Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] Norm needs educating

Expand Messages
  • Dave Wave
    1Then after an interval of fourteen years I (A)went up again to Jerusalem with (B)Barnabas, taking (C)Titus along also. 2It was because of a (D)revelation that
    Message 1 of 26 , Feb 27, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      1Then after an interval of fourteen years I (A)went
      up again to Jerusalem with (B)Barnabas, taking
      (C)Titus along also.
      2It was because of a (D)revelation that I went up;
      and I submitted to them the (E)gospel which I preach
      among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those
      who were of reputation, for fear that I might be
      (F)running, or had run, in vain." (Galatians 2)

      Paul expressed a fear or at least a concern, that he
      might discover, after submitting his gospel to the
      Jerusalem apostles, that he had run in vain.

      Doesn't exactly sound like original Christianity's
      apostles were always harmonious and agreed with each
      other on everything, as the doctrine of biblical
      inerrancy implies, eh?

      I'd like some inerrantist to explain how they can be
      so sure that Paul didn't need to feel concerned, since
      James and Paul obviously agreed on the gospel, but
      that Paul himself, a much better authority on Paul
      than any modern-day inerrantist, actually had concerns
      about running in vain when he was about to show James
      his gospel.



      Do you ever submit your belief in the trinity to your
      pastor? Probably not, since it is already a given
      that your pastor agrees with you on the matter.

      The implication of the analogy is that Paul would only
      go to submit his gospel to someone, if that someone
      had NOT heard of his gospel before.

      It gets worse:

      If Paul and James were equally inspired and thus
      totally in agreement on the nature of the gospel, why
      was Paul going up to Jerusalem to submit his gospel to
      them in the first place?

      Paul says "it was because of false brethren".

      Wait a minute....What is the probability that the
      apostles in Jerusalem would be misled by false
      brothers into believing their false report about
      Paul's gospel, so that Paul would feel compelled to
      defend his gospel himself from that rumor? Wouldn't
      you say there was NO possibility at all, given that
      they were all inspired by God and teaching the same
      gospel, as you believe they did?

      If so, then how can Paul have been motivated by false
      brothers to go confirm his gospel with James? If you
      are an apostle, inspired by God and in agreement with
      other inspired apostles, then obviously no false
      brothers with their lies are gonna make it necessary
      for you to make sure the other inspired apostles
      understand your gospel, amen? Your other inspired
      apostles in Christ would not need you to personally
      confirm your gospel to them, they would be just as
      quick to condemn there heretics lies as you, right?

      So how is it that Paul was motivated by false teachers
      to go submit his gospel to apostle james?

      I say it is because he knew James disagreed with his
      gospel, but that he couldn't exactly just wave James
      aside as a nobody, but felt it a good business
      decision to go and try to forge some sort of agreement
      with James, an important leader of the church.
      Otherwise it's like you being worried that Jehovah's
      witnesses might convince your friend that you teach
      falsely, so you make a special trip to go see that
      friend and assure them that you believe the same
      things they do. That's just stupid. And if you and
      your friend are inspired apostles, then your trip to
      go see them and do this is all the more unnecessary.

      Would you agree with me that those who believe the
      bible is inerrant, cannot rationally explain Paul's
      motivation to go confirm his gospel with James, merely
      because some heretics got involved?

      And doesn't Acts 16 record episodes of mental
      telepathy, conveniently overcoming the costly and
      dangerous problem of needing to journey to see
      someone? Yes.

      So I believe Paul is fudging his words a bit in
      Galatians. The truth is that he made the dangerous
      costly journey to Jerusalem to 'submit' his gospel to
      apostle James, because apostle James had never heard
      that gospel, and too many people were saying James
      disagreed with paul, so that it wasn't good for
      business anymore. But if James surely always agreed
      with Paul on the nature of the gospel, then what new
      thing is he informing James of when he goes to submit
      his gospel to him?

      Paul's journey to James in Galatians 2 only makes
      sense if he honestly felt James probably disagreed
      with him, and so Paul needed to seriously deal with
      this important leader face-to-face. paul uses the
      excuse that this all happened because of false
      brothers, but I've already demonstrated that this is a
      pitifully stupid excuse that doesn't make sense if we
      assume James's and Paul's divine inspiration as
      inerrantists will.

      Paul is fudging his words, because he says there were
      some authorities he submitted his gospel to, whom he
      resisted, and didn't give place by subjection to; no,
      not for an hour...see Galatians 2:5.

      You may say this wasn't James that he was resisting
      but false brothers.

      That's not my point.

      My point is that Paul places this confrontation in the
      context AFTER he gets to Jerusalem, in his effort to
      submit his gospel to the Jerusalam apostles.

      Apparantly then, he came upon false legalistic
      brothers WHO WERE IN JERUSALEM (!?), who disagreed
      with his gospel, and Paul didn't give in to them one
      bit.

      Ain't that just a bit suspicious, that Paul would
      bother defending his gospel with those whom he regards
      already as heretics?

      Isn't it even scarier, that after all the
      crowd-converting miracles and awe-inspiring power of
      the apostles spoken of in Acts, that Paul finds
      resistence to his gospel in the very city that was
      apostle James' seat of authority...Jerusalem?

      Can you seriously believe that apostle James disagreed
      just as violently with his local legalist Christians
      as Paul did?

      Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the reason
      there are legalistic Christians in Jerusalem is
      because apostle James, head of that particular locale,
      was himself a legalist?

      Yeah, the idea that appostle James taught a legalistic
      gospel may offend what you currently believe, but then
      again, you are quick to move wherever the truth is, or
      quick to acknowledge that you were decieved when you
      become convinced you were in error, amen?

      Sure, you can continue insisting that apostle James
      wasn't legalistic, so as to defend your doctrine of
      inerrancy, but you can only do so if you have already
      read the historical information on apostle James as
      being a legalist himself, information recorded by
      Jerome and Eusebius, and found good reason to say the
      early Church trusted in a false rumor about James.

      But I'm not too sure you wanna deliver that supply of
      ammo to us atheists. You go around saying the beliefs
      of the early post-apostolic church about their
      founders was often false, and yer gonna lose about 80%
      of the material apologists regularly work with.

      Because if you agree with the Church's historical
      information that apostle James was a high Jewish
      priest who performed animal sacrifices long after
      Jesus died for sin, you will be forced to conclude
      that apostle James was a legalist, and therefore a
      very prime candidate for the legalist preacher who
      Paul screams curses at in Galatians 1:8.

      Don't be so quick to assume that James couldn't have
      done animal sacrifices after Jesus died because he'd
      have known that Jesus' death made them irrelevent.

      That assumes, blindly, that he would agree with
      apostle Paul, and assumes, blindly, that the
      historical information from Eusebius and Jerome must
      be false just so you don't have to give up believing
      in biblical inerrancy.

      --- Dave



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
      in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
      http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
    • geojosh1
      Hi Dave, Sorry to butt in, but I see this big long letter you wrote debunking Paul and his gospel. I also noticed you must be an athiest. If that is so, I see
      Message 2 of 26 , Mar 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Dave,

        Sorry to butt in, but I see this big long letter you wrote debunking
        Paul and his gospel. I also noticed you must be an athiest. If that
        is so, I see your problem. You must be born-again of the Spirit of
        God to understand the Scriptures. Even the Scriptures will tell you
        that the man without the Spirit of God is unable to understand the
        Scriptures and the things of God. If you want to understand Paul's
        writings and why the Word of God is inerrant, come out of that world
        of denial and invite Jesus into your life or else get involved in the
        things of the world and not the things of God. You will never
        understand the Scriptures until you become born-again. I know--I have
        been there and I know plenty of other who have also. If you want to
        do a study, start on the first three of four chapters of 1
        Corinthians and come back and let us know what you find.

        ...George

        --- In christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wave
        <empiricism101@...> wrote:
        >
        > 1Then after an interval of fourteen years I (A)went
        > up again to Jerusalem with (B)Barnabas, taking
        > (C)Titus along also.
        > 2It was because of a (D)revelation that I went up;
        > and I submitted to them the (E)gospel which I preach
        > among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those
        > who were of reputation, for fear that I might be
        > (F)running, or had run, in vain." (Galatians 2)
        >
        > Paul expressed a fear or at least a concern, that he
        > might discover, after submitting his gospel to the
        > Jerusalem apostles, that he had run in vain.
        >
        > Doesn't exactly sound like original Christianity's
        > apostles were always harmonious and agreed with each
        > other on everything, as the doctrine of biblical
        > inerrancy implies, eh?
        >
        > I'd like some inerrantist to explain how they can be
        > so sure that Paul didn't need to feel concerned, since
        > James and Paul obviously agreed on the gospel, but
        > that Paul himself, a much better authority on Paul
        > than any modern-day inerrantist, actually had concerns
        > about running in vain when he was about to show James
        > his gospel.
        >
        >
        >
        > Do you ever submit your belief in the trinity to your
        > pastor? Probably not, since it is already a given
        > that your pastor agrees with you on the matter.
        >
        > The implication of the analogy is that Paul would only
        > go to submit his gospel to someone, if that someone
        > had NOT heard of his gospel before.
        >
        > It gets worse:
        >
        > If Paul and James were equally inspired and thus
        > totally in agreement on the nature of the gospel, why
        > was Paul going up to Jerusalem to submit his gospel to
        > them in the first place?
        >
        > Paul says "it was because of false brethren".
        >
        > Wait a minute....What is the probability that the
        > apostles in Jerusalem would be misled by false
        > brothers into believing their false report about
        > Paul's gospel, so that Paul would feel compelled to
        > defend his gospel himself from that rumor? Wouldn't
        > you say there was NO possibility at all, given that
        > they were all inspired by God and teaching the same
        > gospel, as you believe they did?
        >
        > If so, then how can Paul have been motivated by false
        > brothers to go confirm his gospel with James? If you
        > are an apostle, inspired by God and in agreement with
        > other inspired apostles, then obviously no false
        > brothers with their lies are gonna make it necessary
        > for you to make sure the other inspired apostles
        > understand your gospel, amen? Your other inspired
        > apostles in Christ would not need you to personally
        > confirm your gospel to them, they would be just as
        > quick to condemn there heretics lies as you, right?
        >
        > So how is it that Paul was motivated by false teachers
        > to go submit his gospel to apostle james?
        >
        > I say it is because he knew James disagreed with his
        > gospel, but that he couldn't exactly just wave James
        > aside as a nobody, but felt it a good business
        > decision to go and try to forge some sort of agreement
        > with James, an important leader of the church.
        > Otherwise it's like you being worried that Jehovah's
        > witnesses might convince your friend that you teach
        > falsely, so you make a special trip to go see that
        > friend and assure them that you believe the same
        > things they do. That's just stupid. And if you and
        > your friend are inspired apostles, then your trip to
        > go see them and do this is all the more unnecessary.
        >
        > Would you agree with me that those who believe the
        > bible is inerrant, cannot rationally explain Paul's
        > motivation to go confirm his gospel with James, merely
        > because some heretics got involved?
        >
        > And doesn't Acts 16 record episodes of mental
        > telepathy, conveniently overcoming the costly and
        > dangerous problem of needing to journey to see
        > someone? Yes.
        >
        > So I believe Paul is fudging his words a bit in
        > Galatians. The truth is that he made the dangerous
        > costly journey to Jerusalem to 'submit' his gospel to
        > apostle James, because apostle James had never heard
        > that gospel, and too many people were saying James
        > disagreed with paul, so that it wasn't good for
        > business anymore. But if James surely always agreed
        > with Paul on the nature of the gospel, then what new
        > thing is he informing James of when he goes to submit
        > his gospel to him?
        >
        > Paul's journey to James in Galatians 2 only makes
        > sense if he honestly felt James probably disagreed
        > with him, and so Paul needed to seriously deal with
        > this important leader face-to-face. paul uses the
        > excuse that this all happened because of false
        > brothers, but I've already demonstrated that this is a
        > pitifully stupid excuse that doesn't make sense if we
        > assume James's and Paul's divine inspiration as
        > inerrantists will.
        >
        > Paul is fudging his words, because he says there were
        > some authorities he submitted his gospel to, whom he
        > resisted, and didn't give place by subjection to; no,
        > not for an hour...see Galatians 2:5.
        >
        > You may say this wasn't James that he was resisting
        > but false brothers.
        >
        > That's not my point.
        >
        > My point is that Paul places this confrontation in the
        > context AFTER he gets to Jerusalem, in his effort to
        > submit his gospel to the Jerusalam apostles.
        >
        > Apparantly then, he came upon false legalistic
        > brothers WHO WERE IN JERUSALEM (!?), who disagreed
        > with his gospel, and Paul didn't give in to them one
        > bit.
        >
        > Ain't that just a bit suspicious, that Paul would
        > bother defending his gospel with those whom he regards
        > already as heretics?
        >
        > Isn't it even scarier, that after all the
        > crowd-converting miracles and awe-inspiring power of
        > the apostles spoken of in Acts, that Paul finds
        > resistence to his gospel in the very city that was
        > apostle James' seat of authority...Jerusalem?
        >
        > Can you seriously believe that apostle James disagreed
        > just as violently with his local legalist Christians
        > as Paul did?
        >
        > Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the reason
        > there are legalistic Christians in Jerusalem is
        > because apostle James, head of that particular locale,
        > was himself a legalist?
        >
        > Yeah, the idea that appostle James taught a legalistic
        > gospel may offend what you currently believe, but then
        > again, you are quick to move wherever the truth is, or
        > quick to acknowledge that you were decieved when you
        > become convinced you were in error, amen?
        >
        > Sure, you can continue insisting that apostle James
        > wasn't legalistic, so as to defend your doctrine of
        > inerrancy, but you can only do so if you have already
        > read the historical information on apostle James as
        > being a legalist himself, information recorded by
        > Jerome and Eusebius, and found good reason to say the
        > early Church trusted in a false rumor about James.
        >
        > But I'm not too sure you wanna deliver that supply of
        > ammo to us atheists. You go around saying the beliefs
        > of the early post-apostolic church about their
        > founders was often false, and yer gonna lose about 80%
        > of the material apologists regularly work with.
        >
        > Because if you agree with the Church's historical
        > information that apostle James was a high Jewish
        > priest who performed animal sacrifices long after
        > Jesus died for sin, you will be forced to conclude
        > that apostle James was a legalist, and therefore a
        > very prime candidate for the legalist preacher who
        > Paul screams curses at in Galatians 1:8.
        >
        > Don't be so quick to assume that James couldn't have
        > done animal sacrifices after Jesus died because he'd
        > have known that Jesus' death made them irrelevent.
        >
        > That assumes, blindly, that he would agree with
        > apostle Paul, and assumes, blindly, that the
        > historical information from Eusebius and Jerome must
        > be false just so you don't have to give up believing
        > in biblical inerrancy.
        >
        > --- Dave
        >
        >
        >
        >
        ______________________________________________________________________
        ______________
        > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
        > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
        > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
        >
      • william elkins
        Atheist George? Nope Polytheist. Dave is a LDS but I have made that same error a few times I dont think Paul would agrree with him either though Will ...
        Message 3 of 26 , Mar 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Atheist  George? Nope  Polytheist. Dave is a LDS
          but I have made that same error a few times
          I dont think Paul would agrree with him either though
          Will

          ----- Original Message ----
          From: geojosh1 <mab@...>
          To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 8:42:53 PM
          Subject: [christian-philosophy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] Norm needs educating

          Hi Dave,

          Sorry to butt in, but I see this big long letter you wrote debunking
          Paul and his gospel. I also noticed you must be an athiest. If that
          is so, I see your problem. You must be born-again of the Spirit of
          God to understand the Scriptures. Even the Scriptures will tell you
          that the man without the Spirit of God is unable to understand the
          Scriptures and the things of God. If you want to understand Paul's
          writings and why the Word of God is inerrant, come out of that world
          of denial and invite Jesus into your life or else get involved in the
          things of the world and not the things of God. You will never
          understand the Scriptures until you become born-again. I know--I have
          been there and I know plenty of other who have also. If you want to
          do a study, start on the first three of four chapters of 1
          Corinthians and come back and let us know what you find.

          ...George

          --- In christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Dave Wave
          <empiricism101@ ...> wrote:

          >
          > 1Then after an interval of fourteen years I (A)went
          > up again to Jerusalem with (B)Barnabas, taking
          > (C)Titus along also.
          > 2It was because of a (D)revelation that I went up;
          > and I submitted to them the (E)gospel which I preach
          > among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those
          > who were of reputation, for fear that I might be
          > (F)running, or had run, in vain." (Galatians 2)
          >
          > Paul expressed a fear or at least a concern, that he
          > might discover, after submitting his gospel to the
          > Jerusalem apostles, that he had run in vain.
          >
          > Doesn't exactly sound like original Christianity' s
          > apostles were always harmonious and agreed with each
          > other on everything, as the doctrine of
          biblical
          > inerrancy implies, eh?
          >
          > I'd like some inerrantist to explain how they can be
          > so sure that Paul didn't need to feel concerned, since
          > James and Paul obviously agreed on the gospel, but
          > that Paul himself, a much better authority on Paul
          > than any modern-day inerrantist, actually had concerns
          > about running in vain when he was about to show James
          > his gospel.
          >
          >
          >
          > Do you ever submit your belief in the trinity to your
          > pastor? Probably not, since it is already a given
          > that your pastor agrees with you on the matter.
          >
          > The implication of the analogy is that Paul would only
          > go to submit his gospel to someone, if that someone
          > had NOT heard of his gospel before.
          >
          > It gets worse:
          >
          > If Paul and James were equally inspired and thus
          > totally in agreement on the nature of the gospel, why
          > was
          Paul going up to Jerusalem to submit his gospel to
          > them in the first place?
          >
          > Paul says "it was because of false brethren".
          >
          > Wait a minute....What is the probability that the
          > apostles in Jerusalem would be misled by false
          > brothers into believing their false report about
          > Paul's gospel, so that Paul would feel compelled to
          > defend his gospel himself from that rumor? Wouldn't
          > you say there was NO possibility at all, given that
          > they were all inspired by God and teaching the same
          > gospel, as you believe they did?
          >
          > If so, then how can Paul have been motivated by false
          > brothers to go confirm his gospel with James? If you
          > are an apostle, inspired by God and in agreement with
          > other inspired apostles, then obviously no false
          > brothers with their lies are gonna make it necessary
          > for you to make sure the other inspired apostles
          >
          understand your gospel, amen? Your other inspired
          > apostles in Christ would not need you to personally
          > confirm your gospel to them, they would be just as
          > quick to condemn there heretics lies as you, right?
          >
          > So how is it that Paul was motivated by false teachers
          > to go submit his gospel to apostle james?
          >
          > I say it is because he knew James disagreed with his
          > gospel, but that he couldn't exactly just wave James
          > aside as a nobody, but felt it a good business
          > decision to go and try to forge some sort of agreement
          > with James, an important leader of the church.
          > Otherwise it's like you being worried that Jehovah's
          > witnesses might convince your friend that you teach
          > falsely, so you make a special trip to go see that
          > friend and assure them that you believe the same
          > things they do. That's just stupid. And if you and
          > your friend are inspired
          apostles, then your trip to
          > go see them and do this is all the more unnecessary.
          >
          > Would you agree with me that those who believe the
          > bible is inerrant, cannot rationally explain Paul's
          > motivation to go confirm his gospel with James, merely
          > because some heretics got involved?
          >
          > And doesn't Acts 16 record episodes of mental
          > telepathy, conveniently overcoming the costly and
          > dangerous problem of needing to journey to see
          > someone? Yes.
          >
          > So I believe Paul is fudging his words a bit in
          > Galatians. The truth is that he made the dangerous
          > costly journey to Jerusalem to 'submit' his gospel to
          > apostle James, because apostle James had never heard
          > that gospel, and too many people were saying James
          > disagreed with paul, so that it wasn't good for
          > business anymore. But if James surely always agreed
          > with Paul on the nature of the
          gospel, then what new
          > thing is he informing James of when he goes to submit
          > his gospel to him?
          >
          > Paul's journey to James in Galatians 2 only makes
          > sense if he honestly felt James probably disagreed
          > with him, and so Paul needed to seriously deal with
          > this important leader face-to-face. paul uses the
          > excuse that this all happened because of false
          > brothers, but I've already demonstrated that this is a
          > pitifully stupid excuse that doesn't make sense if we
          > assume James's and Paul's divine inspiration as
          > inerrantists will.
          >
          > Paul is fudging his words, because he says there were
          > some authorities he submitted his gospel to, whom he
          > resisted, and didn't give place by subjection to; no,
          > not for an hour...see Galatians 2:5.
          >
          > You may say this wasn't James that he was resisting
          > but false brothers.
          >
          > That's not my
          point.
          >
          > My point is that Paul places this confrontation in the
          > context AFTER he gets to Jerusalem, in his effort to
          > submit his gospel to the Jerusalam apostles.
          >
          > Apparantly then, he came upon false legalistic
          > brothers WHO WERE IN JERUSALEM (!?), who disagreed
          > with his gospel, and Paul didn't give in to them one
          > bit.
          >
          > Ain't that just a bit suspicious, that Paul would
          > bother defending his gospel with those whom he regards
          > already as heretics?
          >
          > Isn't it even scarier, that after all the
          > crowd-converting miracles and awe-inspiring power of
          > the apostles spoken of in Acts, that Paul finds
          > resistence to his gospel in the very city that was
          > apostle James' seat of authority... Jerusalem?
          >
          > Can you seriously believe that apostle James disagreed
          > just as violently with his local legalist Christians
          > as Paul
          did?
          >
          > Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the reason
          > there are legalistic Christians in Jerusalem is
          > because apostle James, head of that particular locale,
          > was himself a legalist?
          >
          > Yeah, the idea that appostle James taught a legalistic
          > gospel may offend what you currently believe, but then
          > again, you are quick to move wherever the truth is, or
          > quick to acknowledge that you were decieved when you
          > become convinced you were in error, amen?
          >
          > Sure, you can continue insisting that apostle James
          > wasn't legalistic, so as to defend your doctrine of
          > inerrancy, but you can only do so if you have already
          > read the historical information on apostle James as
          > being a legalist himself, information recorded by
          > Jerome and Eusebius, and found good reason to say the
          > early Church trusted in a false rumor about James.
          >
          > But
          I'm not too sure you wanna deliver that supply of
          > ammo to us atheists. You go around saying the beliefs
          > of the early post-apostolic church about their
          > founders was often false, and yer gonna lose about 80%
          > of the material apologists regularly work with.
          >
          > Because if you agree with the Church's historical
          > information that apostle James was a high Jewish
          > priest who performed animal sacrifices long after
          > Jesus died for sin, you will be forced to conclude
          > that apostle James was a legalist, and therefore a
          > very prime candidate for the legalist preacher who
          > Paul screams curses at in Galatians 1:8.
          >
          > Don't be so quick to assume that James couldn't have
          > done animal sacrifices after Jesus died because he'd
          > have known that Jesus' death made them irrelevent.
          >
          > That assumes, blindly, that he would agree with
          > apostle Paul, and assumes,
          blindly, that the
          > historical information from Eusebius and Jerome must
          > be false just so you don't have to give up believing
          > in biblical inerrancy.
          >
          > --- Dave
          >
          >
          >
          >
          ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
          ____________ __
          > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
          > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
          > http://answers. yahoo.com/ dir/?link= list&sid= 396545367
          >




          No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
          with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
        • Ask Mr. Religion
          ... So which is it, LDS or non-believer or both? _____ From: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
          Message 4 of 26 , Mar 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Well he does claim:
            > But I'm not too sure you wanna deliver
            that supply of
            > ammo to us atheists. You go
            around saying the beliefs
            > of the early post-apostolic church about
            their
            > founders was often false, and yer gonna lose about 80%
            > of
            the material apologists regularly work with.
            So which is it, LDS or non-believer or both?


            From: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of william elkins
            Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:07 AM
            To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [christian-philosophy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] Norm needs educating

            Atheist  George? Nope  Polytheist. Dave is a LDS
            but I have made that same error a few times
            I dont think Paul would agrree with him either though
            Will

            ----- Original Message ----
            From: geojosh1 <mab@zoomtown. com>
            To: christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
            Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 8:42:53 PM
            Subject: [christian-philosop hy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] Norm needs educating

            Hi Dave,

            Sorry to butt in, but I see this big long letter you wrote debunking
            Paul and his gospel. I also noticed you must be an athiest. If that
            is so, I see your problem. You must be born-again of the Spirit of
            God to understand the Scriptures. Even the Scriptures will tell you
            that the man without the Spirit of God is unable to understand the
            Scriptures and the things of God. If you want to understand Paul's
            writings and why the Word of God is inerrant, come out of that world
            of denial and invite Jesus into your life or else get involved in the
            things of the world and not the things of God. You will never
            understand the Scriptures until you become born-again. I know--I have
            been there and I know plenty of other who have also. If you want to
            do a study, start on the first three of four chapters of 1
            Corinthians and come back and let us know what you find.

            ...George

            --- In christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Dave Wave
            <empiricism101@ ...> wrote:

            >
            > 1Then after an interval of
            fourteen years I (A)went
            > up again to Jerusalem with (B)Barnabas,
            taking
            > (C)Titus along also.
            > 2It was because of a (D)revelation
            that I went up;
            > and I submitted to them the (E)gospel which I
            preach
            > among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those
            > who
            were of reputation, for fear that I might be
            > (F)running, or had run, in
            vain." (Galatians 2)
            >
            > Paul expressed a fear or at least a
            concern, that he
            > might discover, after submitting his gospel to
            the
            > Jerusalem apostles, that he had run in vain.
            >
            >
            Doesn't exactly sound like original Christianity' s
            > apostles were always
            harmonious and agreed with each
            > other on everything, as the doctrine of
            biblical
            > inerrancy implies, eh?
            >
            > I'd like some
            inerrantist to explain how they can be
            > so sure that Paul didn't need to
            feel concerned, since
            > James and Paul obviously agreed on the gospel,
            but
            > that Paul himself, a much better authority on Paul
            > than any
            modern-day inerrantist, actually had concerns
            > about running in vain when
            he was about to show James
            > his gospel.
            >
            >
            >
            > Do you ever submit your belief in the trinity to your
            > pastor?
            Probably not, since it is already a given
            > that your pastor agrees with
            you on the matter.
            >
            > The implication of the analogy is that Paul
            would only
            > go to submit his gospel to someone, if that someone
            >
            had NOT heard of his gospel before.
            >
            > It gets worse:
            >
            > If Paul and James were equally inspired and thus
            > totally in
            agreement on the nature of the gospel, why
            > was Paul going up to
            Jerusalem to submit his gospel to
            > them in the first place?
            >
            > Paul says "it was because of false brethren".
            >
            > Wait a
            minute....What is the probability that the
            > apostles in Jerusalem would
            be misled by false
            > brothers into believing their false report
            about
            > Paul's gospel, so that Paul would feel compelled to
            > defend
            his gospel himself from that rumor? Wouldn't
            > you say there was NO
            possibility at all, given that
            > they were all inspired by God and
            teaching the same
            > gospel, as you believe they did?
            >
            > If
            so, then how can Paul have been motivated by false
            > brothers to go
            confirm his gospel with James? If you
            > are an apostle, inspired by God
            and in agreement with
            > other inspired apostles, then obviously no
            false
            > brothers with their lies are gonna make it necessary
            > for
            you to make sure the other inspired apostles
            > understand your gospel,
            amen? Your other inspired
            > apostles in Christ would not need you to
            personally
            > confirm your gospel to them, they would be just as
            >
            quick to condemn there heretics lies as you, right?
            >
            > So how is
            it that Paul was motivated by false teachers
            > to go submit his gospel to
            apostle james?
            >
            > I say it is because he knew James disagreed with
            his
            > gospel, but that he couldn't exactly just wave James
            > aside
            as a nobody, but felt it a good business
            > decision to go and try to forge
            some sort of agreement
            > with James, an important leader of the church.
            > Otherwise it's like you being worried that Jehovah's
            > witnesses
            might convince your friend that you teach
            > falsely, so you make a special
            trip to go see that
            > friend and assure them that you believe the
            same
            > things they do. That's just stupid. And if you and
            > your
            friend are inspired apostles, then your trip to
            > go see them and do this
            is all the more unnecessary.
            >
            > Would you agree with me that those
            who believe the
            > bible is inerrant, cannot rationally explain
            Paul's
            > motivation to go confirm his gospel with James, merely
            >
            because some heretics got involved?
            >
            > And doesn't Acts 16 record
            episodes of mental
            > telepathy, conveniently overcoming the costly
            and
            > dangerous problem of needing to journey to see
            > someone?
            Yes.
            >
            > So I believe Paul is fudging his words a bit in
            >
            Galatians. The truth is that he made the dangerous
            > costly journey to
            Jerusalem to 'submit' his gospel to
            > apostle James, because apostle James
            had never heard
            > that gospel, and too many people were saying
            James
            > disagreed with paul, so that it wasn't good for
            > business
            anymore. But if James surely always agreed
            > with Paul on the nature of
            the gospel, then what new
            > thing is he informing James of when he goes to
            submit
            > his gospel to him?
            >
            > Paul's journey to James in
            Galatians 2 only makes
            > sense if he honestly felt James probably
            disagreed
            > with him, and so Paul needed to seriously deal with
            >
            this important leader face-to-face. paul uses the
            > excuse that this all
            happened because of false
            > brothers, but I've already demonstrated that
            this is a
            > pitifully stupid excuse that doesn't make sense if we
            >
            assume James's and Paul's divine inspiration as
            > inerrantists
            will.
            >
            > Paul is fudging his words, because he says there
            were
            > some authorities he submitted his gospel to, whom he
            >
            resisted, and didn't give place by subjection to; no,
            > not for an
            hour...see Galatians 2:5.
            >
            > You may say this wasn't James that he
            was resisting
            > but false brothers.
            >
            > That's not my
            point.
            >
            > My point is that Paul places this confrontation in
            the
            > context AFTER he gets to Jerusalem, in his effort to
            > submit
            his gospel to the Jerusalam apostles.
            >
            > Apparantly then, he came
            upon false legalistic
            > brothers WHO WERE IN JERUSALEM (!?), who
            disagreed
            > with his gospel, and Paul didn't give in to them one
            >
            bit.
            >
            > Ain't that just a bit suspicious, that Paul would
            >
            bother defending his gospel with those whom he regards
            > already as
            heretics?
            >
            > Isn't it even scarier, that after all the
            >
            crowd-converting miracles and awe-inspiring power of
            > the apostles spoken
            of in Acts, that Paul finds
            > resistence to his gospel in the very city
            that was
            > apostle James' seat of authority... Jerusalem?
            >
            >
            Can you seriously believe that apostle James disagreed
            > just as violently
            with his local legalist Christians
            > as Paul did?
            >
            > Is it
            not more reasonable to suppose that the reason
            > there are legalistic
            Christians in Jerusalem is
            > because apostle James, head of that
            particular locale,
            > was himself a legalist?
            >
            > Yeah, the
            idea that appostle James taught a legalistic
            > gospel may offend what you
            currently believe, but then
            > again, you are quick to move wherever the
            truth is, or
            > quick to acknowledge that you were decieved when
            you
            > become convinced you were in error, amen?
            >
            > Sure, you
            can continue insisting that apostle James
            > wasn't legalistic, so as to
            defend your doctrine of
            > inerrancy, but you can only do so if you have
            already
            > read the historical information on apostle James as
            >
            being a legalist himself, information recorded by
            > Jerome and Eusebius,
            and found good reason to say the
            > early Church trusted in a false rumor
            about James.
            >
            > But I'm not too sure you wanna deliver that supply
            of
            > ammo to us atheists. You go around saying the beliefs
            > of the
            early post-apostolic church about their
            > founders was often false, and
            yer gonna lose about 80%
            > of the material apologists regularly work
            with.
            >
            > Because if you agree with the Church's historical
            >
            information that apostle James was a high Jewish
            > priest who performed
            animal sacrifices long after
            > Jesus died for sin, you will be forced to
            conclude
            > that apostle James was a legalist, and therefore a
            > very
            prime candidate for the legalist preacher who
            > Paul screams curses at in
            Galatians 1:8.
            >
            > Don't be so quick to assume that James couldn't
            have
            > done animal sacrifices after Jesus died because he'd
            > have
            known that Jesus' death made them irrelevent.
            >
            > That assumes,
            blindly, that he would agree with
            > apostle Paul, and assumes, blindly,
            that the
            > historical information from Eusebius and Jerome must
            > be
            false just so you don't have to give up believing
            > in biblical
            inerrancy.
            >
            > --- Dave
            >
            >
            >
            >
            ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
            ____________ __
            > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
            > in
            the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
            >
            href="http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367" target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://answers. yahoo.com/ dir/?link= list&sid= 396545367
            >




            No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
            with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.

          • william elkins
            A mormon with a heading that says the truth of Gods word? Tell me Dave what is truth and then empirically justify it.. Since out of fairness I will need
            Message 5 of 26 , Mar 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              A mormon with a heading that says "the truth of Gods word?" Tell me  Dave  what is truth and  then empirically justify it.. Since out of "fairness" I will need to say there is a Freudian truth and  there is a Godly truth. If you saw mre driving in a  red car. Can that  be empirically  falsified? If i were to were to be driving a redf car can that be empirically justified? Dave you sre followeing a false  prophet  casn you falsify that empirically too? if yes please tell me  abouit it.
               
              Will

              Dave Wave <empiricism101@...> wrote:
              1Then after an interval of fourteen years I (A)went
              up again to Jerusalem with (B)Barnabas, taking
              (C)Titus along also.
              2It was because of a (D)revelation that I went up;
              and I submitted to them the (E)gospel which I preach
              among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those
              who were of reputation, for fear that I might be
              (F)running, or had run, in vain." (Galatians 2)

              Paul expressed a fear or at least a concern, that he
              might discover, after submitting his gospel to the
              Jerusalem apostles, that he had run in vain.

              Doesn't exactly sound like original Christianity' s
              apostles were always harmonious and agreed with each
              other on everything, as the doctrine of biblical
              inerrancy implies, eh?

              I'd like some inerrantist to explain how they can be
              so sure that Paul didn't need to feel concerned, since
              James and Paul obviously agreed on the gospel, but
              that Paul himself, a much better authority on Paul
              than any modern-day inerrantist, actually had concerns
              about running in vain when he was about to show James
              his gospel.

              Do you ever submit your belief in the trinity to your
              pastor? Probably not, since it is already a given
              that your pastor agrees with you on the matter.

              The implication of the analogy is that Paul would only
              go to submit his gospel to someone, if that someone
              had NOT heard of his gospel before.

              It gets worse:

              If Paul and James were equally inspired and thus
              totally in agreement on the nature of the gospel, why
              was Paul going up to Jerusalem to submit his gospel to
              them in the first place?

              Paul says "it was because of false brethren".

              Wait a minute....What is the probability that the
              apostles in Jerusalem would be misled by false
              brothers into believing their false report about
              Paul's gospel, so that Paul would feel compelled to
              defend his gospel himself from that rumor? Wouldn't
              you say there was NO possibility at all, given that
              they were all inspired by God and teaching the same
              gospel, as you believe they did?

              If so, then how can Paul have been motivated by false
              brothers to go confirm his gospel with James? If you
              are an apostle, inspired by God and in agreement with
              other inspired apostles, then obviously no false
              brothers with their lies are gonna make it necessary
              for you to make sure the other inspired apostles
              understand your gospel, amen? Your other inspired
              apostles in Christ would not need you to personally
              confirm your gospel to them, they would be just as
              quick to condemn there heretics lies as you, right?

              So how is it that Paul was motivated by false teachers
              to go submit his gospel to apostle james?

              I say it is because he knew James disagreed with his
              gospel, but that he couldn't exactly just wave James
              aside as a nobody, but felt it a good business
              decision to go and try to forge some sort of agreement
              with James, an important leader of the church.
              Otherwise it's like you being worried that Jehovah's
              witnesses might convince your friend that you teach
              falsely, so you make a special trip to go see that
              friend and assure them that you believe the same
              things they do. That's just stupid. And if you and
              your friend are inspired apostles, then your trip to
              go see them and do this is all the more unnecessary.

              Would you agree with me that those who believe the
              bible is inerrant, cannot rationally explain Paul's
              motivation to go confirm his gospel with James, merely
              because some heretics got involved?

              And doesn't Acts 16 record episodes of mental
              telepathy, conveniently overcoming the costly and
              dangerous problem of needing to journey to see
              someone? Yes.

              So I believe Paul is fudging his words a bit in
              Galatians. The truth is that he made the dangerous
              costly journey to Jerusalem to 'submit' his gospel to
              apostle James, because apostle James had never heard
              that gospel, and too many people were saying James
              disagreed with paul, so that it wasn't good for
              business anymore. But if James surely always agreed
              with Paul on the nature of the gospel, then what new
              thing is he informing James of when he goes to submit
              his gospel to him?

              Paul's journey to James in Galatians 2 only makes
              sense if he honestly felt James probably disagreed
              with him, and so Paul needed to seriously deal with
              this important leader face-to-face. paul uses the
              excuse that this all happened because of false
              brothers, but I've already demonstrated that this is a
              pitifully stupid excuse that doesn't make sense if we
              assume James's and Paul's divine inspiration as
              inerrantists will.

              Paul is fudging his words, because he says there were
              some authorities he submitted his gospel to, whom he
              resisted, and didn't give place by subjection to; no,
              not for an hour...see Galatians 2:5.

              You may say this wasn't James that he was resisting
              but false brothers.

              That's not my point.

