Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate

OK, I'll bite - to the Serpent Seed "people" here
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post To answer your Central Question Rafael BlessedinMsTn
The serpent beguiled Eve and she did eat..... Now we know that when were told in scripture to "taste and see that the Lord is good" would you try to tell us that this scripture is literal?

Would you try to convince us that we are eating literal fruit? With this same understanding we contend that when Eve saw that this fruit was PLEASANT to the eye,, she did partake of it,,,

Just as when we EAT JESUS<, we are not literal eating, we are becoming intimate with him in worship,, we are becoming ONE WITH HIM,, we are EATING HIM or rather partaking of him...
_________________
www.thevaughnfamily.org
The Remnant are Returning. Foundations are being Restored. All Breaches are being Repaired. The Body of Christ is Rising!
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6126
5/29/06 11:25 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: so far it seem that .. SKT
Rafael D Martinez wrote:
Where did I "disqualify his thought process?" Excuse me?


Well, here are two good examples from your first response to Blessed...

1.
Rafael D Martinez wrote:
I see your human reasoning, but not God's Wisdom.


2.
Rafael D Martinez wrote:
These may be cherished truths to you, but they are NOT Biblical. You'd better rethink them.




Rafael D Martinez wrote:
Again, if disagreement with how someone arrives at their conclusions is too much for you to handle objectively, you're clearly not getting what's been going on here. Your indignation seems to be arising out of your conclusion that I'm somehow dissing Blessed's rationale as "not enough." I've not dismissed his reasoning as beneath my ability to consider - I've objected to his interpretation as being erroneous and flawed.


If your objection is to his interpretation, and I believe that this is true, then you must show him how it is erroneous and flawed by giving him more than your opinion.

Please see Acts 18:24-26 as an example to us of how to treat a brother who is lacking doctrinally.

1. Aquilla and Priscilla 'took him unto them'. They accepted him.

2. They 'expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly'. They taught him.

They never told pointed out his lack. They taught him the way of God more perfectly.

Rafael D Martinez wrote:
SKT wrote:
And that is a reasonable request. To his credit, Blessed attempted to give you that for which you asked. Even if it is not up to your standards, it was full of scripture. You should have, and should now, take what he gave you and refute it. He gave you plenty of opportunity to discredit the SS doctrine using scripture, yet you found it more opportune to attempt to discredit Blessed.


That's pretty slick, SKT .. making it sound like I was making this personal with this man. The rhetorical temperature arises, Blessed hollers how mean I am and you cluck your tongue and agree. You're making this out as a personal vendetta against the man. How childish!


The implication was not that you have a personal issue with Blessed, rather that you found it more convenient to attack his reasoning than to teach him what you believe.

Rafael D Martinez wrote:
Let's try this AGAIN: Listen up ..

I have established a clear principle of interpretation that obviously you cannot stomach and neither can he - it's called ESTABLISHING THE TEXT.

In sound Biblical study, establishing the text is to so expound upon a verse so as to FIRST describe what it SAYS before trying to draw out what it MEANS. The letter "A" can mean NOTHING unless you first grasp that it is one of the 26 letters of the alphabet. It's not going to do those learning the alphabet any good to not get it straight that A is not B, and vice-versa.


I see where you're coming from, but I don't see how this is a Bible study. Sure, both of you find support for your beliefs in the scriptures, but I hardly think that either of you have come together or continued the conversation for the sake of Biblical discovery. What has been happening here is more akin to a duel. And, frankly, Blessed has been parrying much more successfully than you have.

Rafael D Martinez wrote:
Blessed was asked to explain several times how his view that verse A actually means F or even X, or some other abstract idea not even describable by the alphabet. He has ducked this question again and again.


Here, you are simply incorrect. Blessed has 'explained' several times. Go back and read his responses. While you will disagree with his explanation, you can't truthfully say he hasn't explained.

Rafael D Martinez wrote:
What you want to have done to meet your own warped standard of propriety in the matter is for me just to start quoting verse after verse and go from there to "refute" him. Wrong. I'm not going to do that because such an approach is fundamentally flawed since we can't even agree upon what we are talking out to begin with. What would my citing verse B do to help Blessed if to him, it teaches H or even X?


On this point, I will concede the fact that it is a much more difficult path. You are absolutely justified in your frustration, but it is the only way to resolve these issues on a peer-to-peer level.

Rafael D Martinez wrote:
Aha. Finally I am getting where you think I'm being so mean. The "single Scripture" canard is one you think is too "stringent" to prove truth claims. Again, I reject what you are insisting here: you seem to be saying that you cannot read a verse of Scripture and not glean from it a teaching or truth that can stand on its own. While I do agree that doctrinal teachings are supported by a series of verses taken in proper context, I contend fully that Biblical truth claims that teach sound doctrine can be drawn explicitly from one verse in and of itself that can stand alone to teach it.


Gleaning knowledge from a verse and proving a belief with one are two very different things. I don't think anybody here would disagree that knowledge can be gleaned from a single verse of scripture - and even that you can use that single verse to instruct others. These functions are very different than using one to prove something. Since we agree that knowledge and instruction can both come from a verse of scripture, your request for my take on John 3:16 is a pointless exercise.

