Why's Your Religion Better?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

Christ’s ministry did not take place under the Old Covenant. “The law and the prophets were until John”.

I was referring solely to mercy, not salvation. Salvation, justification, and repentance are different subjects.

Just to clarify: The rich young man asked Christ what it took to enter the Kingdom. Christ told him to follow the Commandments. When the man told Him that he had followed the Commandments since his youth, Christ told him “If you want to be perfect, go sell your belongings and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in Heaven. Then, come follow me.”

When I say ‘entire life’, I mean the only life that matters. Anything that came before that is forgiven and forgotten.

162

For more on Calvin the man here are some interesting articles:

“Calvin’s influence in Geneva can seem like that of Savonarola in Florence, the century before. Both changed the religious practice of a city, with the co-operation of the ruling magistrates. The difference is that Savonarola was burnt and Calvin joined in the burning.”

“Heretics and blasphemers were either banished or executed, often by being burned at the stake. In fact, historical records show that under his rule, approximately 58 people were killed and 76 were exiled.”

“Suffice it to say, that I believe this belief system to be one of the most evil ?doctrines of demons? (1 Tim. 4:1) to ever infiltrate Christianity”

http://tribes.tribe.net/religiousdiscusion/thread/ee40c17a-bdb0-41bb-8144-ef9b2fc25b17
The more I read about Calvin the more I doubt his salvation. He appears to be more of a Pharisee, going beyond the word and killing off all those who disagree, including his personal friends. Nothing in his behavior is consistent with scripture. His nasty fruit appears to spring from a dead tree.

What’s unique about the legacy and life of John Calvin, as a founder of a brand of faith, few have been as evil. One may say that “Well lot’s of people have done evil in the name of religion.” This is unfortunately true, but what is also true is that they were not the founders of faith, but followers who broke the commands and tenets of their faith. They did not create an entire theology of their own belief that conveniently excused their own behavior, while damning others. He also had a special obsession with idolatry, witchcraft and dancing.
Many religious have done evil, they all broke the commands of God and broke the tenets of faith. Calvin created a system where he could act as he pleased, but simultaneously put terrible demands on the faithful. Now the faithful in Geneva, were forced by threat of death, to follow this new theology. The difference is that he was the founder of a sect, while others perverted and broke the tenets of their faith. While others were sinners, Calvin created a system were he could not sin. He was saved no matter what…He was one of the lucky ones…How convenient.

163

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote] written by Paul:
2 Cor 8:21 - for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of men.

Rom 12:17 - Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all men.

Rom 14:18 - he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men

1 Cor 10:33 - just as I try to please all people in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, so that they may be saved.[/quote]

All this sounds good at first. Until you look back and see what Christ said about the matter:

[quote]Spoken by Christ:

Luke 16:15 And He told them: “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly admired by people is revolting in God’s sight.” [/quote]

Are you sure Paul taught the same Gospel?
[/quote]

Yes, St. Paul taught the same gospel. There is a big difference between whom and what Christ was talking about in Luke, and what St. Paul was doing and trying to accomplish.
Christ was admonishing the Pharisees for sacrificing the word of God for self aggrandizement. While Paul was trying to win converts and work with people in the church. In other words, Christ was admonishing the Pharisees, Paul was working with people of the church and trying to win converts.

Again, context, audience, purpose all make a difference in what the verses say. If you cannot discern what a verse means, or if it means something different in context than your perceive it to mean out of context, then the contextual meaning should be taken.

164

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Christ’s ministry did not take place under the Old Covenant. “The law and the prophets were until John”.

I was referring solely to mercy, not salvation. Salvation, justification, and repentance are different subjects.

Just to clarify: The rich young man asked Christ what it took to enter the Kingdom. Christ told him to follow the Commandments. When the man told Him that he had followed the Commandments since his youth, Christ told him “If you want to be perfect, go sell your belongings and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in Heaven. Then, come follow me.”

When I say ‘entire life’, I mean the only life that matters. Anything that came before that is forgiven and forgotten.[/quote]

Next your going to tell up Jesus was a Christian?

165

[quote]pat wrote:<<< What’s unique about the legacy and life of John Calvin, >>>[/quote]What’s unique about Pat is that he is the only one in this thread who has me on ignore and hence cannot see me say for the one thousandth time that if John Calvin were never born, we’d still believe what we believe. We have no pope sir. That’s YOUR thing.

I cannot take this up with you now JP. Just not possible.

166

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote] written by Paul:
2 Cor 8:21 - for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of men.

