[geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
( N) Seems like I have to quote it to you again, just to show that I did not
miss it:
( A) Merely quoting scripture and asserting that it means something other than
what it plainly states is evidence of nothing, except your error. ......until
all will be fulfilled." Qualifies the first part of the verse?You did miss it,
or otherwise ignore it?s effect on that verse........ You failed to address it.
You know very well that you have blatantly ignored the meaning of that verse,
and taken the things in it out of context.
( N) Tell me, if all has been fulfilled, as you mistakenly claim, then why are
we still awaiting the fulfilment of certain prophecies? Why "all WILL be
fulfilled"?
( A) Your further comments about awaiting prophesy.. ....Mat 11:13... "For all
the prophets and the law prophesied UNTILL John. Jesus Qualifies the prophesies
that HE WAS TO FULFILL, that pertain to HIS MISSION and the NEW COVENANT and
JOHN THE BABTIST was THE LAST ONE!....... What prophesies are you referring to
that we are waiting for?......... Revelation was not written by John the
Baptist, it was written after him.. to the Christians. He was the LAST of the
LAW and PROPHETS in the context that Jesus. Again you demonstrate you inability
to handle the word of God properly.
( N) I do not appreciate receiving postings of 1.5 Mb, so I'm not going to
follow your example
( A) I will respect your concerns about attachments. and keep them to the
limits you specify if i need to demonstrate........ However, You have yet to
establish that he was not a Apostle. Merely making assertions based on a false
premises or one you have yet to established, does not prove or validate any
point. Your reasoning is circular based on a false premise in the first place.
What is being discussed is not a matter of my opinion but rather your
interpretations, positions assumptions and assertions external a scripture and
context. . I have addressed your every point consistent with the text and
scripture, and you have failed to show otherwise further, you have failed to
address any of your inconsistencies or obvious misrepresentations of scripture
that I have pointed out to you. Nor can you address the ?original Hebrew? issue
because you do not know what you are talking about. ?.You can always find
someone to tickle your ears.
"Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(N) Although you have placed your own interpretation on "all [being]
fulfilled," yet your interpretation cannot be correct, because heaven and earth
are still here.
( A) Again, you missed that verse!?.It did not say " HEAVEN AND EARTH will pass
away BEFORE they are FULLFILED"?????. it states that heaven and earth are not
going to pass away UNTILL all is fulfilled? ???.THEY will be FULFILLED BEFORE
HEAVEN and EARTH pass away! You missed the verse entirely!?
Seems like I have to quote it to you again, just to show that I did not miss it:
At that time Yeshuwa' said to his disciples: "Do not think that I am come to
annul the Torah or the Prophets, but to fulfil. Truly I say to you that until
heaven and earth pass away not one letter or dot shall be abolished from the
Torah or the Prophets, until all will be fulfilled." (Mt. 5:17-18, Original
Hebrew.)
Tell me, if all has been fulfilled, as you mistakenly claim, then why are we
still awaiting the fulfilment of certain prophecies? Why "all WILL be
fulfilled"?
FURTHER?.. There is no such thing as "Original Hebrew" for the New
testament!!!!?
I'm afraid that there is, no matter how many exclamation marks you decide to
use. See pages 47 and 48 of the "Testimony of the apostle, Matthew," on the
website. (By the way, I note that you are calling him an apostle, yet you
recently asked me where I got that from.)
Those who make statements about the "Original Hebrew" in the context you use
it, are willfully ignorant or willfully deceitful!??...............it
immediately follows that YOUR entire "understanding" of the scriptures is wrong.
You are entitled to your opinion. You are certainly placing many
interpretations on scriptures for someone who claimed a few weeks ago that they
did not require any. For example, Saul of Tarsus claims to be your holy father
(or "pope"). Yeshuwa' states, call no one Father but YeHVaH. Saul of Tarsus
states that you can eat anything you like, but Yeshuwa' states that the law
still holds, which means that you certainly cannot eat anything you like. ... I
could go on, but I do not appreciate receiving postings of 1.5 Mb, so I'm not
going to follow your example.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
Other related posts:
