The Trinity

[kylixguru]

I recognize what is read out of the texts -- not what is read into the texts. What is read out of the texts is what is apparent.

And, you are basing this assessment on your personal views, which could also be a product of eisegesis.

I haven't seen any evidence of that here...

You haven't given evidence to the contrary either, just accusation.

so are human beings...

Agreed. That's why I decided before I threw out religion I would give God a chance, aside from the people who give Him lip service.

If you don't understand the importance of the community, you don't understand what Jesus taught.

I do understand it. I also understand about people just giving lip service and doing their own thing in His name.

If, as you seem to claim, we comprise God's body, then what that body says is "directly from God," yes?

Provided that they are functioning correctly, yes, it would be.
The body of flesh and bone is God's tabernacle, of which we can be a member.
A purified and whole individual with the Spirit of God in them is a temple of the Holy Spirit.
This isn't just open for anyone to make a claim of and have it be so.
A person can also have a false spirit take possession of them.
And, the tares have been sown in among the wheat so even if you are among a valid congregation of Saints, you are still going to have to deal with the posers.

God speaks through human agency. At least, that's what an exegesis of the texts tells us -- and, BTW, the texts are human agency.

They are manifest through human agency, but not in a way that makes me subject to other humans.
I have as much access to receive revelation and inspiration as anyone else does.
If I wish to avoid any and all doctrines that are a product of a cumulative eisegesis over the centuries, I need to get personal validation of everything from God.

Maybe you'd also like to practice medicine without a license or build bridges and skyscrapers without proper schooling in engineering...

Why should I be beholden to man when I have an open conduit of training and instruction from the Father directly?
He is the master architect of the Creation and He is willing to teach me directly.
I would much prefer to go to Him than a bunch of cracker jack box preachers who are sullied in a mire of confusion and have no actual credentials that meet my satisfaction.
Show me an example of a Zion society where there is no poor among them that is the product of any Christian society.

You seem to have forgotten that I've "been there and done that" and I wasn't satisfied. Just like when I went to school in my engineering profession, I got totally bored and felt I was wasting my time. I dropped out of college because a fortune 500 company could see I didn't need credentials. I have had a very successful career without worldly credentials. I was already semi-retired at 40 and now have time to do things like talk about religion at RF, among other things.

An eisegetical conclusion.

According to you.

we are speaking about the ability to have a full and perfect understanding of God. Or have you forgotten?

Yes, we are talking about having a spiritual resurrection at the level of "man" in the Creation account.
This is the fulness of the glory and image of God. It's the highest level of understanding the general masses can attain to. And, it is complete understanding.

You cannot understand who Adam actually is in reality unless you exegete Genesis.

Which I have done. It also helps to be personally and directly acquainted with Him, which I am.

You've missed that mark...

According to you.

No, but your baseless conclusions here do mean that you have done so.

Your baseless accusations don't mean that I have not done so.

The Bible, itself, is a tradition, produced out of perceived experience -- not made up out of whole cloth.

The Bible, as transcribed and translated correctly, is the product of words written under the direct inspiration of God. Depending upon which translation you use, there is what I call the "dung defilement layer" that we have to deal with, but there is enough sustenance available that it nourishes us in spite of it. (See Ezekiel 4 on the "dung" thing.)

Reasonably so.

It never hurts to challenge assumptions if you are of a sound and disciplined mind.

"God created the heavens and the earth, etc."

And, if you understood what the heavens and the earth were, you wouldn't see any problem with what I said.
So, are you saying that when Revelation chapter 21 is fulfilled that there is going to be an entirely new cosmos generated?

"Types" and "shadows" were not the paradigm of OT thinking. That's a much later, Platonic invention. A completely different "geneopolitical" model.

The OT is full of "types" and "shadows".

How cosmological of you...
I thought we were using a "geneopolitical" model?

I am. The "fishes" in the creation account from Day 5 pertains to the creation of Christianity in the 5th millennium.
The Creation account is strictly geneopolitical in nature, but draws upon cosmological symbolism.

Or, I could be well-schooled in theological construction and have the ability to shoot your hypothesis full of holes and eat fish and chips without an attack of conscience...

You are welcome to try and shoot as many holes as you like in my understanding.
I thrive on it and enjoy it because I do always learn and grow from receiving such challenges.
What I won't do is aggressively try and push my views on you because that would be futile to do to anyone.

I'd have to say that "evidence of eisegetical conclusion" is fairly substantive here.

Not really. You can definitely accuse me of being original and unorthodox, but to prove these conclusions are simply a product of my own personal motivation is a more difficult matter to prove.

You have no idea how "orthodox" or "unorthodox" I may be. Remember, when you "assume"...

Yes, of course. And, I am willing to give you space to distinguish yourself from the herd if you wish to. So far you seem to have little that distinguishes you in any substantive way.

Welcome to "The World According to Kylixguru..."

One that has fidelity. That is an essential aspect to me.

well...
I'd have to say that Jesus was certainly crucified...
Do we not, at our baptism, enter into his death with him?

It is the Gentiles who received the body of Christ and who mock and crucify Him and put Him to death.
This is now playing out on the flesh and bone level, just as the Gospels inherently prophesied.
Just as the prophecy of Jonah predicted, Christ is dead inside the body of a fish for 3 days before He finally is spit out.

