Johnny Mac telling it like it is...

[Smellin Coffee]

Judas never saw the resurrected Savior
Disciple, not Apostle..... Carry on.

Neither did Paul... Carry on.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Judas never saw the resurrected Savior
Disciple, not Apostle..... Carry on.

Judas was chosen to fulfill prophecy, and Jesus knew he would be condemned (John 17:12).

Oh you mean Jesus didn't make a mistake? ;D

Who's claiming he did?

 

[ddgently]

John MacArthur skewers Beth Moore, Paula White, evangelicals who support women preachers
https://www.christianpost.com/news/john-macarthur-skewers-beth-moore-paula-white-evangelicals-who-support-women-preachers.html?fbclid=IwAR1izR8v0Kqgi0lRLeCJvO6r21G2EUXzWRq8Sp_IM8b-RA2oKvuSTYlhsCg

I think if Jesus wanted female preachers he would have chosen some to be apostles (as part of the 12). And yes he could have done that as he already went against the Talmudic thinking by the way he treated women.  And it has nothing to do with ability or inability to teach theology. It's about order and authority.

So Jesus probably didn't intend women to partake in communion/The Lord's Table because no women were invited to the Last Supper?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

John MacArthur skewers Beth Moore, Paula White, evangelicals who support women preachers
https://www.christianpost.com/news/john-macarthur-skewers-beth-moore-paula-white-evangelicals-who-support-women-preachers.html?fbclid=IwAR1izR8v0Kqgi0lRLeCJvO6r21G2EUXzWRq8Sp_IM8b-RA2oKvuSTYlhsCg

I think if Jesus wanted female preachers he would have chosen some to be apostles (as part of the 12). And yes he could have done that as he already went against the Talmudic thinking by the way he treated women.  And it has nothing to do with ability or inability to teach theology. It's about order and authority.

So Jesus probably didn't intend women to partake in communion/The Lord's Table because no women were invited to the Last Supper?

Excellent point!

 

[Ransom]

Neither did Paul... Carry on.

"Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me" (1 Cor. 15:8).

It's not that Paul never saw the resurrected Saviour. It's that you don't believe Paul, because of your biblical hermeneutic, which you have admitted is merely your opinion.

You should be honest and admit when you are expressing opinion instead of fact.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Neither did Paul... Carry on.

"Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me" (1 Cor. 15:8).

It's not that Paul never saw the resurrected Saviour. It's that you don't believe Paul, because of your biblical hermeneutic, which you have admitted is merely your opinion.

You should be honest and admit when you are expressing opinion instead of fact.

Again, that is simply what Paul said. No verification, certainly not by any of the "real" Apostles. Joseph Smith made claim of similar revelation, so why shouldn't we believe him too?

Even in your "proof text" he does not admit seeing a risen body, but rather testifies to an experience. Acts indicates it was either a light and/or a voice (depending on which version is accepted) but no mention of seeing the physical body of Christ. "Appearing" does not mean in bodily form and even Paul himself acknowledged that Satan can appear in the form of light, exactly what he claimed happened on the Damascus Road.

So even taking Paul at his word, there is no mention of his seeing the physical body of Christ after the resurrection.

Yes, all hermeneutic is nothing more than opinion. So just assume my hermeneutic is ALWAYS my opinion at the time it is posted. Doesn't mean that opinion won't eventually change but just because I believe something, that does not make it absolute truth. It is how I perceive truth at that moment.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Neither did Paul... Carry on.

"Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me" (1 Cor. 15:8).

It's not that Paul never saw the resurrected Saviour. It's that you don't believe Paul, because of your biblical hermeneutic, which you have admitted is merely your opinion.

You should be honest and admit when you are expressing opinion instead of fact.

Again, that is simply what Paul said. No verification, certainly not by any of the "real" Apostles. Joseph Smith made claim of similar revelation, so why shouldn't we believe him too?

Even in your "proof text" he does not admit seeing a risen body, but rather testifies to an experience. Acts indicates it was either a light and/or a voice (depending on which version is accepted) but no mention of seeing the physical body of Christ. "Appearing" does not mean in bodily form and even Paul himself acknowledged that Satan can appear in the form of light, exactly what he claimed happened on the Damascus Road.

So even taking Paul at his word, there is no mention of his seeing the physical body of Christ after the resurrection.