Rom 12:17 - Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all men.

Rom 14:18 - he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men

1 Cor 10:33 - just as I try to please all people in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, so that they may be saved.[/quote]

All this sounds good at first. Until you look back and see what Christ said about the matter:

[quote]Spoken by Christ:

Luke 16:15 And He told them: “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly admired by people is revolting in God’s sight.” [/quote]

Are you sure Paul taught the same Gospel?
[/quote]

Yes, St. Paul taught the same gospel. There is a big difference between whom and what Christ was talking about in Luke, and what St. Paul was doing and trying to accomplish.
Christ was admonishing the Pharisees for sacrificing the word of God for self aggrandizement. While Paul was trying to win converts and work with people in the church. In other words, Christ was admonishing the Pharisees, Paul was working with people of the church and trying to win converts.

Again, context, audience, purpose all make a difference in what the verses say. If you cannot discern what a verse means, or if it means something different in context than your perceive it to mean out of context, then the contextual meaning should be taken. [/quote]
Paul was a Pharisee who admittedly justified himself in the sight of others.

In other words, Christ was talking about Paul, who admittedly justified himself in the sight of others. And was a Pharisee.

Context, audience, purpose. Got it.

167

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote] written by Paul:
2 Cor 8:21 - for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of men.

Rom 12:17 - Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all men.

Rom 14:18 - he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men

1 Cor 10:33 - just as I try to please all people in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, so that they may be saved.[/quote]

All this sounds good at first. Until you look back and see what Christ said about the matter:

[quote]Spoken by Christ:

Luke 16:15 And He told them: “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly admired by people is revolting in God’s sight.” [/quote]

Are you sure Paul taught the same Gospel?
[/quote]

JP, your implicit point is flawed on two separate grounds, the one methodological, the other logical.

  1. Methodologically, you are being inconsistent. You are comparing a statement supposedly said by Jesus but found ONLY in Luke’s gospel with Paul’s statements. The problem is that Luke wrote his gospel AND the book of Acts as a single two-volume work, and you have already implied that Luke lied in his portrayal of Stephen’s speech and even the events of Stephen’s life. Since you have already questioned Luke’s credibility before, on what grounds do you trust Luke’s account of Jesus’ words? You cannot have your cake and eat it too; it is completely inconsistent for you to arbitrarily deny the validity of Luke’s depiction of events in Acts (events which have little attestation except in Acts) while trusting Luke’s depiction of Jesus’ words (words which have NO attestation except in Luke’s gospel). Pick one - either Luke is trustworthy, and we have to trust him on things we have no external evidence for, or else Luke is a liar, and on those issues where we don’t have other attestation, including the words of Jesus that Luke records, we cannot trust him.

  2. Logically, you are seeing a contradiction where there doesn’t need to be one. First of all, you have completely ignored the fact that Luke 2:52 states, "And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and with men." What does that mean? That means both God AND human beings were pleased with Jesus. So if we over-read Jesus’ statement in Luke 16:15, we can only conclude that Luke 2:52 is an oxymoron - God AND human beings could not be pleased with Jesus at the same time. On the one hand, that brings us back to the methodological question - on what grounds do you trust someone (namely, Luke) to accurately record the words of Jesus when he clearly doesn’t recognize the contradictions within his own work?

There’s an entirely different way of looking at Jesus’ statement in Luke 16:15, however - sometimes the things that please God and the things that please humanity overlap. In other words, there are times when human beings appreciate the same things God appreciates. Consequently, THOSE are the things that Paul seeks to do and cultivate (2 Cor. 8:21, as you note above). What JESUS is referring to are those things that ONLY please human beings and do NOT please God. Thus, Jesus’ statement can be EASILY harmonized with Paul’s. Paul appreciates the things God does, and when human beings appreciate those things too, all the better. But Jesus calls out those who appreciate things God does NOT appreciate.

168

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Are you sure Paul taught the same Gospel?[/quote]Yes.
[/quote]

[quote] Paul wrote:

Rom 9:15-16 - For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So it depends not upon man’s will or exertions, but upon God’s mercy. [/quote]

[quote] Christ spoke:

Matt 5:7 - Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
[/quote]

I don’t see how you can say that these two contradictory statements are of the same Gospel.

If you are merciful to others (an exertion on your part), you will be given mercy by our Father. That is Truth as spoken by Christ.

