The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel

Pedrito · Jan 24, 2019

==============================================================================================

Lämmchen in Post #39:

But you haven't told us the clear definition (YOUR clear definition) yet of what the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel is. Please start with that.

And in Post #40 ImaginaryDay2 offers the point that there has been no response at all to the fact that the claimed support for the teaching that an independent conscious “soul” survives human death, is false. He then offers the idea that because there has been no response, there has been no rejection.

However, the silence, a deliberate refusal to acknowledge that truth, is itself a rejection of that truth, as is obvious to any Reader.

I personally am not willing to let God’s Precious Simple Original Apostolic Gospel as a whole, be subjected to similar dishonesty. (So we’ll look at one doctrine of Christendom at a time, to make any and all rejection of God’s Holy Word, plainly obvious. Thus will the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel be unveiled step by step.)

==============================================================================================

Long term members of CH will recall that instead of pressing my ideas, I have consistently encouraged people to read God’s Holy Bible as it was written. That was so they could find out for themselves what God’s revealed truth actually is. I did not feel the need to “guide” them regarding what they would find. People who undertake the task honestly, end up with the same understanding.

Besides, it was others who triggered the investigation of an independent conscious “soul” that supposedly survives human death. They did that by posting untruths (absolutely proven untruths) about the existence of extensive and identifiable Bible support for that idea.

Consider: False statements regarding God’s Holy Word, the Bible, were deliberately made in support of an unscriptural doctrine. And the cover-up continues. And all the while, the God of Truth is watching, and (metaphorically speaking) taking notes.

==============================================================================================

We’ll look at another teaching/belief/doctrine that has come up in at least one other CH Topic, next time.

==============================================================================================
==============================================================================================
==============================================================================================

(Readers might be amused to skim read other attempts to draw attention away from the highlighted unwelcome truth, presented below. It is entirely optional. The major point has been made above.)

==============================================================================================
==============================================================================================
==============================================================================================

For the optional amusement of Readers, here are a few more attempts to draw attention away from God’s Holy Bible, and what it teaches.

Post #30:

Soul sleep & Annihilation of the soul either at death or after the last judgement are doctrines taught in books like The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers by Leroy Edwin Froom and also in What Does The Bible Really Teach by anonymous...

The terms “Soul sleep” and “Annihilation of the soul”, both imply that there is an independent, conscious “soul” that survives after human death. Yet as has been demonstrated, the claimed Scriptural support for that idea has proven to be nothing more than a fabrication.

Post #33:

It is probably easier just to deny that Scripture says X than to prove that the verses which affirm X do not exist.:

Unfortunately for that Poster, people other than I, including that Poster himself, have already demonstrated multiple times that the verses he is referring to, do not exist. (Because those people have been totally and absolutely unable to present those verses for review. Nor has anyone else been able to, in fact.)

Post #34:

...Unless we consider the term as understood by you, no biblical evidence for/against can be presented...

Really? So no Biblical evidence can be presented regarding a particular belief, until a nominated person’s understanding of that particular belief (“the term”) is known. Really?

(If I responded to that with something like, “how deliberately dishonest”, or “how stupid”, could that be twisted into an accusation of flaming or discourtesy? I need to know before I actually do.)

The only impediment to the claimed support scriptures being presented, is their lack of existence. So let them be presented (if they exist). Without further ado.

==============================================================================================[/B]

We could also consider, from the same Poster in Post #40, his response to my “Shouldn’t our loyalty be to God’s Holy Word, as opposed to organisations we belong to”. He left off the continuation “and things we want to believe?”. Here is his response:

Are the two opposed? Show it.

It has already been shown. The “Sola Scriptura” organisation he formally identifies with, holds a doctrine for which the claimed Scriptural support does not exist.

Here I agree. What we want to believe (and, perhaps, this would have bearing on the emotional attachment mentioned earlier), and what is shown in scripture - if they are opposed - should be thrown out.

So why not throw out the teaching of a conscious “soul” that supposedly survives human death? The claimed Scriptural support for it has been proven a number of times now, to not exist. It never did exist. Why continue to evade the simple admission of that significant truth?