              My point is that Paul places this confrontation in the
              context AFTER he gets to Jerusalem, in his effort to
              submit his gospel to the Jerusalam apostles.

              Apparantly then, he came upon false legalistic
              brothers WHO WERE IN JERUSALEM (!?), who disagreed
              with his gospel, and Paul didn't give in to them one
              bit.

              Ain't that just a bit suspicious, that Paul would
              bother defending his gospel with those whom he regards
              already as heretics?

              Isn't it even scarier, that after all the
              crowd-converting miracles and awe-inspiring power of
              the apostles spoken of in Acts, that Paul finds
              resistence to his gospel in the very city that was
              apostle James' seat of authority... Jerusalem?

              Can you seriously believe that apostle James disagreed
              just as violently with his local legalist Christians
              as Paul did?

              Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the reason
              there are legalistic Christians in Jerusalem is
              because apostle James, head of that particular locale,
              was himself a legalist?

              Yeah, the idea that appostle James taught a legalistic
              gospel may offend what you currently believe, but then
              again, you are quick to move wherever the truth is, or
              quick to acknowledge that you were decieved when you
              become convinced you were in error, amen?

              Sure, you can continue insisting that apostle James
              wasn't legalistic, so as to defend your doctrine of
              inerrancy, but you can only do so if you have already
              read the historical information on apostle James as
              being a legalist himself, information recorded by
              Jerome and Eusebius, and found good reason to say the
              early Church trusted in a false rumor about James.

              But I'm not too sure you wanna deliver that supply of
              ammo to us atheists. You go around saying the beliefs
              of the early post-apostolic church about their
              founders was often false, and yer gonna lose about 80%
              of the material apologists regularly work with.

              Because if you agree with the Church's historical
              information that apostle James was a high Jewish
              priest who performed animal sacrifices long after
              Jesus died for sin, you will be forced to conclude
              that apostle James was a legalist, and therefore a
              very prime candidate for the legalist preacher who
              Paul screams curses at in Galatians 1:8.

              Don't be so quick to assume that James couldn't have
              done animal sacrifices after Jesus died because he'd
              have known that Jesus' death made them irrelevent.

              That assumes, blindly, that he would agree with
              apostle Paul, and assumes, blindly, that the
              historical information from Eusebius and Jerome must
              be false just so you don't have to give up believing
              in biblical inerrancy.

              --- Dave

              ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
              Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
              in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
              http://answers. yahoo.com/ dir/?link= list&sid= 396545367


              We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
              (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

            • RZacc
              George: Thank you. I read this stuff with unbelief! Surely, this has to be a joke! But, if Dave is professing Mormon, then such convoluted human reasoning
              Message 6 of 26 , Mar 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                George:  Thank you.  I read this stuff with unbelief!  Surely, this has to be a joke!  But, if Dave is professing Mormon, then such convoluted human reasoning makes sense- that's all he has.   IT's not worth trying to straighten any of it out... Don't cast your pearls before swine, is what my Lord says.
                 
                Ad Corem Deo
                RonZ


                 
                ----- Original Message ----
                From: geojosh1 <mab@...>
                To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 7:42:53 PM
                Subject: [christian-philosophy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] Norm needs educating

                Hi Dave,

                Sorry to butt in, but I see this big long letter you wrote debunking
                Paul and his gospel. I also noticed you must be an athiest. If that
                is so, I see your problem. You must be born-again of the Spirit of
                God to understand the Scriptures. Even the Scriptures will tell you
                that the man without the Spirit of God is unable to understand the
                Scriptures and the things of God. If you want to understand Paul's
                writings and why the Word of God is inerrant, come out of that world
                of denial and invite Jesus into your life or else get involved in the
                things of the world and not the things of God. You will never
                understand the Scriptures until you become born-again. I know--I have
                been there and I know plenty of other who have also. If you want to
                do a study, start on the first three of four chapters of 1
                Corinthians and come back and let us know what you find.

                ...George

                --- In christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Dave Wave
                <empiricism101@ ...> wrote:

                >
                > 1Then after an interval of fourteen years I (A)went
                > up again to Jerusalem with (B)Barnabas, taking
                > (C)Titus along also.
                > 2It was because of a (D)revelation that I went up;
                > and I submitted to them the (E)gospel which I preach
                > among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those
                > who were of reputation, for fear that I might be
                > (F)running, or had run, in vain." (Galatians 2)
                >
                > Paul expressed a fear or at least a concern, that he
                > might discover, after submitting his gospel to the
                > Jerusalem apostles, that he had run in vain.
                >
                > Doesn't exactly sound like original Christianity' s
                > apostles were always harmonious and agreed with each
                > other on everything, as the doctrine of
                biblical
                > inerrancy implies, eh?
                >
                > I'd like some inerrantist to explain how they can be
                > so sure that Paul didn't need to feel concerned, since
                > James and Paul obviously agreed on the gospel, but
                > that Paul himself, a much better authority on Paul
                > than any modern-day inerrantist, actually had concerns
                > about running in vain when he was about to show James
                > his gospel.
                >
                >
                >
                > Do you ever submit your belief in the trinity to your
                > pastor? Probably not, since it is already a given
                > that your pastor agrees with you on the matter.
                >
                > The implication of the analogy is that Paul would only
                > go to submit his gospel to someone, if that someone
                > had NOT heard of his gospel before.
                >
                > It gets worse:
                >
                > If Paul and James were equally inspired and thus
                > totally in agreement on the nature of the gospel, why
                > was
                Paul going up to Jerusalem to submit his gospel to
                > them in the first place?
                >
                > Paul says "it was because of false brethren".
                >
                > Wait a minute....What is the probability that the
                > apostles in Jerusalem would be misled by false
                > brothers into believing their false report about
                > Paul's gospel, so that Paul would feel compelled to
                > defend his gospel himself from that rumor? Wouldn't
                > you say there was NO possibility at all, given that
                > they were all inspired by God and teaching the same
                > gospel, as you believe they did?
                >
                > If so, then how can Paul have been motivated by false
                > brothers to go confirm his gospel with James? If you
                > are an apostle, inspired by God and in agreement with
                > other inspired apostles, then obviously no false
                > brothers with their lies are gonna make it necessary
                > for you to make sure the other inspired apostles
                >
                understand your gospel, amen? Your other inspired
                > apostles in Christ would not need you to personally
                > confirm your gospel to them, they would be just as
                > quick to condemn there heretics lies as you, right?
                >
                > So how is it that Paul was motivated by false teachers
                > to go submit his gospel to apostle james?
                >
                > I say it is because he knew James disagreed with his
                > gospel, but that he couldn't exactly just wave James
                > aside as a nobody, but felt it a good business
                > decision to go and try to forge some sort of agreement
                > with James, an important leader of the church.
                > Otherwise it's like you being worried that Jehovah's
                > witnesses might convince your friend that you teach
                > falsely, so you make a special trip to go see that
                > friend and assure them that you believe the same
                > things they do. That's just stupid. And if you and
                > your friend are inspired
                apostles, then your trip to
                > go see them and do this is all the more unnecessary.
                >
                > Would you agree with me that those who believe the
                > bible is inerrant, cannot rationally explain Paul's
                > motivation to go confirm his gospel with James, merely
                > because some heretics got involved?
                >
                > And doesn't Acts 16 record episodes of mental
                > telepathy, conveniently overcoming the costly and
                > dangerous problem of needing to journey to see
                > someone? Yes.
                >
                > So I believe Paul is fudging his words a bit in
                > Galatians. The truth is that he made the dangerous
                > costly journey to Jerusalem to 'submit' his gospel to
                > apostle James, because apostle James had never heard
                > that gospel, and too many people were saying James
                > disagreed with paul, so that it wasn't good for
                > business anymore. But if James surely always agreed
                > with Paul on the nature of the
                gospel, then what new
                > thing is he informing James of when he goes to submit
                > his gospel to him?
                >
                > Paul's journey to James in Galatians 2 only makes
                > sense if he honestly felt James probably disagreed
                > with him, and so Paul needed to seriously deal with
                > this important leader face-to-face. paul uses the
                > excuse that this all happened because of false
                > brothers, but I've already demonstrated that this is a
                > pitifully stupid excuse that doesn't make sense if we
                > assume James's and Paul's divine inspiration as
                > inerrantists will.
                >
                > Paul is fudging his words, because he says there were
                > some authorities he submitted his gospel to, whom he
                > resisted, and didn't give place by subjection to; no,
                > not for an hour...see Galatians 2:5.
                >
                > You may say this wasn't James that he was resisting
                > but false brothers.
                >
                > That's not my
                point.
                >
                > My point is that Paul places this confrontation in the
                > context AFTER he gets to Jerusalem, in his effort to
                > submit his gospel to the Jerusalam apostles.
                >
                > Apparantly then, he came upon false legalistic
                > brothers WHO WERE IN JERUSALEM (!?), who disagreed
                > with his gospel, and Paul didn't give in to them one
                > bit.
                >
                > Ain't that just a bit suspicious, that Paul would
                > bother defending his gospel with those whom he regards
                > already as heretics?
                >
                > Isn't it even scarier, that after all the
                > crowd-converting miracles and awe-inspiring power of
                > the apostles spoken of in Acts, that Paul finds
                > resistence to his gospel in the very city that was
                > apostle James' seat of authority... Jerusalem?
                >
                > Can you seriously believe that apostle James disagreed
                > just as violently with his local legalist Christians
                > as Paul
                did?
                >
                > Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the reason
                > there are legalistic Christians in Jerusalem is
                > because apostle James, head of that particular locale,
                > was himself a legalist?
                >
                > Yeah, the idea that appostle James taught a legalistic
                > gospel may offend what you currently believe, but then
                > again, you are quick to move wherever the truth is, or
                > quick to acknowledge that you were decieved when you
                > become convinced you were in error, amen?
                >
                > Sure, you can continue insisting that apostle James
                > wasn't legalistic, so as to defend your doctrine of
                > inerrancy, but you can only do so if you have already
                > read the historical information on apostle James as
                > being a legalist himself, information recorded by
                > Jerome and Eusebius, and found good reason to say the
                > early Church trusted in a false rumor about James.
                >
                > But
                I'm not too sure you wanna deliver that supply of
                > ammo to us atheists. You go around saying the beliefs
                > of the early post-apostolic church about their
                > founders was often false, and yer gonna lose about 80%
                > of the material apologists regularly work with.
                >
                > Because if you agree with the Church's historical
                > information that apostle James was a high Jewish
                > priest who performed animal sacrifices long after
                > Jesus died for sin, you will be forced to conclude
                > that apostle James was a legalist, and therefore a
                > very prime candidate for the legalist preacher who
                > Paul screams curses at in Galatians 1:8.
                >
                > Don't be so quick to assume that James couldn't have
                > done animal sacrifices after Jesus died because he'd
                > have known that Jesus' death made them irrelevent.
                >
                > That assumes, blindly, that he would agree with
                > apostle Paul, and assumes,
                blindly, that the
                > historical information from Eusebius and Jerome must
                > be false just so you don't have to give up believing
                > in biblical inerrancy.
                >
                > --- Dave
                >
                >
                >
                >
                ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                ____________ __
                > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
                > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
                > http://answers. yahoo.com/ dir/?link= list&sid= 396545367
                >




                Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people who know.
              • clontzjm
                Hello Dave, Several of the questions are: Why did PAUL go to Jerusalem to present his gospel? Why did Paul present his gospel to James and the others? Who are
                Message 7 of 26 , Mar 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello Dave,

                  Several of the questions are:

                  Why did PAUL go to Jerusalem to present his gospel?
                  Why did Paul present his gospel to James and the others?
                  Who are the FALSE brethren?
                  How could the false brethren create confusion?

                  There is a simple answer to these questions. Not only do we have
                  evidence of who the FALSE brethren are but we have texts from the
                  FALSE brethren that caused the confusion. The texts indicate the
                  nature of the confusion and why PAUL was singled out and needed to
                  bring his gospel in person to Jerusalem.

                  Paul needed to go to Jerusalem in person to present his gospel to
                  the church for confirmation that what had been issued in his name by
                  the false Gnostics was not his preaching but in fact a forgery. The
                  New testament including the letters of Paul indicate that the false
                  Gnostics were active during the ministry of Paul. The Nag Hammadi
                  library gives ample proof that the false Gnostics were producing
                  texts using Paul's name including The Prayer of the Apostle Paul and
                  the Apocalypse of Paul. Paul was not alone. Peter and James were
                  also targets of forgeries. The fact that Marcion created a modified
                  Luke and changed 10 of Paul's letters based on the claim that he was
                  changing them to the original may be an indication that there were
                  early forgeries that Marcion may have thought were real.

                  In any case, the false brethren were probably false Gnostics who had
                  produced writings in the name of Paul. Paul would've needed to go to
                  Jerusalem and authenticate what was produced by him and what was
                  forged by the false Gnostics. The most likely reason that Paul was
                  asked to go to Jerusalem in the first place was because James and
                  other leaders were made aware of the false Gnostic documents by
                  church members and realizing that they were forgeries under the name
                  of Paul asked Paul to come in person to identify the forgeries. Paul
                  was an easy target for forgeries by the false Gnostics since he not
                  only was the farthest from Jerusalem but since he traveled
                  constantly it would've been hard for him to repudiate forgeries.

                  Of course, people have been forging "biblical" documents for
                  millennia that have spurious accounts of Jesus and the apostles.
                  Then they print these documents and portray them as real and confuse
                  countless thousands. Most of these false Gnostics produce documents
                  that enable their group to practice sexual licentiousness and
                  profits by gathering money for their false churches. Simon Magus is
                  the first of these false Gnostics and he gained profit from his
                  followers and taught them sexual licentiousness especially multiple
                  partners. This pattern has been repeated for millennia – a document
                  that no one has seen before "shows up" containing the name of Jesus
                  or one of the apostles – then the person who is spreading the new
                  document encourages people to have lots of sex since it is now OK
                  and the people gratefully hand over their money and help spread the
                  false word. The old testament story of the golden calf is
                  essentially the same thing – the leaders of the false cult create
                  a "new" version of deity and then tell everyone it's okay to have
                  lots of sex and everyone hails them as the new leaders of religion
                  while the leaders pocket the gold.

                  Jerry




                  --- In christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wave
                  <empiricism101@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > 1Then after an interval of fourteen years I (A)went
                  > up again to Jerusalem with (B)Barnabas, taking
                  > (C)Titus along also.
                  > 2It was because of a (D)revelation that I went up;
                  > and I submitted to them the (E)gospel which I preach
                  > among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those
                  > who were of reputation, for fear that I might be
                  > (F)running, or had run, in vain." (Galatians 2)
                  >
                  > Paul expressed a fear or at least a concern, that he
                  > might discover, after submitting his gospel to the
                  > Jerusalem apostles, that he had run in vain.
                  >
                  > Doesn't exactly sound like original Christianity's
                  > apostles were always harmonious and agreed with each
                  > other on everything, as the doctrine of biblical
                  > inerrancy implies, eh?
                  >
                  > I'd like some inerrantist to explain how they can be
                  > so sure that Paul didn't need to feel concerned, since
                  > James and Paul obviously agreed on the gospel, but
                  > that Paul himself, a much better authority on Paul
                  > than any modern-day inerrantist, actually had concerns
                  > about running in vain when he was about to show James
                  > his gospel.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Do you ever submit your belief in the trinity to your
                  > pastor? Probably not, since it is already a given
                  > that your pastor agrees with you on the matter.
                  >
                  > The implication of the analogy is that Paul would only
                  > go to submit his gospel to someone, if that someone
                  > had NOT heard of his gospel before.
                  >
                  > It gets worse:
                  >
                  > If Paul and James were equally inspired and thus
                  > totally in agreement on the nature of the gospel, why
                  > was Paul going up to Jerusalem to submit his gospel to
                  > them in the first place?
                  >
                  > Paul says "it was because of false brethren".
                  >
                  > Wait a minute....What is the probability that the
                  > apostles in Jerusalem would be misled by false
                  > brothers into believing their false report about
                  > Paul's gospel, so that Paul would feel compelled to
                  > defend his gospel himself from that rumor? Wouldn't
                  > you say there was NO possibility at all, given that
                  > they were all inspired by God and teaching the same
                  > gospel, as you believe they did?
                  >
                  > If so, then how can Paul have been motivated by false
                  > brothers to go confirm his gospel with James? If you
                  > are an apostle, inspired by God and in agreement with
                  > other inspired apostles, then obviously no false
                  > brothers with their lies are gonna make it necessary
                  > for you to make sure the other inspired apostles
                  > understand your gospel, amen? Your other inspired
                  > apostles in Christ would not need you to personally
                  > confirm your gospel to them, they would be just as
                  > quick to condemn there heretics lies as you, right?
                  >
                  > So how is it that Paul was motivated by false teachers
                  > to go submit his gospel to apostle james?
                  >
                  > I say it is because he knew James disagreed with his
                  > gospel, but that he couldn't exactly just wave James
                  > aside as a nobody, but felt it a good business
                  > decision to go and try to forge some sort of agreement
                  > with James, an important leader of the church.
                  > Otherwise it's like you being worried that Jehovah's
                  > witnesses might convince your friend that you teach
                  > falsely, so you make a special trip to go see that
                  > friend and assure them that you believe the same
                  > things they do. That's just stupid. And if you and
                  > your friend are inspired apostles, then your trip to
                  > go see them and do this is all the more unnecessary.
                  >
                  > Would you agree with me that those who believe the
                  > bible is inerrant, cannot rationally explain Paul's
                  > motivation to go confirm his gospel with James, merely
                  > because some heretics got involved?
                  >
                  > And doesn't Acts 16 record episodes of mental
                  > telepathy, conveniently overcoming the costly and
                  > dangerous problem of needing to journey to see
                  > someone? Yes.
                  >
                  > So I believe Paul is fudging his words a bit in
                  > Galatians. The truth is that he made the dangerous
                  > costly journey to Jerusalem to 'submit' his gospel to
                  > apostle James, because apostle James had never heard
                  > that gospel, and too many people were saying James
                  > disagreed with paul, so that it wasn't good for
                  > business anymore. But if James surely always agreed
                  > with Paul on the nature of the gospel, then what new
                  > thing is he informing James of when he goes to submit
                  > his gospel to him?
                  >
                  > Paul's journey to James in Galatians 2 only makes
                  > sense if he honestly felt James probably disagreed
                  > with him, and so Paul needed to seriously deal with
                  > this important leader face-to-face. paul uses the
                  > excuse that this all happened because of false
                  > brothers, but I've already demonstrated that this is a
                  > pitifully stupid excuse that doesn't make sense if we
                  > assume James's and Paul's divine inspiration as
                  > inerrantists will.
                  >
                  > Paul is fudging his words, because he says there were
                  > some authorities he submitted his gospel to, whom he
                  > resisted, and didn't give place by subjection to; no,
                  > not for an hour...see Galatians 2:5.
                  >
                  > You may say this wasn't James that he was resisting
                  > but false brothers.
                  >
                  > That's not my point.
                  >
                  > My point is that Paul places this confrontation in the
                  > context AFTER he gets to Jerusalem, in his effort to
                  > submit his gospel to the Jerusalam apostles.
                  >
                  > Apparantly then, he came upon false legalistic
                  > brothers WHO WERE IN JERUSALEM (!?), who disagreed
                  > with his gospel, and Paul didn't give in to them one
                  > bit.
                  >
                  > Ain't that just a bit suspicious, that Paul would
                  > bother defending his gospel with those whom he regards
                  > already as heretics?
                  >
                  > Isn't it even scarier, that after all the
                  > crowd-converting miracles and awe-inspiring power of
                  > the apostles spoken of in Acts, that Paul finds
                  > resistence to his gospel in the very city that was
                  > apostle James' seat of authority...Jerusalem?
                  >
                  > Can you seriously believe that apostle James disagreed
                  > just as violently with his local legalist Christians
                  > as Paul did?
                  >
                  > Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the reason
                  > there are legalistic Christians in Jerusalem is
                  > because apostle James, head of that particular locale,
                  > was himself a legalist?
                  >
                  > Yeah, the idea that appostle James taught a legalistic
                  > gospel may offend what you currently believe, but then
                  > again, you are quick to move wherever the truth is, or
                  > quick to acknowledge that you were decieved when you
                  > become convinced you were in error, amen?
                  >
                  > Sure, you can continue insisting that apostle James
                  > wasn't legalistic, so as to defend your doctrine of
                  > inerrancy, but you can only do so if you have already
                  > read the historical information on apostle James as
                  > being a legalist himself, information recorded by
                  > Jerome and Eusebius, and found good reason to say the
                  > early Church trusted in a false rumor about James.
                  >
                  > But I'm not too sure you wanna deliver that supply of
                  > ammo to us atheists. You go around saying the beliefs
                  > of the early post-apostolic church about their
                  > founders was often false, and yer gonna lose about 80%
                  > of the material apologists regularly work with.
                  >
                  > Because if you agree with the Church's historical
                  > information that apostle James was a high Jewish
                  > priest who performed animal sacrifices long after
                  > Jesus died for sin, you will be forced to conclude
                  > that apostle James was a legalist, and therefore a
                  > very prime candidate for the legalist preacher who
                  > Paul screams curses at in Galatians 1:8.
                  >
                  > Don't be so quick to assume that James couldn't have
                  > done animal sacrifices after Jesus died because he'd
                  > have known that Jesus' death made them irrelevent.
                  >
                  > That assumes, blindly, that he would agree with
                  > apostle Paul, and assumes, blindly, that the
                  > historical information from Eusebius and Jerome must
                  > be false just so you don't have to give up believing
                  > in biblical inerrancy.
                  >
                  > --- Dave
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  _____________________________________________________________________
                  _______________
                  > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
                  > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
                  > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
                  >
                • RZacc
                  geojosh1: I just read your post again, and while I agree with your position, I must ask you: How does a person become born again ? That is the work of God in
                  Message 8 of 26 , Mar 2, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    geojosh1: 

