PDA

View Full Version : The Accursed Myles Munroe



turtlegs
09-01-10, 10:27 AM
Galatians 1: NASB

Perversion of the Gospel
6I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting (L)Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a (M)different gospel;
7which is really not another; only there are some who are (N)disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

8But even if we, or (O)an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be (P)accursed!

9As we (Q)have said before, so I say again now, (R)if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be (S)accursed!

10For am I now (T)seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a (U)bond-servant of Christ.


What Gospel does Myles Munroe preach?

Taken from the website http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/MylesMunroe.html

Also see video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_gikzIb2f8

Myles Munroe Myles Munroe teaches that God needs our permission to work on earth. He also teaches that angels need our permission as well to do their jobs.For example, he teaches that God sought Abraham for permission to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. In their make believe interaction according to Myles Munroe, God told Abraham, "You got it! You're the man! Once you're satisfied and give me permission I will act."This is absurd to think that an Almighty and Sovereign God needs our permission to act in His universe! Think about it my friend, is this not the height of arrogance? What does the bible have to say about the sovereign plan of God and the vain efforts of man that try to subvert it?"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" Daniel 4:35, see also Isaiah 43:3, Psalm 115:3, 135:6. Whom will you believe, God or Myles Munroe? Benny Hinn made the following endorsements after these incredibly blasphemous statements by Myles Munroe: "Man! That is absolutely awesome! Dear God!...That's incredible! That's incredible! Wow!...Wow! Wow! Wow!...This is so amazing!...Are you getting blessed like I am, dear Jesus." Myles Munroe: "That's why angel's need our permission to function. It says they are here to do our bidding. They can't even act without our permission, you see. But, here's the bigger statement: Even God Himself is illegal on earth. Why? Because, He is a spirit and the law He set up by His own mouth was that only spirits with bodies can function on earth legally."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004) "Why can't God take care of Pharaoh by Himself? Why can't God invade that government and disrupt that process and set them free by Himself? He is illegal. So God then has to get the attention of a human first. Then spend hours, maybe even days trying to convince this one human to work with Him. Moses came up with every single excuse he could find and gave them. And Almighty God tolerated him, saying, 'Look, if you can't talk, I will speak for you. If you got problems, I'll solve them for you. If you're afraid, I'll give you courage. In other words, whatever you need, please work with me! Cause I want to do something. Give me your body.'"(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "So, even though God can do anything, He can only do what you permit Him to do. If you study the Word of God, you will see why it makes so much sense. For example, God has done nothing on earth without a human co-operating with Him. He had to find a human. When God for example wanted to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah...Go ahead and destroy it! No! He [God] was illegal. He had to find a human to give Him access and ageement to release His power. So, then God had to negotiate with a man in Abraham. They argued for a long time!...Abraham figured it out. Abraham said, 'Ahh, Haa! Okay, so I'll tell you what! Before I give you permission [Abraham gives God permission!] to touch that city, if I could find 50 men, 40, 30, 10.' He said, 'I'm dealing, and God had to deal with a man.' And he said, 'If I could only find one.' God says, 'You got it! You're the man! Once you're satisfied and give me permission I will act."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004) "When you study Moses or any human that has been successful with God, you will find this dependency God has on humanity. God says, 'Moses, quickly agree with me. Because your brother, your nephew is on the way. We got to get this work done. I need a human to agree.' As soon as Moses agrees with God, God says, 'Okay, let's Go.'"(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "Let me define prayer for you in this show. Prayer is man giving God permission or license to interfere in earth's affairs. In other words, prayer is earthly license for heavenly interference."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004) "Heaven depends on earth for interference. If He [God] could just find two people like you [Benny Hinn] and I to agree. We agree for God to do this thing. Then God says, 'Thank you very much for permission!' Then He [God] can come."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "Our prayer is a strange experience. We normally ask God to do things, God is telling us to command Him permission to do it for us."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "God could do nothing on earth, nothing has God ever done on earth without a human giving Him access."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004) "He [God] could not name those animals because He [God] is illegal."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "O' Lord, heal this man. God says, 'No! No! No! Talk to the sickness, I am already healing the guy. What I need is permission to get the healing on earth.'"(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) Myles Munroe: "Jesus was necessary for Christ."Benny Hinn: "Wait! Wait! Wait! Wait! Pastor, slow down. What you mean is."Myles Munroe: "Jesus made Christ legal on the earth. Jesus was the body."Benny Hinn: "Has he always been this deep here? It's amazing what he's saying. So, So, repeat that."Myles Munroe: "Christ is God's Spirit, that's why Christ needed a body to come to earth legally."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "Every sick person is already healed. That's why you don't really have to lay hands on a million of people in India to heal them. You don't have to, they are already healed. What God's problem is, is getting the healing to earth."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "When a human gets healed and becomes well again, God Himself is able to stay here legally longer."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "Every spirit is trying to find a body. Can I give you another shocker? [Benny Hinn: You bet!] Even the Holy Spirit, because He cannot function here without a body. That's why your called the body of Christ. And it says our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Cause He Himself needs to be legal to function."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "In other words, Moses had to initiate the action for God to produce the product."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "God says, 'If my people,' now if means, 'I would like to fix this, but I can't fix this without a human giving me permission.'"(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "Interfering in earth by God is totally up to us...Heaven is waiting on earth to get things done."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "What is faith? Faith is believing in what you said, that God told you. In other words, the fight is to keep believing after you said something."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004) "That's why your [Benny Hinn] healing ministry is necessary. God could heal people by Himself as a spirit with power. But it's illegal to do it on earth. So, He needs a human agency. What does laying your hands on a human to do with healing? Well, really nothing. We touch you you all the time but your sick. What He's looking for is permission! The power to heal is always present, but having permission to heal is held up by humanity and their lack of faith."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004) "God made a promise to Satan, I paraphrase again, I believe God said it this way in my spirit. He said, 'Satan, you know I can't come in right now because I'm a spirit. And if I came in now as a spirit I would violate my Word, break my Word, and I would never be able to be trusted again with my Word. But, I'll make a promise, and the promise is: the same woman that you used to destroy my program on earth for humanity. I'm going to use the same woman and I'm going to put my seed in her womb and she'll build around me a physical dirt body. And I will become legal in the earth. And then legal, I will then come in legally and crush your authority legally."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004) "Satan himself knew that in order for him to fuction on this earth that he needed a body also. That's why he had to go to the serpent which had a dirt body and negotiated with the serpent to borrow his body for awhile. And he did, and that's why God cursed the serpent cause the serpent literally loaned his body to the Adversary, who's a spirit, in order to do buisness legally with Eve."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004) "It bothered me, I'm sure it bothered you [Benny Hinn] for years as a pastor. If God is so mighty, powerful, awesome, omnipotent, omniscient, why couldn't this mighty God who made 500 million planets and galaxies couldn't stop a skinny little woman from picking the fruit and destroying His whole program? I mean, God aren't you powerful? You could intervene, you can destroy the works of the devil, prevent the woman and save humanity. But He couldn't! Not that He didn't, He couldn't!..."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004)

This is a man pleasing gospel, which most certainly points back to Adam's supposed Dominion theology.

Myles Munroe is accursed. Benny Hinn sat there and allowed this to be spewed forth from the very pits of hell on his program. Excited to hear the "good news". No one who loves or serves God could sit there and allow such things to be said of God.

Where are the TBN'ers and WoF'ers decrying such blasphemous heresy? Why are these men still allowed to spew forth such demonic doctrines? Here is why.

2 Timothy 4:3 (New American Standard Bible)

3For (A)the time will come when they will not endure (B)sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires

It is not the Spirit of God they are receiving such revelation. This is such ungodly and unrighteous doctrine, for one to even utter such words from their lips should condemn them to rank abase terms. Who is Myles Munroe?

II Cor. 11:

3But I am afraid that, as the (E)serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

4For if one comes and preaches (F)another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a (G)different spirit which you have not received, or a (H)different gospel which you have not accepted, you (I)bear this (J)beautifully.


13For such men are (AC)false apostles, (AD)deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.

14No wonder, for even (AE)Satan disguises himself as an (AF)angel of light.

15Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, (AG)whose end will be according to their deeds.


What is their outcome?

Matthew 7:20-23 (New American Standard Bible)

20"So then, you will know them (A)by their fruits.

21"(B)Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

22"(C)Many will say to Me on (D)that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'

23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; (E)DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS

Who will stand up and defend Myles Munroe and his heretical statements?

There are his words. What do you do with them? There is Benny Hinn, in complete awe and agreement, using his program to spread forth such blasphemy. What do you do with that?

Tallen
09-01-10, 10:56 AM
Oh! Oh! You done it now!!! This will be followed with the usual ad hominem, accusations and the "you misrepresent" stuff.

Hodup
09-01-10, 11:15 AM
Be afraid turtlegs, be VERY afraid. LOL :)

Bob Carabbio
09-01-10, 11:37 AM
Or MAYBE the Biblical WoF Folks will just agree that Munroe's a flake. HEY!! We always knew that Benny was as weird as a three-dollar bill.

Hodup
09-01-10, 11:41 AM
Or MAYBE the Biblical WoF Folks will just agree that Munroe's a flake. HEY!! We always knew that Benny was as weird as a three-dollar bill.

I know for sure G2 supports this guy, as for the rest, I don't know.

Phynerk
09-01-10, 12:34 PM
I know for sure G2 supports this guy, as for the rest, I don't know.

Uh..Oh.....brace yourself for a post so long our PC's memory will run low !

Tallen
09-01-10, 12:54 PM
This is what you get when you put two flakes together..., a bunch of flakeiness.

CLICK ME (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpUUI6ZOxRY).

Some folks in this forum haven't the insight or discernment to tell right from wrong..., and when given the choice, they pick wrong 100% of the time. It's an anti-annointing.

Hodup
09-01-10, 01:28 PM
Uh..Oh.....brace yourself for a post so long our PC's memory will run low !

Maybe I should upgrade my memory before he posts. :P

turtlegs
09-01-10, 02:09 PM
It seems in a different thread one wishes to "address" this issue. But I say let them come here and address it. Own it for yourself.

Secondly if God needed permission from man for anything, here's how it would have went.

Oh Adam, may I have you escorted out of the garden? Adam, please have the angels do your bidding and stand gaurd so you may not enter into the garden again. Eve, if I could bother you to allow me to curse you in childbirth. Adam, may I curse the ground? Cain, may I curse you? I will keep at it until you allow me to do so. Noah, authorize me to flood this earth. I can't find anyone else who will let me.

HOGWASH! The man is a heretic, this ideal that We are in charge is from the very pits of hell and has NO defense. If you wish to defend it, bring it on. Own it. I stand my ground.

turtlegs
09-01-10, 02:37 PM
It seems in a different thread one wishes to "address" this issue. But I say let them come here and address it. Own it for yourself.

Secondly if God needed permission from man for anything, here's how it would have went.

Oh Adam, may I have you escorted out of the garden? Adam, please have the angels do your bidding and stand gaurd so you may not enter into the garden again. Eve, if I could bother you to allow me to curse you in childbirth. Adam, may I curse the ground? Cain, may I curse you? I will keep at it until you allow me to do so. Noah, authorize me to flood this earth. I can't find anyone else who will let me.

