Choose this day …..Baal or God …….me and my family stand for the Lord ……these Archbishops have no Fear of the Lord …..do they know they will be judged !
Yes and watch this space with ''The Alliance'' and the lead by the CEEC over these next months. I would guess there'll be a seperate province for the whole of England. But you're right, it is very sad.
Before a Christian sets about treating, and reading, our scriptures in exactly the same way that a devout, Mohammed-conforming, Muslim treats and reads his Koran (as the literal "words of a god) the Christian needs to prove s/he is entitled to do this. The Koran self-defines as being the literal "words of a god", and eschews any hermeneutical approach to itself (see: Koran, The House of Imran, vv 5 ff): but - to this Christian's knowledge - there is no similar verse in the entirety of the bible. All we have is the description of the Christian scriptures as being "God-breathed" (whatever that means). This is why Jews and Christians take a hermeneutical approach to our scriptures: where those, correctly, practising 'Religion Number Two' are forbidden from taking. Furthermopre, most of us have no option, but to read our scriptures in 'translation'. They were written in Hebrew, Koine Greek, Syriac and Aramaic. The word which Paul uses in 1 Cor 6:9 in his list of those excluded from the Kingdom, is 'arsenokoitai'. Are you sure that this is correctly translated as 'homosexual' (as we understand that term today: and it is a 19th-Century invention). Dr David Bentley-Hart, in his personal translation of the New Testament, provides an entire, lengthy footnote to the translation of 'arsenokoitai'; to explain why the term 'homosexual' is inappropriate to translate this wiord. I susopect that - like a great many churchgoers - we are dealing with that old phenomenon of using scripture to justify our prejudice. Today this is not too harmful: I simply stopped attending any church around fifty years ago. But not too many years ago this prejudicial use of scripture was used to imprison Oscar Wilde, and to judicially murder countless anonymous human beings, under the auspices of 'The Church', down the centuries. Today, we see this proicess writ large in 'Religion Number Two', in this Country. "Slay the Kufar wherever you find him!" Christians today, when 'secularism' and 'fundamentalist forms' of religion are on the increase simultaneously, have got to use our God-given brains to think. Far too many claim to be "bible-believing", without defining what they mean by that term. I am one of those Christians you, perhaps, despise: a 'progressive' Christian, who "believes" the bible, in its entirety, testifies to the coming of the Messiah; and his eventual arrival among us as "one of us". but that 'entirety' is certainly not found throughout the various types of literature which are to be found within Tanakh (Old Testament). Defending Christianity today - which means defending the resurrection - means we have to explain a faith which is, both, reasoned, and reasonable. To be simply "bible-believing" will not produce that faith.
@@casperdog777 Our Scriptures, the bible, is composed of the writings of countless anonymous human beings: so to describe it as "God's word" without qualification, is preposterous. Furthermore, you cannot use the bible to prove itself; any more than the devout Muslim can use the Koran to prove that it - not the bible - is the words of its god. This is a circular argument. You have to do the 'workings-out' before you can produce the Theory of Relativity: you cannot use the Theory to prove itself. Furthermore, an 'Apostle' had to be given a commission by the risen Messiah, to "tell others what you have seen". This is why Paul described himself as "least of the Apostles". And it may be argued that the first Jews to receive that commission - according to the scriptural evidence you prize so highly - were all women!
@@Mark_Dyer1 As I said: ''God’s word is cross referenced by itself. Paul carried Apostolic authority. Read Romans Chapters 1&2. It is clear and unambiguous. '' Unlikely to further this conversation, so let's leave it there respectfully. But thank you for your scholarship sir. Sola Scriptura.
Cottrell follows Newman's theory on the development of doctrine, he has said this but Gods Word never changes. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_doctrine Our weapons are not carnal. Maranatha
Unity at the cost of compromise is not unity, it’s compromise at the cost of upholding the TRUTH.
That is very well put. Thank you for your comment.
Refreshing indeed. We want Truth !
Living in love & lies = no faith, because without Truth, there is nothing to uphold faith.
Exactly, you are correct. Thank you.
The other off the wall humourous comment about LLF, well, some call it this: ''Living In Lust & Fornication'' = LLF 😉
We have to follow Jesus not Jesus following us
So true. We model our lives on God’s word not our fallen desires and lusts.
Choose this day …..Baal or God …….me and my family stand for the Lord ……these Archbishops have no Fear of the Lord …..do they know they will be judged !
