I’m New. Keen on good conversation.

[TruthSeeker27]

Hello to my fellow believers! I’m a passionate Christian man in his early thirties. I was attracted to this site for the opportunity to have profitable conversations with other Christians. I have a long storied experience with Christianity. I’ve honestly dived deeply into the intellectual side of our faith, tackling Christian philosophy, theology, and apologetics. But I’m also down to earth, easy to relate to, and quite the good listener conversation wise. So if you’re interested in just chatting about life or perhaps the more deep and abstract, I’m down for either. Hope to make some enjoyable connections here. Feel free to reach out if you’d like to chat and get to know each other. Thank you.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Hello to my fellow believers! I’m a passionate Christian man in his early thirties. I was attracted to this site for the opportunity to have profitable conversations with other Christians. I have a long storied experience with Christianity. I’ve honestly dived deeply into the intellectual side of our faith, tackling Christian philosophy, theology, and apologetics. But I’m also down to earth, easy to relate to, and quite the good listener conversation wise. So if you’re interested in just chatting about life or perhaps the more deep and abstract, I’m down for either. Hope to make some enjoyable connections here. Feel free to reach out if you’d like to chat and get to know each other. Thank you. View attachment 235214

I’ve honestly dived deeply into the intellectual side of our faith, tackling Christian philosophy, theology, and apologetics.

This has been my same path as my walk in faith led to a season of doubt and in this season I walked this same path.

 

[TruthSeeker27]

This has been my same path as my walk in faith led to a season of doubt and in this season I walked this same path.

So you moved past doubt into stronger belief?

 

[Bloodwashed]

Hi Brother Truthseeker27. Glad to have you. I like to just sit and talk too. some people say I talk to much. my phone number is 470-567-7851 so give me a call any time and we'll just sit and talk and I live at 2384 do you think i'm that stupid? road. just playing. By the way that is a fake phone number too.

 

[Rhomphaeam]

So you moved past doubt into stronger belief?

May I ask you how - if at all - your intellectual pursuits have strengthened your faith?

 

[TruthSeeker27]

May I ask you how - if at all - your intellectual pursuits have strengthened your faith?

For me? Absolutely! Exploring the backdrop of Christianity has only strengthened my faith overall….

 

[Rhomphaeam]

For me? Absolutely! Exploring the backdrop of Christianity has only strengthened my faith overall….

Thats good.

Christian Apologetics can be pretty lame if it is mistaken for a love fest - but substantive apologetics can be beneficial I think if set into a clear theological framework. Having said that theologies can also be divisive too.

Christian Philosophy is perhaps even more difficult unless we mean a manner of speaking in which case philosophy may be simply vain. If we mean philosophy as a genuine bedrock set into recognised frameworks then philosophy can be an apologetic exercise and that then can also become divisive as well.

Theology therefore is the big gun and swinging a Howitzer Canon around is likely to get some one injured.

Well at least that is my own experience at least.

So I was wondering how you start in a Christian apologetic on the subject of Salvation!

That subject as defined theologically in a formal meaning can be pretty substantive - whereas in its living meaning speaks of Christ as our Salvation.

 

[TruthSeeker27]

Thats good.

Christian Apologetics can be pretty lame if it is mistaken for a love fest - but substantive apologetics can be beneficial I think if set into a clear theological framework. Having said that theologies can also be divisive too.

Christian Philosophy is perhaps even more difficult unless we mean a manner of speaking in which case philosophy may be simply vain. If we mean philosophy as a genuine bedrock set into recognised frameworks then philosophy can be an apologetic exercise and that then can also become divisive as well.

Theology therefore is the big gun and swinging a Howitzer Canon around is likely to get some one injured.

Well at least that is my own experience at least.

So I was wondering how you start in a Christian apologetic on the subject of Salvation!

That subject as defined theologically in a formal meaning can be pretty substantive - whereas in its living meaning speaks of Christ as our Salvation.

There truly is a lot of divisive disputes in the realm of apologetics and theology. Both dealing with very exact aspects of the faith, one can understand where there would be viewpoint clashes.

I do believe that the addition of philosophy has historically added to the relating appeal of Christian argumentation. One need only read the Patristics or the Scholastics to see that point historically.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

So you moved past doubt into stronger belief?

Exactly. I no longer have any doubts. I have heard almost every argument against God and my faith and none holds up to the evidence.

 

[Rhomphaeam]

There truly is a lot of divisive disputes in the realm of apologetics and theology. Both dealing with very exact aspects of the faith, one can understand where there would be viewpoint clashes.

