dell12345 wrote:



> Acts 17:22-31 is a witness given by the Apostle Paul so that the men of
> Athens would know the true God. And Paul describes God as "Lord of heaven
> and earth, does not dwell in handmade temples". The point is, if you are
> IN A PLACE ALL THE TIME (OMNIPRESENT) then you DWELL in there. God DOES
> NOT DWELL in handmade temples.



> It is very clear that you are admitting that God and his Son, Jesus, are
> IN Satan, IN idols like Baal, in Unholy places. If you, Matthew can
> mislead other people, you cannot fool me. Number 14:42, Deut 31:17 stated
> that God "is not in YOUR midst". If God is not in the people's midst,
> then God is not in "ALL PLACES AT ALL TIMES".



> That also explains why Jesus said, "Our Father IN the HEAVENS". Not 'Our
> Father IN Everywhere". As Hab 2:20 stated "20 But Jehovah is IN his HOLY
> temple". Do you expect God to be IN an UNHOLY Temple?

So I can go into a church, or certainly any "pagan" church and commit
all manner of sin: muder, rape, theft and so on. God is not there, so
how could he know?



((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

Matthew Johnson wrote:

> In article <102.22.19.05.788643000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> >Somehow, claiming that "distinct parts" aren't individuals seems to be a
> >contradiction in terms.
>
> It isn't. You are confusing 'distinct' and 'individual'. They are NOT the
> same. The Trinity IS an example of this, where the three Persons are
> PERSONS, not 'individuals'.

We aren't God. The Church is made up of individuals (you, me, et. al.)
which form the Body.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

wrote in message
news:84CDB5DF-2633-A69A-CFF6-E54296492D4F@srcbs.org...
> Gary wrote:
> >
> > I would have expected you to either claim the Paul was in error and that
> > Luther did not so teach, or to at least address the point, and tell us
that
> > Luther was incorrect on this particular point.
> >
> Obviously, Luther was not infallible. In fact, there were many
> theological points which IMHO, he never really addressed and just
> defaulted to his original RC traditions. Luther got the ball rolling.
> He set minds in motion to consider what the Bible really taught, not
> what the "church" taught. It wasn't until Calvin, such a man of
> letters, came along that most biblical doctrines were so well developed
> and systematized, starting with the knowledge of God.
<