                    I just read your post again, and while I agree with your position, I must ask you: How does a person 'become born again'? That is the work of God in the heart, not something man can do.  We are the recipients, not the causitive agents.  "You must be born again' is indicative, not imperative.  It is not a command, but a statement of fact. 
                    Just wondering.... 
                     
                    May God Bless you richly today!
                    Ron Z



                    Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Yahoo! Answers. Try it now.
                  • william elkins
                    Yep thidss guiy follows wme wherever I go. Apoplogetics 1, 2, and three. why he goeds by empiracism 101 if you falsuify one of the many books Mormons
                    Message 9 of 26 , Mar 2, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Yep thidss guiy follows wme  wherever I go. Apoplogetics 1, 2, and  three. why he  goeds by empiracism 101 if you falsuify one of the many books  Mormons  agree in Most of  them ask you "How is it  that  a Christian (wink wink) doies not  believe the earth is  older than 5,000 years?" I Then in turn say the earth is how old  it needs to be to make his  empiacism  true?" In other words Does the age of  anything make anything true? 

                      RZacc <rzacc2001@...> wrote:
                      George:  Thank you.  I read this stuff with unbelief!  Surely, this has to be a joke!  But, if Dave is professing Mormon, then such convoluted human reasoning makes sense- that's all he has.   IT's not worth trying to straighten any of it out... Don't cast your pearls before swine, is what my Lord says.
                       
                      Ad Corem Deo
                      RonZ


                       
                      ----- Original Message ----
                      From: geojosh1 <mab@zoomtown. com>
                      To: christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                      Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 7:42:53 PM
                      Subject: [christian-philosop hy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] Norm needs educating

                      Hi Dave,

                      Sorry to butt in, but I see this big long letter you wrote debunking
                      Paul and his gospel. I also noticed you must be an athiest. If that
                      is so, I see your problem. You must be born-again of the Spirit of
                      God to understand the Scriptures. Even the Scriptures will tell you
                      that the man without the Spirit of God is unable to understand the
                      Scriptures and the things of God. If you want to understand Paul's
                      writings and why the Word of God is inerrant, come out of that world
                      of denial and invite Jesus into your life or else get involved in the
                      things of the world and not the things of God. You will never
                      understand the Scriptures until you become born-again. I know--I have
                      been there and I know plenty of other who have also. If you want to
                      do a study, start on the first three of four chapters of 1
                      Corinthians and come back and let us know what you find.

                      ...George

                      --- In christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Dave Wave
                      <empiricism101@ ...> wrote:
                      >
                      > 1Then after an interval of fourteen years I (A)went
                      > up again to Jerusalem with (B)Barnabas, taking
                      > (C)Titus along also.
                      > 2It was because of a (D)revelation that I went up;
                      > and I submitted to them the (E)gospel which I preach
                      > among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those
                      > who were of reputation, for fear that I might be
                      > (F)running, or had run, in vain." (Galatians 2)
                      >
                      > Paul expressed a fear or at least a concern, that he
                      > might discover, after submitting his gospel to the
                      > Jerusalem apostles, that he had run in vain.
                      >
                      > Doesn't exactly sound like original Christianity' s
                      > apostles were always harmonious and agreed with each
                      > other on everything, as the doctrine of biblical
                      > inerrancy implies, eh?
                      >
                      > I'd like some inerrantist to explain how they can be
                      > so sure that Paul didn't need to feel concerned, since
                      > James and Paul obviously agreed on the gospel, but
                      > that Paul himself, a much better authority on Paul
                      > than any modern-day inerrantist, actually had concerns
                      > about running in vain when he was about to show James
                      > his gospel.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Do you ever submit your belief in the trinity to your
                      > pastor? Probably not, since it is already a given
                      > that your pastor agrees with you on the matter.
                      >
                      > The implication of the analogy is that Paul would only
                      > go to submit his gospel to someone, if that someone
                      > had NOT heard of his gospel before.
                      >
                      > It gets worse:
                      >
                      > If Paul and James were equally inspired and thus
                      > totally in agreement on the nature of the gospel, why
                      > was Paul going up to Jerusalem to submit his gospel to
                      > them in the first place?
                      >
                      > Paul says "it was because of false brethren".
                      >
                      > Wait a minute....What is the probability that the
                      > apostles in Jerusalem would be misled by false
                      > brothers into believing their false report about
                      > Paul's gospel, so that Paul would feel compelled to
                      > defend his gospel himself from that rumor? Wouldn't
                      > you say there was NO possibility at all, given that
                      > they were all inspired by God and teaching the same
                      > gospel, as you believe they did?
                      >
                      > If so, then how can Paul have been motivated by false
                      > brothers to go confirm his gospel with James? If you
                      > are an apostle, inspired by God and in agreement with
                      > other inspired apostles, then obviously no false
                      > brothers with their lies are gonna make it necessary
                      > for you to make sure the other inspired apostles
                      > understand your gospel, amen? Your other inspired
                      > apostles in Christ would not need you to personally
                      > confirm your gospel to them, they would be just as
                      > quick to condemn there heretics lies as you, right?
                      >
                      > So how is it that Paul was motivated by false teachers
                      > to go submit his gospel to apostle james?
                      >
                      > I say it is because he knew James disagreed with his
                      > gospel, but that he couldn't exactly just wave James
                      > aside as a nobody, but felt it a good business
                      > decision to go and try to forge some sort of agreement
                      > with James, an important leader of the church.
                      > Otherwise it's like you being worried that Jehovah's
                      > witnesses might convince your friend that you teach
                      > falsely, so you make a special trip to go see that
                      > friend and assure them that you believe the same
                      > things they do. That's just stupid. And if you and
                      > your friend are inspired apostles, then your trip to
                      > go see them and do this is all the more unnecessary.
                      >
                      > Would you agree with me that those who believe the
                      > bible is inerrant, cannot rationally explain Paul's
                      > motivation to go confirm his gospel with James, merely
                      > because some heretics got involved?
                      >
                      > And doesn't Acts 16 record episodes of mental
                      > telepathy, conveniently overcoming the costly and
                      > dangerous problem of needing to journey to see
                      > someone? Yes.
                      >
                      > So I believe Paul is fudging his words a bit in
                      > Galatians. The truth is that he made the dangerous
                      > costly journey to Jerusalem to 'submit' his gospel to
                      > apostle James, because apostle James had never heard
                      > that gospel, and too many people were saying James
                      > disagreed with paul, so that it wasn't good for
                      > business anymore. But if James surely always agreed
                      > with Paul on the nature of the gospel, then what new
                      > thing is he informing James of when he goes to submit
                      > his gospel to him?
                      >
                      > Paul's journey to James in Galatians 2 only makes
                      > sense if he honestly felt James probably disagreed
                      > with him, and so Paul needed to seriously deal with
                      > this important leader face-to-face. paul uses the
                      > excuse that this all happened because of false
                      > brothers, but I've already demonstrated that this is a
                      > pitifully stupid excuse that doesn't make sense if we
                      > assume James's and Paul's divine inspiration as
                      > inerrantists will.
                      >
                      > Paul is fudging his words, because he says there were
                      > some authorities he submitted his gospel to, whom he
                      > resisted, and didn't give place by subjection to; no,
                      > not for an hour...see Galatians 2:5.
                      >
                      > You may say this wasn't James that he was resisting
                      > but false brothers.
                      >
                      > That's not my point.
                      >
                      > My point is that Paul places this confrontation in the
                      > context AFTER he gets to Jerusalem, in his effort to
                      > submit his gospel to the Jerusalam apostles.
                      >
                      > Apparantly then, he came upon false legalistic
                      > brothers WHO WERE IN JERUSALEM (!?), who disagreed
                      > with his gospel, and Paul didn't give in to them one
                      > bit.
                      >
                      > Ain't that just a bit suspicious, that Paul would
                      > bother defending his gospel with those whom he regards
                      > already as heretics?
                      >
                      > Isn't it even scarier, that after all the
                      > crowd-converting miracles and awe-inspiring power of
                      > the apostles spoken of in Acts, that Paul finds
                      > resistence to his gospel in the very city that was
                      > apostle James' seat of authority... Jerusalem?
                      >
                      > Can you seriously believe that apostle James disagreed
                      > just as violently with his local legalist Christians
                      > as Paul did?
                      >
                      > Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the reason
                      > there are legalistic Christians in Jerusalem is
                      > because apostle James, head of that particular locale,
                      > was himself a legalist?
                      >
                      > Yeah, the idea that appostle James taught a legalistic
                      > gospel may offend what you currently believe, but then
                      > again, you are quick to move wherever the truth is, or
                      > quick to acknowledge that you were decieved when you
                      > become convinced you were in error, amen?
                      >
                      > Sure, you can continue insisting that apostle James
                      > wasn't legalistic, so as to defend your doctrine of
                      > inerrancy, but you can only do so if you have already
                      > read the historical information on apostle James as
                      > being a legalist himself, information recorded by
                      > Jerome and Eusebius, and found good reason to say the
                      > early Church trusted in a false rumor about James.
                      >
                      > But I'm not too sure you wanna deliver that supply of
                      > ammo to us atheists. You go around saying the beliefs
                      > of the early post-apostolic church about their
                      > founders was often false, and yer gonna lose about 80%
                      > of the material apologists regularly work with.
                      >
                      > Because if you agree with the Church's historical
                      > information that apostle James was a high Jewish
                      > priest who performed animal sacrifices long after
                      > Jesus died for sin, you will be forced to conclude
                      > that apostle James was a legalist, and therefore a
                      > very prime candidate for the legalist preacher who
                      > Paul screams curses at in Galatians 1:8.
                      >
                      > Don't be so quick to assume that James couldn't have
                      > done animal sacrifices after Jesus died because he'd
                      > have known that Jesus' death made them irrelevent.
                      >
                      > That assumes, blindly, that he would agree with
                      > apostle Paul, and assumes, blindly, that the
                      > historical information from Eusebius and Jerome must
                      > be false just so you don't have to give up believing
                      > in biblical inerrancy.
                      >
                      > --- Dave
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                      ____________ __
                      > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
                      > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
                      > http://answers. yahoo.com/ dir/?link= list&sid= 396545367
                      >




                      Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people who know.


                      No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
                      with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.

                    • geojosh1
                      Ron Z: I can answer your question, but let me first say it does not happen to every person the same. Some get zapped immediately big time. Others wonder if
                      Message 10 of 26 , Mar 3, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ron Z:

                        I can answer your question, but let me first say it does not happen
                        to every person the same. Some get zapped immediately big time.
                        Others wonder if anything happened at all, but find out later. Let me
                        first lead off with this: You do agree that we have a free will? If
                        so, we can do what we want - even accept or reject God. So yes, it is
                        not a command - it is a statement of fact. God doesn't command you to
                        go to heaven, but the statement of fact is - if you want to - you
                        must be born-again (John 3:3).

                        You said it is the work of God in the heart, not something man can
                        do, and that is true to a point. However, a man or woman must do
                        something before God can work in the heart. God cannot move until you
                        desire to move first. In other words, God won't give you the desires
                        of your heart unless you first ask Him. Then it's Gods turn to move.
                        It's like checkers - you move first then God moves. If God moves
                        first, He is usurping your free-will.

                        If you want to be born-again it is very simple. God wants you more
                        than you want Him, because He already paid the ultimate price. So the
                        simplicity of it is this: Just tell the Lord in a prayer that you
                        accept the price that Jesus paid on the cross for your sins and you
                        repent of those sins. (That's because sin cannot get into heaven
                        (Matthew 13:41)(1 Corinthians 6:9-11), but they will become covered
                        by the blood of Jesus (1 Peter 1:18-19)(John 1:7) after you pray that
                        prayer. Or you can pray to God that you want to become born-again -
                        you want Jesus to be Lord of your life (Romans 10:9-10). The Lord did
                        everything He could - it's now up to you. He stands at your hearts
                        door and knocks (Revelation 3:20), and will come into whomever opens
                        the door. The next move is up to you - not God.

                        Proverbs 20:27 says: "The spirit (heart) of man is the candle of the
                        Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly." God knows your
                        heart and knows what you desire and if you are sincere. So yes, you
                        are right; God does work in the heart, but He won't move unless He
                        see the desire there. And He can tell if the person is sincere or not.

                        Here is the best part of becoming born-again. It can be immediate (2
                        Corinthians 5:17) and it is permanent (Romans 8:38). You do not have
                        to wait forever, and you cannot become UNBORN-again, because the
                        Spirit of God takes up residence in your heart (2 Corinthians 1:22).
                        With the Spirit of God in your heart(Rom 8:9-10), then you can
                        understand the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 2:13)(1 John 2:27).

                        You know - many people put off doing this, but I would not take the
                        chance. Here's the thing. Now you know. (Pray tell this would never
                        happen to you or anyone else in this group), but,if you were to die
                        before you decided to do it, you now have no excuse should you stand
                        before the Lord. However, here is the good news - if you did invite
                        Jesus to be your Lord right now, you haven't lost anything, even if
                        you believe nothing happened to you, because if you stand before the
                        Lord after you asked God to reveal Himself to you through the born-
                        again experience and you are sincere, (remember the next move is up
                        to God) you did your part, you made the first move.

                        Okay, I know I went on pretty long, but I hope it answers your
                        question. If not - we can go futher. Thanks for asking Ron, and I
                        hope you take the next step. Eternity is a long time and I do want to
                        see you there. God bless.

                        ...George

                        --- In christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, RZacc <rzacc2001@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > geojosh1:
                        >
                        >
                        > I just read your post again, and while I agree with your position,
                        I must ask you: How does a person 'become born again'? That is the
                        work of God in the heart, not something man can do. We are the
                        recipients, not the causitive agents. "You must be born again' is
                        indicative, not imperative. It is not a command, but a statement of
                        fact.
                        > Just wondering....
                        >
                        > May God Bless you richly today!
                        > Ron Z
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        ______________________________________________________________________
                        ______________
                        > TV dinner still cooling?
                        > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
                        > http://tv.yahoo.com/
                        >
                      • Pottsie
                        ... (Pottsie) And if man moves first, he is usurping God s plan ...If man can usurp God s plan, it wasn t a very good plan, was it? It is the age old argument
                        Message 11 of 26 , Mar 3, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- geojosh1 <mab@...> wrote:

                          > Ron Z:
                          >
                          > I can answer your question, but let me first say it
                          > does not happen
                          > to every person the same. Some get zapped
                          > immediately big time.
                          > Others wonder if anything happened at all, but find
                          > out later. Let me
                          > first lead off with this: You do agree that we have
                          > a free will? If
                          > so, we can do what we want - even accept or reject
                          > God. So yes, it is
                          > not a command - it is a statement of fact. God
                          > doesn't command you to
                          > go to heaven, but the statement of fact is - if you
                          > want to - you
                          > must be born-again (John 3:3).
                          >
                          > You said it is the work of God in the heart, not
                          > something man can
                          > do, and that is true to a point. However, a man or
                          > woman must do
                          > something before God can work in the heart. God
                          > cannot move until you
                          > desire to move first. In other words, God won't give
                          > you the desires
                          > of your heart unless you first ask Him. Then it's
                          > Gods turn to move.
                          > It's like checkers - you move first then God moves.
                          > If God moves
                          > first, He is usurping your free-will.

                          (Pottsie)

                          And if man moves first, he is usurping "God's
                          plan"...If man can usurp God's plan, it wasn't a very
                          good plan, was it?

                          It is the age old argument of "How can both Free Will
                          and Predestination BOTH be true? and there is only
                          one way they both can be true.