Paul would have you believe that a person who has been cruel and unmerciful their entire lives may be granted mercy, and a person who has obeyed the Commands all their lives may not be. That it is just an arbitrary decision.[/quote]

There are several ways of harmonizing these two passages, JP, but I won’t go into all of them now. Here are the big three…

  1. Paul is referring to a different aspect of God’s mercy than Jesus is; Paul’s emphasis is on corporate election (i.e., God chose Abraham and his descendants to be God’s holy people, not necessarily to be “saved”, before they had ever performed a single deed), whereas Jesus is talking about individual actions.

  2. Jesus’ beatitude assumes precisely what Paul argues - if someone is truly regenerated (i.e., “saved”), he or she will show mercy, and that mercy will in the end lead to their reception of mercy. In short, as Luther said, good works don’t make a man good, but a good man will do good works.

  3. Jesus’ sermon on the mount was intended to bring his audience to recognition of their full sinfulness. Under the Old Covenant (which did not simply end with John; “the prophets and the law prophesied until John” doesn’t mean they were finished when John came, but rather, that John was the last prophet of the Old Covenant), “the doers of the law would be justified.” Jesus’ goal in the sermon is to demonstrate the full intent of the law, to demonstrate that more was expected of people than the law seemed to require. Thus, Jesus’ audience were those still living under the old covenant, under which their deeds would determine their feet. This does not remain the case under the New Covenant.

All of those answers are perfectly legitimate, all have a wealth of Christian thinkers throughout history in support of them, and NONE of them require seeing Paul and Jesus as contradicting one another.

GIve up this game, JP. You might as well not be a Christian if you’re going to keep trying to find something wrong with Paul.

169

When a Christian REALLY acts like one on the job, employers are pleased. When a Christian REALLY acts like one in his neighborhood, neighbors are pleased. When a Christian REALLY acts like one to his unsaved family members, they are pleased. When a Christian REALLY acts like one on T-Nation he is hated by 97% of the people there. There are other places and circumstances where actual Christians who actually act like they are, are hated or find favor. Both are variously true depending on the context.

170

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Give up this game, JP. You might as well not be a Christian if you’re going to keep trying to find something wrong with Paul.[/quote]I wish you could get this JP. God has used Paul to give us the fullest expression of the gospel there is.

171

“I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything I have learned from My Father I have made known to you”

He was not talking to Paul.

172

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
“I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything I have learned from My Father I have made known to you”

He was not talking to Paul.[/quote]What am I gonna do with you Jay? We all just had an exchange not that long ago from John 16 where Jesus was telling them that they DID NOT have all truth yet and that the Holy Spirit would bring all truth AFTER His ascension. Ya know usually I would just write someone like you off as a raving heretic and be done with it. I can’t help sensing a true desire to serve the Lord percolating down in there in you somewhere, but you havta get free of this truly screwy framework you have overlaid your bible with. Ya list gotta. It is NOT serving you well at all.

173

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
“I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything I have learned from My Father I have made known to you”

He was not talking to Paul.[/quote]

Here we go again…

Do the gospels record everything Jesus to everyone? NO.

Can we therefore state definitively what Jesus did and did not say (except, of course, for things that would be contradictory to his own teaching)? NO.

174

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote] written by Paul:
2 Cor 8:21 - for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of men.

Rom 12:17 - Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all men.

Rom 14:18 - he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men

1 Cor 10:33 - just as I try to please all people in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, so that they may be saved.[/quote]

All this sounds good at first. Until you look back and see what Christ said about the matter:

[quote]Spoken by Christ:

Luke 16:15 And He told them: “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly admired by people is revolting in God’s sight.” [/quote]

Are you sure Paul taught the same Gospel?
[/quote]

Yes, St. Paul taught the same gospel. There is a big difference between whom and what Christ was talking about in Luke, and what St. Paul was doing and trying to accomplish.
Christ was admonishing the Pharisees for sacrificing the word of God for self aggrandizement. While Paul was trying to win converts and work with people in the church. In other words, Christ was admonishing the Pharisees, Paul was working with people of the church and trying to win converts.

Again, context, audience, purpose all make a difference in what the verses say. If you cannot discern what a verse means, or if it means something different in context than your perceive it to mean out of context, then the contextual meaning should be taken. [/quote]
Paul was a Pharisee who admittedly justified himself in the sight of others.

In other words, Christ was talking about Paul, who admittedly justified himself in the sight of others. And was a Pharisee.

