False teaching by separating Scripture from Scripture

[GWH]

False understanding from failure to harmonize Scripture.

 

[ATG]

Okay, please address the following specifics.
1 and 2) Acts claims Saul interacted with fellow believers before he went to Arabia. In Galatians 1, Paul DENIES having interacted with other believers before going to Arabia. Pleased explain this.

And so, as i said, by surface reading alone, and out of context, there could be several apparent errors. And here we go with the superficial reader's fault-finding for those errors:

Act 9:19
And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

Gal 1:16
To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

The 'interaction' as you say, is plainly not the same: The first is simple fellowship with disciples, that he originally came to arrest. The second is conferring with church leaders about the gospel preaching. The converted Saul immediately accepted Christian fellowship, but did not immediately seek out church leaders on preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ:

1Ti 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;...Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

The lesson of course, is that since Saul of Tarsus called to be an apostle Paul, needed time to study the Scriptures and learn the way of the Lord, then so does any newborn babe in Christ, before trying to go on preaching to others...Which some rightly call '2x4' preachers.

3 and 6) You claim that Saul returned to Damascus where he preached for three years. In Galatians 1 Paul merely states that after 3 years he visited Damascus, not that he preached there for three years, and that after that he went to Syria/Cilicia for 14 years before going to Jerusalem.

The record is between Acts 9 and Gal 1, and then lastly Acts 11.

Acts 9: After initially fellowshipping with disciples in Damascus, he went into Arabia, and then returned to Damascus preaching and confounding the Jews in their synagogues, that Jesus was indeed Christ.

Gal 1: Paul confirms he returned to Damascus first after Arabia for 3 years, before going up to Jerusalem seeking Peter.

Acts 9: None of the apostles would see Saul, until Barnabas took him to them, and told them of Saul's preaching the gospel in Damascus.

Once again, the timeline events are correct according to all Scriptures recording those things together. It's a common practice of Bible writers only recording those things pertaining to the purpose at hand, i.e. Context.

7a and 8 (you have two 7's) Paul never mentions Barnabas being involved in his decision to go to Jerusalem. and never mentions having to escape Jerusalem.

Read Acts 9 and Gal 1 side by side. They do not conflict, but only fulfill. A common literary narrative practice. But of course. It takes a little time to actually study, rather than just skim for word faults.

Mar 12:13
And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.

You also avoid the question of who did Saul/Paul have to escape from in Damascus, Acts claims it was Jews, Paul claims it was Arabs

Now you're just making things up about Arabian persecutors.

and Paul also claims that he was only in Damascus one time, so if you want to make two escapes, justify the second.

Gal 1:17
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Do you not even comprehend what you do read? No Arabian persecution. 'Returning' to Damascus, means going back to Damascus, means 2nd time in Damascus, before ever going to Jerusalem.

 

[indenturedservant]

Only to major false doctrines of Christianity. Of which there have been, and are many, from the beginning of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead.


You've missed the point entirely. Doctrine and prophecy of Scripture is not written in every verse, nor needs to be.

False teaching is only when certain verses applying to the same teaching and prophecy are excluded, in order to teach some verse or verses falsely out of context.




Although you miss the point, you are trying to make a point, that appears to apply. However, who has ever mistaken Phillip's transportation by the Spirit from the Gazan desert road to Azotus, as though that were a rapture of the church?

It's called making an absurd point to unnecessarily complicate a good rule and teaching.








False. Such divisions and heresies began when the apostles were writing doctrine and prophecy of Christ, and there were many.

And furthermore, this isn't just a good Bible rule for reading and teaching in context, but is the common standard of teaching and critiquing all books. It's basic literary comprehension 101. It begins in grade school, when the students are taught not to take things out of context, nor come up with something the author never intended to write.


Oh well, now we see the main objection: The rule also destroys a major false doctrine among some Christians, called 'Oneness'. I.e. the Father is the Son is the Spirit, and the Spirit is the Son is the Father, where all the Godhead is the same one Person.

Which of course separates John 10:30 "The Father and I are one", from John 17:11 & 22, where Jesus prays the Father, that His people be made one, even as They are one.

