Who Promotes Propaganda?

[Darrell C]

Now let's see what you did not post in your propaganda:

Like this Sheriff (a minor tyrant) who claims . . . Then urged his officers to “hang in there” while Godless citizens criticize them for punching pregnant women in the belly.

that anyone who criticizes the police is defying God, and that this is merely “the ignorance of some people.

If you could rightly divide the facts you would see your wresting of the facts is the criticism he refers to.

You condone and advocate resistance which Scripture forbids.


Romans 13

King James Version (KJV)

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:


How about sharing why this godly and patriotic citizen was having her child removed from her?

(see the information not given in the propaganda here)


Texas Rangers to investigate deputy's alleged assault

The events that led to the March 4 confrontation started with an incident that occurred over the weekend between Deanna Robinson and her husband.

The couple's six-year-old stepson — who has cerebral palsy — told school officials he had been hit by his father, according to a CPS removal affidavit. The child also reported that the couple had been hitting each other. CPS investigators questioned her husband, who described it as more of a tap to get the child's attention.

Deanna Robinson said the couple did shove each other, but denies that there was any hitting. She said as a result of the argument, she left home and went to stay with her parents.

According to the sheriff, his office was called on March 4 to assist Quinlan police and CPS in removing Deanna Robinson's 18-month-old son from her parents' home because CPS investigators expected there might be a confrontation.

Meeks said two deputies — Josh Robinson and William Whitten — went to the scene to assist, and they were met at the door by Deanna Robinson.


Wow. Imagine that. No mention of the details in your thread.

Did you ever stop to wonder why the child was being removed?

Why no mention of that, Poncho?

Because it doesn't serve your agenda.

How does that violate the hypocritical railing against propaganda?


The sheriff said the officers showed Deanna Robinson a court order to remove the child. She has denied that account.

Meeks said Deanna Robinson tried to close the door, and an officer blocked the doorway and entered the home to execute the court order. The sheriff said she was shouting obscenities and "yelling, 'You're not taking my child.'''

In the process, the sheriff said she struck Josh Robinson in the face, which led him and a Quinlan police officer to try to take her into custody for assault on a peace officer.

Meeks said the 30-second security camera video of the incident shows officers trying to handcuff Deanna Robinson. She told News 8 earlier this week that she was in handcuffs at the time the video was shot.

The sheriff said the footage was shot by a motion-activated camera, so there is are four-minute and two-minute gaps in the recording. The 30-second video posted on YouTube shows the deputy hitting Deanna Robinson at least once as he and another deputy push her into the kitchen counter. The images then show a deputy pulling his arm back as if to strike her again before the footage cuts off.

Meeks told the media he believes there is more evidence out there, and the whole truth needs to be examined. He said that there was one narrative in which his deputy beats up a pregnant woman. But he said there is a second narrative in which Robinson was reaching for the deputy's gun.

"I believe by looking at it that he is trying to keep her hands away from his gun, and that will take however many blows it takes to keep her away from his gun," Meeks said. "If someone gets your gun, you can be killed by a pregnant woman just as well as a 16-year-old child."


Quite a bit of he said she said here.

But do you wait until the investigation, which the Sherriff himself requested, has been completed?

Nope. That wouldn't serve your agenda, would it. Best to use this kind of garbage to mislead people so you can, with your propaganda...make people embrace the views you want them to.


Meeks said he has asked the Texas Rangers to launch a full investigation into the case. He promised that Deputy Josh Robinson would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if any criminal wrongdoing is found to have occurred, but said if no wrongdoing is found, he will stand behind the deputy "100 percent."


So where do you come to the conclusion he was...

The sheriff added that anyone who criticizes the police is defying God, and that this is merely “the ignorance of some people.” He urged officers to “hang in there” while Godless citizens criticize them for punching pregnant women in the belly.

And how is it that you view my exposing this hypocrisy and wresting of the truth as an attack?

The only attack here is by you on this man, Law Enforcement as a whole, and...common decency.

Your sarcasm here...

How dare these Godless citizens be critical of a cop that would punch a pregnant woman in the stomach?

...is built upon deception and false premise.

But that's okay, right?


Continued...

 

[InTheLight]

This thread has turned into a parody.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

[Darrell C]

Apparently this type of behavior is in line with department policies.

Responding to people who initiate violence with violence? Is that what you mean?

It's a good policy which will keep some police officers from being killed.

Will we ever know if she was reaching for his gun? Probably not.