                          Namaste

                          Pottsie



                          "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." Al Gore, The Once and Future Presidential Candidate



                          ____________________________________________________________________________________
                          It's here! Your new message!
                          Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
                          http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
                        • william elkins
                          Sorry Ron and George, I am trying to follow the dialog, Satterda is a day I really liktr to listen to God while praying. I m not trying to be esoteric here
                          Message 12 of 26 , Mar 3, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Sorry Ron  and George, I am trying to follow the dialog, Satterda is a day I really liktr  to "listen" to God while praying. I'm not trying to be esoteric here I just get a lot of insight on satudays  because i have more timre . But It  Seems as if George is searching for  something. Don't worry George I am always swearching too. but it ias very difficult to understsand who is  speaking  and well  the internet is as hard place to understansd exactly what is happening. I am only inferring that you are debating on the way to salvaion. Ithink I know the way to salvation ids dsifferent  when you are dealing  with multiculturalism. So wee have  40 ways of salvation it seems. I have a lot of family in the  city of Toronto, the most diverse country in there world. there are 10,000 truths (that are varified but not objectively) that are not tested. but that is my  point but I think Ron doesn't need my help but since I'm really still unsure of who is  speaking. I just read what George has stated in this  message and I can't say I sgree with you on most things buit i will stay out of it but  can you please  give a title to the  person who is speaking so I can see both sides? I guessits jusdt me searching myself so it is a help to me  as well. Thanks
                             
                            Will   

                            <mab@...> wrote:
                            Ron Z:

                            I can answer your question, but let me first say it does not happen
                            to every person the same. Some get zapped immediately big time.
                            Others wonder if anything happened at all, but find out later. Let me
                            first lead off with this: You do agree that we have a free will? If
                            so, we can do what we want - even accept or reject God. So yes, it is
                            not a command - it is a statement of fact. God doesn't command you to
                            go to heaven, but the statement of fact is - if you want to - you
                            must be born-again (John 3:3).

                            You said it is the work of God in the heart, not something man can
                            do, and that is true to a point. However, a man or woman must do
                            something before God can work in the heart. God cannot move until you
                            desire to move first. In other words, God won't give you the desires
                            of your heart unless you first ask Him. Then it's Gods turn to move.
                            It's like checkers - you move first then God moves. If God moves
                            first, He is usurping your free-will.

                            If you want to be born-again it is very simple. God wants you more
                            than you want Him, because He already paid the ultimate price. So the
                            simplicity of it is this: Just tell the Lord in a prayer that you
                            accept the price that Jesus paid on the cross for your sins and you
                            repent of those sins. (That's because sin cannot get into heaven
                            (Matthew 13:41)(1 Corinthians 6:9-11), but they will become covered
                            by the blood of Jesus (1 Peter 1:18-19)(John 1:7) after you pray that
                            prayer. Or you can pray to God that you want to become born-again -
                            you want Jesus to be Lord of your life (Romans 10:9-10). The Lord did
                            everything He could - it's now up to you. He stands at your hearts
                            door and knocks (Revelation 3:20), and will come into whomever opens
                            the door. The next move is up to you - not God.

                            Proverbs 20:27 says: "The spirit (heart) of man is the candle of the
                            Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly." God knows your
                            heart and knows what you desire and if you are sincere. So yes, you
                            are right; God does work in the heart, but He won't move unless He
                            see the desire there. And He can tell if the person is sincere or not.

                            Here is the best part of becoming born-again. It can be immediate (2
                            Corinthians 5:17) and it is permanent (Romans 8:38). You do not have
                            to wait forever, and you cannot become UNBORN-again, because the
                            Spirit of God takes up residence in your heart (2 Corinthians 1:22).
                            With the Spirit of God in your heart(Rom 8:9-10), then you can
                            understand the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 2:13)(1 John 2:27).

                            You know - many people put off doing this, but I would not take the
                            chance. Here's the thing. Now you know. (Pray tell this would never
                            happen to you or anyone else in this group), but,if you were to die
                            before you decided to do it, you now have no excuse should you stand
                            before the Lord. However, here is the good news - if you did invite
                            Jesus to be your Lord right now, you haven't lost anything, even if
                            you believe nothing happened to you, because if you stand before the
                            Lord after you asked God to reveal Himself to you through the born-
                            again experience and you are sincere, (remember the next move is up
                            to God) you did your part, you made the first move.

                            Okay, I know I went on pretty long, but I hope it answers your
                            question. If not - we can go futher. Thanks for asking Ron, and I
                            hope you take the next step. Eternity is a long time and I do want to
                            see you there. God bless.

                            ...George

                            --- In christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, RZacc <rzacc2001@. ..>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > geojosh1:
                            >
                            >
                            > I just read your post again, and while I agree with your position,
                            I must ask you: How does a person 'become born again'? That is the
                            work of God in the heart, not something man can do. We are the
                            recipients, not the causitive agents. "You must be born again' is
                            indicative, not imperative. It is not a command, but a statement of
                            fact.
                            > Just wondering... .
                            >
                            > May God Bless you richly today!
                            > Ron Z
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                            ____________ __
                            > TV dinner still cooling?
                            > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
                            > http://tv.yahoo. com/
                            >



                            8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
                            with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

                          • RZacc
                            Howdy Will- You are right- this format is hard to keep track of... I tried to begin each paragraph with George Says: or RZ Says: . I was hoping that
                            Message 13 of 26 , Mar 3, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Howdy Will-  You are right- this format is hard to keep track of...   I tried to begin each paragraph with "George Says:"  or  "RZ Says:".  I was hoping that would make it more clear.
                               
                              The section you quoted below is what George wrote.
                               
                              I am envious of you being able to take a whole day and pray.  Me, Im laid up with a tube sticking out of my back.. not too comfortable.  And theer are 4 horses needing to be ridden - just staring at me wondering if I have forgotten them.  Also, I need to get busy on tomorrow's study, if I can make it.
                               
                              Well, you take care and God Bless
                               
                              Ad Corem Deo,
                              RonZ
                               
                              "Life is a great adventure or it is nothing"- Helen Keller
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               


                               
                              ----- Original Message ----
                              From: william elkins <william_elkins2000@...>
                              To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2007 1:25:51 PM
                              Subject: Re: [christian-philosophy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] How to become born-again

                              Sorry Ron  and George, I am trying to follow the dialog, Satterda is a day I really liktr  to "listen" to God while praying. I'm not trying to be esoteric here I just get a lot of insight on satudays  because i have more timre . But It  Seems as if George is searching for  something. Don't worry George I am always swearching too. but it ias very difficult to understsand who is  speaking  and well  the internet is as hard place to understansd exactly what is happening. I am only inferring that you are debating on the way to salvaion. Ithink I know the way to salvation ids dsifferent  when you are dealing  with multiculturalism. So wee have  40 ways of salvation it seems. I have a lot of family in the  city of Toronto, the most diverse country in there world. there are 10,000 truths (that are varified but not objectively) that are not tested. but that is my  point but I think Ron doesn't need my help but since I'm really still unsure of who is  speaking. I just read what George has stated in this  message and I can't say I sgree with you on most things buit i will stay out of it but  can you please  give a title to the  person who is speaking so I can see both sides? I guessits jusdt me searching myself so it is a help to me  as well. Thanks
                               
                              Will   

                              <mab@zoomtown. com> wrote:
                              Ron Z:

                              I can answer your question, but let me first say it does not happen
                              to every person the same. Some get zapped immediately big time.
                              Others wonder if anything happened at all, but find out later. Let me
                              first lead off with this: You do agree that we have a free will? If
                              so, we can do what we want - even accept or reject God. So yes, it is
                              not a command - it is a statement of fact. God doesn't command you to
                              go to heaven, but the statement of fact is - if you want to - you
                              must be born-again (John 3:3).

                              You said it is the work of God in the heart, not something man can
                              do, and that is true to a point. However, a man or woman must do
                              something before God can work in the heart. God cannot move until you
                              desire to move first. In other words, God won't give you the desires
                              of your heart unless you first ask Him. Then it's Gods turn to move.
                              It's like checkers - you move first then God moves. If God moves
                              first, He is usurping your free-will.

                              If you want to be born-again it is very simple. God wants you more
                              than you want Him, because He already paid the ultimate price. So the
                              simplicity of it is this: Just tell the Lord in a prayer that you
                              accept the price that Jesus paid on the cross for your sins and you
                              repent of those sins. (That's because sin cannot get into heaven
                              (Matthew 13:41)(1 Corinthians 6:9-11), but they will become covered
                              by the blood of Jesus (1 Peter 1:18-19)(John 1:7) after you pray that
                              prayer. Or you can pray to God that you want to become born-again -
                              you want Jesus to be Lord of your life (Romans 10:9-10). The Lord did
                              everything He could - it's now up to you. He stands at your hearts
                              door and knocks (Revelation 3:20), and will come into whomever opens
                              the door. The next move is up to you - not God.

                              Proverbs 20:27 says: "The spirit (heart) of man is the candle of the
                              Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly." God knows your
                              heart and knows what you desire and if you are sincere. So yes, you
                              are right; God does work in the heart, but He won't move unless He
                              see the desire there. And He can tell if the person is sincere or not.

                              Here is the best part of becoming born-again. It can be immediate (2
                              Corinthians 5:17) and it is permanent (Romans 8:38). You do not have
                              to wait forever, and you cannot become UNBORN-again, because the
                              Spirit of God takes up residence in your heart (2 Corinthians 1:22).
                              With the Spirit of God in your heart(Rom 8:9-10), then you can
                              understand the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 2:13)(1 John 2:27).

                              You know - many people put off doing this, but I would not take the
                              chance. Here's the thing. Now you know. (Pray tell this would never
                              happen to you or anyone else in this group), but,if you were to die
                              before you decided to do it, you now have no excuse should you stand
                              before the Lord. However, here is the good news - if you did invite
                              Jesus to be your Lord right now, you haven't lost anything, even if
                              you believe nothing happened to you, because if you stand before the
                              Lord after you asked God to reveal Himself to you through the born-
                              again experience and you are sincere, (remember the next move is up
                              to God) you did your part, you made the first move.

                              Okay, I know I went on pretty long, but I hope it answers your
                              question. If not - we can go futher. Thanks for asking Ron, and I
                              hope you take the next step. Eternity is a long time and I do want to
                              see you there. God bless.

                              ...George

                              --- In christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, RZacc <rzacc2001@. ..>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > geojosh1:
                              >
                              >
                              > I just read your post again, and while I agree with your position,
                              I must ask you: How does a person 'become born again'? That is the
                              work of God in the heart, not something man can do. We are the
                              recipients, not the causitive agents. "You must be born again' is
                              indicative, not imperative. It is not a command, but a statement of
                              fact.
                              > Just wondering... .
                              >
                              > May God Bless you richly today!
                              > Ron Z
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                              ____________ __
                              > TV dinner still cooling?
                              > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
                              > http://tv.yahoo. com/
                              >



                              8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
                              with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.




                              It's here! Your new message!
                              Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
                            • william elkins
                              I know how horses are I used to own three Palaminoes Im sorry two palaminoes one that I bred with a palamino. Thery are expensive and needng to ridden
                              Message 14 of 26 , Mar 3, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I know how horses are I used to own three Palaminoes Im sorry two palaminoes one that  I bred with a  palamino. Thery are expensive  and  needng to ridden  daily, But  prayer is  noever enough time so i do  alot of ir on the day I have  off.
                                 
                                Will 

                                RZacc <rzacc2001@...> wrote:
                                Howdy Will-  You are right- this format is hard to keep track of...   I tried to begin each paragraph with "George Says:"  or  "RZ Says:".  I was hoping that would make it more clear.
                                 
                                The section you quoted below is what George wrote.
                                 
                                I am envious of you being able to take a whole day and pray.  Me, Im laid up with a tube sticking out of my back.. not too comfortable.  And theer are 4 horses needing to be ridden - just staring at me wondering if I have forgotten them.  Also, I need to get busy on tomorrow's study, if I can make it.
                                 
                                Well, you take care and God Bless
                                 
                                Ad Corem Deo,
                                RonZ
                                 
                                "Life is a great adventure or it is nothing"- Helen Keller
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 


                                 
                                ----- Original Message ----
                                From: william elkins <william_elkins2000@ yahoo.com>
                                To: christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                                Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2007 1:25:51 PM
                                Subject: Re: [christian-philosop hy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] How to become born-again

                                Sorry Ron  and George, I am trying to follow the dialog, Satterda is a day I really liktr  to "listen" to God while praying. I'm not trying to be esoteric here I just get a lot of insight on satudays  because i have more timre . But It  Seems as if George is searching for  something. Don't worry George I am always swearching too. but it ias very difficult to understsand who is  speaking  and well  the internet is as hard place to understansd exactly what is happening. I am only inferring that you are debating on the way to salvaion. Ithink I know the way to salvation ids dsifferent  when you are dealing  with multiculturalism. So wee have  40 ways of salvation it seems. I have a lot of family in the  city of Toronto, the most diverse country in there world. there are 10,000 truths (that are varified but not objectively) that are not tested. but that is my  point but I think Ron doesn't need my help but since I'm really still unsure of who is  speaking. I just read what George has stated in this  message and I can't say I sgree with you on most things buit i will stay out of it but  can you please  give a title to the  person who is speaking so I can see both sides? I guessits jusdt me searching myself so it is a help to me  as well. Thanks
                                 
                                Will   

                                <mab@zoomtown. com> wrote:
                                Ron Z:

                                I can answer your question, but let me first say it does not happen
                                to every person the same. Some get zapped immediately big time.
                                Others wonder if anything happened at all, but find out later. Let me
                                first lead off with this: You do agree that we have a free will? If
                                so, we can do what we want - even accept or reject God. So yes, it is
                                not a command - it is a statement of fact. God doesn't command you to
                                go to heaven, but the statement of fact is - if you want to - you
                                must be born-again (John 3:3).

                                You said it is the work of God in the heart, not something man can
                                do, and that is true to a point. However, a man or woman must do
                                something before God can work in the heart. God cannot move until you
                                desire to move first. In other words, God won't give you the desires
                                of your heart unless you first ask Him. Then it's Gods turn to move.
                                It's like checkers - you move first then God moves. If God moves
                                first, He is usurping your free-will.

                                If you want to be born-again it is very simple. God wants you more
                                than you want Him, because He already paid the ultimate price. So the
                                simplicity of it is this: Just tell the Lord in a prayer that you
                                accept the price that Jesus paid on the cross for your sins and you
                                repent of those sins. (That's because sin cannot get into heaven
                                (Matthew 13:41)(1 Corinthians 6:9-11), but they will become covered
                                by the blood of Jesus (1 Peter 1:18-19)(John 1:7) after you pray that
                                prayer. Or you can pray to God that you want to become born-again -
                                you want Jesus to be Lord of your life (Romans 10:9-10). The Lord did
                                everything He could - it's now up to you. He stands at your hearts
                                door and knocks (Revelation 3:20), and will come into whomever opens
                                the door. The next move is up to you - not God.

                                Proverbs 20:27 says: "The spirit (heart) of man is the candle of the
                                Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly." God knows your
                                heart and knows what you desire and if you are sincere. So yes, you
                                are right; God does work in the heart, but He won't move unless He
                                see the desire there. And He can tell if the person is sincere or not.

                                Here is the best part of becoming born-again. It can be immediate (2
                                Corinthians 5:17) and it is permanent (Romans 8:38). You do not have
                                to wait forever, and you cannot become UNBORN-again, because the
                                Spirit of God takes up residence in your heart (2 Corinthians 1:22).
                                With the Spirit of God in your heart(Rom 8:9-10), then you can
                                understand the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 2:13)(1 John 2:27).

                                You know - many people put off doing this, but I would not take the
                                chance. Here's the thing. Now you know. (Pray tell this would never
                                happen to you or anyone else in this group), but,if you were to die
                                before you decided to do it, you now have no excuse should you stand
                                before the Lord. However, here is the good news - if you did invite
                                Jesus to be your Lord right now, you haven't lost anything, even if
                                you believe nothing happened to you, because if you stand before the
                                Lord after you asked God to reveal Himself to you through the born-
                                again experience and you are sincere, (remember the next move is up
                                to God) you did your part, you made the first move.

                                Okay, I know I went on pretty long, but I hope it answers your
                                question. If not - we can go futher. Thanks for asking Ron, and I
                                hope you take the next step. Eternity is a long time and I do want to
                                see you there. God bless.

                                ...George

                                --- In christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, RZacc <rzacc2001@. ..>
                                wrote:
                                >
                                > geojosh1:
                                >
                                >
                                > I just read your post again, and while I agree with your position,
                                I must ask you: How does a person 'become born again'? That is the
                                work of God in the heart, not something man can do. We are the
                                recipients, not the causitive agents. "You must be born again' is
                                indicative, not imperative. It is not a command, but a statement of
                                fact.
                                > Just wondering... .
                                >
                                > May God Bless you richly today!
                                > Ron Z
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                ____________ __
                                > TV dinner still cooling?
                                > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
                                > http://tv.yahoo. com/
                                >



                                8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
                                with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.



                                It's here! Your new message!
                                Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.


                                Need Mail bonding?
                                Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.

                              • RZacc
                                Great! That is a much more honorable and productive enterprise than riding horses anyway. I just really like them- been training horses for 25 years.
                                Message 15 of 26 , Mar 3, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Great!  That is a much more honorable and productive enterprise than riding horses anyway.  I just really like them- been training horses for 25 years.  Palaminoes are nice!!
                                   
                                  Ron 

                                  ----- Original Message ----
                                  From: william elkins <william_elkins2000@...>
                                  To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2007 6:50:34 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [christian-philosophy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] How to become born-again

                                  I know how horses are I used to own three Palaminoes Im sorry two palaminoes one that  I bred with a  palamino. Thery are expensive  and  needng to ridden  daily, But  prayer is  noever enough time so i do  alot of ir on the day I have  off.
                                   
                                  Will 

                                  RZacc <rzacc2001@yahoo. com> wrote:
                                  Howdy Will-  You are right- this format is hard to keep track of...   I tried to begin each paragraph with "George Says:"  or  "RZ Says:".  I was hoping that would make it more clear.
                                   
                                  The section you quoted below is what George wrote.
                                   
                                  I am envious of you being able to take a whole day and pray.  Me, Im laid up with a tube sticking out of my back.. not too comfortable.  And theer are 4 horses needing to be ridden - just staring at me wondering if I have forgotten them.  Also, I need to get busy on tomorrow's study, if I can make it.
                                   
