Testimony

[Thinkingstuff]

Oh yes I do. You have already told me in about the clearest terms possible that the "law" in Romans 3:19-31 and especially the terms "the deeds of the law" as used also in Galations to describe the same problem (Gal. 3:10-12) refers in your opinion to "the traditions of the elders" or "Jewish oral traditions" and interpretations of scripture.

Try replacing "by the law" and "the deeds of the law" with "oral traditional interpretations" and try to make sense of how that change affects the rest of the text!!!!!!! It makes perfect nonsense! By that interpretation you have "the oral traditions" revealing the knowledge of sin. By that intepretation you have "the oral traditions" producing the "curse" that Jesus had to become for our sins (Gal. 3:10,13).

Again changing the subject. Wow you keep trying to redefine things. And you misquote me again. I said Haggadah and law are used interchangably during Jesus day. Which of course they were.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Again changing the subject. Wow you keep trying to redefine things. And you misquote me again. I said Haggadah and law are used interchangably during Jesus day. Which of course they were.

That is just PART of what you said. You claimed that Haggadah was what Paul was referring to in the context of justification "by the deeds of the law." Must I look up your post and quote it to you??????

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is just PART of what you said. You claimed that Haggadah was what Paul was referring to in the context of justification "by the deeds of the law." Must I look up your post and quote it to you??????

sure go ahead. You'll see depending on the context depends on how Paul was using it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Darn tooting I do. Just Like If I argued from an atheistic point of view I would use their definitions and their interpretation to defend them. its the only fair way. Otherwize you have a stacked debate which you guys just love. You don't get how a debate is supposed to work. You stack things in your favor slap each other on the back and consider it fair. It doesn't work that way. Which is why so many people feel christians are disingenous. I love this particular thing that happens so often here. Well the bible is the word of God see the bible says this about it self? Now the person isn't even given the oportunity to say 1) no it isn't and 2) no it doesn't. In fact the bible 1) doesn't list what is scripture just certain books and not the entire library of books in the bible. and alludes to other books not canon. 2) the bible asserts scripture is "god breathed" but not define which scriptures are such. And how much man of his own volition added to the scripture. So when you guys argue you stacked the deck already providing your own definition before its determined if that definition is satisfactory.

There is a huge difference between clarifying what a second party's position really is versus DEFENDING that position! Clarifying provides the proper presentation but DEFENDING it conveys it is still YOUR personal interpretative views.

If you were a Roman Catholic then you should DEBATE and DEFEND that position but you deny you are a Roman Catholic. You have gone far beyond simply defending a proper representation of a veiw to actually taking up Rome's interpretative defense.

Anyone reading your posts can easily see that you are not merely presenting Rome's interpretation of the scriptures but are vigoriously putting up a defense of those interpretations. ONLY A FOOL would be so gullible to imagine that you don't really believe the Biblical interpretations you are defending are entirely a second party's position rather than your own own.

1. You have defended their view of baptism vigoriously denouncing the Baptist view.

2 You have defended their view of sacraments AS YOUR OWN VIEW

3. You have defended their view of justificaiton AS YOUR OWN VIEW and even scorned the historic Baptist view.

So don't give me this line that you are simply defending a proper presentation of their views as that is nothing but garbage as anyone with eyes in their head can clearly see you have GONE BEYOND merely clarifications of their position.

Some on this forum may be foolish enough to believe it but not I. I can easily discern convictions being defended versus clarifications of someone elses convictions. The Bible teaches that His Spirit bears witness with our spirits and we are to try the spirits. The spirit behind your writings does not bear witness with my spirit that it the Holy Spirit. Sure that is my personal opinion but I guess I cannot give the personal opinion of anyone else can I?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is a huge difference between clarifying what a second party's position really is versus DEFENDING that position! Clarifying provides the proper presentation but DEFENDING it conveys it is still YOUR personal interpretative views.

You're arguing for a stacked debate and I won't have it. Treat the matter fairly and you'll find me ameniable.

If you were a Roman Catholic then you should DEBATE and DEFEND that position but you deny you are a Roman Catholic. You have gone far beyond simply defending a proper representation of a veiw to actually taking up Rome's interpretative defense.

How often do they get that chance here? Often they are dismissed as being unenlightened and unaware of scripture. It automatically places them at a disadvantage. Level the playing field and you might find me working with you rather than against you.

