Pastor Dave

Member
  • Posts

    781
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pastor Dave

  1. I can understand changing your mind. I remember doing that occasionally when writing research papers in college.
  2. Having read and re-read (first time was really a skimming) both versions I am going to make a few observations. These observations are just that .... observations. Of course my observations will be colored by church teachings, my experiences and my understanding of scripture. My first observation is that there is no discussion of the two types of "speaking in tongues" described by people who have experienced them. The first being that described in Acts 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. which is generally understood to mean that the Apostles spoke in languages that they did not know how to speak. This type of "speaking in tongues" is known as xenoglossy. Although it does still happen it is not common (in my experience). There is another type of speaking in tongues known as glossolalia. Glossolalia is understood to be a sacred language known to God which is spoken when we are unable to express those things which we need to pray for as expressed in Romans 8:26-27 26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. This type of "speaking in tongues" is much more common (again, in my experience). I have never experienced xenoglossy so I cannot speak from experience on the subject. I have been in church services where it has happened and the person who actually understood what was being said received that message as being meant for them personally. I have also been in services where one person "spoke in tongues" and another person "gave interpretation" of what was said. This was understood to be a message for the church often (but not always) giving a prophesy. I, myself, experience the glossolalia often. Most often when I am deep in prayer the Holy Spirit takes over. I continue to speak but the words are no longer my own. These words have a rhythm and cadence similar to any other language, with pauses and stops. Sometimes these occasions are short and after they are over my spirit has a feeling of relief or satisfaction. Other times I may continue "speaking in tongues" (praying in an unknown language) for a considerable amount of time. Often, in these longer sessions, I will come out with revelation of a previously misunderstood bit of scripture or, on rare occasions, a revelation of something God has in my future. This type of "speaking in tongues" should never interrupt a service. Your introduction in Rev 2 is, IMHO, the better of the two introductions. To me, it gives a clearer description of what you intend to discuss, although I find the second paragraph to simply be filling space. In Rev 1 you have a section (The Doctrine at the Center of the Debate) which has no counter in Rev 2. To me, this section seems to explain one particular Pentecostal groups views to the exclusion of other Pentecostal groups. While the church I grew up in has statements similar to those expressed in this section (It believes in receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit subsequent to "a clean heart". It believes that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of baptism with the Holy Spirit.) your section seems to give the impression that these are unique to the Assemblies of God churches. About the Two Main Positions sections; although both seem to be well written I think I prefer the Rev 1 version. To me it seems to give a little more information on why the two men hold their different positions. In the "Relevance of the Debate" sections, paragraph 1 of Rev 1 and paragraph 2 of Rev 2 state that the debate is often framed as someone has to be wrong. While that may be the position of many it is important to note that some churches (like the one I grew up in) teach "Exclusivity" has never been an official church teaching. However, some ministers have subscribed to such teachings, and still hold them today, separate from the church's official stance on the subject." Again I have to say that both versions are well written. I think my likes would lean towards Rev 1 a little more but I can't quite decide exactly why. Now we come to the sections that lead me to a bit of confusion. In the "My Position" sections you claim to agree with both positions. Rev 1 first paragraph. Rev 2 last paragraph. Now I'm certainly not going to attempt to tell you which position to take but I think whichever position you take you should do so consistently. I would site James 1:8 King James Version (KJV) A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. On the "The Role of Contemporary Experience" sections; I would go with Rev 2 simply because it excludes the phrase "The amusing thing is". otherwise they seem identical. Finally, while I think I like the "Conclusion" in Rev 2 I think you should also incorporate the line from Rev 1 "To experience this blessing results in the desire for everyone to get to experience it, and therefore clouding the lenses of objectivity, and if it was never experienced it would be deemed unnecessary." Again I want to emphasize these are my observations and opinions and are not meant to be anything other than that.
  3. I noticed Dorian Gray also has a space so it wasn't just a fluke that I got one ....... something had to have changed at some point. I can also say that it wasn't immediately after we switched from the previous forum software (wasn't it invision or something similar?) because I remember I went inactive long enough (6 maybe 8 months) for Murph to delete me and I had to create a new account.
  4. I think my favorite would have to be the books of Enoch.
  5. Thanks for the update Dan. Looks like I'm done with this topic.
  6. Wow Fawzo, did you really give us that link without reading anything more than the statistics you wanted to quote? First off, according to the Intersex Society of North America, you know, the site you referred us to, they prefer the term intersex. Also from their website; The words “hermaphrodite” and “pseudo-hermaphrodite” are stigmatizing and misleading words. five ISNA-associated experts recommend that all terms based on the root “hermaphrodite” be abandoned because they are scientifically specious and clinically problematic. Then we have you either showing your ignorance, or spreading outright lies about the intersexed. again from ISNA; The mythological term “hermaphrodite” implies that a person is both fully male and fully female. This is a physiologic impossibility. and from wikipedia there has yet to be a documented case where both gonadal tissues function. and It can be associated with mutation in the SRY gene. A little more from the ISNA website you may want to know before you continue. Does ISNA think children with intersex should be raised without a gender, or in a third gender?No, and for the record, we’ve never advocated this. First, how would we decide who would count in the “third gender”? How would we decide where to cut off the category of male and begin the category of intersex, or, on the other side of the spectrum, where to cut off the category of intersex to begin the category of female? Some people live and die with intersex anatomy without anyone (including themselves) ever knowing. Which variations of sexual anatomy count as intersex? In practice, different people have different answers to that question. That’s not surprising, because intersex isn’t a discreet or natural category. So nature doesn’t decide where the category of “male” ends and the category of “intersex” begins, or where the category of “intersex” ends and the category of “female” begins.Humans decide. Humans (today, typically doctors) decide how small a penis has to be, or how unusual a combination of parts has to be, before it counts as intersex. Humans decide whether a person with XXY chromosomes or XY chromosomes and androgen insensitivity will count as intersex. (so why are you asking me to answer a question doctors and even the intersexed themselves can't agree on.) Rather than trying to play a semantic game that never ends, we at ISNA take a pragmatic approach to the question of who counts as intersex. So you see Fawzo I can't tell you who the intersex can have sex with. It's not specifically addressed in the Bible. Doctors can't agree what constitutes intersex. The intersex themselves don't advocate raising a child without assigning a gender. And many die having never questioned their gender. Really???? As much as I've seen you throw scripture in other Christians face and yet you still want to make a statement like that. Although we normally read the Bible in English it wasn't written in that language. OT Hebrew NT Greek. So let's take a look at four words in the Greek that were translated as love Only one of these are associated with sex. Agape .... means love in a "spiritual" sense. It often refers to a general affection or deeper sense of "true unconditional love" rather than the attraction suggested by "eros." Eros ..... is "physical" passionate love, with sensual desire and longing. Romantic, pure emotion without the balance of logic. Philia ....is "mental" love. It means affectionate regard or friendship in both ancient and modern Greek. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity Storge .....means "affection" in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring. Almost exclusively used as a descriptor of relationships within the family. I'm sorry Fawzo, I didn't realize you were homophobic. I also didn't mean to insinuate that you were homosexual. I meant that you in the general anyone other than me sense. So now that we have dealt with intersex can we get back to the subject? Neither government nor society have the right to make Phil take any position contrary to the scripture of his religion! People of faith should not have to apologize for what their faith teaches. A&E can suspend him but they can also lose their highest rated show. Because this family believes in a bigger God. The same God that roughly 70 percent of Americans believe in. The Robertsons take their faith seriously, and one of the more important elements of that faith involves putting no god before theirs. Not even the suits at the big network. During their negotiations with A&E, Jase Robertson told the GQ reporter, “the three no-compromises were faith, betrayal of family members, and duck season.” Ironically, there was a day not too long ago when network executives thought it best for gay people to keep quiet about their lifestyle. If anything, a new brand of intolerance is rising from certain gay activists hell-bent on bullying Christians into suppressing their core beliefs — or else. They are also showcasing their own narrow-mindedness by judging a man’s entire life through the narrow prism of their own agenda. Here's one from the GQ reporter that Phil's comments were made to, speaking of Phil's property; "The ecology here has been so perfectly manipulated that it feels as if two giant hands reached down from the sky and molded the land itself, an effect that I’m sure would please Phil." Perhaps you should get a red letter edition of the Bible. If you had one you would have known that in Matthew 5:18 Jesus himself was speaking when he said "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." As for New Testament Codes of conduct how about we look at 1 Corinthians 6:18 from the International Standard version; Keep on running away from sexual immorality. Any other sin that a person commits is outside his body, but the person who sins sexually sins against his own body. .
  7. Well Fawzo, I have to give you credit ... I really didn't think you'd answer. I'm going to present what I'm understanding you to be saying. If I misunderstand something I apologize in advance. For the most part you agree that the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 are sexually moral. No sex with animals .... moral No sex with Mommy or Daddy .... moral No sex with sister/brother .... moral No sex with aunt/uncle ... moral No sex with grandpa/grandma .... moral No sex with granddaughter/grandson ... moral However, if I'm understanding your post correctly Sex between two men is ok as long as both are consenting adults Sex with your Fathers second wife is ok as long as both are consenting adults Sex with your Mothers second husband is ok as long as both are consenting adults Sex with your step sister/brother is ok as long as both are consenting adults Sex with your sister-in-law/brother-in-law is ok as long as both are consenting adults Sex with your blood uncles wife is ok as long as both are consenting adults Sex with your blood aunts husband is ok as long as both are consenting adults Sex with a woman and her daughter is ok as long as alll three are consenting adults Sex with a woman and her granddaughter is ok as long as all three are consenting adults Since your main objection to having sex with relatives is because children might be born with genetic defects then if birth control measures were taken would it then be acceptable to you? If that's how you choose to live your life that's up to you. That's really not what we were talking about to begin with. I understood us to be discussing My response is still an adamant Yes! Christians, whether American or not, should continue to stand for moral behavior. Since you asked that we put aside the Noahide laws for this discussion we then must fall back to the Mosaic laws known as the Ten Commandments. We still have the law against adultery which can be expanded to include all sexual immorality.If your god is Oden then do as Oden says, if your god is Zeus then do as Zeus commands you, if Shiva is your god do as Shiva tells you. If your god has some other name or no name, do as your god teaches. But if your god is YHVH the Elohim then do as YHVH the Elohim has instructed you. To me the first part of that statement indicates a disassociation between love and "intercourse". I simply can't agree with that point of view, although I may have at one point in my life. To me when sex is accompanied by love there is spiritual connection and this is an integral part of, what you call, intercourse. As far as a "localized governed nursing agency" raising my children or grandchildren ....... You're looking for a fight now Bubba! There is no way any ... and I mean any loving parent is going to turn their children over to the government to be raised by civil servants who don't love the children and are likely only there to pick up a check. It seems you are still having trouble separating the laws intended for the Jewish people from the laws intended for gentiles. Even so ...... if the brother dies .... now get this .... She is no longer his wife but is now his widow!!!!! I said if you answered my question I would attempt to answer yours. No I can't tell you who they can have sex with. What has that got to do with "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind" Earlier you insinuated love was disassociated with "intercourse". Here you seem to be saying love and intercourse are one and the same. I can't agree with that view either. I can love someone without having, or even desiring, sex with them. Now you are twisting the words of scripture. In fact, as I see it you are attempting to have genetic defects seen as the same thing as a man lying with a man as a woman. I don't think most homosexual men would appreciate their lifestyle being compared to a genetic defect. Homosexuals are not called an abomination in scripture. The act of a man having sex with another man is what is called the abomination. Not the man! It appears you are the only one in this thread calling any person an abomination. But we are not talking about animals here. We are talking about people. People who have been given the capability to know good and evil. Now to be honest, personally, I don't care if you have sex with men. It doesn't bother me in the least. I've had a few gay friends over the last half century. That has nothing to do with Christian Morality. And it has even less to do with Christians standing up for Biblical standards of morality. We also stand against murder, theft, animal cruelty, and lying to have someone punished for something they are innocent of. If Christians fail to stand for morality then immorality will surely take over. Are you saying we shouldn't judge the pedophiles, the thieves, the murderers, the wife abusers, the gang-bangers, or those involved in the "knockout game" just to name a few?
  8. There is no "for the sake of argument". If you believe in the G-d of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob then, he has forbidden it. If you do not believe in that god then your god may have not forbidden it. I will attempt to answer your questions once you have answered mine. You see our discussion can only be productive when there is an exchange. My question to you therefor must be; ... and still is ... Which and how many of the regulations on sexual morality espoused in Leviticus 18 are you saying are wrong? Is it just verse #22 or are there more?
