The case for the 1st cause

last SG · 2012-08-01T11:48:48+00:00

God = 1st cause. Of which one would ask "What comes before that?" God's existence is before the existence of time. No time, no before or after. You forgot th...

Aneslayer SG

That commandment does not mean you get to play daft and not be exposed for it. Tough love dude.

I consider name calling juvenile... I forgive you. / thread

[imdestinyz] SG

i can sense that aneslayer already very tired of trying to explain sth sensible.

Aneslayer SG

i can sense that aneslayer already very tired of trying to explain sth sensible.

Yeah... for something as simple as Hebrew bible =/= OT in that particular context... among other things...

Joe 328 SG

Lets do a quick poll, who thinks Aneslayer is playing daft? Who thinks I have not made it clear what Scriptures are being referred to?

*walks over to broinchrist, sits down beside him with eyes closed and folded arms, but says nothing*

Joe 328 SG

And so? I am saying that the Bible (both OT and NT) speaks of Christ. Again if I am speaking to a reasonable person he would have no problem knowing what I meant by the Bible that speaks of Christ. You are just playing games and playing daft.

Brother Joe, you here with me on this?

Every believer who has the white bird can answer broinchrist's question. It's a very simple question.

That is unless the white bird is not here? You look at the tree and nothing is there. A hyssop is also useful, though not a cedar it is not rejected. Everybody calls himself kosher, but only the fisherman knows which fish can be eaten.

*still sitting down with arms folded and eyes closed*

BroInChrist SG

i can sense that aneslayer already very tired of trying to explain sth sensible.

Really? What was he explaining? His tact is to give ambiguous comments and then tries to play fallacy detective with a listing of fallacies on one hand and a dictionary on the other. It's a good trick though, he doesn't have to reveal much about his beliefs since he usually gives iffy and non-committal replies and yet gets to take shots at his opponent's arguments by showing off his logical "skills" of flagging fallacies he thinks he has spotted. Nevermind that he doesn't really know his fallacies or definitions.

Duh.

BroInChrist SG

Every believer who has the white bird can answer broinchrist's question. It's a very simple question.

That is unless the white bird is not here? You look at the tree and nothing is there.A hyssop is also useful, though not a cedar it is not rejected. Everybody calls himself kosher, but only the fisherman knows which fish can be eaten.

*still sitting down with arms folded and eyes closed*

Bro Joe, your white bird analogy is a bit cheem. I don't quite get it, sorry.

But I am glad you are "sitted" beside me. I think I'm gonna fold my arms and close my eyes too.

Joe 328 SG

Bro Joe, your white bird analogy is a bit cheem. I don't quite get it, sorry.

But I am glad you are "sitted" beside me. I think I'm gonna fold my arms and close my eyes too.

Noah let out 2 birds. One was a white one. They are symbols.

"I saw a dove descending..."

The parable of the sower, Jesus said, if you don't understand this parable, how can you understand any parable? Jesus spoke in code a lot, for a reason which He also explained. The Bible is FULL of hidden codes.

This is what it means by "beginning at Moses and the Prophets, He spoke of things concerning Himself" How can it be when the name "Jesus" itself was not even mentioned in the OT. It's because it's completely hidden as Emmanuel, The Lamb of God, the pierced one, etc, etc, etc. countless of them.

BroInChrist SG

Noah let out 2 birds. One was a white one. They are symbols.

"I saw a dove descending..."

OK, I think I understand a little bit more.

Side note, I don't think the Bible is full of hidden codes. I think many things in the OT can only be better understood in light of the NT. In other words, Jesus is the thread that runs through it.

Joe 328 SG

OK, I think I understand a little bit more.

Side note, I don't think the Bible is full of hidden codes. I think many things in the OT can only be better understood in light of the NT. In other words, Jesus is the thread that runs through it.

Maybe I was confusing you by saying "the Bible"... When actually, more of the OT. Then again, the Gospels and Revelations are NT books that contain symbols toos.

NT epistles are much more open and explains things more directly. Hebrews was one such book to the Jews that explains the priest, the priesthood, Melchizedek, etc.

And yes, you are right - Jesus is the thread that runs through it.

Aneslayer SG

http://www.pinpointevangelism.com/The-Canonicity-of-the-Bible.pdf

BroInChrist SG

http://www.pinpointevangelism.com/The-Canonicity-of-the-Bible.pdf

The point being?????

Aneslayer SG

The point being?????

Up 2 your interpretation/s. The principles of canoncity applied.

Joe 328 SG

I don't care if it was written by a group called "The Most Holy holy of the holy God-est God" evangelism group or if the guy has a phd in theological studies. It means nothing. It must pass certain tests as the scripture says.