Do people really understand just Who it is that is watching them, and (metaphorically speaking) taking notes?

==============================================================================================

Lamb · Jan 24, 2019

What is your definition please of "The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel"? You still haven't given it to us.

Wilhemena · Jan 24, 2019

Lämmchen said:
What is your definition please of "The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel"? You still haven't given it to us.

He did define it in his post which is #5 where he said The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel was (and still is) “the faith once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). It was complete. It needed no addition or modification.

Lamb · Jan 24, 2019

Wilhemena said:
He did define it in his post which is #5 where he said The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel was (and still is) “the faith once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). It was complete. It needed no addition or modification.

That's still very vague.

Pedrito · Jan 24, 2019

==============================================================================================

As a quick but important aside:

Lämmchen in Post #42:

What is your definition please of "The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel"? You still haven't given it to us.

Could it be that there are two very good reasons for my not presenting my understanding of "The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel" as a whole?

1. What if my understanding is a little off on one or two points? I would hate to accidentally present any incorrectness. It is much more wholesome for us to check things out together (and learn together).

2. Could one of my motives be to try to protect people from potential, but well-deserved judgement? If "The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel" is indeed God’s truth (the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3)), what will be the fate of those “Christians” who summarily reject it? There are already those in CH who refuse to accept, and even try to hide, God’s Holy Revelation regarding the unscripturality of an independent conscious “soul” that survives human death. Could those people be in a degree of trouble already?

What if "The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel" shows up other doctrines of Christendom that are not based on Holy Scripture, and all of those false but emotionally important beliefs are revealed together – all at the one time? What kind of knee-jerk reaction would that invoke? And how much trouble might the knee-jerkers be in for rejecting multiple aspects of God’s Holy Revelation – for rejecting aspects of God’s Holy Revelation to us – for rejecting God’s Holy Revelation to them?

Most “Christians” are so intent on defending their own little religious worlds, that they overlook the broader implications of their actions.

==============================================================================================

By learning about "The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel" together, truth by truth as revealed by God, at least people will able to take personal responsibility regarding each item individually. They will be able to weigh the risk of rejecting Holy Scripture – rejecting God’s Holy Scripture original teaching by original teaching. They will be able to weigh the cumulative risk point by point, as each distortion that has been added over time, is clearly identified and openly revealed.

Isn’t that a much, much better idea?

==============================================================================================

Lamb · Jan 24, 2019

Pedrito said:
==============================================================================================

As a quick but important aside:

Lämmchen in Post #42:

Could it be that there are two very good reasons for my not presenting my understanding of "The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel" as a whole?

1. What if my understanding is a little off on one or two points? I would hate to accidentally present any incorrectness. It is much more wholesome for us to check things out together (and learn together).

2. Could one of my motives be to try to protect people from potential, but well-deserved judgement? If "The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel" is indeed God’s truth (the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3)), what will be the fate of those “Christians” who summarily reject it? There are already those in CH who refuse to accept, and even try to hide, God’s Holy Revelation regarding the unscripturality of an independent conscious “soul” that survives human death. Could those people be in a degree of trouble already?

What if "The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel" shows up other doctrines of Christendom that are not based on Holy Scripture, and all of those false but emotionally important beliefs are revealed together – all at the one time? What kind of knee-jerk reaction would that invoke? And how much trouble might the knee-jerkers be in for rejecting multiple aspects of God’s Holy Revelation – for rejecting aspects of God’s Holy Revelation to us – for rejecting God’s Holy Revelation to them?

Most “Christians” are so intent on defending their own little religious worlds, that they overlook the broader implications of their actions.

==============================================================================================

By learning about "The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel" together, truth by truth as revealed by God, at least people will able to take personal responsibility regarding each item individually. They will be able to weigh the risk of rejecting Holy Scripture – rejecting God’s Holy Scripture original teaching by original teaching. They will be able to weigh the cumulative risk point by point, as each distortion that has been added over time, is clearly identified and openly revealed.