Could you be any more vague?

I was talking about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the respective covenants they made with God.

the prophets prophesied to a society -- a culture -- a people. Jesus gathered a community -- a group -- and taught them. That's all I'm saying.

And, that was nearly 2,000 years ago that Jesus did that.

Well, this is a debate forum. If you don't want the heat, why are you in the kitchen?

I am very much open to you sharing with me as well.
And, if you want to put on some real heat, I welcome that.
What I don't want to do is try and beat my head against the wall with someone who is willing to make all kinds of assumptions instead of bearing down in some disciplined discussion about God's Word.
If you want to continue to bash me with baseless accusation of eisegesis solely on the basis that I am unorthodox, then I'm going to get really bored with you.
But, if you start taking my ideas I've put forward and putting some actual thought into them and put out actual substantive evidence of how they are wrong, then I will be delighted.
The question is, do you consider this a worthwhile effort and do you think you can stand up to the heat of trying to substantively refute me.

 

[sojourner]

And, you are basing this assessment on your personal views, which could also be a product of eisegesis.

There's always that possibility -- although the process of exegesis is a vehicle to allow us to stand outside our opinions.

You haven't given evidence to the contrary either, just accusation.

You've provided your own evidence. I merely pointed it out.

That's why I decided before I threw out religion I would give God a chance, aside from the people who give Him lip service.

But God said that it is not good for us to be alone...
Without relationship, there is no access to God.

I do understand it. I also understand about people just giving lip service and doing their own thing in His name.

I thought you just said above that doing your own thing -- "apart from people..." is what you decided to do. Are you saying that you're one of the "lip service" crowd?

Provided that they are functioning correctly, yes, it would be.

How do we determine what comprises "functioning 'correctly'?"
Wouldn't that be the exegetical process, if one is looking to the Bible for guidance?

A purified and whole individual with the Spirit of God in them is a temple of the Holy Spirit.
This isn't just open for anyone to make a claim of and have it be so.
A person can also have a false spirit take possession of them.
And, the tares have been sown in among the wheat so even if you are among a valid congregation of Saints, you are still going to have to deal with the posers.

If you were to exegete the text of the wheat and the tares, you would discover that it is not a judgment of exclusion, but a statement of inclusion. It's not for us to judge what is "wheat"and what is "tare." It's for God to determine.

They are manifest through human agency, but not in a way that makes me subject to other humans.

We are all subject one to the other. Didn't Jesus say that one who would be first must be servant of all?

I have as much access to receive revelation and inspiration as anyone else does.

Yes, but that revelation and inspiration is in context. It does not stand alone.

If I wish to avoid any and all doctrines that are a product of a cumulative eisegesis over the centuries, I need to get personal validation of everything from God.

It doesn't work that way. No one is an island. We are not persons of God, we are the people of God.

Why should I be beholden to man when I have an open conduit of training and instruction from the Father directly?

You are beholden to humanity every time you pick up a bible or engage any model of God.

He is the master architect of the Creation and He is willing to teach me directly.

And you are part of that creation -- not the culmination of it.

I would much prefer to go to Him than a bunch of cracker jack box preachers who are sullied in a mire of confusion and have no actual credentials that meet my satisfaction.

Then don't go to confused, uncredentialed, jackleg preachers. Choose educated, sensitive, spirit-filled people.

BTW: Why should your "satisfaction" trump that of accredited bodies of people?

Show me an example of a Zion society where there is no poor among them that is the product of any Christian society.

Jesus said that we will always have the poor among us. The tares will grow up with the wheat. The goats will feed with the sheep.

You seem to have forgotten that I've "been there and done that" and I wasn't satisfied. Just like when I went to school in my engineering profession, I got totally bored and felt I was wasting my time. I dropped out of college because a fortune 500 company could see I didn't need credentials. I have had a very successful career without worldly credentials. I was already semi-retired at 40 and now have time to do things like talk about religion at RF, among other things.

If you've truly "been there and done that" in the engineering world, surely you realize the danger inherent in building edifices without the proper tools. Perhaps you've "been there, done that, and had the building crumble on the T-shirt..."

According to you.

According to the "evidence" you presented.

It's the highest level of understanding the general masses can attain to. And, it is complete understanding.

Not of God. No one can look at God's face and live...

Which I have done.

Not as evidenced by what you wrote.

Your baseless accusations don't mean that I have not done so.

I'm only pointing out the holes you fashion.

The Bible, as transcribed and translated correctly, is the product of words written under the direct inspiration of God.

It's still written by human beings, out of perceived experience.

And, if you understood what the heavens and the earth were, you wouldn't see any problem with what I said.

They (in part) comprise the cosmos -- not a "geneopolitical" model.

So, are you saying that when Revelation chapter 21 is fulfilled that there is going to be an entirely new cosmos generated?

I'm not a Revelation literalist.

The OT is full of "types" and "shadows".

Only according to Platonic thought...
The authors weren't thinking specifically that way.

The "fishes" in the creation account from Day 5 pertains to the creation of Christianity in the 5th millennium.

No. It doesn't. The author of the creation account was patently unaware of Christianity.

You are welcome to try and shoot as many holes as you like in my understanding.
I thrive on it and enjoy it because I do always learn and grow from receiving such challenges.
What I won't do is aggressively try and push my views on you because that would be futile to do to anyone.

