the right religion

[1robin]

Your perceptions that they conflict is the issue. You are utterly stuck on the notion that they conflict. I am not.

Died and didn't die are about the perfect example of a contradiction.

Settled? Hardly.
It started pure and has become corrupted and perverted through the precepts of men. Christianity is a mess, which is contrary to what it was ordained to be. It was given to be a living body on the foundation of prophets and apostles that would bring them all together into a unity of faith. One faith and one baptism.

This is a unsustainable contention. It is possible these days to compare a modern bible with the earliest manuscript in existance (vaticanus I think) and find the errors your self. They add up to about 5% total. Of those less than 1% have any meaningfull effect. I have heard many times that none effect doctrine but have not checked. What's more is that they are all known and indicated and so are no problem what so ever. I wish we could persue this one as it is tiring to hear people who apparently know nothing about the issue saythis mess and I have to undue their claims tikme after time.

You already gave one. Islam provides more details about what happened with Jesus.

Why it the world even if true which it isn't even close to the truth would that matter? I do not care what a violent, illiterate man said 500 years after an event. My sources are witnesses. It does not get any better in historical claims than that.

God is unfolding His truth and we get more and more with each dispensation. Jesus said "ye are gods'. What did he mean by that?

That is very complecated I studied it once. It has something to do with official titles. What it certainly does not mean is that every individual is equivalent to God. What it actually means is nothing like what it seems to say.

It is only relevant to those who utterly refust the possibility that they do agree.

THere is no way to make did and did not agree.

It doesn't make any snese because you have not sincerely considered the possibility that Christianity could actually fail, in the main, to realize the Father's Kingdom.

You are going to have to make more than assertions without even a single reson to believe them. It is the equivalent to saying nuh uhh.

My sense here is that I'm the one looking down on your head from where I stand. Jesus was all about the establishment of the Father's Kingdom. You don't really seem to give His Kingdom, in a literal sense, much consideration. I see truths of Islam having consistency with the truths of Christianity, you deny such is possible. I have had visions and revelations similar to Paul such that I understand what Paul did in the same manner. So, what have you contributed here that suggests you are further up the mountain?

What does this persective have to do with anything? Must be born again no matter where you arbitrarily claim to be standing. God's kingdom is that which Christ said is spiritual and not of this world. It is the kingdom a Christian enters when he is born again and made spiritually alive. No one else can enter there another way. I have no access to your experiences, I wil not comment on them but neither can I assume you are correct. Without some means as in miracles like Paul did I can place no confidence your claims.

So warning about fasle propeths is the same as warning about all prophets?

What? The bible says there are Godly prophets and ungodly prophets and there are standards for each.

You think the Father's Kingdom is going to be established without any heavenly authority and further revelation?

I thinkthe kingdom of God is already established. That is why Jesus told Nicodemus what he must to to enter it. I also think that there is absolutly no additional revelation needed until at least the time when the earth is made into heaven. After that I have no clue. The bible expressly forbids additional revelations.

To argue for this would be like the Jews saying there is no basis for any Jesus or Son of God to die for them. The Jews are the light and life of the world and all of this nonsense about new revelation, giving the gift of the Holy Ghost is just needless deception.

I have no idea how this personal opinion has anything to do with what I said. If you reject the bible then why are we talking If you accept it why are we debateing. I love the Jews as much as anyone but I do not care what they think of the NT.

Muddled up with your own reasoning that you seem to presume is 100% in accordance with God' intent.

My reasoning is almost almost always consistent with main stream theologians, scholars, textual critics, commentators, and a plain reading of the text. We have not discussed a suffecient amout of stuff to allow any judgement about the accuracy of my positions.

I have no doubt that there are a healthy supply of false prophets. Does that mean you should assume everyone claiming authority and revelation from God is false?

Wher did you get that. There are tests and implications concerning false and true prophets in teh bible. One being that Jesus sent the Holy spirit is the last prophet is quite simple. The others involve miracles the perfection contained in prophecy and consistency with the biblical narrative. All of which neither Muhammad nor any other later prophet meet.

Of course He won't leave or forsake anyone, but that doesn't mean he is going to force himself upon someone who has become deceived by a false spirit and who is forsaking Him.

Actually both Jesus and the Holy spirit are said to be a paracleate (one who comes along side) and both are said to never leave us. So by your claims then the Holy Spirit who will never leave us must then go to hell with us if we get decieved. Either the Christian, Jesus, and the holy spirit will spend eternity in hell, or you are wrong, or the bible is wrong. I know which one my money is one. If you claim that they do not wind up in hell then what is the point.

God has an important function for Ishmael. He is, for the time being, having much more fidelity to God than Jacob is.

What are you talking about again? Abrahams sons were Ismael and Isaac. What does Jacob the son of rebekkah have to do with anything? God established his nation with Isaac. I will go with God on the issue not the one reffered to as a wild *** of a man.
New International Version (©1984)
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."
Genesis 16:12 He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."
If that isn't accurate nothing is.

It always is when there is a beam in your own eye.

You can't use the bible when it suites you and reject it when that suites you unless you can establish the textuall history of each statement. Be consistent one way or the other, I don't care which. That makes no sence. A beam in the eye does not make Muhammad say exactly what the bible says the anti-christ will say.

I am fully prepared to go into this, I answered this post more completely while I wait for you to continue our discussion.
You will find that I won't forsake this topic, unless you do.

What was the topic in this statement? I went back two posts and didn't see it. With posts this long you will have to forgive my typeing.

 

[kylixguru]

Died and didn't die are about the perfect example of a contradiction.

Did Lazarus die? In one sense he did. In another sense, due to the intervention of Jesus, he did not. He didn't die, but he lived. Cultures can simply have a different way of emphasizing certain points. To them, Jesus didn't really die, and we of course know that he didn't actually die because he continued to teach the apostles and so on. He was yet living.

This is a unsustainable contention. ...

Huh? Nothing you said is relevant to the fact that Christianity is a fractured and divided mess of all kinds of different doctrines, dogmas, ordinances, beliefs about God, about the divinity of Jesus, etc. It's a totally jumbled up mess of confusion. If you are unwilling to admit that then your integrity and sensibility should be held in serious suspicion.

Why it the world even if true which it isn't even close to the truth would that matter? I do not care what a violent, illiterate man said 500 years after an event. My sources are witnesses. It does not get any better in historical claims than that.

Your prejudices exhibited are not any better than the prejudices the Jews exhibited toward Jesus. Christianity has been an extremely violent religion at times too, so don't think you have any moral high ground here.

You are going to have to make more than assertions without even a single reson to believe them. It is the equivalent to saying nuh uhh.

