In article , basicallyblues says...
>
>
>
> >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.

No, the Biblical account trumps _your_ opinion. It upholds mine.
>
>>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?

All over this thread. Haven't you been paying attention?

> You quote one lexico, which does not deny
>that one of the "definitions" of "horama" is
"supernatural vision".

Whereas when -you- quote lexicons, you conveniently omit the lemma that shows
how wrong you are. It is pretty obvious that you do not know what you are doing.

> I
>have given you a definition from lexicons

Conveniently omitting the lemma that shows how wrong you are.

> PLUS Biblical proof-

So you imagine. But you have done no such thing.

> actual
>bonafide passages where the word "horama" is used. ALL supporting the
>use of the word as "supernatural vision".

But this is where you are so sadly mistaken. NONE of the passages supports you.
Only one even has the _appearance_ of supporting you.

> Where is your evidence? All
>you do is say I'm wrong. Any objective jury would have ZERO respect for
>your testimony. Zero.

Not true. Any objective jury would throw you out as a witness after detecting
your fraudulent citation of the lexicon on "monogenhs", where you
conveniently
omitted the lemma that shows how wrong you are.

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

I didn't ignore them. It is you who ignore that what they saw, really was there.

>If you check the usage of "horama" (the very word used at Matthew 17:9
>concerning what Peter and James saw. You will clearly see- or actually
>an honest-hearted, objective person will see-
>the word is used as a supernatural vision.
>
>"There was a certain disciple in Damscas named Ananias and the Lord
>said to him in a vision (hORAMA); "Here I am Lord!"" (Acts 9:10)

And do you deny that when Ananias saw the Lord in this 'horama', he really saw
the Lord? I doubt that even you would sink that low. SO this citation supports
me, not you. For just as Ananias really did truly see the Lord in this vision,
so the Apostles really saw Elijah and Moses in the glory shining from Christ's
Transfiguration.

>Matthew 17:9 Vision (horama) = supernatural vision
>Acts 9:12 Vision (horama) = supernatural vision
>Acts 10:3 vision (horama) = supernatural vision.
>Acts 10:17 same
>Acts 10:19 same
>Acts 11:5 same
>Acts 12:9 same
>Acts 16:9,10 same
>Acts 18:9 same
>Acts 26:19 same
>Rev. 9:17 same

But none of these support you. Just like the Acts 9:10 example I detailed above,
in each 'horama', they really did see what was really there. That is why none of
these citations supports you.

>>No. This is where you go beyond the text of Scripture to force it into
>your
>>narrow-minded theology.
>
>Where is your evidence Matthew?

As I said, all over this thread.

> I showed actual Biblical proof.

No, you did no such thing. Your so-called 'proof' is proof only of your
obstinacy in misreading Scripture, twisting its words to force Scripture to say
what _you_ want it to say.

> All you
>offer is Matthew's baseless, puerile opinions.

Your "objective jury" will find that it is your opinions that are
baseless and
puerile. That is why you have to cover your tracks by quoting only the lexicon
lemmas that support your opinion, dishonestly leaving out the one that shows how
wrong you are.

>>And as I have pointed out before, Elijah, like Enoch did not taste
>death. >So no, he was NEVER in the grave.
>
>At Hebrews 11:5 Enoch is listed among the xamples of men who had great
>faith (verses 4-11). IN verse 13 the Bible says "All these died in
>faith...." Enoch is included among those who died. Enoch died. Elijah
>died. Both were in Sheol- the grave of mankind.

Now you have shown yet again who is being puerile. Hebrewss 11:5 _clearly_ says:

   By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death;
   and he was not found, because God had taken him.
   Now before he was taken he was attested as having
   pleased God.  (Heb 11:5 RSVA)

So here the author _clearly_ denies that Enoch died. What did you _think_ "he
was not found" meant? How do you think you can get around the words
"so that he
should not see death"? Enoch did not see death. This means that he did not die.

The "these all" of verse 13 does NOT refer to all the saints listed in Heb
11:1-13, but ONLY to the sons of Abraham just mentioned in 11:12.

>>"Moreover no man has ascended to heaven except the one who descended,
>>the Son of Man." (John 3:13) Jesus said these words hundreds of years
>>after Moses and Elijah had died.
>
>>No, because Elijah, like Enoch never did die.
>
>You lie against Holy Scripture Matthew.

That crime is yours, not mine.

> Shame on you!

So says the man who advertises his own shame, denying many truths of Scripture.

> For your sake I
>hope this is not equivalent to "lying to to the holy spirit" for that
>is not forgiven.

You really like showing off your ignorance of Scripture, don't you? Only a
complete ignoramus could believe that that is "equivalent to 'lying to to the
holy spirit'".

> Truth is more important than your opinions.

You took the words right out of my mouth: truth is more important than YOUR
opinions.

>Once again John 3:13 says *****"MOREOVER NO MAN HAS ASCENDED TO HEAVEN
>EXCEPT.....THE SON OF MAN"*****.

And once again, you read this over-literally, _just_ as you do "no man has seen
God".

> Elijah did NOT ascend to the spiritual
>heaven and neither did Enoch and neither did Moses.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Read Heb 11:1-13 again, THIS time remembering that 11:13
refers to the sons of Abraham.

>>When they died they did not go to the
>>spiritual haven with God because "NO MAN HAS ASCENDED TO
HEAVEN" as of
>>writing circa 32-33 c.e.
>
>>Just as "no one has seen God"?
>
>Right no man has seen God. You want to lie against the Bible again and
>deny this verse?

It is not I who am lying. Scripture itself clearly says Moses saw God and lived.

>>But I forget: you interpreted that
>>overly-literally, too -- even though that did not spare you from
>contradicting
>>Scripture either.
>
>Wrong. You just don't understand the context of scripture.

Your beloved "objective jury" would have figured out by now that
it is you who
do not understand the context.

> Moses did
>not literally see God. If you believe he did than you must think the
>Bible contradicts itself.

No, because unlike you, I understand what Paul meant when he said the letter
kills but the spirit gives life.


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( 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.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/22/05 4:00:27 PM ---