HOGWASH! The man is a heretic, this ideal that We are in charge is from the very pits of hell and has NO defense. If you wish to defend it, bring it on. Own it. I stand my ground.

There is no reason to hide the fact it is Gabe that I speak of. I say that Gabe needs to come address this issue clearly on the thread which is set apart for this issue, is he wishes to address the issue. IS Myles Munroe accursed according to scripture? Yes he is.

Am I the issue. No I am not. Is my handling of the issue the issue. No it is not. Is what Myles has said just unfortunant terms, or is it more?

Can Gabe address the ONE issue by the ONE man Myles Munroe without diverting the issue by questioning the one who raises the issue, and without mentioning what others have said that are similar or not similar, ect ect.

It is one issue Gabe. What do you do with what Myles Munroe has said about The Sovereign God!

turtlegs
09-01-10, 06:34 PM
8 hours and still no one is willing to defend Myles Munroe's heretical statements.

Terry Kott
09-01-10, 06:37 PM
Galatians 1: NASB

Perversion of the Gospel snip

--- I'll give you a hint: It has to do with tithing and Lot's relationship to Abraham, Covenant relationship.....

--- The Bible says to acknowledge the Lord in all your ways and He will direct your path(s). Obviously you did not acknowledge Him when you wrote this post.

turtlegs
09-01-10, 06:50 PM
--- I'll give you a hint: It has to do with tithing and Lot's relationship to Abraham, Covenant relationship.....

--- The Bible says to acknowledge the Lord in all your ways and He will direct your path(s). Obviously you did not acknowledge Him when you wrote this post.

WHAT? You're gonna have to give me a hint on your hint. WHAT?

Terry Kott
09-01-10, 07:18 PM
WHAT? You're gonna have to give me a hint on your hint. WHAT?

--- Are you a Christian?

Terry Kott
09-01-10, 07:37 PM
8 hours and still no one is willing to defend Myles Munroe's heretical statements.

--- You mean "alleged" heretical statements. You forget to factor in that you just might be in error yourself, or that you do not understand the whole situation, or that your Biblical knowledge is incomplete.

turtlegs
09-01-10, 08:22 PM
--- You mean "alleged" heretical statements. You forget to factor in that you just might be in error yourself, or that you do not understand the whole situation, or that your Biblical knowledge is incomplete.

Well, Terry, Is Myles Accursed? Does God need our permission? Is God illegal? Is Jesus two beings?

Was God totally unable to stop Eve? Did God have to deal with a man who was dealing it to God?

Is the pecking order of this universe - Man - Satan - God? Or Man - Satan/God depending on whoever get's the man to give them legal and permissible access? Sorta a tie between God and Satan?

These are legit questions. Stop and consider, Terry, what is true. God is Sovereign, or man is sovereign? Do you really believe God is NOT in control, but rather we are?

Think this through Terry, what do you believe?

turtlegs
09-01-10, 08:35 PM
--- Are you a Christian?

Yes, and I have no doubt that you love God. Is that correct? The WoF is full of people who love God with all their hearts. But they have to slow down. Stop and think this thing through. Do you really believe we are in control of God?

Do you really believe God is illegal?

Does Jesus have two beings, one natural and one spiritual being the Christ of Jesus. And that the natural Jesus had to bring the Christ Jesus into the world legally.

Please just take some time and think about it. You can get back to me on it. Read it all again. Consider it. Take it to God in prayer. It is too critical not to.

People of the Word of Faith it is ok to question the leaders of he Word of Faith.

Moses questioned God how he could use him.

Abraham questioned God how he could use him.

Mary questioned the Angel how God could use her.

The Bereans questioned Paul by searching the scriptures to see if what Paul was preaching was so.

We are encouraged to try the spirits.

It is ok then to question "the Lord's annointed". I just want you to know it is ok. And you should never be made to feel like you can not question them.

And then atleast you can say you've given it an honest consideration, and then own what you believe either way. Atleast that's being honorable.

Bob Carabbio
09-01-10, 10:02 PM
Personally I wouldn't know "Miles Munroe" from a hole in the wall. I WON'T personally pronounce a curse on the fellow - I don't know him, OR HIS TOTAL MINISTRY well enough to have an opinion.

Naturally, the material you published indicates some conceptual problems about "God's authority/Access" on earth, which appears to be similar to the foolishness that Cope and others teach about "the way things are". It wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Munroe HAS some serious issues - and MAYBE suffers from the same "oral diahrrea" that Cope often does - unfortunately often on TV.

Since you are obviously willing to CURSE the man (and have already done so in the title line of your OP), your selection of material is understandable.

However, the LAST places on earth I'd go to find ANYTHING factual about a ministry would be a Doctored YouTube Sound byte, or a "Heresy Hunter"/"watchdog"/"Attack dog" forum, whose agenda is invariably to destroy ministries and people that their particular religious paradigm doesn't "approve of".

You, however desire me/us to CURSE/pronounce a CURSE/Agree with YOUR CURSE on Mr. Munroe - and this after all the "Breast beating" about Benny "Cursing" somebody, and how he shoud'a NEVER done that (supposedly). GO figure.

I'll simply allow those who are more intimately familiar with Munroe's TOTAL ministry to field this one.

But it's interesting that you've rapidly fallen into the same "mold" as the other "orthodox" here, and turned to character attacks on people instead of discussing theological teachings the way you led us to believe you were heading to begin with.

Wouldn't it be more "useful" to discuss God's authority on earth, Man's "authority" (If he has any) and satan's authority, the constraints He placed on Himself, and and the provisions/plans HE set in place to accomplish his will - LONG term on earth? And how possibly there's "More" to what's going on in 2010 that the "orthodox defenders" are willing to consider??

But all we have here is your desire for us to agree with your "Curse" on a person.

Same 'ol Same 'ol.

turtlegs
09-01-10, 10:30 PM
Personally I wouldn't know "Miles Munroe" from a hole in the wall. I WON'T personally pronounce a curse on the fellow - I don't know him, OR HIS TOTAL MINISTRY well enough to have an opinion.

Naturally, the material you published indicates some conceptual problems about "God's authority/Access" on earth, which appears to be similar to the foolishness that Cope and others teach about "the way things are".

Since you are obviously willing to CURSE the man, your selection of material is understandable.

However the LAST places on earth I'd go to find ANYTHING about a ministry would be a Doctored YouTube Sound byte, or a Heresy Hunter forum, whose agenda is invariably to destroy ministries and people that their paradigm doesn't "approve of".

You, however desire me/us to CURSE/pronounce a CURSE on Mr. Munroe - and this after all the "Breast beating" about Benny "Cursing" somebody, and how he shoud'a NEVER done that (supposedly). GO figure.

I'll simply let those who are more intimately familiar with his TOTAL ministry to field this one.

Snippets or not, he said it. It is what it is. I didn't curse him, God's word did. I don't pronounce nor to I denounce curses. I have put forth a challenge to Gabe in particular who identifies with this man, to either agree with him or to disagree.

Now, I don't know that I ever did any breast beating about Benny. The thrust of my post prior to this have been more focused on Adams lease and the Tulsa segment of the WoF.

Seriously, I don't know that I have had a full conversation with any of those who are also on here that I agree with. Despite popular belief, I am not working in concert with them, nor they with me. We really do not have an Anti WoF meeting every Thursday. Or any day for that matter. I'm not here for those who already agree with me, or who are already aware and can see the deception. So really you shouldn't assume everybody is on here with the same goal or agenda, any more than I assume WoF'ers are all exactly alike either.

Some might be more focused on Benny. Some on Kenneth Hagin. Some on someone else. I appreciate their comments and support, and to know there is a kindred spirit there. But seriously, did I join in that debate about Benny?

I don't have the time to research every WoF'er. I work for a living just like I am sure other people on here do. It's hard to find the time to be on here, let alone waste it on those who don't want to be honest and straight forward.

I understand your diplomatic approach, but seriously that's the position you want to take? Why don't you think about it, and then come back later and give your thoughts on it. Pray about it. And really ask yourself, is God not in control? Are we in charge? Is God illegal. Does Jesus have two beings? Is the Holy Spirit illegal on earth? God really couldn't stop skinny ol' Eve? Really? Is this really that exciting Benny? If so, why? What would cause a man to be excited about being one up on God? God does have to get Benny and Myles permission, and He is rather grateful when they throw Him a bone. Is that really how you feel? And do you really want to leave it at such a diplomatic stance. You know, saying you're not familiar with the whole of his ministry and work. What really does it matter after those words left his lips.

Think about it, and come back to discuss a more firm stance. Research Myles Munroe, listen to clips his followers put out on him. Just remember what he said, and see if it's under the surface of his other video clips.

turtlegs
09-01-10, 10:33 PM
12 hours have passed. Still no defense given for Myles Munroe statements.

Bob Carabbio
09-01-10, 11:06 PM
"I didn't curse him, God's word did. I don't pronounce nor to I denounce curses."

Get real. YOU pronounced him as accursed in the title line of your O.P. If you can't even face THAT fact, there's little need of discussing anything further with you.

"Is that really how you feel?"

I feel that I WILL NOT JOIN YOU IN CURSING A PERSON.

And I have little interest in "investigating" his total ministry. There are those who DO know him more fully. They can answer. I'm done here.

I HAD HOPED that you'd deal with theologies. If you're not going to, I have no interest in character attacks. We've been doing that for YEARS here, and getting nowhere.

turtlegs
09-01-10, 11:36 PM
"I didn't curse him, God's word did. I don't pronounce nor to I denounce curses."

Get real. YOU pronounced him as accursed in the title line of your O.P. If you can't even face THAT fact, there's little need of discussing anything further with you.

"Is that really how you feel?"

I feel that I WILL NOT JOIN YOU IN CURSING A PERSON.

And I have little interest in "investigating" his total ministry. There are those who DO know him more fully. They can answer. I'm done here.

I HAD HOPED that you'd deal with theologies. If you're not going to, I have no interest in character attacks. We've been doing that for YEARS here, and getting nowhere.

So as I sent you a post asking you to take time to consider if that's really where you stand, you say this? Maybe I was misunderstood.

No I do not pronounce nor denounce curses. God's word prounced him Accursed, not I. So who am I to denounce the curse God's word placed on him. Perhaps I was misunderstood there. I may proclaim that God's word says he is Accursed, but I am not the judge of men in light of my Sovereignty.

I am not attacking his character. His theology, his statements, that's not character traits as much as that is his belief system. If I were to attack his character I would say, Myles Munroe picks old ladies pockets! Or, Myles Munroe goes to gay bars for a good time. That's character attacks. Not, hey here what he said, here's a link with a video of him saying it, look for yourself.

So Bob, why don't you get real, and atleast consider it before you say, no way. It is too critical not to examine it yourself. Think about it, someone said that about God. That should make you mad.

Terry Kott
09-02-10, 03:35 AM
12 hours have passed. Still no defense given for Myles Munroe statements.