"If it was written by a recognized apostle or prophet, its place in the canon is secured".

> I'd take steps even further than that. It's not a deciding factor. Otherwise Paul's writings are disqualified since he's not the original 11 (12 minus Judas). Also the "Gospel of Peter" (a recognized apostle) should be deemed canon according to this principle, which is not. And if you find an online version of it and read it, you will know why.

Which goes back to this (which is 100% related to what I just wrote), why can't someone answer broinchrist's question?

"A miracle is an act of God to confirm the word of God given through a prophet of God to the people of God"

> WRONG. Signs and wonders don't always mean they of God 100%... and also depends on what type of miracles. Jesus spoke about them. Why do you think Jesus told His disciples to tell John that blind eyes are opened and the lame walk? "Miracles" (aka signs) can be conjured by sources that are not of God. Broinchrist will 100% agree with me with supporting scriptures. End-time teachings also reveal this.

"The Witness of the Holy Spirit"

> What should the Holy Spirit bear witness to? The Holy Spirit bears witness to the truth. What is the truth? Jesus spoke concerning the Holy Spirit and says specifically what the Holy Spirit is suppose to draw attention to - Himself.

I'll tell you one thing. Hit Ctrl + F and type "Jesus" into this article and you find nothing in there that talks about how Scriptures should point to Jesus and the Truth, which is the SOLE purpose of scripture. The Word made flesh.

I am more likely to conclude that Aneslayer should be viewed with utmost suspicion by posing as a "Christian". Not everyone who quotes Bible verses are of God. For Satan tempted Jesus with Bible verses, and also poses as an angel of light.

I told you already broinchrist, the enemy and any spirit not of God will hate and NEVER mention anything about Jesus and His finished work. No spirit can and will talk about His purpose and coming. All scriptures testify of Jesus' redemptive work, that is the Gospel and the whole point of it all - The forgiveness of sins.

Too suspicious. No? What do you think, broinchrist?

Aneslayer SG

"If it was written by a recognized apostle or prophet, its place in the canon is secured".

Which goes back to this (which is 100% related to what I just wrote), why can't someone answer broinchrist's question?

"A miracle is an act of God to confirm the word of God given through a prophet of God to the people of God"

"The Witness of the Holy Spirit"

Too suspicious. No? What do you think, broinchrist?

Those are the principles applied to compile the bibles most are reading now, which I believe, yours and BIC too.

Call me what you will. The truth will set you free.

P.S: The forgiveness of sin does not mean sin no longer . It means there is redemption for repentence.

Side note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Geisler

BroInChrist SG

"If it was written by a recognized apostle or prophet, its place in the canon is secured".

Which goes back to this (which is 100% related to what I just wrote), why can't someone answer broinchrist's question?

"A miracle is an act of God to confirm the word of God given through a prophet of God to the people of God"

"The Witness of the Holy Spirit"

Too suspicious. No? What do you think, broinchrist?

Bro Joe, while I share your reservations about Aneslayer's recent "revelation" of being a Christian I do not share your reservations about the weblink that he gave.

Norman Geisler is a noted Christian apologist, one whom I have much respect for and have a lot of his books, though regrettably he espouses the old earth view. This article on Bible canon must be seen on its own context, it is simply a teaching on this topic. I have no problem with this article as it is, my problem was more with Aneslayer's motive for providing this link, what's his point? Of course you would have known by now that he did not bother to elaborate at all. Methinks he likes to set "fallacy traps" to showcase his "mastery" of formal and informal fallacies.

Joe 328 SG

Bro Joe, while I share your reservations about Aneslayer's recent "revelation" of being a Christian I do not share your reservations about the weblink that he gave.

Noted.

I am taught and learned not to take even a Man of God's word just like that. Although I can learn much from them, it should not be a final and must be cross-checked.

Even Martin Luther made mistakes. His late-life rant on Jews (anti-semitism) was a result of his growing frustrations on his inability to convert the Jews who kept rejecting Luther's revelations. Also his revelation of law vs. grace gave him such an aversion to the Torah (1st 5 books), he attempted to appeal to take the book of Hebrews and the book of James out of the canon.

That said, I'll check up and do a study on Norman Geisler and his work more.

Any works of his you particularly recommend?

BroInChrist SG

Noted.

I am taught and learned not to take even a Man of God's word just like that. Although I can learn much from them, it should not be a final and must be cross-checked.

That said, I'll check up and do a study on Norman Geisler and his work more.

Any works of his you particularly recommend?

Check out my book recommendation thread, Bro Joe. I have some good books by him. Noteworthy is his Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics and his four volume Systematic Theology.

« Previous Page