|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot wrote:
The people that were given this instruction and information in Mark 16: actually did these things as a result of the spiritual gifts they recieved throught baptism of the Holy spirit and the laying on o the hands of the Apostles. They ha d witnessed Christ himself and his miracles,or the apostles in these instances, so no blind faith was required. They booth perfomed these miracles and in instances where say the Apostle Paul was struck by a viper in Acts this passage was also fulfilled, no blind faith required. If I am hearing you correctly, you are saying that what is written in Mark 16:15 thru 18 was not meant for anyone but the Apostles of that time? If that is what you are saying then I need some clarification regarding Mark 16:15 that describes Jesus/God saying:
quote:Is not what follows in Mark 16:16 thru 18 the “gospel” or part of the “gospel” to be “preached”? In post #196 ICANT quotes John 20:29
quote: And then ICANT states:
It takes faith to believe without seeing. To “have not seen” means that one “has not seen”, thus has been “blind” to the actual event or person. To have “faith” in these miracles that are so utterly out of the realm of the real and natural order without having actually “seen” these miracles performed is in fact, and must be construed as “blind faith.” There is absolutely nothing “wrong” {for the lack of a better word} about someone having “blind faith” in these fantastic events or person. Where the difficulty arises is when that someone claims that what they have “blind faith” in is the “Truth” and that everyone else in the world should have “blind or unseen faith” in these literary disclosed fantastic events and person or they are “damned.” That appears to be exactly what Mark 16:16 is asserting. And, Mark 16:15 is saying that this “gospel” should be “preached” to “all the world.” If someone is going to claim that what is written is “The Truth” then I am going to ask for “absolute proof” that will in fact, in reality prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what is “written” is what it is claimed to be. That is not an unreasonable request. I need to add one more thing: According to my understanding, what God/Jesus is saying in Mark 16:15 thru 18 was said before Paul was converted. Therefore, whatever Paul might have to say, Paul's writings were not part of the "gospel" that God/Jesus is referring to in Mark 16:15. Is that correct? I’ve got some work to do before I get too old to do it. All the best,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
Reply to post 210 by bertot:
quote: bertot replied: Not exacally. Let me show you the difference. No where in the rest of the NT do we see the idea that "preaching the Gospel" would cease or an instruction to "quit" preaching the Gospel, as we do with the Spiritual Gifts administered through men, 1Cor 13. What? Nowhere in the New Testament do we see the idea that “preaching the Gospel” would cease? So your God/Jesus did not say, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature”, because you do not find in the rest of the NT the idea that “preaching the Gospel” would cease? That does not make any practical, reasonable, or logical sense! Furthermore, in Matthew 24:14 your God/Jesus states:
quote: According to the above quote the gospel of the kingdom will no longer be preached at the time all nations have heard it, and when that occurs “shall the end come.” Is that not a NT declaration conveying the idea that “preaching the Gospel” would cease?
In other words the only reason I believe this about the gifts is because this is the Apostle's indication through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the gifts of the spirit administered through men would eventually fade in favor of the written/inspired Word, which suplanted "that which was in part". Where in the Four Gospels does Jesus Christ state that “the gifts of the spirit administered through men would eventually fade? If I am hearing you correctly, you are essentially saying that what God/Jesus says to the Apostles in the Gospels was only for the Apostles. So, in John 14:14 & 15, when God/Jesus says:
quote:He is only saying these things to His Apostles? And because God/Jesus was only saying these things to His Apostles, God/Jesus picked Paul to let the rest of humanity know what was actually going to go on? Frankly, that does not make any sense. And yes, there are question marks { ? } at the end of the above sentences. Respond to the above with some kind of answer.
bertot wrote: Now I cannot explain why God chose to have us presently without this type of confirmation. I suspect that even with them, people would still find ways to not believe. If what God/Jesus states above in the Gospel of John 14:14 & 15 was intended for everyone who would hear and eventually read the Four Gospels of Jesus Christ, and was not just intended for His Apostles, then it does not appear as though God did choose “to have us presently without this type of confirmation. And I doubt seriously that if indeed anything asked in Jesus Christ’s/God’s name was actually done by Jesus Christ/God, very few people “would still find ways to not believe.” They would not only “believe” they would in fact know by personal and collective experience. I personally would become not only a “believer”, but a “knower” in an instant.
bertot wrote: It depends on what a person has not seen initially. Thomas had already been with Christ and witnessed the miracles and should have believed that Christ would rise from the dead as he had indicated he would. Actually this is the import that Christ meant when he said, "Thomas you have seen me and believed, blessed are they which have not seen me, yet believed". Who are “they” who are blessed because “they” have not seen, yet have believed?
bertot wrote: However, his indication is not that we would be left with nothing to support this, he has not left us without any information or evidence at all, if we consider our surroundings and his written Word, history and archeology, etc, etc, etc. What are you saying here? We - signifying those of us who came into being after Rome conquered Europe - do not get to have the “Spirit of Truth” and/or the “Holy Ghost”, and/or the “Comforter”? We get to “consider our surroundings” {whatever that means? You are not into Natural Proverbs}; we get His written Word {even though Paul’s written word is actually more to the point}; and we get “history and archeology” {two science-based human-oriented pursuits of relatively recent vintage). And your belief and faith in supernatural miracles is based on these as well as, etc, etc, etc? I sense that your “faith” is pretty close to being “blind” here, my friend. But, I am probably quite wrong here. It’s OK. I’m used to it.
AM, remember our lessons on logic, if this is required for us then it would be for yourself as well. Your position on God, existence and these things cannot be proven absolutley, much of it, especially with regard to the "human product" Eden narrative, would have no way of demonstrating that which you require of us, think about it. Absolute proof exists for nothing. Also, it depends on what a person considers "absolute proof"or proof for that matter. I am not trying to say that “Absolute Proof” is required for you or myself. If you like the Adam & Eve story the way it is, even with its many obvious riddle and metaphorical features, then by all means: Adam sinned against God, so God condemned all successive generations of humanity to mortal death. But love, hope, and faith will set things right if only we listen to Paul. Jesus will come back, He will damn all of sinners & non-believers, and the righteous will inherit a new world and a new heaven. Extrapolation and conjecture regarding natural metaphors is considerably different than faith in supernatural miracles that have no basis in natural reality.
quote: bertot replied: Is this a statement or a question? I am pretty sure that when the question is asked, “Is that correct?”, after a contemplative statement is made, the contemplative statement is to be responded to with an answer of, “Yes it is correct”, or, “No it is not correct.”
