The Holy Spirit

[Redemptionsong]

That is just another bald unsupported assertion. Stacking them as high as you like they will never add up to more.

'Scripture cannot be broken' is a statement that came from the lips of Jesus, and is reported to us by the disciple and eyewitness, John.

The Jesus we read about in the scriptures was a man without iniquity. If we judge a tree by its fruit, then Jesus was a good tree. There is no reason to believe he told lies, or that he was ignorant of the scriptures.

Your claim that his statement is a 'bald unsupported assertion' flies in the face of everything written about Jesus as 'the Word of God'. Truth cannot be broken, nor can God's Word.
[IMO]

 

[ppp]

'Scripture cannot be broken' is a statement that came from the lips of Jesus, and is reported to us by the disciple and eyewitness, John.

Even were that statement completely true, it would still be a bald unsupported assertion. Identifying the person who made the assertion does not give it either hair or support.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Even we're that statement completely true, it would still be a bald unsupported assertion. Identifying the person who made the assertion does not give it either hair or support.

It could be very relevant. If, as is claimed, Jesus Christ is the Word of God, then there cannot be one word of scripture that did not originate in Christ. [John 1:1]

 

[ppp]

It could be very relevant. If, as is claimed, Jesus Christ is the Word of God, then there cannot be one word of scripture that did not originate in Christ. [John 1:1]

This is what I meant earlier by stacked. There are so many bald assumptions in that post alone. That Jesus is the word of god. That there is a word of god. That there is a god. That a book cannot have more than one source. And so much more

 

[Redemptionsong]

This is what I meant earlier by stacked. There are so many bald assumptions in that post alone. That Jesus is the word of god. That there is a word of god. That there is a god. That a book cannot have more than one source. And so much more

As it says in John 5:39, 'Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they that testify of me'.

Odd phraseology, but you get the gist!

 

[Sheldon]

I'm pleased to see that you're now using some evidence to support your claims!

Could you quote a single claim I have made that is not supported by any objective evidence ever?

The problem is, you've been misled by some poor teaching.

I quoted the bible verbatim, I needed no teaching to read unequivocal claims and see they contradict each other, so you must be saying the bible is poor teaching?

If one makes comparisons between two different covenants, one is bound to find differences.

You claimed:

Redemptionsong said: ↑
The meaning of the phrase 'scripture cannot be broken' is made clear by the consistency of scripture itself.

So I was also addressing that claim, so this goal post shifting is a red herring as scripture clearly isn't consistent as you claimed. Though the idea that an omniscient and omnipotent deity, needs two attempts to get it's message right, is pretty funny tbh.

 

[ppp]

As it says in John 5:39, 'Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they that testify of me'.

Odd phraseology, but you get the gist!

You know that is just one more unevidenced assumption that you are throwing onto the heap. Right?

There is no good reason to believe any claim in the Bible just because it is in the Bible

 

[Sheldon]

I'll repeat the same truth, namely, that 'scripture cannot be broken'.

Your definition of this was that it is consistent, I have already demonstrated unequivocally by quoting it that this is not the case. The only answer you had was to try and wave it away with the ludicrous red herring that an omniscient and omnipotent deity needed two tries to save everyone.

 

[Sheldon]

Policy said: ↑
That is just another bald unsupported assertion. Stacking them as high as you like they will never add up to more.

'Scripture cannot be broken' is a statement that came from the lips of Jesus, and is reported to us by the disciple and eyewitness, John.

You don't find an unevidenced claim an ironic response, how odd?

"Although the Gospel is ostensibly written by John the Apostle, there has been considerable discussion of the actual identity of the author. The language of the Gospel and its well-developed theology suggest that the author may have lived much later than John.

Moreover, the facts that several episodes in the life of Jesus are recounted out of sequence with the Synoptics and that the final chapter appears to be a later addition suggest that the text may be a composite. The Gospel’s place and date of composition are also uncertain; many scholars suggest that it was written at Ephesus, in Asia Minor, about 100 CE"

The Jesus we read about in the scriptures was a man without iniquity.

Harry Potter is a wizard in the books, this doesn't mean a wizard named Harry potter ever existed, or if he did that he was in fact a wizard.