Jhn 17:11
Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Jhn 17:22
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

We see how Christ in Scripture always gives verses to prove or disprove any doctrine taught by man, whether it be from all the applicable Scriptures of God, vs the errors of man separating certain Scriptures from others, that pertain to the same thing: The Godhead unity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

It's impossible for the Father and Son to be the same one person, when all the sons of God in Christ Jesus are made to be one, even as the Father and Son are one: Which would make all the sons one person, not many members of the body of Christ, but only the same one member.


It's those not applying this standard literary rule, that change all manner of writings and books, that they don't agree with, into something different than the author intended and wrote.

Such as Oneness teachers separating certain Scripture on unity of the godhead from other Scriptures isolated out of context: The Father and I are one, is in itself commonly understood as unity, since the Son on earth could not also be the Father in heaven. Nor does he simply say, I am the Father. Or, I am the Son and the Father.

Even the ones falsely accusing Jesus of blasphemy for calling Himself the Son of God, understood He was making Himself equal to God, not saying that He was the Father from heaven:

Jhn 5:18
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

So your object confesses your own major error is one of those destroyed by taking all Scriptures together in context, that pertain to the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Are you accusing me of being a false teacher?

Rather than ask for clarification of what I said, you wrote a whole sermon about how wrong I am, and falsely equated things I've said with false teachings... How dare you, you are quite judgemental.

You've manipulated my words, but i can't report you for being a liar, so I guess all I can do is find a site where people are a bit more friendly and not so full of themselves.


***
*Admin: no need to reprimand me for what I've said, I'm out of here because I'm tired of the constant arrogance, false accusations, and the manipulation of my words by other members.

I tried to come back after a previous communication issue, and give this site another chance... But, when I'm accused of promoting a false doctrine, that's intolerable to me, and to my Lord. I wish it was to CC.

 

[ATG]

Are you accusing me of being a false teacher?

Rather than ask for clarification of what I said, indenturedservant said: Does any version of the Doctrine of the Trinity include the verses used by non-trinitarians who want to prove "the Father and I are one?" (Other than falsely stating that "one" means unified/in unity )

Ok. What do you mean by Trinitarians that falsely state the Father and Son are one in unity?

Nevermind.

 

[rewriter]

Now you're just making things up about Arabian persecutors.

Oh really, I trust that you are aware that Paul specified that the problem was from the ethnarch of King Aretas. An ethnarch was a political official, second only to their associated king, even outranking a Tetrarch such as Antipas was. And there was only one King Aretas who had any authority in Damascus, and that was King Aretas of Nabataea, or Arabia Petra. Hence Paul is clearly identifying his persecutors as ARABS. Perhaps you need to review scripture and history.

And by the way, the Jewish High Priest derived all his authority from the Imperial Legate of Syria. an individual who in the 1st century CE had ZERO authority in Damascus, hence the Jewish High Priest also had ZERO authority there, so by whose authority was Paul going to arrest anyone?

 

[TruthDefender]

Anyone can show any book of making internal errors. And many books do, which is why they seek help of editors.

But the Bible is the only Book written by so many people, over so much time, that does not have any errors. People can still look for them, without believing the Bible. But no one has been able to rightly accuse the Bible of error.

Allowing the Bible itself to defend and justify itself, is the good work of rightly reading, believing, and teaching the Bible.


Your belief in Bible error, is unbelief in Bible truth, which has no error.

Unbelief in any Scripture of Christ, is unbelief in Jesus Christ as Lord and God.



Delusion much. No one has faith in Jesus' words, who doubts any of His words.


This of course is different, and should be included in any efforts to change the translated words, without harming the Scriptures themselves.

So far, the way you've been acting, is that all you've done is side with the Bible fault-finders, by saying certain Scriptures have no place.


Already given the scriptures and sense of them. Accusing the teaching is false, without answering it's points, is just your own spoiled unbelief, not any true correction.


Already given. You just don't believe them without proving the teaching false.




Now that you've begrudgingly accepted the sensible teaching of the scriptures, you appear to ask a reasonable question: When does the hair cover the head, as a woman ought, and when is the hair cut short to uncover the head, as a man ought. I.e. what's the difference between women trimming their long hair, and men getting a man's haircut...

Sense Scripture does not give a specific line on the head between them, then God leaves it up to His faithful people to have sense enough to know the difference between women's long hair, and men's haircuts.