Isn’t that a much, much better idea?

==============================================================================================

So you refuse to give a direct definition?

Pedrito · Jan 25, 2019

==============================================================================================

Another quick but important aside.

(But all the delaying tricks in the world will not prevent us from investigating the next doctrine of Christendom in the light of Holy Scripture – to see if it was part of the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel.)

Lämmchen in Post #46:

So you refuse to give a direct definition?

As clearly explained in Post #45:

There are members of CH who have proven unwilling to accept the teaching of God’s Holy Scripture when it shows personally important doctrines to be unscriptural. (An undeniable proof of that is the refusal of various CH members to acknowledge that the references claimed to exist (in support of a conscious “soul” that survives human death) do not exist at all.)

The rejection of what God teaches in His Holy Word, the Bible, carries consequences. (Might those consequences be defined in the Holy Bible as well, if one cares to look?) So does the addition of beliefs that God did not include in His “faith once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3))

A rejection of the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel, if indeed the Scriptures defining it show even more cherished beliefs to be unscriptural, would result in even more serious consequences.

==============================================================================================

Personally, I do not wish to expose people to that risk.

Therefore, I am not prepared to engage in what might end up being (as Jesus expressed it) casting pearls before tramplers.

I don’t think He would want it that way, either.

Much, much better to learn step by step, together. As I hope we will be permitted to do.

==============================================================================================

ImaginaryDay2 · Jan 25, 2019

Pedrito said:
...Therefore, I am not prepared to engage in what might end up being (as Jesus expressed it) casting pearls before tramplers...

I figured not. Thank you for being honest. As for sparing us any supposed trauma from exposing our emotional attachment to treasured doctrinal bedtime stories, thank you; however we are all grown-up's who are most capable of eating solid food.

Lamb · Jan 25, 2019

Pedrito said:
==============================================================================================

Another quick but important aside.

(But all the delaying tricks in the world will not prevent us from investigating the next doctrine of Christendom in the light of Holy Scripture – to see if it was part of the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel.)

Lämmchen in Post #46:

As clearly explained in Post #45:

There are members of CH who have proven unwilling to accept the teaching of God’s Holy Scripture when it shows personally important doctrines to be unscriptural. (An undeniable proof of that is the refusal of various CH members to acknowledge that the references claimed to exist (in support of a conscious “soul” that survives human death) do not exist at all.)

The rejection of what God teaches in His Holy Word, the Bible, carries consequences. (Might those consequences be defined in the Holy Bible as well, if one cares to look?) So does the addition of beliefs that God did not include in His “faith once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3))

A rejection of the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel, if indeed the Scriptures defining it show even more cherished beliefs to be unscriptural, would result in even more serious consequences.

==============================================================================================

Personally, I do not wish to expose people to that risk.

Therefore, I am not prepared to engage in what might end up being (as Jesus expressed it) casting pearls before tramplers.

I don’t think He would want it that way, either.

Much, much better to learn step by step, together. As I hope we will be permitted to do.

==============================================================================================

Again you refuse to explain what your definition is of The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel. Readers, be aware of this.

Wilhemena · Jan 25, 2019

Lämmchen said:
That's still very vague.

Indeed.

Pedrito · Jan 25, 2019

==============================================================================================

The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel

==============================================================================================

The Age of Accountability/Responsibility/Reason/Danger/Etc.

Before I start, let me advise Readers that a separate Post will address former comments made by others.

Some churches teach that an unbaptised infant (that so tragically suffers death) has a different fate awaiting it than would have been the case had it died as an unbelieving adult. Those churches, whether they are willing to accept the fact or not, have an inherent Age of Accountability/Responsibility/Reason/Danger/Etc. within their beliefs. Some of those churches try to deny that fact by stating (or implying) that they don’t have a fixed age of accountability/responsibility/reason/danger/etc. But the ruse is easily seen through.

Self-labelled “Evangelical” churches are more forthcoming. They openly admit that there is an age at which they consider infant protection from Hell (my descriptive terminology) to no longer apply. Some of those churches believe that the age depends on the individual. Others state that a certain fixed age applies to all. For instance, a “Church of Christ” in the city where I grew up, set that age at 14.