--- Why don't you contact him? http://www.bfmmm.com/

turtlegs
09-02-10, 06:50 AM
--- Why don't you contact him? http://www.bfmmm.com/

Good idea Terry.

turtlegs
09-02-10, 06:51 AM
20 hours down, still no defense.

turtlegs
09-02-10, 06:57 AM
You, however desire me/us to CURSE/pronounce a CURSE/Agree with YOUR CURSE on Mr. Munroe - and this after all the "Breast beating" about Benny "Cursing" somebody, and how he shoud'a NEVER done that (supposedly). GO figure.

Same 'ol Same 'ol.

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?21955-To-Terry-Knott-Should-a-preacher-curse-others-Benny-Hinn

Yeah, I looked it over Bob, I never even commented on the thread. Soooooooo, you're right it is just the same ol' same ol'.

turtlegs
09-02-10, 06:59 AM
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?21955-To-Terry-Knott-Should-a-preacher-curse-others-Benny-Hinn

Yeah, I looked it over Bob, I never even commented on the thread. Soooooooo, you're right it is just the same ol' same ol'.

I also take it you supported Benny. Maybe I'll check that out. It's ok for the goose, but not the gander, would that be it Bob?

turtlegs
09-02-10, 07:08 AM
"I didn't curse him, God's word did. I don't pronounce nor to I denounce curses."

Get real. YOU pronounced him as accursed in the title line of your O.P. If you can't even face THAT fact, there's little need of discussing anything further with you.

"Is that really how you feel?"

I feel that I WILL NOT JOIN YOU IN CURSING A PERSON.

And I have little interest in "investigating" his total ministry. There are those who DO know him more fully. They can answer. I'm done here.

I HAD HOPED that you'd deal with theologies. If you're not going to, I have no interest in character attacks. We've been doing that for YEARS here, and getting nowhere.


Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

I agree Bob, I actually referenced this passage in my post too.


There are passages that "Prohibit" cursing, and yet Paul pronounced curses/judgements on others. Oh well.

Sounds like we're into the same sort of "theological arguement" that the CofC presents for baptismal regeneration - after all Peter said Acts 2:38.

So it is ok for Benny to do it, Paul did. Oh well. Sounds inconsistent already.


"Why would Paul contradict himself?"

I don't know that he did - he probably only contradicts your monolithic "Interpretation" of his statements since he DID "Curse" on occasion as a matter of record.

G-Dub brought up his pronouncement on Elymas in Acts 13:
8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.
9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,
10 And said, O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.

The word "Curse" isn't used, but it' a sure thing that it wasn't a "Blessing" on somebody who was persecuting him, and that it was DONE at the direction of the Holy Spirit.

It appears you were in support of Benny. It also appears that you did much more breast beating in that thread than I. So I should assume you agree with Myles Munroe's statements.

travelah
09-02-10, 09:20 AM
Kissing the Pope's ring is less vile than sitting under such teaching.

Bob Carabbio
09-02-10, 09:22 AM
"So I should assume you agree with Myles Munroe's statements."

I make NO assumptions from "Heresy Hunter" sound bytes. What part of "I'm not familiar with Miles Munroe" was too difficult for you to grasp?

YOU can "assume" anything you please.

turtlegs
09-02-10, 03:08 PM
kissing the pope's ring is less vile than sitting under such teaching.

agreed

turtlegs
09-02-10, 03:23 PM
Let me post this arguement both here and in the other thread.

Arguement - Either Myles Munroe is Accursed or Non Accursed.

Based upon an objective moral absolute found in Scripture, spoken in no uncertain terms one is Accursed for thus:

Galatians 1: NASB

Perversion of the Gospel
6I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
7which is really not another; only there are some who are (N)disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
9As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
10For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ

There is no subset of standards by which this is to be applied. No further study of the Accurseds' full ministry is required. No further need to determine the validty the Accursed different gospel with a different Jesus. Nor exploration of how to apply the different gospel/Jesus preaching into other disciplines.

Myles Munroe: "Jesus was necessary for Christ."Benny Hinn: "Wait! Wait! Wait! Wait! Pastor, slow down. What you mean is."Myles Munroe: "Jesus made Christ legal on the earth. Jesus was the body."Benny Hinn: "Has he always been this deep here? It's amazing what he's saying. So, So, repeat that."Myles Munroe: "Christ is God's Spirit, that's why Christ needed a body to come to earth legally."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004)

Nestorianism is the error that Jesus is two distinct persons. The heresy is named after Nestorius, who was born in Syria and died in 451 AD, who advocated this doctrine. Nestorius was a monk who became the Patriarch of Constantinople and he repudiated the Marian title "Mother of God." He held that Mary was the mother of Christ only in respect to His humanity. The council of Ephesus was convened in 431 to address the issue and pronounced that Jesus was one person in two distinct and inseparable natures: divine and human.

Nestorius was deposed as Patriarch and sent to Antioch, then Arabia, and then Egypt. Nestorianism survived until around 1300.

The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the "human person" then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins

This negates a non Accursed claim thereby validating the Accursed claim.

Unless a refution is made concerning this arguement directly, without diverging from the singular arguement, then the arguement in favor of non Accursed claim is lost.

One divergence = lost arguementative claim.

Bob Carabbio
09-02-10, 06:37 PM
I neither supported, nor "Cursed" Benny (as you probably already knew when you posted). I simply stated that one can't demonstrate that "cursing" is NEVER "Biblically proper behavior". Sometimes it is. I 'spect you already know that also.

You've asked me (and others) to join YOU in pronouncing a CURSE on somebody I don't know based on "Sound bytes" from a "Heresy Hunter" site.

I won't. You can if you please.

Oh - and I've stated that Benny is weird as a three dollar bill in many ways - lots of folks are. Maybe you are.

If YOU want to toss him under the bus too, go ahead. I won't help you with that either.

My interest is "piqued" though. I've found over the years that when "Heresy Hunters" start breast beating about this or that "ministry", there's generally some significant value in what they're attacking. Could be that Miles (whoever he is) knows a few things that would be worth understanding -

Isn't it time for another "time announcement"???

turtlegs
09-02-10, 06:59 PM
I neither supported, nor "Cursed" Benny (as you probably already knew when you posted). I simply stated that one can't demonstrate that "cursing" is NEVER "Biblically proper behavior". Sometimes it is. I 'spect you already know that also.

You've asked me (and others) to join YOU in pronouncing a CURSE on somebody I don't know based on "Sound bytes" from a "Heresy Hunter" site.

I won't. You can if you please.

Oh - and I've stated that Benny is weird as a three dollar bill in many ways - lots of folks are. Maybe you are.

If YOU want to toss him under the bus too, go ahead. I won't help you with that either.

My interest is "piqued" though. I've found over the years that when "Heresy Hunters" start breast beating about this or that "ministry", there's generally some significant value in what they're attacking. Could be that Miles (whoever he is) knows a few things that would be worth understanding -

Isn't it time for another "time announcement"???

lol Bob! Yes it is. Ummm over 24 hours and still nothing. I guess 32 hours to be more specific.

Bob, I figure you for an honest person. I know you have said that about Benny. And I am thrilled you're not defending Myles. I think your stance is a bit diplomatic and needlessly so. But I will accept that it is your final stance. I disagree with it and think it's coming down on neither the wrong side or right side, but like I said, I figure you for an honest person and for that, I thank you.

turtlegs
09-02-10, 10:53 PM
yawn.... 36 hours.... yawn.... still no defense of Miles Munroe heretical statements. I'm sure somebody would if they had time. I'm sure whoever that could be is busy. I might as well go ahead and post it....

48 hours and still no defense.

Yeah yeah I know, it's not been 48 hours yet! But I won't be back till around then. I just wanted to post it now and not waste my time then.

turtlegs
09-03-10, 06:48 AM
44 hours and still no defense of Myles Munroe not being accursed according to his own words. Can we assume at 48 hours, two full days, that there is none here who will give a defense?

turtlegs
09-03-10, 12:37 PM
Galatians 1: NASB

Perversion of the Gospel
6I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting (L)Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a (M)different gospel;
7which is really not another; only there are some who are (N)disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

8But even if we, or (O)an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be (P)accursed!

9As we (Q)have said before, so I say again now, (R)if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be (S)accursed!

10For am I now (T)seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a (U)bond-servant of Christ.


What Gospel does Myles Munroe preach?

Taken from the website http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/MylesMunroe.html