How do you know about Pauls conversion, if you say the book of Acts, then I would say do you accept the rest of what it has to say about Pauls conversion, that Christ commisioned him. We can talk more about this later, but think about it for now. That is what Paul says. Jesus Christ made no mention of Paul in the Four Gospels that I can find. Therefore, the chronological order of events would be that what is stated as “Gospel” in the Four Gospels was stated prior to Paul being “commissioned by Jesus Christ.” I will follow this contemplative statement with another question, “Does this seemingly obvious chronological order of events conform to the events being discussed? I’ve got to get some sleep. All the best,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot wrote regarding AM’s post #211:
it is fraught with complete misunderstanding of doctrine and scriptural unity Post #211 is “fraught with complete misunderstanding of doctrine”? I can hardly wait to hear which church “doctrine” you happen to be referring to. Since the Reformation there are just so many to choose from. Post #211 is “fraught with complete misunderstanding of “scriptural unity”? And then you mention something about post #211 having
“much to be corrected scripturally and logically.” Logically speaking then, let’s try to stay away from altering the chronological order of events and quotations. That is to say, the Four Gospel accounts of what Jesus said and did occurred before Saul of Tarsus became Paul the Christian. I look forward to your response. All the best,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot:
this is what you wrote in post #210:
No where in the rest of the NT do we see the idea that "preaching the Gospel" would cease or an instruction to "quit" preaching the Gospel, as we do with the Spiritual Gifts administered through men, 1Cor 13. According to Paul - who came after Jesus in the flesh - the Spiritual Gifts which Jesus talked about would cease, and everyone who comes after that time will be left with “Paul’s word” and what words of Jesus that do not pertain to “Spiritual Gifts.” That is what I am hearing you say. Now isn’t that convenient. You must take Paul’s word for it when Paul claims that the resurrected Jesus {a.k.a. God, Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit} personally contacted him. You must take Paul’s word for it when Paul claim that through the power of the Holy Spirit anything Jesus previously said regarding “Spiritual Gifts” was to eventually be ignored because Paul claims that the Holy Spirit told him that such “Spiritual Gifts” would eventually cease. And you must take Paul’s word for it that Paul’s word trumps “The Word’s” word even though Jesus, when in the flesh, said that the heavens and the earth will pass away but His Word(s) shall never pass away.
bertot wrote: The Gospel message would continue until the end of time, the "spiritual gifts", would cease, fade and vanish, And then you quote Paul:
1Cor 13. My question is, How can “the Gospel message” continue if only a part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is valid? Somebody is feeding you a line. Someone is not giving you the truth. If only part of “the Gospel message” is valid then “the Gospel message” is corrupted. What you are left with is a partial Gospel message and a complete message from Paul. If that is good enough for you that is fine, but it is not good enough for me. I do not trust, believe, or have faith in Paul.
bertot wrote: Thanks for your last two mostly sarcastic responses, in turn I would like to say, I sure hope you are playing the "dumb" card in your trying to convince me that you do not understand what I am saying in the above quote. If you are not then I think we have bigger problems than I imagined.
No “dumb card” is being played. You, according to Paul, are stating that large parts of “the Gospel Message” issued by Jesus Christ no longer apply. Yet Jesus Christ never said anything of the kind. Jesus Christ said:
quote: Jesus Christ made this and other statements similar to it prior to Saul of Tarsus becoming the would-be Paul the Christian. I am not being maliciously sarcastic in any of my responses. It is apparently quite difficult to reply to a number of these subjects without sounding somewhat sarcastic. I am merely trying to respond as openly and honestly as I possibly can. I think we do “have a bigger problem than imagined”! But, it is not that I am stupid {well I am not the sharpest tack in the drawer} it is that what you are calling “the Gospel message” is not the Gospel Message that Jesus Christ issued. Do you see what I have been trying to convey? Where in the Four Gospels does Jesus Christ say that the “Spiritual Gifts” to which He refers will “fade, cease, and/or vanish”? I’ve got to get to work, my friend. All the best,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot
bertot wrote: You are not listening and paid nearly no attention to the lengthy post and its arguments I made, this is obvious. In John 16:13 Christ said before his departure, "I will not leave you comfortless, howbeit, when he the Spirit of Truth is come, He will guide you into "ALL" truth and show you things to come." Now this implies that All truth had not been revealed as God had seen fit and the rest of the information would come at a later date. The Gospel does not have to be all in one place or time for it to be the truth of God or the Gospel. My guess is that you are being obstinate, unless you would like to respond to the above verse. I am listening, I did pay attention, and I am not being intentionally obstinate. I am being sincerely persistent in my attempt to have you address the issues that I am placing in front of you. The word’s of Jesus Christ convey His promise, His parables, and His commandments. In John 16:13 Jesus Christ did not say that the Spirit of Truth was going to nullify any of Jesus Christ’s previous words, promises, parables or commandments. This is what Jesus Christ proclaims regarding His “words” in the Gospel of Mark 13:31:
quote: This is a promise made by Jesus Christ according to the Gospel of Mark 16:16 thru 18:
quote: This is what the Gospel of Mark 4:2 & 30 proclaims regarding Jesus Christ’s “parables/proverbs”: quote: The proverb that follows employs a grain of mustard seed, and birds that find lodging in the great herb’s branches. In the Gospel of John 14:15 Jesus Christ say this regarding His “commandments”:
quote: In Mark 13:5 & 6 Jesus Christ states:
quote: If Paul alters any of these “words” either Paul or Jesus was a liar. Paul, not Jesus, states in 1st Cor. 13 that the Spiritual Gifts as described in Mark 16 will cease. How is that not Paul altering Jesus Christ Gospel? I am very tired and need to get some sleep. I hope I have made a somewhat coherent argument. Again, you quoted the Gospel of John 16:13 regarding the spirit of truth. The spirit of truth is to add more to what Jesus has already said, not nullify anything that was Jesus Christ’s words before. I am not done replying to either one of your previous posts. I just am unable to reply to them all at once. Thanks for your patience. All the best,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot:
And he did not say that somethings would not change in there methods or applications, either Change in the sense of being enhanced by the “spirit of truth”. Not change in the sense of being diminished or disregarded.
I dont know how I could make this any simpler than I have, I have done it logically from the example of the buisness world and I have explained it from the scriptures. You have made it simple, but your faith and your logic are naturally incongruent. As yet you have not been able to make you case from the scriptures.