I do believe that the addition of philosophy has historically added to the relating appeal of Christian argumentation. One need only read the Patristics or the Scholastics to see that point historically.

I suppose the divisiveness is everywhere in truth - not just in apologetics and theology. I can see why you would say that philosophy cools things down as it were (my emphasis).

Philosophy concerns myself in the immediate sense as expressed in a post you made in another thread where you said:

"The leaders of the early Church and the “Church Fathers” certainly valued philosophy. Heck, you can even see this as immediate as the Gospel of John where the Hellenistic philosopher Philo’s concept of the “Logos” is applied to Christ."

In a similar way to yourself in citing such a strong link from Hellenistic philosophical concepts (in this instant the concept of [the] Logos) I would argue that a greek philosophical meaning is essentially occult and so should never be used to imbibe an apologetic of Christ by asserting that John was using the same concept or meaning.

That does seem a very strong thing to claim - but I can support it and explain it if necessary - at least in a simple way because I have no desire to engage in that subject of the occult with anyone who didn't come out of it when they came to Christ.

Strangely enough in that same thread I have taken the quote [your quote] herein, Sir Isaac Newton is upheld as a Philosopher and a Christian to auger a positive case to the question at the opening comment. That gives ground to express my concerns for the occult in Christian circles very well because at Sir Issac Newtons tercentenary birthday celebration in 1946 he was called the last of the Magicians - not as a figure of speech but as a literal meaning in occult terms by Lord John Maynard Keynes. Keynes went on to explain his reason for that and evidenced it from Newton's own papers.

In a meaning to your claim to Philo as a philosophical and linguistic dial to upholding a claim to the greek logos as the same as the revealed Logos by the Apostle John - what we miss is what the bible tells us is the meaning of the flesh - both the sarx and the fleshy mind and why the Cross of Christ in His own physical body is the theatre of deliverance - not philosophy.

Welcome to the forum

 

[Hann57]

I suppose the divisiveness is everywhere in truth - not just in apologetics and theology. I can see why you would say that philosophy cools things down as it were (my emphasis).

Philosophy concerns myself in the immediate sense as expressed in a post you made in another thread where you said:

"The leaders of the early Church and the “Church Fathers” certainly valued philosophy. Heck, you can even see this as immediate as the Gospel of John where the Hellenistic philosopher Philo’s concept of the “Logos” is applied to Christ."

In a similar way to yourself in citing such a strong link from Hellenistic philosophical concepts (in this instant the concept of [the] Logos) I would argue that a greek philosophical meaning is essentially occult and so should never be used to imbibe an apologetic of Christ by asserting that John was using the same concept or meaning.

That does seem a very strong thing to claim - but I can support it and explain it if necessary - at least in a simple way because I have no desire to engage in that subject of the occult with anyone who didn't come out of it when they came to Christ.

Strangely enough in that same thread I have taken the quote [your quote] herein, Sir Isaac Newton is upheld as a Philosopher and a Christian to auger a positive case to the question at the opening comment. That gives ground to express my concerns for the occult in Christian circles very well because at Sir Issac Newtons tercentenary birthday celebration in 1946 he was called the last of the Magicians - not as a figure of speech but as a literal meaning in occult terms by Lord John Maynard Keynes. Keynes went on to explain his reason for that and evidenced it from Newton's own papers.

In a meaning to your claim to Philo as a philosophical and linguistic dial to upholding a claim to the greek logos as the same as the revealed Logos by the Apostle John - what we miss is what the bible tells us is the meaning of the flesh - both the sarx and the fleshy mind and why the Cross of Christ in His own physical body is the theatre of deliverance - not philosophy.

Welcome to the forum

Have you heard the gospel yet ?

 

[Rhomphaeam]

Have you heard the gospel yet ?

I was born again in 1984.

 

[Hann57]

I was born again in 1984.

Have you heard the gospel given to Paul by the Lord Jesus Christ ?

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

As the apostle says, he received this gospel from Christ and not man. Here is the gospel given to Paul.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

You need to believe in this gospel to be saved.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

 

[Rhomphaeam]

Have you heard the gospel given to Paul by the Lord Jesus Christ ?

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

As the apostle says, he received this gospel from Christ and not man. Here is the gospel given to Paul.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

You need to believe in this gospel to be saved.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Why? I am a Jew.

 

[Hann57]

Why? I am a Jew.

Can you not see it ?

 

[Rhomphaeam]

Can you not see it ?