Yes, all hermeneutic is nothing more than opinion. So just assume my hermeneutic is ALWAYS my opinion at the time it is posted. Doesn't mean that opinion won't eventually change but just because I believe something, that does not make it absolute truth. It is how I perceive truth at that moment.

The arbiter of truth is Smellin.
To find a belief system that the arbiter of truth (Smellin) believes to be truth...the arbiter of truth (Smellin) formed his own belief system.
His belief system is completely true....because the arbiter of truth (Smellin) says it is true.

That settles it for me.
Hyles did a number on you.

I'n Smellin a crock!!!

 

[Ransom]

Again, that is simply what Paul said. No verification,

So you said, without verification. Paul I know . . . who are you?

 

[TheRealJonStewart]

It seems SBC leadership isn't opposing the idea of female pastors.

They also aren't opposed to being the submissive one in their relationship to Donald Trump.

 

[Baptist City Holdout]

Judas never saw the resurrected Savior
Disciple, not Apostle..... Carry on.

Neither did Paul... Carry on.

But he saw a light from heaven and heard His voice after the resurrection. Judas never did.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Neither did Paul... Carry on.

"Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me" (1 Cor. 15:8).

It's not that Paul never saw the resurrected Saviour. It's that you don't believe Paul, because of your biblical hermeneutic, which you have admitted is merely your opinion.

You should be honest and admit when you are expressing opinion instead of fact.

Again, that is simply what Paul said. No verification, certainly not by any of the "real" Apostles. Joseph Smith made claim of similar revelation, so why shouldn't we believe him too?

Even in your "proof text" he does not admit seeing a risen body, but rather testifies to an experience. Acts indicates it was either a light and/or a voice (depending on which version is accepted) but no mention of seeing the physical body of Christ. "Appearing" does not mean in bodily form and even Paul himself acknowledged that Satan can appear in the form of light, exactly what he claimed happened on the Damascus Road.

So even taking Paul at his word, there is no mention of his seeing the physical body of Christ after the resurrection.

Yes, all hermeneutic is nothing more than opinion. So just assume my hermeneutic is ALWAYS my opinion at the time it is posted. Doesn't mean that opinion won't eventually change but just because I believe something, that does not make it absolute truth. It is how I perceive truth at that moment.

The arbiter of truth is Smellin.
To find a belief system that the arbiter of truth (Smellin) believes to be truth...the arbiter of truth (Smellin) formed his own belief system.
His belief system is completely true....because the arbiter of truth (Smellin) says it is true.

That settles it for me.
Hyles did a number on you.

I'n Smellin a crock!!!

Free thought and non-compliant interpretation has always been a threat to existential religious authoritarianism. I should know. The Jesus whose story is found in the Bible was murdered for it.

Keep on defending the indefensible; that being, hermeneutic, being relative, can only be accepted by faith and not fact and you are just as guilty as I of being an arbiter of relative hermeneutic. The only difference is yours is viewed as accepted by masses whereas mine isn't.

So yeah, I realize I am perceived as a threat to your religious authoritarianism and I'm OK with that.

One thing though I'm curious about: you keep bringing up Hyles. No biggie because growing up from childhood with him as my pastor, he did play a major role in my initial spiritual formation. However, I left his ministry back in 1988 and have been in Evangelicalism ever since, meaning Evangelicals have played a more lengthy timeline of influence in my life than Hyles ever did.

Why are you trying to separate your ideals from his? Is it because you KNOW he was wrong and authoritative and you don't want people to connect the dots between your authoritative ideals and his? Though your "standards" might not be IFB, the core to your belief systems are pretty much identical. You and Hyles have more in common than I do with Hyles.

Hyles was a predator and I am one of many of his victims. So why are you attacking a victimized person? If one were raped, would you tell the victim "Your rapist really did a number on you," because you disagree with her on points that aren't a result of that assault? Seems you are predatory too, attacking the victim about their being assaulted.

Anyway, keep on rolling and showing folks who you really are.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Judas never saw the resurrected Savior
Disciple, not Apostle..... Carry on.

Neither did Paul... Carry on.

But he saw a light from heaven and heard His voice after the resurrection. Judas never did.

Thank you for proving my point. Paul "saw a light" and "heard a voice". He never witnessed the physical, resurrected body of Jesus, which was the initial argument that was stated earlier in the thread.

Oh, and don't forget, Paul himself said Satan masks as an "angel of light". Methinks he just may have had personal experience in that area.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I'm Smellin a Crock:

So yeah, I realize I am perceived as a threat to your religious authoritarianism and I'm OK with that.

One thing though I'm curious about: you keep bringing up Hyles. No biggie because growing up from childhood with him as my pastor, he did play a major role in my initial spiritual formation. However, I left his ministry back in 1988 and have been in Evangelicalism ever since, meaning Evangelicals have played a more lengthy timeline of influence in my life than Hyles ever did.

Why are you trying to separate your ideals from his? Is it because you KNOW he was wrong and authoritative and you don't want people to connect the dots between your authoritative ideals and his? Though your "standards" might not be IFB, the core to your belief systems are pretty much identical. You and Hyles have more in common than I do with Hyles.

Hyles was a predator and I am one of many of his victims. So why are you attacking a victimized person? If one were raped, would you tell the victim "Your rapist really did a number on you," because you disagree with her on points that aren't a result of that assault? Seems you are predatory too, attacking the victim about their being assaulted.

Anyway, keep on rolling and showing folks who you really are.

Apostasy, Apostates and heretical beliefs are hardly new, they have been postulated by smarter and more articulate men than you...so you are hardly a threat to anyone or anything. 

I keep bringing up Hyles, meaning the system in Hammond, because they did a number on you and your invention of your own religion is a direct result of said number. There are many like you that can be encountered online daily...although all of them didn?t react in the extreme like you did/do.
Does that fact offend you?
Do you consider my pointing that out to be abusing you?!
Your religion considers fully embracing victimhood to be a virtue...I?ll try to keep that in mind in future interaction with you. 

I was also exposed to Hyles, as were thousands of others...many to the same extent you were...and they aren?t all apostate founders of their own religious system. You aren?t a free thinking threat as you fancy yourself, you?re just a self identifying victim who?s apostate belief system just goes to fulfill Scripture about the falling away in the last days.

 

[brianb]

Judas never saw the resurrected Savior
Disciple, not Apostle..... Carry on.

Neither did Paul... Carry on.

But he saw a light from heaven and heard His voice after the resurrection. Judas never did.

Thank you for proving my point. Paul "saw a light" and "heard a voice". He never witnessed the physical, resurrected body of Jesus, which was the initial argument that was stated earlier in the thread.

Oh, and don't forget, Paul himself said Satan masks as an "angel of light". Methinks he just may have had personal experience in that area.

Acts 9:17  says Jesus appeared to him (appeared makes no sense if Paul couldn't see him). The light didn't immediately blind him. He was able to see Jesus just like others (such as Isaiah) did - it's called a vision. And why is it that you can believe the book of Acts which tradition says was written by Luke who worked with Paul but not Paul and his writings? Or are you trying to take verses out of context to try to convince us?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Judas never saw the resurrected Savior
Disciple, not Apostle..... Carry on.

Neither did Paul... Carry on.

But he saw a light from heaven and heard His voice after the resurrection. Judas never did.

Thank you for proving my point. Paul "saw a light" and "heard a voice". He never witnessed the physical, resurrected body of Jesus, which was the initial argument that was stated earlier in the thread.

Oh, and don't forget, Paul himself said Satan masks as an "angel of light". Methinks he just may have had personal experience in that area.

Acts 9:17  says Jesus appeared to him (appeared makes no sense if Paul couldn't see him). The light didn't immediately blind him. He was able to see Jesus just like others (such as Isaiah) did - it's called a vision. And why is it that you can believe the book of Acts which tradition says was written by Luke who worked with Paul but not Paul and his writings? Or are you trying to take verses out of context to try to convince us?

Luke recorded as he understood it, even to the point of recording conflict in Paul's conversion stories. I don't fault Luke for dishonest intent.

Again, a vision is not a physical body. Paul did not see the resurrected Christ. Even if he did, that DID NOT mean he qualified to be an Apostle.

Concerning Ananias, that is suspicious. There is no evidence elsewhere in the Bible of his contact with Jesus. He was not an apostle either. Why weren't any of the twelve contacted and told to meet with Saul? Probably because the light identified itself to Ananias as well, just like it did with Saul. And we know that Paul himself stated that Satan, who is considered the "father of lies", masquerades himself as "an angel of light". My theory why Ananias and not the Apostles were "called" to meet Saul? Ananias was not there when Jesus taught this:

At that time if anyone says to you, ?Look, here is the Messiah!? or, ?There he is!? do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time. ?So if anyone tells you, ?There he is, out in the wilderness,? do not go out; or, ?Here he is, in the inner rooms,? do not believe it.

