Hebrews 6

[JIM]

You keep speaking of the teaching of the apostles as if the teaching was of God.

It was. That is what the Bible is. If not, we are all lost for we have nothing else.

 

[David Lamb]

It was. That is what the Bible is. If not, we are all lost for we have nothing else.

I agree.

 

[Mr GLee]

It was. That is what the Bible is. If not, we are all lost for we have nothing else.

Hi Jim

Nothing else? Not even sola scriptura as it is written in the law and prophets or law and its testimony.

There would be no way for you to prove that kind of hermeneutics. . .venerate puff up the sent one. The Greek word apostle.

Why apostle was not translated in English "sent messenger" beautiful feet. delivery agents It remains a mystery to some .

The bible is not the private interpretations of the apostles. If that what you are saying?

The abiding word of the living God. . . not dead apostles or what some call patron saints

2 Peter 1:19-21We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:;Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any privateinterpretation. (of the apostle) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: (apostles) but holy men of God (apostles) spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The apostles did not move themselves rather than Christ working in them to both reveal and empower the apostles dead in their trespass and sin

Not moved by Peter who demonstrated in Mathew 16 when empowered by the father of lies Satan gave words to Peter who rebuked the unseen Holy Father and forbid Jesus the Son of men from doing the powerful will of the father

It is why Catholics chose Peter the serial denier he has the key that did unlock the gates of hell.

Mathew 16:22-23Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

If not Peter, then which apostle must we follow?

Changing the meaning of one-word apostles . . . . .sent messenger, UPS, Fed Ex , Pony Express To highly venerable puffed-up ones that lord it over the understanding of the non-venerable is not biblical.

One word can change all the power behind commandments.

Deuteronomy 4:Ye shall not add unto the word (singular) which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it,(singular) that ye may keep the commandments (plural) of the Lord your God which I command you.


If it is the teaching of the apostles sent messengers rather than Christ who dwells in the errand men again it should be easy to prove .

Abel the first apostles sent with prophecy. First recorded martyry. The father of lies first murder

 

[JIM]

Hi Jim

Nothing else? Not even sola scriptura as it is written in the law and prophets or law and its testimony.

There would be no way for you to prove that kind of hermeneutics. . .venerate puff up the sent one. The Greek word apostle.

Why apostle was not translated in English "sent messenger" beautiful feet. delivery agents It remains a mystery to some .

The bible is not the private interpretations of the apostles. If that what you are saying?

The abiding word of the living God. . . not dead apostles or what some call patron saints

2 Peter 1:19-21We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:;Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any privateinterpretation. (of the apostle) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: (apostles) but holy men of God (apostles) spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The apostles did not move themselves rather than Christ working in them to both reveal and empower the apostles dead in their trespass and sin

Not moved by Peter who demonstrated in Mathew 16 when empowered by the father of lies Satan gave words to Peter who rebuked the unseen Holy Father and forbid Jesus the Son of men from doing the powerful will of the father

It is why Catholics chose Peter the serial denier he has the key that did unlock the gates of hell.

Mathew 16:22-23Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

If not Peter, then which apostle must we follow?

Changing the meaning of one-word apostles . . . . .sent messenger, UPS, Fed Ex , Pony Express To highly venerable puffed-up ones that lord it over the understanding of the non-venerable is not biblical.

One word can change all the power behind commandments.

Deuteronomy 4:Ye shall not add unto the word (singular) which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it,(singular) that ye may keep the commandments (plural) of the Lord your God which I command you.


If it is the teaching of the apostles sent messengers rather than Christ who dwells in the errand men again it should be easy to prove .

Abel the first apostles sent with prophecy. First recorded martyry. The father of lies first murder

sorry, but once again, I can't make heads or tails about what you are trying to say.

 

[David Lamb]

sorry, but once again, I can't make heads or tails about what you are trying to say.

I'm glad I'm not the only one! I was beginning to think that the fact that I couldn't understand was my fault. Without meaning any offence to him, I have suggested that he needs to read his posts through before clicking the "Post Reply" button.

 

[makesends]

I didn't introduce the idea of being a Paulist. @Eleanor did in post #401.

Rather obviously, I thought, @Eleanor is not referring to what you are objecting to. Paul is not walking about the earth, nor blogging on some social media, with a following that she has glommed onto. You are the one that has brought up the use that we are enjoined to avoid.

