Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[waitasec]

In a sick twisted sort of way maybe. Even though I have figured out many aspects of the way you think and the tactics you use, but have never understood the driving force or governing dynamics behind it all fully until last night. It all of a sudden became clear and explains everything. When I find time I will be sure and share it. Try not to explode with anticipation until then.

being saved means:
one does that for themselves

and to reconcile why others are not saved they are:
deceived
or willfully reject god

both of which require a fair amount of hubris.

 

[1robin]

being saved means:
one does that for themselves

and to reconcile why others are not saved they are:
deceived
or willfully reject god

both of which require a fair amount of hubris.

What was this in response to because it surely wasn't my post? My comment has no implications on why you are or are not saved but your argumentative style and motivation.

 

[waitasec]

What was this in response to because it surely wasn't my post? My comment has no implications on why you are or are not saved but your argumentative style and motivation.

it was in response to

I can give you what I have come to understand which is biblically correct but is a small slice of the larger picture. We have a natural/or unatural desire to avoid accountability. When the subject is introduced which suggests our ultimate and absolute accountability, in our scramble to avoid this result we cling to every lie and distortion that Satan, his minions or even other people may offer as a reason to dismiss the concept. I do not know exactly how this works just that its effects are obvious. It can be thought of as the old cartoon angel and devil on either side whispering to us. It is a sort of spiritual version of Satan in the garden. That is admittadly crude and simplistic but reasonably close to the effect. If you want details and many case by case testimonies the Catholics are experts in spiritual warfare and are a good source. That is at least one thing they got right. I could go on much longer but I have learned that just gives you more hairs to split. If by chance you actually cared I have given you the correct direction to look in.

 

[1robin]

it was in response to

Then why did you post another later statement I made to respond to.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To my recollection, the only Satan in the Torah is the one impeding Balaam's progress.

 

[Shermana]

If you feel that limiting the context of those verses is valid then you are welcome to it. I have no set position on them but have considered that the global availability of the gospel message may have been applicable, etc...... It does not say that others will not do great things as well. I am not even sure how within your context there is an answer to the verses in question.

Are you saying there's something wrong with limiting the context of a verse? Are you saying that there's no limit to how one can interpret a verse, like you can interpret in an unlimited sense? I think there's something wrong in not having limits to context and interpretation in which you can interpret anything just however you want no matter what the context implies. I don't think you understand at all the point of my contention, or you do understand and that's why you completely avoided the issue of why Peter and Paul were able to raise the dead in the Book of Acts. Let's try this again more simply rephrased:

The Book of Acts shows that the Disciples did many of the same Miracles that Jesus did. Therefore, what Jesus said seems to indicate that the Disciples would in fact do miracles like him. This direct interpretation would expose that almost all if not all "Christians" don't really believe in him as the Bible says and don't pass the actual smell test. And if you say that it refers to scientific advances by Christians, then what of all the advances (many more) made by non-Christians? Your interpretation is not just "limited" but its limited in how much it makes sense.

Now please explain why its wrong to have a "limited" understanding of a verse. It's one to thing to call an interpretation limited but it looks like you don't even understand the point (i.e. the liimitation is in your willingness to address the specifics) or you do and are avoiding it. It's quite clear, Jesus said true believers will be able to do miracles. This happened in Acts. When did it stop? It doesn't need to say that others won't do great things, I don't understand that contention. It says that anyone who truly "believes on" Jesus will be able to do works greater than him, and then the Book of Acts shows many of his miracles being done by his Disciples. Why were his disciples able to perform miracles then if that's not what Jesus was saying? I hope that makes sense, let me know if you need it broken down even more simply.

 

[waitasec]

Then why did you post another later statement I made to respond to.

what?
follow the trail....it started here:

I can give you what I have come to understand which is biblically correct but is a small slice of the larger picture. We have a natural/or unatural desire to avoid accountability. When the subject is introduced which suggests our ultimate and absolute accountability, in our scramble to avoid this result we cling to every lie and distortion that Satan, his minions or even other people may offer as a reason to dismiss the concept. I do not know exactly how this works just that its effects are obvious. It can be thought of as the old cartoon angel and devil on either side whispering to us. It is a sort of spiritual version of Satan in the garden. That is admittadly crude and simplistic but reasonably close to the effect. If you want details and many case by case testimonies the Catholics are experts in spiritual warfare and are a good source. That is at least one thing they got right. I could go on much longer but I have learned that just gives you more hairs to split. If by chance you actually cared I have given you the correct direction to look in.

or one saves themselves and trades in their culpability for eternal life

Did you just adopt a new mantra and are posting it in reply to every other post whether it fits or not?

you look forward to my posts don't you

In a sick twisted sort of way maybe. Even though I have figured out many aspects of the way you think and the tactics you use, but have never understood the driving force or governing dynamics behind it all fully until last night. It all of a sudden became clear and explains everything. When I find time I will be sure and share it. Try not to explode with anticipation until then.

being saved means:
one does that for themselves

and to reconcile why others are not saved they are:
deceived
or willfully reject god

both of which require a fair amount of hubris.

btw, this post was an empty retort...

