A Biblical Lesson on Spiritual Discernment

[Spiritual Israelite]

He invents his own new-fangled beliefs as he goes, and veils these in scriptural language. Anyone who does not align with these, lacks spiritual discernment. Talk about pride. Talk about delusional. Talk about Cultish.

Sadly, rwb has bought into his nonsense.

Right. Their spiritual eyes are closed because of their prideful insistence that they alone, among Christians, understand the truth. It's very ironic for this guy to try to tell others how to have spiritual discernment when he has very little of it himself.

 

[stevesonthebay]

I think Christs temptation in the wilderness is a great spiritual lesson. For one Christ goes without eating for 40 days. That would make anyone weak and barely surviving. That takes spirit to be able to not only physically survive.

But to be strong in the midst of temptations when your so weak and volnurable bodily takes a mighty spirit of faith in something higher.

Its interesting which temptations as well. Like they were the most alluring ones that most people would probably give into to. Turning stones into bread as Jesus would have been starving. That is literally rising above the physical bodies need for food and into the spiritual. Trusting in God over His physical needs.

I think theres a spiritual lesson in the other temptations which relates to the same temptations we all have. Its common to hear people testing God and moving away from His path and challenging His will for us. The temptation of ruling the world is something humans have fought over and aspired to since day one. As the Tears for Fears song goes "everydoby wants to rule the world".

 

[rockytopva]

He invents his own new-fangled beliefs as he goes, and veils these in scriptural language. Anyone who does not align with these, lacks spiritual discernment. Talk about pride. Talk about delusional. Talk about Cultish.

Sadly, rwb has bought into his nonsense.

Was I off topic? It was because I could not figure out what "new-fangled" was trying to be brought out here. So... I am guilty! Apologies!

 

[WPM]

Was I off topic? It was because I could not figure out what "new-fangled" was trying to be brought out here. So... I am guilty! Apologies!

I thought you were responding to what he said. I didn't think it was off topic.

 

[TribulationSigns]

With so many who come to this web site I would like to know the doctrine they have learned to get to understand the people better. Are they Messianic? Orthodox? Catholic? Protestant? Methodist? Pentecostal? Word of Faith? Independent? If you are introducing a biblical form of spiritual discernment... What congregation are you trying to discern

Please read here and here and think again.

Your repeated fixation on finding out what denomination or congregation I belong to says more about your approach than it does about my testimony.

Instead of examining the Scriptures I have presented, you continue trying to place me into a theological box, as though truth is determined by a church label. That is the very kind of sectarian thinking the apostles warned against.

My testimony stands or falls on the Word of God, not on whether you can classify me as Catholic, Protestant, Messianic, Pentecostal, Independent, or anything else. If what I have written is unbiblical, then refute it from Scripture—in context. But if your first concern is discovering my denomination so you can prejudge my doctrine before addressing the biblical evidence, then you are not practicing discernment; you are practicing bias.

The Bereans were called noble because they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether those things were so (Acts 17:11). They did not first ask, "Which synagogue are you from?" They tested the teaching by God's Word.

Your continued obsession with my church affiliation only reinforces the impression that you are looking for a label to dismiss rather than biblical truth to examine. Truth is not validated by denominational credentials, nor is it invalidated by the absence of them.

If you genuinely desire spiritual discernment, then address the Scriptures I have presented. Leave the denominational detective work aside and let the Word of God be the final authority.

Selah

 

[TribulationSigns]

Was I off topic? It was because I could not figure out what "new-fangled" was trying to be brought out here. So... I am guilty! Apologies!

I believe you need to reread my original posts and consider them carefully. It seems you've missed the point of what I was actually discussing. Before drawing conclusions or asking the same questions again, take the time to understand the context and the argument I presented. You got involved after reading CrowCross asked me which denomination believes what I believe. That question should never have been the issue. The proper response was to examine whether my position is supported by Scripture—not to determine which denomination teaches it. The authority is God's Word, not denominational labels, nor your theories about the seven churches (which is an error anyway).