Anyone reading your posts can easily see that you are not merely presenting Rome's interpretation of the scriptures but are vigoriously putting up a defense of those interpretations.

As a Roman Catholic would. Because you prefere we're all reformed ha ha. Catholics are whores ha ha. There stupid ha ha. Yeah when I was a catholic I was stupid and thought God was a stick ha ha. Slap each other on the back. I find that irritating.

ONLY A FOOL would be so gullible to imagine that you don't really believe the Biblical interpretations you are defending are entirely a second party's position rather than your own own.

I'm sure when I defend Atheism you would say the same thing.

1. You have defended their view of baptism vigoriously denouncing the Baptist view.

Yep because you think you have the hand in the bag and I find that arrogance irritating.

2 You have defended their view of sacraments AS YOUR OWN VIEW

You have no idea what I think of the sacraments. You yourself have even said they are more than just symbolism.

3. You have defended their view of justificaiton AS YOUR OWN VIEW and even scorned the historic Baptist view.

Actually, you have me there. I disagree that justification is just a legal term. I believe that we are placed positionally in Christ and have the benefits and responsibility of that position. I think the Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic position on this is superior to that of the reformers (now you are getting closer to what I think)

So don't give me this line that you are simply defending a proper presentation of their views as that is nothing but garbage as anyone with eyes in their head can clearly see you have GONE BEYOND merely clarifications of their position.

Not entirely true. But that's because I don't fit in your definition of what a protestant should be nor do I fit in what your view of what a baptist should be. Justification is the only thing you can nail down on me with catholicism. To be very frank I take the scriptures and hold to the doctrines I believe they teach in the context of the period used. So I don't agree with any one denomination 100% but I am a baptist as I go to a baptist church and pay my tithes there. And If I were to carry it further I can say you have no right to tell me what to believe because baptist are independent of each other and I'm not beholden to your authority as you have none in my church. Selah. Oh and by the way you really need to watch your language you keep using bad terms to describe people. Like whore. Note your the one who brought up fruit.

Some on this forum may be foolish enough to believe it but not I. I can easily discern convictions being defended versus clarifications of someone elses convictions. The Bible teaches that His Spirit bears witness with our spirits and we are to try the spirits. The spirit behind your writings does not bear witness with my spirit that it the Holy Spirit. Sure that is my personal opinion but I guess I cannot give the personal opinion of anyone else can I?

See my point you call other people on this board Raka. Dude you really got issues.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Actaully, I don't. I asked pricilla and you (still haven't gotten back a reply) on how you know your interpretation is correct. Totally, different topic.

We were discussing before you interupted. Your interruption is not the topic. The subject of this theme is not your topic - you are the one who has changed the topic.

I have answered your question many times over. Isaiah 8:14-18 is a Messanic prophecy. Portions of this text that surround verse 16 are quoted several times in the New Testament. Verses 16-18 have a Messanic application with the apostles as verse 18 is specifically quoted in Hebews 2:12 and referred to in Hebrews 2:3-4 as the "signs" Isaiah 8:18 refers to. The disciples in verse 16 are the same disciples in verse 18. The same Messiah in verses 14-15 is the same personage in verse 16.

Therefore in its MESSANIC context as it is applied to the Messiah five times in the New Testament it refers to "the testimony" that the Apostles were qualified to give, commanded to give and ultimately in writing did give as the last living apostles refers to the last apostolic writing as "the testimony" (Rev. 1:3) and explicitly "seals" all apostolic writings with Revelation 22:18-19.

The book of Revelation intentionally is designed to COMPLETE what was begun in the book of Genesis. This design is so evident and so clear and can be demonstrated so completely that you must intentionally close your mind to the obvious. If you need to see the evidence with your own eyes, I will be glad to type out the designed parallel contrasts between Genesis and Revelation as Revelation is so clearly designed to be the LAST scripture to READ just as Genesis is designed to be the FIRST scripture to READ with everything else fits in between. There cannot be any better fit for concluding the Biblical canon than the book of Revelation.

Isaiah 8:19-20 is the climax of binding and sealing "the law" and "the testimony" as both are referred as "this Word" in verse 20 as the final authority to examine and determine the truth of all men by.