 

[1robin]

Are you saying there's something wrong with limiting the context of a verse?

Nope, I was actually saying since I have no hard position on this issue that your view may be the right one.

Are you saying that there's no limit to how one can interpret a verse, like you can interpret in an unlimited sense? I think there's something wrong in not having limits to context and interpretation in which you can interpret anything just however you want no matter what the context implies. I don't think you understand at all the point of my contention, or you do understand and that's why you completely avoided the issue of why Peter and Paul were able to raise the dead in the Book of Acts. Let's try this again more simply rephrased:

The Book of Acts shows that the Disciples did many of the same Miracles that Jesus did. Therefore, what Jesus said seems to indicate that the Disciples would in fact do miracles like him. This direct interpretation would expose that almost all if not all "Christians" don't really believe in him as the Bible says and don't pass the actual smell test. And if you say that it refers to scientific advances by Christians, then what of all the advances (many more) made by non-Christians? Your interpretation is not just "limited" but its limited in how much it makes sense.

Now please explain why its wrong to have a "limited" understanding of a verse. It's one to thing to call an interpretation limited but it looks like you don't even understand the point (i.e. the liimitation is in your willingness to address the specifics) or you do and are avoiding it. It's quite clear, Jesus said true believers will be able to do miracles. This happened in Acts. When did it stop? It doesn't need to say that others won't do great things, I don't understand that contention. It says that anyone who truly "believes on" Jesus will be able to do works greater than him, and then the Book of Acts shows many of his miracles being done by his Disciples. Why were his disciples able to perform miracles then if that's not what Jesus was saying? I hope that makes sense, let me know if you need it broken down even more simply.

Man what a waste of effort. While I may not agree with your view I have not sudied this issue enough to decide whether your particular context is right or wrong. I think you made a wasted reply based on a missunderstood premise. Regardles what could happen in your context that would have made these verses true? I am not saying you are wrong so don't waste more time defending yourself but what is it that can satasfy your context and those verses? It is kind of hard to top dieing for all people if we are only discussing miracles.

 

[Shermana]

but what is it that can satasfy your context and those verses? I

Ummm, the fact that it says Peter and Paul raised people from the dead? You want to address that one eventually? What makes you think your own context is supported? I pointed out that Muslims and Atheists make great inventions too, so your argument is quite quashed.

It is kind of hard to top dieing for all people if we are only discussing miracles.

Jesus was referring to his "works" in the context of healing the sick and feeding the hungry with a few loaves, you can just look at the preceding verses to get the context, so I don't see why you think there's such a problem with context here. Do you think his sacrifice was a "work" in the same sense he was referring to?

 

[sojourner]

The Book of Acts shows that the Disciples did many of the same Miracles that Jesus did. Therefore, what Jesus said seems to indicate that the Disciples would in fact do miracles like him. This direct interpretation would expose that almost all if not all "Christians" don't really believe in him as the Bible says and don't pass the actual smell test. And if you say that it refers to scientific advances by Christians, then what of all the advances (many more) made by non-Christians? Your interpretation is not just "limited" but its limited in how much it makes sense.

This seems to reflect a rather parochial outlook. Don't you think Jesus may have been thinking rather more globally? Paul certainly thought so.

 

[Shermana]

This seems to reflect a rather parochial outlook. Don't you think Jesus may have been thinking rather more globally? Paul certainly thought so.

Did you catch where I mention that Paul talked about supernatural gifts for the Church as well? I don't see what's wrong with a "Parochial" outlook if that's the direct context in question. Even if Paul thought more "globally" it was still a very separatist, my-way-or-the-highway approach. "Let him who preaches any other gospel be damned". Doesn't sound very global.

 

[1robin]

Ummm, the fact that it says Peter and Paul raised people from the dead? You want to address that one eventually? What makes you think your own context is supported? I pointed out that Muslims and Atheists make great inventions too, so your argument is quite quashed.

I didn't say mine was or your wasn't. I was just testing yours. What Peter and Paul did was equal to but not greater than Christ. I don't get the reference. What Muslims and Atheists do has no bearing on my claims. It says that believers will do greater things than him he didn't say that they would be better than Atheists and Muslims even though I think the totals are higher for Christians. One thing has no bearing on the other.

Jesus was referring to his "works" in the context of healing the sick and feeding the hungry with a few loaves, you can just look at the preceding verses to get the context, so I don't see why you think there's such a problem with context here. Do you think his sacrifice was a "work" in the same sense he was referring to?

That is what you say the context was and you may be right. However what would these greater things possibly be? I have tried to agree with you three times now and get an answer to a question. You have not supplied it nor understood I have no meaningfull issue with your position, but you still are fighting for it and attacking my context which may very well be incorrect. Do you just want to argue?

 

[1robin]

what?
follow the trail....it started here:

Well that was a lot of work and I still have no idea what it means.

btw, this post was an empty retort...