And if someone still has a 'problem' figuring that one out, then ask any objective child, who knows when he's looking at a person with women's hair, and a person with a man's haircut.

And since your questioning is mostly mockery, then for you:

2Ti 2:23
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.


Typical response of the disobedient and lawless. Especially by those faith-alone self justifiers, called OSAS Christians.

Pharisees taught things not written at all from the law of God. Rejecting what's written in the Scriptures for believers to do, is disobeying the rule of Christ.

James{1:22}
But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
Gal 6:15
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
Tit 1:10
For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers...



Right. You're just a translator critique. So, where's the translation error in 1 Cor 11?

Or, is it just as you said, that certain Scriptures in 1 Cor 11 don't 'belong' in the Bible.





1Ti 6:4
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

So, is this another 'translation' objection, or you just don't like being rebuked for doting questions about how long women's long hair is, and how short men's short hair is?

Rev 9:8
And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.

Unless you have a translation issue here, what is it that causes Christ to say the hair is the hair of women? Color? Curly? Style? Or length...

Just to make it ever clear, I don’t have a problem with Scripture, like many of you do. What I have a problem with is people’s so called misinterpretations/ their wresting of Scripture to fit their traditions.

You really are barking up the wrong tree!

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

Separating Scripture from Scripture?

Precious friends, all I know is trying to "harmonize contradictory Scriptures" only causes
Confusion, And Rightly Dividing Differing Scriptures Solves the problem for me anyway:

Agreement With The Gospel?
+
Basic Distinctions Between Prophecy and Mystery!
+
I have decided to follow Jesus?
+
God's Great GRACE ( Pre-trib ) Departure!

------
And, precious friend(s), Please Be Very Richly Encouraged and Edified
In The Lord Jesus Christ and In His Precious Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided:

The Bible: The BIG Picture

Amen.

Is it not time to cease trying to "harmonize and combine" God's Two Different Programs

into one? Just sayin...:

 

[TruthDefender]

Oh really, I trust that you are aware that Paul specified that the problem was from the ethnarch of King Aretas. An ethnarch was a political official, second only to their associated king, even outranking a Tetrarch such as Antipas was. And there was only one King Aretas who had any authority in Damascus, and that was King Aretas of Nabataea, or Arabia Petra. Hence Paul is clearly identifying his persecutors as ARABS. Perhaps you need to review scripture and history.

And by the way, the Jewish High Priest derived all his authority from the Imperial Legate of Syria. an individual who in the 1st century CE had ZERO authority in Damascus, hence the Jewish High Priest also had ZERO authority there, so by whose authority was Paul going to arrest anyone?

Maybe look to Scripture; ref. to Saul Paul:

“Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. Then Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.””
‭‭Acts‬ ‭9‬:‭1‬-‭2‬, ‭13‬-‭14‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[GWH]

Separating Scripture from Scripture?

Precious friends, all I know is trying to "harmonize contradictory Scriptures" only causes
Confusion, And Rightly Dividing Differing Scriptures Solves the problem for me anyway:

Agreement With The Gospel?
+
Basic Distinctions Between Prophecy and Mystery!
+
I have decided to follow Jesus?
+
God's Great GRACE ( Pre-trib ) Departure!

------
And, precious friend(s), Please Be Very Richly Encouraged and Edified
In The Lord Jesus Christ and In His Precious Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided:

The Bible: The BIG Picture

Amen.

Is it not time to cease trying to "harmonize and combine" God's Two Different Programs

into one? Just sayin...:

View attachment 289297

Not "trying" to harmonize Scripture, but "rightly" harmonizing Scripture gets it right/alleviates confusion.
Rightly dividing/interpreting Scripture does not mean divorcing it and doing double-thinking.
It means following the lead of Jesus who harmonized/rightly divined GW in Matt. 4:6-7.

 

[rewriter]

Maybe look to Scripture; ref. to Saul Paul:

“Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. Then Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.””
‭‭Acts‬ ‭9‬:‭1‬-‭2‬, ‭13‬-‭14‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

You seem to miss the point. Who had the authority to give the High Priest permission to give Paul permission to bind any believers and transport them to Jerusalem. The Roman authorities who appointed the Jewish High Priest and from whom the Jewish High Priest derived his legal authority did not have that much authority, so they could not give it to the Jewish High Priest, so who did?