Also see video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_gikzIb2f8

Myles Munroe Myles Munroe teaches that God needs our permission to work on earth. He also teaches that angels need our permission as well to do their jobs.For example, he teaches that God sought Abraham for permission to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. In their make believe interaction according to Myles Munroe, God told Abraham, "You got it! You're the man! Once you're satisfied and give me permission I will act."This is absurd to think that an Almighty and Sovereign God needs our permission to act in His universe! Think about it my friend, is this not the height of arrogance? What does the bible have to say about the sovereign plan of God and the vain efforts of man that try to subvert it?"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" Daniel 4:35, see also Isaiah 43:3, Psalm 115:3, 135:6. Whom will you believe, God or Myles Munroe? Benny Hinn made the following endorsements after these incredibly blasphemous statements by Myles Munroe: "Man! That is absolutely awesome! Dear God!...That's incredible! That's incredible! Wow!...Wow! Wow! Wow!...This is so amazing!...Are you getting blessed like I am, dear Jesus." Myles Munroe: "That's why angel's need our permission to function. It says they are here to do our bidding. They can't even act without our permission, you see. But, here's the bigger statement: Even God Himself is illegal on earth. Why? Because, He is a spirit and the law He set up by His own mouth was that only spirits with bodies can function on earth legally."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004) "Why can't God take care of Pharaoh by Himself? Why can't God invade that government and disrupt that process and set them free by Himself? He is illegal. So God then has to get the attention of a human first. Then spend hours, maybe even days trying to convince this one human to work with Him. Moses came up with every single excuse he could find and gave them. And Almighty God tolerated him, saying, 'Look, if you can't talk, I will speak for you. If you got problems, I'll solve them for you. If you're afraid, I'll give you courage. In other words, whatever you need, please work with me! Cause I want to do something. Give me your body.'"(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "So, even though God can do anything, He can only do what you permit Him to do. If you study the Word of God, you will see why it makes so much sense. For example, God has done nothing on earth without a human co-operating with Him. He had to find a human. When God for example wanted to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah...Go ahead and destroy it! No! He [God] was illegal. He had to find a human to give Him access and ageement to release His power. So, then God had to negotiate with a man in Abraham. They argued for a long time!...Abraham figured it out. Abraham said, 'Ahh, Haa! Okay, so I'll tell you what! Before I give you permission [Abraham gives God permission!] to touch that city, if I could find 50 men, 40, 30, 10.' He said, 'I'm dealing, and God had to deal with a man.' And he said, 'If I could only find one.' God says, 'You got it! You're the man! Once you're satisfied and give me permission I will act."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004) "When you study Moses or any human that has been successful with God, you will find this dependency God has on humanity. God says, 'Moses, quickly agree with me. Because your brother, your nephew is on the way. We got to get this work done. I need a human to agree.' As soon as Moses agrees with God, God says, 'Okay, let's Go.'"(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "Let me define prayer for you in this show. Prayer is man giving God permission or license to interfere in earth's affairs. In other words, prayer is earthly license for heavenly interference."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004) "Heaven depends on earth for interference. If He [God] could just find two people like you [Benny Hinn] and I to agree. We agree for God to do this thing. Then God says, 'Thank you very much for permission!' Then He [God] can come."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "Our prayer is a strange experience. We normally ask God to do things, God is telling us to command Him permission to do it for us."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "God could do nothing on earth, nothing has God ever done on earth without a human giving Him access."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004) "He [God] could not name those animals because He [God] is illegal."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "O' Lord, heal this man. God says, 'No! No! No! Talk to the sickness, I am already healing the guy. What I need is permission to get the healing on earth.'"(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) Myles Munroe: "Jesus was necessary for Christ."Benny Hinn: "Wait! Wait! Wait! Wait! Pastor, slow down. What you mean is."Myles Munroe: "Jesus made Christ legal on the earth. Jesus was the body."Benny Hinn: "Has he always been this deep here? It's amazing what he's saying. So, So, repeat that."Myles Munroe: "Christ is God's Spirit, that's why Christ needed a body to come to earth legally."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "Every sick person is already healed. That's why you don't really have to lay hands on a million of people in India to heal them. You don't have to, they are already healed. What God's problem is, is getting the healing to earth."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "When a human gets healed and becomes well again, God Himself is able to stay here legally longer."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "Every spirit is trying to find a body. Can I give you another shocker? [Benny Hinn: You bet!] Even the Holy Spirit, because He cannot function here without a body. That's why your called the body of Christ. And it says our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Cause He Himself needs to be legal to function."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "In other words, Moses had to initiate the action for God to produce the product."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "God says, 'If my people,' now if means, 'I would like to fix this, but I can't fix this without a human giving me permission.'"(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "Interfering in earth by God is totally up to us...Heaven is waiting on earth to get things done."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004) "What is faith? Faith is believing in what you said, that God told you. In other words, the fight is to keep believing after you said something."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004) "That's why your [Benny Hinn] healing ministry is necessary. God could heal people by Himself as a spirit with power. But it's illegal to do it on earth. So, He needs a human agency. What does laying your hands on a human to do with healing? Well, really nothing. We touch you you all the time but your sick. What He's looking for is permission! The power to heal is always present, but having permission to heal is held up by humanity and their lack of faith."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004) "God made a promise to Satan, I paraphrase again, I believe God said it this way in my spirit. He said, 'Satan, you know I can't come in right now because I'm a spirit. And if I came in now as a spirit I would violate my Word, break my Word, and I would never be able to be trusted again with my Word. But, I'll make a promise, and the promise is: the same woman that you used to destroy my program on earth for humanity. I'm going to use the same woman and I'm going to put my seed in her womb and she'll build around me a physical dirt body. And I will become legal in the earth. And then legal, I will then come in legally and crush your authority legally."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004) "Satan himself knew that in order for him to fuction on this earth that he needed a body also. That's why he had to go to the serpent which had a dirt body and negotiated with the serpent to borrow his body for awhile. And he did, and that's why God cursed the serpent cause the serpent literally loaned his body to the Adversary, who's a spirit, in order to do buisness legally with Eve."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004) "It bothered me, I'm sure it bothered you [Benny Hinn] for years as a pastor. If God is so mighty, powerful, awesome, omnipotent, omniscient, why couldn't this mighty God who made 500 million planets and galaxies couldn't stop a skinny little woman from picking the fruit and destroying His whole program? I mean, God aren't you powerful? You could intervene, you can destroy the works of the devil, prevent the woman and save humanity. But He couldn't! Not that He didn't, He couldn't!..."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 12, 2004)

This is a man pleasing gospel, which most certainly points back to Adam's supposed Dominion theology.

Myles Munroe is accursed. Benny Hinn sat there and allowed this to be spewed forth from the very pits of hell on his program. Excited to hear the "good news". No one who loves or serves God could sit there and allow such things to be said of God.

Where are the TBN'ers and WoF'ers decrying such blasphemous heresy? Why are these men still allowed to spew forth such demonic doctrines? Here is why.

2 Timothy 4:3 (New American Standard Bible)

3For (A)the time will come when they will not endure (B)sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires

It is not the Spirit of God they are receiving such revelation. This is such ungodly and unrighteous doctrine, for one to even utter such words from their lips should condemn them to rank abase terms. Who is Myles Munroe?

II Cor. 11:

3But I am afraid that, as the (E)serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

4For if one comes and preaches (F)another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a (G)different spirit which you have not received, or a (H)different gospel which you have not accepted, you (I)bear this (J)beautifully.


13For such men are (AC)false apostles, (AD)deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.

14No wonder, for even (AE)Satan disguises himself as an (AF)angel of light.

15Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, (AG)whose end will be according to their deeds.


What is their outcome?

Matthew 7:20-23 (New American Standard Bible)

20"So then, you will know them (A)by their fruits.

21"(B)Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

22"(C)Many will say to Me on (D)that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'

23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; (E)DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS

Who will stand up and defend Myles Munroe and his heretical statements?

There are his words. What do you do with them? There is Benny Hinn, in complete awe and agreement, using his program to spread forth such blasphemy. What do you do with that?

It has been well over 48 hours. There has been zero defense given to the heretical statements of Myles Munore given. There has been multiple diversions, yet zero defenses.

It is sobering to conclude that there must be no defense to the teachings of Myles Munroe.

Also noted, no defense given for Benny Hinn allowing such heresy to be propagated through his nationally televisioned, and internationally televised program.

No defense has been given for TBN and other "Christian" television networks who aired Benny's program in which this heresy was preached.

No defense has been given as to why no one of influence within the WoF camps and TBN type camps has publically decried such rank heresy.

One could conclude it is due to rank and file agreement of such teachings.

Yodas_Prodigy
09-03-10, 12:40 PM
It has been well over 48 hours. There has been zero defense given to the heretical statements of Myles Munore given. There has been multiple diversions, yet zero defenses.

It is sobering to conclude that there must be no defense to the teachings of Myles Munroe.

Also noted, no defense given for Benny Hinn allowing such heresy to be propagated through his nationally televisioned, and internationally televised program.

No defense has been given for TBN and other "Christian" television networks who aired Benny's program in which this heresy was preached.

No defense has been given as to why no one of influence within the WoF camps and TBN type camps has publically decried such rank heresy.

One could conclude it is due to rank and file agreement of such teachings.

Good thread. Telling video. Of course, no defense...Welcome to the boards TL...Keep up the good work...

Phynerk
09-03-10, 12:57 PM
Where are the TBN'ers and WoF'ers decrying such blasphemous heresy? Why are these men still allowed to spew forth such demonic doctrines?

Because Wof strongy supports the notion that you can 'chew up the meat and then spit out the bones'. There was a lot of "meat" in what MM said. After all he used the word, God, several times !
( I'm winking right now)

Sincerely

turtlegs
09-03-10, 12:57 PM
Good thread. Telling video. Of course, no defense...Welcome to the boards TL...Keep up the good work...

Appreciate it AB.

Tallen
09-03-10, 01:01 PM
Like... none of them think the meat is poisoned to begin with.

turtlegs
09-03-10, 11:58 PM
Two days 13 hours. Tick tock tick tock. Keeping the thread up towards the top. I can do this every day. Prolly will have to. Tick tock tick tock. Myles, you out there, maybe you will give defense? No? Not you either.

turtlegs
09-04-10, 08:03 AM
Pushing 3 days. Let's be premature and go ahead and call it so I can get off the forum and enjoy my weekend! 3 full days, ample time, to present a defense to the argument, to refute the argument. To address the statements made by Myles Munroe. To prove he is not accursed by an objective moral absolute found in Scriptures.

Yet none have stepped forward to do so. Some have acted like they have. Some have pretended to have done it and slam dunked it. Yet none have.

Why is it taking so long to defend Myles?

konkweror
09-04-10, 09:46 AM
Two days 13 hours. Tick tock tick tock. Keeping the thread up towards the top. I can do this every day. Prolly will have to. Tick tock tick tock. Myles, you out there, maybe you will give defense? No? Not you either.

No one from the WoF side has commented on the Paula White thread either!!!

All these WoF preachers send their tithes to each other and sustain themselves. That is one of the reasons they have little or no concern about theology. Their goal is money!

turtlegs
09-04-10, 11:18 PM
A post I made on another thread. I want it to be available elsewhere.


Thanks James. I think I will do some observations of some things I've seen before in debates in the WoF forum. If you will observe how easily it is to frustrate some of those who debate. Oh, they will deny it, but if one was not under another's skin, why would they put forth such effort to discredit the one. For example, have you ever known of someone who felt so compelled to correct another based upon one sentence? "Thanks for proving my point".

It really is "childs" play once you understand someone. I have a working profile of such debators. Just based off of observations, interactions, and investigation. At each turn, as I test my evaluations, I keep connecting.

It took about 24 hours to make a initial sketch. As I said before, they are extremely easy to figure, they have a text book personality. The initial sketch has usually been spot on. Here are some points that will contribute to any who wishes to frustrate the hindrence that such debators are often causing on this forum.

1. Generally they have only one stratigical approach, they are one dimensional.

2. Generally they are also limited in the number of manuevers employed in their strategy.

A. Manuever 1: Cast doubt upon the claims made
B. Manuever 2: Cast doubt upon the claimant's ability to defend the claim made
C. Manuever 3: Create an aire of authority on the subject through the employment of many words, whether meaninful or not, grandious language, and self appointed "proofs"
D. Manuever 4: Divert the topic whether by means of past conversations, other movements, other people, and self appointed facts.
E. Manuever 5: Claim that the diversions invalidate the claim made by the claimant.
F. Manuever 6: Protest and insist that one operate by rules that they recoginize.
G. Manuever 7: Refuse to operate by any objective rules, and at times their own subjective rules.
H. Manuever 8: Finally postures themselves as if one should be intimidated by their manuevers.

3. Their egos are easily controlled. Confrontation of their ego will not go unanswered. It is a sign of insecurity. When confrontation is employed, guarded beliefs will be revealed. For example you have already noted on where this has happened with one particular poster. They exposed themselves in their statements:

For example
"It must be dual for Christ to do all that He did. For how can he GROW in KNOWLEDGE/WISDOM if He was already ALL-KNOWING/OMNISCIENT at all times? How could he be HUNGRY/TIRED ( Matthew 4:1-3, Luke 4:1-3 , )How can the man be AMAZED at the level of faith others had (Matthew 15:26-28, Mark 6:5-7 , Luke 7:8-10 , ) if it was impossible in one of his natures to NEVER BE SURPRISED---unless, of course, the natures were seperate to a degree.."

It must be noted that while letting ones guard down one did their best to soften their intital statement of It must be DUAL for Christ to do all that He did. They then soften it with "to a degree". However, they made an absolute statement in "It MUST BE". They also make Jesus dependant on Duality to do all that He did, rathern than being His Divinity in which He was able to do all that He did. It is also interesting to note, the examples of Duality and the things that He did consisted of, Growing in Knowledge and Wisdom, being Hungry and Tired, and being Amazed and Surprised. It was a weak argument, plus gave great insight to the level in which some people actually do agree with the statements made by Myles Munroe. Which is of no surprise, being some have claimed Myles as a teacher. However, it was claimed that these such teachers never taught a God is bound by His word teaching, one does teach God is bound by humanity, it should be noted.