As far as my retorts. I have a very bad and unchristian habit of assuming the demenour of who ever I talk to. I always start out repectful but wind up going where ever the other person goes. You are sinical, trivial, and sarcastic but not in a vindictive way and so I get that way from time to time. It is a fault and that is why Jesus is necessary. I am like some kind of mood mirror. Well that should have given you about two days of stuff to pick on. To limit the fall out remember that I never claimed to be a perfect or even a very good Christian. Thank God that is not the bar for heaven. It looks like you will have to wait until tomorrow for my earth shattering take on your motivation and style but it will be worth the wait.

 

[Shermana]

I didn't say mine was or your wasn't. I was just testing yours.

Okay, whatever, you're testing and you actually have agreed with me this whole time, got it.

What Peter and Paul did was equal to but not greater than Christ. I don't get the reference.

It says they did many other works, those are just examples. If you can't even do works equal to Jesus, then you are obviously aren't going to do "Greater works". Therefore, what I said stands: Jesus implied that those who would TRULY believe in him as he intended it to be meant, would be able to do miracles like him or better. Perhaps by greater he meant raise more people and it's quantitative rather than Qualitative.

What Muslims and Atheists do has no bearing on my claims. It says that believers will do greater things than him he didn't say that they would be better than Atheists and Muslims even though I think the totals are higher for Christians. One thing has no bearing on the other.

Ummm, you're missing the point. You're saying that this is to be interpreted that truly believing Christians will make great inventions as a "Miracle", so why would it be so special for "Christians" to invent a miracle but not the Muslims and Atheists? Your view rejects exlusivity of the results of the true believers. Let me know if you need it broken down more simply: If you say the "greater works" are scientific advances, then why are Christians not unique here? Why would Jesus waste his breath saying those who believe in him will make great inventions when others who don't believe also make great inventions? And then there's the issue, again, of the context of the immediately preceding verses. If you want to talk about avoiding context, how about your own view? How does your view stand when compared to the preceding verses? How can you possibly have any context of Jesus referring to inventions as works when he is talking about miracles?

That is what you say the context was and you may be right. However what would these greater things possibly be?

Again, it could be Quantitative referring to feeding 500,000 instead of 5,000 or healing 30x as many people. What is considered a greater work is not clear, but what is clear is that it says Peter and Paul did works that Jesus did. So that's the gorilla in the room. Why did Peter and Paul raise people the dead in the first place if Jesus didn't imply that future disciples would be able to do at least equal works let alone "greater"?

I have tried to agree with you three times now and get an answer to a question.

You were trying to agree with me each time? I thought your question was answered the first time I mentioned it them raising the dead.

You have not supplied it nor understood I have no meaningfull issue with your position,

I fail to see how I didn't imply a clear meaningful context with that reference.

but you still are fighting for it and attacking my context which may very well be incorrect. Do you just want to argue?

I presented my case with a simple point and then you challenged it, I was assuming you were attacking my own context of which stands undefeated.

 

[waitasec]

As far as my retorts. I have a very bad and unchristian habit of assuming the demenour of who ever I talk to.

guess what? you are not the only christian who does this....

I always start out repectful but wind up going where ever the other person goes.

then you need to trust god more.

You are sinical, trivial, and sarcastic but not in a vindictive way

i appreciate you acknowledging that

It is a fault and that is why Jesus is necessary. I am like some kind of mood mirror.

let me ask you this...do you believe it is impossible to have a discourse that wouldn't entail assuming the demeanor of the other person without jesus?

Well that should have given you about two days of stuff to pick on. To limit the fall out remember that I never claimed to be a perfect or even a very good Christian. Thank God that is not the bar for heaven. It looks like you will have to wait until tomorrow for my earth shattering take on your motivation and style but it will be worth the wait.

my motivation is to question....everything

 

[sojourner]

Did you catch where I mention that Paul talked about supernatural gifts for the Church as well? I don't see what's wrong with a "Parochial" outlook if that's the direct context in question. Even if Paul thought more "globally" it was still a very separatist, my-way-or-the-highway approach. "Let him who preaches any other gospel be damned". Doesn't sound very global.

I don't see the gospel in any way as "separatist." I think the gospel is more universal than you seem to be giving it credit for here.

 

[Shermana]

"I have not come for anyone but the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" along with the command to not go unto the gentiles comes to mind about the "universality".

 

[waitasec]

I don't see the gospel in any way as "separatist." I think the gospel is more universal than you seem to be giving it credit for here.

well that is the current understanding....
considering jesus only came for the lost sheep of israel....but now the goal posts have moved to include the entire world for some reason

 

[waitasec]

"I have not come for anyone but the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" along with the command to not go unto the gentiles comes to mind about the "universality".

i didn't read this before i posted, honest....

 

[sojourner]

"I have not come for anyone but the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" along with the command to not go unto the gentiles comes to mind about the "universality".

Go and make laos out of the ethne speaks volumes about universality.