(Actually and disturbingly, I have never been able to find out what that set age actually means – does it mean the time of birth on the anniversary of birth, or one second before the time of birth on the following year’s anniversary of birth, or one second past midnight on the date of the anniversary of birth, or one second before midnight on that date? And I have yet to have explained, what happens when someone born on the 29th day of February, does not have a birthday in the critical year set by their church for them. Nor have I ever been given the precise, God-given definition that must exist for the variable age.)

==============================================================================================

In at least one other thread (which I can probably track down if necessary), pertinent scriptures supporting the idea of an age of accountability/responsibility/reason/danger/etc., were conspicuous in their absence.

So, in the interest of finding out what teachings/beliefs were actually part of “the faith once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3), I request both on my behalf, and on behalf of other interested Parties, that all pertinent Scripture that people are aware of on this subject, be presented for our careful consideration.

And I thank potential contributors in advance.

==============================================================================================

ImaginaryDay2 · Jan 26, 2019

Unsubscribing

Lamb · Jan 26, 2019

Pedrito said:
==============================================================================================

The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel
==============================================================================================

The Age of Accountability/Responsibility/Reason/Danger/Etc.

Before I start, let me advise Readers that a separate Post will address former comments made by others.

Some churches teach that an unbaptised infant (that so tragically suffers death) has a different fate awaiting it than would have been the case had it died as an unbelieving adult. Those churches, whether they are willing to accept the fact or not, have an inherent Age of Accountability/Responsibility/Reason/Danger/Etc. within their beliefs. Some of those churches try to deny that fact by stating (or implying) that they don’t have a fixed age of accountability/responsibility/reason/danger/etc. But the ruse is easily seen through.

Self-labelled “Evangelical” churches are more forthcoming. They openly admit that there is an age at which they consider infant protection from Hell (my descriptive terminology) to no longer apply. Some of those churches believe that the age depends on the individual. Others state that a certain fixed age applies to all. For instance, a “Church of Christ” in the city where I grew up, set that age at 14.

(Actually and disturbingly, I have never been able to find out what that set age actually means – does it mean the time of birth on the anniversary of birth, or one second before the time of birth on the following year’s anniversary of birth, or one second past midnight on the date of the anniversary of birth, or one second before midnight on that date? And I have yet to have explained, what happens when someone born on the 29th day of February, does not have a birthday in the critical year set by their church for them. Nor have I ever been given the precise, God-given definition that must exist for the variable age.)

==============================================================================================

In at least one other thread (which I can probably track down if necessary), pertinent scriptures supporting the idea of an age of accountability/responsibility/reason/danger/etc., were conspicuous in their absence.

So, in the interest of finding out what teachings/beliefs were actually part of “the faith once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3), I request both on my behalf, and on behalf of other interested Parties, that all pertinent Scripture that people are aware of on this subject, be presented for our careful consideration.

And I thank potential contributors in advance.

==============================================================================================

Stating what your definition ISN'T is not giving a definition.

If I asked you for a definition of an orange and you tell me, "Well, it's not a banana and it's never a grape so you should start figuring out what's left to know what an orange is." That's not telling anyone anything.

Pedrito · Jan 30, 2019

==============================================================================================

The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel

==============================================================================================

ImaginaryDay2 (Post #52):

Unsubscribing

I deem it sad that it was the person who actually started this thread, and the person who stated just a short while ago (Post #48): “As for sparing us any supposed trauma from exposing our emotional attachment to treasured doctrinal bedtime stories, thank you; however we are all grown-up's who are most capable of eating solid food.”, who said that.

==============================================================================================

All that has happened so far in this thread with respect to identifying “the faith once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3), is:
(1) We have found that Christ died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3);
(2) We have found that He was buried (1 Corinthians 15:4);
(3) We have found that He rose again the third day (1 Corinthians 15:4).
(4) We have also found that one central doctrine of Christendom in general is unscriptural:
--- That being the teaching that a conscious “soul” survives human death – the claimed Scriptural support for that is non-existent;
(5) We have issued a call for Scripture in support of another common teaching of Christendom:
--- That being the existence of an age of accountability/responsibility/reason/danger/etc.