So... yes, OFF TOPICS based on OP! Selah!

 

[Jay Ross]

Perhaps the following scripture should be considered as well: -

2 Timothy 2:14-16: - A Worker Approved by God​

​

14 Remind them of these things and charge them before God/the Lord not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved,[1] a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 16 But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, 17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. 19 But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”​

​

20 Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honourable use, some for dishonourable. 21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honourable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.​

​

22 So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. 23 Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.​

---

[1] i.e. “one approved after being tested,”

 

[TribulationSigns]

More lesson on Spiritual Discernment

Many people believe that Luke 19 is talking about talking rocks.

Luke 19:40-42

• "And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
• And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes."

No. They are wrong because they are spiritually blind. All these words are the Lord's doing, and it was indeed hid from their eyes, and marvelous in our eyes. As it is also hidden today from the eyes of many in the church and in this forum. In point of fact, they would reject him and hold their peace, and the stones would immediately cry out. ...the stones that know He is the head of the corner. Selah.

Matthew 21:42-43

• "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
• Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

The stones that immediately cried out worshipping Christ are the stones built upon that stone. They are stones that can never be moved because they are founded upon Christ. ...yes, living, talking, witnessing stones.

Peter 2:5-6

• "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
• Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded."

The "perspicuity of Scripture!" Except when, by sovereign will of God, these things are hid from man's eyes. Hidden because they still insist that the stones are physical rocks, not people.

But see... that's the whole point of God's word. ...that we are looked upon as living stones, built up into a Holy Temple of God. For we "represent" Christ on earth, the true Temple of God. As did the Old Testament congregation whom the Apostle Paul (and we) cry for. Just as they did, the congregation today can fall as well. Consider wisely the expression of mourning, bewilderment at a tragic event, as recorded in lamentations:

Lamentations 4:1-2

• "How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed! the stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street.
• The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter!"

Are these stones of the Sanctuary, the people of God's congregation who come under the judgment of God? YES! Yet you say, alas, it can't happen, the stones are a literal Holy Temple, which (by the way) wasn't even Holy, in 70 AD. That imagery, label, and representation, at that time, were upon the church. As there were lamentations by the Old Covenant Saint for the congregation thousands of years ago, and as there were lamentations about the congregation by Paul over 2000 years ago, so there are lamentations over the church today! The congregation of the Lord that is still designated as stones of the Holy Temple.

And some of you are so fixated on 70 AD that you insist we have historical proof the temple fell only in a physical sense, while dismissing its spiritual significance. From 70 AD, we have words that buildings were destroyed when a city was conquered, as indeed happened to many cities conquered after a war. Nothing unique about that except that speculation it fulfills prophecy. The truth is, throughout history, countless cities were razed when they were conquered. Jerusalem had the original First Temple destroyed by the Neo-Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar II, sending much of its population into exile (587 BC). Persepolis of the Persian Achaemenid Empire was destroyed by Alexander the Great (330 BC), Carthage (destroyed by Rome in 146 BC), Tenochtitlan (destroyed by the Spanish in 1521), and Baghdad (destroyed by the Mongols in 1258. The only thing that distinguishes 70 AD from any of these other destructions of cities is that man claims it was what Christ spoke about.

Matthew 16:10-11

• "Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
• How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?"

How indeed! ...nor that He spoke not of the literal stones of the physical Temple, but He would rebuild his congregation into a Holy Temple, replacing the one that was left desolate, rejecting its cornerstone. People, not physical stones!

Selah.

 

[WPM]

More lesson on Spiritual Discernment

Many people believe that Luke 19 is talking about talking rocks.

Luke 19:40-42

• "And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
• And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes."