Ok, so, I understand the Father's Kingdom and know that it was offered to Christians but they totally rejected it and beat the Father's servants. And, they are losing ground more and more to such an extent that I see concentration camps being built to file them into when they make their final feeble attempts to resist that which is engulfing them. They rejected and beat those who were attempting to bring the fruition of their hopes and dreams, but they dashed them to pieces. Romans chapter 1 is playing out. They thought they were wise, but they rejected the Father when He came among them and counted His Kingdom as foolishness. It happened in the last cycle of creation and it is happening again in the new cycle of creation. I will gladly take the time to explain all of this in detail, provided you are willing to hear it out fully. So far is all you say is "Nah".

What does this persective have to do with anything? Must be born again no matter where you arbitrarily claim to be standing. God's kingdom is that which Christ said is spiritual and not of this world. It is the kingdom a Christian enters when he is born again and made spiritually alive. No one else can enter there another way. I have no access to your experiences, I wil not comment on them but neither can I assume you are correct. Without some means as in miracles like Paul did I can place no confidence your claims.

What you were spiritually born to was not a pathway to the Father's Kingdom that Jesus said was coming. Being 'not of this world" was a statement of time, not location. The Father's Kingdom does not come until Day 1 of a new cycle of Creation. Thus, what Jesus meant was "my Kingdom is not of this age (or cycle). It is Jesus who becomes the Father on the Day 1 of the new heavens and new earth that is created. He rules and reigns as the Father when the new age is ushered in. We are now in that time when the birth of a new cycle is upon us, but Christians are among the Father's fiercest enemies to bring them what they have supposed to been praying and looking for. It is a very sad irony, but Christians are wilfully blinded by false and seducing spirits that give them this sense of security that they are infallible and beyond reproach, when in fact they are infidels.

What? The bible says there are Godly prophets and ungodly prophets and there are standards for each.

Of course. Just beware when you judge that there isn't a beam in your own eye. Otherwise, your finger of accusation will be what condemns you in your day of judgment.

I thinkthe kingdom of God is already established.

Your thinking is wrong. Go back and review that post now, the one that I knew you would need. The Father and His Servants are to literally bring His Kingdom here to earth. That shall be the time when Israel as a people shall be established in their land of promise again and they will not have any other powers or authority of men to answer to. This is the gathering and resurrection of Israel as a nation such that they can again be a chaste and pure Bride to the Lord. This is not possible when there are state powers in authority above the people to precent them to have such fidelity. You know not what the Father's Kingdom is.

That is why Jesus told Nicodemus what he must to to enter it. I also think that there is absolutly no additional revelation needed until at least the time when the earth is made into heaven. After that I have no clue. The bible expressly forbids additional revelations.

That's total malarky. Luke 12 says there would be additional "meat" that would be brought when Christ returned. And, Jesus warned that if those servants bringing that "meat" are beaten that there would be some very severe problems. This is what Christianity, in the main, has done.

I have no idea how this personal opinion has anything to do with what I said. If you reject the bible then why are we talking If you accept it why are we debateing. I love the Jews as much as anyone but I do not care what they think of the NT.

So if I am a servant of the Father, should I not care about what you think of the Father's Kingdom? Do you realize the Jews were totally smashed by the Romans and cut off again as a people precisely because they rejected Jesus? Do you think Christians are in a position of infallibility here? Paul certainly did not. Read Romans 11 where Paul warned the Gentiles to be not high minded, for if they didn't manifest the fruits the Father looks for, they too shall be quickly cut off. God didn't spare the natural branches so what makes the Gentiles think God won't cut them off just the same?

My reasoning is almost almost always consistent with main stream theologians, scholars, textual critics, commentators, and a plain reading of the text. We have not discussed a suffecient amout of stuff to allow any judgement about the accuracy of my positions.

My reasoning has had one aim, and one aim only: The will of the Father as confirmed by the Holy Spirit. All the wisdom of the world pales in comparison to God's Mind.

Where did you get that. There are tests and implications concerning false and true prophets in teh bible. One being that Jesus sent the Holy spirit is the last prophet is quite simple. The others involve miracles the perfection contained in prophecy and consistency with the biblical narrative. All of which neither Muhammad nor any other later prophet meet.

Unless of course you have a beam in your own eye and are unable to see clearly to judge.
Also, your manner of conversation has been to immediately assume anyone claiming to be a prophet is false. Your eyes are not sincerely open to the possibility of there being servants of the Father who have power and authority and divine instructions on how things are to proceed with the gathering of the 12 tribes of Israel and their re-establishment as a sovereign Kingdom.

Actually both Jesus and the Holy spirit are said to be a paracleate (one who comes along side) and both are said to never leave us. So by your claims then the Holy Spirit who will never leave us must then go to hell with us if we get decieved. Either the Christian, Jesus, and the holy spirit will spend eternity in hell, or you are wrong, or the bible is wrong. I know which one my money is one. If you claim that they do not wind up in hell then what is the point.

If we become deceived and go to hell, it shall be because we left them.

What are you talking about again? Abrahams sons were Ismael and Isaac. What does Jacob the son of rebekkah have to do with anything? God established his nation with Isaac. I will go with God on the issue not the one reffered to as a wild *** of a man.

Isaac's blessings were put upon Jacob. The point remains that God has an important work for Ishamel to accomplish. He is an adversary to his brother, and at a time when it serves a good purpose. We needn't distract ourselves in the details of Islam since that really isn't my main point here. Islam does not represent the Father's Kingdom. They too are among those looking forward to its coming.

You can't use the bible when it suites you and reject it when that suites you unless you can establish the textuall history of each statement. Be consistent one way or the other, I don't care which. That makes no sence. A beam in the eye does not make Muhammad say exactly what the bible says the anti-christ will say.

If you have beam in your eye, you can fail to judge things. You must first cast the beam out of your own eye in order to see clearly. Christianity has not done this. They are infidel just as Mohammed said.

What was the topic in this statement? I went back two posts and didn't see it. With posts this long you will have to forgive my typeing.

I was referring to the new thread we started.
I answered this thread here while I was waiting for you to respond to the new thread.

 

[1robin]

Did Lazarus die? In one sense he did. In another sense, due to the intervention of Jesus, he did not. He didn't die, but he lived.

Nope, he died. Period. He was then raised but not resurrected. He died again. To say he didn't die is simply a lie.

Cultures can simply have a different way of emphasizing certain points. To them, Jesus didn't really die, and we of course know that he didn't actually die because he continued to teach the apostles and so on. He was yet living.

I am familiar with just about every single Muslim interpretation on the Quran concerning the issue. They do not believe he did what a far earlier and contemporary book with many wittnesses says point blank he did.

Huh? Nothing you said is relevant to the fact that Christianity is a fractured and divided mess of all kinds of different doctrines, dogmas, ordinances, beliefs about God, about the divinity of Jesus, etc. It's a totally jumbled up mess of confusion. If you are unwilling to admit that then your integrity and sensibility should be held in serious suspicion.