John 14-16 is partly designed with Isaiah 8:16-20 in mind with regard to the office of Apostle with the Holy Spirit leading them into ALL TRUTH within the first century before the cessation of the last living apostle as this is made clear in John 17 where Jesus states that future generations of believers, or those who shall believe and come to heaven will come through THEIR WORD:

20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

Peter realized that the writings of Paul were inspired (2 Pet. 3:15-17) as did Paul himself (2 Thes. 2:13). They realized they were providing the New Testament Scriptures or "the testimony" of Christ in written form to the churches and to all future generations who would believe "through their word."

However, the spiritual blind man will simply scoff at all of this and must in order to have no final authority for his beliefs and practices but himself, or some institution (Mormons, Catholics, Pentecostals) who need continuing revelation in order to justify their heresies and departures from the scriptures.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

TS....your a very naughty boy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2RyPFyxA-I

 

[Thinkingstuff]

We were discussing before you interupted. Your interruption is not the topic. The subject of this theme is not your topic - you are the one who has changed the topic.

I have answered your question many times over. Isaiah 8:14-18 is a Messanic prophecy. Portions of this text that surround verse 16 are quoted several times in the New Testament. Verses 16-18 have a Messanic application with the apostles as verse 18 is specifically quoted in Hebews 2:12 and referred to in Hebrews 2:3-4 as the "signs" Isaiah 8:18 refers to. The disciples in verse 16 are the same disciples in verse 18. The same Messiah in verses 14-15 is the same personage in verse 16.

Therefore in its MESSANIC context as it is applied to the Messiah five times in the New Testament it refers to "the testimony" that the Apostles were qualified to give, commanded to give and ultimately in writing did give as the last living apostles refers to the last apostolic writing as "the testimony" (Rev. 1:3) and explicitly "seals" all apostolic writings with Revelation 22:18-19.

The book of Revelation intentionally is designed to COMPLETE what was begun in the book of Genesis. This design is so evident and so clear and can be demonstrated so completely that you must intentionally close your mind to the obvious. If you need to see the evidence with your own eyes, I will be glad to type out the designed parallel contrasts between Genesis and Revelation as Revelation is so clearly designed to be the LAST scripture to READ just as Genesis is designed to be the FIRST scripture to READ with everything else fits in between. There cannot be any better fit for concluding the Biblical canon than the book of Revelation.

Isaiah 8:19-20 is the climax of binding and sealing "the law" and "the testimony" as both are referred as "this Word" in verse 20 as the final authority to examine and determine the truth of all men by.

John 14-16 is partly designed with Isaiah 8:16-20 in mind with regard to the office of Apostle with the Holy Spirit leading them into ALL TRUTH within the first century before the cessation of the last living apostle as this is made clear in John 17 where Jesus states that future generations of believers, or those who shall believe and come to heaven will come through THEIR WORD:

20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

Peter realized that the writings of Paul were inspired (2 Pet. 3:15-17) as did Paul himself (2 Thes. 2:13). They realized they were providing the New Testament Scriptures or "the testimony" of Christ in written form to the churches and to all future generations who would believe "through their word."

However, the spiritual blind man will simply scoff at all of this and must in order to have no final authority for his beliefs and practices but himself, or some institution (Mormons, Catholics, Pentecostals) who need continuing revelation in order to justify their heresies and departures from the scriptures.

Now you're calling Pentecostals heretics! You're worse than the catholics I suppose the Methodist are heretics, the Presbyterians are Heretics, the Amish are Heretics, the Bretheren are heretics, the mennonites are heretics, the Free will baptist are heretics, the orthodox are heretics, the copts are heretics, the nazarine are heretics, the Charasmatics are heretics, the Seventh day adventist are heretics, the congregationalist are heretics. Where does it stop with you? I see each of these people though there are areas of disagreement as a brother in the Lord for those who love the Lord.

 

[Dr. Walter]

sure go ahead. You'll see depending on the context depends on how Paul was using it.

Hogwash! That was your direct response to my quotation of Romans 3:19-20 and Romans 3:27-28 that "no flesh" can be justified "by the deeds of the law." You applied it to this context as it was in direct response to my use of these two texts to prove that no one is justified by good works.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Now you're calling Pentecostals heretics! You're worse than the catholics I suppose the Methodist are heretics, the Presbyterians are Heretics, the Amish are Heretics, the Bretheren are heretics, the mennonites are heretics, the Free will baptist are heretics, the orthodox are heretics, the copts are heretics, the nazarine are heretics, the Charasmatics are heretics, the Seventh day adventist are heretics, the congregationalist are heretics. Where does it stop with you? I see each of these people though there are areas of disagreement as a brother in the Lord for those who love the Lord.