That “faith once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3) is by definition The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel, the subject of this thread.

We are simply in the process of finding out what God’s Holy Bible tells us that “the faith once and for all delivered to the saints” is. We are sensibly doing so belief by belief, seeing what that God-given Faith actually did contain and what it didn’t.

Of course, finding out that doctrines one cherishes are at odds with God’s Holy Bible, can be highly distressing. Is that not so?

==============================================================================================

Lamb · Jan 30, 2019

Pedrito said:
We are simply in the process of finding out what God’s Holy Bible tells us that “the faith once and for all delivered to the saints” is. We are sensibly doing so belief by belief, seeing what that God-given Faith actually did contain and what it didn’t.

Why don't you just state it outright since you make the claim of already knowing it? We don't need to hear what it ISN'T.

atpollard · Feb 1, 2019

Arsenios said:
So now you too can give the Gospel of Christ while standing on one foot in less than 10 seconds!
And Pedrito too...
'Tsnotso hard now, is it?

Arsenios

Ooo, ooo ... can I play, too?

THE BAD NEWS:
[Rom 1:18-21 NASB] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

[Rom 3:10-12 NASB] as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

THE GOOD NEWS:
[Jhn 3:16-18 NASB] "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

[Rom 10:8-11 NASB] But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

THE BIG PICTURE:
[Eph 2:1-10 NASB] And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

(I may have gone over my 10 seconds ...

)

Pedrito · Feb 4, 2019

==============================================================================================

The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel

==============================================================================================

I think we should all thank atpollard for the Scripture references he submitted in Post #56 with respect to aspects of The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel. They are valuable references with respect to defining teachings that that Original Gospel contained.

An attempt will be made here to summarised the teachings contained in those verses, in the style of the growing summary (point by point) already presented. If the attempt is deemed deficient in any way, I am open to, and invite, polite correction. Once this summary reaches its final version, these points will be incorporated into the growing list.

==============================================================================================

- Everyone needs the saving grace of God; not having God’s formal Law is no excuse – Romans 1:18-21, Romans 3:10-12, Ephesians 2:1-3;
- All believers were once dead in trespasses and sins – Ephesians 2:1;
- God is rich in mercy-- Ephesians 2:4;
- God has a great love with which He loved us – Ephesians 2:4;
- God loved the world greatly – John 3:16;
- God gave His only Son – John 3:16;
- Whoever believes in God’s Son will not perish, but have eternal life – John 3:16;
---- That belief is defined as confessing with the mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believing in one’s heart that God raised Him from the dead – Romans 10:10;
- God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world – John 3:17;
- God sent the Son into the world so that the world might be saved through Him – John 3:17;
- He (or she) who believes in Him ( the Son of God) is not judged – John 3:18;
- He (or she) who does not believe in Him ( the Son of God) stands judged already – John 3:18;
- He (or she) who so believes in the Son of God will not be dishonoured, disgraced or put to shame – Romans 8:11;
---- Referring to e.g. Isaiah 49:23, Joel 2:27;
- Believers are saved by faith – Ephesians 2:5,8;
- Salvation is a gift from God – Ephesians 2:9;
- Salvtion is not based on works – Ephesians 2:9;
- He has made believers alive together with Christ – Ephesians 2:5;
- God has raised us up with Christ – Ephesians 2:6;
- God seated us with Jesus in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus – Ephesians 2:6;
---- (We may need to clarify if that means a present status, or a future condition:
------- The Aorist tense of verbs is sometimes quite correctly translated as future in English;
------- We are obviously not residing in the heavenlies yet; I don’t think I could post into CH from there);
- God’s purpose pertained to ages yet to come – Ephesians 2:7;
- God’s purpose was to show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus – Ephesians 2:7;
- We are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works – Ephesians 2:10;
- That God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them – Ephesians 2:10;
---- (We may need to clarify if it is the believers or the good works that are being referred to here).