Good for you.

to prove these conclusions are simply a product of my own personal motivation is a more difficult matter to prove.

One only has to look at what the texts actually say. Not all that difficult.

So far you seem to have little that distinguishes you in any substantive way.

"Seem" would be the operative word here.

One that has fidelity. That is an essential aspect to me.

Fidelity to what? You've blasted clergy. You've dismissed other people. You've ignored what the texts actually say. What's left???

It is the Gentiles who received the body of Christ and who mock and crucify Him and put Him to death.

It was Joseph of Arimathea who received Christ's body. It was Jews and Gentiles alike who mocked him.

And, that was nearly 2,000 years ago that Jesus did that.

So? You're saying that the disciples aren't supposed to all be in one accord now?

If you want to continue to bash me with baseless accusation of eisegesis solely on the basis that I am unorthodox,

My assessment isn't based on that. It's based on what you've presented thus far.

 

[kylixguru]

There's always that possibility -- although the process of exegesis is a vehicle to allow us to stand outside our opinions.

Yes, of course, and that was the vehicle I drove to get where I am.

You've provided your own evidence. I merely pointed it out.

I have provided evidence that I hold unorthodox views.
There is no actual substantive evidence of eisegesis, only accusation.

But God said that it is not good for us to be alone...
Without relationship, there is no access to God.

Of course it isn't good for man to be alone, that's why God created Eve as a helpmeet and companion to Adam.

Where Adam really got into trouble was because he hearkened to the voice of his wife instead of to the voice of God. What I'm talking about is to whom I hearken. This doesn't mean I don't carefully listen to and seek to understand what others wish to say, its just that when it comes time for me to decide what I believe and what I will take action based upon, it needs to be in accordance with God and not my fellow man.

I thought you just said above that doing your own thing -- "apart from people..." is what you decided to do. Are you saying that you're one of the "lip service" crowd?

To clarify, I am not saying we isolate ourselves from other people and shut them out.
I advocate being involved with people and listening to them carefully so that you truly know them and understand them.
You just don't put people in the position of being the final authority on what God has ordained for you.
Can you feel out the distinction I am trying to establish?

How do we determine what comprises "functioning 'correctly'?"
Wouldn't that be the exegetical process, if one is looking to the Bible for guidance?

I am not really verse in what exactly the terms eisegesis and exegesis mean.
I'd prefer to use my own terminology to answer this question.

Functioning correctly means that you do not inject in your own personal bias, hopes, fantasies, etc. when you are contemplating the Word of God. It means that you approach God with complete sincerity in wanting to know precisely what His will is with full intent to have integrity to whatever that is, regardless of how much at odds this could put you with the society you are a part of.

If you were to exegete the text of the wheat and the tares, you would discover that it is not a judgment of exclusion, but a statement of inclusion. It's not for us to judge what is "wheat"and what is "tare." It's for God to determine.

And, since the tares are included among the people of God, its a good indication that you should not hearken to the will of the people precisely because you may not be able to tell the difference yourself. Reserving judgment to God also means that you only hearken to God as well.

We are all subject one to the other. Didn't Jesus say that one who would be first must be servant of all?

Yes, of course, but we are servants of God, not servants of one another. The difference is critical.

For example, if I go to a party and there is some drinking going on and another man's wife thinks I'm pretty hot and she wants me to spend 40 minutes in a back bedroom to provide a service for her, I'm sure the Father won't account that as righteous service.

We serve other people in charitable ways in the interests of being a servant of God to do those things for others that He wishes for us to do, not what they wish for.

Yes, but that revelation and inspiration is in context. It does not stand alone.

It doesn't work that way. No one is an island. We are not persons of God, we are the people of God.

We are individuals with individual responsibility.
Nobody else can put oil in my lamp.

You are beholden to humanity every time you pick up a bible or engage any model of God.

I am not beholden to humanity. That places a confusing and tangled up mess of all kinds of contradictions, fantasies, etc. as my Lord. No thank you. I am beholden to my Lord and only my Lord, who is Jesus Christ.

And you are part of that creation -- not the culmination of it.

Perhaps you do not realize what it means to be garnered unto Life Eternal.
There are those few who walk the straight and narrow path unto this culmination.
Those who can overcome the world and the deceitfulness of the adversary's counterfeits and who truly believe in the words of Jesus and they truly follow Him are promised Life Eternal, which as I understand it is to become the seed stock for an entirely new cycle of Creation.

 

[kylixguru]

Then don't go to confused, uncredentialed, jackleg preachers. Choose educated, sensitive, spirit-filled people.

I've been looking long and hard and so far I have not found such.
Mostly what I find are knee-jerk reactionaries who flip their lid at the slightest notion that I am unconventional.
I have yet to meet anyone who I can genuinely say is a person who is meek and lowly of heart and who hungers and thirsts for righteousness.
I've found that the more credentialed they are the more likely they are to scoff and stir up a fuss rather than to judge carefully after a respectful attempt to understand.

BTW: Why should your "satisfaction" trump that of accredited bodies of people?

Why should I live a life of dissatisfaction and discord with my own conscience for the sake of acquiescing to the will of others?

Jesus said that we will always have the poor among us. The tares will grow up with the wheat. The goats will feed with the sheep.