I know your doctrine because I read it. So I said I am a Jew - which being a biological Jew and not an Orthodox Jew was a true statement. But I said it that way because according to your doctrine no one can be born again who believes Paul's gospel. And I assume that I would also have to have been in receipt of the Gospel of the Kingdom as delivered to the Apostles when Judas was still an apostle to be found in that meaning. So I said "I am a Jew." I simply wanted to understand your doctrine and not receive a supply of Scripture that does not establish anything other than that the apostles (including those of the 72) - were sent out to peach the Gospel of the Kingdom in keeping with the call to repentance and to make straight the heart to receive the Messiah.

But this is not the thread to have that discussion - it seems unfair on the author of the thread to misdirect his stated purpose in introducing himself. You had one agreement to asking me if "Have you heard the gospel given to Paul by the Lord Jesus Christ ?" That agreement came from @1ofthem so let her correct your mistaken belief that those who do hear the gospel given to Paul are NOT born again - even when they do believe - in your doctrine. We ought to be careful what we agree with in our mistaken zeal to wrestle with others. Shalom

 

[TabinRivCA]

Nice to meet you and hope you find many topics to chime in on. Jesus told the criminal next to Him on the cross, who asked Jesus to remember Him, 'Amen, Today you shall be with me in Paradise'. 'All those who call upon the name of Jesus shall be saved' Rom 10:13. God bless you and your time here
We must become like little children..... Mt 18:3

 

[Hann57]

I know your doctrine because I read it. So I said I am a Jew - which being a biological Jew and not an Orthodox Jew was a true statement. But I said it that way because according to your doctrine no one can be born again who believes Paul's gospel. And I assume that I would also have to have been in receipt of the Gospel of the Kingdom as delivered to the Apostles when Judas was still an apostle to be found in that meaning. So I said "I am a Jew." I simply wanted to understand your doctrine and not receive a supply of Scripture that does not establish anything other than that the apostles (including those of the 72) - were sent out to peach the Gospel of the Kingdom in keeping with the call to repentance and to make straight the heart to receive the Messiah.

But this is not the thread to have that discussion - it seems unfair on the author of the thread to misdirect his stated purpose in introducing himself. You had one agreement to asking me if "Have you heard the gospel given to Paul by the Lord Jesus Christ ?" That agreement came from @1ofthem so let her correct your mistaken belief that those who do hear the gospel given to Paul are NOT born again - even when they do believe - in your doctrine. We ought to be careful what we agree with in our mistaken zeal to wrestle with others. Shalom

If you do not believe Paul's gospel you are lost and still in your sins.
It is not my doctrine as you keep stating.
1Ti_4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
Paul's doctrine comes from what he had received from Christ.
Right now sin is the issue between you and God.
It dont matter, Jews or Gentiles, we all have sinned.

Rom_3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

Christ died for our sins, that is what you need to believe to be saved.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

 

[Rhomphaeam]

If you do not believe Paul's gospel you are lost and still in your sins.
It is not my doctrine as you keep stating.
1Ti_4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
Paul's doctrine comes from what he had received from Christ.
Right now sin is the issue between you and God.
It dont matter, Jews or Gentiles, we all have sinned.

Rom_3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

Christ died for our sins, that is what you need to believe to be saved.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

My friend, I haven't been stating anything to you other than two comments. But I have read your doctrine. I know what you believe because you have said so in the threads I have read. So I didn't respond to you in this thread (the only time I have posted to you) without reading your beliefs. So when I say - your doctrine - I am not speaking about the gospel that was delivered to the apostle Paul. I am speaking about your doctrine that states that believing Paul's gospel delivered to him by Christ does not result in being born again. That is what you teach.

In a similar way you teach that when Jesus sent the disciples out it was to preach the kingdom of heaven - and if believed that would produce a born again experience. So please address your own beliefs.

Let me assure you for your peace of mind. I utterly and whole heartedly believe the gospel delivered to the apostle Paul out of season and have done so since 10th May 1984 when I first received Christ as my Lord and Saviour. It is simply that this resulted in my being born again unto a living hope into Christ and made the way to follow Him open to me. You reject that being born again part. So whilst that may seem a small thing - it causes me to be concerned for your own salvation and to wonder where you found this teaching as I have outlined here. Just not in this thread. Start a thread and tag me in. I will be happy to share with you and listen to your teaching and try to understand how you came by it. God bless you.

 

[tourist]

I'm quite sure that you will have ample opportunity to make enjoyable connections here. Based on your intro post I believe that you may enjoy perusing in the Bible Discussion Forum. Glad to have you onboard with us. Welcome to CC.