But, we can draw conclusions from what is reported, and none of that corresponds to your charges against both this man and the Biblical Teaching most acknowledge.

And your link?

More wresting of the truth for your agenda and defense of yourself:

In yet another case of police investigating themselves only to determine that they did nothing wrong, a Hunt County Sheriff’s deputy was no-billed after being captured on video punching a pregnant woman numerous times and pushing her stomach first into a kitchen counter, leaving bruises.


The case is being handled by Texas Rangers, amigo. Not the Sherriff's Office.

That is not the police investigating itself.

If that be the case then I would say the department policy needs to change.

I would agree. Shame this wasn't the sentiment you presented in the post that I sought to discuss with you.

And if this Sheriff were a "Bible believer" as he is holding himself up to be then I have to ask where in the Bible does it give him or his deputies the authority to punch pregnant women?

If?

Where in your post do you do anything but revile this "public servant" for presuming to speak his mind about his interpretation of this passage, and in doing so present a reviling for the Bible itself.

And you still imply he is seeking to justify a policy of "Hey guys, it's okay to punch pregnant women in the stomach if you need to?"

Incredible.

You are not going to justify your propaganda, nor deny it as propaganda, nor deny that you played the hypocrite in posting Characteristics of Propaganda in a negative light then employ the very same tactics as you go about with your own propaganda.

For that matter where is it written in the law?

You would first have to show the Sherriff guilty of what you charge him with.

You've been asked to do that several times.

Your original post has been shown several times to lack a justification of your words and charges against him.

You just will not be honest about this.

No, people have to obey the law. When the Sheriff is acting in accordance with the law and treating people with respect then he deserves respect and the support of the people but when he is acting outside or above the law and treating people like serfs then he deserves neither.

Were those officers treated with respect?

They were there in accordance with Law, and yet...you have not bothered to consider the child that was being removed and placed in protective custody.

If the child had been injured or died sometime down the road, you would probably be the first person to condemn the Police and CPS...

...for not doing their jobs.

What, do you think they get their jollies going around taking kids from parents without any probable cause?

Incredible.

He should be replaced.

You have not shown the first thing that warrants the Sherriff being removed from office. Your anti-biblical and anti-authoritarian propaganda is an epic fail, and it bothers you that this is what is being pointed out.

So push your agenda which seeks a secular Separation of Church and State, and impose a fictitious mythology that would deprive Law Enforcement Officers from their right to freedom of speech and expression.

I hope you will be happy with this secular and anti-biblical agenda. Just don't think that no-one has the right to address your agenda, or point out the errors of your posting.

Same goes for those under his authority when his deputies are acting in accordance with the law and treating people with respect then they deserve respect and the support of the people but when they are acting outside or above the law and using pregnant women for punching bags then they deserve neither.

They should be replaced.

I would agree. You already know I don't approve of abuse of power.

But you equally know that I don't approve of agendas which are illogical and do not represent the facts, nor present all of the facts, and...wrest the facts they do present.

That is the height of what's wrong with Propaganda.

That's my opinion and calling me crazy or ridiculous for having that opinion isn't going to change it.

It could be called insane to rail against propaganda while at the same time doing exactly that.

And no-one said you had no right to your opinion, just that you do not have the right to quash discussion when your opinion enters into questionable tactics and easily recognizable wresting of the facts for the purpose of your agenda.

And that is why you, Poncho, are spreading propaganda, not conveying truth. That is why you refused discussion in your thread.

Okay, I am done.

Nothing more I see that needs to be said from my side of the discussion.

All of this could have been avoided simply by engaging in discussion about what was questioned in your posting.

I leave you with this thought:

1) It Prevents Dialogue.

“To be effective, propaganda cannot be concerned with detail... Propaganda ceases where simple dialogue begins… it does not tolerate discussion; by its very nature, it excludes contradiction and discussion.”

Agreed.

Use this Sherriff in your propaganda now, Poncho.

Can anyone find examples of how step one has been used to prevent dialog from taking place here on Baptist Board?

Yup. This thread is for that purpose, so feel free to use it as a reference in the future.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

This thread has turned into a parody.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

How so?

Are you justifying Poncho's vilification of the Sherriff with untruths and absence of all relevant material?

Now justify your statement, and show what you feel makes it a parody.

God bless.

 

[InTheLight]

If a parody or satire must be explained to you, you will never understand it.

Anyway, you're banging on and on about nothingness to no one else but yourself. What are you hoping to accomplish?

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

[Darrell C]

If a parody or satire must be explained to you, you will never understand it.