In debate AM it is ones responsibilty to respond to the direct arguments being made. In this instance it would be your responsibility to demonstrate that Paul was not commissioned, appointed and chosen by Christ as the scriptures clearly indicate. Paul’s portion of the scriptures indicates in an uncorroborated fashion that a supernatural event supposedly took place between Paul and Jesus Christ after Jesus’ resurrection. One must take Paul’s word that such a supernatural event ever occurred. I do not trust Paul’s word, or Paul’s instruction. Jesus said many things prior to his crucifixion and Paul rarely if ever mentions Jesus’ words, that according to Jesus himself, will be forever. I find that lack of spreading the gospel that Jesus spoke of many times quite disconcerting. In Matthew 18:18 thru 20 Jesus Christ states some really wonderful gifts. I will just quote Matt. 18:20
quote: Why would anyone need Paul? If one takes Jesus at his word, wherever two or more people are gathered in his name - {transliterated: yehoshu’a = yhwh is salvation - I am {I am that I am} in the midst of them. Then in Matthew 18:23 thru 35 Jesus Christ speaks of the kingdom of heaven as being like a certain king who takes account of his servants. I will just quote Matt. 18:35
quote: In Matthew 12:50 and Mark 3:35 Jesus Christ said:
quote: Yet Paul states:
quote: According to Paul a woman who does the will of the Father that is in heaven is not treated like Jesus Christ’s sister or mother, but rather as the slave to men and/or her husband. That is not what Jesus said in Matt. 12:50 or Mk. 3:35. And in 1st Timothy 2:11 thru 15 Paul also states:
quote: According to Paul women in general are to be treated as deceivers and those who brought on the first transgression. Regardless if they do the will of the Father that is in heaven women are not to be treated as part of Jesus Christ’s family, as sisters and mothers, but are to be silent with all subjection. That is not what Jesus taught. While talking to the woman of Samaria at a well, in John 4:13, 14 & 21 thru 24, Jesus Christ said:
quote: Secondly, it would be your task to demonstrate that John 16:13 does not mean that what the Apostles spoke in later epistles could and should not be considered Christs own words and by his authority, Christ is the one who gave them this authority, correct? In John 14:21 & 23 Jesus Christ states:
quote: In the above quotes Jesus says, “Keep my commandments” and “Keep my words.” To “keep” something one must already possess it. The Comforter/Holy Ghost or Spirit of Truth will add to what Jesus Christ has shared before his crucifixion, but there is no indication that they will diminish or nullify anything Jesus Christ conveyed while he was in the flesh. If anything the Apostles spoke in later epistles ignores, diminishes, or nullifies what Jesus Christ previously conveyed - as Paul has done regarding “spiritual gifts” and regarding “women who worship the Father” - then their testimony is highly suspect. I am quite certain that you must disagree with what I am sharing with you. I fully understand. Down the road, long after we are no longer talking over the Internet, it is my hope you will give it all some serious thought. Jesus did tell the woman of Samaria that “salvation is of the Jews!” Salvation is of the Jews! Not the Greeks, not the Romans, but the Jews. I have got to get some sleep. I’ll respond to the rest of your most recent post as well as those before it in the morning. I haven’t forgotten them. All the best,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot wrote:
AM wwe can take a break if this is starting to ware you out, we can go at our own pace, it seems as others have lost interest here, justlet me know. I am enjoying my conversations with you and the others a great deal. My fence repair job has physically beaten the crud out of me, but conversing with you is a great and honorable pleasure. As far as I know I will never loose interest in the subjects we are discussing. I’ll respond to what you have posted and you can reply at whatever pace you feel is comfortable. Thanks again for sharing your insights and points of view. I cherish every word you convey whether we are in agreement or not.
There is nothing wrong with diminished or disregarded if God sees fit for it to such. Well, that certainly leaves the door wide open to abuses.
The Old covenant was replaced with the New because it had fulfilled its purposes. I wonder how many “New Covenants” we are talking about?
The gifts throught men vanished because they had served thier funtion and were replaced with another method. You are trying way to hard to discredit a simple principle. Yea, that must be it. Now, why would anyone want to discredit such a simple principle? God so loved the world that He allowed His only begotten Son to be murdered by a bunch of ignorant sots, and then left the world with a book that describes a New Covenant created by His Only Begotten Son that is then altered by The Holy Ghost and Paul. That’s simple. And then God joined these New Covenants to the Old Covenant that once belonged to the Jews - who don’t believe in the New Covenants - so we can get a really confusing picture of everything that we need to have faith in. But that’s God’s plan, right? All we have to do is accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior and we are doing just all right, right? How simple can it be?
You have got to be kidding me. If the following were the only passage it would be the only one I need to demonstrate this point, yet I have provided you with numerous others that you refuse to touch. It is not that I “refuse to touch” the numerous passages you have provided, it is that I quite often get overwhelmed by the numerous passages you cite and am unable to sit at the computer long enough to get around to them all. I really want to respond to everything you write! I will try to go back and find the passages you have provided that I have missed and respond to them, or you can tell me the post number that I did not respond to adequately and I will do my best to respond to it.
"whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven" Please explain in a little more depth, I do not follow what you are saying by quoting this passage.
Your simple task form scrupture would be to demonstrate this did not happen and that they were not given this authority through the Holy Spirit. No amount of passages of what Jesus said or did will refute this fact. How do you get “fact” out of what you state in the sentence before your use of the word “fact”? The Holy Spirit as described in the New Testament is not a “fact” it is a “faith-based concept. If my “simple task from scripture” is to demonstrate this did not happen according to scripture, but you claim that “no amount of passages of what Jesus said or did” according to scripture will convince you that you are being faithfully mislead, then I guess that is that. You deny that the Hebrew Eden Narrative may well be a “parable”, and you will not accept any passages from the so called, “spurious,” Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, so it appears as though your faith is complete and there is nothing I can say to refute the authority Paul has claimed through the Holy Spirit. You are wonderfully gullible, my friend. That which constitutes the false accuser is probably delighted.
This is an odd statement. The following statement is not “odd” at all. I am quoting Scripture.
Its almost as if you believe Jesus' words as truth and reject Paul's. I do not have to “believe Jesus’ words” when whoever is supposedly quoting him quotes him as stating verifiable, confirmable, supportable truth, facts, and/or reality. How I comprehend the functions of the Hebrew, Greek, and English languages, truth, facts, and/or reality do not require me to “believe”. Paul’s assertions and comments do not conform to the “gospel” - words, promises, commandments, and parables - authors of the Four Gospels have quoted Jesus as saying.
Since I know you do not believe anything Jesus said, due to the fact that you have said he wrote nothing down, therefore it cannot be trusted, why should we trust him or Paul, why would Jesus' words be anymore corroborated than Pauls, this makes no sense as an argument. I am quoting Scripture. I believe that which is believable. The author’s of the Four Gospels describe Jesus saying certain things that are quite believable, and more than merely believable, certain things they quote Jesus as saying make perfect, logical, reasonable and rational sense. These are generally the “sayings of Jesus” which I quote from the Four Gospels. Paul’s assertions and comments do not conform to the “gospel” - words, promises, commandments, and parables - authors of the Four Gospels have quoted Jesus as saying. Now, how does that “make no sense as an argument”?
Most of the following qoutes from Jesus I agree with but they have nothing to dowith the topic at hand and wehther the Apostles were authorized to speal on Christ's behalf. I know you meant to write “speak on Christ’s behalf”, but I think spiel is a delightful phonetic slip of the tongue. If you actually believe that “The Spirit of Truth” - the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost - who would supposedly be Jesus and the Father, would alter His/Their New Covenant in the manner in which Paul clearly alters it, then you are welcome to the New Covenant according to Paul.
You have deliberatley ignored all the fine things Paul has said about women in his epistles and you have extracted a few that have nothing to do with thier nature, character and place in society. Pauls instructions in these instances have to with thier place in worship and these instructions come directly fromthe Holy Spirit himself, as has been argued and demonstrated in this post. Woman’s “nature, character and place in society” are all determined by religion, “their place in worship”!