                                  Well, you take care and God Bless
                                   
                                  Ad Corem Deo,
                                  RonZ
                                   
                                  "Life is a great adventure or it is nothing"- Helen Keller
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   


                                   
                                  ----- Original Message ----
                                  From: william elkins <william_elkins2000@ yahoo.com>
                                  To: christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                                  Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2007 1:25:51 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [christian-philosop hy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] How to become born-again

                                  Sorry Ron  and George, I am trying to follow the dialog, Satterda is a day I really liktr  to "listen" to God while praying. I'm not trying to be esoteric here I just get a lot of insight on satudays  because i have more timre . But It  Seems as if George is searching for  something. Don't worry George I am always swearching too. but it ias very difficult to understsand who is  speaking  and well  the internet is as hard place to understansd exactly what is happening. I am only inferring that you are debating on the way to salvaion. Ithink I know the way to salvation ids dsifferent  when you are dealing  with multiculturalism. So wee have  40 ways of salvation it seems. I have a lot of family in the  city of Toronto, the most diverse country in there world. there are 10,000 truths (that are varified but not objectively) that are not tested. but that is my  point but I think Ron doesn't need my help but since I'm really still unsure of who is  speaking. I just read what George has stated in this  message and I can't say I sgree with you on most things buit i will stay out of it but  can you please  give a title to the  person who is speaking so I can see both sides? I guessits jusdt me searching myself so it is a help to me  as well. Thanks
                                   
                                  Will   

                                  <mab@zoomtown. com> wrote:
                                  Ron Z:

                                  I can answer your question, but let me first say it does not happen
                                  to every person the same. Some get zapped immediately big time.
                                  Others wonder if anything happened at all, but find out later. Let me
                                  first lead off with this: You do agree that we have a free will? If
                                  so, we can do what we want - even accept or reject God. So yes, it is
                                  not a command - it is a statement of fact. God doesn't command you to
                                  go to heaven, but the statement of fact is - if you want to - you
                                  must be born-again (John 3:3).

                                  You said it is the work of God in the heart, not something man can
                                  do, and that is true to a point. However, a man or woman must do
                                  something before God can work in the heart. God cannot move until you
                                  desire to move first. In other words, God won't give you the desires
                                  of your heart unless you first ask Him. Then it's Gods turn to move.
                                  It's like checkers - you move first then God moves. If God moves
                                  first, He is usurping your free-will.

                                  If you want to be born-again it is very simple. God wants you more
                                  than you want Him, because He already paid the ultimate price. So the
                                  simplicity of it is this: Just tell the Lord in a prayer that you
                                  accept the price that Jesus paid on the cross for your sins and you
                                  repent of those sins. (That's because sin cannot get into heaven
                                  (Matthew 13:41)(1 Corinthians 6:9-11), but they will become covered
                                  by the blood of Jesus (1 Peter 1:18-19)(John 1:7) after you pray that
                                  prayer. Or you can pray to God that you want to become born-again -
                                  you want Jesus to be Lord of your life (Romans 10:9-10). The Lord did
                                  everything He could - it's now up to you. He stands at your hearts
                                  door and knocks (Revelation 3:20), and will come into whomever opens
                                  the door. The next move is up to you - not God.

                                  Proverbs 20:27 says: "The spirit (heart) of man is the candle of the
                                  Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly." God knows your
                                  heart and knows what you desire and if you are sincere. So yes, you
                                  are right; God does work in the heart, but He won't move unless He
                                  see the desire there. And He can tell if the person is sincere or not.

                                  Here is the best part of becoming born-again. It can be immediate (2
                                  Corinthians 5:17) and it is permanent (Romans 8:38). You do not have
                                  to wait forever, and you cannot become UNBORN-again, because the
                                  Spirit of God takes up residence in your heart (2 Corinthians 1:22).
                                  With the Spirit of God in your heart(Rom 8:9-10), then you can
                                  understand the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 2:13)(1 John 2:27).

                                  You know - many people put off doing this, but I would not take the
                                  chance. Here's the thing. Now you know. (Pray tell this would never
                                  happen to you or anyone else in this group), but,if you were to die
                                  before you decided to do it, you now have no excuse should you stand
                                  before the Lord. However, here is the good news - if you did invite
                                  Jesus to be your Lord right now, you haven't lost anything, even if
                                  you believe nothing happened to you, because if you stand before the
                                  Lord after you asked God to reveal Himself to you through the born-
                                  again experience and you are sincere, (remember the next move is up
                                  to God) you did your part, you made the first move.

                                  Okay, I know I went on pretty long, but I hope it answers your
                                  question. If not - we can go futher. Thanks for asking Ron, and I
                                  hope you take the next step. Eternity is a long time and I do want to
                                  see you there. God bless.

                                  ...George

                                  --- In christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, RZacc <rzacc2001@. ..>
                                  wrote:
                                  >
                                  > geojosh1:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > I just read your post again, and while I agree with your position,
                                  I must ask you: How does a person 'become born again'? That is the
                                  work of God in the heart, not something man can do. We are the
                                  recipients, not the causitive agents. "You must be born again' is
                                  indicative, not imperative. It is not a command, but a statement of
                                  fact.
                                  > Just wondering... .
                                  >
                                  > May God Bless you richly today!
                                  > Ron Z
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                  ____________ __
                                  > TV dinner still cooling?
                                  > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
                                  > http://tv.yahoo. com/
                                  >



                                  8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
                                  with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.



                                  It's here! Your new message!
                                  Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.


                                  Need Mail bonding?
                                  Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.




                                  Bored stiff? Loosen up...
                                  Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
                                • Eva Walker
                                  Being with God can t be like checker because in cbecker you have to move seperately.To move with God you need to know how to move together so you need to know
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Mar 3, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Being with God can't be like checker because in cbecker you have to move seperately.To move with God you need to know how to move together so you need to know how to be Godlike.Jesus was God who came here as a human to show us the consiquences of our actions.When he got crucified that showed the consiquences of what we did was wrong.We are not doing the right things to become spiritual like him and he had to teach us that in human form.If people don't see and get that they cannot be reborn.When Jesus/God lost his temper in the chaple where people were selling things his human forn took over because we didn't get what he was trying get across to us.

                                    ----- Original Message ----
                                    From: geojosh1 <mab@...>
                                    To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2007 1:09:32 AM
                                    Subject: [christian-philosophy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] How to become born-again

                                    Ron Z:

                                    I can answer your question, but let me first say it does not happen
                                    to every person the same. Some get zapped immediately big time.
                                    Others wonder if anything happened at all, but find out later. Let me
                                    first lead off with this: You do agree that we have a free will? If
                                    so, we can do what we want - even accept or reject God. So yes, it is
                                    not a command - it is a statement of fact. God doesn't command you to
                                    go to heaven, but the statement of fact is - if you want to - you
                                    must be born-again (John 3:3).

                                    You said it is the work of God in the heart, not something man can
                                    do, and that is true to a point. However, a man or woman must do
                                    something before God can work in the heart. God cannot move until you
                                    desire to move first. In other words, God won't give you the desires
                                    of your heart unless you first ask Him. Then it's Gods turn to move.
                                    It's like checkers - you move first then God moves. If God moves
                                    first, He is usurping your free-will.

                                    If you want to be born-again it is very simple. God wants you more
                                    than you want Him, because He already paid the ultimate price. So the
                                    simplicity of it is this: Just tell the Lord in a prayer that you
                                    accept the price that Jesus paid on the cross for your sins and you
                                    repent of those sins. (That's because sin cannot get into heaven
                                    (Matthew 13:41)(1 Corinthians 6:9-11), but they will become covered
                                    by the blood of Jesus (1 Peter 1:18-19)(John 1:7) after you pray that
                                    prayer. Or you can pray to God that you want to become born-again -
                                    you want Jesus to be Lord of your life (Romans 10:9-10). The Lord did
                                    everything He could - it's now up to you. He stands at your hearts
                                    door and knocks (Revelation 3:20), and will come into whomever opens
                                    the door. The next move is up to you - not God.

                                    Proverbs 20:27 says: "The spirit (heart) of man is the candle of the
                                    Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly." God knows your
                                    heart and knows what you desire and if you are sincere. So yes, you
                                    are right; God does work in the heart, but He won't move unless He
                                    see the desire there. And He can tell if the person is sincere or not.

                                    Here is the best part of becoming born-again. It can be immediate (2
                                    Corinthians 5:17) and it is permanent (Romans 8:38). You do not have
                                    to wait forever, and you cannot become UNBORN-again, because the
                                    Spirit of God takes up residence in your heart (2 Corinthians 1:22).
                                    With the Spirit of God in your heart(Rom 8:9-10), then you can
                                    understand the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 2:13)(1 John 2:27).

                                    You know - many people put off doing this, but I would not take the
                                    chance. Here's the thing. Now you know. (Pray tell this would never
                                    happen to you or anyone else in this group), but,if you were to die
                                    before you decided to do it, you now have no excuse should you stand
                                    before the Lord. However, here is the good news - if you did invite
                                    Jesus to be your Lord right now, you haven't lost anything, even if
                                    you believe nothing happened to you, because if you stand before the
                                    Lord after you asked God to reveal Himself to you through the born-
                                    again experience and you are sincere, (remember the next move is up
                                    to God) you did your part, you made the first move.

                                    Okay, I know I went on pretty long, but I hope it answers your
                                    question. If not - we can go futher. Thanks for asking Ron, and I
                                    hope you take the next step. Eternity is a long time and I do want to
                                    see you there. God bless.

                                    ...George

                                    --- In christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, RZacc <rzacc2001@. ..>
                                    wrote:

                                    >
                                    > geojosh1:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > I just read your post again, and while I agree with your position,
                                    I must ask you: How does a person 'become born again'? That is the
                                    work of God in the heart, not something man can do. We are the
                                    recipients, not the causitive agents. "You must be born again' is
                                    indicative, not imperative. It is not a command, but a statement of
                                    fact.
                                    > Just wondering... .
                                    >
                                    > May God Bless you richly today!
                                    > Ron Z
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                    ____________ __
                                    > TV dinner still cooling?
                                    > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
                                    > http://tv.yahoo. com/
                                    >




                                    Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.
                                  • geojosh1
                                    Hi Will, I m sorry for the confusion, but I think Ron took care of it. I couldn t help seeing your comment about 10,000 truths in Toronto. That s the way it is
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Mar 4, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi Will,

                                      I'm sorry for the confusion, but I think Ron took care of it.

                                      I couldn't help seeing your comment about 10,000 truths in Toronto.
                                      That's the way it is everywhere my friend. But, that is the point of
                                      this topic "born-again".

                                      Everyone of those 10,000 philosophies and religions have a doctrine
                                      to voice their truth to their members. Each doctrine is written by a
                                      man or men. Even Christianity's Bible was written by men. However,
                                      there is only one religion that can prove itself, and that is
                                      Christianity. The very topic were are engaged in is the proof. Anyone
                                      can become "born-again". Jesus did not die just for Christians. He
                                      died for the world that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish.

                                      Now here is the proof: Jesus promised that unless He went away the
                                      Holy Spirit could not come. We know that Jesus went away that His
                                      promise was to send His Holy Spirit to those who believed. To those
                                      who are born-again, the undeniable proof is in the heart. When the
                                      Holy Spirit comes into your heart, you know it for certain. And to
                                      back it up - the Bible tells us what we already know. 2 Corinthians
                                      5:17 - Old things pass away, behold all things are become new.

                                      No other religion has the proof, except for words on paper, writen by
                                      men. Christianity goes beyond words -- to Christ living in us.

                                      Just a thought. God bless

                                      ...George

                                      --- In christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, william elkins
                                      <william_elkins2000@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Sorry Ron and George, I am trying to follow the dialog, Satterda
                                      is a day I really liktr to "listen" to God while praying. I'm not
                                      trying to be esoteric here I just get a lot of insight on satudays
                                      because i have more timre . But It Seems as if George is searching
                                      for something. Don't worry George I am always swearching too. but it
                                      ias very difficult to understsand who is speaking and well the
                                      internet is as hard place to understansd exactly what is happening. I
                                      am only inferring that you are debating on the way to salvaion.
                                      Ithink I know the way to salvation ids dsifferent when you are
                                      dealing with multiculturalism. So wee have 40 ways of salvation it
                                      seems. I have a lot of family in the city of Toronto, the most
                                      diverse country in there world. there are 10,000 truths (that are
                                      varified but not objectively) that are not tested. but that is my
                                      point but I think Ron doesn't need my help but since I'm really still
                                      unsure of who is speaking. I just read what
                                      > George has stated in this message and I can't say I sgree with
                                      you on most things buit i will stay out of it but can you please
                                      give a title to the person who is speaking so I can see both sides?
                                      I guessits jusdt me searching myself so it is a help to me as well.
                                      Thanks
                                      >
                                      > Will
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      > __________________________________________________________
                                      > ______________
                                      > > TV dinner still cooling?
                                      > > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
                                      > > http://tv.yahoo.com/
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > ---------------------------------
                                      > 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
                                      > with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
                                      >
                                    • RZacc
                                      Thanks George- God really is using you to change your world! Keep up the good work ! R Tolerance is the virtue for those who believe in nothing. ... From:
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Mar 4, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Thanks George- God really is using you to change your world! Keep up the good 'work'!
                                         
                                         
                                         
                                        R
                                         

                                        Tolerance is the virtue for those who believe in nothing.


                                        ----- Original Message ----
                                        From: geojosh1 <mab@...>
                                        To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                                        Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2007 6:04:40 PM
                                        Subject: [christian-philosophy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] How to become born-again

                                        Hi Will,

                                        I'm sorry for the confusion, but I think Ron took care of it.

                                        I couldn't help seeing your comment about 10,000 truths in Toronto.
                                        That's the way it is everywhere my friend. But, that is the point of
                                        this topic "born-again" .

                                        Everyone of those 10,000 philosophies and religions have a doctrine
                                        to voice their truth to their members. Each doctrine is written by a
                                        man or men. Even Christianity' s Bible was written by men. However,
                                        there is only one religion that can prove itself, and that is
                                        Christianity. The very topic were are engaged in is the proof. Anyone
                                        can become "born-again" . Jesus did not die just for Christians. He
                                        died for the world that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish.

                                        Now here is the proof: Jesus promised that unless He went away the
                                        Holy Spirit could not come. We know that Jesus went away that His
                                        promise was to send His Holy Spirit to those who believed. To those
                                        who are born-again, the undeniable proof is in the heart. When the
                                        Holy Spirit comes into your heart, you know it for certain. And to
                                        back it up - the Bible tells us what we already know. 2 Corinthians
                                        5:17 - Old things pass away, behold all things are become new.

                                        No other religion has the proof, except for words on paper, writen by
                                        men. Christianity goes beyond words -- to Christ living in us.

                                        Just a thought. God bless

                                        ...George

                                        --- In christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, william elkins
                                        <william_elkins2000 @...> wrote:

                                        >
                                        > Sorry Ron and George, I am trying to follow the dialog, Satterda
                                        is a day I really liktr to "listen" to God while praying. I'm not
                                        trying to be esoteric here I just get a lot of insight on satudays
                                        because i have more timre . But It Seems as if George is searching
                                        for something. Don't worry George I am always swearching too. but it
                                        ias very difficult to understsand who is speaking and well the
                                        internet is as hard place to understansd exactly what is happening. I
                                        am only inferring that you are debating on the way to salvaion.
                                        Ithink I know the way to salvation ids dsifferent when you are
                                        dealing with multiculturalism. So wee have 40 ways of salvation it
                                        seems. I have a lot of family in the city of Toronto, the most
                                        diverse country in there world. there are 10,000 truths (that are
                                        varified but not objectively) that are not tested. but that is my
                                        point but I think Ron doesn't need my help but since I'm really still
                                        unsure of who is speaking. I just read what
                                        > George has stated in this message and I can't say I sgree with
                                        you on most things buit i will stay out of it but can you please
                                        give a title to the person who is speaking so I can see both sides?
                                        I guessits jusdt me searching myself so it is a help to me as well.
                                        Thanks
                                        >
                                        > Will
                                        >
                                        > >
                                        > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                        > ____________ __
                                        > > TV dinner still cooling?
                                        > > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
                                        > > http://tv.yahoo. com/
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > ------------ --------- --------- ---
                                        > 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
                                        > with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
                                        >




                                        Need Mail bonding?
                                        Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
                                      • geojosh1
                                        ... Hi Pottsie, Did not God make the earth for man and not for Himself? And did not man disobey God and obey satan? Since the Bible calls satan the god of this
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Mar 4, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Pottsie <pottsie_nc@...>
                                          wrote:
                                          >
                                          Hi Pottsie,

                                          Did not God make the earth for man and not for Himself?

                                          And did not man disobey God and obey satan?

                                          Since the Bible calls satan the god of this world, man must have
                                          reliquished his authority over this earth and gave it to satan. (You
                                          may or not agree with that, but that's okay.)

                                          Didn't Jesus die for man - and not for God?

                                          So, do we not have any say if we want to be saved or not?

                                          I believe predestination has a play only to the extent of God's
                                          foreknowledge. He knew who would accept Jesus before the foundations
                                          of the world. Therefore, He predestined those who would believe
                                          before He made the heavens and the earth.

                                          Because God had foreknowledge of these things does not mean anyone
                                          cannot be saved if they call upon the name of the Lord. It only means
                                          that God is all-knowing and He knows the end of all things.

                                          Just a thought.

                                          ...George

                                          >
                                          > (Pottsie)
                                          >
                                          > And if man moves first, he is usurping "God's
                                          > plan"...If man can usurp God's plan, it wasn't a very
                                          > good plan, was it?
                                          >
                                          > It is the age old argument of "How can both Free Will
                                          > and Predestination BOTH be true? and there is only
                                          > one way they both can be true.
                                          >
                                          > Namaste
                                          >
                                          > Pottsie
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the
                                          impurities in our air and water that are doing it." Al Gore, The
                                          Once and Future Presidential Candidate
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          ______________________________________________________________________
                                          ______________
                                          > It's here! Your new message!
                                          > Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
                                          > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
                                          >
                                        • RZacc
                                          Eva- thanks for writing. Is there anything in your life that you are facing now that we can join in prayer for you? God will answer your prayers- He
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Mar 4, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Eva- thanks for writing. Is there anything in your life that you are facing now that we can join in prayer for you?  God will answer your prayers- He speicalizes in changing lives! He changed even mine - and if He can do that, He can do ANYTHING!!!!!!!!! (for you too!)
                                             
                                            Take care and God Bless you!
                                            RonZ

                                            I wonder if other dogs think poodles are members of a weird religious cult.
                                            -Rita Rudner

                                            ----- Original Message ----
                                            From: Eva Walker <solarbabe56@...>
                                            To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                                            Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2007 10:54:23 PM
                                            Subject: Re: [christian-philosophy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] How to become born-again

                                            Being with God can't be like checker because in cbecker you have to move seperately.To move with God you need to know how to move together so you need to know how to be Godlike.Jesus was God who came here as a human to show us the consiquences of our actions.When he got crucified that showed the consiquences of what we did was wrong.We are not doing the right things to become spiritual like him and he had to teach us that in human form.If people don't see and get that they cannot be reborn.When Jesus/God lost his temper in the chaple where people were selling things his human forn took over because we didn't get what he was trying get across to us.

                                            ----- Original Message ----
                                            From: geojosh1 <mab@zoomtown. com>
                                            To: christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                                            Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2007 1:09:32 AM
                                            Subject: [christian-philosop hy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] How to become born-again

                                            Ron Z:

                                            I can answer your question, but let me first say it does not happen
                                            to every person the same. Some get zapped immediately big time.
                                            Others wonder if anything happened at all, but find out later. Let me
                                            first lead off with this: You do agree that we have a free will? If
                                            so, we can do what we want - even accept or reject God. So yes, it is
                                            not a command - it is a statement of fact. God doesn't command you to
                                            go to heaven, but the statement of fact is - if you want to - you
                                            must be born-again (John 3:3).