Yes, they shall always be in the world, that is beside my point.
They were not a part of the early church when they held all things in common.
But, those who were not part of that organization certainly had the poor among them.
This is one reason why the poor shall be among the first to be saved in God's Kingdom.
They are sufficiently penitent and sufficiently motivated to see it for what it is.

If you've truly "been there and done that" in the engineering world, surely you realize the danger inherent in building edifices without the proper tools. Perhaps you've "been there, done that, and had the building crumble on the T-shirt..."

I'm in a profession that is far more complex and critical than engineering buildings, yet I didn't need worldly credentials to be very successful at it.

According to the "evidence" you presented.

I didn't present evidence.
I only presented a nutshell of some of my ideas.
We haven't even gotten to the evidence part.

Not of God. No one can look at God's face and live...

No man who is not quickened by the Spirit can look at God's face and live.
If a man has the Spirit of God in him, he can abide the presence of God and live.
Jacob spoke with God face to face and his life was preserved because he was quickened.

Genesis 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel:
for I have seen God face to face,
and my life is preserved.
​

Moses also spoke with God face to face.

Exodus 33:11
And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face,
as a man speaketh unto his friend.
​

I'm only pointing out the holes you fashion.

You mean what you are assuming is my fashion.

It's still written by human beings, out of perceived experience.

God is capable of working with selected individuals to get things written in the manner He wishes, regardless of their background or experience.
No man of his own mind and intellect is going to produce scripture.

They (in part) comprise the cosmos -- not a "geneopolitical" model.

The Bible specifically says it is genealogically centered, not cosmically centered.
And, the passage that helps establish this basis is glossed over by Christian scholars.
They even went to the extent of creating a unique and exceptional definition for a word just to avoid having to take that aspect seriously.
For whatever reason, there seems to be a vested interest in many Christians to put their religion at odds with science.

I'm not a Revelation literalist.

Well, what do you think that passage means when it says there shall be a new heavens and a new earth?

Are you saying that passage doesn't mean anything that can be deciphered into something plain, simple and tangible? Of course it should be taken literally, but only within the context of properly deciphering the symbolic language it is written in.

Do you know how to decipher the symbols of the book of Revelation or don't you?

Only according to Platonic thought...
The authors weren't thinking specifically that way.

They weren't the authors. They were the scribes, at best.
God is the author of all holy writ and He most definitely had "types" and "shadows" in mind.

No. It doesn't. The author of the creation account was patently unaware of Christianity.

Moses didn't have to fully understand the words he was given to write, he just had to know what God wanted written and write it.
Look at the example of Daniel in chapter 12 when the Lord had him write certain prophecies. He asked the Lord to tell him the meaning of what he had just received and the Lord told him that he wouldn't be giving the understanding of it until in the time of the end. This means that if you are relying upon traditions of fathers that are nearly 2000 years old to understand those prophesies, which are also connected with the prophesies in the book of Revelation, then you are going to blind yourself to achieving a proper understanding of them when in the end times the proper understanding is offered.

One only has to look at what the texts actually say. Not all that difficult.

I agree, which is why I am astounded at all of the confusion that exists in the world today surrounding it all.
I decided to do just what you said, taking all symbolism into careful consideration, and have arrived at a very simple and easy to understand perspective on God and Creation. Of course it flies in the face of what passes for credible exegesis and people will stumble all over themselves if they are unwilling to part from the precepts of men.

Simplicity is confusing to those who are already confused.

"Seem" would be the operative word here.

Yes, we are just getting to know one another and I am leaving room for you to define yourself rather than trying to put you in a box so that I can just hit you with one assumption after another.

Fidelity to what? You've blasted clergy. You've dismissed other people. You've ignored what the texts actually say. What's left???

Fidelity to God. And, you only assume I have ignored what the texts actually say.

Why is it that people seem to argue from the perspective that they are an infallible authority on interpreting God's word?

What prevents you from at least saying:
"You've ignored what I believe the texts actually say."

The fact is I didn't ignore such. I've listened to and tried to make sense of other people's take on things and I was never satisfied that others had the truth to offer. So, I decided I should at least make a final appeal to God to help me to understand His word before I decided to just bag the whole religion thing. Also, I don't ignore them, I just don't hearken to them as if they are my Lord. My Lord is Christ and Christ alone.

And, is all I ask of anyone else is to hear me out fully before you reject the unique perspective I offer for your consideration.

It was Joseph of Arimathea who received Christ's body.
It was Jews and Gentiles alike who mocked him.

I'm talking about the flesh and bone body of Christ.
Sorry, I went over your head.

So? You're saying that the disciples aren't supposed to all be in one accord now?

Absolutely not. If they had kept fidelity to what they were given they would have done just what was supposed to be done according to:

Ephesians 4:13
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
​

My assessment isn't based on that. It's based on what you've presented thus far.

Based in comparison to your own personal views which could just as easily be subject to a cumulative eisegesis you have absorbed from those you feel you are beholden to.

 

[sojourner]

There's no point in continuing a Biblical debate with someone who
1) holds no regard for widely-accepted standards of Biblical scholarship
2) thinks God specially favors him with revelation that others are not privy to
3) dismisses the work others have done in the field
4) has no respect for the Body of Christ
5) is unaware of the meaning of exegesis
6) has no real basis for the theological constructs he's putting forth

Suffice to say that, for purposes of this thread about the Trinity, I have yet to see you provide one viable or compelling argument against it.