  9. Why do you feel those are the only two options? I think that you're still trying to paint me into a box in which I do not belong. Let's see if I can expand that box just a bit here, Fawzo. The Jewish law is .... how should I say this? .... a picture of... as close to holiness ...as is humanly possible. The Jews where chosen by G-d to be his representatives of holiness on Earth. The "Law" was given to them, in covenant, with G-d. In keeping all of the Law the Jewish people demonstrate holiness to the world. The rest of the world has no obligation to keep the 613 mitzvot . This does not free us from certain moral imperatives that were put on the entire world before even Abraham was born. These moral imperatives also come from an everlasting covenant G-d made with mankind. From Wikipedia; (there are better sources but I'll let you look.); The seven laws listed by the Mishnah in Sanhedrin 56a are Prohibition of idolatry: You shall not have any idols or false deities. Prohibition of blasphemy: You shall not curse the name of God in Judaism. Prohibition of murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6) Prohibition of theft: You shall not steal. Prohibition of adultery: You shall not commit adultery. Prohibition of cruelty towards animals: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4, as interpreted in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 59a)) Requirement to have just laws: Set up a governing body of justice (e.g. courts)Now depending on who you ask these seven can be expanded somewhat as is shown in law 6 here. Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive is the law, however it is expanded to prohibit cruelty towards animals. The way I was taught law #5 can be expanded to include sexual immorality. If it is expanded to include sexual immorality then we must go to the Law of Mose to determine what constitutes sexual immorality. This is found in Leviticus 18. Nearly the entire chapter is dedicated to what kind of sexual behavior is deemed not acceptable. Most people see all of these as good except one. See if you can figure out which one we are told we should disregard. I like the way the CJB states most of these prohibitions so I'll list them according to the CJB. None of you is to approach anyone who is a close relative in order to have sexual relations; I am Adonai. 7 You are not to have sexual relations with your father, and you are not to have sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother — do not have sexual relations with her. 8 You are not to have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that is your father’s prerogative. 9 You are not to have sexual relations with your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or elsewhere. Do not have sexual relations with them. 10 You are not to have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or with your daughter’s daughter. Do not have sexual relations with them, because their sexual disgrace will be your own. 11 You are not to have sexual relations with your father’s wife’s daughter, born to your father, because she is your sister; do not have sexual relations with her. 12 You are not to have sexual relations with your father’s sister, because she is your father’s close relative. 13 You are not to have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative. 14 You are not to disgrace your father’s brother by having sexual relations with his wife, because she is your aunt. 15 You are not to have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law; because she is your son’s wife. Do not have sexual relations with her. 16 You are not to have sexual relations with your brother’s wife, because this is your brother’s prerogative. 17 “‘You are not to have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter, nor are you to have sexual relations with her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are close relatives of hers, and it would be shameful. 18 You are not to take a woman to be a rival with her sister and have sexual relations with her while her sister is still alive. 19 You are not to approach a woman in order to have sexual relations with her when she is unclean from her time of niddah. 20 You are not to go to bed with your neighbor’s wife and thus become unclean with her. 21 “‘You are not to let any of your children be sacrificed to Molekh, thereby profaning the name of your God; I am Adonai. (RY: iv, LY: vii) 22 “‘You are not to go to bed with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23 “‘You are not to have sexual relations with any kind of animal and thus become unclean with it; nor is any woman to present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; it is perversion. My question to you therefor must be; Which or more importantly how many of these regulations on sexual morality are you trying to say are wrong? Is it just #22 or are there more that .......in a few more years .......we'll need to give up on too?
  10. Ahhhh now we can talk. To me, and this is just how I feel personally, those are Jewish laws and I have no business passing judgement on G-ds Laws for those under the Mosaic covenant. As a Christian I can only do as my brother Yeshua has given me the example to do. I say that we all have fallen short of G-ds perfect will in our lives and that we should change our minds (repent) and then go and miss the mark (sin) no more.
  11. Fawzo In order for there to be a next time there must have been a first time. I have never planned to go out killing folks. In accusing me of such you have bore false witness against me.
  12. Fawzo, What a bunch of hyperbole! You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
  13. I think it is Phil's responsibility as a public figure to give his honest opinion. He has no reason to hide behind political correctness. They didn't need A&E before the show, they don't need them now. Christians in America need to stand for Biblical principles and stand against sin. Particularly those who are in the public eye. There is no question about what the Bible says. and, even though he paraphrased the bible, the verses still exist. We, as Christians, must defend the morality taught in the Bible. Biblical morality does not change just because society would like it to.
  14. That is absolutely, without a doubt, one of the scriptures I would have used had I went the way of the sermon, RevRattlesnake. During the early years of uncle Les' conversion there weren't any prosperity preachers on tv every day. None the less, Les was generous and always gave cheerfully. He applied the same principles being taught by prosperity teachers today, and God richly Blessed him. While some may see television ministers as simply trying to get your money to make themselves rich it simply isn't true. In fact most ministries I've researched use all donations to farther the ministry ... not fill the ministers bank account. Now if you buy books, CD's, DVD's or other learning materials from them then they will profit from that, but donations to the ministry are just that donations to the ministry. BTW, It might be interesting to note that every preacher (prosperity or not) that I've heard teach on Malachi 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. will tell you that the Tithe belongs to your local church. They do not ask you to send them your tithe.