"Husbands love you wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it" "Husbands love you wives as you would love youself", etc, etc, etc. Here are some of the “etc’s” you neglected to mention: Ephesians 5:22 thru 24
quote:Colossians 3:18 quote: See how the “place of worship” tends to affect the “nature, character and place in society” for “women”?
The New Testament and specifacally Pauls letters elavate the status of women greater than any society of that day would even consider. Read Ephesians 5:22 thru 24 and Colossians 3:18 above and make this statement again. You might ask your wife how she “truly” feels about this elevated status.
quote: This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts in scripture, not worthy of a reply. Is it really??? Read Ephesians 5:22 thru 24 and Colossians 3:18 above! Now, let’s read where the Gospel of Paul justifies his so called “elevated status of women” in 1st Timothy 2:13 & 14
quote: Jesus made it claer that those that "do the will of his father in heaven" are his brother and sisters. Gods plan and station for men and women in society have nothing to do with thier spiritual standing before God, all are equal in Gods eyes depending on thier service to him. Jesus was not just talking about woman’s “spiritual standing before God,” but woman’s physical, mental, corporeal, and temporal standing also. Read the Gospel as preached by Jesus of Nazareth and the context is quite clear.
Jesus never indicated that women should NOT be silent and in subjection. He was simply trying to remove them from the degrading status that MAN and SCOCIETY had placed them in, one of slavery. Actually he did, not in those words, but in words like “Judge not” and “he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much”. Having women not be silent and in subjection {to bring under domination, control, or influence} is removing “them from the degrading status that Man and Society placed them in”: Read Paul in Ephesians 5:22 thru 24 and Colossians 3:18 above! Now there’s the kind of comments by Paul that essentially put women in the status “of slavery”.
but things that changed in "method" or "purpose", there is a vast difference. If that’s what you believe.
All of the scriptures you qoute are truth and I agree with them, you are simply missing the point. It is true that no spiritual truth that Jesus spoke was nulified. To change a physical method of application is not to change its truth or value. If that’s what you believe.
Again, it almost sounds as if you believe Jesus, heart, mind and soul. Do you think he actually said these things and that they are to be believed. If you do not, you should be able to see the immediate contradiction in your argument. Certain things that are said by anyone do not necessarily require “Faith” or “Belief” in the individual who is saying them; the comments, saying, or whatever, just simply stand on their own. The “words” speak for themselves. Jesus of Nazareth may well have said many of the things that the Four Gospel writers say he did. If the “words” speak for themselves then it really does not matter who said them. When I quote “Scripture” and “Scripture” states that Jesus said this or that that is how I quote “Scripture”. As far as I know that is the only accurate way to quote a source.
If we cannot believe one why should we believe the other, this makes no sense. Again, if what someone says “speaks for itself” {i.e. makes logical, reasonable, rational sense} then “belief” in the “person” is less important than the message they are conveying. To most if not all Pauline Christians “the messenger” is the most important part of the gospel message. To me the message conveyed is what is most important. Jesus could have been depicted as having said nothing and simply performed some miracles, and then died for the sins of humanity. However, the Four Gospel writers depicted Jesus of Nazareth as having quite a lot to say, and I suspect there is a good reason for these writers to have shared the New Covenant Gospel Message in this fashion.
But this is the least of your problem in establishing this line of reasoning as my arguments above indicate. We will see, my friend. I have spent almost four hours compiling and writing this response to this post of yours. I do not always have this kind of time to spend in this fashion. It is not that I choose not to reply to everything your posts. Sometimes it’s just that I do not have time to respond completely, so I respond in part, and then one post takes over and another post is left behind. I do hope you understand. All the best,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot:
I do not have a lot of time to spend with this reply. I apologize. I may only be able to respond to the first half of your post #223. I will get to the rest of your post this evening if I can.
quote: bertot wrote: Why, when God is in charge. I suppose you god cannot accomplish these simple tasks
And then bertot writes:
As God is always supplanted in civilizations and societies eventually, it is hard to recognize any of his influence after a while. So, God is in charge, but civilizations and societies always eventually supplant God to the point that any of his influence is hard to recognize after a while. God is in charge, but our would-be Free Will always eventually supplants God. No! The God or if you wish “god” - Neither He/he or I care - does not accomplish such simple tasks.
quote: bertot responded: One that can be forceably and accurately demonstrated. I would have to see the others you are refering to, or are they a part of your other imaginary stuff. I perceive at least Two New Covenants. You do not. I see the “New Covenant” established by Jesus of Nazareth in the Four Gospels, and then I see another “New Covenant” established by Saul of Tarsus. You do not. If you will, for me - being the dumb jerk that I am - please “forcibly and accurately demonstrate” how these two literarily established individuals are saying the same thing. I perceive them saying two different gospels. And since you are the one employing literarily described miracles and supernatural events, how is it that when I point to natural phenomena I am the one describing “imaginary stuff”? It seems to me that there is more “imagination” involved in literarily described miracles, supernatural beings, and anthropomorphic ethereal spirits than there is in natural phenomena.
bertot asked: Hey, let me ask you a question, where did you get all of the above facts from, all of your above discourse must have come from somewhere and I am going to bet it was from the "scriptures", that book we are talking about. Now you are on the right track, you know the one that tells you that God is a Spirit, unless you learned this from some other source. I learned that “God is a Spirit” from the English Dictionary, not the Holy Bible. The term “God” is initially defined as “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the Universe” and then is also defined as “Life, truth, and principle.” The term “spirit” is defined as “an animating being or influence.” In these particular definitions there is nothing anthropomorphic alluded to in either term. If one wishes to anthropomorphize the terms God or Spirit there are definitions that would allow one to do so. I choose not to anthropomorphize either God or Spirit. In post #169 I gave these sources:
quote: quote: bertot asks: Hey, let me ask you a question, where did you get all of the above facts from, I do not consider anything in the above quote by AM to be “facts”. They are a summation of what I have heard from you and other Pauline Christians.
bertot wrote: If you you can take the time to explain what you did above, even in sarcasm its very simple isnt it AM. You are right he could not have made it any simpler than to put it on paper, then back it up with facts. There is nothing “simple” about what I said in the above quote. Furthermore, the New Testament Canon was not established until Roman Emperor Constantine convened the international council of bishops at Nicaea in 325 CE. So much for the simplicity of putting anything “on paper” back in the Roman Empire. And exactly what “facts” are you referring to as backing up the New Testament Canon that was established at Nicaea in 325 CE?