 

[kylixguru]

There's no point in continuing a Biblical debate with someone who
1) holds no regard for widely-accepted standards of Biblical scholarship

I simply don't make some inconsistent nebulous of varying opinions what I must hearken to.
I did not say I totally ignore them or that I don't sincerely consider them.

2) thinks God specially favors him with revelation that others are not privy to

I never claimed to receive anything that anyone else couldn't just as easily or readily enjoy.
I was advocating that anyone else can have the same level of revelation that I claim.
And, the last thing I want is for people to just take my word for anything as if I am someone special.
To me there is no point of true religion unless and until it creates individuals who are sovereigns.

3) dismisses the work others have done in the field

I simply dismiss that which appears to contradict with things that I have received a higher witness on that do not square with a disciplined and thorough exegesis, as you call it.

4) has no respect for the Body of Christ

Uh, actually, I am exposing those who appear to me to be mocking and crucifying it afresh.

5) is unaware of the meaning of exegesis

It is not a word I am familiar with, but I think it is obvious that I am aware of the principle since that is how I described the manner of discipline I apply to things.

6) has no real basis for the theological constructs he's putting forth

I do have a basis, which I will gladly provide to someone who sincerely wishes to explore the claims I have made.
You seemed to agree that it would be good to not try and ostensibly force them upon those who really are not interested.

Suffice to say that, for purposes of this thread about the Trinity, I have yet to see you provide one viable or compelling argument against it.

I am not against the Trinity as a whole. I am just opposed to the portions of the creed when the Trinity doctrine that was formed to say that we cannot understand each personage of the Trinity.

Add: For an example of where you can find more information on my view of the Trinity, have a look at this post here.

 

[sojourner]

IF God had specially blessed you with some sort of "higher revelation, this:

I simply don't make some inconsistent nebulous of varying opinions what I must hearken to

would make sense. But since it contains no discernible appropriate grammar or synatax, one can only guess at what might pass for "higher revelation" on your part.

I was advocating that anyone else can have the same level of revelation that I claim.

How do you know you have any "level" or revelation? Are you aware that revelation isn't meted out in "levels?" Was John's revelation of a higher or lower "level" than Paul's?

To me there is no point of true religion unless and until it creates individuals who are sovereigns.

Jesus formed ekklesiai -- "assembly" -- not "individuals." And certainly not individuals who are "sovereign." Only Jesus is Lord.

I simply dismiss that which appears to contradict with things that I have received a higher witness on

I see. "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, because God gave me some magical "higher witness." Certainly covers your debate bases, doesn't it? how convenient for you!

Uh, actually, I am exposing those who appear to me to be mocking and crucifying it afresh.

appearances can deceive. Aren't we supposed to be looking at the inner, not the outer being?

It is not a word I am familiar with, but I think it is obvious that I am aware of the principle since that is how I described the manner of discipline I apply to things.

You describe it -- but you don't do it.

I do have a basis, which I will gladly provide to someone who sincerely wishes to explore the claims I have made.
You seemed to agree that it would be good to not try and ostensibly force them upon those who really are not interested.

All good theologians lay the textual groundwork for their constructions at the outset. You haven't done that. In fact, you're correct in that all you have done is make claims. As yet, they remain unsubstantiated. Which leads me to believe that you're relying on some magical "higher witness" and not on anything more tangible.

I am not against the Trinity as a whole. I am just opposed to the portions of the creed when the Trinity doctrine that was formed to say that we cannot understand each personage of the Trinity.

If you can fully understand God, you'd be the first human (outside Jesus) in history to do so.

You're seeking to find answers to questions that have not even been posed.

 

[sojourner]

Perhaps you could address one or two of the specific doctrinal statements you find objectionable, and then present us with a rebuttal to those statements that is based in Biblical exegesis and backed up by subsequent commentary and corollary doctrinal statements. You might come off as more credible if you were to do so.

 

[kylixguru]

Perhaps you could address one or two of the specific doctrinal statements you find objectionable, and then present us with a rebuttal to those statements that is based in Biblical exegesis and backed up by subsequent commentary and corollary doctrinal statements. You might come off as more credible if you were to do so.

I'm not yet ready to make any presentations.
For now I am content to just mingle and share ideas.
You are welcome to probe me on specific points if you like.

Otherwise, I'm really not out to serve any agenda other than to champion what I embrace as wise and correct principles and to give people some new ideas to contemplate.

 

[kylixguru]

IF God had specially blessed you with some sort of "higher revelation, this:

would make sense. But since it contains no discernible appropriate grammar or synatax, one can only guess at what might pass for "higher revelation" on your part.

You were saying that I should hold regard for the scholarly community of Christians and attempting to discredit me for merely giving them sincere consideration but ultimately rejecting them. What you say I should be beholden to, I view as an inconsistent nebula of varying opinions. Just because these opinions are dressed in the robes of scholars doesn't mean I should hearken to them.

How do you know you have any "level" or revelation? Are you aware that revelation isn't meted out in "levels?" Was John's revelation of a higher or lower "level" than Paul's?