  15. Absolutely. Uncle Les tithed faithfully, he gave to the missions fund, he gave to the building fund and volunteered his services when it came time to use that money. If there was a special speaker, guest minister, or singing group at the church he always gave generously. If there was a need at the headquarters he was always a major donor. He would sometimes travel for hours to attend services with evangilists and still give generously when the plate got passed around.
  16. RevRattlesnake's topic The Worst got me to thinking about how many people actually believe that YHVH does not want them to be wealthy. I thought about how I could best convey this truth to all of you. I prayed to my God and the first thing he impressed on my spirit was that He wants you all to know that He wants all of his children to be healthy, wealthy, and full of joy. He also impressed on me that you can not recieve from Him what you can not believe He wants you to have. I thought about just giving a sermon filled with scripture after scripture such as the one used in the title of this thread; Proverbs 10:22 The blessing of the Lord, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it. That seemed a little to common. I then thought about telling you about how my life has went from being poor (I mean really poor) to living a very comfortable lifestyle. That too didn't seem like the right way to go even though I'm sure the changes in .my life are due to God, and that there is no way I could have changed my life this much on my own. Instead I'm going to tell you all a story of two men. Two men who started life with the same limitations and the same opportunities. These two men are people I know well. These two men are my identical twin uncles, Wes and Les. Wes and Les are my youngest uncles. There is no history of one being favored over the other while they were growing up. Like many identical twins, they have similar interests, similar personalities, and similar tastes. After they grew up they both married and moved away from each other. Les became a Christian, Wes didn't. Now I'm not saying Wes wasn't a good person, he was. In fact, by most peoples standards both were good men. Neither of them were alcoholics, nor drug abusers, not thieves nor murderers. I know of no adultry commited by either of them. They were not liars, abusive, nor law breakers. None the less after Les's conversion the differences began to become apparent. Wes found a good job with a good company and worked there until retirement. He bought a piece of property (5 acres) and built a 3 bedroom frame house. Les started working in construction. Within a few years he became the general contractor of his own business. He bought a piece of property (10 acres) and built a 4 bedroom brick home. Wes and his wife were unable to have children of thier own so they adopted a baby boy. Les and his wife had 3 beautiful girls. Wes built his son a 2 bed frame house on the 5 acres. Les built his daughters each a brick home on his 10 acres a 3 bed, a 2 bed. & a 2 bed. Wes's son didn't get much use out of his house because he spent more time in jail than out. Les's daughters and their husbands all lived in the house that daddy built until they were ready to get out on their own. Wes worked for that company until he reached retirement age (I think he was 65). Les was semi retired before he was 40 (He worked when he wanted to, usually only 1 or 2 jobs per year). Wes sold his place after retirement. The proceeds were gone in a few years. Les still owns his 10 acres and 4 brick homes with 3 of them providing a steady income as rental property. Wes now lives on his Social Security with little more than the contents of the home he lives in to show for his life. Les is a millionaire living off of the money from his rental property who will leave behind an inheritance for his children and grandchildren. Now some of you might say this was all coincidence. Others might attribute this to luck. I am here to tell you that this is a result of the Blessing of the LORD!!!!!
  17. I heard the same thing Bro Hex.
  18. I had heard of this book back in the 70's. Hadn't thought about it in probably 30 years. My Mom was into all sorts of stuff back then including Edgar Cayce, Erich von Däniken, Witchcraft, Tarot, crystals, New Age ..... you name it. Not having read it, I can't give an objective appraisal of the book. However, having said that ....... A quick look at Wikipedia tells me it may be worth a read at some point. There appear to be concepts in the book that I agree with. One such concept gives an interesting way of explaining what happens to an unrepentant soul (my words). Claims that large parts were plagiarized would seem to be the important criticism of the work ... from what I see on wiki.