This diatribe is more of a sermon based on incorrect opinion, and has nothing to do with the issue. THe denominations of Christianity are united on 95% of doctrine the differences concern issues like music in church, and transubstination, not essential doctrine. Whatever divisions you assume Christianity has are just as prevelant in Islam. This was just a rant. Do you ever prove anything or just make assertions?

Your prejudices exhibited are not any better than the prejudices the Jews exhibited toward Jesus. Christianity has been an extremely violent religion at times too, so don't think you have any moral high ground here.

Facts have nothing to do with prejudice. This is just a hollow appeal to sympathy and victumhood. The fact that Muhammad was violent is a fact not prejudice, the fact that he was illiterate is a fact of the Quran. In fact it is probably true that he was not illiterate but I was using Islams own history for this so called prejudice. Every thing I said is in the Quran.

Ok, so, I understand the Father's Kingdom and know that it was offered to Christians but they totally rejected it and beat the Father's servants. And, they are losing ground more and more to such an extent that I see concentration camps being built to file them into when they make their final feeble attempts to resist that which is engulfing them. They rejected and beat those who were attempting to bring the fruition of their hopes and dreams, but they dashed them to pieces. Romans chapter 1 is playing out. They thought they were wise, but they rejected the Father when He came among them and counted His Kingdom as foolishness. It happened in the last cycle of creation and it is happening again in the new cycle of creation. I will gladly take the time to explain all of this in detail, provided you are willing to hear it out fully. So far is all you say is "Nah".

I deal in facts not sermons based on opinions that are never given any justification.

What you were spiritually born to was not a pathway to the Father's Kingdom that Jesus said was coming. Being 'not of this world" was a statement of time, not location. The Father's Kingdom does not come until Day 1 of a new cycle of Creation. Thus, what Jesus meant was "my Kingdom is not of this age (or cycle). It is Jesus who becomes the Father on the Day 1 of the new heavens and new earth that is created. He rules and reigns as the Father when the new age is ushered in. We are now in that time when the birth of a new cycle is upon us, but Christians are among the Father's fiercest enemies to bring them what they have supposed to been praying and looking for. It is a very sad irony, but Christians are wilfully blinded by false and seducing spirits that give them this sense of security that they are infallible and beyond reproach, when in fact they are infidels.

I reject as non biblical and illogical what you claim. If you can't back it up with scripture of facts then it isn't worth posting.

Of course. Just beware when you judge that there isn't a beam in your own eye. Otherwise, your finger of accusation will be what condemns you in your day of judgment.

So Jesus died for all sins except the ones you invent.

Your thinking is wrong. Go back and review that post now, the one that I knew you would need. The Father and His Servants are to literally bring His Kingdom here to earth. That shall be the time when Israel as a people shall be established in their land of promise again and they will not have any other powers or authority of men to answer to. This is the gathering and resurrection of Israel as a nation such that they can again be a chaste and pure Bride to the Lord. This is not possible when there are state powers in authority above the people to precent them to have such fidelity. You know not what the Father's Kingdom is.

I am in agreement with the commentators, scholars, and apostles. So either the experts are all wrong or you alone are right. I know what I am choosing.

That's total malarky. Luke 12 says there would be additional "meat" that would be brought when Christ returned. And, Jesus warned that if those servants bringing that "meat" are beaten that there would be some very severe problems. This is what Christianity, in the main, has done.

Luke 12 is a chapter not a verse. I reject your interpretation but if you give the verse I will show why plus I wil even supply the scholarly interpretation whatever it says.

So if I am a servant of the Father, should I not care about what you think of the Father's Kingdom? Do you realize the Jews were totally smashed by the Romans and cut off again as a people precisely because they rejected Jesus? Do you think Christians are in a position of infallibility here? Paul certainly did not. Read Romans 11 where Paul warned the Gentiles to be not high minded, for if they didn't manifest the fruits the Father looks for, they too shall be quickly cut off. God didn't spare the natural branches so what makes the Gentiles think God won't cut them off just the same?

I never suggested or have ever thought we were infallable. In fact our fallability is why we needed a savior. You seem to think the remedie for our fallability is rendered useless by our fallability. You just do not understand the Biblical narrative.

My reasoning has had one aim, and one aim only: The will of the Father as confirmed by the Holy Spirit. All the wisdom of the world pales in comparison to God's Mind.

You must first have the Holy Spirit. Unless you are a born again Christian this isn't the case. If you are and a Muslim, there is a flaw in the slaw somewhere.

Unless of course you have a beam in your own eye and are unable to see clearly to judge. Also, your manner of conversation has been to immediately assume anyone claiming to be a prophet is false. Your eyes are not sincerely open to the possibility of there being servants of the Father who have power and authority and divine instructions on how things are to proceed with the gathering of the 12 tribes of Israel and their re-establishment as a sovereign Kingdom.

Post the statement I made where I said you were a false prophet. I am not saying I do not think that. I just never said it, so once again this woe is me appeal to sympathy is irrelevant.

If we become deceived and go to hell, it shall be because we left them.

How do we leave what promised to never leave us? When your theology produces contradictory and illogical ideas like this it might be time to recalibrate.

Isaac's blessings were put upon Jacob. The point remains that God has an important work for Ishamel to accomplish. He is an adversary to his brother, and at a time when it serves a good purpose. We needn't distract ourselves in the details of Islam since that really isn't my main point here. Islam does not represent the Father's Kingdom. They too are among those looking forward to its coming.

Would you please ground what you say in evidence these long opinions have no value.

If you have beam in your eye, you can fail to judge things. You must first cast the beam out of your own eye in order to see clearly. Christianity has not done this. They are infidel just as Mohammed said.

Muhammad is no standard by which to jusdge anything by. He could not even figure out that we he got from heretical Jews and Gnostics was not what is in the bible. He made mistake after mistake. He said the trinity includes Mary. It does not. He got Mary the mother of Christ confused with Mary the sister of Moses. He included virtually word for word texts out of the heretical infancy gospel. I do not care what he said.

 

[kjw47]

It is my opinion that there is only one spiritual path, made by god. Man makes religions (religious traditions) and there are clearly plenty of those. There must be something we an do to get closer god, so the question is, what is the best way?

In my opinion it's not worth fighting over. We should be helping our fellow travelers get back home. Let's not sweat the tactical details and try to focus on things that might help. Namely technique, finding (divine) love, and getting clear, measurable results (inside).

I believe you are right, one spiritual path leads to God, and as his word teaches--Few will find it. Yes men made countless #,s of religions, Jesus made one single religion, unified in love and peace worldwide. Being lead on earth by the -- faithful and discreet slave( lead teachers) whom Jesus appointed over all of his belongings( Flock) to give spiritual food at the proper time.
Jesus taught us the best way to get closer to God, he even taught that it meant one gaining eternal life in Gods kingdom--- it is found at John 17:1-6---- This means eternal life, their taking in knowledge( knowing) of you( Father) THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and of the one whom you( Father) sent forth, Jesus Christ--verse 6 = Jehovah.
The Fds teach exactly that.