That scripture claims that Paul had the authority is all well and good, but who gave it to him as the chief priests did not have the authority to do so. they even had to ask for their vestments for Passover as they were held by the Romans.

 

[TruthDefender]

You seem to miss the point. Who had the authority to give the High Priest permission to give Paul permission to bind any believers and transport them to Jerusalem. The Roman authorities who appointed the Jewish High Priest and from whom the Jewish High Priest derived his legal authority did not have that much authority, so they could not give it to the Jewish High Priest, so who did?

That scripture claims that Paul had the authority is all well and good, but who gave it to him as the chief priests did not have the authority to do so. they even had to ask for their vestments for Passover as they were held by the Romans.

If it’s above and beyond what the Scripture tells us, then who cares; it’s not necessary for us to know?! It doesn’t matter!

Is this superfluous information pertinent to understanding the gospel? No.

 

[rewriter]

If it’s above and beyond what the Scripture tells us, then who cares; it’s not necessary for us to know?! It doesn’t matter!

Is this superfluous information pertinent to understanding the gospel? No.

What is the reason for scripture not telling us who provided the authorization, was hiding that information important or was it just a minor detail. How one answers that question makes a difference. What was Luke trying to say in Acts, as in the 1st century, the message of history was far more important than the actual facts, facts could be distorted to deliver the message, and no one would have objected. Individuals could go from great leader we need more like him to a total incompetent who should never lead anyone very rapidly, with solid "historical" evidence to back up whichever claim was being made.

Now if one takes the relatively recent (4-500 years old) attitude that history reports actual facts with hidden messages, one can easily misunderstand what is being said in ancient records. Are you reading Acts with a 1st century mindset (applicable when it was written) or a 21st century one (adding a new requirement on ancient writings)?

 

[TruthDefender]

What is the reason for scripture not telling us who provided the authorization, was hiding that information important or was it just a minor detail. How one answers that question makes a difference. What was Luke trying to say in Acts, as in the 1st century, the message of history was far more important than the actual facts, facts could be distorted to deliver the message, and no one would have objected.

Like I said, if He doesn’t tell us something then it is not important. There are plenty of things He doesn’t disclose; it’s not for us to know. As if we know everything that God knows; we are like children, knowing very little. Lol

Individuals could go from great leader we need more like him to a total incompetent who should never lead anyone very rapidly, with solid "historical" evidence to back up whichever claim was being made.

I have no clue what you’re trying to say here?

Now if one takes the relatively recent (4-500 years old) attitude that history reports actual facts with hidden messages, one can easily misunderstand what is being said in ancient records. Are you reading Acts with a 1st century mindset (applicable when it was written) or a 21st century one (adding a new requirement on ancient writings)?

The Bible is God inspired, God breathed, His word never changes!

If you’re looking to add to it, you might want to read Rev. 22, as a warning.

 

[rewriter]

Like I said, if He doesn’t tell us something then it is not important. There are plenty of things He doesn’t disclose; it’s not for us to know. As if we know everything that God knows; we are like children, knowing very little. Lol


I have no clue what you’re trying to say here?


The Bible is God inspired, God breathed, His word never changes!

If you’re looking to add to it, you might want to read Rev. 22, as a warning.

Knowing Revelation 22 l recognize exactly what it says. It says nothing about adding to scripture, it references only one specific work, that is Revelation. If it means anything else, then as soon as Revelation was added to the collection called "the Holy Bible", those who added it, as well as all those who follow that lead, are guilty.

Now on other points you have no idea what I am saying, yet I am referring to well-established historic records. As for the Bible being "God-inspired", that is based on a specific interpretation of a single word, and one done without true understanding. Why did Paul invent that specific word instead of using the more commonly used word?

Scripture not telling us something means that the something is unimportant is also an assumption, not proof of anything other than that scripture does not tell us that thing. It says nothing about what is ignored is significant or not. That conclusion is purely your assumption,

Your ignorance shows.

 

[TruthDefender]

Knowing Revelation 22 l recognize exactly what it says. It says nothing about adding to scripture, it references only one specific work, that is Revelation. If it means anything else, then as soon as Revelation was added to the collection called "the Holy Bible", those who added it, as well as all those who follow that lead, are guilty.