I wonder if they know deep down or have they continually denied truth so much, they actually believe the lie ?
We have to agree with God
Exactly this. We are created not to contradict his word. So it means we have to say no to the heretical word. Stand firm.✝️
Very sad
Yes and watch this space with ''The Alliance'' and the lead by the CEEC over these next months. I would guess there'll be a seperate province for the whole of England. But you're right, it is very sad.
''Losing My Religion '' by R.E.M. see here: th-cam.com/video/xwtdhWltSIg/w-d-xo.html
Before a Christian sets about treating, and reading, our scriptures in exactly the same way that a devout, Mohammed-conforming, Muslim treats and reads his Koran (as the literal "words of a god) the Christian needs to prove s/he is entitled to do this. The Koran self-defines as being the literal "words of a god", and eschews any hermeneutical approach to itself (see: Koran, The House of Imran, vv 5 ff): but - to this Christian's knowledge - there is no similar verse in the entirety of the bible. All we have is the description of the Christian scriptures as being "God-breathed" (whatever that means). This is why Jews and Christians take a hermeneutical approach to our scriptures: where those, correctly, practising 'Religion Number Two' are forbidden from taking. Furthermopre, most of us have no option, but to read our scriptures in 'translation'. They were written in Hebrew, Koine Greek, Syriac and Aramaic. The word which Paul uses in 1 Cor 6:9 in his list of those excluded from the Kingdom, is 'arsenokoitai'. Are you sure that this is correctly translated as 'homosexual' (as we understand that term today: and it is a 19th-Century invention). Dr David Bentley-Hart, in his personal translation of the New Testament, provides an entire, lengthy footnote to the translation of 'arsenokoitai'; to explain why the term 'homosexual' is inappropriate to translate this wiord. I susopect that - like a great many churchgoers - we are dealing with that old phenomenon of using scripture to justify our prejudice. Today this is not too harmful: I simply stopped attending any church around fifty years ago. But not too many years ago this prejudicial use of scripture was used to imprison Oscar Wilde, and to judicially murder countless anonymous human beings, under the auspices of 'The Church', down the centuries. Today, we see this proicess writ large in 'Religion Number Two', in this Country. "Slay the Kufar wherever you find him!" Christians today, when 'secularism' and 'fundamentalist forms' of religion are on the increase simultaneously, have got to use our God-given brains to think. Far too many claim to be "bible-believing", without defining what they mean by that term. I am one of those Christians you, perhaps, despise: a 'progressive' Christian, who "believes" the bible, in its entirety, testifies to the coming of the Messiah; and his eventual arrival among us as "one of us". but that 'entirety' is certainly not found throughout the various types of literature which are to be found within Tanakh (Old Testament). Defending Christianity today - which means defending the resurrection - means we have to explain a faith which is, both, reasoned, and reasonable. To be simply "bible-believing" will not produce that faith.
God’s word is cross referenced by itself. Paul carried Apostolic authority. Read Romans Chapters 1&2. It is clear and unambiguous.
@@casperdog777 Our Scriptures, the bible, is composed of the writings of countless anonymous human beings: so to describe it as "God's word" without qualification, is preposterous. Furthermore, you cannot use the bible to prove itself; any more than the devout Muslim can use the Koran to prove that it - not the bible - is the words of its god. This is a circular argument. You have to do the 'workings-out' before you can produce the Theory of Relativity: you cannot use the Theory to prove itself. Furthermore, an 'Apostle' had to be given a commission by the risen Messiah, to "tell others what you have seen". This is why Paul described himself as "least of the Apostles". And it may be argued that the first Jews to receive that commission - according to the scriptural evidence you prize so highly - were all women!
@@Mark_Dyer1 As I said: ''God’s word is cross referenced by itself. Paul carried Apostolic authority. Read Romans Chapters 1&2. It is clear and unambiguous. ''
Unlikely to further this conversation, so let's leave it there respectfully. But thank you for your scholarship sir. Sola Scriptura.
@@casperdog777 'Sola scriptura", indeed; but how? What a stumbling block to belief 'scriptural literalism' represents.
Cottrell follows Newman's theory on the development of doctrine, he has said this but Gods Word never changes.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_doctrine
Our weapons are not carnal.
Maranatha
thanks, that is helpful, good additional comment, Cottrell has stated this and of course he's wrong.