 

[kylixguru]

Nope, he died. Period. He was then raised but not resurrected. He died again. To say he didn't die is simply a lie.

You totally missed my point.

I am familiar with just about every single Muslim interpretation on the Quran concerning the issue. They do not believe he did what a far earlier and contemporary book with many wittnesses says point blank he did.

Christianity doesn't agree and in the main does not understand what actually happened anyway. If they had the whole "big picture" view there wouldn't be so many divisions among them.

This diatribe is more of a sermon based on incorrect opinion, and has nothing to do with the issue. THe denominations of Christianity are united on 95% of doctrine the differences concern issues like music in church, and transubstination, not essential doctrine. Whatever divisions you assume Christianity has are just as prevelant in Islam. This was just a rant. Do you ever prove anything or just make assertions?

I present principles that you seem to not have eyes to discern. Reread what I said and look for the principle in it.

Facts have nothing to do with prejudice. This is just a hollow appeal to sympathy and victumhood. The fact that Muhammad was violent is a fact not prejudice, the fact that he was illiterate is a fact of the Quran. In fact it is probably true that he was not illiterate but I was using Islams own history for this so called prejudice. Every thing I said is in the Quran.

Give me the reference on Mary please.

I deal in facts not sermons based on opinions that are never given any justification.

"Never given any justification". I don't spoon feed you, that's true. I present principles you seem unable to understand.

I reject as non biblical and illogical what you claim. If you can't back it up with scripture of facts then it isn't worth posting.
So Jesus died for all sins except the ones you invent.
I am in agreement with the commentators, scholars, and apostles. So either the experts are all wrong or you alone are right. I know what I am choosing.

You believe you are and your experts believe they are.
The wisdom of men is foolishness to me.

Luke 12 is a chapter not a verse. I reject your interpretation but if you give the verse I will show why plus I wil even supply the scholarly interpretation whatever it says.

The pertinent verses are about 34 to the end of the chapter.

I never suggested or have ever thought we were infallable. In fact our fallability is why we needed a savior.

Don't play that game with me. Look at your posture. You are unwilling to sincerely consider and investigate how and where all of your scholars and experts have missed the boat.

You seem to think the remedie for our fallability is rendered useless by our fallability. You just do not understand the Biblical narrative.

I am saying that there are warnings Jesus gave that are not being considered properly and because of it the Father and His Kingdom were rejected by Christians.

You must first have the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is the mindset that enables you to be able to accept the truth when it is presented to you. It was the kind of attitude those Jews who accepted Jesus Christ needed to have to overcome all of the mainstream opposition they confronted. Their scholars and experts condemned Jesus as having a devil. But, there were those few people who had the proper mindset to carefully and sincerely hear the claims of the apostles and they prayed sincerely to know and the truth of their words were confirmed to them. My experience with you is you are reacting to my claims just as orthodox Jews reacted to the early apostles. I don't sense that you are concerned in the slightest that perhaps orthodoc Christianity did indeed persecute the Father's servants and put them inline to receive many stripes instead of their hoped for blessings.

Unless you are a born again Christian this isn't the case. If you are and a Muslim, there is a flaw in the slaw somewhere.

Post the statement I made where I said you were a false prophet. I am not saying I do not think that. I just never said it, so once again this woe is me appeal to sympathy is irrelevant.

I was not saying you specifically. I'm saying your posture is to assume whoever purports to have special revelation to do a specific work directed by God is a false prophet.

How do we leave what promised to never leave us?

We leave them. There is a difference between allowing someone to go away and leaving them.

When your theology produces contradictory and illogical ideas like this it might be time to recalibrate.

So far you don't actually understand my theology.

Would you please ground what you say in evidence these long opinions have no value.

They have value, you just dismiss them casually.

Muhammad is no standard by which to jusdge anything by. He could not even figure out that we he got from heretical Jews and Gnostics was not what is in the bible. He made mistake after mistake. He said the trinity includes Mary. It does not. He got Mary the mother of Christ confused with Mary the sister of Moses. He included virtually word for word texts out of the heretical infancy gospel. I do not care what he said.

So you know Mohammad better than Mohammed does himself?
Give me a break!

 

[Vichar]

It likely would be seen as manipulative and hateful if the person helping the blind man were all-powerful and all-knowing, and had created the blind man with his blindness or at least knowing ahead of time that the man would one day be blind, and if the person also had created that ledge and sheer drop beyond it rather than using his power to either create land that was more pedestrian-friendly or to eliminate any ledges that would present a danger to said pedestrians.

Hehe. Nice.

I hope you won't interpret this as disagreement with your amusing post. I liked your post, and I just wanted to add that blindness is probably a result of karma (maybe the blind person spent their past 3 lifetimes trying to deceive people) and that the ledge is there to provide a challenge to overcome. Both are meant to instruct, not punish. If we push a book onto the floor, we should not be upset that it's now on the floor. We shouldn't blame others for the book being on the floor. We shouldn't blame God for giving us homework like precipitous, thousand foot drops, because overcoming obstacles strengthens us.

If we put forth unloving causes, we get back unloving results. I find that a lot of people spend a lot of time arguing with each other in religious forums, and if there is a greater irony, I don't know of it.

 

[Astravalon]

Hehe. Nice.

I hope you won't interpret this as disagreement with your amusing post. I liked your post, and I just wanted to add that blindness is probably a result of karma (maybe the blind person spent their past 3 lifetimes trying to deceive people) and that the ledge is there to provide a challenge to overcome. Both are meant to instruct, not punish. If we push a book onto the floor, we should not be upset that it's now on the floor. We shouldn't blame others for the book being on the floor. We shouldn't blame God for giving us homework like precipitous, thousand foot drops, because overcoming obstacles strengthens us.

If we put forth unloving causes, we get back unloving results. I find that a lot of people spend a lot of time arguing with each other in religious forums, and if there is a greater irony, I don't know of it.

While I do agree that what goes around comes around, I find the idea of receiving consequences in a subsequent lifetime for wrongdoings which were committed in a previous, long-forgotten lifetime makes little sense.

Much better for karma to do it's thing within the span of a single lifetime, when a person is more likely to see the connection between what they're getting and what they've been dishing out.

 

[waitasec]

Hehe. Nice.

I hope you won't interpret this as disagreement with your amusing post. I liked your post, and I just wanted to add that blindness is probably a result of karma (maybe the blind person spent their past 3 lifetimes trying to deceive people) and that the ledge is there to provide a challenge to overcome. Both are meant to instruct, not punish. If we push a book onto the floor, we should not be upset that it's now on the floor. We shouldn't blame others for the book being on the floor. We shouldn't blame God for giving us homework like precipitous, thousand foot drops, because overcoming obstacles strengthens us.