Your claim that his statement is a 'bald unsupported assertion' flies in the face of everything written about Jesus

On the contrary, you seem to be simply assuming that was written about Jesus in the bible are all facts, which is not remotely true. The authors of the NT are either unknown and made up, or dubious, and there isn't a single contemporary account in there, even the earliest writing are decades after the fact, so to put it bluntly it is naught but hearsay, and from an age of ignorance and superstition at that.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Could you quote a single claim I have made that is not supported by any objective evidence ever?



I quoted the bible verbatim, I needed no teaching to read unequivocal claims and see they contradict each other, so you must be saying the bible is poor teaching?



You claimed:



So I was also addressing that claim, so this goal post shifting is a red herring as scripture clearly isn't consistent as you claimed. Though the idea that an omniscient and omnipotent deity, needs two attempts to get it's message right, is pretty funny tbh.

As l said, the root of the problem appears to be poor teaching. Had you understood the difference between the two covenants, you would not have used these examples.

What do you understand the difference between the two covenants to be?

 

[Sheldon]

As l said, the root of the problem appears to be poor teaching. Had you understood the difference between the two covenants, you would not have used these examples.

So no then, you can't offer a single claim of mine made in the absence of any objective evidence, thus your claim that I am "now using proper evidence" was pretty dishonest.

Your claimed was that scripture is consistent, I refuted that claim, quoting the bible verbatim, if you think the bible is a poor teacher then that speaks volumes. It is doubly dishonest for you to ignore that in my post. Scripture is demonstrably not consistent, that is amply established by simply reading it, as I demonstrated.

What do you understand the difference between the two covenants to be?

As I already said I find the notion an omniscient and omnipotent deity needed two attempts to get its message right farcically absurd.

Rather than tell me what I already stated plainly, try explaining how a deity with limitless knowledge to create a message and limitless power to communicate it, couldn't get it right the first time, and thus needed what you refer to as a second covenant? The notion of the new covenant I was taught as a child, over 4 decades ago, so you are wrong about that as well. It made as much sense then as it does now, which is to say none.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You don't find an unevidenced claim an ironic response, how odd?

"Although the Gospel is ostensibly written by John the Apostle, there has been considerable discussion of the actual identity of the author. The language of the Gospel and its well-developed theology suggest that the author may have lived much later than John.

Moreover, the facts that several episodes in the life of Jesus are recounted out of sequence with the Synoptics and that the final chapter appears to be a later addition suggest that the text may be a composite. The Gospel’s place and date of composition are also uncertain; many scholars suggest that it was written at Ephesus, in Asia Minor, about 100 CE"



Harry Potter is a wizard in the books, this doesn't mean a wizard named Harry potter ever existed, or if he did that he was in fact a wizard.



On the contrary, you seem to be simply assuming that was written about Jesus in the bible are all facts, which is not remotely true. The authors of the NT are either unknown and made up, or dubious, and there isn't a single contemporary account in there, even the earliest writing are decades after the fact, so to put it bluntly it is naught but hearsay, and from an age of ignorance and superstition at that.

Generalised criticism is not easy to answer. Do you have specific concerns with the content of John's Gospel?

 

[Redemptionsong]

So no then, you can't offer a single claim of mine made in the absence of any objective evidence, thus your claim that I am "now using proper evidence" was pretty dishonest.

Your claimed was that scripture is consistent, I refuted that claim, quoting the bible verbatim, if you think the bible is a poor teacher then that speaks volumes. It is doubly dishonest for you to ignore that in my post. Scripture is demonstrably not consistent, that is amply established by simply reading it, as I demonstrated.



As I already said I find the notion an omniscient and omnipotent deity needed two attempts to get its message right farcically absurd.

Rather than tell me what I already stated plainly, try explaining how a deity with limitless knowledge to create a message and limitless power to communicate it, couldn't get it right the first time, and thus needed what you refer to as a second covenant? The notion of the new covenant I was taught as a child, over 4 decades ago, so you are wrong about that as well. It made as much sense then as it does now, which is to say none.

The reason that two covenants exist is because of sin. The law provides a temporary solution to dealing with sin. Jesus Christ provides an eternal solution.

The same distinction exists with regard to righteousness. Under the law, humanity is required to demonstrate its own righteousness. Under grace, humanity is offered the righteousness of God, in Christ.

 

[paarsurrey]

The reason that two covenants exist is because of sin. The law provides a temporary solution to dealing with sin. Jesus Christ provides an eternal solution.