Is that summary acceptable?

==============================================================================================

Pedrito · Jun 13, 2019

======================================================================================

The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel

======================================================================================

Lämmchen (Post #55):

Why don't you just state it outright since you make the claim of already knowing it? We don't need to hear what it ISN'T.

Actually, we do need to know what it isn’t, because that shows up the doctrines of Christendom that aren’t part of the original.

As that Poster has elected to ignore, I gave two very good reasons for not presenting my understanding of The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel in Post #45:

1. What if my understanding is a little off on one or two points? I would hate to accidentally present any incorrectness. It is much more wholesome for us to check things out together (and learn together).

2. Could one of my motives be to try to protect people from potential, but well-deserved judgement? If "The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel" is indeed God’s truth (the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3)), what will be the fate of those “Christians” who summarily reject it? There are already those in CH who refuse to accept, and even try to hide, God’s Holy Revelation regarding the unscripturality of an independent conscious “soul” that survives human death. Could those people be in a degree of trouble already?

The Poster above still has not acknowledged that the claimed Biblical support as documented, for that supposed conscious “soul” that survives human death, does not exist. (Did Readers know that Martin Luther himself stated and believed until his death that the human soul (as he understood it to be) remained unconscious until the resurrection? Please check for yourselves.)

When a person finds out that doctrines they cherish are at odds with God’s Holy Bible, won’t that naturally result in a high degree of discomfort?

======================================================================================

I now reissue the request that all pertinent Scripture that people are aware of on the subject of an age of accountability/responsibility/reason/danger/etc., be presented for our careful consideration.

======================================================================================

Lamb · Jun 13, 2019

Pedrito said:
======================================================================================

The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel
======================================================================================

Lämmchen (Post #55):

Actually, we do need to know what it isn’t, because that shows up the doctrines of Christendom that aren’t part of the original.

As that Poster has elected to ignore, I gave two very good reasons for not presenting my understanding of The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel in Post #45:

The Poster above still has not acknowledged that the claimed Biblical support as documented, for that supposed conscious “soul” that survives human death, does not exist. (Did Readers know that Martin Luther himself stated and believed until his death that the human soul (as he understood it to be) remained unconscious until the resurrection? Please check for yourselves.)

When a person finds out that doctrines they cherish are at odds with God’s Holy Bible, won’t that naturally result in a high degree of discomfort?

======================================================================================

I now reissue the request that all pertinent Scripture that people are aware of on the subject of an age of accountability/responsibility/reason/danger/etc., be presented for our careful consideration.

======================================================================================

Lutheran's don't believe everything Martin Luther ever believed in. You do know his beliefs changed on things over the course of his life, don't you? So I don't know why you think that it's part of your argument to state what Luther believed.

So you gave your fears about presenting your views which shows that the conversation probably has ended here? If we don't know your views the thread really doesn't make much sense.

JRT · Jun 13, 2019

MoreCoffee said:
You could try this passage, it is mainly about the resurrection

1 Corinthians 15:1-11 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, [SUP]2[/SUP] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast--unless you believed in vain. [SUP]3[/SUP] For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, [SUP]4[/SUP] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, [SUP]5[/SUP] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. [SUP]6[/SUP] Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. [SUP]7[/SUP] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. [SUP]8[/SUP] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. [SUP]9[/SUP] For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. [SUP]10[/SUP] But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. [SUP]11[/SUP] Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Paul seems somewhat confused here. In verse 5 he appears to Cephas (Peter) and then to the twelve. When "the twelve" are mentioned in scripture the reference is always to the twelve apostles. But by that time Judas had committed suicide. Sadly Paul did not know of the "betrayal" because he never mentions it.

The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel

Well-known member

God's Lil Lamb

Well-known member

God's Lil Lamb

Well-known member

God's Lil Lamb

Well-known member

Well-known member

God's Lil Lamb

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

God's Lil Lamb

Well-known member

God's Lil Lamb

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

God's Lil Lamb

Well-known member