There are different levels of ministration a person can receive.
Moses was quite frustrated with the children of Israel because they refused to function at the level of the higher law, which would qualify them for higher levels of ministration, including enjoying the direct presence of God and to speak with Him face to face as Moses did. Moses wanted that same privilege for all of the children of Israel, but they are who hardened their heart and feared and rejected such.

Jesus formed ekklesiai -- "assembly" -- not "individuals." And certainly not individuals who are "sovereign." Only Jesus is Lord.

Jesus is Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
In other words, the only individuals Jesus really truly wishes to have the company of are those individuals who are prepared and worthy to be sovereigns.
This is especially the case when He is selecting those who shall become joint-heirs with Him to sit upon thrones in the Father's Kingdom.
He doesn't want puppets He will have to pull the strings of.
He wants men proven in all areas to have the fortitude and revelation to govern without strings having to be attached to them.

I see. "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, because God gave me some magical "higher witness." Certainly covers your debate bases, doesn't it? how convenient for you!

Oh please. What is the purpose of proper exegesis?

appearances can deceive. Aren't we supposed to be looking at the inner, not the outer being?

The outer reflects the inner.
When people don't take time to understand me and they are quick to mock me, that says a lot about what is in their heart.

You describe it -- but you don't do it.

And, you have no substantive evidence for that accusation.
You simply assume you do it properly and that anyone who disagrees with your point of view isn't doing it.

All good theologians lay the textual groundwork for their constructions at the outset. You haven't done that. In fact, you're correct in that all you have done is make claims. As yet, they remain unsubstantiated. Which leads me to believe that you're relying on some magical "higher witness" and not on anything more tangible.

You are welcome to be suspicious and do nothing beyond that but make assumption or you can act upon my invitation to prove for whatever evidence you would like to see to substantiate what I have said. The choice is yours.

If you can fully understand God, you'd be the first human (outside Jesus) in history to do so.

Actually, I wouldn't be. I know others who also shared my understanding and likely much more. I am still learning and growing day by day in how to fully decipher holy writ according to the keys of interpretation I have been fortunate enough to be given.
I consider myself as having only glimpsed the full magnitude of what is available.

You're seeking to find answers to questions that have not even been posed.

What's wrong with that?
Probing into the realm of things you didn't know that you don't know is where all paradigm busting innovations come from.
As far as I can tell, the world could definitely use some paradigm busting shifts for the better.

 

[sojourner]

You were saying that I should hold regard for the scholarly community of Christians and attempting to discredit me for merely giving them sincere consideration but ultimately rejecting them. What you say I should be beholden to, I view as an inconsistent nebula of varying opinions. Just because these opinions are dressed in the robes of scholars doesn't mean I should hearken to them

So far, your rejection is ludicrous. You're rejecting a body of scholars based solely on what they "seem" to you to be. As a corollary, you're rejecting whatever they say, based upon that same criterion -- what they "seem" to you to be.

Why not give them the benefit of the doubt -- seeing that they've gained the reputation of producing the best available scholarship, and then if you disagree with something they've put forward, do so based upon being able to prove them unworthy via Biblical exegesis.

There are different levels of ministration a person can receive.
Moses was quite frustrated with the children of Israel because they refused to function at the level of the higher law, which would qualify them for higher levels of ministration, including enjoying the direct presence of God and to speak with Him face to face as Moses did. Moses wanted that same privilege for all of the children of Israel, but they are who hardened their heart and feared and rejected such.

They aren't "levels." God's kingdom isn't hierarchical. Read Paul.

the only individuals Jesus really truly wishes to have the company of are those individuals who are prepared and worthy to be sovereigns.

This is nuts and unsupportable. Absolutely unsupportable.

What is the purpose of proper exegesis?

To properly garner the message of the text, via one or more methods of criticism. You have failed to do that.

The outer reflects the inner.

Not always. That's a very shallow way of looking at human spirituality.

And, you have no substantive evidence for that accusation.

I have what you've produced here. Show me, textually, using principles of exegesis, where the Bible says that Jesus has the body of a fish. You can't do it, because it's an unsupportable statement.

Actually, I wouldn't be. I know others who also shared my understanding and likely much more.

This statement borders on the delusional.

What's wrong with that?

Because it's pi##ing in the wind.
Xy doesn't seek to answer questions. It seeks to create space to ask questions.

As far as I can tell, the world could definitely use some paradigm busting shifts for the better.

And yet, all you've given us here is fairy-tale...

 

[kylixguru]

So far, your rejection is ludicrous. You're rejecting a body of scholars based solely on what they "seem" to you to be. As a corollary, you're rejecting whatever they say, based upon that same criterion -- what they "seem" to you to be.

I rejected them because they didn't have answers I was looking for and because the only things they agree on are the painfully obvious things.
Beyond that, it is a jumbled up mass of confusion and contradiction between themselves.
They appear to me to be ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
But, even still, I do frequently read their commentaries because I often find very valuable things they unveil. I don't discount them wholly, I just don't pick any one of them or them as a whole as my final authority on what I personally accept as truth.

Why not give them the benefit of the doubt -- seeing that they've gained the reputation of producing the best available scholarship, and then if you disagree with something they've put forward, do so based upon being able to prove them unworthy via Biblical exegesis.

In my own way, that's what I'll eventually be getting around to doing.
But, as I said before, I am not yet prepared sufficiently.