Anyway, you're banging on and on about nothingness to no one else but yourself. What are you hoping to accomplish?

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

I didn't ask you to explain what a parody is, ITL, I asked you to show from my posting what you viewed as parody.

And I don't mind explaining that to you, nor will I quench discussion because of the misunderstanding of an antagonist.

It has been explained what the purpose of this thread is, you can see that in the OP. You can see it in the subsequent responses.

So perhaps you are hesitant to show the "parody" you seek to dismiss the discussion with because it will be revealed that this is no laughing matter, and you simply want to object to what I say because your own conscience is goaded by what is said.

Now see, that's how discussion works: you say something, I say something. You say something else, I say something else.

But somewhere in all those somethings the actual issue being discussed has to come into focus. That you are not bothering to consider what your antagonist is saying is perfectly displayed in the dating thread, where you conclude the exact opposite of what I said. Shall I be surprised to learn that your conclusion of "parody" is based on the same negligent examination of what is said here in this thread.

So again, seeing I have the right to confront right to confront my accuser, please show where the parody can be seen.


God bless.

 

[InTheLight]

And I don't mind explaining that to you, nor will I quench discussion because of the misunderstanding of an antagonist.

Now see, that's how discussion works: you say something, I say something. You say something else, I say something else.

Nope. You only "discuss" things when it is convenient for you. When you get nailed to the wall you clam up, like with Poncho. Here's an example:

Wait a minute. Are you actually saying that if a single man and a single woman meet in public there is a presumption of sin involved?!

I'll let you work that one out for yourself, ITl.

See?


Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

[Darrell C]

Nope. You only "discuss" things when it is convenient for you. When you get nailed to the wall you clam up, like with Poncho. Here's an example:

InTheLight said:
Wait a minute. Are you actually saying that if a single man and a single woman meet in public there is a presumption of sin involved?!
Click to expand...

Darrell C said:
I'll let you work that one out for yourself, ITl.

See?


Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

I notice you didn't bother to post the actual quote you asked this question about:

Meet in public for the first time.

Would it be a good idea to meet in public always? That even the appearance of sin not be considered?

And I don't mean to imply that I did that, as my wife and I often met when no-one else was around. But, I look back and feel that perhaps it might have been better had we not done that.

We can always present a better route we could have taken, hindsight is twenty twenty, but, when counseling prospective couples, is it going to far to counsel public meeting to discourage temptation?


God bless.

No real need for me to point out that you didn't understand what was said. Was that due to you not bothering to read it? Simply looking for something to contradict?

I don't know, but, what I do know is that your response was the exact opposite of what I said.

It would have been very inconvenient for you, not me, to point that out.

Your error there, and possible reasons why you made the error, are simply not that important.

But, when someone vilifies a Bible believer as was done in that thread, which is the topic of this discussion, as well as the quenching of discussion, that takes on a little more importance in my view.

And I am just not sure I have ever seen you really broach anything of any real significance, so, as a favor to you, I didn't jump on the opportunity to point out your error in that thread.

Your welcome.



By the way...did you ever get that worked out, ITL?

Your only interaction with me in that thread prior to this was to declare my statement off topic. It seems as though you have a problem with anything I say. Now the question is...why would you have a problem if you are not even bothering to read what I said.

Now again, will you show what you think is parody in this thread?


God bless.

 

[poncho]

Darrell you would have been an excellent inquisitor at the Salem witch trials.

I know now what you meant by "threshing it out" at first I thought you might mean having a semi intelligent dialog where people exchange thoughts and ideas in an edifying manner but it didn't take long to learn what you actually meant was that you desire to interrogate, accuse and insult people who don't think like you.

This is why I didn't want to try to have a dialog with you in my thread. I knew it would end up with pages full of your misrepresentations, accusations and insults, and I know myself well enough to know I have a hard time resisting responding in kind to people like that and I'm trying to get away from all that.

If you want to interrogate, accuse and insult people and call it a discussion that's fine but you'll have to choose another victim to feed your inflated ego from now on because I see no reason to try to have any further conversations with you.

I suggest you try CMG next he seems to share your passion for "threshing it out".

Have a safe trip Dude.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell you would have been an excellent inquisitor at the Salem witch trials.

Hey thanks! And I agree, I think I would have made a great inquisitor as well, lol. Probably could have saved quite a few from people who unjustly accuse others.

I know now what you meant by "threshing it out" at first I thought you might mean having a semi intelligent dialog where people exchange thoughts and ideas in an edifying manner but it didn't take long to learn what you actually meant was that you desire to interrogate, accuse and insult people who don't think like you.