The true Apostles would have been wise to Jesus' teaching on the topic. They did initially accept Paul until his arrest at which point, they had zero contact with him. This is why he mocked them in II Corinthians 11 and Galatians 2.

Historically speaking, if the twelve hadn't eventually abandoned Paul, he hadn't been abandoned by Barnabas and John Mark as well as all the churches of Asia Minor (including Ephesus), then I could see your argument.

One last point: Luke records what the angel told the Apostles and other disciples, about his next appearance to earth:

They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. ?Men of Galilee,? they said, ?why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.?They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 ?Men of Galilee,? they said, ?why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.?

Jesus did not ascend to heaven in light, but in a cloud. So had he returned to earth in his physical body, it would have been in a cloud and not as a light/voice apparition.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I keep bringing up Hyles, meaning the system in Hammond, because they did a number on you and your invention of your own religion is a direct result of said number. There are many like you that can be encountered online daily...although all of them didn?t react in the extreme like you did/do. 

So abuse victims are all supposed to grieve/heal the same way?

Does that fact offend you?

No. It is true. It doesn't offend me.

Do you consider my pointing that out to be abusing you?!

I consider it "poking the scars". For me, there is healing beneath those scars but there are others out there who are reading our interactions, who haven't healed and are afraid to approach "spiritual leaders" about it for fear they too will be poked where it still hurts them.

Your religion considers fully embracing victimhood to be a virtue...I?ll try to keep that in mind in future interaction with you. 

Not necessarily a virtue, but a status that requires sensitivity through the healing process.

I was also exposed to Hyles, as were thousands of others...many to the same extent you were...and they aren?t all apostate founders of their own religious system. You aren?t a free thinking threat as you fancy yourself, you?re just a self identifying victim who?s apostate belief system just goes to fulfill Scripture about the falling away in the last days.

Again, people "heal" differently. Some stay in the system. Some commit suicide. Some become atheists. Some love Jesus and follow him differently, apart from authoritarianism. Some, unfortunately, even become abusers themselves.

Since hermeneutic is relative and based on a faith system instead of fact, the whole "apostasy" thing is a moot point. Since I am "falling away" from abuse from authoritarian religious institutions, and abusive "spiritual leaders" and abusive practices, I'm perfectly fine with the "falling away" label. That is the crap I am glad I am distancing from.

For clarification, Hyles drove me to Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism drove me out of church altogether. Despite that, I have not abandoned Jesus.

 

[Anon1379]

I keep bringing up Hyles, meaning the system in Hammond, because they did a number on you and your invention of your own religion is a direct result of said number. There are many like you that can be encountered online daily...although all of them didn?t react in the extreme like you did/do. 

So abuse victims are all supposed to grieve/heal the same way?

Does that fact offend you?

No. It is true. It doesn't offend me.

Do you consider my pointing that out to be abusing you?!

I consider it "poking the scars". For me, there is healing beneath those scars but there are others out there who are reading our interactions, who haven't healed and are afraid to approach "spiritual leaders" about it for fear they too will be poked where it still hurts them.

Your religion considers fully embracing victimhood to be a virtue...I?ll try to keep that in mind in future interaction with you. 

Not necessarily a virtue, but a status that requires sensitivity through the healing process.

I was also exposed to Hyles, as were thousands of others...many to the same extent you were...and they aren?t all apostate founders of their own religious system. You aren?t a free thinking threat as you fancy yourself, you?re just a self identifying victim who?s apostate belief system just goes to fulfill Scripture about the falling away in the last days.

Again, people "heal" differently. Some stay in the system. Some commit suicide. Some become atheists. Some love Jesus and follow him differently, apart from authoritarianism. Some, unfortunately, even become abusers themselves.

Since hermeneutic is relative and based on a faith system instead of fact, the whole "apostasy" thing is a moot point. Since I am "falling away" from abuse from authoritarian religious institutions, and abusive "spiritual leaders" and abusive practices, I'm perfectly fine with the "falling away" label. That is the crap I am glad I am distancing from.