Now on other points you have no idea what I am saying, yet I am referring to well-established historic records. As for the Bible being "God-inspired", that is based on a specific interpretation of a single word, and one done without true understanding. Why did Paul invent that specific word instead of using the more commonly used word?

Scripture not telling us something means that the something is unimportant is also an assumption, not proof of anything other than that scripture does not tell us that thing. It says nothing about what is ignored is significant or not. That conclusion is purely your assumption,

Your ignorance shows.

You sound like you have a FAITH issue! You are so full of yourself that you have no room for belief in what God says. The ignorance is on you, friend!

Whatever Scripture that is given to you is torn apart by your unbelief. You disbelieve God’s word over believing in man’s philosophical ignorance.

 

[rewriter]

You sound like you have a FAITH issue! You are so full of yourself that you have no room for belief in what God says. The ignorance is on you, friend!

Whatever Scripture that is given to you is torn apart by your unbelief. You disbelieve God’s word over believing in man’s philosophical ignorance.

And you display two problems, one is an over eagerness to make baseless assumptions, and the other is simple ignorance. Do you know the latest possible date for writing Revelation if it was written all at one time? I know that many scholars suggest that it was written in three stages, widely separated in time, but that raises even more issues for you. And the latest possible date for a single writing of the work is a very hard date dictated by the work itself.

 

[ATG]

Oh really, I trust that you are aware that Paul specified that the problem was from the ethnarch of King Aretas. An ethnarch was a political official, second only to their associated king, even outranking a Tetrarch such as Antipas was. And there was only one King Aretas who had any authority in Damascus, and that was King Aretas of Nabataea, or Arabia Petra. Hence Paul is clearly identifying his persecutors as ARABS. Perhaps you need to review scripture and history.

You need to talk straight, without implying other things.

Paul was not persecuted in Arabia, nor driven from Arabia. He was persecuted in Syria at Damascus by Jews, with the help of the governor under Aretas.

And by the way, the Jewish High Priest derived all his authority from the Imperial Legate of Syria. an individual who in the 1st century CE had ZERO authority in Damascus, hence the Jewish High Priest also had ZERO authority there, so by whose authority was Paul going to arrest anyone?

Already answered.

The timeline of Paul between Acts and Galatians stands uncorrected. Separating the Scriptures from one another is false handling of the Scriptural record.

 

[ATG]

Just to make it ever clear, I don’t have a problem with Scripture, like many of you do. What I have a problem with is people’s so called misinterpretations/ their wresting of Scripture to fit their traditions.

Then show the error in the teaching from the Scriptures, rather than getting rid of certain Scripture you don't like. Especially not under the false cloak of 'translation'.

 

[ATG]

Separating Scripture from Scripture?

Precious friends, all I know is trying to "harmonize contradictory Scriptures" only causes
Confusion,

Presuming to teach the Bible by unbelief is confusion. There aren't any contradictions in Scripture.

Proving Bible inerrancy is by study and right context of the words.

 

[rewriter]

You need to talk straight, without implying other things.

Paul was not persecuted in Arabia, nor driven from Arabia. He was persecuted in Syria at Damascus by Jews, with the help of the governor under Aretas.


Already answered.

The timeline of Paul between Acts and Galatians stands uncorrected. Separating the Scriptures from one another is false handling of the Scriptural record.

Damascus was NOT in Syria in the 1st century, not was part of the 10 Free Cities and appears to have been administered by Nabataea as it does not appear as a Roman city until the exact same time as Nabataea ceased to be an independent nation and became fomally a Roman possession.

Now if you want to provide evidence for the Nabataeans, who were known to be antagonistic towards the Jews (multiple clashes between 15 BCE and the mid 30's CE) cooperating with the Jews against Paul, not an ambiguous scripture passage that contradicts other acknowledged events at the same time (Antipas was at war with Aretas for instance), we can consider the evidence. But claiming that an ambiguous account implies that two active enemies cooperated against an individual, when there is hard evidence that one side actively supported that individual (oops, you are not likely aware of that information that was formally released back in 2015), requires a lot more than a simple "I believe this is true" to make your point.

And please supply your evidence that Paul was not persecuted in, nor driven from, Arabia. Scripture merely states that he went there, not what occurred in the region.