Paul created Calvanism!!!

[Simplelogic]

Infants? You skipped that part.


You're right; you don't have to prove anything to me. I really didn't expect you to. I'd have been surprised if you could, but it really only matters what you've proven for yourself. If you are attributing evil to the Most High, that is your problem. But if I am the one attributing evil to the Most High, it is my problem. So don't take offense, just heed the warning and take the suggestion. Test the words. Test the spirits. Simple enough.

Do you really think that an infant dying means that it is condemned?

 

[Simplelogic]

So this thread has veered from the OP. I have established that Paul and Paul alone is responsible for the horrible doctrine of Calvanism. I am will to discuss any verse in the Hebrew scriptures which people think prove this doctrine.

The door is still open.

 

[Yes]

So God chooses Jacob and you make the giant leap to this confirming the timelessness of YHVH?

That is right. You have not proven me wrong.

 

[Yes]

So this thread has veered from the OP. I have established that Paul and Paul alone is responsible for the horrible doctrine of Calvanism. I am will to discuss any verse in the Hebrew scriptures which people think prove this doctrine.

The door is still open.

You are blaming Paul for "unstable and ignorant people" (AS PETER SAYS) distorting what he (Paul) says---as they do THE OTHER SCRIPTURES. It is NOT just what Paul says that these people distort, it is other scriptures too.

2 Peter 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[Sleeppy]

Do you really think that an infant dying means that it is condemned?

Not simply dying, but being killed. Moses specifically commands his soldiers to kill the male infants, and just about everyone else, excluding the virgin women. That's the definition of condemnation. Obviously infants have no faults of their own responsibility, and so they were not condemned to death of their own fault.

If you see no problem with this-- that's your right. But I sincerely hope you aren't put you in a position to reenact something like this.

 

[Simplelogic]

Not simply dying, but being killed. Moses specifically commands his soldiers to kill the male infants, and just about everyone else, excluding the virgin women. That's the definition of condemnation. Obviously infants have no faults of their own responsibility, and so they were not condemned to death of their own fault.

If you see no problem with this-- that's your right. But I sincerely hope you aren't put you in a position to reenact something like this.

I have put myself into their situation many times. I also have toiled over these verses in the past. Thankfully there is a logical answer. Do you have any idea what the Nephelim tried to do with the gene pool?

 

[Simplelogic]

You are blaming Paul for "unstable and ignorant people" (AS PETER SAYS) distorting what he (Paul) says---as they do THE OTHER SCRIPTURES. It is NOT just what Paul says that these people distort, it is other scriptures too.

2 Peter 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Second Peter: Reference to Paul

 

[Simplelogic]

That is right. You have not proven me wrong.

Okie dokie

 

[Sleeppy]

I have put myself into their situation many times. I also have toiled over these verses in the past. Thankfully there is a logical answer. Do you have any idea what the Nephelim tried to do with the gene pool?

If it had anything to do with genes, would they have kept the women?

 

[Simplelogic]

If it had anything to do with genes, would they have kept the women?

Huh??

 

[Yes]

Second Peter: Reference to Paul

Speak to me here what you want to say, in your words. I do not want to click on links.

 

[Sleeppy]

Huh??

Straightforward question.

 

[Simplelogic]

Speak to me here what you want to say, in your words. I do not want to click on links.

Peter didn't write 2 Peter.

 

[Simplelogic]

Straightforward question.

There were many tribes which the Israelites conquered where they were not allowed to kill the women/children. The few exceptions were for primarily Amalakites, and Caananites who had been breading with fallen angels and become evil human/angel hybrids.

 

[Sleeppy]

There were many tribes which the Israelites conquered where they were not allowed to kill the women/children. The few exceptions were for primarily Amalakites, and Caananites who had been breading with fallen angels and become evil human/angel hybrids.

This ignores the question. Why keep the females?

 

[Yes]

Peter didn't write 2 Peter.

2 Peter is the written Word of God.

 

[Simplelogic]

2 Peter is the written Word of God.

ok…this is why I sent the link. Many Pauline scholars have admitted that 2 Peter was not legitimate. Martin Luther was the first to make this argument against 2 Peter. There are many significant problems with believing that Peter actually wrote this epistle. One of the most obvious ones is that Peter didn't even spell his name correctly in the opening!! Even though he did spell his name write in 1 Peter.

 

[Simplelogic]

This ignores the question. Why keep the females?

I am talking about the instances were they didn't keep the females…so I am not so sure your point.

 

[Sleeppy]

I am talking about the instances were they didn't keep the females…so I am not so sure your point.

We were talking about Numbers 31, not the other instances. Male infants were condemned to death with no fault of their own. -- You mentioned earlier that you toiled over this, but apparently have no problem with reenacting Moses' command if it came down to it. You also admitted that God does not punish the innocent along with the wicked. You're being inconsistent- and possibly dishonest.

 

[Simplelogic]

We were talking about Numbers 31, not the other instances. Male infants were condemned to death with no fault of their own. -- You mentioned earlier that you toiled over this, but apparently have no problem with reenacting Moses' command if it came down to it. You also admitted that God does not punish the innocent along with the wicked. You're being inconsistent- and possibly dishonest.

I wasn't sure which text you were talking about. Thanks for questioning my honesty though.