mrhodes_47@earthlink.net wrote:


> On Mon, 9 May 2005 20:04:24 +0000 (UTC), Douglas Cox
> wrote:

>>You apparently misunderstand Paul's teaching. Sad. Because we are all
>>in need of God's grace.

> It is not sufficient to continually present oneself to God, saying "I
> need your grace, thank you God" and expect Him to be content with that
> 'sorrow' (or act of it) as being sufficient.

So you don't understand the what Paul says about grace. Here you
show that you think that it means we can offer our "sorrow" as
propitiation for sin and that God would be content with this
offering.

That is not the teaching. God is content with Jesus' sacrifice.
(Who wouldn't be?) You can't understand the doctrine of grace
if you have to re-couch it in terms of us doing something
to satisfy God's wrath.




> Some refuse to accept Revelation to John. But I especially appreciate
> His message to the churches. His words demand character,

But at no time does he "demand" character as a prerequisite to
salvation. Character is a result of salvation.

Bart

((( 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. )))

>LOL. Oh really? So the "vessel" that Peter saw "descending like a
great
>linen sheet...in it were all sorts of four-footed creatures and
>creeping things of the earth and birds of heaven" at Acts 10:11, 12
>truly existed? You really believe these animals truly descended in
>fleshly form from heaven during this vision? Matthew you are having a
>vision of your own here. You are simply trying to hold onto a
incorrect
>theory here.

>Actually, I think Bart's response to this was good enough.

What you "think" hold little weight here. The Biblical accounts trump
your opinion.

>James & peter "saw" a vision of Moses and Elijah.

>That would be correct, if you understood the right sense of the word
>'vision'

LOL! Where's your evidence? You quote one lexico, which does not deny
that one of the "definitions" of "horama" is "supernatural vision". I
have given you a definition from lexicons PLUS Biblical proof- actual
bonafide passages where the word "horama" is used. ALL supporting the
use of the word as "supernatural vision". Where is your evidence? All
you do is say I'm wrong. Any objective jury would have ZERO respect for
your testimony. Zero.

Here are Biblical examples of "horama" AGAIN. You keep ignoring them
and pretending they don't exist but they do.

If you check the usage of "horama" (the very word used at Matthew 17:9
concerning what Peter and James saw. You