4. Limiting them to a clear and concise argument, and defining the rules of the argument is an arena they are unable to function in. To render their strategy and manuevers powerless limit an argument to one point. Make it about one point. Less is more when dealing with such people.

5. Don't take yourself seriously. MOST on here are not an authority on anything. Neither am I. Why should it bother ANYONE what I say of them? Ego, insecurity, arrogant personality disorder, and an inability to move outside of a one diminsional stategem. Don't address any claim made against you personally or your ability to win the argument. Recognize them for what they are, diversions away from an argument they are incapable of invalidating.

I hope this information will be beneficial to anyone who deals with those they deem these insights apply to and finds themselves bullied by certain persons in the process.

I hope this is acceptable wordage.

3 days 12 hours. And still no defense.

turtlegs
09-05-10, 09:09 PM
4 days, almost 12 hours.

turtlegs
09-06-10, 04:01 PM
Let me post this arguement both here and in the other thread.

Arguement - Either Myles Munroe is Accursed or Non Accursed.

Based upon an objective moral absolute found in Scripture, spoken in no uncertain terms one is Accursed for thus:

Galatians 1: NASB

Perversion of the Gospel
6I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
7which is really not another; only there are some who are (N)disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
9As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
10For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ

There is no subset of standards by which this is to be applied. No further study of the Accurseds' full ministry is required. No further need to determine the validty the Accursed different gospel with a different Jesus. Nor exploration of how to apply the different gospel/Jesus preaching into other disciplines.

Myles Munroe: "Jesus was necessary for Christ."Benny Hinn: "Wait! Wait! Wait! Wait! Pastor, slow down. What you mean is."Myles Munroe: "Jesus made Christ legal on the earth. Jesus was the body."Benny Hinn: "Has he always been this deep here? It's amazing what he's saying. So, So, repeat that."Myles Munroe: "Christ is God's Spirit, that's why Christ needed a body to come to earth legally."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004)

Nestorianism is the error that Jesus is two distinct persons. The heresy is named after Nestorius, who was born in Syria and died in 451 AD, who advocated this doctrine. Nestorius was a monk who became the Patriarch of Constantinople and he repudiated the Marian title "Mother of God." He held that Mary was the mother of Christ only in respect to His humanity. The council of Ephesus was convened in 431 to address the issue and pronounced that Jesus was one person in two distinct and inseparable natures: divine and human.

Nestorius was deposed as Patriarch and sent to Antioch, then Arabia, and then Egypt. Nestorianism survived until around 1300.

The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the "human person" then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins

This negates a non Accursed claim thereby validating the Accursed claim.

Unless a refution is made concerning this arguement directly, without diverging from the singular arguement, then the arguement in favor of non Accursed claim is lost.

One divergence = lost arguementative claim.

Just a reminder, the argument has not been refuted. Not here, and not there. Things have been said, but the argument has not been directly dealt with. I may have inabilities, nay, I do have inabilities. But that is not the argument. Myles does talk about prayer, he talks about a lot of things. He also talks about the two being Jesus at this link also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmPICz03Gvk

Unless he refutes what he says in these two statements somewhere in the 20 part series, then it's a moot point that it is a 20 part series. It is a different Jesus. A different Gospel. It is accursed. The argument is really simple. It's objective. It's absolute. It's a choice on which side of the issue you stand. Anybody?

I for one stand on the side that Myles is accursed. Am I alone?

Terry Kott
09-07-10, 12:46 AM
Let me post this arguement both here and in the other thread.

Arguement - Either Myles Munroe is Accursed or Non Accursed.

Based upon an objective moral absolute found in Scripture, spoken in no uncertain terms one is Accursed for thus:

Galatians 1: NASB

Perversion of the Gospel
6I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
7which is really not another; only there are some who are (N)disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
9As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
10For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ

There is no subset of standards by which this is to be applied. No further study of the Accurseds' full ministry is required. No further need to determine the validty the Accursed different gospel with a different Jesus. Nor exploration of how to apply the different gospel/Jesus preaching into other disciplines.

Myles Munroe: "Jesus was necessary for Christ."Benny Hinn: "Wait! Wait! Wait! Wait! Pastor, slow down. What you mean is."Myles Munroe: "Jesus made Christ legal on the earth. Jesus was the body."Benny Hinn: "Has he always been this deep here? It's amazing what he's saying. So, So, repeat that."Myles Munroe: "Christ is God's Spirit, that's why Christ needed a body to come to earth legally."(Myles Munroe, "This Is Your Day," Benny Hinn, July 13, 2004)

Nestorianism is the error that Jesus is two distinct persons. The heresy is named after Nestorius, who was born in Syria and died in 451 AD, who advocated this doctrine. Nestorius was a monk who became the Patriarch of Constantinople and he repudiated the Marian title "Mother of God." He held that Mary was the mother of Christ only in respect to His humanity. The council of Ephesus was convened in 431 to address the issue and pronounced that Jesus was one person in two distinct and inseparable natures: divine and human.

Nestorius was deposed as Patriarch and sent to Antioch, then Arabia, and then Egypt. Nestorianism survived until around 1300.

The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the "human person" then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins

This negates a non Accursed claim thereby validating the Accursed claim.

Unless a refution is made concerning this arguement directly, without diverging from the singular arguement, then the arguement in favor of non Accursed claim is lost.

One divergence = lost arguementative claim.

--- Pastor Myles Munroe preaches the Gospel of the kingdom. He is not accursed.

turtlegs
09-07-10, 07:08 AM
--- Pastor Myles Munroe preaches the Gospel of the kingdom. He is not accursed.

Even after what he said, you can not see that he is literally preaching a different Jesus? A Jesus that consist of 1 seperate being - Man. And another seperate being - Christ Spirit. And the Christ Spirit is dependant on the Jesus Man to be in the earth legally, because God established this law where a spirit without a body is illegal in the earth. Including the Holy Spirit.

This does not seem to extend to Satan, he can work illegally, he is the god of this world after all. It is the same ol story - WoF teaching, open your eyes to it, has this pecking order of existence - Man- Satan- God. Examine it yourself. One doesn't have to go any further than the links provided of Myles Munroe.

It is unbelievable how many of us were blind to that, and how many continue to be.

Tallen
09-07-10, 08:42 AM
--- Pastor Myles Munroe preaches the Gospel of the kingdom. He is not accursed.

I would like to suggest something to you Terry Kott. It would be a good idea if you looked at the Arian, Nestorian and Pelagian heresies and wofite theology. Compare them for the content of the teachings and the reaction of the believing church of Christ. You will find all of these ideas being taught within the religion in various forms. They are all heretical views and are being resurrected in various forms under various wofite leaders and teachers. Turtlegs is trying to point out one of those errors of this particular teacher, and has documented his claim. What you are doing is shutting your eyes to historical orthodox doctrine and making unsubstanciated claims in your response to him. Claiming that Munroe preaches the Gospel of the kingdom, when it is shown that he is preach a heretical view of Christ, is nothing more than a red herring and obfuscation from the real point of his post. And if you'll notice when you study the defined heretical views that the Christian church reacted to, you'll notice that they revolve around the nature of Christ, and who and what He is. This, changing who Christ is and his message, was what the Apostle addresses several times.

turtlegs
09-07-10, 09:06 AM
Sweet reply, Tallen. I like your style.

Tallen
09-07-10, 09:42 AM
Thanks tl. Blessings.

Bob Carabbio
09-07-10, 10:27 AM
"you'll notice that they revolve around the nature of Christ, and who and what He is."

And what you'll also notice is that every attempt at defining either Christ, OR the Trinity itself invariably contains some variation of the disclaimer that says: "we really don't understand this". And in fact, all we really DO have are "Working Hypotheses" of who/what Jesus was/is in scientific terms.

Personally, I don't see much real difference between "Nestorianism" which proclaims "Two natures" and is supposed to be "Error", and "Hypostatic union" which also proclaims "Two natures" and which is supposed to be "Truth". The essential difference appears to be only a conceptual abstract of an "unknowable".

And of course something being "Historic" is no "Proof" of rectitude one way or another. There no question that the Charismatic Outpouring DID bring some alterations in the CONCEPT of Christ, as has been mentioned here many times before (as in the "Kenosis" wars here some years ago, where, as usual, nobody changed their opinions, and just got tired of the argument).

I don't have much real interest in Munroe one way or the other, but I am slowly getting a bit more familiar with him to see what he DOES teach apart from the "Heresy hunter" version of him. Heresy hunters tend to make a "big deal" out of semantics, and the "Different Christ" strawman always gives me a chuckle.

I think it's interesting that Jesus APPARENTLY gave little or no indication during his first 30? years that He was anything OTHER THAN a normal Jewish carpenter - and then repented of That and was indwelled by the Holy Spirit and walked out into his short ministry.

SO - We Have Jesus - who is God - being indwelled by the Holy Spirit - who is God. How does THAT work???

And then God the Father - who is God - speaks from heaven and announces that "Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

SO we have God indwelling God, and God announcing that the now combination of God (Jesus) and God (the Holy Spirit) is "My Beloved Son". Fast forward to the Crucifixion, and God (the Holy Spirit) apparently LEAVES God(Jesus) prompting his announcement from the cross: Why have you forsaken me?? and then God (Jesus) dies physically - and a whole new controversy explodes - i.e. where did God(Jesus' spirit) go for three days and three nights, and what did He do.

And like it or not, it's ALL "Theological speculation" about stuff we REALLY don't understand clearly - yet.

And the "Historic Creeds" don't even address any of that.

Tallen
09-07-10, 10:50 AM
Thanks for the muddy water.


"you'll notice that they revolve around the nature of Christ, and who and what He is."

And what you'll also notice is that every attempt at defining either Christ, OR the Trinity itself invariably contains some variation of the disclaimer that says: "we really don't understand this". And in fact, all we really DO have are "Working Hypotheses" of who/what Jesus was/is in scientific terms.

This is absolutely untrue and based in ignorance, Bob. For instance, here is the first standard I looked at, where is it state that they don't understand the Trinity?

Article 8: The Trinity

In keeping with this truth and Word of God we believe in one God, who is one single essence, in whom there are three persons, really, truly, and eternally distinct according to their incommunicable properties-- namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father is the cause, origin, and source of all things, visible as well as invisible.

The Son is the Word, the Wisdom, and the image of the Father.

The Holy Spirit is the eternal power and might, proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Nevertheless, this distinction does not divide God into three, since Scripture teaches us that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each has his own subsistence distinguished by characteristics-- yet in such a way that these three persons are only one God.

It is evident then that the Father is not the Son and that the Son is not the Father, and that likewise the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son.

Nevertheless, these persons, thus distinct, are neither divided nor fused or mixed together.

For the Father did not take on flesh, nor did the Spirit, but only the Son.

The Father was never without his Son, nor without his Holy Spirit, since all these are equal from eternity, in one and the same essence.

There is neither a first nor a last, for all three are one in truth and power, in goodness and mercy. Belgic Confession; Article 8

Personally, I don't see much real difference between "Nestorianism" which proclaims "Two natures" and is supposed to be "Error", and "Hypostatic union" which also proclaims "Two natures" and which is supposed to be "Truth". The essential difference appears to be only a conceptual abstract of an "unknowable".