Rafael D Martinez wrote:
I started out to - as you say - "prove him wrong Biblically" in at least one post and then explained why I stopped. You must have missed that in the posts. You must have.


I must have.

Rafael D Martinez wrote:
And I've never demanded he stay in the KJV to answer the question. Where are you getting THAT?


It was a hyperbole meant to make a point. Obviously that tactic is not one you appreciate. Noted...

Rafael D Martinez wrote:
It seems like quite a few other people are asking the same type of questions .. so what's your beef with me personally?


I have no personal beef with you. You did start the thread and set up the requirements for Blessed's responses. You have additionally been the most aggressive that I've noticed.

Rafael D Martinez wrote:
SKT wrote:
Don’t just call him a fool.


Where have I called him a fool? You are becoming a false witness. Tell me where I've labelled him as such. If not, you owe me an apology.


No, you didn't call him a fool. I apologize to all who took this sentence to mean that Raf actually called Blessed a fool. To my knowledge, he has not used the word fool. You have attempted to show his beliefs as absurd by attacking his logic and reasoning without providing the necessary reinforcement of your own arguments. Again, I observe that you do not appreciate figures of speech. I will refrain.

Rafael D Martinez wrote:
Not that I really expect one .. mind you .. But you ought to consider it.


Surprise Very Happy

Rafael D Martinez wrote:
SKT wrote:
Just because his discernment doesn’t get a passing score from you, it doesn’t grant you the right to spank him. Again, show him the right way. If he belongs to Jesus, he will eventually see the way.


Try reading this again:

Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Titus 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.


I'm doing what Scripture says. You got a problem with that, take it up with the Author.


I'm not sure how these apply in this situation. Are you a pastor? I think you are. I believe that Blessed is as well. At best, you are equals. Why do you assume that you have authority over him to rebuke him in this context. The Titus 1 quote is in regard to a specific group of Cretians who were "teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake." I don't believe that Blessed is on the take as a result of his beliefs, nor is he a Cretian.

Rafael D Martinez wrote:
I care about Blessed's error enough to call him out on it if he cannot defend it from Scripture.


If it's motivated by care, then show the care part. But I think your own sentence reveals much. You said you care about Blessed's error.

Rafael D Martinez wrote:
SKT wrote:
If the source of your hostility is an understanding that I think you are doctrinally wrong, you’ve misread my post.


Yes, your first post just dripped with brotherly love, SKT. How could I have missed that?


So you lay claim to the authority to rebuke Blessed (see above), yet I am not afforded even a milder version toward you?

Rafael D Martinez wrote:
This has nothing to do with whether you agreed with his doctrine or not. Let's get that clear.


I think we're pretty clear on this.

Rafael D Martinez wrote:
You have an important issue about how I've delineated my challenge. I understand that you feel I'm needing to be rebuked and told how to conduct myself in this discussion. It's a free country and this is an open board. I hear what you are saying. I just don't agree with much of it all, however. And if you want to perceive my own protests as "hostility", let the chips fall where they may. I have no axe to grind with you, and you can let fly all the flames you want.


No flames. Just trying to balance things out a little.

Rafael D Martinez wrote:
I detect your own concern for Blessed and that is good. However, I concede none of your smarmily communicated "admonitions" for reasons which I have made clear. I and others here have given him more than enough time to describe his doctrine for us. It's not happening, and it never will. I'm not faulting your approach .. go in peace. But don't cloud up the air here with emotionally-charged accusations of how I'm going about it that don't wash.


Smarmily... good word. I know that my admonitions were not written in that frame of mind, but that's what we get for not having video conferencing, I guess.

To your point, if you have given him 'more than enough time to describe his doctrine' then it's your turn, IMO. Lay out the aspects of what you believe and how they turn the tables on what he's described.

If you wish to avoid that, whether I'm right or wrong, it is an indicator to me that your goals were not altogether beneficial in this exchange.


This is my last post on the matter. I appreciate your taking to heart anything I've said.
Hey, DOC
Posts: 58
5/30/06 10:03 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Blessed, please explain His disciple
1Jo 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
1Jo 3:11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another;
1Jo 3:12 not as Cain, {who} was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother's were righteous.


Does this not clearly state the Children of the Devil are those who sin and the children of God are those whose works are righteous?


Also, if we are to believe that "eating" of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil equates to sex with the Devil. Why would eating of the Tree of Life not also be sex? Are we to spend eternity having sex with God? it seems this is the conclusion your logic draws.

Also, does Gen 2:9 not state that many trees were pleasant to the sight? You don't think food is ever pleasant to our sight? You must be eating at the wrong places!

Also, they had shame in the fact that they were naked because they had lost their innocence. They had disobeyed God. The same shame we feel today when we sin.

I don't see where God cursed her womb because he increased the pain of labor. Seems there was already pain there.