bertot writes: What does it mean when Christ says to his Apostles, "whatsoever you bind and lose will be written in heaven and earth", etc, etc, etc
I dont see how it could be much simpler, do you? quote: bertot wrote: Take a stab at this very "difficult" passage and see what you come up with AM. We can get you some assistance if you need it, perhaps an seventh grade Bible student could help you. I can read and comprehend the biblical passage, it is what you are saying by quoting it in the context of Paul’s writings that I do not fully grasp. If you happen to know a seventh grade Bible student to help me why don’t you bring him or her in to assist my feeble little mind. So, after Simon Barjona told Jesus of Nazareth that he perceived Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee {Peter} the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (KJV, Matt. 16:15 thru 19). All of this has to do with Simon Barjona, a.k.a. Peter, and nothing to do with Paul. Or am I missing something? And then in Matthew 18 Jesus speaks of being humble as a little child; if thy hand or food offend then cut them off; the Son of man has come to save that which was lost; thy brother shall trespass against thee, {last attempt} tell the church; and then, Matt. 18:18 "whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven". Again, what does this have to do with Paul? None of this was even written down until after Paul wrote his Epistles. Furthermore, in Matthew 16 it is Peter {a.k.a. Simon Barjona) who is to be the foundation of Jesus’ church, not Paul {a.k.a. Saul of Tarsus). I’ve got to go and repair fence. I’ll respond more this evening. All the best, my friend,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot wrote;
You still dont have this argumentation thing down do you? When we are discussing scripture for scripture I am assuming that what you qoute you atleast for the sake of the argument believe it to be true in that moment to compare it somewhere else in scripture, quote: “For the sake of the argument” the above quote should tell you how I personally perceive the truthfulness of the scriptures I quote.
if you want to discuss the Holy Spirit being a fact or the authenticity of the scriptures, those are seperate issues and seperate discussions. Do you see how arumentation works AM. When the Holy Spirit enters into the discussion then the Holy Spirit should also be discussed, and when the authenticity of the Scriptures enters into the discussion then the authenticity of the Scriptures should be discussed. I do not see how these subjects can be kept out of the discussion regarding how the Four Gospel writers describe what Jesus of Nazareth supposedly said as opposed to what Saul of Tarsus {a.k.a. Paul}states in his Epistles.
When you qoute Jesus for argument purposes to counterwhat Paul said, I am assuming you believe at least for argument sake what Christ said was true at present, if you do not that is another issue. This is the second time in this one post, supposedly in response to my post 222, and I will quote myself once again from post 222:
quote: Do you see how argumentation works now AM? Please try and keep the two issues seperate. No I do not, apparently. Right off the bat in the following paragraphs you bring up the Holy Spirit and apparently have a need to “assume” that I believe that Spirit to be actual. Why is that?
When we are discussing the Holy Spirit in an argument I am assuming you believe him to be actual for argument sake. Don’t assume anything on my behalf. We are discussing the New Testament according to Jesus of Nazareth and Saul of Tarsus. Whether I believe any of these characters to be historical and/or actual beings is beside the point, and totally unnecessary to our discussion.
My point from scripture was that Christ promised the Apostles guidance from the HS after his departure, true or not AM? Yes, Jesus of Nazareth promised the Apostles - Paul was not an Apostle at this time - guidence from what Jesus referred to as “The Comforter, or Holy Ghost/Spirit, or The Spirit of Truth. That passage is a part of the Four Gospels.
No you need to qoute verses from Jesus to which indicate that the Apostles would not recieve guidance and ones that show that alteration and nulification are not possible. Quoting random general scriptures about believing Jesus and his words do not demonstrate your point. In Mark 13:5 & 6 Jesus warns his Apostles:
quote: Paul was not a would-be Apostle at the time of this warning. I perceive this warning as pertaining to someone fitting Saul of Tarsus’ description: Paul describes an uncorroborated supernatural event and then appears to become the foundation of the fledgling church when according to Jesus Peter was to be that foundation. Something appears to have occurred here and I see Paul as someone allegedly coming in Jesus Christ’s name and deceiving many. You appear to automatically accept Paul’s fantastic story, and therefore perceive Paul as a true Apostle carrying on Jesus word through the Holy Spirit. I do not perceive Paul’s role in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as being aligned with the message Jesus was originally conveying. That is what I have been attempting to relate to you, but you seem to be unable to admit even the most blatant examples I have shared.
bertot wrote: "Deny" and "may very well be" are nonsensical terms applied together, one is absolute while the other is speculative. You are really not reading what I am writing to you. I am saying that you “deny” even the slightest possibility that the Hebrew Eden Narrative is a “parable.” And you seem to want to argue over the most innocuous applications of the English language. This is unnecessary and does not help us make progress in our discussion.
bertot writes: Quoting one of these gnostic Gospels then would be like quoting the National Enquirer today to establish some facts about present day truth, sorry AM, "thats the facts". You throw around the word “facts” while you are stating your personal opinion. Your opinion does not constitute “a fact.” Sorry, bertot, that’s just how it is. Your faith does not constitute “a fact.” Your comparison of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas to the National Enquirer of today is an extremely uneducated comparison. Much of what is in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas is also found in the Four Gospels of the New Testament. It is like you are saying something to the effect, “I have never eaten this or that, but I know I don’t like it.”
bertot wrote: This is not the point. Thie point is, if you can without quoting random scriptures of Christ show "contradiction" in these alterations, you would have established your case, this you simply cannot do. For example, if you could quote specifically a passage that actually demonstrates what Paul said in 1Cor 13 about the passage and vanishing of miraculous gifts, in Christ's words, demonstrated your point, this simply cannot be done. Well, why don’t you quote me a passage from the Four Gospels saying that the Gospel Jesus wanted shared with all nations was supposed to be altered. Did Jesus ever say to his Apostles of the time when he was mortal that the Gospel message he was sharing would in the future be changed or altered in any fashion? I have not yet found that passage that describes Jesus saying, “his words will never pass away” except when the Holy Ghost and Paul may deem it appropriate. Where is that written in the Four Gospels? You keep trying to lay the burden of proof on me. I think it is up to you and Jaywill and ICANT to come up with a little proof of your own. The Comforter assisting the Apostles is quite different than The Comforter altering what Jesus regarded as the Gospel that should be taken to every nation.
If you you think I am being obstinate, then quote a specific passage, not a general one about believing what jesus has to say or that his words will never fail, or some such. I think you are indeed just being obstinate.
bertot wrote: Really!!!, go hit your wife in the mouth AM and see who responds ,the police or the pastor. A comment as that above in this liberal society makes no logical sense. The statement above has not been true for many many years. The truth is that society dictates what a womens or anybody elses place will be. You have taken that which I said totally out of context. You are indeed confusing a secular society to a theocratic society. I can show many instances in this secular society where theocratic beliefs still rule the day. However, that is not the point. The point I was attempting to make is that made by Jesus in Matthew 18:15 thru 17 regarding someone being trespassed against: The final step in resolving the trespass according to Jesus is “tell it {the trespass} unto the church.” When Paul makes a statement such as this:
quote:Paul continues the male domination of women in all societies that believe Paul is speaking on behalf of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Male domination of women has been part of Christian beliefs since the earliest times of the church and continue to be an aspect of even the most secular societies where the Christian church plays a profound role in shaping social behavior. bertot wrote: Order and structure in God and his creation, imagine that? Yea, imagine that. Like it was copied right out of the Septuagint. Now there is really something to get excited about.
Question AM, why when you and your wife get in your car to go somewhere why do you drive the car? Quite often my wife drives me. We share the responsibility. What, does that not fit your conception of the natural arrangement of things?