If we put forth unloving causes, we get back unloving results. I find that a lot of people spend a lot of time arguing with each other in religious forums, and if there is a greater irony, I don't know of it.

While I do agree that what goes around comes around, I find the idea of receiving consequences in a subsequent lifetime for wrongdoings which were committed in a previous, long-forgotten lifetime makes little sense.

Much better for karma to do it's thing within the span of a single lifetime, when a person is more likely to see the connection between what they're getting and what they've been dishing out.

yea...
the idea of karma somehow justifies why one would feel better about someones else's disposition in which they have no control over...

 

[1robin]

You totally missed my point.

Your point had no effect on the issue. Died and not died can't both be true. That is the issue. Some kind of word games which attempt to make these simple statements mean something else do not apply. Islam does not agree with the biblical account of Jesus' death and resurrection. Every thing hinges on that and there is no way to force them to both be true as inconvenient as you may find that.

Christianity doesn't agree and in the main does not understand what actually happened anyway. If they had the whole "big picture" view there wouldn't be so many divisions among them.

The suggestion that 750,000 thousand words on the most contentious topics in human existance should be agreed on unilaterally is a pipe dream. Every religion has major divisions and it is reasonable that they should. This is a false standard arbitrarily chosen because you think it helps your position. It has no justification.

I present principles that you seem to not have eyes to discern. Reread what I said and look for the principle in it.

There are many people who pop up continously that think they have the proper take on scripture and evryone else is wrong. When they are rejected and shown false they for some reason never think they might be wrong and thousand of years of experts might be right. I have been researching the Bible for over 25 years. I know what it's over all narrative is, what it's specific teachings on salvation are, what it's scholars and critics say, what philosophical impact it has, what the early Church fathers said, what textual critics have concluded, and what the commentators have determined. Your views contradict the mainsteam views in every category. Why in the world would you think I would dismiss all this knowledge accumulated over thousands of years by spiritual and theological giants and adopt the impossible claims of a guy in a forum? Your very first verse you intepretated was interpretated so inaccurately that it can't possibly be true. It destroys the coherence of the verses.

Give me the reference on Mary please.

Which Mary. The one he mistakenly thought was Moses' brother? The one he mistakenly said is in the trinity? Or the one that he mentioned from the gnostic infancy gospel?

"Never given any justification". I don't spoon feed you, that's true. I present principles you seem unable to understand.

No you rattle of theories that can't work have no justification and contradict the biblical narrative.

You believe you are and your experts believe they are.
The wisdom of men is foolishness to me.

Then yours is foolishness as well. That is why I am going with the bible. No matter what you arbitrarily accuse the scholars of it applies far more so to you.

The pertinent verses are about 34 to the end of the chapter.

Meat is not used as meaning any future revelation. The only place that word appears is:

Luk 12:42And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom [his] lord shall make ruler over his household, to give [them their] portion of meat in due season?
The word for meat here in the original Greek is: sitometrion
It means:
1) a measured 'portion of' grain or 'food'

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
But and if that servant say in his heart,.... Not the same servant before spoken of as a wise and faithful steward, that gives to all in the family the portion of meat in due season, and shall be found doing, and be made ruler over his master's goods but another, who also, as he, is made by his Lord ruler over his household, and is in a like post, and in the same office, but is an "evil servant", as Matthew calls him, to distinguish him from the other;
Luke 12:45 But suppose the servant says to himself, 'My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk.

So the meat here is a metaphor for the Gospel that already exists it is not a new message that will only be given to the obedient servant. The reward is that God will make him a leader over his flock.

Don't play that game with me. Look at your posture. You are unwilling to sincerely consider and investigate how and where all of your scholars and experts have missed the boat.

I am unwilling to adopt something that is the opposite of the mainstream conclusion of every relevant field of scholarship, makes verses incoherent, contradicts very simple narratives and doctrine, are devoid of suffecient corroberation, and are made by someone who does not have any credentials that would justify his position being adopted over highly credentialed scholars and my understanding of the bible.

I am saying that there are warnings Jesus gave that are not being considered properly and because of it the Father and His Kingdom were rejected by Christians.

So the ones who actually met the conditions that Jesus told Nicodemus he must do to inheret the kingdom and by doing so are Christians are not in the kingdom. It is rather the people who did not do what Jesus told Nicodemus to do that are in the kingdom. How can you suggest I should adopt logic this contradictory.

The Holy Spirit is the mindset that enables you to be able to accept the truth when it is presented to you.

On what planet does spirit translate to mind set? THe Holy Spirit (suprise, suprise) is a independant spirit that has will, power, and intention. Substitute mind set where ever spirit is mentioned and you will see what I meant by incoherent and impossible.

It was the kind of attitude those Jews who accepted Jesus Christ needed to have to overcome all of the mainstream opposition they confronted. Their scholars and experts condemned Jesus as having a devil. But, there were those few people who had the proper mindset to carefully and sincerely hear the claims of the apostles and they prayed sincerely to know and the truth of their words were confirmed to them. My experience with you is you are reacting to my claims just as orthodox Jews reacted to the early apostles. I don't sense that you are concerned in the slightest that perhaps orthodoc Christianity did indeed persecute the Father's servants and put them inline to receive many stripes instead of their hoped for blessings.

You would have to prove some of this before it becomes meaningfull enough to address. These unjustified sermons have no practical value. Your opinion disconnected from suffecient corroberation is just an opinion.

I was not saying you specifically. I'm saying your posture is to assume whoever purports to have special revelation to do a specific work directed by God is a false prophet.

No my posture is to only consider what is consistent with the Bible to have value. Anything that says the Holy Spirit is an attitude does not do so. Anything that says that the parable of the sower was given to Christians alone does not either. Any thing that says that metaphorical "meat" means some future new revelation fails as well. That is not what the Bible teaches and there fore didn't come from my God.

We leave them. There is a difference between allowing someone to go away and leaving them.

This is one of the worst agruments I have ever heard. He did not say he would never forsake us as long as we go in the perfect direction. He did not say he would be with us forever unless we screw up. He said he would never leave or forsake us. That was a desperate attempt to avoid the obvious implications of an inconvenient verse for your position. Grace means we get what we do not deserve, yet you say we must deserve that which we never can.

So far you don't actually understand my theology.

I understand it very well. It is just another example of a works based system. They do not work and can't possibly ever work and make grace illogical.

They have value, you just dismiss them casually.

Not if they are consistent or at least even possible.

So you know Mohammad better than Mohammed does himself?
Give me a break!