Context, audience, purpose. Got it.[/quote]

Holy Crap…You are just lost.
Paul WAS a pharisee until he ‘saw the light’, literally. He then became an apostle of Christ, who was himself taught by the original apostles. He taught the same gospel taught by the other apostles.
“As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem. So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.
And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia.
(Acts 16:4-6 ESV)”

That is why the Galatians reference and accusation you made is flat false:
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
(Galatians 1:8 ESV)”

“We” is plural, and it’s the same Gospel taught by all the apostles as agreed to in the counsel of Jerusalem; which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Your ‘facts’ are so bad, they’d be funny if it weren’t so sad.

175

[quote]pat wrote:<< Paul WAS a pharisee until he ‘saw the light’, literally. He then became an apostle of Christ, who was himself taught by the original apostles. >>>[/quote]Galatians Chapter 1 and 2 (redacted for this post) [quote]15-But when he who had set me apart before I was born,d and who called me by his grace, 16-was pleased to reveal his Son toe me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17-nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

18-Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19-But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. 20-(In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) 21-Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22-And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23-They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24-And they glorified God because of me. <<<>>> 6-And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)-those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me[/quote]

176

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
“I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything I have learned from My Father I have made known to you”

He was not talking to Paul.[/quote]

Here we go again…

Do the gospels record everything Jesus to everyone? NO.

Can we therefore state definitively what Jesus did and did not say (except, of course, for things that would be contradictory to his own teaching)? NO.[/quote]
Maybe not, but if Christ had actually visited Paul, taught him the Word, and made him an Apostle, he wouldn’t call himself a servant and a slave of Christ. He would have known to call himself a friend of Christ.

He wouldn’t have said that he became a father to the church through the Gospel. He would have known that we have only one Father.

He would not have made himself a master over the church. He would have known that we have only one Master

He would not have told his church to hand someone over to Satan. He would have gone after them like a lost sheep.

He would not have taught that ‘whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’. He would have known that Christ said “Not everyone who says to Me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father who is in Heaven.”

You can pass all of these things off as coincidence or rationalize them as you desire. As for me, I believe Christ above all others.

177

You are comin to an end with this foolishness Jay. And I definitely say that with affection. The true believer redeemed in Christ is held in a full relationship with God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit described in a list of ways that are mirrored in human relationships. Moses is called both the friend AND servant of God 1400 years earlier. Christians ARE the "brothers, bride, sons, body, servants, slaves, captives, AND friends of God in Christ. It IS the most primary relationship and can as such be referred to in various contexts analogously to all the rest.

I wish you could see how you are being robbed of a glorious relationship with your God with all this schismatic (here comes dearest Christopher) goofiness. There is just no possible way that the God of bible is going to allow His own DIRECT revelation to be so distorted for a couple millenia at so foundational a level as you are asking us to believe. I don’t know how you got started on this, but if you could only take a step back and hear yourself man. You assert from one minute to the next utterly unintelligible inconsistencies and I don’t think you’re a dummy. I think you’re deceived and your mule headed pride will not allow you to so much as entertain the notion that your infinitesimally minority views can be wrong.

What’s your prayer life like? Do you wake up in the morning and ask God to teach you HIS truth about HIS Word that day and preserve you from error so that you may be used by Him to bring that truth to others? Or do you simply spend your time pouring over obscure websites trying to establish these obscure views to yourself no matter what? I’m not trying to discourage you. I want you on my side. All that tenacity in the service of the truth would an asset to the kingdom dude. I doubt if there’s a few hundred people on this continent who share your views of scripture and biblical history. That’s not a remnant. That’s a cult.

178

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
“I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything I have learned from My Father I have made known to you”

He was not talking to Paul.[/quote]

Here we go again…

Do the gospels record everything Jesus to everyone? NO.

Can we therefore state definitively what Jesus did and did not say (except, of course, for things that would be contradictory to his own teaching)? NO.[/quote]
Maybe not, but if Christ had actually visited Paul, taught him the Word, and made him an Apostle, he wouldn’t call himself a servant and a slave of Christ. He would have known to call himself a friend of Christ.

He wouldn’t have said that he became a father to the church through the Gospel. He would have known that we have only one Father.

He would not have made himself a master over the church. He would have known that we have only one Master

He would not have told his church to hand someone over to Satan. He would have gone after them like a lost sheep.

He would not have taught that ‘whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’. He would have known that Christ said “Not everyone who says to Me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father who is in Heaven.”

You can pass all of these things off as coincidence or rationalize them as you desire. As for me, I believe Christ above all others.[/quote]

I’ve dealt with every single one of these points (except for the Master thing, which is just your perception, not something Paul even called himself). I’ve given concrete, historically sensitive explanations of why Paul said such things and why you are over-reading Jesus’ statements. You’ve failed to provide historical or exegetical reasons against my points; all your doing now is showing how pig-headed you are by simply restating your erroneous conclusions as if no conversation has taken place.