My context is concerning those who believe in continuing revelation just as the Mormons do. Any and all groups who believe in continuing revelation, that deny the canon scriptures has been sealed up - yes they are heretical on this point and on all points where their doctrines DEPART FROM THE SCRIPTUES and that rely upon continuing revelation to support those doctrines.

Why did you omit MORMONS? I will tell you why! Becuase you intentionally wanted to pervert the context of what I said and including Mormons would have spoiled it for you. You intentionally misapplied what I said by ommitting my words "who need continuing revelation in order to justify their heresies and departures from the scriptures."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

My context is concerning those who believe in continuing revelation just as the Mormons do. Any and all groups who believe in continuing revelation, that deny the canon scriptures has been sealed up - yes they are heretical on this point and on all points that rely upon continuing revelation.

Non of those groups I've listed and especially the Catholics believe in continuing revelation. Independent Pentecostal practitioners may but not on a whole.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Hogwash! That was your direct response to my quotation of Romans 3:19-20 and Romans 3:27-28 that "no flesh" can be justified "by the deeds of the law." You applied it to this context as it was in direct response to my use of these two texts to prove that no one is justified by good works.

Next you might call me a whore or worse Raka as you've done others. I quoted Jesus himself btw. You may have missed that.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Non of those groups I've listed and especially the Catholics believe in continuing revelation. Independent Pentecostal practitioners may but not on a whole.

All the groups I listed do believe in continuing revelation. There are world wide sites, shrines built in dedication to revelations given by Mary. Why has not Rome condemned these sites and shrines if Rome does not believe in continuing revelation??? What is ex-cathreda all about if not continuing revelation. Just because it has to be in accord with previous revelation does not deny it is continuing revelation.

Most of my family are some kind of Pentecostal and most believe in tongues and interpretation of tongues, and in the gift of prophecy and knowledge. I myself was involved in Pentecostalism in my early years. I have sat down with several pastors of various pentecostal denominations. I have an uncle who has been a Pastor of the Assembly of God and four square, and full gospel, and vineyard church. So don't tell me what I don't know about Pentecostalism. Many of their very so-called spiritual gifts are primarily revelatory in nature.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Next you might call me a whore or worse Raka as you've done others. I quoted Jesus himself btw. You may have missed that.

That is a lie! I have never called any individual on this forum a "fool" nor have I called any individual on this forum a "whore." I used both terms in keeping with their Biblical implications.

You know exactly what you are doing and that is what you have to stoop to in order to escape the fact you are defending Romes positions out of personal convictions.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is a lie! I have never called any individual on this forum a "fool" nor have I called any individual on this forum a "whore." I used both terms in keeping with their Biblical implications.

You know exactly what you are doing and that is what you have to stoop to in order to escape the fact you are defending Romes positions out of personal convictions.

You call all catholics whore. and you call people who know I'm not Catholic foolish which is raka. Do you want me to show you your post? I can just from this thread. Just becauset the bible uses a term do you think you should use it agianst other people or groups of people?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

All the groups I listed do believe in continuing revelation. There are world wide sites, shrines built in dedication to revelations given by Mary. Why has not Rome condemned these sites and shrines if Rome does not believe in continuing revelation??? What is ex-cathreda all about if not continuing revelation. Just because it has to be in accord with previous revelation does not deny it is continuing revelation.

Most of my family are some kind of Pentecostal and most believe in tongues and interpretation of tongues, and in the gift of prophecy and knowledge. I myself was involved in Pentecostalism in my early years. I have sat down with several pastors of various pentecostal denominations. I have an uncle who has been a Pastor of the Assembly of God and four square, and full gospel, and vineyard church. So don't tell me what I don't know about Pentecostalism. Many of their very so-called spiritual gifts are primarily revelatory in nature.

See you show your ignorance. Marian visions (not all accepted by the Catholic church) are not further revelations. Here it is from the catachism.

The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith

 

[Dr. Walter]

You call all catholics whore. and you call people who know I'm not Catholic foolish which is raka. Do you want me to show you your post? I can just from this thread. Just becauset the bible uses a term do you think you should use it agianst other people or groups of people?

Calling the Catholic church institution a "whore" and "old harlot" is one thing, calling individual catholics whores is quite another thing.