Of coarse you don't see much real difference, when you distill the argument to the point where the original points are lost and there is no distinction in doctrine. But that's our BobC. He eats the poisoned meat and spits out the poisoned bones, never realizing that he has been poisoned by the poison in the meat and the bones.

The distinction, of coarse, which Bob doesn't elaborate on, is that Nestorianism taught that the "two natures" where two distinct persons. Not just two natures existing in one person, but two persons existing in one body. Which in effect threatens biblical doctrine concerning Yahushua and his work as mediator and redeemer.


And of course something being "Historic" is no "Proof" of rectitude one way or another.

Agreed, nor does it mean that something historic is to be rejected for something new and innovative. The standard is, what is biblical and holds the truth of scripture to the highest view.


There no question that the Charismatic Outpouring DID bring some alterations in the CONCEPT of CHrist, as has been mentioned here many times before (as in the "Kenosis" wars here some years ago, where, as usual, nobody changed their opinions, and just got tired of the argument).

Often these alterations are a departure from biblical Christianity and sound doctrine, which is shown here in the forum quite often.


I don't have much real interest in Munroe one way or the other, but I am slowly getting a bit more familiar with him to see what he DOES teach apart from the "Heresy hunter" version of him. Heresy hunters tend to make a "big deal" out of semantics, and the "Different Christ" strawman always gives me a chuckle.

Chuckle away Bob, your typical desire to minimalize and trivialize the people you use ad hominem against here in this forum, is expected. Instead of keeping to the theological and biblical arguments..., just chuckle and call them semantics and distill all the points into non-points. It's a good way to pull the wolves fur over your eyes and eat his poisoned meat. :(

Bob Carabbio
09-07-10, 11:03 AM
"Thanks for the muddy water."

You're welcome - just a-do'in my job here 'ol buddy!!

"according to their incommunicable properties"

Case closed.

"The standard is, what is biblical and holds the truth of scripture to the highest view."

Agreed, and that's exactly what I'm doing. Remember I don't pay any attention to this or that "Systematic" (in case there was any doubt) - but what do YOU think that has to do with "Historic" concepts??

And I only convert "Points" into "Non-Points" - when they were (in MY opinion) "NON-Points" to begin with.

I understand that you don't agree. Oh well. I can deal with the rejection -

turtlegs
09-07-10, 12:11 PM
Finally! I feel so inadequate in terms of presentation and responses, that it is refreshing to read after you. I was at the point that I was considering dropping the whole matter, and actually leaving the forum. Your responses today give me some hope that I can observe your style and hopefully understand how to present myself in the forum settings better.

Thank you!

Tallen
09-07-10, 12:47 PM
Some more muddy water.


You're welcome - just a-do'in my job here 'ol buddy!!

I am glad you can admit your agenda.


"according to their incommunicable properties"

Case closed.

Oops, a bit of dishonesty on your part, Bob. You said that the following was the statement of the historical church, "we really don't understand this". Incommunicable is not a synonym in this conversation with not understanding. Incommunicable in the context of the Standard means that there are attributes of YHWH that are not passed on to man, they remain uniquely His, such as omnipresence or omniscience. It in no way means that we can't understand Him. I am surprised you are resorting to dishonesty to support your position. Not your normal tactic.


"The standard is, what is biblical and holds the truth of scripture to the highest view."

Agreed, and that's exactly what I'm doing. Remember I don't pay any attention to this or that "Systematic" (in case there was any doubt) - but what do YOU think that has to do with "Historic" concepts??

If that was what you are doing, Bob..., you wouldn't pick your own standard for your own understanding. The highest view is not a private interpretation of scripture as the Apostle points out, but is the view that holds YHWH's commandments, precepts and instructions to His standard. You are far from that position.


And I only convert "Points" into "Non-Points" - when they were (in MY opinion) "NON-Points" to begin with.

Obviously, dispite the fact that they were not non-points to the body of Christ and the Spirit filled and led church of YHWH. Your private opinions and views are always the greater standard..., you make that quite clear.


I understand that you don't agree. Oh well. I can deal with the rejection -

Good..., because as you can see..., I completely reject it. It's sad to me that your pride places your private views and philosophies as the infallible standard, dispite the work of the Spirit and the Holy Scriptures admonishments to do otherwise.

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
(1 Timothy 3:15 KJV)

Bob Carabbio
09-07-10, 12:53 PM
Thanks for the muddy water.

Dismiss the entire post as diversionary. Turtlegs manuever 2.A.

This is absolutely untrue and based in ignorance, Bob.

Call the poster ignorant. Turtlegs #2.B Normal CARM Ad-Hom

"For instance, here is the first standard I looked at,"

Post some stuff that supposedly eliminated the posted argument, but when examined, contains exactly what the poster said it did. Turtlegs #2.C

"But that's our BobC. He eats the poisoned meat and spits out the poisoned bones,"

Turtlegs manuever 2.B repeated, and combined with Turtlegs 2.D Normal CARM Ad-Hom

"Which in effect threatens biblical doctrine concerning Yahushua and his work as mediator and redeemer."

Turtlegs manuever 2.E combined with 2.C

"Agreed, nor does it mean that something historic is to be rejected for something new and innovative. The standard is, what is biblical and holds the truth of scripture to the highest view."

A true observation - no maneuver employed.

"Often these alterations are a departure from biblical Christianity and sound doctrine, which is shown here in the forum quite often."

Getting back to Turtlegs #2.C and 2.D

"Chuckle away Bob, your typical desire to minimalize and trivialize the people you use ad hominem against here in this forum, is expected."

Turtlegs maneuver 2.D again. Of course there was no ad-hom against anybody on the post Except for a dismissal of "Heresy Hunters" which nobody here considers themselves to be. etc.

Good list of manuevers, by the way. In the future I'll just refer to 'em by number.

Tallen
09-07-10, 12:59 PM
Please..., don't leave the forum. I was talking to another person this weekend about you, we were fishing together. He also posts on CARM. He told me that your posts are very refreshing to him and have built hope in him. He is ex-wof himself. If it is never told to you by any other person, that alone is worth it, IMO. If you have grace from YHWH, and can continue to post without ill fellings toward our brothers, I would encourage you to stay. There are lurkers and others who are getting help from you, help that is greatly needed. And dispite those that come here to gather their own following, obfuscate and minimalize error, and teach things contrary to our Saviors kingdom..., you are doing a good work for His kingdom.

For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
(Colossians 1:9-17 KJV)

Blessings.

Tallen
09-07-10, 01:03 PM
Thanks for the muddy water.

Dismiss the entire post as diversionary. Turtlegs manuever 2.A.

This is absolutely untrue and based in ignorance, Bob.

Call the poster ignorant. Turtlegs #2.B Normal CARM Ad-Hom

"For instance, here is the first standard I looked at,"

Post some stuff that supposedly eliminated the posted argument, but when examined, contains exactly what the poster said it did. Turtlegs #2.C

"But that's our BobC. He eats the poisoned meat and spits out the poisoned bones,"

Turtlegs manuever 2.B repeated, and combined with Turtlegs 2.D Normal CARM Ad-Hom

"Which in effect threatens biblical doctrine concerning Yahushua and his work as mediator and redeemer."

Turtlegs manuever 2.E combined with 2.C

"Agreed, nor does it mean that something historic is to be rejected for something new and innovative. The standard is, what is biblical and holds the truth of scripture to the highest view."

A true observation - no maneuver employed.

"Often these alterations are a departure from biblical Christianity and sound doctrine, which is shown here in the forum quite often."

Getting back to Turtlegs #2.C and 2.D

"Chuckle away Bob, your typical desire to minimalize and trivialize the people you use ad hominem against here in this forum, is expected."

Turtlegs maneuver 2.D again. Of course there was no ad-hom against anybody on the post Except for a dismissal of "Heresy Hunters" which nobody here considers themselves to be. etc.

Good list of manuevers, by the way. In the future I'll just refer to 'em by number.

Don't see how this is any of turtlegs manuevers since it comes from my observations and conversations with you, Bob. But your obfuscation and ad hominem is noted. Typical of the wofite. Good job.

Phynerk
09-07-10, 01:11 PM
Agreed, nor does it mean that something historic is to be rejected for something new and innovative. The standard is, what is biblical and holds the truth of scripture to the highest view.
(

BRAVO ! Well said.

turtlegs
09-07-10, 01:12 PM
Thanks for the muddy water.

Dismiss the entire post as diversionary. Turtlegs manuever 2.A.

This is absolutely untrue and based in ignorance, Bob.

Call the poster ignorant. Turtlegs #2.B Normal CARM Ad-Hom

"For instance, here is the first standard I looked at,"

Post some stuff that supposedly eliminated the posted argument, but when examined, contains exactly what the poster said it did. Turtlegs #2.C

"But that's our BobC. He eats the poisoned meat and spits out the poisoned bones,"

Turtlegs manuever 2.B repeated, and combined with Turtlegs 2.D Normal CARM Ad-Hom

"Which in effect threatens biblical doctrine concerning Yahushua and his work as mediator and redeemer."

Turtlegs manuever 2.E combined with 2.C

"Agreed, nor does it mean that something historic is to be rejected for something new and innovative. The standard is, what is biblical and holds the truth of scripture to the highest view."

A true observation - no maneuver employed.

"Often these alterations are a departure from biblical Christianity and sound doctrine, which is shown here in the forum quite often."

Getting back to Turtlegs #2.C and 2.D

"Chuckle away Bob, your typical desire to minimalize and trivialize the people you use ad hominem against here in this forum, is expected."

Turtlegs maneuver 2.D again. Of course there was no ad-hom against anybody on the post Except for a dismissal of "Heresy Hunters" which nobody here considers themselves to be. etc.

Good list of manuevers, by the way. In the future I'll just refer to 'em by number.

Oh man, this was great Bob! I am quite pleased with myself that you have adopted my dissection of stategem. Perhaps it has been discussed prior to my joining of the forum.

I am curious as to how I became such a focus of the thread you and Tallen are discussing. Was it because I complimented Tallen on his particular presentation skills, and how I wish to emulate them in the future? If so that almost seems like a little jealousy found it's way into the thread.

I am also pleased that you read what I posted before, or so it seems. If that is the case I am not sure why it hasn't been commented on directly, but rather indirectly addressed in an unrelated thread.

I do feel your rebuttle was quite weak using such a tactic. Perhaps if you had presented a rebuttle and then addressed the manuevers it would have been more profitable to all. Or start a new thread! I do hope this does NOT get reported and deleted by the admin for directly discussing a poster - me. If so, I have replied with your quote so that you can do as I did, copy it, paste it, and repost it with a more nuetral tome.

Thanks again for the pleasure and entertainment! I thought it was great!

Tallen
09-07-10, 01:17 PM
Thanks Phy..., good to see you.

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
(Numbers 6:24-26 KJV)

Blessings.

turtlegs
09-07-10, 01:21 PM
Much appreciated!

Terry Kott
09-07-10, 01:34 PM
"Thanks for the muddy water."

You're welcome - just a-do'in my job here 'ol buddy!!

"according to their incommunicable properties"

Case closed.