If that's how you want to take it, Poncho, okay.

But one day you may understand that your propaganda was unjust, manipulated the story, and left out relevant details in regards to the case.

That is why it is good for someone to have the right to confront their accuser.

And if they can't do that...to have an advocate.

You will never, no matter how hard you try, justify implying this man condones punching women in the stomach. A simple look through the facts shows that mention of punching her in the stomach was never even mentioned, her stomach hit the counter when they tried to take her into custody.

All of this could have been avoided if she had simply complied with them.

And we can back up and say all of this could have been avoided if the husband and wife had not been fighting. THis led to the child himself reporting what happened. This led to CPS's involvement.

You can downplay the danger Law Enforcement officers face on a daily basis, but as far as I am concerned, I can't blame an officer punching a woman, even a pregnant woman, in the face if he thinks his life is in danger. If we investigate this man, would we find domestic disturbance in his record? Has his children ever had to tell someone they had been abused?

You wrested the story for your own benefit, so quit sniveling about others who promote propaganda. It is just hypocritical.

This is why I didn't want to try to have a dialog with you in my thread.

Another excuse. Different from the first.

Make up my mind, amigo.

I knew it would end up with pages full of your misrepresentations, accusations and insults,

So?

Are you telling me you don't have the conviction to fight for your convictions?

You'd make a great politician.

and I know myself well enough to know I have a hard time resisting responding in kind to people like that and I'm trying to get away from all that.

That stands in contrast to your recent testimony, having recently realized a flaw in your reactions. You passed this off as a new revelation, one which you were determined to end.

Good luck with that, Poncho, I mean that sincerely. Perhaps one day we might be able to have a discussion as brothers.

If you want to interrogate, accuse and insult people and call it a discussion that's fine but you'll have to choose another victim to feed your inflated ego from now on because I see no reason to try to have any further conversations with you.

As I said, sometimes it is necessary to address folks on a level they can understand. It is not something I prefer, but, it's not something I will shy away from either, because it can be effective.

As far as interrogation, accusation, and insult, well, confrontation is not necessarily interrogation, nothing I said was an accusation, it was simply listing the facts of the discussion, and if you feel insulted, you should look at the facts to see why you are insulted.

The truth should insult you, Poncho. It should bother you when you unjustly accuse someone.

Who would have made a good inquisitor again?

I suggest you try CMG next he seems to share your passion for "threshing it out".

I am actually at a point where it is time to move on.

I do not really know CMG, and how we would interact I don't know. I do not usually get too involved in secular matters, but, when someone presents Scripture, and a believer's views as contrary to what is American, then that is something I would care to discuss.

That may be the Liberal's America, but it is not the America of History. Someone pointed out in a thread that years ago not praying to the God of the Bible would have stood out and come under fire. Now, a Sherriff exercises his right to speak his mind and you vilify him.

No attention to the particulars of the case, but this man condones punching pregnant women in the stomach.

That is wrong on several fronts, and the truth is...you know that is true.

It is your conscience you are battling, my friend, not me.

Have a safe trip Dude.

Hey thanks!

God bless.

 

[poncho]

Propaganda . . . information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause

The word propaganda is often used in a negative sense, especially for politicians who make false claims to get elected or spread rumors to get their way. In fact, any campaign that is used to persuade can be called propaganda.

Including the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is a campaign to persuade others.

 

[righteousdude2]

Responding to people who initiate violence with violence? Is that what you mean?

It's a good policy which will keep some police officers from being killed.

Will we ever know if she was reaching for his gun? Probably not.

But, we can draw conclusions from what is reported, and none of that corresponds to your charges against both this man and the Biblical Teaching most acknowledge.

And your link?

More wresting of the truth for your agenda and defense of yourself:

In yet another case of police investigating themselves only to determine that they did nothing wrong, a Hunt County Sheriff’s deputy was no-billed after being captured on video punching a pregnant woman numerous times and pushing her stomach first into a kitchen counter, leaving bruises.


The case is being handled by Texas Rangers, amigo. Not the Sherriff's Office.

That is not the police investigating itself.




I would agree. Shame this wasn't the sentiment you presented in the post that I sought to discuss with you.




If?

Where in your post do you do anything but revile this "public servant" for presuming to speak his mind about his interpretation of this passage, and in doing so present a reviling for the Bible itself.

And you still imply he is seeking to justify a policy of "Hey guys, it's okay to punch pregnant women in the stomach if you need to?"