I know as every competant scholar does that what the Quran says about biblical matters is absolutely false. They have even traced mistakes made in Jewish munuscripts that wound up in Arabian in Muhammad's day and made it into the Quran. They also know very well where certain gnostic and heretical teachings began and that they had spread to Arabian in Muhammad's time and also would up in the Quran. Knowing Muhammad isn't the issue. The fact that the Islamic God made very simple mistakes and there for is not God is the issue.

 

[waitasec]

apparently christianity is the right religion if one wants to spend ooodles of time defending it....

funny how the no one spends any time defending the weather

but hey get me to start listing disclaimers as to why i can't fit into my size 5 jeans any more
i'll be here for days explaining why i have to stop at the donut shop everyday, drink my 64oz of coke and eat at my local mickey dees
:sarcastic

just sayin'



:beach:
gosh it's hot outside today

 

[Vichar]

While I do agree that what goes around comes around, I find the idea of receiving consequences in a subsequent lifetime for wrongdoings which were committed in a previous, long-forgotten lifetime makes little sense.

Much better for karma to do it's thing within the span of a single lifetime, when a person is more likely to see the connection between what they're getting and what they've been dishing out.

I get that. I have felt the same way before. But we are more than just our waking mind. There is a part of us that remembers what transpired in our previous lives. But many of those lives were traumatic, and filled with unfulfilled desires and frustration. It is a gift that we do not remember all the little sordid details with our waking mind.

The universal lessons, however, stay with us (I believe). And in each subsequent life, we pick up where we left off. If you think of the karma as another opportunity to get it right, finally, this time around, then I for one am glad I'm given another chance--as many chances as I need.

 

[Astravalon]

I get that. I have felt the same way before. But we are more than just our waking mind. There is a part of us that remembers what transpired in our previous lives. But many of those lives were traumatic, and filled with unfulfilled desires and frustration. It is a gift that we do not remember all the little sordid details with our waking mind.

The universal lessons, however, stay with us (I believe). And in each subsequent life, we pick up where we left off. If you think of the karma as another opportunity to get it right, finally, this time around, then I for one am glad I'm given another chance--as many chances as I need.

I see what you're saying, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of reincarnation itself.

However, it just seems a rather inefficient way for karma, specifically, to work.

If 'getting it right' (whatever that truly means) is indeed that critical, then dragging things out over heaven only knows how many lives doesn't seem the most effective route. It's a scenic route (to say the least ), but doesn't really convey the sense of urgency that would match the importance placed on 'getting it right'.

I assume we have a waking mind for a reason, so one would think that things would operate in such a way as to teach through that mind, rather than through some intangible aspect of our consciousness which we can only speculate about during the earthly journey through which these lessons are actively being taught.

 

[Muffled]

That doesn’t hold water when discussing an all-powerful God, unless you’re saying that sin can reach a point where it’s too powerful for even Him to handle.

I believe that God is not just the doctor but is also the constable. A contagious person who refuses to be quarantined will be arrested and forced into quarantine with an armed guard.

I believe that Sin is not an illness but a choice. God could take away a person's ability to choose but He prefers not to do so.

 

[Muffled]

you can't blame me for not understanding contradictions and ambiguity...



no that isn't what i am complaining about.

i'm putting attention to the notion that god is a loving god when he supposedly manipulates people with the threat of hell...

I believe this is not a strange concept for those who have children. I believe as parents we are showing love for our children by telling them not to touch a hot stove or they will get burned.

I believe I can see your frustration. I believe it is also love when I let my child touch a hot stove after being warned not to, so that she could learn that it is better to listen to the parent and not get burned.

 

[Muffled]

it's not my life and i wouldn't impose my POV on anyone else unless they asked, cause it's
#1 rude
#2 arrogant
#3 unwarranted
#4 assuming
#5 subjective

So le tme get this straight, I believe you are saying you would not stop the blind man from walking over the cliff because it would be rude to interrupt him, becasue it would be arrogant on your part to decide that walking off a cliff would be bad for the person, that the danger does not warrant your assistance, that you shouldn't just assume he will walk off the cliff or that the danger is from your own perspective and not real for the blind man.

 

[Astravalon]

I believe that God is not just the doctor but is also the constable. A contagious person who refuses to be quarantined will be arrested and forced into quarantine with an armed guard.

But that's as far as a human constable and armed guard could take it. God, however, has far more power to remedy the situation, and in the most efficient and constructive manner in keeping with Him being Love itself.

I believe that Sin is not an illness but a choice. God could take away a person's ability to choose but He prefers not to do so.

Then I suppose He's not as much against sin as many of His followers make Him out to be, or perhaps there's really no such thing as 'sin' in the first place.

 

[kylixguru]

Your point had no effect on the issue. Died and not died can't both be true. That is the issue. Some kind of word games which attempt to make these simple statements mean something else do not apply. Islam does not agree with the biblical account of Jesus' death and resurrection. Every thing hinges on that and there is no way to force them to both be true as inconvenient as you may find that.

There is a way, you just deny it.

The suggestion that 750,000 thousand words on the most contentious topics in human existance should be agreed on unilaterally is a pipe dream. Every religion has major divisions and it is reasonable that they should. This is a false standard arbitrarily chosen because you think it helps your position. It has no justification.

Division in religion is man's doing.
Some love and hold to the truth, others want fantasy.

There are many people who pop up continously that think they have the proper take on scripture and evryone else is wrong. When they are rejected and shown false they for some reason never think they might be wrong and thousand of years of experts might be right.

One of God's favorite things to do seems to be to show how the "experts" often have their heads where the sun don't shine.
There were plenty of Jewish "experts" who considered Jesus was possessed of the devil.

I have been researching the Bible for over 25 years. I know what it's over all narrative is, what it's specific teachings on salvation are, what it's scholars and critics say, what philosophical impact it has, what the early Church fathers said, what textual critics have concluded, and what the commentators have determined. Your views contradict the mainsteam views in every category. Why in the world would you think I would dismiss all this knowledge accumulated over thousands of years by spiritual and theological giants and adopt the impossible claims of a guy in a forum?

Not everyone is here just to foist their opinions onto others alone.
I am here trying to enjoy a mutually respectful exchange of ideas and I like to hear fresh new thinking and to study into things that catch my attention.
I don't expect you to do anything more than listen and consider what I have to say. If you think it merits further consideration I would be willing to help you see things from my point of view so that you can judge it better.

Your very first verse you intepretated was interpretated so inaccurately that it can't possibly be true. It destroys the coherence of the verses.

It is at odds with how you interpret those verses.
Why assume you are the only one who can interpret them correctly?
Why not have a willingness to try and see things from another point of view?
And, especially if that point of view could enable you to avoid some serious danger?

No you rattle of theories that can't work have no justification and contradict the biblical narrative.