"The standard is, what is biblical and holds the truth of scripture to the highest view."

Agreed, and that's exactly what I'm doing. Remember I don't pay any attention to this or that "Systematic" (in case there was any doubt) - but what do YOU think that has to do with "Historic" concepts??

And I only convert "Points" into "Non-Points" - when they were (in MY opinion) "NON-Points" to begin with.

I understand that you don't agree. Oh well. I can deal with the rejection -

---In my opinion the OP is a divisive attack from the get-go. Whether it's true or not matters not. Just like the situation with the woman caught in adultery.

damonw
09-07-10, 01:54 PM
---In my opinion the OP is a divisive attack from the get-go. Whether it's true or not matters not. Just like the situation with the woman caught in adultery.

That is what is wrong with your movement.

turtlegs
09-07-10, 02:02 PM
---In my opinion the OP is a divisive attack from the get-go. Whether it's true or not matters not. Just like the situation with the woman caught in adultery.

The opening post brought up the argument that what Myles Munroe is preaching is accursed. It is a different Jesus. One who is a two being Jesus, not a two natured Jesus. The Jesus of the Gospel is fully God and fully man and wholly Divine. There is no other like Him. The Jesus of Myles Munroe is one seperate part Jesus Body and one seperate part Christ Spirit. The Christ Spirit being the divine, the Jesus Body being rather common. Christ Spirit is dependant on Jesus Body to be legal in the world He created. Jesus Body is dependant on the Christ Spirit to operate in Divine functions.

In the Jesus of the Gospel, He has the ability to function by either nature at His choosing. We are not Divine nor divine. He being fully God and fully man was yet wholly Divine. You see Him submit in the garden to the will of the Father, yet He was capable of functioning in a divine nature to call down the angelic host. It is at His Divine choosing. The fully man of Jesus is no less Divine. As fully God and fully man yet wholly Divine it is that Jesus who suffered and died and on the third day rose again.

The Jesus of Myles Munroe is one part Jesus child/body/man one part Christ Spirit. Which part purchased our salvation? One part is not divine, but rather common. The other part is Divine, yet illegal. Was our salvation purchased by the common Jesus Body or by the illegal Diving Christ Spirit? Was it a two being salvation? Was the common Jesus Body one part our salvation, while the illegal Divine Christ Spirit was working a seperate part of our salvation?

Who is in Heaven now, who is returning, who will sit in the Judgement seat? Whose Kingdom is it? Which name is it? Whose body are we? If Jesus is two seperate beings, one part Jesus body one part Christ Spirit, then I need some answers on these important questions.

Unless of course Jesus is fully God, fully man, wholly Divine. Then the answer would be the Jesus of the Gospel. In which case whether it was true or not DOES matter.

Tallen
09-07-10, 02:08 PM
Whether it's true or not matters not.

It's good to know that you have such a low regard for truth. Your posts will be read with that in mind from now on. Thank you.

There is no better witness against wof than the wofite and it comes right out of their own mouths.

Tallen
09-07-10, 02:21 PM
Well said tl. I especially liked your words, "The Jesus of the Gospel is fully God and fully man and wholly Divine. There is no other like Him." Amen.

What we see in this forum is the lack of men and women being taught in the very baiscs of the faith. For instance, historically in the Reformed church, the following is taught to new converts and the young in the faith.

Question 48: But are the two natures in Christ not separated from each other if His human nature is not present wherever His divinity is?

Not at all, for His divinity has no limits and is present everywhere.1 So it must follow that His divinity is indeed beyond the human nature which He has taken on and nevertheless is within this human nature and remains personally united with it.2

1: Jer 23:23-24 KJV Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? (24) Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.
Act 7:48-49 KJV Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, (49) Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

2: Joh 1:14 KJV And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Joh 3:13 KJV And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Col 2:9 KJV For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

This is basic Christian doctrine 101, and it is amazing to watch folks minimalize, trivalize, and ignore such basic stuff to justify a theology that is contrary to biblical doctrine. It tells me that they are not properly taught nor do they have a heart to be properly taught,

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
(2 Timothy 2:15 KJV)

So many are not approved unto God to speak to His people, because they have not been properly trained through diligent study.

damonw
09-07-10, 02:26 PM
The opening post brought up the argument that what Myles Munroe is preaching is accursed. It is a different Jesus. One who is a two being Jesus, not a two natured Jesus. The Jesus of the Gospel is fully God and fully man and wholly Divine. There is no other like Him. The Jesus of Myles Munroe is one seperate part Jesus Body and one seperate part Christ Spirit. The Christ Spirit being the divine, the Jesus Body being rather common. Christ Spirit is dependant on Jesus Body to be legal in the world He created. Jesus Body is dependant on the Christ Spirit to operate in Divine functions.

In the Jesus of the Gospel, He has the ability to function by either nature at His choosing. We are not Divine nor divine. He being fully God and fully man was yet wholly Divine. You see Him submit in the garden to the will of the Father, yet He was capable of functioning in a divine nature to call down the angelic host. It is at His Divine choosing. The fully man of Jesus is no less Divine. As fully God and fully man yet wholly Divine it is that Jesus who suffered and died and on the third day rose again.

The Jesus of Myles Munroe is one part Jesus child/body/man one part Christ Spirit. Which part purchased our salvation? One part is not divine, but rather common. The other part is Divine, yet illegal. Was our salvation purchased by the common Jesus Body or by the illegal Diving Christ Spirit? Was it a two being salvation? Was the common Jesus Body one part our salvation, while the illegal Divine Christ Spirit was working a seperate part of our salvation?

Who is in Heaven now, who is returning, who will sit in the Judgement seat? Whose Kingdom is it? Which name is it? Whose body are we? If Jesus is two seperate beings, one part Jesus body one part Christ Spirit, then I need some answers on these important questions.

Unless of course Jesus is fully God, fully man, wholly Divine. Then the answer would be the Jesus of the Gospel. In which case whether it was true or not DOES matter.

Really good responce Glen.

turtlegs
09-07-10, 02:27 PM
Thank you I appreciate it.

Phynerk
09-07-10, 02:32 PM
Well said tl. I especially liked your words, "The Jesus of the Gospel is fully God and fully man and wholly Divine. There is no other like Him." Amen.


Ditto Amen !


So many are not approved unto God to speak to His people, because they have not been properly trained through diligent study.

Yes, who can ever forget how the Wof rallyed around good ole' Todd Bentley about a year or so ago. Now there was someone with 'the annointing'.

Bob Carabbio
09-07-10, 02:41 PM
OOPS - you're right.

It's the Article one of the Belgic confession is where the "Incomprehensible" is found. you're right about the term "Incommunicable".

Naturally you'd accuse me of "lying" instead of just making a stupid mistake. No Biggie, I know how things work here.

Turtlegs needs a "Manuever 9": Interpret anything that's said to reflect on the poster in the most negative manner possible.

turtlegs
09-07-10, 02:50 PM
OOPS - you're right.

It's the Article one of the Belgic confession is where the "Incomprehensible" is found. you're right about the term "Incommunicable".

Naturally you'd accuse me of "lying" instead of just making a stupid mistake. No Biggie, I know how things work here.

Turtlegs needs a "Manuever 9": Interpret anything that's said to reflect on the poster in the most negative manner possible.

Are you saying that I need to add it to my manuevers, you need to add it to yours to classify my manuevers, or I need to add it to someone else to classify their manuevers. Am I the focus or Tallen? Not really sure yet, but I am enjoying the attention.

Tallen
09-07-10, 03:14 PM
No, I didn't accuse you of lying, Bob. I accused you of being dishonest, which you were although unknowingly. I understand it's hard to distinguish terms and meanings of words when you distill everything down to semantics and non-points to begin with. BTW, you are changing the subject to support something that you said about the Trinity. Surely you can distinguish the difference being made about a divine being who is infinite and the finite mind of man, as opposed to whether or not a person can understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

I do expect the obfuscation from you though, even when it is based in dishonesty.

Article 1: The Only God
We all believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths that there is a single and simple spiritual being, whom we call God -- eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, unchangeable, infinite, almighty; completely wise, just, and good, and the overflowing source of all good.

Tallen
09-07-10, 03:25 PM
Yes, who can ever forget how the Wof rallyed around good ole' Todd Bentley about a year or so ago. Now there was someone with 'the annointing'.

Yep, exactly. Dispite being shown what the scripture says about such foolish men, and what it means to be an elder in the church of Christ.

Bob Carabbio
09-07-10, 05:03 PM
Well - since it's a popular manuever here, and YOU are the one that proposed the list to begin with, I'd think you need to append it to your list.

I was only pointing out the Manuever that "T" used in this case which wasn't on the original list. It's fairly popular here, though.

Bob Carabbio
09-07-10, 05:11 PM
"No, I didn't accuse you of lying, Bob. I accused you of being dishonest,"

It takes an EXCEEDINGLY SHARP hermeneutical broadaxe to split a hair THAT fine, 'ol buddy!!!!

BUT - I think the EVIDENCE is that Jesus functioned as a Man with a finite mind (just like yours and mine) and based everything he did on the constant communion He practiced with God the Father through the medium of the Holy Spirit. I thoroughly believe that Jesus accepted his "sonship" by faith - based on the Word of God to Him.

And NEITHER OF US really has any REAL idea whatsoever how that really worked in conjunction with him ALSO being fully God.

But "Dishonest Obfuscator" - I think "Disingenuous Obfuscator" has a better "ring" to it

Bob Carabbio
09-07-10, 05:16 PM
Well, of course it's a "Divisive attack" - but all Divisive attacks aren't necessarily bad. And an important question is pending. Is Miles Munroe's presentation of the "nature of things" (which APPEARS TO BE similar to Copeland's but semantically different) accurate Biblically. HE uses the term "Legal" in a unique manner - which is interesting.

Terry Kott
09-07-10, 05:47 PM
Well, of course it's a "Divisive attack" - but all Divisive attacks aren't necessarily bad. And an important question is pending. Is Miles Munroe's presentation of the "nature of things" (which APPEARS TO BE similar to Copeland's but semantically different) accurate Biblically. HE uses the term "Legal" in a unique manner - which is interesting.

--- I believe it is similiar to God having to "legally" consult with Abraham before destroying Sodom because Abraham had given a tithe on the goods of Sodom when he recovered his brother Lot. And God had a blood covenant with Abraham also....
--- I have a teaching on this by Perry Stone. It is very insightful.

turtlegs
09-07-10, 07:15 PM
--- I believe it is similiar to God having to "legally" consult with Abraham before destroying Sodom because Abraham had given a tithe on the goods of Sodom when he recovered his brother Lot. And God had a blood covenant with Abraham also....
--- I have a teaching on this by Perry Stone. It is very insightful.

Gen 18: NASB

16Then (M)the men rose up from there, and looked down toward Sodom; and Abraham was walking with them to send them off.

17(N)The LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, (Obviously He was capable of doing so)

18since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed? 19"For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him." (This points to two facts WHY he doesn't hide it from Abraham, SINCE Abraham will surely.... and FOR I HAVE CHOSEN him. Seems to be God's choice not His legal responsibility)

20And the LORD said, "The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.

21"I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."

22Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the LORD.