Incredible.

You are not going to justify your propaganda, nor deny it as propaganda, nor deny that you played the hypocrite in posting Characteristics of Propaganda in a negative light then employ the very same tactics as you go about with your own propaganda.




You would first have to show the Sherriff guilty of what you charge him with.

You've been asked to do that several times.

Your original post has been shown several times to lack a justification of your words and charges against him.

You just will not be honest about this.




Were those officers treated with respect?

They were there in accordance with Law, and yet...you have not bothered to consider the child that was being removed and placed in protective custody.

If the child had been injured or died sometime down the road, you would probably be the first person to condemn the Police and CPS...

...for not doing their jobs.

What, do you think they get their jollies going around taking kids from parents without any probable cause?

Incredible.




You have not shown the first thing that warrants the Sherriff being removed from office. Your anti-biblical and anti-authoritarian propaganda is an epic fail, and it bothers you that this is what is being pointed out.

So push your agenda which seeks a secular Separation of Church and State, and impose a fictitious mythology that would deprive Law Enforcement Officers from their right to freedom of speech and expression.

I hope you will be happy with this secular and anti-biblical agenda. Just don't think that no-one has the right to address your agenda, or point out the errors of your posting.




I would agree. You already know I don't approve of abuse of power.

But you equally know that I don't approve of agendas which are illogical and do not represent the facts, nor present all of the facts, and...wrest the facts they do present.

That is the height of what's wrong with Propaganda.




It could be called insane to rail against propaganda while at the same time doing exactly that.

And no-one said you had no right to your opinion, just that you do not have the right to quash discussion when your opinion enters into questionable tactics and easily recognizable wresting of the facts for the purpose of your agenda.

And that is why you, Poncho, are spreading propaganda, not conveying truth. That is why you refused discussion in your thread.

Okay, I am done.

Nothing more I see that needs to be said from my side of the discussion.

All of this could have been avoided simply by engaging in discussion about what was questioned in your posting.

I leave you with this thought:




Agreed.

Use this Sherriff in your propaganda now, Poncho.



Yup. This thread is for that purpose, so feel free to use it as a reference in the future.


God bless.

Any debate with the poncho is like debating a dead horse. You will beat it forever and it will just lay there and stink up the place, in his care, the board.

 

[Darrell C]

Any debate with the poncho is like debating a dead horse. You will beat it forever and it will just lay there and stink up the place, in his care, the board.

I disagree, RD, if we give up on those professing Christ, refuse to address what we see as error, then we fail in the Great Commission on a fundamental level. Discipleship does not mean bringing one into agreement with our views, but to God's view, His teaching, His commands. While the charge of arrogance and inflated ego is going to arise any time we confront error, if we are right, and our brother wrong, God will be glorified in the end.

We need to be as careful to have concern for those already professing Christ as we do for those in need of Christ.

And sometimes which we are addressing is not always that clear.

So better to err on the side of caution and stick with the fundamentals of correction.

I am just not sure how many would try to equate the general use of Propaganda with the Bible. I see it as questionable to place the Word of God in the same context of the use of Propaganda as it is addressed in these two threads. I do see a distinction, and I do see a need to point that out.

You marked the post "old," and I agree, but the question I have for you, my friend, is...why is it old? Why are the same arguments still going on? Is there no way for a Christian community to come together and as the Body be able to put some of these issues to rest?

I think there is, and discussion is the only way to do that. If our discussion keeps being the same "old" same "old," perhaps something is missing from the discussion.


God bless.

 

[InTheLight]

I disagree, RD, if we give up on those professing Christ, refuse to address what we see as error, then we fail in the Great Commission on a fundamental level.

I was not aware that the Great Commission was about going around and correcting Christian's perceived doctrinal errors. Silly me, all this time I thought it was about reaching the lost for Christ.

Thanks for the heads up!

 

[Darrell C]

I was not aware that the Great Commission was about going around and correcting Christian's perceived doctrinal errors. Silly me, all this time I thought it was about reaching the lost for Christ.

Thanks for the heads up!

Don't mention it, ITL, glad to help where I can.


Matthew 28:19-20

King James Version (KJV)

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


God bless.

 

[InTheLight]

So, other than Paul (who wasn't present at the Great Commission and wasn't sent to ALL nations, only to the Gentiles) what other apostle is known for instructing Christians in doctrine? See any of that happening in Acts? Also, what doctrinal teachings stated by Jesus were the apostles supposed to teach?