I never aspired to be involved with things at this level since I consider myself just a regular guy who simply wanted to know the truth.
I want to have everything clearly documented and supported before I put fourth any thesis for scholars to chew on.

They aren't "levels." God's kingdom isn't hierarchical. Read Paul.

I agree that those who enter into the Kingdom of God all share and partake alike in the heavenly glory. This goes back to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords concept. The Kingdom of God is a Kingdom of Sovereigns who are all joint-heirs with Christ who rule and reign during the Millennium.

Not everyone makes it into the Kingdom of God so it is a level all its own.
And, there are 3 degrees in the Kingdom of God.
There are those who have been previously sealed with a marriage partner or partners.
There are those who have not been sealed with a marriage partner who remain single.
There are those who are servants in the households of those who wear the crowns.

As Paul described it, each member of the body should not boast itself against the other member. For should the foot say it hath no need for the eye? (Or something like that.) All are gathered into one body in that kingdom and they are all partakers of the heavenly glory, but they shall have varying offices and roles within that Celestial body.

Paul also beautifully explains many levels of glory that people attain to in the resurrection, which means our afterlife in the "world to come". Some rise up with the glory of fowls, fishes, beasts, man, sun, moon, stars, etc. All of this is a likeness of the various levels of glory available to humans.

This is nuts and unsupportable. Absolutely unsupportable.

What do you think the purpose of His offering was?
Was it to save you in your sins or was it to save you from your sins?

How would you describe a person who has completely overcome their sinful nature?
How would you describe a person who thanks Jesus that they can just go on sinning?

I can assure you, Jesus is really only interested in those saved from their sins.
All others who think to use his offering as a license to go on sinning are crucifying Him afresh and they shall be treated accordingly.

To properly garner the message of the text, via one or more methods of criticism. You have failed to do that.

So says you. You have no substantive arguments.
I have already busted you on making false statements before.
I wasn't born yesterday and I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.
If you think you have proof to substantiate your claims, then offer it.

Not always. That's a very shallow way of looking at human spirituality.

Yes, I agree that "not always" is applicable. Thus, I am generally rather patient and prone to give the benefit of the doubt because you don't always know the whole context to form a correct judgment of something on.

I have what you've produced here. Show me, textually, using principles of exegesis, where the Bible says that Jesus has the body of a fish. You can't do it, because it's an unsupportable statement.

I didn't say Jesus became a fish.
What I said was that in the Creation account you have the creation of the "creatures in the waters wherein dwells the breath of life" on Day 5. I said that this pertains to the coming fourth of Christianity in the 5th Millennium. Peter was called to do what? Be a "fisher of men". When Jesus appeared to His disciples in a body of flesh and bone, what did he eat? He ate fishes. He brought the "fish" of Christianity that Peter would "catch" into his resurrected body of flesh and bone. This is why Paul says in Ephesians 5:30 that the people brought into the church are members of Christ's body, of His flesh and of His bone. The Christian religion is a manifestation of a spiritual resurrection at the level of glory of "fishes". They were left in the "waters" (subject to Gentile rule per Rev 17:15) but they had a certain level of the "breath of life", which is the presence of the Holy Spirit that enlightened them to that level of glory. They were denied the Kingdom at that time and told that only the Father would know the time for such. (Acts 1:7) They were more or less in a state of betrothal looking forward to the promise of the time when the Father would come to establish His Kingdom and receive His Bride cleansed and purified and made worthy of Him.

This statement borders on the delusional.

Why? How is it delusional to be aware of others who you believe know more than you do?

Because it's pi##ing in the wind.
Xy doesn't seek to answer questions. It seeks to create space to ask questions.

The most difficult part of learning is knowing what questions to ask.

And yet, all you've given us here is fairy-tale...

Well, I suppose then you will take leave of having further discussion.
Your mind is already made up and was from the very moment you first mocked me.

 

[Shermana]

God's kingdom isn't hierarchical.

So who are the "Least in the Kingdom"? It's not talking about positive humility.

 

[sojourner]

I rejected them because they didn't have answers I was looking for

Oh, Waaah! Jesus gave a lot of teaching that people weren't looking for, too.

the only things they agree on are the painfully obvious things.

So what? You're apparently not even agreeing with that. What's the difference?

Not everyone makes it into the Kingdom of God so it is a level all its own.

Baloney.

What do you think the purpose of His offering was?
Was it to save you in your sins or was it to save you from your sins?

Neither.

How would you describe a person who has completely overcome their sinful nature?

Jesus.

How would you describe a person who thanks Jesus that they can just go on sinning?

misinformed.

I can assure you, Jesus is really only interested in those saved from their sins.

Hmmm...
I thought it is written that he came to save sinners. Therefore, by definition, he is interested in the "lost."

I have already busted you on making false statements before.

No, you haven't. Not once. Ever.