Is this a simple fact society or a "natural" thing AM, one of respect and understanding of how nature works. Gods order in general in the Chruch is follows a design even as nature has its own design. In Gods plan for those created in his image the stronger (not mentally) serves the weaker ) and takes care of the weaker vessel. In nature the stronger takes advantage of the weaker, yet even in that there is order and structure. I don’t know who told you this nonsense, but that is exactly what you are conveying is nonsense.
Question what part of 1Tim 2:13:14 do you not agree with, which part is not true AM? All of it! There is no “Adam” the “helper” is the stronger, “woman” was not built from Adam’s rib, the term for “rule” is that of “representing”, and there is not Eve. These Hebrew grammatical factors are not conveyed in the Greek Septuagint. But, what the heck, you really don’t want to look at the Hebrew Eden Narrative in that fashion.
I know you believe this a new concept advocated by Paul but it not. Remember this passage from Genesis, "and your desire shall be for you husband, yet he shall rule over you", not new AM. The Hebrew term “shall rule” does not express “domination”, but rather “representation.” There is a vast difference.
If you dont like Gods order find another one, as I suspect you already have. I like God’s order just fine, it is your interpretation of God’s order that I have sincere questions about. There is a difference. I’ve got to get some sleep.All the best,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot wrote: Thanks for the admission in your and you gods weakness to accomplish simple task, that is sad indeed. Well, apparently your God is a little weak in this department also. There are many who do not share your view of what is “written” or where it actually came from. If an anthropomorphic Supreme Being cannot make himself clear in any human language, then how are human beings supposed to do any better?
Free Will is an amazing thing AM, to answer your question, yes it can. I still do not see this so-called “Free Will” thing at work in the world. To make an informed and willful choice first one needs unambiguous information and then one needs the freedom from threats and coercion in order for one’s choice to be truly free. In regard to your God and His commandments, we humans have neither.
bertot wrote: Where did you get the exact information about God creating anything, did you see him do this. Where did you get the information and how would you demonstrate that the life in a tree goes back to God after it allegedly leaves a tree. We can do this all day AM. I know for a fact insofar as my reality is concerned, human beings are still unable to create anything that is “living” in a mortal state. I did not see an old pine tree start growing from the ground hundreds of years ago, but I know that is how this old pine tree got started. I did not see the mountains form, but I know that at one time they did indeed form. In fact, I know that they are continuing to form as we speak. I know that human beings did not create the old pine tree or the mountains. There is life in the mountains and the old pine, and there is life teeming all around and inside of me. And this life was here before I was born and it will be here after I die. There is something going on here that humans are subject to and that humans will always be subject to. I really don’t care what you call it, but I do not need to apply my human imagination in order to know and respect what it is.
What exacally is an "animating being"? What exactly is a “dude who can walk on water”?
bertot wrote: Great. Lets see if there is any evidence to support this delusional Paul guy. Oh, I don’t think Paul was delusional. I think Paul was calculating and shrewd.
No, all of the NT was completed by the end of the first century at which time the spiritual gifts were still in full operation along with oral tradition through inspiration of the Holy Spirt. It makes no difference what some council did in 325, good for them. My friend, you really need to examine the actually history of the first century CE. But in order to do that you might want to refine your definition of “history”. That which requires “belief” and/or “faith” is not referred to as “historical.”
Would you say from a scriptural standpoint the promise of the comforter was fulfilled (John 16:13), a simple yes or no will suffice I can’t believe you believe this kind of fantasy. Taking all the New Testament into consideration and believing the unbelievable, the answer to this loaded question would be “yes”. But that “yes” is a qualified *yes.
quote: Why do you think that not even the one of authority here can give a straightforward, clear and concise answer? Why doesn’t the Father share his secrets with his Apostles? He doesn’t trust his Apostles? Or, could it be that the author of this scenario doesn’t have a clue, but really wants to keep the audience hooked into the story? Oh you bet. There’s no human imagination involved here.
bertot wrote: Would not the book of Acts confirm not only this fact but Paul's contentions about Apostleship and his authority. Here we have a source in Acts of an corroboration other than Paul himself, eh. Or should we throw out Luke the physician and historian Well, I wouldn’t throw out anything. But I also wouldn’t just blindly believe the story because the story does not, in and of itself, make any reasonable sense. Acts was supposedly composed anywhere from 60 to 150 CE. Paul’s writing and influence began about a decade or more before the earliest date. Think about it. I have read that Luke and Paul were close friends. Now wouldn’t that be convenient? There was a movie called “To Live & Die in LA.” The movie was total fiction, but LA is a real place; there were undercover police, drug dealers, drugs, sex, and violence - all of which can be regarded as founded in reality. However, the fictional movie was not a documentary or a historical account of anything that it depicted. All the best,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot:
You put an astounding amount of work into your previous post. I am impressed and I thank you. It is my intention to reply as soon as I can. Today is not a good day for me to respond, however. I have a great deal going on and I'm still working at completing my fence repair. If I've got the mental vitality to respond this evening, I will. But if not I'll see what life is like tomorrow. All the best,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot & ICANT & Jaywill:
Sorry about not being able to get back with you guys. Fence repair, harvest, the weather and my level of energy have all been in the way of me getting back with the conversations. bertot: I’m going to go back up to that last long post you shared and begin a response to it. I’ll stay with it as long as I can tonight. All the best,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
post 230
bertot wrote:
I understand what you are saying here. However, this ignores the fact, that it is simply ignorant to pick and choose out of what someone may have said or not said. If you pick and choose what you want and reject the other things attributed to him, like his claims of Deity and belief in Hell and the such like, it demonstrates you have no understanding of how to proceed objectively and rationally. Example, if we can not have confidence in the things he claimed and the things he taught on Hell, then it is completley idiotic to assume he could have been correct on any other thing, or that he even made those statements. You pull out the things that fit you theories and reject the others, this is a nonsensical way to proceed at best. There are certain things that the authors of the NT claim that are nonsensical and idiotic, and that defy objective or rational reasoning. Jesus being born of a virgin, him walking on water, raising a four day old rotting corpse from the dead, to name a few, are nonsensical, idiotic, objectively ludicrous, and irrational literary proclamations. For one Gospel writer to state Jesus saying, “love your enemies...and you shall be the children of the Highest; for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil” and “be therefore merciful as your Father as” (Luke 6:35/6). And then another Gospel writer describes Jesus saying, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16) certainly gives the appearance of contradiction. It is a little hard to be “kind to the unthankful and the evil” and at the same time “damn the nonbelievers.”