In effect, your objection is a red herring. Eleanor (and I) could just as likely say that we are Petrists, or Jamesists, except that they are not as prolific with doctrinal instruction as Paul was. Eleanor was talking about doctrine, and not Paul as opposed to any other biblical author. But I'll give you a leg up, here: Note that I said 'author'; if you want to bring up another irrelevant objection, mention that GOD is the author of scripture, and not Paul, nor anyone else. In fact, you could spend several paragraphs proving from the scriptures that God is the author, and nobody else.

I remember from my years in the south, people responding to such objections with, "Y'all not hearing me! Listen what I'm sayin'!"

 

[makesends]

I'm glad I'm not the only one! I was beginning to think that the fact that I couldn't understand was my fault. Without meaning any offence to him, I have suggested that he needs to read his posts through before clicking the "Post Reply" button.

When you speak of another forum member, it is courteous to link him to it, by use of the @ followed immediately by his handle, (i.e. with no space between the ampersand and the name), so that he can know what is being said about him --in this case, @Mr GLee .

You can probably still edit your post. As you type "@Mr", etc, his handle should pop up for you to click on, to turn your typing into a link.

 

[makesends]

I'm glad I'm not the only one! I was beginning to think that the fact that I couldn't understand was my fault. Without meaning any offence to him, I have suggested that he needs to read his posts through before clicking the "Post Reply" button.

That supposes that @Mr GLee does not already do that. English is rather obviously not his primary language; proofreading what you have written into a somewhat unfamiliar language does not work the way it does in one's native language. Mistakes don't jump out at you. Add to that, that the article (a, the, his) is not always spoken, but assumed in some languages, or is included in what the article modifies, so that when it is translated, it is necessary to add the article in, as from Greek to English. It doesn't always show up where it should for English speakers to see.

Further, his method of presentation is difficult to follow. It is not by mistake that he writes the way he does, and his attempts at clarity or emphasis or other effects, (highlighting and adding adjectives, for eg) sometimes have the opposite effect. He's been here quite a while, and I have begun to get used to his way of expression, where certain words almost always are accompanied by other words or thoughts, kind of like the girl in the movie, "Splash", learned to speak English by watching TV, where a word was not complete unless accompanied by other words (always learned in the contexts where she had heard those words.) So, perhaps to him, "mankind" or "flesh" is not a complete notion without the necessary qualifier, "dying".

But again, if you are going to talk about someone behind his back, do it right in front of him.

 

[Mr GLee]

That supposes that @Mr GLee does not already do that. English is rather obviously not his primary language; proofreading what you have written into a somewhat unfamiliar language does not work the way it does in one's native language. Mistakes don't jump out at you. Add to that, that the article (a, the, his) is not always spoken, but assumed in some languages, or is included in what the article modifies, so that when it is translated, it is necessary to add the article in, as from Greek to English. It doesn't always show up where it should for English speakers to see.

Further, his method of presentation is difficult to follow. It is not by mistake that he writes the way he does, and his attempts at clarity or emphasis or other effects, (highlighting and adding adjectives, for eg) sometimes have the opposite effect. He's been here quite a while, and I have begun to get used to his way of expression, where certain words almost always are accompanied by other words or thoughts, kind of like the girl in the movie, "Splash", learned to speak English by watching TV, where a word was not complete unless accompanied by other words (always learned in the contexts where she had heard those words.) So, perhaps to him, "mankind" or "flesh" is not a complete notion without the necessary qualifier, "dying".

But again, if you are going to talk about someone behind his back, do it right in front of him.

Thanks for kindness.

Slower learner.

I hope I am on the Philippians 1:6 learning curb. Its an open book test

Philippian 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

 

[JIM]

Rather obviously, I thought, @Eleanor is not referring to what you are objecting to. Paul is not walking about the earth, nor blogging on some social media, with a following that she has glommed onto. You are the one that has brought up the use that we are enjoined to avoid.

In effect, your objection is a red herring. Eleanor (and I) could just as likely say that we are Petrists, or Jamesists, except that they are not as prolific with doctrinal instruction as Paul was. Eleanor was talking about doctrine, and not Paul as opposed to any other biblical author. But I'll give you a leg up, here: Note that I said 'author'; if you want to bring up another irrelevant objection, mention that GOD is the author of scripture, and not Paul, nor anyone else. In fact, you could spend several paragraphs proving from the scriptures that God is the author, and nobody else.

I remember from my years in the south, people responding to such objections with, "Y'all not hearing me! Listen what I'm sayin'!"

I read what @Eleanor said. I took her at her word, and it is precisely what Paul spoke out against in his letter to the Corinthians.

 

[Eleanor]

I read what @Eleanor said. I took her at her word, and it is precisely what Paul spoke out against in his letter to the Corinthians.