The same distinction exists with regard to righteousness. Under the law, humanity is required to demonstrate its own righteousness. Under grace, humanity is offered the righteousness of God, in Christ.

Please quote from Jesus rather than basing one's point on the anonymous authors of the Gospels , I understand. Okay?

Regards

 

[Redemptionsong]

Please quote from Jesus rather than basing one's point on the anonymous authors of the Gospels , I understand. Okay?

Regards

Were you not aware that Jesus was not the writer? Christ, the Word of God, is the Spirit of prophecy.

Had Jesus written the Gospels, as well as been their spiritual author, there would not have been witnesses to his coming recording the truth. It's important to have at least two witnesses providing the evidence.

Muhammad claimed to be a prophet, and instead of witnessing to another greater than he, he was witnessing of himself! This does not happen in the Bible.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

Yes, l agree with you.

To me it's nicely summed up in Ephesians 4:6. 'One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all [Christ amongst], and in you all [the body of Christ].

And, l hope you've had a happy birthday!

Hi Redemptionsong. Good evening. Thank you for the happy birthday wishes .

 

[paarsurrey]

Were you not aware that Jesus was not the writer? Christ, the Word of God, is the Spirit of prophecy.

Had Jesus written the Gospels, as well as been their spiritual author, there would not have been witnesses to his coming recording the truth. It's important to have at least two witnesses providing the evidence.

Muhammad claimed to be a prophet, and instead of witnessing to another greater than he, he was witnessing of himself! This does not happen in the Bible.

In other words, is it one's admittance that Jesus did not write any of the Gospels and had nothing to do it? Right?
One has written the above post, is it written by one without one's spirit in one's body? Right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Redemptionsong said: ↑

In other words, is it one's admittance that Jesus did not write any of the Gospels and had nothing to do it? Right?
One has written the above post, is it written by one without one's spirit in one's body? Right?

Our friends would agree that every human born and living has body and spirit, Jesus is no exception to it. Once when one dies the spirit leaves the body, never to return again in the (previous) body, please. Right?
If, Jesus died on the Cross as Pauline-Christians- all and each one of its 32000+ denomination (including JWs and Mormons); Jesus never returned to this world in the past nor is he going to any time again in future, I figure, please. Right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Were you not aware that Jesus was not the writer? Christ, the Word of God, is the Spirit of prophecy.

Had Jesus written the Gospels, as well as been their spiritual author, there would not have been witnesses to his coming recording the truth. It's important to have at least two witnesses providing the evidence.

Muhammad claimed to be a prophet, and instead of witnessing to another greater than he, he was witnessing of himself! This does not happen in the Bible.

" Word of God, is the Spirit of prophecy."
" there would not have been witnesses to his coming"

The above words are either unreasonable or in other words just nonsense, methinks.
Paul who invented Pauline-Christianity must have been supported by the Devil , I understand, when he faked a vision of seeing risen Jesus and he self assumed as an Apostle, it can, in no case be the Holy Spirit but sure a Devil one could ascertain from:

1. Jesus had never died a cursed death on the Cross in the first place, so there is no case of him rising from the dead. Sure?
2. If Jesus was to ascend to heaven and that is why he told his followers to go to Galilee that holds no water, most probably. Jesus didn't need it, he could have risen right from the Golgotha before the very eyes of the Jews to whom he has promised to show the Sign of Jonah. Afterall there was no ladder at Galilee to help him ascend to heaven from there, so it never happened, most certainly, please. Right?

We may, therefore, safely conclude that it was the Evil Devil that started the Pauline-Christianity to deviate from the truthful path of innocent Jesus and Mary, it cannot be the Holy Spirit, one would agree, please. Right?
Anther reason ,I comprehend, is that as this Evil Devil deviated Paul in the beginning so in the end it misguided Joseph Smith of the Mormons to announce a Prophet of Jesus. This way completing a full evil circle or a vicious circle to the Paulin-Christianity. Isn't it plausible, please?
Disgusted with this unreasonable scenario and in reaction to it , people in the West, as they claim, are saying good-bye to it and becoming " nones" or Atheism or the like, please. Agree?

Regards

 

[ppp]

Disgusted with this unreasonable scenario and in reaction to it , people in the West, as they claim, are saying good-bye to it and becoming " nones" or Atheism or the like, please. Agree?

My becoming an atheist had nothing to do with any of that. It wasn't even a consideration.