                                            You said it is the work of God in the heart, not something man can
                                            do, and that is true to a point. However, a man or woman must do
                                            something before God can work in the heart. God cannot move until you
                                            desire to move first. In other words, God won't give you the desires
                                            of your heart unless you first ask Him. Then it's Gods turn to move.
                                            It's like checkers - you move first then God moves. If God moves
                                            first, He is usurping your free-will.

                                            If you want to be born-again it is very simple. God wants you more
                                            than you want Him, because He already paid the ultimate price. So the
                                            simplicity of it is this: Just tell the Lord in a prayer that you
                                            accept the price that Jesus paid on the cross for your sins and you
                                            repent of those sins. (That's because sin cannot get into heaven
                                            (Matthew 13:41)(1 Corinthians 6:9-11), but they will become covered
                                            by the blood of Jesus (1 Peter 1:18-19)(John 1:7) after you pray that
                                            prayer. Or you can pray to God that you want to become born-again -
                                            you want Jesus to be Lord of your life (Romans 10:9-10). The Lord did
                                            everything He could - it's now up to you. He stands at your hearts
                                            door and knocks (Revelation 3:20), and will come into whomever opens
                                            the door. The next move is up to you - not God.

                                            Proverbs 20:27 says: "The spirit (heart) of man is the candle of the
                                            Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly." God knows your
                                            heart and knows what you desire and if you are sincere. So yes, you
                                            are right; God does work in the heart, but He won't move unless He
                                            see the desire there. And He can tell if the person is sincere or not.

                                            Here is the best part of becoming born-again. It can be immediate (2
                                            Corinthians 5:17) and it is permanent (Romans 8:38). You do not have
                                            to wait forever, and you cannot become UNBORN-again, because the
                                            Spirit of God takes up residence in your heart (2 Corinthians 1:22).
                                            With the Spirit of God in your heart(Rom 8:9-10), then you can
                                            understand the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 2:13)(1 John 2:27).

                                            You know - many people put off doing this, but I would not take the
                                            chance. Here's the thing. Now you know. (Pray tell this would never
                                            happen to you or anyone else in this group), but,if you were to die
                                            before you decided to do it, you now have no excuse should you stand
                                            before the Lord. However, here is the good news - if you did invite
                                            Jesus to be your Lord right now, you haven't lost anything, even if
                                            you believe nothing happened to you, because if you stand before the
                                            Lord after you asked God to reveal Himself to you through the born-
                                            again experience and you are sincere, (remember the next move is up
                                            to God) you did your part, you made the first move.

                                            Okay, I know I went on pretty long, but I hope it answers your
                                            question. If not - we can go futher. Thanks for asking Ron, and I
                                            hope you take the next step. Eternity is a long time and I do want to
                                            see you there. God bless.

                                            ...George

                                            --- In christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, RZacc <rzacc2001@. ..>
                                            wrote:

                                            >
                                            > geojosh1:
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > I just read your post again, and while I agree with your position,
                                            I must ask you: How does a person 'become born again'? That is the
                                            work of God in the heart, not something man can do. We are the
                                            recipients, not the causitive agents. "You must be born again' is
                                            indicative, not imperative. It is not a command, but a statement of
                                            fact.
                                            > Just wondering... .
                                            >
                                            > May God Bless you richly today!
                                            > Ron Z
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                            ____________ __
                                            > TV dinner still cooling?
                                            > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
                                            > http://tv.yahoo. com/
                                            >




                                            Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.



                                            Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on Yahoo! Answers.
                                          • william elkins
                                            I just passed through and the dialog is interesting my own thought on this.God did make this earth But for himself? Who is God? And why would he create
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Mar 4, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I just passed through and   the  dialog is interesting
                                              my own thought on this.God  did make this  earth But  for himself? Who is God? And why would  he create anything? for anyone? He has no purpose  for  creating. He  just  created. Why hew  creeatred or  how  he created I do not know  He just did.He could have destroyed the Universe right after he created he just did not. 
                                              follow me down so i do  not  need to go up and down so you don't need to either

                                              geojosh1 <mab@...> wrote:
                                              --- In christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Pottsie <pottsie_nc@ ...>
                                              wrote:
                                              >
                                              Hi Pottsie,

                                              Did not God make the earth for man and not for Himself?

                                              And did not man disobey God and obey satan?

                                              Since the Bible calls satan the god of this world, man must have
                                              reliquished his authority over this earth and gave it to satan. (You
                                              may or not agree with that, but that's okay.)

                                              Didn't Jesus die for man - and not for God?
                                              This is an interesting question tell me, whoever wrote this,  It looks like a mormon worldview so I am curious of the background of this person.


                                              So, do we not have any say if we want to be saved or not?

                                              I believe predestination has a play only to the extent of God's
                                              foreknowledge. He knew who would accept Jesus before the foundations
                                              of the world. Therefore, He predestined those who would believe
                                              before He made the heavens and the earth.
                                              Will states:  pre destination is  the  all knmowingf of God  he dids not  create any just  for the  purpose of the  peerson to go to hell. Thbis is not  prtedestoination tyhis is determinism. Predestination you can find in a Bible even but  that is not  meaning you mare  only born fore the purpose of anyone to go to hell. I n fact the book of  Jeramiah says he has predestined us  to his own purpose. or for his will it is not Gods will for anyone to go to hell. In fact it is in his  will thast we all come into repentance so we can be with our heavenly Father.
                                               


                                              Because God had foreknowledge of these things does not mean anyone
                                              cannot be saved if they call upon the name of the Lord. It only means
                                              that God is all-knowing and He knows the end of all things.
                                              of course George he knows  everything but please George you are really rationalizing the Nature of God  It is  great to be rationall but you are  really  overdoing it  quite abit.
                                               
                                              Just a thought.

                                              ...George

                                              >
                                              > (Pottsie)
                                              >
                                              > And if man moves first, he is usurping "God's
                                              > plan"...If man can usurp God's plan, it wasn't a very
                                              > good plan, was it?
                                              >
                                              > It is the age old argument of "How can both Free Will
                                              > and Predestination BOTH be true? and there is only
                                              > one way they both can be true.
                                              >
                                              > Namaste
                                              >
                                              > Pottsie
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the
                                              impurities in our air and water that are doing it." Al Gore, The
                                              Once and Future Presidential Candidate
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                              ____________ __
                                              > It's here! Your new message!
                                              > Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
                                              > http://tools. search.yahoo. com/toolbar/ features/ mail/
                                              >



                                              TV dinner still cooling?
                                              Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.

                                            • william elkins
                                              RZacc wrote: Thanks George- God really is using you to change your world! Keep up the good work ! R Tolerance is the virtue
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Mar 4, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                RZacc <rzacc2001@...> wrote:
                                                Thanks George- God really is using you to change your world! Keep up the good 'work'!
                                                 
                                                 
                                                 
                                                R
                                                 

                                                Tolerance is the virtue for those who believe in nothing.


                                                ----- Original Message ----
                                                From: geojosh1 <mab@zoomtown. com>
                                                To: christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                                                Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2007 6:04:40 PM
                                                Subject: [christian-philosop hy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] How to become born-again
                                                Reletivists...............
                                                 

                                                 
                                                Hi Will,

                                                I'm sorry for the confusion, but I think Ron took care of it.

                                                I couldn't help seeing your comment about 10,000 truths in Toronto.
                                                That's the way it is everywhere my friend. But, that is the point of
                                                this topic "born-again" .

                                                Everyone of those 10,000 philosophies and religions have a doctrine
                                                to voice their truth to their members. Each doctrine is written by a
                                                man or men. Even Christianity' s Bible was written by men. However,
                                                there is only one religion that can prove itself, and that is
                                                Christianity. The very topic were are engaged in is the proof. Anyone
                                                can become "born-again" . Jesus did not die just for Christians. He
                                                died for the world that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish.

                                                Now here is the proof: Jesus promised that unless He went away the
                                                Holy Spirit could not come. We know that Jesus went away that His
                                                promise was to send His Holy Spirit to those who believed. To those
                                                who are born-again, the undeniable proof is in the heart. When the
                                                Holy Spirit comes into your heart, you know it for certain. And to
                                                back it up - the Bible tells us what we already know. 2 Corinthians
                                                5:17 - Old things pass away, behold all things are become new.

                                                No other religion has the proof, except for words on paper, writen by
                                                men. Christianity goes beyond words -- to Christ living in us.

                                                Just a thought. God bless

                                                ...George

                                                --- In christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, william elkins
                                                <william_elkins2000 @...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Sorry Ron and George, I am trying to follow the dialog, Satterda
                                                is a day I really liktr to "listen" to God while praying. I'm not
                                                trying to be esoteric here I just get a lot of insight on satudays
                                                because i have more timre . But It Seems as if George is searching
                                                for something. Don't worry George I am always swearching too. but it
                                                ias very difficult to understsand who is speaking and well the
                                                internet is as hard place to understansd exactly what is happening. I
                                                am only inferring that you are debating on the way to salvaion.
                                                Ithink I know the way to salvation ids dsifferent when you are
                                                dealing with multiculturalism. So wee have 40 ways of salvation it
                                                seems. I have a lot of family in the city of Toronto, the most
                                                diverse country in there world. there are 10,000 truths (that are
                                                varified but not objectively) that are not tested. but that is my
                                                point but I think Ron doesn't need my help but since I'm really still
                                                unsure of who is speaking. I just read what
                                                > George has stated in this message and I can't say I sgree with
                                                you on most things buit i will stay out of it but can you please
                                                give a title to the person who is speaking so I can see both sides?
                                                I guessits jusdt me searching myself so it is a help to me as well.
                                                Thanks
                                                >
                                                > Will
                                                >
                                                > >
                                                > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                                > ____________ __
                                                > > TV dinner still cooling?
                                                > > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
                                                > > http://tv.yahoo. com/
                                                > >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > ------------ --------- --------- ---
                                                > 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
                                                > with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
                                                >




                                                Need Mail bonding?
                                                Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.


                                                Looking for earth-friendly autos?
                                                Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.

                                              • Eva Walker
                                                In my opinion God did not send Jesus here to start a church or a religion.God came here as Jesus in a human form to teach us how to take care of the Universe
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Mar 5, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  In my opinion God did not send Jesus here to start a church or a religion.God came here as Jesus in a human form to teach us how to take care of the Universe and not just earth He came here to teach us the way that was lost millions of years ago.When he made Adam he put his breath inside him and that was his soul.He wanted to experience the physical and told Adam not to do one thing because he wanted him to experience before he took the knowledge that was to help him but Adam disobeyd so that changed his plan.When God kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden Adam cried a lot because he didn't like it in the cave.It was too dark and cold and he missed the sun that gave him life.He missed the pure water in the garden which tasted better to.After Adam's cries God felt sorry for him and he promised Adam that he would send a person who could get him back to the light.This person was Jesus.When Adam was kicked out of the Garden and disobeyed he started to degenerate and this is what is happening to all of us for centuries.Jesus came here to teach us about The Way and not to die for us.Jesus was God reborn.When Jesus tried to teach us to become Christ like people didn't believe what he taught.Jesus talked in parables because only certain would know what he was saying.A lot of what is in the bible is in codes.So what we need to learn is to figure out the codes.Like I said before that the Univers has two polarities.
                                                  A negative and a positive.Jesus spoke in parables because he tried to prevent people from using what he taught for evil purposes.He even told the discples when they were ready to learn what he taught.That is why he took some of them aside and not the others.Because of this Judas became jealous and betrayed him and that's how the crucifiction came about.Jesus had humanity take him over after the stress of people not believing him and he made lots of mistakes too so that is why the Romans crucified him.It could be that his crucifiction was to teach us what not to do.He can never save us.It is up to us to regenerate and become Christlike so we can be reborn.Until we can learn to take care of ourselves and help each other we are doomed.Whike we rely on the goverment and kings and people we think are higher than us we will not succeed.One of the things we need to do is become childlike to become like Christ.That's why he said "Let the children come unto me.We need to Love.laugh and be happy.If we could get together and love each other we could take care of each others needs to survive on this earth.While money is power that won't happen.This way some people will have more and some people will have less.Because of money the poor will be poorer and the rich be richer.I'll stop right here before this becomes a book.heheh


                                                   
                                                  ----- Original Message ----
                                                  From: geojosh1 <mab@...>
                                                  To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2007 6:04:40 PM
                                                  Subject: [christian-philosophy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] How to become born-again

                                                  Hi Will,

                                                  I'm sorry for the confusion, but I think Ron took care of it.

                                                  I couldn't help seeing your comment about 10,000 truths in Toronto.
                                                  That's the way it is everywhere my friend. But, that is the point of
                                                  this topic "born-again" .

                                                  Everyone of those 10,000 philosophies and religions have a doctrine
                                                  to voice their truth to their members. Each doctrine is written by a
                                                  man or men. Even Christianity' s Bible was written by men. However,
                                                  there is only one religion that can prove itself, and that is
                                                  Christianity. The very topic were are engaged in is the proof. Anyone
                                                  can become "born-again" . Jesus did not die just for Christians. He
                                                  died for the world that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish.

                                                  Now here is the proof: Jesus promised that unless He went away the
                                                  Holy Spirit could not come. We know that Jesus went away that His
                                                  promise was to send His Holy Spirit to those who believed. To those
                                                  who are born-again, the undeniable proof is in the heart. When the
                                                  Holy Spirit comes into your heart, you know it for certain. And to
                                                  back it up - the Bible tells us what we already know. 2 Corinthians
                                                  5:17 - Old things pass away, behold all things are become new.

                                                  No other religion has the proof, except for words on paper, writen by
                                                  men. Christianity goes beyond words -- to Christ living in us.

                                                  Just a thought. God bless

                                                  ...George

                                                  --- In christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, william elkins
                                                  <william_elkins2000 @...> wrote:

                                                  >
                                                  > Sorry Ron and George, I am trying to follow the dialog, Satterda
                                                  is a day I really liktr to "listen" to God while praying. I'm not
                                                  trying to be esoteric here I just get a lot of insight on satudays
                                                  because i have more timre . But It Seems as if George is searching
                                                  for something. Don't worry George I am always swearching too. but it
                                                  ias very difficult to understsand who is speaking and well the
                                                  internet is as hard place to understansd exactly what is happening. I
                                                  am only inferring that you are debating on the way to salvaion.
                                                  Ithink I know the way to salvation ids dsifferent when you are
                                                  dealing with multiculturalism. So wee have 40 ways of salvation it
                                                  seems. I have a lot of family in the city of Toronto, the most
                                                  diverse country in there world. there are 10,000 truths (that are
                                                  varified but not objectively) that are not tested. but that is my
                                                  point but I think Ron doesn't need my help but since I'm really still
                                                  unsure of who is speaking. I just read what
                                                  > George has stated in this message and I can't say I sgree with
                                                  you on most things buit i will stay out of it but can you please
                                                  give a title to the person who is speaking so I can see both sides?
                                                  I guessits jusdt me searching myself so it is a help to me as well.
                                                  Thanks
                                                  >
                                                  > Will
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                                  > ____________ __
                                                  > > TV dinner still cooling?
                                                  > > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
                                                  > > http://tv.yahoo. com/
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > ------------ --------- --------- ---
                                                  > 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
                                                  > with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
                                                  >




                                                  Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.
                                                • RZacc
                                                  Eva: Just one question: What is your source of authority? From where do you get your conclusions? Is the bible your source of authoirty? What other source
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Mar 5, 2007
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Eva:  Just one question:  What is your source of authority? From where do you get your conclusions?  Is the bible your source of authoirty? What other source tells you about Jesus?  Where does it instruct you that Jesus came to tell us how to take care of the planet? 
                                                    With all due respect, what are you reading?
                                                     
                                                    RonZ
                                                     

                                                     
                                                    ----- Original Message ----
                                                    From: Eva Walker <solarbabe56@...>
                                                    To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Sent: Monday, March 5, 2007 1:08:28 AM
                                                    Subject: Re: [christian-philosophy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] How to become born-again



                                                     
                                                    ----- Original Message ----
                                                    From: geojosh1 <mab@zoomtown. com>
                                                    To: christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                                                    Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2007 6:04:40 PM
                                                    Subject: [christian-philosop hy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] How to become born-again

                                                    Hi Will,

                                                    I'm sorry for the confusion, but I think Ron took care of it.

                                                    I couldn't help seeing your comment about 10,000 truths in Toronto.
                                                    That's the way it is everywhere my friend. But, that is the point of
                                                    this topic "born-again" .

                                                    Everyone of those 10,000 philosophies and religions have a doctrine
                                                    to voice their truth to their members. Each doctrine is written by a
                                                    man or men. Even Christianity' s Bible was written by men. However,
                                                    there is only one religion that can prove itself, and that is
                                                    Christianity. The very topic were are engaged in is the proof. Anyone
                                                    can become "born-again" . Jesus did not die just for Christians. He
                                                    died for the world that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish.

                                                    Now here is the proof: Jesus promised that unless He went away the
                                                    Holy Spirit could not come. We know that Jesus went away that His
                                                    promise was to send His Holy Spirit to those who believed. To those
                                                    who are born-again, the undeniable proof is in the heart. When the
                                                    Holy Spirit comes into your heart, you know it for certain. And to
                                                    back it up - the Bible tells us what we already know. 2 Corinthians
                                                    5:17 - Old things pass away, behold all things are become new.

                                                    No other religion has the proof, except for words on paper, writen by
                                                    men. Christianity goes beyond words -- to Christ living in us.

                                                    Just a thought. God bless

                                                    ...George

                                                    --- In christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, william elkins
                                                    <william_elkins2000 @...> wrote:

                                                    >
                                                    > Sorry Ron and George, I am trying to follow the dialog, Satterda
                                                    is a day I really liktr to "listen" to God while praying. I'm not
                                                    trying to be esoteric here I just get a lot of insight on satudays
                                                    because i have more timre . But It Seems as if George is searching
                                                    for something. Don't worry George I am always swearching too. but it
                                                    ias very difficult to understsand who is speaking and well the
                                                    internet is as hard place to understansd exactly what is happening. I
                                                    am only inferring that you are debating on the way to salvaion.
                                                    Ithink I know the way to salvation ids dsifferent when you are
                                                    dealing with multiculturalism. So wee have 40 ways of salvation it
                                                    seems. I have a lot of family in the city of Toronto, the most
                                                    diverse country in there world. there are 10,000 truths (that are
                                                    varified but not objectively) that are not tested. but that is my
                                                    point but I think Ron doesn't need my help but since I'm really still
                                                    unsure of who is speaking. I just read what
                                                    > George has stated in this message and I can't say I sgree with
                                                    you on most things buit i will stay out of it but can you please
                                                    give a title to the person who is speaking so I can see both sides?
                                                    I guessits jusdt me searching myself so it is a help to me as well.
                                                    Thanks
                                                    >
                                                    > Will
                                                    >
                                                    > >
                                                    > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                                    > ____________ __
                                                    > > TV dinner still cooling?
                                                    > > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
                                                    > > http://tv.yahoo. com/
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > ------------ --------- --------- ---
                                                    > 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
                                                    > with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
                                                    >




                                                    Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.