No. They are wrong because they are spiritually blind. All these words are the Lord's doing, and it was indeed hid from their eyes, and marvelous in our eyes. As it is also hidden today from the eyes of many in the church and in this forum. In point of fact, they would reject him and hold their peace, and the stones would immediately cry out. ...the stones that know He is the head of the corner. Selah.

Matthew 21:42-43

• "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
• Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

The stones that immediately cried out worshipping Christ are the stones built upon that stone. They are stones that can never be moved because they are founded upon Christ. ...yes, living, talking, witnessing stones.

Peter 2:5-6

• "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
• Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded."

The "perspicuity of Scripture!" Except when, by sovereign will of God, these things are hid from man's eyes. Hidden because they still insist that the stones are physical rocks, not people.

But see... that's the whole point of God's word. ...that we are looked upon as living stones, built up into a Holy Temple of God. For we "represent" Christ on earth, the true Temple of God. As did the Old Testament congregation whom the Apostle Paul (and we) cry for. Just as they did, the congregation today can fall as well. Consider wisely the expression of mourning, bewilderment at a tragic event, as recorded in lamentations:

Lamentations 4:1-2

• "How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed! the stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street.
• The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter!"

Are these stones of the Sanctuary, the people of God's congregation who come under the judgment of God? YES! Yet you say, alas, it can't happen, the stones are a literal Holy Temple, which (by the way) wasn't even Holy, in 70 AD. That imagery, label, and representation, at that time, were upon the church. As there were lamentations by the Old Covenant Saint for the congregation thousands of years ago, and as there were lamentations about the congregation by Paul over 2000 years ago, so there are lamentations over the church today! The congregation of the Lord that is still designated as stones of the Holy Temple.

And some of you are so fixated on 70 AD that you insist we have historical proof the temple fell only in a physical sense, while dismissing its spiritual significance. From 70 AD, we have words that buildings were destroyed when a city was conquered, as indeed happened to many cities conquered after a war. Nothing unique about that except that speculation it fulfills prophecy. The truth is, throughout history, countless cities were razed when they were conquered. Jerusalem had the original First Temple destroyed by the Neo-Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar II, sending much of its population into exile (587 BC). Persepolis of the Persian Achaemenid Empire was destroyed by Alexander the Great (330 BC), Carthage (destroyed by Rome in 146 BC), Tenochtitlan (destroyed by the Spanish in 1521), and Baghdad (destroyed by the Mongols in 1258. The only thing that distinguishes 70 AD from any of these other destructions of cities is that man claims it was what Christ spoke about.

Matthew 16:10-11

• "Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
• How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?"

How indeed! ...nor that He spoke not of the literal stones of the physical Temple, but He would rebuild his congregation into a Holy Temple, replacing the one that was left desolate, rejecting its cornerstone. People, not physical stones!

Selah.

This is Gnosticism - an ancient heresy. No Scripture is safe from your butchering it.

 

[TribulationSigns]

This is Gnosticism - an ancient heresy. No Scripture is safe from your butchering it.

LOL!!!! What? No biblical refutation?

Calling my interpretation "Gnosticism" is simply a red herring. Labeling something a heresy is not an argument—it is an attempt to dismiss the discussion without engaging the Scriptures I presented.

If you believe my interpretation is wrong, then demonstrate it from Scripture. Show where my cross-references are misused or where the Bible contradicts what I wrote. Simply crying "Gnosticism" proves NOTHING! You did because you can't gainsay or resist.

Ironically, Scripture repeatedly teaches that spiritual truths are hidden from some and revealed to others (Matthew 13:10–17; Luke 24:45; 1 Corinthians 2:14). If you reject the Bible's own spiritual interpretation of "living stones" and insist everything must be understood only in a literal, physical sense, then the issue is not Gnosticism—it is a lack of spiritual discernment.

Refute the Scriptures, not the person.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

More lesson on Spiritual Discernment

Many people believe that Luke 19 is talking about talking rocks.

Luke 19:40-42

• "And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
• And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes."