 

[Darrell C]

So, other than Paul (who wasn't present at the Great Commission and wasn't sent to ALL nations, only to the Gentiles) what other apostle is known for instructing Christians in doctrine?

All of them that were Bible writers, for one, which would include John, Peter, and James, as well as Matthew and Mark, but we also see many disciples instructing about Christian Doctrine.

So, other than Paul (who wasn't present at the Great Commission and wasn't sent to ALL nations, only to the Gentiles) what other apostle is known for instructing Christians in doctrine?

Do you think the Great Commission only applies to the eleven disciples?

See any of that happening in Acts?

Sure:

Acts 2

King James Version (KJV)

1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.


Peter clarifies what they, those speaking in tongues (languages) were speaking about:


15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.


Now if you mean in the sense of correction, as Paul instructs us Scripture is profitable for, perhaps you might see Peter's next statement as fitting that description:


22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.


Not pulling any punches, would you say? No sugar coating for Peter...he always had the habit of speaking his mind. Fortunately, on this occasion he was led of God in what he was preaching.

Of course, this is precisely what the Lord said they would do once they were Baptized with the Spirit:


Acts 1:4-8

King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


If you would like more examples let me know.

Also, what doctrinal teachings stated by Jesus were the apostles supposed to teach?

We look at what they actually taught. Acts is a good place to find examples. The primary teaching consists of exactly what the Great Commission sums up:


Matthew 28:19-20

King James Version (KJV)

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


So now I will ask you a question: how is one brought to the point where they are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ITL?

What teachings are primary.

What teachings follow?

Why would we restrict any New Testament Teacher or their Teachings from our lives?

This would make a great thread, by the way.


God bless.

 

[InTheLight]

All of them that were Bible writers, for one, which would include John, Peter, and James, as well as Matthew and Mark, but we also see many disciples instructing about Christian Doctrine.

OK, where?

Do you think the Great Commission only applies to the eleven disciples?

No, of course not. But that's not the question, is it? The question is whether or not the Great Commission is about evangelizing (i.e. winning the lost) or if it is about doctrinal instruction.

Mark 16: 15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."

You say it includes doctrinal instruction. I'm asking you for a couple examples of apostles going out into the world and instructing doctrine.

Sure.

Acts 2

I don't see any doctrine in there. I do see the gospel in verses 19-40.

If you would like more examples let me know.

"More examples?" How about one example.

So now I will ask you a question: how is one brought to the point where they are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ITL?

No, I'm not going to play your game of moving the goalposts of the argument. Let's not change the subject.

Please give an example of the apostles going out and teaching doctrine to support your idea of the Great Commission.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C said: ↑
All of them that were Bible writers, for one, which would include John, Peter, and James, as well as Matthew and Mark, but we also see many disciples instructing about Christian Doctrine.
Click to expand...

OK, where?

This might help you, ITL:

Understanding what Doctrine means.

This is a link, by the way.

Do you think the Great Commission only applies to the eleven disciples?
Click to expand...

No, of course not. But that's not the question, is it?

Actually it is.

The Lord is sending the disciples out to convey the Doctrine He has taught them.

It is through Doctrine that men are saved.

What is a disciple, ITL? It is someone that learns, right? Now what is it that the disciples went out to teach?

Doctrine, lol.

The question is whether or not the Great Commission is about evangelizing (i.e. winning the lost) or if it is about doctrinal instruction.

You separate the two?

How are you going to evangelize apart from the Doctrine you are commanded to convey?

Here is the opposite of Sound Doctrine:


Galatians 1:8-10

King James Version (KJV)

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Do me a favor, do a word study on doctrine. You can start here.

If you would rather not do that, here are a few verses to consider:


Romans 6:17

King James Version (KJV)

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.


Romans 16:17

King James Version (KJV)

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them


I will hand it to you, ITL, at least sometimes when you derail a topic it is at least interesting.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Mark 16: 15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."

But the Gospel is not doctrine, is that it? lol

You say it includes doctrinal instruction.

Of course.

Here is an example of Peter instructing unbelievers in doctrine:

Acts 5:27-29

King James Version (KJV)

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,

28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.



Here is an example of Paul instructing unbelievers in doctrine:


Acts 19:8-10

King James Version (KJV)

8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

10 And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.

Here is Paul instructing believers in Doctrine:

Here is an example of Peter instructing believers:


1 Peter 1


Here is an example of Paul instructing believers:


Galatians 2:9-16

King James Version (KJV)

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.





Continued...