Just some thoughts I would like to here your opinion on.....
_________________
Matthew 7:25
Friendly Face
Posts: 249
5/30/06 10:34 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Rafael Rafael D Martinez
AmbassadorOfChrist wrote:
SKT just ate your lunch, brother.

I started reading this thread with interest, and the entire thread has degraded into a scene reminiscent of a kindergarten playground, based solely on the attitudes of a few, none of which included Blessed.

Rafael asked Blessed (actually any adherent to SS doctrine) to explain or back-up their belief with one scripture, of course, knowing all the while this is an impossible task.

There are multiple doctrines which we, as Church of God, hold dear, that we cannot back-up as absolute fact with only one verse of scripture- namely sanctification and the Trinity doctrines. However, Blessed was asked to to do the impossible, that even Rafael could not do with much easier subjects to handle.

So, Blessed explains his views and laid them out there the best way he knew how, using MANY scriptural references.

Rafael's common response in all of his 1000 replies in this thread have in essence amounted to, "Nah-uh, that ain't right," with a few personal attacks thrown, as one poster said, "for effect."

Instead of rebutting Blessed with the same standard in which Rafael required of him, Rafael chose the low road- again, a scene reminiscent of childish squabbling on a playground.

Many others have done the exact same thing in this thread, even going so far as to insinuate that Blessed is a racist and anti-semite, and to lay the Holocaust at his feet. All that despite the fact that MANY scriptures in the Bible have been used to inflict countless atrocities upon civilizations, not just the SS doctrine.

Blessed has laid out his belief and has backed it up with scripture which he believes supports his ideas.

And most of the remaining posters, when confronted with such, have not responded in kind, but rather have resorted to personal attacks, race baiting, and just plain ole' un-Christlike attitudes.

Rather than countering with any Biblical scriptures to disprove anything that Blessed has stated, the overwhelmingly common approach has been to say, "Nah-uh, that ain't right. And you're an idiot and a heretic for thinking it is." Also there was that blatant disregard for Blessed when frustration was evident by calling the poster by name, I guess thinking this would refute some point he had made.

I must say I have read the entire thread with great interest. While I may not subscribe to the ideas of the SS doctrine, I will say Blessed wiped the proverbial debate floor with everyone, as he was the only person to give a legitimate shot at an honest answer.

As I was eager to learn about this doctrine (I'd never heard of it), and eager to learn something new, I was not dissapointed in that respect. I did learn something new. Actually it's not new at all. I saw first hand what ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ can act like toward another fellow minister. I especially saw what attitudes a minister will display on an anonymous internet message forum, and I'd be willing to bet my credentials (not literally) that those same attitudes would not be displayed if ever the ministers were to meet in person.

Some of what Blessed said actually made some sense, and are plausible, deserving of at least some thought, as we accept many other doctrines on much less evidence.

On the issue of the whole sex-pervert aspect of the doctrine. I cannot think it strange that such an issue would present itself. Throughout the entire Bible, sex is often a subject including most of the Book of Song of Solomon. Many issues which we would normally deem perverted are mentioned in the Bible. Did you know "wet dreams" are mentioned in the Bible? I didn't until I became a youth pastor.

As far as Jesus Christ being a tree, He did in fact say, "I am the vine, ye are the branches." So to someone who said, there is not one mention of Jesus Christ ever being presented as a tree in the Bible, you must have missed that verse, where Jesus, Himself, said it.

The "missing link" issue is something I cannot subscribe to. However, this theory doesn't need a "missing link", at least not in my very limited understanding of it, to make the doctrine true.

It seems to me, that the subject is at the very least plausible and deserving of some thought and further research.

I must say that I have been sorely dissapointed by the way some of you have acted and the attitudes with which some of you have responded in this thread. To think that ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ could act this way toward another fellow minister is indeed, disgusting.

I think Rafael said it best when he implored another, "REPENT!" I don't think he meant for his words to be turned back at him, though.

Brothers, we have all been called to be Ambassadors for Christ. Why don't we start acting like it, instead of belittling one another over such a trivial issue that is not at all pertinent to salvation?

Before you judge, remember the words of Paul, "let the one who thinks he is able to stand take heed, lest he fall."


No, I can repent easily and speedily if I know I have something to repent over. And if the Holy Spirit is behind it, I assure you, I will do quickly and immediately. I will eat crow buffet gladly

It won't fly here, though, Amby - IMHO, that is.

So what is your point here? That the request made of Blessed to provide Scripture that proves a claim is somehow off limits, mean-spirited, arrogant and judgmental? That my rejection of Blessed's argument as valid somehow condemned him to hell? That all of my requests for him to directly address the issue are somehow amiss and a sign of EVILLLLL? Please.

The doctrine was and is impossible to defend. Nuff said. I laid out what I believe to be a fair and verifiable standard to defend a truth claim out. I don't see how too many other people could miss that -- and they didn't.

You can have that for lunch, if you will. Serves 10. Enjoy.

agape

rafael
_________________
www.spiritwatch.org

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16

These are trying times. Everyone's trying something and getting caught. The Church Lady, 1987
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7766
11/14/06 8:27 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 7 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.