My distinction was not between teachers of apostolic times, which Paul spoke of, but between apostolic times and non-apostolic times,
between apostolic authority and no authority.

It should have been plain to see that was not the distinction Paul was speaking of.

 

[makesends]

Thanks for kindness.

Slower learner.

I hope I am on the Philippians 1:6 learning curb. Its an open book test

Philippian 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

FWIW, you are improving, I think.

 

[JIM]

My distinction was not between teachers of apostolic times, which Paul spoke of, but between apostolic times and non-apostolic times,
between apostolic authority and no authority.

It should have been plain to see that was not the distinction Paul was speaking of.

It wasn't.

 

[makesends]

I read what @Eleanor said. I took her at her word, and it is precisely what Paul spoke out against in his letter to the Corinthians.

No, actually, you didn't. You took her out of the context of the ongoing discussion, and misunderstood (on purpose?).

But maybe I should consider that it was not on purpose, but simply habit, interpreting the individual statement out of context the same way you take Scripture verses out of context.

 

[JIM]

No, actually, you didn't. You took her out of the context of the ongoing discussion, and misunderstood (on purpose?).

But maybe I should consider that it was not on purpose, but simply habit, interpreting the individual statement out of context the same way you take Scripture verses out of context.

Why do I get slammed with being banned for a few days for, as the ban states, making comments about the poster and not about the topic and you, it seems, do not?

Perhaps I didn't understand what @Eleanor meant to say, but I did not take her out of context.

 

[Mr GLee]

My distinction was not between teachers of apostolic times, which Paul spoke of, but between apostolic times and non-apostolic times,
between apostolic authority and no authority.

It should have been plain to see that was not the distinction Paul was speaking of.

Hi I would offer.

Words have meaning attached along with a loving warning not to add or subtract new meaning. Changing one word can change all the loving commandments.

The word Apostle (best example)

It can be proven with the use of the Greek word apostle sent messenger, UPS, Fed Ex, Amazon, Pony Express Air mail etc

It should have been translated sent messenger, errand boys. It would avoid much confusion and false pride (apostolical succession) A abomination of desolation making the living word of God to no effect through the oral tradition of dying fathers (I heard it through the grapevine) that some call apostles a legion of patron saints his and hers gods in the likenes of dying mankind

Do the words "apostolic times" represent the time period God sent out his apostle Abel with prophecy??

Who sent out Abel the first martyr, apostle prophet? Does not his blood cry out like that of all sent ones. . . sent with as it is written prophecy

 

[makesends]

Why do I get slammed with being banned for a few days for, as the ban states, making comments about the poster and not about the topic and you, it seems, do not?

Perhaps I didn't understand what @Eleanor meant to say, but I did not take her out of context.

Perhaps I should be banned too. I admit to being a hypocrite.

But the fact that, to your intentions, you did not take her out of context, is still relevant to your method. My point stands. @Eleanor , by calling herself a Paulist, was obviously, to me and others, not talking about the difference between Paul and Apollos or anyone else, but showing from where her doctrine is derived. --I.e. Scripture.

 

[Eleanor]

Hi I would offer.

Words have meaning attached along with a loving warning not to add or subtract new meaning. Changing one word can change all the loving commandments.
The word Apostle (best example)
It can be proven with the use of the Greek word apostle sent messenger, UPS, Fed Ex, Amazon, Pony Express Air mail etc
It should have been translated sent messenger, errand boys. It would avoid much confusion and false pride (apostolical succession) A abomination of desolation making the living word of God to no effect through the oral tradition of dying fathers (I heard it through the grapevine) that some call apostles a legion of patron saints his and hers gods in the likenes of dying mankind

Do the words "apostolic times" represent the time period God sent out his apostle Abel with prophecy??
Who sent out Abel the first martyr, apostle prophet? Does not his blood cry out like that of all sent ones. . . sent with as it is written prophecy

"Apostolic times" is a common reference to the time of the NT apostles.

 

[JIM]

Perhaps I should be banned too. I admit to being a hypocrite.

But the fact that, to your intentions, you did not take her out of context, is still relevant to your method. My point stands. @Eleanor , by calling herself a Paulist, was obviously, to me and others, not talking about the difference between Paul and Apollos or anyone else, but showing from where her doctrine is derived. --I.e. Scripture.

I took it that she wanted to establish that she was not a Calvinist. In any similar circumstance I would have said that I am a follower of Christ, I am a Christian. But enough with all of it.

 

[makesends]

I took it that she wanted to establish that she was not a Calvinist. In any similar circumstance I would have said that I am a follower of Christ, I am a Christian. But enough with all of it.

Good enough. I'll leave it there, too.