No. They are wrong because they are spiritually blind. All these words are the Lord's doing, and it was indeed hid from their eyes, and marvelous in our eyes. As it is also hidden today from the eyes of many in the church and in this forum. In point of fact, they would reject him and hold their peace, and the stones would immediately cry out. ...the stones that know He is the head of the corner. Selah.

Matthew 21:42-43

• "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
• Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

The stones that immediately cried out worshipping Christ are the stones built upon that stone. They are stones that can never be moved because they are founded upon Christ. ...yes, living, talking, witnessing stones.

Peter 2:5-6

• "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
• Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded."

The "perspicuity of Scripture!" Except when, by sovereign will of God, these things are hid from man's eyes. Hidden because they still insist that the stones are physical rocks, not people.

But see... that's the whole point of God's word. ...that we are looked upon as living stones, built up into a Holy Temple of God. For we "represent" Christ on earth, the true Temple of God. As did the Old Testament congregation whom the Apostle Paul (and we) cry for. Just as they did, the congregation today can fall as well. Consider wisely the expression of mourning, bewilderment at a tragic event, as recorded in lamentations:

Lamentations 4:1-2

• "How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed! the stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street.
• The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter!"

Are these stones of the Sanctuary, the people of God's congregation who come under the judgment of God? YES! Yet you say, alas, it can't happen, the stones are a literal Holy Temple, which (by the way) wasn't even Holy, in 70 AD. That imagery, label, and representation, at that time, were upon the church. As there were lamentations by the Old Covenant Saint for the congregation thousands of years ago, and as there were lamentations about the congregation by Paul over 2000 years ago, so there are lamentations over the church today! The congregation of the Lord that is still designated as stones of the Holy Temple.

And some of you are so fixated on 70 AD that you insist we have historical proof the temple fell only in a physical sense, while dismissing its spiritual significance. From 70 AD, we have words that buildings were destroyed when a city was conquered, as indeed happened to many cities conquered after a war. Nothing unique about that except that speculation it fulfills prophecy. The truth is, throughout history, countless cities were razed when they were conquered. Jerusalem had the original First Temple destroyed by the Neo-Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar II, sending much of its population into exile (587 BC). Persepolis of the Persian Achaemenid Empire was destroyed by Alexander the Great (330 BC), Carthage (destroyed by Rome in 146 BC), Tenochtitlan (destroyed by the Spanish in 1521), and Baghdad (destroyed by the Mongols in 1258. The only thing that distinguishes 70 AD from any of these other destructions of cities is that man claims it was what Christ spoke about.

Matthew 16:10-11

• "Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
• How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?"

How indeed! ...nor that He spoke not of the literal stones of the physical Temple, but He would rebuild his congregation into a Holy Temple, replacing the one that was left desolate, rejecting its cornerstone. People, not physical stones!

Selah.

This is a lesson on being completely lacking in spiritual discernment which results in taking scripture out of context.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL!!!! What? No biblical refutation?

Calling my interpretation "Gnosticism" is simply a red herring. Labeling something a heresy is not an argument—it is an attempt to dismiss the discussion without engaging the Scriptures I presented.

If you believe my interpretation is wrong, then demonstrate it from Scripture. Show where my cross-references are misused or where the Bible contradicts what I wrote. Simply crying "Gnosticism" proves NOTHING! You did because you can't gainsay or resist.

Ironically, Scripture repeatedly teaches that spiritual truths are hidden from some and revealed to others (Matthew 13:10–17; Luke 24:45; 1 Corinthians 2:14). If you reject the Bible's own spiritual interpretation of "living stones" and insist everything must be understood only in a literal, physical sense, then the issue is not Gnosticism—it is a lack of spiritual discernment.

Refute the Scriptures, not the person.