For clarification, Hyles drove me to Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism drove me out of church altogether. Despite that, I have not abandoned Jesus.

What are you smoking?

1 Corinthians 15:4?10 (ESV): 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
5 and that he APPEARED (physical) to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he APPEARED (physical) to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he APPEARED (physical) to James, then to all the apostles (physical).
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he APPEARED (physical) also to me.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

How on Earth are you gonna state that Paul's appearance was different than every other one. The rest were all physical appearances why do you not believe Paul's was physical? Stop smoking crack and start looking at verses without your bias.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

What are you smoking?

1 Corinthians 15:4?10 (ESV): 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
5 and that he APPEARED (physical) to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he APPEARED (physical) to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he APPEARED (physical) to James, then to all the apostles (physical).
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he APPEARED (physical) also to me.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

How on Earth are you gonna state that Paul's appearance was different than every other one. The rest were all physical appearances why do you not believe Paul's was physical? Stop smoking crack and start looking at verses without your bias.
[/quote]

So you are saying Luke's record contradicts Paul's here and Jesus didn't appear as light and/or voice but in a physical, resurrected body? Since there is zero record of Paul ever seeing the physical Jesus and no reason to have facial recognition, and since his Damascus Road experience was prophesied by Jesus as a warning, why should we believe he knew for certain it was Jesus he was talking with? Even Peter's vision in Acts 10, there was no body present, only a voice which Peter recognized. How? HE WALKED WITH JESUS PERSONALLY almost daily for at least 3 years. Paul had no idea who/what he was talking to and produced no eye-witnesses with him that could confirm his story.

Joseph Smith the LDS founding father had the same credibility Paul did. The only difference, is those who ministered with Paul, particularly those who did know the "real" Jesus, eventually abandoned him once they figured out the fraud he was.

 

[Anon1379]

What are you smoking?

1 Corinthians 15:4?10 (ESV): 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
5 and that he APPEARED (physical) to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he APPEARED (physical) to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he APPEARED (physical) to James, then to all the apostles (physical).
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he APPEARED (physical) also to me.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

How on Earth are you gonna state that Paul's appearance was different than every other one. The rest were all physical appearances why do you not believe Paul's was physical? Stop smoking crack and start looking at verses without your bias.

So you are saying Luke's record contradicts Paul's here and Jesus didn't appear as light and/or voice but in a physical, resurrected body? Since there is zero record of Paul ever seeing the physical Jesus and no reason to have facial recognition, and since his Damascus Road experience was prophesied by Jesus as a warning, why should we believe he knew for certain it was Jesus he was talking with? Even Peter's vision in Acts 10, there was no body present, only a voice which Peter recognized. How? HE WALKED WITH JESUS PERSONALLY almost daily for at least 3 years. Paul had no idea who/what he was talking to and produced no eye-witnesses with him that could confirm his story.

Joseph Smith the LDS founding father had the same credibility Paul did. The only difference, is those who ministered with Paul, particularly those who did know the "real" Jesus, eventually abandoned him once they figured out the fraud he was.
[/quote]2 Peter 3:15-16 (KJV)  And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Was that before or after Peter called him beloved and said he was writing scripture?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Was that before or after Peter called him beloved and said he was writing scripture?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood [Greek, dysnoetas], which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Couple things. First, II Peter calls Paul "Brother" and not "Apostle".

Second, it also says Paul spoke "with wisdom", not "with inspiration".

Third, dysnoetas can also be translated as "nonsensical" or "unintelligible" thoughts meaning Paul's teachings were rubbish.

Fourth, II Peter was debated as being canonical or not:

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.pdf

Fifth, Calvin thought someone other than Peter wrote the book, so those wouldn't have been written by Peter:

For though some affinity may be traced, yet I confess that there is that manifest difference which distinguishes different writers. There are also other probable conjectures by which we may conclude that it was written by another rather than by Peter. At the same time, according to the consent of all, it has nothing unworthy of Peter, as it shews everywhere the power and the grace of an apostolic spirit.

Source: http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_vol45/htm/vii.htm

So whoever wrote II Peter was actually bashing Paul which drove Calvin to assume Peter did not write the epistle. The writer said Paul was writing nonsense and people were falling for it. So to assume Pauline inspiration of his epistles based on one verse taken out of context is not a good enough argument for me.