Saying "thou fool" is one thing but sayint "only a fool" would do this or say that is quite another thing. If the shoe fit wear it and if not stop complaining.

Your simply changing the subject because you are exposed as someone who has infiltrated a Baptist church with Catholic convictions, the very catholic convictions you are now defending in this forum under the pretense of "Oh, I am just clarifying their proper position"!!!!

I can appreciate the proper position being clarified. I can appreciate the proper explanation Catholics give of certain scriptures but you have gone WAY BEYOND THAT and out of conviction use those explanations to attack the truth and defend YOUR OWN convictions. That is the real truth about you. The perfect guise to shield and defend your own personal convictions is now exposed for what it really is.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let me break this down from your post

Some on this forum may be foolish enough to believe it but not I.

You're saying some on this forum are Raka. But I'm not.

I can easily discern convictions being defended versus clarifications of someone elses convictions.

I'm Smart. Really smart because I can read intentions like a psychic.

The Bible teaches that His Spirit bears witness with our spirits and we are to try the spirits.

The bible tells me that I have God's authority in understanding it because he talks to me spiritually.

The spirit behind your writings does not bear witness with my spirit that it the Holy Spirit

You obviously don't have the holy spirit because God told me so because I don't really feel it in the burning of my bussom.

Sure that is my personal opinion but I guess I cannot give the personal opinion of anyone else can I?

I concede that is my personal opinion but I'm smart. Usually, smarter than everyone else.

Uh thats how it reads to me.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Calling the Catholic church institution a "whore" and "old harlot" is one thing, calling individual catholics whores is quite another thing.

You're playing word games. You know the Catholic organization is one made up of millions of individual people who believe in it so in effect when you call the institution a whore you're calling them a whore. Its the same thing as if you called Christians whore.

Saying "thou fool" is one thing but sayint "only a fool" would do this or say that is quite another thing. If the shoe fit wear it and if not stop complaining

again playing games. Its the same thing. Calling some one fool and foolish is the same thing. The aramaic word for that is Raka.

Your simply changing the subject because you are exposed as someone who has infiltrated a Baptist church with Catholic convictions, the very catholic convictions you are now defending in this forum under the pretense of "Oh, I am just clarifying their proper position"!!!!

No I'm speaking the truth. And yes I'm clarifying their proper position because your not honest enough to debate on that level.
I

can appreciate the proper position being clarified.

No you can't. You haven't yet.

I can appreciate the proper explanation Catholics give of certain scriptures but you have gone WAY BEYOND THAT and out of conviction use those explanations to attack the truth and defend YOUR OWN convictions.

If all the explinations I gave were mine I'd leave my church and be Catholic. I've already told you I don't hold to 100% of any Christian denomination. I've told you that I believe the church has evolved. I've told you that I do appreciate and agree with the classical view of Justification. But thats all you really know of my beliefs. The rest of the stuff is what you would like to believe about me.

That is the real truth about you.

Nope its not.

The perfect guise to shield and defend your own personal convictions is now exposed for what it really is.

I'm really my own person and I go to a baptist church so again you are concluding wrongly.

 

[Dr. Walter]

See you show your ignorance. Marian visions (not all accepted by the Catholic church) are not further revelations. Here it is from the catachism.

Did I say that "ALL" were accepted by Rome?? Where did I say "ALL" were accepted by Rome??? Seems to me you have errected a straw man in order to have a fine public burning so you can look real good!!

All Rome has to do is accept just ONE as authentic divine revelation. Ex-cathreda is on going revelation even if they qualify that it has to be in keeping with scriptures.

All you are doing is manifesting your own convictions once more and showing one more of the MULTITUDES of contradictions in Catholic dogma and traditions.

Like Rome you think by just declaring something not to be a revelation makes it so???? Or by redefining black to be white makes it so. There are shrines built and recognized by Rome concerning Mary where she gave revelations and I have read a few of these revelations and even the sites and shrines are continuously described as places where Mary gave a REVELATION.

Like all cults, Rome simply denies, redefines herself, her doctrine when it suits her and people like you swallow hook line and sinker. You are a Catholic not a Baptist in any way shape or form - period - and every time you open your mouth it is AGAINST BAPTIST and the very historical doctrines that make Baptists to be baptists such as baptism (No Baptist believes in baptismal regeneration or regeneration in baptism). You are a Catholic masquerding as a Baptist - period.