You know nothing about context or spiritual discernment. No one denies that we, the church, are the spiritual temple of God, but that doesn't mean every reference to a temple in scripture refers to the church. You clearly take scriptures like Luke 19:41-44 and Matthew 24:1-2/Mark 13:1-2/Luke 21:6-7 that prophesy about the literal, physical destruction of many of the Jews within the city of Jerusalem and the temple buildings within the city of Jerusalem completely out of context, so why does anyone need to spend a bunch of time showing that when it's so obvious to everyone who actually has spiritual discernment, unlike yourself?

 

[TribulationSigns]

You know nothing about context or spiritual discernment. No one denies that we, the church, are the spiritual temple of God, but that doesn't mean every reference to a temple in scripture refers to the church. You clearly take scriptures like Luke 19:41-44 and Matthew 24:1-2/Mark 13:1-2/Luke 21:6-7 that prophesy about the literal, physical destruction of many of the Jews within the city of Jerusalem and the temple buildings within the city of Jerusalem completely out of context, so why does anyone need to spend a bunch of time showing that when it's so obvious to everyone who actually has spiritual discernment, unlike yourself?

Your response consists almost entirely of assertions and personal attacks, not biblical refutation. Repeating that I "lack spiritual discernment" does not prove your interpretation; it merely avoids engaging the Scriptures I cited. Selah!

No one disputes that there were literal temple buildings. The question is whether Christ's words stop at the physical structure or point beyond it to the greater spiritual reality that the temple always represented. Throughout Scripture, God repeatedly uses physical things to signify spiritual truths. Christ Himself constantly spoke this way.

When Jesus spoke of destroying the temple and raising it again in three days, many assumed He meant the physical building. Yet He was speaking of the temple of His body (John 2:19–21) - the people of the congregation! When He warned about the leaven of the Pharisees, the disciples thought He meant literal bread, but He rebuked them for their lack of understanding (Matthew 16:6–12). Time and again, Christ corrected those who were fixated on the literal while missing the spiritual meaning, like YOU!

Likewise, the New Testament identifies believers as God's temple (1 Corinthians 3:16–17), a spiritual house built of living stones upon Christ the Chief Cornerstone (1 Peter 2:5–6). That is not my invention—it is the Bible's own interpretation of its imagery.

You accuse me of taking Scripture "out of context," yet you have not demonstrated where my cross-references violate the context. Instead, you assume that because a prophecy mentions the temple, it must terminate with a physical building. That is the very assumption under debate, not its proof. Selah!

If you believe my interpretation is false, then answer the biblical evidence with biblical evidence. Simply declaring, "Everyone with spiritual discernment agrees with me," is an appeal to popularity, not an argument from Scripture.

As the Bereans demonstrated, truth is established by searching the Scriptures—not by trading accusations (Acts 17:11). Let the Word of God decide the matter.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your response consists almost entirely of assertions and personal attacks, not biblical refutation.

You have NOTHING to show that the scriptures I referenced are not referring to the physical destruction of Jews and their temple buildings. Absolutely NOTHING. Proving something we all already know, which is that the church is now the temple of God, says nothing in relation to what happened long ago when God's wrath came against the Jews who rejected His Son.

Repeating that I "lack spiritual discernment" does not prove your interpretation; it merely avoids engaging the Scriptures I cited. Selah!

You do lack spiritual discernment. You say that about everyone who disagrees with you about this, which is almost everyone, but it's okay for you to say that about others for some reason. Selah!

No one disputes that there were literal temple buildings.

I'm somewhat shocked that you even acknwledge that much. I'm sometimes not sure if you believe you live in physical reality or not.

The question is whether Christ's words stop at the physical structure or point beyond it to the greater spiritual reality that the temple always represented.

There's no indication whatsoever in the text of those scriptures that He is pointing to anything beyond the fact that the Jews would lose their precious temple buildings in the future and many of them would be killed, with the rest being led away into captivity into all nations (Luke 21:20-24). Is it just a coincidence that it ended up happening exactly as He prophesied in 70 AD? There's no basis for reading things into the text about the spiritual temple that are not there at all.