This began by me asking you to provide a statement in scripture that required blind faith. When you presented Mark16:15-17, I demonstrated from scriptures that the Apostles had and recieved inspiration from Christ and God to speak on thier behalf, and in fact that it was not the Apostles but Christ Himself (Rev 2) accomplishing these additions and changes, to the methods and not doctrines, issues and truths. You still have not provided any argument or scripture that will suffice to demonstrate that these changes were not authorized and accepted. You have not demonstrated that even nulification is not justified. If God decides to alter or change a method and scripture indicates the method and this was accomplished, then you a huge task to demonstrate "from" scripture that this was not the case. So, you are saying that what is written in Mark 16:15 thru 18 was only meant for the Apostles? Only the Apostles were to be able to take up serpents and drink deadly things? No one after the first century CE or even the second century CE and on through the centuries were to read these passages at the end of the Gospel of Mark and understand these passages as literally speaking to them personally?
For the same reason you use Jesus' words in an argument as if they were true. If you dont believe all of his words its simply silly for me to believe you accept anything else he had to say. with regard to deminishing or nulifying.. In other words what reason is there to believe that his promise of the Holy Spirit later should be considered as valid or truthful? What right would he have to ask us to keep his commandments, you know, the verese you quoted. It is logical when discussing scripture for scripture to assume atleast in that context the truthfulness of the statements, if you do not it becomes a farce. I do not merely assume that anything or everything written in the Scriptures is accurate, or truthful. To me, it is illogical to do so. Nothing becomes a “farce” by approaching the Scriptures in this fashion. I do not merely believe everything I hear or everything I read. I ask for real, objective, tangible proof. I am no more skeptical of what I read in the Scriptures than what I read in the current Newspapers. I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was anymore God in the flesh that you or I. Without the spirit of God in our noses neither one of us would be here having this discussion. To me, that is a fact. To you it probably sounds like naturalist blaspheme.
This would be like me discussing the Eden narrative with you and myself picking and choosing out of the narrative what I want to believe or not believe and not simply trying to interpret the narrative itself. I assume the truthfulness of the narrative, wether I accept it as metaphor or literal, then proceed with the interpretation. I think that your example is a little off. Jesus of Nazareth being depicted as God in the flesh who has mainly come to die for our sins is quite different than an narrative that clearly contains metaphorical and/or figurative references woven throughout its narrative context. Regarding the Eden Narrative and its poetic context, in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Thomas describes the living Jesus as saying:
quote: The term “paradise” is the LXX equivalent of Heb. “garden” in Eden. The five trees are then described as being metaphorical and/or figurative “trees”. Whether you accept these word as being spoken by Jesus or not, the fact remains that someone nearly two thousand years ago perceive the “five trees in paradise” as being metaphors within a parable.
If you are not willing to assume even for the sake of argument the possibility of the truthfulness of statement in scripture, it would be idioic to continue a expanded discussion of what the Holy Spirit did or did not do, what he said or did not say, what he altered or nulified, etc, etc . Tthat is a silly way to proceed, at every turn we would be stopping an questioning even the exitence of such a thing, do you see what I am saying? Whether I blindly believe in the ethereal existence of an anthropomorphic entity referred to in the Scriptures, as the “Holy Spirit” should have no bearing on whether what the human authors of the Scriptures proclaim the Holy Spirit supposedly said; that is in black and white in scripture. I am questioning what is written, copied, translated, and copied again. Whether the Holy Spirit is an actual ethereal being is not an issue; we are discussion what the authors of the NT wrote down for us to read.
AM I dont mind having a discussion about the HS, real or not. At present we are only trying to decide weather or not the scriptures contradict themselves, weather or not Pauls words are in conflict with Christ. Do you see the difference between these two discussions at present. I cant fathom why this is so hard to understand. Apparently, somehow the HS being real or not came into the discussion. Perhaps that occurred because you are or were claiming that the HS bestowed powers on the Apostles and then took them away leaving us with little more than a bunch of words in a book. To me, as I read the NT the words of Jesus of Nazareth do indeed conflict with the words of Paul and Acts by Luke. If it is Jesus of Nazareth’s “words” that will last forever, then that is what I tend to read. And if the words of Jesus of Nazareth convey different gospel messages, then I look to see how the contradiction can be resolved.
Thank you. Now since this promise was actual atleast from scripture, would it not follow that these words were not the Apostles but God's himself? Further, the Gospels do not limit the criteria of this promise to the present Apostles, there is no indication in scripture that it had limitations to the present Apostles, this is you assumption. Could you provide a passage that limits this to the then existing 12. I think what I perceive as the “limiting” factor here is the literary context indicates that Jesus is talking only to those who are with him at the time, and I do not recall reading where the Gospels expand the issue to all those who will follow. It seems that Jesus would have made it clear that the HS was going to be there for all of the followers who would come into play after his death on the cross. Perhaps you could help me find the passage in the Four Gospels where Jesus states that the HS will be there for all those followers who come after the original 12. Sorry, bertot, but I am too tired to keep going at this point. I will try to get back to the rest of your impressive post by tomorrow evening. All the best,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
post 230 continued
bertot wrote in post #241:
Am good to hear from you. I will let you respond to the majority of the post and I will respond after your completion. It is good to know there was nothing serious wrong,I was beginning to wonder. "You know, some part of a pine tree are eatable" Mr Gibbons Catch you later. No, nothing seriously wrong, but thanks for your concern. I’m going to chew on various parts of a pine tree while responding to the remainder of post #230. In Post #230 bertot wrote:
AM it is easy to fabricate fanciful theories about this or that, in this case about Paul. Your one main problem is the book of Acts, Peter himself in his epistles and Church History do not support you unsupported conjecture. Do you realize you have not provided one single piece of verifiable evidence for this outlandish claim. You have not shared anything that I have not demonstrated to be a misunderstanding of scripture. Where in history could even a shred of what you are saying be supported, when the Apostles themselves accepted what he had to say and teach. I would suggest that you read the book, “Beyond Belief”, by Professor Elaine Pagels, ISBN 0-375-50156-8. I think you will find much in Pagels’ book quite interesting and informative.
Now I have a choice I cantrust AM here or I can trust those closest to the events themselves, the book of acts, Peter and the rest of the NT writers, guess who i pick? Oh yeah that s right, this is where we switch gears and start talking about the nonexistence of Peter, the falsity of the book of Acts and the rest of the NT writers and the extreme prjudice of the early Chruch father. Darn it, I keep forgetting the rules, when AM quotes Jessus he is real and believable, when I quote Jesus, Paul or another NT writer, they are imaginary and undependable authors at best. I really should try anfd pay attention. When either of us quote the New or Old Testament Scriptures we are both quoting documents that were copied, composed, and canonized amidst a very tumultuous time in the ancient Near East. I have no idea if the Jesus I quote from the Four Gospels was real or not. I merely quote what the authors of the Four Gospels proclaim Jesus as having said. Furthermore, I have never asked anyone to “trust” what I say in this forum. Nor have I ever claimed that I am absolutely correct in my understanding of these Scriptures. I am a student of Scripture. I am learning as we discuss these issues. Whenever someone makes a valid and reasonable point, I am fully open to what that person is presenting. My principle purpose here is to learn. I would much rather learn from someone else’s perspective than to merely regard myself as being “Right”. I debate from the basis of what I have learned up to this point in my life, but I do not claim that what I have learned up to this point is all that can and should be considered. Please try to keep what I have said above in mind as we continue our discussions. Keep in mind also that although we may disagree, I am listening and learning from what you have to say. Your responses are very important to me.