23Abraham came near and said, "Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? (Obviously, once again, He was capable and Abraham isn't posturing a legal right before the Lord, He's reasoning with Him, asking Him a question)

24"Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it?

25"Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" (Judge of the whole earth, questions, no denying God could at anytime do what He wanted, no legality being demanded, more of a pleading0

26So the LORD said, "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare the whole place on their account." (That's His choice, and He is going to do it not by a legal binding, but rather for the sake of the righteous fifty)

27And Abraham replied, "Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and ashes. (Abraham knows he is pushing his luck, and he recognizes he has ZERO legal standing to do so with God, counter to Myles, WoF and what you are espousing)

28"Suppose the fifty righteous are lacking five, will You destroy the whole city because of five?" And He said, "I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there."

29He spoke to Him yet again and said, "Suppose forty are found there?" And He said, "I will not do it on account of the forty."

30Then he said, "Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak; suppose thirty are found there?" And He said, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."(Once again Abraham is totally messing up Myles, WoF, and your theology, somebody forgot to tell Abraham his legal rights, and that God is illegal)

31And he said, "Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord; suppose twenty are found there?" And He said, "I will not destroy it on account of the twenty." (Once again Abraham at no time says, God I'm the man and I'm dealing and you gotta deal with the man, as Myles suggest, nor does he approach God with any legal standing in his mind, but rather knows he's pushing it)

32Then he said, "Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once; suppose ten are found there?" And He said, "I will not destroy it on account of the ten." (Father Abraham, Father of our faith, sure didn't get the WoF message, I will pass along a link of Myles teaching so he can get on board)

33As soon as He had finished speaking to Abraham the LORD departed, and Abraham returned to his place. (So when God was finished speaking to Abraham, not the other way around, completely counter to Myles teaching and the teaching of the WoF and yours)

I have made my comments (inside like this) through out the passages of scripture. Please review, and help me understand how you could explain this away.

Tallen
09-07-10, 08:03 PM
But "Dishonest Obfuscator" - I think "Disingenuous Obfuscator" has a better "ring" to it

Your right, I apologize and agree that it was disingenous obfuscation. ;)

Tallen
09-07-10, 08:05 PM
You've arrived to full citizenship of the wof forum tl. You have a whole post dedicated to ad hominem and directed right at you. Congratulations.

turtlegs
09-07-10, 08:12 PM
Woo hoo!

james
09-07-10, 08:28 PM
***What does that mean terry, God having to "legally" consult with Abraham? What makes this consulatation with Abraham "legal?" :eek:

In God the Son,
james

Yodas_Prodigy
09-07-10, 10:25 PM
I hope that our Word Faith friend will do what all Word Faith people claim, to believe YHWH's word because it is written.

Bob Carabbio
09-07-10, 10:34 PM
And the BETTER question is:

Why did God come to Abraham, with two of his boys - "to see what was going on in Sodom??" - when for sure God already knew (and had known for years) whether there were "Righteous people" in Sodom - and who they were, and how many hairs were on their heads??

Obviously, God WAS NOT legally bound by anything Abraham did or didn't say, and was always completely capable of doing what He wanted.

SO why the guessing game?? Why not just TELL Abraham that Lot and his family were IT and the city was TOAST (which God already knew)??


It SEEMS that the whole process was for Abraham's benefit in some way, because on God's side the die was already cast before He got there.

What WOULD God have done if Abe had asked for 2??

And then there's EZEK 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.
31 Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord GOD.

Seems like Moses "Stood in the gap" once - back in the day.

Bob Carabbio
09-07-10, 10:38 PM
Psst!!! the "T" man hasn't figured out yet who it was "Directed to". Go Figure.

But he and I have been playing together for many years now (I used to get him and Travelah mixed up two boards ago.

But it IS a good little list, though. I printed it out without the personal side-issues to keep beside the Computer as a reference.

I think there have been some similar things posted, but not for quite a while.

turtlegs
09-07-10, 10:45 PM
My list or your list?

turtlegs
09-07-10, 10:55 PM
I like that you brought this up. If God was trying to make a point with Abraham, it is possible that the point was, ask me. If you combine these two references, you don't really have a solid case of getting what you ask for, but you do have somewhat of an image that it isn't going to hurt to ask God.

Sink or swim. And the lesson learned should be, start at the top and work your way up. What if Abraham had straight out the gun said, God would you spare them for me? Worse case scenario God would have said no.

I can imagine God was disappointed that Abraham stopped short.

Of course this is all speculative, and in no way represents a solid exegesis of Ezek 22:30, or of the passage in Gen 18. I am not opposed to bouncing idea's off each other, as long as it is kept in it's proper understanding that it is speculative, off the cuff, and spoken without much thought given it, just straight off the top of the head stuff.

Bob Carabbio
09-07-10, 11:45 PM
Yours of course, 'ol Buddy - I don't have one!

Bob Carabbio
09-08-10, 12:02 AM
"I am not opposed to bouncing idea's off each other, as long as it is kept in it's proper understanding that it is speculative, off the cuff, and spoken without much thought given it, just straight off the top of the head stuff."

But HEY!!! that's really all that ever goes on here, and according to my observation, pretty much all that goes on anywhere else.

If any "trained theologian" DID do a "Solid Exegesis" according to His paradigmatic position, the next "Trained Theologian" would just come along with HIS Paradigmatic position, and Conflicting "Solid Exegesis" and simply "blow it off". That's the "theology game" in a nutshell.

OBVIOUSLY the "Man" sought in Ezekiel - and MAYBE with Abe - was "typical" of Jesus. It seems that Moses came closest to typifying "that man" or Isaiah (Here am I, send me), and Paul in Rom 8:3 says something similar AFTER the fact.

I wonder if Abe COULDN'T have spared Sodom - if he'd had the guts/vision to do so -

Not because of some silly "Legal magic" - but just because God would have honored his request.

Terry Kott
09-08-10, 01:59 AM
--- I am through with any discussion with you. You'll have to be divisive and cause strife with someone else.

turtlegs
09-08-10, 06:43 AM
Makes you wonder.

turtlegs
09-08-10, 06:45 AM
Yours of course, 'ol Buddy - I don't have one!

One more time for clarity, is it the stategem I created on a different thread or the stategem you created of me on this thread?

Tallen
09-08-10, 08:09 AM
Sure you do. You just said you printed it out, and now you have a list. ;)

Bob Carabbio
09-08-10, 10:00 AM
Agreement is good!! n/p

Bob Carabbio
09-08-10, 10:11 AM
We gonna get into copyright issues here???

By the way, do you know that "Happy Birthday to you" is a copywritten Work (through 2037), and performing it in public is illegal in the strictest sense??

But the point is well taken - since in the U.S. ANYTHING written automatically has copyright privileges associated to it these days under intellectual property laws, then before I REPRODUCED Turtleg's list on my own paper - I SHOULD have obtained express written permission from him to do so - which I FAILED to do.

CONSEQUENTLY, as a law Abiding Citizen, I will immediately destroy my printouts, and do my best to forget that they ever existed.

I'm so ashamed.

Tallen
09-08-10, 10:27 AM
We gonna get into copyright issues here???

By the way, do you know that "Happy Birthday to you" is a copywritten Work (through 2037), and performing it in public is illegal in the strictest sense??

Nope..., never knew that. I guess they aren't going to inforce that copyright at any time soon. Especially in the schools.


But the point is well taken - since in the U.S. ANYTHING written automatically has copyright privileges associated to it these days under intellectual property laws, then before I REPRODUCED Turtleg's list on my own paper - I SHOULD have obtained express written permission from him to do so - which I FAILED to do.

Maybe he should sue you for a couple of million. You and he could call all of us in the forum to court to witness. I suspect that there would be two groups that could be forumed, and you could have those that are pro-wof and he could have the orthodox.


CONSEQUENTLY, as a law Abiding Citizen, I will immediately destroy my printouts, and do my best to forget that they ever existed.

It may be too late, especially now that we have this public record of your transgression.


I'm so ashamed.

And on top of it all... a bad confession. What are we going to do with you, Bob.

Blessings.

james
09-08-10, 10:32 AM
***Oh boy, "why the guessing game?" Don't you know about 1 Peter 1:7? The whole process is for our benefit so we can learn to depend on Him instead of walking in our own strength. Just like when Abraham took the knife to sacrifice his son but the angel of the Lord said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad for I know that you fear God." Of course God already knew Abraham feared Him even though he was "cutting" it kind of close, legally that is? :eek:

***And to answer your "gap" theory question I believe it was beachie that said he's here to fill in the gaps, so ask him. :rolleyes: :D

In God the Son,
james

turtlegs
09-08-10, 10:43 AM
Started the lawsuit last night, hope this Legal Zoom thingy works!

Tallen
09-08-10, 10:47 AM
Started the lawsuit last night, hope this Legal Zoom thingy works!

In what state was the suit started in? If I am going on vacation to witness, I might as well find something to do there.

turtlegs
09-08-10, 11:04 AM
I filed it in NC. Pretty solid case.... plenty to do here Tallen. I am concerned this will go all the way to Washington DC though, Supreme Court stuff here.... I can see the headlines now....

Turtlegs vs The Word of Faith movement - How one man wasted tax payer dollars with friviolous lawsuit....

Tallen
09-08-10, 11:10 AM
I filed it in NC. Pretty solid case.... plenty to do here Tallen. I am concerned this will go all the way to Washington DC though, Supreme Court stuff here.... I can see the headlines now....

Turtlegs vs The Word of Faith movement - How one man wasted tax payer dollars with friviolous lawsuit....

Pretty much following the leader here. Kind of like Obama's Justice Department suing Arizona..., a waste of tax payers dollars. ;)

turtlegs
09-08-10, 11:32 AM
When in Rome....

Tallen
09-08-10, 11:57 AM
When in Rome....

More to that than what lies at face value..., but some how I think you knew that.

Blessings.

turtlegs
09-08-10, 12:15 PM
Correct.

turtlegs
07-27-11, 06:33 PM
4 days, almost 12 hours.

329 days and counting.... ;)

james
07-27-11, 07:20 PM
You should not be talking about an "Apostle" that way. :eek:

In God the Son,
james

turtlegs
07-27-11, 07:39 PM
You should not be talking about an "Apostle" that way. :eek:

In God the Son,
james

BWAAA HAAA HAAA! Priceless, James, just priceless...

As you say...

In Hinn,
Glen.

Tallen
07-28-11, 08:14 AM
You're just jealous..., or..., touch not the anointed. ;)

turtlegs
07-28-11, 10:36 AM
You're just jealous..., or..., touch not the anointed. ;)

True. I was hoping Marios would apply his zeal for routing out accursed gospel changers in this thread... maybe he's not been on. I'll keep waiting, touching the accursed/annointed, depending on who you are, Myles Monroe's reputation and being jealous of all the heretics.

Yodas_Prodigy
11-07-13, 06:44 PM
Has anything changed with these guys?

glen1xtl
11-07-13, 07:02 PM
Has anything changed with these guys?

No. This brings back memories though! I wonder if I could talk the CARM demigods into giving me back the turtlegs name? Nah... somethings are worth keeping the way they are. But to answer your question... no, Myles and Benny are both still accursed.