Throughout Scripture, God repeatedly uses physical things to signify spiritual truths.

No kidding. That does not mean there is a spiritual meaning that can be applied to every single verse in the Bible, as you try to do. Do you do that with the flood in Noah's day or can you acknowledge that the flood in Noah's day was a physical flood that destroyed everyone on the earth except for Noah and his family?

When Jesus spoke of destroying the temple and raising it again in three days, many assumed He meant the physical building.

Only unbelievers assumed that. And that was a completely different occasion than the Olivet Discourse where He specifically pointed to the temple buildings standing at that time and said they would be destroyed. You are trying to relate unrelated scriptures and that's what someone lacking in spiritual discernment does.

 

[TribulationSigns]

More blabbing nonsenses with false accusations. You continue to deny the biblical point without actually addressing it.

My response is simply this:

Matthew 13:10–17

"To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given."

Jesus Himself taught that spiritual understanding is given, not assumed. You are one of them. Those without that understanding remained fixated on the physical.

That is exactly what happened with the Jews in John 2. When Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," they thought He was referring to the physical stones. But He was speaking of the temple of His body, as I explained in my original post.

My point has been the same from the beginning: if we approach Christ's words only through a physical lens, we risk making the same mistake they did. The New Testament repeatedly teaches that Christ is the fulfillment and that spiritual realities are revealed by the Spirit, not merely by natural reasoning.

Selah!

 

[rockytopva]

More blabbing nonsenses with false accusations. You continue to deny the biblical point without actually addressing it.

My response is simply this:

Matthew 13:10–17

"To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given."

Jesus Himself taught that spiritual understanding is given, not assumed. You are one of them. Those without that understanding remained fixated on the physical.

That is exactly what happened with the Jews in John 2. When Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," they thought He was referring to the physical stones. But He was speaking of the temple of His body, as I explained in my original post.

My point has been the same from the beginning: if we approach Christ's words only through a physical lens, we risk making the same mistake they did. The New Testament repeatedly teaches that Christ is the fulfillment and that spiritual realities are revealed by the Spirit, not merely by natural reasoning.

Selah!

You come across as a terrible man. One whose religion is in the head only.

 

[rockytopva]

This is a lesson on being completely lacking in spiritual discernment which results in taking scripture out of context.

I agree! Total arrogance.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You come across as a terrible man. One whose religion is in the head only.

Instead of refuting my biblical arguments, you've resorted to judging my character. That's not a refutation—it's an ad hominem attack.

If you believe my interpretation of Scripture is wrong, then open the Scriptures and show where I have mishandled the text. Simply calling me "a terrible man" contributes nothing to a biblical discussion.

Scripture instructs us to "test everything" and to "reason from the Scriptures," not to attack the person presenting the argument. Personal insults are often what remain when biblical arguments run out.

I'm still waiting for a scriptural refutation of the passages I've presented—not another opinion about my character.

 

[TribulationSigns]

I agree! Total arrogance.

Notice that neither of you two has actually refuted a single passage of Scripture I've presented. Instead, you've labeled me "arrogant" and "lacking in spiritual discernment."

If my interpretation is truly wrong, then demonstrate it from the text. Show where I've violated the context, mishandled the grammar, or contradicted the rest of Scripture. Simply repeating empty accusations is not exegesis.

Ironically, Scripture warns against judging by appearances and against substituting railing accusations for sound doctrine. Calling someone arrogant does not prove their interpretation is false.

I'm interested in a biblical discussion, not a contest of personal insults. If you believe I've taken Scripture out of context, then open the Bible and show it. Otherwise, these comments amount to assertions without evidence.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

More blabbing nonsenses with false accusations. You continue to deny the biblical point without actually addressing it.

Says the guy who continues to not address my points. Very hypocritical of you. But not unexpected.