How do you know what is in my mind unless I reveal it to you. I do not "deny" the "possibilty" of it as a parable anymore than I do the book of Job or Luke 16. However, in my mind I see other evidence to the opposite, than your interpretation. The first of which is the author of the narrative, the same one that wrote the rest of the Torah, seems to think it was actual. This is not denying anything "absolutley", get your facts straight. I am really trying to get my “facts straight.” However, that does not mean that I always accomplish this rather difficult task. I thought I heard you “absolutely deny” the idea that the Hebrew Eden Narrative was a “parable.” I must have heard you wrong. I apologize. So, let’s review the Hebrew Eden Narrative in view of this “other evidence to the opposite.” What is some of this “other evidence”? Let’s discuss it.
And the National Enquier has some facts in it as well, but do you accept it as a realiable source AM. The facts are that earliest Christians, the Apostles, new what the truth was in a aritten form, this is why the gnostic gospels cannot be nearly reproduced in thier writings. Sorry AM that just the way it is. Comparing the Gnostic Gospels to the National Enquirer is an unfitting comparison. The book, “Beyond Belief”, by Professor Elaine Pagels that I mentioned above might be something you would benefit from. Actually, according to historians, there were a number of early Christian sects. And the Earliest Apostles did not have the Gospels in written form because the Gospels were not composed until the mid to late first century CE.
OK, no problem. "Howbeit when he the Spirit of truth is come he will guide you into "all" truth, and will show you things to come." If they did not have all truth it follows that more was to come. Changing a method of doing something does not constitue alteration of the truth or nulification of its precepts. Expansion of truth is not alteration, either. And you are accusing me wanting to argue the most innocuous items of the English language. None of Jesus' spiritual truths changed by application of the Holy Spirit only the method of application. I dont see why this is so hard to understand. As I have tried to state earlier, I perceive the alterations imposed by Paul as being more than just pertaining to “method of application. Your explanations have not made their point, in my opinion. You go on to say:
The gifts given by the HS, AM, were not themselves spiritual truth but the item they related or communicated. The "method" of application faded, the truth remained in a different fashion. This does not constitute alteration of spiritual truth. Wow I cant believe you cant see that. The Comforter altered nothing of Spiitual truth, or altered any of Jesus' truths. God , Christ and the Holy Spirit are in ONE purpose an understanding, how in the world would that happen anyway, that they would contradict eachother Yes! I perceive them as contradicting each other. That is the point I have been trying to convey.
"Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit. Ok! I am familiar with this particular quote. However, as far as I can see, it has nothing to do with what we are discussing; this pertains to what someone will day while being questioned by the authorities; what we are discussing is the conveying of the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth. I’ve got to go, but I hope to respond to the rest of post #230 this evening. And in the future it would be really great if we could keep our posts a little more concise. It is extremely difficult to respond to so much written material. All the best,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
post 244 continued
bertot wrote: No. the passage says those that are saved will be able to do these things. I do not know the exact time these things faded, I suspect as I have indicated before that they faded with the passage of the Apostles and those that had recieved the Laying on of hands of the Apostles. Also, in those unique situations, where the Lord gave the Baptism of the Holy Spirit to others than the Apostles, Cornelius in Acts 10 and others. Paul's injunction or spirit guided declaration in 1Cor 13 and the obvious fact that these gifts through men would have not been recognizable after a certain point, would have been a clear indication to the Church that these were no longer present. Again, you are missing the point. the medium is less important than the result or the affect of the gift. Consider a parallel in Acts chapter 2:1-47, a slightly more expanded explanation of Mark 16:15-18. Here the Apostle Peter sets out exacally what it means for God to pour out his spirit on all flesh. Most people that read the passage equate the miraculous or poring out of the Spirit only with the gifts involved. This, so totally misses the point involved. Actually the expression "pour out my Spirit on all flesh", is exacally that which is in involved in the statemnet in Gen, when God tells Abraham, that" throuh his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed" Watch it, "for the promise is unto you you children, them that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call". The promise is not the miraculous only, the method only, but the product the method brings, salvation through Jesus Christ. "Those that call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. There is simply no contradiction between Christs, Peters or Pauls words when understood in its entire context and overall picture. The gifts were never meant to remain but salvation through Jesus Christ and the Spirits communication of that message was to remain until the end of time, regardless of the exact method. Then the short answer to the question I posed -
quote:- is a simple, Yes. No one after these gifts mentioned in Mark 16:15 thru 18 had faded read these passages and construed them as speaking directly to them. So, passages such as these in the New Testament are just there to let the later readers know what they missed out on. But you say the message somehow remains the same? I really do not see how that is possible.
bertot wrote: As I have explained about 4 times now I know what you believe and dont believe. Christ and Paul both believed in the Holy Spirit, I know you do not. However, for the sake of argument maybe we could both assume at present that this is true to see if there is any contradiction in atleast the text itself. This is not an unreasonable or unwarrented way to proceed until such time a it becomes necessary to discuss the supernatural verses the narural again. Surely you can see what I am saying. For the sake of this discussion we can both assume at present that both Christ and Paul believed in the Holy Spirit. Now, how does that help us determine if there are or are not any contradictions in the text itself? What did the Holy Spirit {a.k.a. Christ the Father} need Paul for? Why Paul? Why not Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, or someone already within the inner circle?
Not if the narrative you are employing, implies or inculcates a creator or deity, as you have suggested and believe in. I still am not seeing this overwhelming fascination you have with "natural metaphors". Would it not be reasonable for a person to use that which is in front of and common to him, to write a stroy or poem? That’s the whole point of “natural metaphors”; they are “reasonable” and “in front of and common to” not just the author, but to anyone who may read the author’s composition. Natural metaphors employed in a text take the guesswork out of interpreting what the author is conveying. That is why I have this “overwhelming fascination with ”natural metaphors’.” Natural metaphors impart “wisdom” that no human being has had a hand in creating.
bertot wrote: The author of the Eden narrative did not see them as figurative. Ill take Moses over the Gospel of Thomas, if for no other reason he was close to the narrative itself. That is if I have to choose between the two, or for that matter the inumerable others that percieved it as literal. Of course the author of the Eden narrative knew what he was composing was “figurative.” Read the Eden narrative carefully - “formed of dust”; a “tree of the life”, and a “tree the knowledge of good and bad”; one mighty unnamed river flowing from Eden into the garden and from there becoming four mighty heads - two of which flow to this day; God giving the human archetype two opposite commands prior to the human archetype possessing the knowledge of good and bad; God stating that He will make a strong helper for the human archetype, but then creates the bests of the field and fowl of the air; but the helper is not found among the brute animals; so God builds a weak woman? And then we have this talking serpent. Either the author was composing a parable, or the author was really stupid. I’ll go with the parable idea. I’ll get back to responding to the rest of post #244 as soon as I get some work done. All the best,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
