Christians, be honest

Originally posted by josephw
Suppose you tell me then. How does one get saved, and where in the bible does it say it?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here. It's just that I encounter many who profess to be Christians, and I don't second guess them, but they really are clueless when it comes to understanding the doctrine of salvation.

Even Satan can quote scripture. And unless y ...[text shortened]... lieving christian then I neither expect you to believe or understand what I'm talking about.

Then why bother to post on this board? Go look in the mirror and talk to yourself.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Then why bother to post on this board? Go look in the mirror and talk to yourself.

Don't ever try to tell me what to do, sonnyboy.

Originally posted by frogstomp
A born again person is not the opposite of a sinner. Of course, there are no born again people, either its do the works and the seeking or get lost.

Not the opposite I agree, just a different source within.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
Two Gospels give almost identical accounts. Luke has Pilate sending Jesus before Herod. John has Pilate and Jesus engaging in a somewhat extended discourse. If you are going to insist that the first two simply didn't bother to mention such important details, go ahead.

Happens all the time when several people are giving details to an
event, the descriptions are not always the same. This isn't four
different events recorded movies where the only difference is going
to be the camera angle, they are people sharing what occurred
according to their prospective, and the telling is for who they are
writing to. They are hitting those points they want, and not those
they think are important for the reasons they have.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Happens all the time when several people are giving details to an
event, the descriptions are not always the same. This isn't four
different events recorded movies where the only difference is going
to be the camera angle, they are people sharing what occurred
according to their prospective, and the telling is for who they are
writing to. They are hitt ...[text shortened]... ose points they want, and not those
they think are important for the reasons they have.
Kelly

That's just stupid. If we had 4 military histories of Waterloo, we wouldn't expect three of them to leave out the massive charge of the French cavalry. And if only one had Napoleon personally charging to the front and bayonetting Wellington, we'd be skeptical of that claim. I guess all logical rules go out the window when you're talking about the Bible. If 4 people gave radically different versions of the same event, we'd assume that some had screwed up a few of the details. But, of course, since the Bible can't have an error, the simplest and most logical conclusion is foreclosed.

The idea that a Roman governor would send a prisoner to a subordinate local ruler and that ruler would dare send the prisoner back is absurd.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not the opposite I agree, just a different source within.
Kelly

same stuff within

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's just stupid. If we had 4 military histories of Waterloo, we wouldn't expect three of them to leave out the massive charge of the French cavalry. And if only one had Napoleon personally charging to the front and bayonetting Wellington, we'd be skeptical of that claim. I guess all logical rules go out the window when you're talking about the Bible. ...[text shortened]... r to a subordinate local ruler and that ruler would dare send the prisoner back is absurd.

You make me doubt your a lawyer.
Kelly

Originally posted by frogstomp
same stuff within

Nope, spiritually speaking that is not the case.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You make me doubt your a lawyer.
Kelly

It's NOYFB what I do for a living.

I see you again have no defense for your previous brain dead post. No surprise.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Nope, spiritually speaking that is not the case.
Kelly

Spiritually speaking, that is precisely the case.

Once one realizes that the ego-construct (the conditioned “somebody-self” ) is just that, what was always there shines forth unobstructed.

Originally posted by vistesd
Spiritually speaking, that is precisely the case.

Once one realizes that the ego-construct (the conditioned “somebody-self” ) is just that, what was always there shines forth unobstructed.

Man! It's like the 60's all over again. 🙂