They are theories that work just fine when taken in the whole context I see them in.
They have plenty of justification if you gave sufficient attention or probed for more.
I am not likely going to anticipate every gap you will come to so when you hit a gap I definitely welcome you to communicate that. But, to just summarily dismiss something you are more or less unwilling to apply yourself to isn't going to very effectively bring me to correction if I am in error.
If you really care about me, why not take the time to participate in an open exchange?

Then yours is foolishness as well.

That would be an assumption on your part.

That is why I am going with the bible. No matter what you arbitrarily accuse the scholars of it applies far more so to you.

My whole crux is I am doing my all to go strictly with the Bible, even if the scholars get it wrong.
You are binding yourself down too afraid to consider the possibility that going contrary to the scholars may be in order.

 

[kylixguru]

Meat is not used as meaning any future revelation. The only place that word appears is:

Luk 12:42And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom [his] lord shall make ruler over his household, to give [them their] portion of meat in due season?
The word for meat here in the original Greek is: sitometrion
It means:
1) a measured 'portion of' grain or 'food'

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
But and if that servant say in his heart,.... Not the same servant before spoken of as a wise and faithful steward, that gives to all in the family the portion of meat in due season, and shall be found doing, and be made ruler over his master's goods but another, who also, as he, is made by his Lord ruler over his household, and is in a like post, and in the same office, but is an "evil servant", as Matthew calls him, to distinguish him from the other;
Luke 12:45 But suppose the servant says to himself, 'My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk.

So the meat here is a metaphor for the Gospel that already exists it is not a new message that will only be given to the obedient servant. The reward is that God will make him a leader over his flock.

It is a reference to the advent of Christ when He comes to bring in the correct understanding of some of the deeper and more difficult things to digest in the Gospel.
You realize that it is Christ who unseals the sealed portion in Holy Writ right?
And, when He does this, there will be complete clarity on what the actual truth is that shall fly in the face of the supposed wisdom and learning of men.
The scholars you are so beholden to are going to react to this no differently than the Jewish scholars reacted to Jesus and his claims.

I am unwilling to adopt something that is the opposite of the mainstream conclusion of every relevant field of scholarship, makes verses incoherent, contradicts very simple narratives and doctrine, are devoid of suffecient corroberation, and are made by someone who does not have any credentials that would justify his position being adopted over highly credentialed scholars and my understanding of the bible.

This is the exact same mentality that had people standing in the crowd yelling "Crucify him! Crucify him! Crucify him!"

So the ones who actually met the conditions that Jesus told Nicodemus he must do to inheret the kingdom and by doing so are Christians are not in the kingdom. It is rather the people who did not do what Jesus told Nicodemus to do that are in the kingdom. How can you suggest I should adopt logic this contradictory.

We have gone over the process Jesus spoke of to Nicodemus. Jesus taught that before a person can enter the kingdom that he must first be "born again" both of water and of the spirit. That is a prerequisite. And, further to that, they need to also survive the elements and grow up and produce fruit that is worthy of being garnered in. Your position is that once someone is born again that they are automatically a member of the kingdom immediately upon such with no need of being nurtured, protected, matured, etc.

On what planet does spirit translate to mind set? THe Holy Spirit (suprise, suprise) is a independant spirit that has will, power, and intention.

That is the Holy Ghost, an actual personage of spirit.

Substitute mind set where ever spirit is mentioned and you will see what I meant by incoherent and impossible.

Pay sufficient attention to context and it is possible to distinguish between the two appropriately.

The spirit of the Holy Ghost is to advocate the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Love.

You would have to prove some of this before it becomes meaningfull enough to address. These unjustified sermons have no practical value. Your opinion disconnected from suffecient corroberation is just an opinion.

I don't have to prove anything. You are who must put forth the effort to receive a witness for yourself as to what is true or not.
If something I say seems wrong to you, you have a choice. You can deem it as unworthy of further consideration and move on or at the least you can make sure you understand it properly before you reject it.
That's how I try to be whenever I confront things and I've found many times that people had things to say that even though I didn't like at first actually proved out to have merit. I am who took the time to truly listen and perform proper judgment.
I don't consider it is anyone's responsibility to go beyond sharing their personal witness.
Getting proof is one's own responsibility, after they get confirmed understanding.

No my posture is to only consider what is consistent with the Bible to have value.

And you completely jump over the gap where you assume your interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one. You completely shut out the possibility that your interpretation could be what is flawed.

Anything that says the Holy Spirit is an attitude does not do so. Anything that says that the parable of the sower was given to Christians alone does not either. Any thing that says that metaphorical "meat" means some future new revelation fails as well. That is not what the Bible teaches and there fore didn't come from my God.

I don't think you really know who your God is.

 

[1robin]

There is a way, you just deny it.

To deny that killed and not killed are equivalent is about the most logical thing imaginable. I am very familiar with the mental gymnastics used to attempt it. The greatest evil that can be done is to tell the truth with the exception of leaving out the very truth that saves. Satan copies God. He created a similar religion IMO that leaves out the portion of truth that makes all the difference and attempts to reconcile that are as useless as attempting to reconcile God with Satan which is the actual case here. God said died and Satan said did not die and you say both.

Division in religion is man's doing.
Some love and hold to the truth, others want fantasy.

Dividing fact from fiction is man's duty. Confusing the issue causing men to be unable to do so or causing them to attempt to reconcile the unreconcileable is Satan's. As in all war there is some success and some failure.

One of God's favorite things to do seems to be to show how the "experts" often have their heads where the sun don't shine.
There were plenty of Jewish "experts" who considered Jesus was possessed of the devil.

That is exactly why God raised him from the dead to show them they were wrong. IMO that is also why he didn't raise Muhammad.

Not everyone is here just to foist their opinions onto others alone.
I am here trying to enjoy a mutually respectful exchange of ideas and I like to hear fresh new thinking and to study into things that catch my attention.
I don't expect you to do anything more than listen and consider what I have to say. If you think it merits further consideration I would be willing to help you see things from my point of view so that you can judge it better.

I have considered what you and others have said on this issue over many many years. I reject it but that is not the issue. It is the methods you use and the fact that when tested you were incapable of conceding an issue that was not contentious or confusing in any way and selected for that purpose alone, but instead forced things into the parable that do not belong there to justify your contention.

It is at odds with how you interpret those verses.
Why assume you are the only one who can interpret them correctly?
Why not have a willingness to try and see things from another point of view?
And, especially if that point of view could enable you to avoid some serious danger?

The issues are so clear and so many times stated in the Biblical narrative as well as being the dominant conclusion of the early church fathers and the commentators, as well as the only option that is even possible or logical as to be almost absolutely certain.

They are theories that work just fine when taken in the whole context I see them in.