  19. Although I express it a little differently, we are on the same page here. I usually think of it like this; The Lord God,... YHVH the Elohim, set in motion the laws that govern this Universe. These laws include the laws that govern the weather. In this manner YHVH may be considered responsible for the weather. However, the topic reads, who controls the weather? In that sense I don't see God as a direct cause. I pray something to the effect of; Oh Heavenly Father, Lord put your hand over me and my family and protect us from harm. I've never been disappointed. The F5 that went through Fort Smith Ar in 1996 touched down about six blocks from me. I didn't lose as much as a branch. My cousin, also a praying Christian, was actually a couple of blocks into the area where it touched down. He told me he was praying a similar prayer. His house lost a dozen shingles while a half block on either side of him and across the street from him houses lost windows and roofs. The woman next door to him was also a Christian. She lost a few more shingles and a small piece of porch roof. It wasn't a particulary deadly tornado however the monetary damage was significant. Say what you will,... call it coincidence .... call it luck .... call it whatever you like,......... I call it The Favor of God. Not all of us are as caught up in the literal reading of that story as you seem to be. Although there is a surface meaning to the text there is a deeper meaning. That is where the pearl of knowledge is. If you only look at the surface meaning of the text you gain much less than is available Fawzo. Your ability to call up scripture to fit a topic is astounding. I'm sure you have looked beyond the superficial meaning of the text. If you'd like to discuss the fall I would think it would deserve a topic of it's own though.
  20. As is mine. I am simply using your comments as a springboard to make sure the orthodox view is getting presented as well. Actually we seem to be in harmony on this point. I have said many times on these forums that, IMO, each persons spiritual path is up to them to find. You'll get no argument from me that during the early years there were many views, some of which were against the teachings of Paul. I have read much of the work found at Nag Hammadi. I felt it was necessary to take each text individually and determine it's merits. Some seemed to me to be very important scriptures, others were easy to see why the Church rejected. Still others were not as clear cut as to whether or not they had merit. None the less, I stand where I stand because of an intimate relationship with YHVH. I can see how our interaction in this thread could lead you to believe that. On many issues I am very orthodox, this being one. However many here might say I was a radical. Ask Fawzo about my views on hell ... not necessarily mainstream. Ask Coolhand about our differences on Jesus (that was years ago he may not even remember our debate). RabbiO may remember my stance on alcohol, certainly not what you would expect to hear from someone in my denomination. Even my views of Pagan gods is quite different than those of most Christians.
  21. You have said something similar before yet you still fail to give any examples from any religion that back your claim. Without documentation supporting your claims these are simply your words and they hold no authority. BTW; salvation from actions that are detriminal and fertilization of the world are very different concepts to me. It seems you do not believe Luke 22:19-20 or perhaps you have a different interpretation... so be it. 19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it,(T) and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant(U) in my blood, which is poured out for you.[a] Much like the blood of the sacrificed animals acted as atonement for the sins of the Jewish people, the sacrifice and blood of Jesus acted as an atonement for the world. Ah ha, Now we get to the crux of the biscuit. Your goal! It seems to me that "your goal" is to direct "them" to the truth according to ReverendV. ReverendV who never met the living Yeshua. The ReverendV who, through his vast experience, has learned more about true Christianity than all of the Church fathers for the last 2000+ years. ReverendV's truth which he, of course, did not learn by Devine Revelation, because that is an invalid method for one to find their mission. I'm sorry but Proverbs 18:2 comes to mind.
  22. It seems that your idea of a fertility god and my understanding of what a fertility god are is quite different. My perception of a fertility god is one associated with sex, fertility, pregnancy, and birth. I just don't see that in any of Paul's teachings. Faith is found throughout the Old Testament. Noah and his family were saved by faith. Abram left Ur because he had faith in YHVH's word. Abram had faith in God's word that he would have an innumerable amount of decendants and it was counted to him as righteousness. Joseph had faith, concerning God's providence in his being sold into Egypt, and the final deliverance of Israel. It was certainly an act of faith when Aaron declared the mission of himself and Moses. David exhibited faith when he told Goliath "This day will the Lord deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee" Slight misunderstanding here Pete. Perhaps that was my fault. I said Paul was responsible for bringing the gospel to the gentiles, not the Gospels. I was referring to the gospel, or the good news, or an even more exact translation of gospel ... the almost too good to be true news. Yes, yes, it is interesting as Jews will usually discourage conversion. Perhaps it is just as gripping that Messianic Rabbi K. A. Schneider often teaches from the epistles of Paul. Rabbi Schneider's stated mission is; To teach the Church the Judaic roots of the Christian faith, fostering in her, a deeper love for Yeshua, and equipping her to share the Good News of Messiah with both Jew and Gentile alike. Rabbi Daniel Lapin is a Jewish Rabbi that promotes building bridges between Jews and Christians and I have never heard him speak Ill of Paul. It seems to me that the only ones attempting to discredit Paul and his teachings are those who have an agenda of their own to turn people away from Christianity.