  1. Jesus never commanded anyone to call themselves his “friends” (which, as I pointed out in post you either didn’t read or didn’t read carefully); he merely said that he didn’t call (i.e., consider) them slaves anymore, but rather called (considered) them “friends” (which in Greek doesn’t mean equals or close confidants, but rather “freed” slaves who were still indebted to their masters). And furthermore, since Paul is using slave in its Old Testament sense, he doesn’t mean the same thing by the word that Jesus does.

Most importantly, you complete ignore the fact that Jesus DOES call Christians “slaves” in Revelation 2:20. So once again, you have to deal with what you would call a “contradiction” in Jesus’ words. There are only three possibilities - either (1) Jesus contradicted himself, (2) one of these two books that claims to contain Jesus’ words actually doesn’t (whether that’s John or Revelation), or (3) YOU are over-reading Jesus’ statements in John about calling his disciples friends.

179

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
“I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything I have learned from My Father I have made known to you”

He was not talking to Paul.[/quote]

Here we go again…

Do the gospels record everything Jesus to everyone? NO.

Can we therefore state definitively what Jesus did and did not say (except, of course, for things that would be contradictory to his own teaching)? NO.[/quote]
Maybe not, but if Christ had actually visited Paul, taught him the Word, and made him an Apostle, he wouldn’t call himself a servant and a slave of Christ. He would have known to call himself a friend of Christ.

He wouldn’t have said that he became a father to the church through the Gospel. He would have known that we have only one Father.

He would not have made himself a master over the church. He would have known that we have only one Master

He would not have told his church to hand someone over to Satan. He would have gone after them like a lost sheep.

He would not have taught that ‘whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’. He would have known that Christ said “Not everyone who says to Me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father who is in Heaven.”

You can pass all of these things off as coincidence or rationalize them as you desire. As for me, I believe Christ above all others.[/quote]

I’ve dealt with every single one of these points (except for the Master thing, which is just your perception, not something Paul even called himself). I’ve given concrete, historically sensitive explanations of why Paul said such things and why you are over-reading Jesus’ statements. You’ve failed to provide historical or exegetical reasons against my points; all your doing now is showing how pig-headed you are by simply restating your erroneous conclusions as if no conversation has taken place.

  1. Jesus never commanded anyone to call themselves his “friends” (which, as I pointed out in post you either didn’t read or didn’t read carefully); he merely said that he didn’t call (i.e., consider) them slaves anymore, but rather called (considered) them “friends” (which in Greek doesn’t mean equals or close confidants, but rather “freed” slaves who were still indebted to their masters). And furthermore, since Paul is using slave in its Old Testament sense, he doesn’t mean the same thing by the word that Jesus does.

Most importantly, you complete ignore the fact that Jesus DOES call Christians “slaves” in Revelation 2:20. So once again, you have to deal with what you would call a “contradiction” in Jesus’ words. There are only three possibilities - either (1) Jesus contradicted himself, (2) one of these two books that claims to contain Jesus’ words actually doesn’t (whether that’s John or Revelation), or (3) YOU are over-reading Jesus’ statements in John about calling his disciples friends.[/quote]

Also, I’ve consistently provided solid answers to your points, and you’ve failed to do so to mine for a very long time. That makes the ground you stand on appear even more shaky. I understand you’ve been preoccupied with trying to prove that the Catholics worship the pope or some such nonsense from a text composed in a language you cannot even read and that has long since been amended, but your pet theory has more holes in it than swiss cheese, and you’ve consistently failed to address any of them.

So again, if you theory is true, provide an explanation of Revelation 2:20 - why does Jesus call his disciples “servants” IF his statement in John 15:15 is meant to FORBID people calling themselves Jesus’ servants/slaves?

180

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
He wouldn’t have said that he became a father to the church through the Gospel. He would have known that we have only one Father.
[/quote]

I already dealt with this and I am not retyping the whole argument over. Instead, in addition to the supposed contradiction between John 15:15 and Revelation 2:20, please also explain THIS “contradiction” in John 3:10 - Jesus explicitly calls Nicodemus “the/a teacher of Israel,” but Jesus forbids calling people father OR teacher in Matthew 23:8-10. So did John misquote Jesus in John 3:10, or are you taking Jesus’ words in Matthew 23 too literally?