The problem is that context is not consistent with the Biblical context. The parable of the good seed did not contain birds, kernels, wheat that died from the sun or wheat that did not remain wheat and was gathered into heaven. You put that context there by making abstract agricultural implications the parable was not designed to allow for. I also believe you do that with the Bible as a whole.

They have plenty of justification if you gave sufficient attention or probed for more.
I am not likely going to anticipate every gap you will come to so when you hit a gap I definitely welcome you to communicate that. But, to just summarily dismiss something you are more or less unwilling to apply yourself to isn't going to very effectively bring me to correction if I am in error.
If you really care about me, why not take the time to participate in an open exchange?

How much debate is necessary for that? I have typed and read many pages in this effort. I think that any resistance to your view is used as an appeal to sympathy or claims of injustice in that it is said to be a lack of care instead of a rejection of an well known and unjustified idea which is what it actually is. There is no biblical issue that I have spent even close to as much time researching and discussing. I know the verses that imply what you claim, I know the reasoning involved, I know the mentality usually responsable for it. I also know that the surface understanding of those verses is incorrect, that the grace alone verses far outnumber them and are much simpler and uncontestable, that both theories can't be true and that way more evidence points to grace alone. I gave you a chance to see if you had an argument that was capable of overcoming this and it wasn't.

My whole crux is I am doing my all to go strictly with the Bible, even if the scholars get it wrong.

They get scholars when they need bridges, buildings, historical discoveries, cures for disease, radiation studies, power plants, economic plans, or any other effort that needs the greatest competence available. The Bible is no different. I never said they never made mistakes. If your theory defies scholarly conclusion the smart thing is to reevaluate your position not dismiss the experts. That is what you do if your precommitment to your theory is more important than the truth.

You are binding yourself down too afraid to consider the possibility that going contrary to the scholars may be in order.

You just made this up as well. When I was born again, the first thing I did was to buy a good Bible and avoid any discussions with any Christians or denominations about doctrine. I threw my vcr in the lake I lived by, and spent almost two years reading the Bible several times and studying the core issues and in prayer. I determined what I believed in a vacume. In fact I believe God stopped me from even asking the guy who led me to him about doctrine. I started to several times but felt like I shouldn't. He was a SDA and I now know he believes in things I do not. You have no way of knowing what you claim here even if true. The fact that you claim it as a fact when I know very well it is false is indicative of the way you think and why I reject your conclusions. As with this conclusion I think your theories were adopted by preference and then you attempted to make the Bible adapt the same way you would like to believe I am influenced by scholars so you tried to force reality to adapt. I dissagree in both cases. In the first I have all the scholars on my side (incidentally) and being that I am the greatest expert on me in the world I know for a fact your second claim is just completely false. My conclusions made in isolation were affirmed by the fact that in approx 95% of the cases the experts opinion matched my own. One time it doesn't is concerning a prophecy about some not dieing until they see him return in the Gospel. I dissagree with every commentary on it there is but I have no opinion myself either. People often get defensive abouttheir ideas and view attacks on the ideas personally. I hope you will not.

 

[1robin]

It is a reference to the advent of Christ when He comes to bring in the correct understanding of some of the deeper and more difficult things to digest in the Gospel.

No it isn't, it does refer to Christ but not to future wisdom on scripture. It is an allegorical statement. It compares a faithfull servant giving meat and drink to his master to a Christian faithfull doing his spiritual duty.
New International Version (©1984)
The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time?
Your understanding is incorrect about this verse but may apply to another.

You realize that it is Christ who unseals the sealed portion in Holy Writ right?

You mean in revelations?

And, when He does this, there will be complete clarity on what the actual truth is that shall fly in the face of the supposed wisdom and learning of men.
The scholars you are so beholden to are going to react to this no differently than the Jewish scholars reacted to Jesus and his claims.

I already have shown your claims of scholars influence is badly mistaken. If we will not have clarity about these issues until Christ returns then:
A: How can I be held responsible for not understanding them if it will not be clear until later?
B: When Christ next appears he will call all Christians out of this world and the issue is settled. There will not be one who after that event will be lost because he didn't understand. The matter is concluded before you claim this new understanding is given.
C: Why do you think God gave us the scripture when you claim that it will only be understood thousands of years later?

This is the exact same mentality that had people standing in the crowd yelling "Crucify him! Crucify him! Crucify him!"

No it isn't. It isn't even close. They killed him because he claimed to be divine.

We have gone over the process Jesus spoke of to Nicodemus. Jesus taught that before a person can enter the kingdom that he must first be "born again" both of water and of the spirit. That is a prerequisite. And, further to that, they need to also survive the elements and grow up and produce fruit that is worthy of being garnered in. Your position is that once someone is born again that they are automatically a member of the kingdom immediately upon such with no need of being nurtured, protected, matured, etc.

There is nothing I bolded in that story. Please quit adding stuff to verses to prove your point. He said none of that to Nicodemus. I never said we do not need to be obedient and learn and grow. I said it is not a heaven and hell issue anymore. Outside that it is as important as it gets. Post the statement I made that is what you claim I said.

That is the Holy Ghost, an actual personage of spirit.

The Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost are exactly the same entity or hase maintaining your theology required you to assume two entities. They are two labels for one being.

Pay sufficient attention to context and it is possible to distinguish between the two appropriately.

Oh Lord it has. No they are not, they are one being. Why I am still suprised at what people do to justify the unjustifiable is a mystery.

The spirit of the Holy Ghost is to advocate the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Love.

Nope, you have invented an army of spirits I see.

I don't have to prove anything. You are who must put forth the effort to receive a witness for yourself as to what is true or not.

Done.

If something I say seems wrong to you, you have a choice. You can deem it as unworthy of further consideration and move on or at the least you can make sure you understand it properly before you reject it.

I think I understand your position better than you do. I certainly know of much more competant arguments for it. Ones that do not put words in verses or invent how ever many spirits are needed.

That's how I try to be whenever I confront things and I've found many times that people had things to say that even though I didn't like at first actually proved out to have merit. I am who took the time to truly listen and perform proper judgment.
I don't consider it is anyone's responsibility to go beyond sharing their personal witness.
Getting proof is one's own responsibility, after they get confirmed understanding.

If you expect anyone to listen you must display competance and sound reasoning. You can't stick words in scriptures, and lines to Nicodemus etc..., dismiss experts, make false implications, and display fringe theology without suffecient justification and expect to be persuassive.

And you completely jump over the gap where you assume your interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one. You completely shut out the possibility that your interpretation could be what is flawed.

No I do not. The fact we are debateing is proof of that. However I have concluded you do not have a legitamite case and even if you did you use methods that do not warrant any further consideration.

I don't think you really know who your God is.

I will add this to the growing list of what you claim that even if true you have would no access to that would enable judgement. To sum up, you demonstrate no reason to conclude you know what you claim but you are still willing to claim it anyway and use whatever methods necessary to justify it. Shalom