinal errors seriously? I take all sorts of abuse from people all the time on Forums, undeservedly (and no, not because humor was involved), from people just because I oppose their position on something. Who says I don't take errors seriously?

Should their sober, serious attitude towards error be grounds to accuse them of rudeness or insults,

No, Phoneman, "their sober, serious attitude towards error are not grounds to accuse them of rudeness or insults." Their rudeness and insults are grounds to accuse them of rudeness or insults.

especially when they too feel no conviction of the Holy Spirit as you do?

This quote is really worrisome... I wouldn't say this if you hadn't posted these words, but be concerned here. This may mean you have seared your conscience past the point of knowing right from wrong at this point. No one who is rude and insulting to people feels good about it if they are sensitive to the Holy Spirit. The suggestion that you are not feeling any conviction is disturbing, and if I were you I would stop and ask the Lord to reveal to me if I hadn't possibly been deceived in the matter. NOT saying these things to make you look bad. Saying them because somehow or other you may have been dragged through the muck and mire for so long that you don't know what it feels like to be clean anymore.

I just have a problem with hypocrisy.

I wasn't being hypocritical.

You keep insisting I've been insulting, but you have yet to post any examples.

I told you. I stopped reading one of your posts when it started with the word, "Is English your first language?" Phoneman, this is not some isolated incident. I've read your posts before. You have a habit of insulting people. The differences is I will call you on it. I find it offensive. Now if you find anything offensive that I write, so long as it is not directly related to the debate then just tell me. I'll erase it. But as for me, I won't appreciate you insinuating that I somehow have trouble reading English.

If my facts offend or insult you

Facts? It's now a fact that I can't read English? How am I typing in English if I can't read English? I can tell this is probably going to be my last post in this exchange.

My speculation that Ahab had a very low opinion of Elijah seems to have struck a nerve with you, though.

It didn't strike a nerve. It made me laugh.

You posted a giant Jesus-facepalm meme - that's enough to peg any needle deflection scoff meter out there, even the ones with dead batteries in them.

Alright Phoneman, I'll take them down after I click reply on this post, and my apologies. Just keep in mind, I have others here on this forum that I joke around with and tease a lot more than that, and it's because we understand each other as extending friendship through good-hearted humor. But in this case it appears to have backfired and had the opposite effect, so I'll take it down.

I've draw my conclusions based on Scripture and the thoughts of competent religious thinkers. Your response to my Ahab/Elijah proposition broke the needle on the scoff meter, so I challenged you to find out what the consensus view is. But, I'm not holding my breath seeing that yours seems to be mostly made up of hot air LOL ("LOL" means "not insulting you", right?)

OK, now you're really making me laugh. You actually think that Ahab's only problem with Elijah was that he caused the drought and not that Ahab knew Elijah was his spiritual enemy sent by God to rebuke and judge him for his devotion to Baal? Now I may have to post the challenge myself.

Finally we agree on something. Majority opinion means squat when the Bible is crystal clear on a topic. Take the Sabbath, for instance. The fourth commandment is clear as to which day God considers the day of rest - the seventh day - a day which all Christians will observe for all eternity in the kingdom. The majority of Christendom chooses to reject this day, preferring to keep what the Catholic church claims is their "Mark of authority" - Sunday, which they find zero verses for which to substantiate this change, but bow in reverent obedience to the Catholic church anyway. Therefore, it doesn't matter if you're in the minority if your position lines up with Scripture.

The rest of this post is just vindictive, so I had to stop reading before the last paragraph.
I will pray you be at peace.
Hidden In Him

 

[Phoneman777]

Now wait a minute.

I have been waiting...for you to post examples of my "rudeness" or "insults". Do so that I may publicly apologize. If not, then stop these accusations immediately bc falsely accusing other members is a violation of forum rules. Thank you.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I have been waiting...for you to post examples of my "rudeness" or "insults". Do so that I may publicly apologize. If not, then stop these accusations immediately bc falsely accusing other members is a violation of forum rules. Thank you.

Look, I drew your attention to how you were being insulting right here:

Ok, at this point in reading a post I quit reading. By what verses do you defend insulting people this way? Or is insinuating that they can't read English not an insult in your book?

Your next responses were as follows:

They accused Elijah of troubling Israel with his rude, critical, and argumentative preaching and teaching. Elijah told them it was actually their disregard of God's commandments and worship of the devil which was the source of the trouble - and the same is still true today.

While you scoff at the idea, Ahab and his entire cabinet thought otherwise, placing him on the royal FBI (Fervent Baal Idolaters) Most Wanted Criminal list as the most rude, critical, and argumentative subject in the entire kingdom.

You were making up a fictitious defense for defending being insulting, were you not? How are you defending being insulting one minute and then insisting you're not being insulting the next?

 

[Helen]

I have been waiting...for you to post examples of my "rudeness" or "insults". Do so that I may publicly apologize. If not, then stop these accusations immediately bc falsely accusing other members is a violation of forum rules. Thank you.

The things is...I don't think you are even aware of how you come across in posts..."to me" you always come across as aggressive. That is why I next to never respond to your posts.
Maybe you feel the same as Stranger does, he says " I am not here to make friends."
Okay, I get that with some of you...what I don't understand is why any of you have to post in an unfriendly manner....but often harsh and rude.

I am sure that you probably write some goos posts...but because of past history I tend to skip over them.

 

[amadeus]

The things is...I don't think you are even aware of how you come across in posts..."to me" you always come across as aggressive. That is why I next to never respond to your posts.
Maybe you feel the same as Stranger does, he says " I am not here to make friends."
Okay, I get that with some of you...what I don't understand is why any of you have to post in an unfriendly manner....but often harsh and rude.

I am sure that you probably write some goos posts...but because of past history I tend to skip over them.

I also nearly always skip over such posts as well. I am really here on this forum for a few reasons, one of them being to learn. After a while I simply see certain names and usually move on to another post or thread rather than even taking the trouble to read the text.
Some I skip because they are always too long. Some I skip because I have little or no interest in their subjects. Some I skip because of the abrasive attitude of the poster.