                                                    TV dinner still cooling?
                                                    Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
                                                  • Eva Walker
                                                    I belong to a university which does research and a lot of sources have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and studying different masters from all over the
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , Mar 5, 2007
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      I belong to a university which does research and a lot of sources have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and studying different masters from all over the world like Peru,China and other countries and religions who all talk about Christ.These studies and research has been done by archeologist and theologists for over thirty years.It was discovered that the bible was mostly written in codes in the original bible.Also Christ has been on earth more times then the last crucifiction.We are still doing researh with new things that come up.It is very hard to prove anything that comes from the spiritual realms.There is one thing that is in the bible where Jesus says that you can only get to the light through me.I can't remember what book it's in or what chapter or verse.I'm rotten at remember those but I do remember what I hear.I know it's in there somewhere.A lot of things are also kept secret from people too.A good book you can read if you want is the latest translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls:A New Translatio. The Deas Sea Scrolls by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook.A lot of the Dead Sea Scrolls still haven't been allowed to be translated still and a lot has fallen apart when they were found.Some of the ones still not allowed for translation or for anybody to look at are in a museum in Isreal so even in there we don't have all the information.A lot has been discovered by being passed on by word of mouth through the centuries.

                                                      ----- Original Message ----
                                                      From: RZacc <rzacc2001@...>
                                                      To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                                                      Sent: Monday, March 5, 2007 8:57:57 PM
                                                      Subject: Re: [christian-philosophy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] How to become born-again

                                                      Eva:  Just one question:  What is your source of authority? From where do you get your conclusions?  Is the bible your source of authoirty? What other source tells you about Jesus?  Where does it instruct you that Jesus came to tell us how to take care of the planet? 
                                                      With all due respect, what are you reading?
                                                       
                                                      RonZ
                                                       

                                                       
                                                      ----- Original Message ----
                                                      From: Eva Walker <solarbabe56@ yahoo.ca>
                                                      To: christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                                                      Sent: Monday, March 5, 2007 1:08:28 AM
                                                      Subject: Re: [christian-philosop hy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] How to become born-again



                                                       
                                                      ----- Original Message ----
                                                      From: geojosh1 <mab@zoomtown. com>
                                                      To: christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                                                      Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2007 6:04:40 PM
                                                      Subject: [christian-philosop hy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] How to become born-again

                                                      Hi Will,

                                                      I'm sorry for the confusion, but I think Ron took care of it.

                                                      I couldn't help seeing your comment about 10,000 truths in Toronto.
                                                      That's the way it is everywhere my friend. But, that is the point of
                                                      this topic "born-again" .

                                                      Everyone of those 10,000 philosophies and religions have a doctrine
                                                      to voice their truth to their members. Each doctrine is written by a
                                                      man or men. Even Christianity' s Bible was written by men. However,
                                                      there is only one religion that can prove itself, and that is
                                                      Christianity. The very topic were are engaged in is the proof. Anyone
                                                      can become "born-again" . Jesus did not die just for Christians. He
                                                      died for the world that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish.

                                                      Now here is the proof: Jesus promised that unless He went away the
                                                      Holy Spirit could not come. We know that Jesus went away that His
                                                      promise was to send His Holy Spirit to those who believed. To those
                                                      who are born-again, the undeniable proof is in the heart. When the
                                                      Holy Spirit comes into your heart, you know it for certain. And to
                                                      back it up - the Bible tells us what we already know. 2 Corinthians
                                                      5:17 - Old things pass away, behold all things are become new.

                                                      No other religion has the proof, except for words on paper, writen by
                                                      men. Christianity goes beyond words -- to Christ living in us.

                                                      Just a thought. God bless

                                                      ...George

                                                      --- In christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, william elkins
                                                      <william_elkins2000 @...> wrote:

                                                      >
                                                      > Sorry Ron and George, I am trying to follow the dialog, Satterda
                                                      is a day I really liktr to "listen" to God while praying. I'm not
                                                      trying to be esoteric here I just get a lot of insight on satudays
                                                      because i have more timre . But It Seems as if George is searching
                                                      for something. Don't worry George I am always swearching too. but it
                                                      ias very difficult to understsand who is speaking and well the
                                                      internet is as hard place to understansd exactly what is happening. I
                                                      am only inferring that you are debating on the way to salvaion.
                                                      Ithink I know the way to salvation ids dsifferent when you are
                                                      dealing with multiculturalism. So wee have 40 ways of salvation it
                                                      seems. I have a lot of family in the city of Toronto, the most
                                                      diverse country in there world. there are 10,000 truths (that are
                                                      varified but not objectively) that are not tested. but that is my
                                                      point but I think Ron doesn't need my help but since I'm really still
                                                      unsure of who is speaking. I just read what
                                                      > George has stated in this message and I can't say I sgree with
                                                      you on most things buit i will stay out of it but can you please
                                                      give a title to the person who is speaking so I can see both sides?
                                                      I guessits jusdt me searching myself so it is a help to me as well.
                                                      Thanks
                                                      >
                                                      > Will
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                                      > ____________ __
                                                      > > TV dinner still cooling?
                                                      > > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
                                                      > > http://tv.yahoo. com/
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > ------------ --------- --------- ---
                                                      > 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
                                                      > with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
                                                      >




                                                      Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.



                                                      TV dinner still cooling?
                                                      Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.



                                                      Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
                                                    • RZacc
                                                      Hi Jerry. Thanks for the interesting background. I have a question: I always assumed that Paul went to Jerusalem on his onw volition, in order to sumbit his
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , Mar 7, 2007
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Hi Jerry. Thanks for the interesting background. I have a question:
                                                        I always assumed that Paul went to Jerusalem on his onw volition, in order to sumbit his teaching to the scrutiny of the 'pillars of the Church', the other Apostles.  He, as any man, had the potential for error, even though the Holy Spirit breathed the words.  It was just a confirmation, and he could use that confirmation in dealing with those Judiazers who were undermining his ministry.  This would take the wind out of their sails, if Paul got the 'stamp of approval' from the other Church leaders, and stop some of the false teaching that you mentioned, as well as the blatant confrontations. At very least, the churches he visited would recognize his authority.
                                                         
                                                        Just my perceptions -  does that jive with what you see here?

                                                        Thanks,
                                                         
                                                        RonZ
                                                         

                                                         

                                                        "The shadow a man casts is determined by his relationship with the source of his Light."

                                                        ----- Original Message ----
                                                        From: clontzjm <clontzjm@...>
                                                        To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                                                        Sent: Friday, March 2, 2007 6:41:17 PM
                                                        Subject: [christian-philosophy] Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] Get Educated

                                                        Hello Dave,

                                                        Several of the questions are:

                                                        Why did PAUL go to Jerusalem to present his gospel?
                                                        Why did Paul present his gospel to James and the others?
                                                        Who are the FALSE brethren?
                                                        How could the false brethren create confusion?

                                                        There is a simple answer to these questions. Not only do we have
                                                        evidence of who the FALSE brethren are but we have texts from the
                                                        FALSE brethren that caused the confusion. The texts indicate the
                                                        nature of the confusion and why PAUL was singled out and needed to
                                                        bring his gospel in person to Jerusalem.

                                                        Paul needed to go to Jerusalem in person to present his gospel to
                                                        the church for confirmation that what had been issued in his name by
                                                        the false Gnostics was not his preaching but in fact a forgery. The
                                                        New testament including the letters of Paul indicate that the false
                                                        Gnostics were active during the ministry of Paul. The Nag Hammadi
                                                        library gives ample proof that the false Gnostics were producing
                                                        texts using Paul's name including The Prayer of the Apostle Paul and
                                                        the Apocalypse of Paul. Paul was not alone. Peter and James were
                                                        also targets of forgeries. The fact that Marcion created a modified
                                                        Luke and changed 10 of Paul's letters based on the claim that he was
                                                        changing them to the original may be an indication that there were
                                                        early forgeries that Marcion may have thought were real.

                                                        In any case, the false brethren were probably false Gnostics who had
                                                        produced writings in the name of Paul. Paul would've needed to go to
                                                        Jerusalem and authenticate what was produced by him and what was
                                                        forged by the false Gnostics. The most likely reason that Paul was
                                                        asked to go to Jerusalem in the first place was because James and
                                                        other leaders were made aware of the false Gnostic documents by
                                                        church members and realizing that they were forgeries under the name
                                                        of Paul asked Paul to come in person to identify the forgeries. Paul
                                                        was an easy target for forgeries by the false Gnostics since he not
                                                        only was the farthest from Jerusalem but since he traveled
                                                        constantly it would've been hard for him to repudiate forgeries.

                                                        Of course, people have been forging "biblical" documents for
                                                        millennia that have spurious accounts of Jesus and the apostles.
                                                        Then they print these documents and portray them as real and confuse
                                                        countless thousands. Most of these false Gnostics produce documents
                                                        that enable their group to practice sexual licentiousness and
                                                        profits by gathering money for their false churches. Simon Magus is
                                                        the first of these false Gnostics and he gained profit from his
                                                        followers and taught them sexual licentiousness especially multiple
                                                        partners. This pattern has been repeated for millennia – a document
                                                        that no one has seen before "shows up" containing the name of Jesus
                                                        or one of the apostles – then the person who is spreading the new
                                                        document encourages people to have lots of sex since it is now OK
                                                        and the people gratefully hand over their money and help spread the
                                                        false word. The old testament story of the golden calf is
                                                        essentially the same thing – the leaders of the false cult create
                                                        a "new" version of deity and then tell everyone it's okay to have
                                                        lots of sex and everyone hails them as the new leaders of religion
                                                        while the leaders pocket the gold.

                                                        Jerry

                                                        --- In christian-philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Dave Wave
                                                        <empiricism101@ ...> wrote:

                                                        >
                                                        > 1Then after an interval of fourteen years I (A)went
                                                        > up again to Jerusalem with (B)Barnabas, taking
                                                        > (C)Titus along also.
                                                        > 2It was because of a (D)revelation that I went up;
                                                        > and I submitted to them the (E)gospel which I preach
                                                        > among the Gentiles,
                                                        but I did so in private to those
                                                        > who were of reputation, for fear that I might be
                                                        > (F)running, or had run, in vain." (Galatians 2)
                                                        >
                                                        > Paul expressed a fear or at least a concern, that he
                                                        > might discover, after submitting his gospel to the
                                                        > Jerusalem apostles, that he had run in vain.
                                                        >
                                                        > Doesn't exactly sound like original Christianity' s
                                                        > apostles were always harmonious and agreed with each
                                                        > other on everything, as the doctrine of biblical
                                                        > inerrancy implies, eh?
                                                        >
                                                        > I'd like some inerrantist to explain how they can be
                                                        > so sure that Paul didn't need to feel concerned, since
                                                        > James and Paul obviously agreed on the gospel, but
                                                        > that Paul himself, a much better authority on Paul
                                                        > than any modern-day inerrantist, actually had concerns
                                                        > about running in vain when he was about to show James
                                                        > his gospel.
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > Do you
                                                        ever submit your belief in the trinity to your
                                                        > pastor? Probably not, since it is already a given
                                                        > that your pastor agrees with you on the matter.
                                                        >
                                                        > The implication of the analogy is that Paul would only
                                                        > go to submit his gospel to someone, if that someone
                                                        > had NOT heard of his gospel before.
                                                        >
                                                        > It gets worse:
                                                        >
                                                        > If Paul and James were equally inspired and thus
                                                        > totally in agreement on the nature of the gospel, why
                                                        > was Paul going up to Jerusalem to submit his gospel to
                                                        > them in the first place?
                                                        >
                                                        > Paul says "it was because of false brethren".
                                                        >
                                                        > Wait a minute....What is the probability that the
                                                        > apostles in Jerusalem would be misled by false
                                                        > brothers into believing their false report about
                                                        > Paul's gospel, so that Paul would feel compelled to
                                                        > defend his gospel himself from that rumor? Wouldn't
                                                        > you say there was NO
                                                        possibility at all, given that
                                                        > they were all inspired by God and teaching the same
                                                        > gospel, as you believe they did?
                                                        >
                                                        > If so, then how can Paul have been motivated by false
                                                        > brothers to go confirm his gospel with James? If you
                                                        > are an apostle, inspired by God and in agreement with
                                                        > other inspired apostles, then obviously no false
                                                        > brothers with their lies are gonna make it necessary
                                                        > for you to make sure the other inspired apostles
                                                        > understand your gospel, amen? Your other inspired
                                                        > apostles in Christ would not need you to personally
                                                        > confirm your gospel to them, they would be just as
                                                        > quick to condemn there heretics lies as you, right?
                                                        >
                                                        > So how is it that Paul was motivated by false teachers
                                                        > to go submit his gospel to apostle james?
                                                        >
                                                        > I say it is because he knew James disagreed with his
                                                        > gospel, but that he couldn't exactly just wave
                                                        James
                                                        > aside as a nobody, but felt it a good business
                                                        > decision to go and try to forge some sort of agreement
                                                        > with James, an important leader of the church.
                                                        > Otherwise it's like you being worried that Jehovah's
                                                        > witnesses might convince your friend that you teach
                                                        > falsely, so you make a special trip to go see that
                                                        > friend and assure them that you believe the same
                                                        > things they do. That's just stupid. And if you and
                                                        > your friend are inspired apostles, then your trip to
                                                        > go see them and do this is all the more unnecessary.
                                                        >
                                                        > Would you agree with me that those who believe the
                                                        > bible is inerrant, cannot rationally explain Paul's
                                                        > motivation to go confirm his gospel with James, merely
                                                        > because some heretics got involved?
                                                        >
                                                        > And doesn't Acts 16 record episodes of mental
                                                        > telepathy, conveniently overcoming the costly and
                                                        > dangerous problem of
                                                        needing to journey to see
                                                        > someone? Yes.
                                                        >
                                                        > So I believe Paul is fudging his words a bit in
                                                        > Galatians. The truth is that he made the dangerous
                                                        > costly journey to Jerusalem to 'submit' his gospel to
                                                        > apostle James, because apostle James had never heard
                                                        > that gospel, and too many people were saying James
                                                        > disagreed with paul, so that it wasn't good for
                                                        > business anymore. But if James surely always agreed
                                                        > with Paul on the nature of the gospel, then what new
                                                        > thing is he informing James of when he goes to submit
                                                        > his gospel to him?
                                                        >
                                                        > Paul's journey to James in Galatians 2 only makes
                                                        > sense if he honestly felt James probably disagreed
                                                        > with him, and so Paul needed to seriously deal with
                                                        > this important leader face-to-face. paul uses the
                                                        > excuse that this all happened because of false
                                                        > brothers, but I've already demonstrated that this is
                                                        a
                                                        > pitifully stupid excuse that doesn't make sense if we
                                                        > assume James's and Paul's divine inspiration as
                                                        > inerrantists will.
                                                        >
                                                        > Paul is fudging his words, because he says there were
                                                        > some authorities he submitted his gospel to, whom he
                                                        > resisted, and didn't give place by subjection to; no,
                                                        > not for an hour...see Galatians 2:5.
                                                        >
                                                        > You may say this wasn't James that he was resisting
                                                        > but false brothers.
                                                        >
                                                        > That's not my point.
                                                        >
                                                        > My point is that Paul places this confrontation in the
                                                        > context AFTER he gets to Jerusalem, in his effort to
                                                        > submit his gospel to the Jerusalam apostles.
                                                        >
                                                        > Apparantly then, he came upon false legalistic
                                                        > brothers WHO WERE IN JERUSALEM (!?), who disagreed
                                                        > with his gospel, and Paul didn't give in to them one
                                                        > bit.
                                                        >
                                                        > Ain't that just a bit suspicious, that Paul would
                                                        > bother
                                                        defending his gospel with those whom he regards
                                                        > already as heretics?
                                                        >
                                                        > Isn't it even scarier, that after all the
                                                        > crowd-converting miracles and awe-inspiring power of
                                                        > the apostles spoken of in Acts, that Paul finds
                                                        > resistence to his gospel in the very city that was
                                                        > apostle James' seat of authority... Jerusalem?
                                                        >
                                                        > Can you seriously believe that apostle James disagreed
                                                        > just as violently with his local legalist Christians
                                                        > as Paul did?
                                                        >
                                                        > Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the reason
                                                        > there are legalistic Christians in Jerusalem is
                                                        > because apostle James, head of that particular locale,
                                                        > was himself a legalist?
                                                        >
                                                        > Yeah, the idea that appostle James taught a legalistic
                                                        > gospel may offend what you currently believe, but then
                                                        > again, you are quick to move wherever the truth is, or
                                                        > quick to acknowledge that you were
                                                        decieved when you
                                                        > become convinced you were in error, amen?
                                                        >
                                                        > Sure, you can continue insisting that apostle James
                                                        > wasn't legalistic, so as to defend your doctrine of
                                                        > inerrancy, but you can only do so if you have already
                                                        > read the historical information on apostle James as
                                                        > being a legalist himself, information recorded by
                                                        > Jerome and Eusebius, and found good reason to say the
                                                        > early Church trusted in a false rumor about James.
                                                        >
                                                        > But I'm not too sure you wanna deliver that supply of
                                                        > ammo to us atheists. You go around saying the beliefs
                                                        > of the early post-apostolic church about their
                                                        > founders was often false, and yer gonna lose about 80%
                                                        > of the material apologists regularly work with.
                                                        >
                                                        > Because if you agree with the Church's historical
                                                        > information that apostle James was a high Jewish
                                                        > priest who performed animal sacrifices long
                                                        after
                                                        > Jesus died for sin, you will be forced to conclude
                                                        > that apostle James was a legalist, and therefore a
                                                        > very prime candidate for the legalist preacher who
                                                        > Paul screams curses at in Galatians 1:8.
                                                        >
                                                        > Don't be so quick to assume that James couldn't have
                                                        > done animal sacrifices after Jesus died because he'd
                                                        > have known that Jesus' death made them irrelevent.
                                                        >
                                                        > That assumes, blindly, that he would agree with
                                                        > apostle Paul, and assumes, blindly, that the
                                                        > historical information from Eusebius and Jerome must
                                                        > be false just so you don't have to give up believing
                                                        > in biblical inerrancy.
                                                        >
                                                        > --- Dave
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                                        ____________ ___
                                                        > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
                                                        > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
                                                        >
                                                        href="http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367" target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://answers. yahoo.com/ dir/?link= list&sid= 396545367
                                                        >




                                                        We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
                                                        (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.