I didn't say Jesus became a fish.
What I said was that in the Creation account you have the creation of the "creatures in the waters wherein dwells the breath of life" on Day 5. I said that this pertains to the coming fourth of Christianity in the 5th Millennium. Peter was called to do what? Be a "fisher of men". When Jesus appeared to His disciples in a body of flesh and bone, what did he eat? He ate fishes. He brought the "fish" of Christianity that Peter would "catch" into his resurrected body of flesh and bone. This is why Paul says in Ephesians 5:30 that the people brought into the church are members of Christ's body, of His flesh and of His bone. The Christian religion is a manifestation of a spiritual resurrection at the level of glory of "fishes". They were left in the "waters" (subject to Gentile rule per Rev 17:15) but they had a certain level of the "breath of life", which is the presence of the Holy Spirit that enlightened them to that level of glory. They were denied the Kingdom at that time and told that only the Father would know the time for such. (Acts 1:7) They were more or less in a state of betrothal looking forward to the promise of the time when the Father would come to establish His Kingdom and receive His Bride cleansed and purified and made worthy of Him.

that's very pretty, but it's exegetically unsupportable. You're drawing comparisons that, textually, were never meant to be drawn.

Your mind is already made up and was from the very moment you first mocked me.

had you made sense from the very first, that might not have happened. But if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck -- it's a duck.

 

[sojourner]

So who are the "Least in the Kingdom"? It's not talking about positive humility.

"Least" isn't talking about hierarchy.

 

[kylixguru]

Oh, Waaah!

I don't appreciate this slur against me.

Jesus gave a lot of teaching that people weren't looking for, too.

So, that's a bonus then.

So what? You're apparently not even agreeing with that. What's the difference?

I didn't say one way or another. Why assume?

Baloney.

As I understand the Kingdom of God it exists during the Millennium, which also corresponds with Day 1 of a new cycle of Creation, which is concurrent with Day 7 of the previous cycle of Creation. This is when Christ, as Adam, rules and reigns upon the earth for about 1,000 years, during which time He judges all the souls of the previous cycle of Creation and organizes them into the new cycle of Creation. He does this by giving them their "new names", which is their fore-ordination to whatever level of glory they have merited. Some will be named to have an earthly glory of "fishes", "fowls", "creeping things", "four-footed beasts" and "man", and some, not all, shall also be fore-ordained to have a level of heavenly glory as represented by the "sun", "moon" and "stars". This work will be performed in temples by those who inherit the Kingdom of God. They are organized into the Church, which is the Bride, who is the helpmeet and companion to Adam to assist Him in this great undertaking. Only those who receive the fullness of the Gospel of the Father and who covenant to participate in fullfulling Adam and Eve's responsibilities will have a part in this. These are who are divided on Day 1 to accept the Light and Truth of Adam and Eve upon their redemption by way of the advent of the Son of Man, Their firstborn Son.

Now, if you want to make the Kingdom of God into something else, perhaps there is some way you can redefine it to mean what you want it to, but it won't be that Kingdom that is responsible for creating the new heavens and the new earth with those who are in the Kingdom being the genealogical patriarch and matriarchs who are the seed stock for this entirely new cycle of Creation.

Neither.

Jesus.

misinformed.

Hmmm...
I thought it is written that he came to save sinners. Therefore, by definition, he is interested in the "lost."

Right! With what in mind?

No, you haven't. Not once. Ever.

What about your comment that no man can see the face of God and live?
I showed that you were wrong to say what you said.

that's very pretty, but it's exegetically unsupportable. You're drawing comparisons that, textually, were never meant to be drawn.

The creation account is a blue print for the Creation.
Knowing this and using it as such to see the flesh and bone plane opens everything into a clear view.

had you made sense from the very first, that might not have happened. But if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck -- it's a duck.

You are welcome to (and responsible for) your opinion.

 

[Shermana]

"Least" isn't talking about hierarchy.

Okay, thanks for saying "nuh uh" but would you like to substantiate your claim and say what you think "least" there implies? It's obviously a negative context. I asked you WHO they are.

 

[sojourner]

Okay, thanks for saying "nuh uh" but would you like to substantiate your claim and say what you think "least" there implies? It's obviously a negative context. I asked you WHO they are.

I'm looking at my last post, and maybe I'm blind or something, but I don't see "nuh uh" typed there.

At any rate, do you know WHO the "least" are?
And what does that have to do with the Trinity?

 

[sojourner]

I don't appreciate this slur against me.

Then don't whine about not getting the answers you wanted. We don't always (or even often) "get what we want" in religion. We tend to get what's good for us.

So, that's a bonus then.

I was simply using that as an example of "God -- not Kyli -- knows best."

I didn't say one way or another. Why assume?

You did say. They agree on the Trinity -- you don't.
No assumption needed.

This work will be performed in temples by those who inherit the Kingdom of God. They are organized into the Church

Temples were done away with when the last sacrifice (crucifixion) was performed. No more need for sacrifice -- Jesus was sacrificed once for all -- hence, no need for temples (temples are places for sacrifice).
If you'd cared to do your exegetical homework with regard to what the temple was for, you wouldn't have posted something that makes no sense with regard to the Bible.

Now, if you want to make the Kingdom of God into something else

Well, you've certainly done that...

Right! With what in mind?

Wholeness

 

[sojourner]

What about your comment that no man can see the face of God and live?
I showed that you were wrong to say what you said.

Jacob -- not God -- said he'd seen God face-to-face after he had fought the man at the Jabbok. When had he seen God??? he was speaking metaphorically, because God had worked through agency of another. Jacob had not, in fact, seen God's face.

The creation account is a blue print for the Creation.

It's a metaphor -- not a blueprint. And it was never written to dovetail with the fishers of men statement.

You are welcome to (and responsible for) your opinion.

Not cogent.