Dream of Suicidal Spirits In US Public Education System

[Hidden In Him]

:) There is a paltry sum of edification here I see every once in a while amongst all the barking the dogs do at the slightest provocation against their own personal beliefs (not the Bible), sure. But that's not really why I'm still here. I'm here because I consider all the dog fighting here a form of what one would call a national pastime, entertainment. I can find more 'edification' elsewhere discussing God with unbelievers than I ever have here.

Wow. Rather scathing. I would agree with you that strife is a form of enjoyment for many. The trouble is, even for those who edify, there is a constant need to defend against the attacks, so you end up wielding a sword even while building (as in Nehemiah's time).

God bless, and I did recall seeing your name and posts at Forums in the past. That's why I was just curious. :)

 

[Hidden In Him]

As when Jesus withstood Peter to his face.

You have our Lord being insulting? There are two interpretations to His addressing Peter as "Satan," neither of which support the notion that He was insulting him, Stranger. One of the things you need to understand here is the SPIRIT behind what is said. The derision you write in half the time is almost tangible. This is not the Spirit of God. When there is a call to chastise, even graphically, it is not done in a spirit of derision. Correction, rebuke, even with warnings of coming judgment, yes. Derision, no.

Answer me this, before I go on to deal with the rest of your verses: Does the Spirit of God always operate out of love? Let's see if we can't get into some agreement here.

(Gal. 2:11)

"Withstood him to his face" does not mean "got in his face and got ugly with him." It means opposed him publicly.

As when Christ overturned the tables of the sellers in the Temple.

Yes, but this was a manifestation of judgment. Not one of simply being rude to people. There's a massive difference there.

As Paul wished those that tried to preach circumcision would cut off their entire private parts. (Gal. 5:12)

LoL! You think that's what he was saying here? :) (Don't get upset. I'm just finding this one humorous).

Go ahead and respond to the rest of it if you wish, but I would ask you that if the Lord sanctions being derisive and insulting to people, how do you reconcile that with passages that command believers NOT to do so?

 

[Truth]

It's not a big deal on either count, Stranger, and I'm not offended. But you have to stop treating people like that. It displeases God, and you want to make Heaven and not miss it over something so clearly opposed to in scripture. Even those who do make it yet fell short of what He wanted from them will have deep regrets, knowing their example and behavior led to others not making Heaven because of what we said and did.

I don't want that for you. And you know you are mistaken. You know enough scripture that you would have found Chapter and verse on this if it was there.

You don't have to change for me. Change for yourself. Be someone God the Father is proud of when you stand before Him. That you withstood the temptations to be ugly to others, and instead mastered the ability to manifest Christ's love for others, even when you felt they deserved differently.

In Christ,
Hidden

The Department of Education was started, as to teach people to read, and in doing so they would be able to read their Bibles, and then Govern themselves according to the Word of God!
BUT, the Spirit of the Anti-Christ has used those in Power to create a new Department of Re-Education, which teaches people to depend on themselves and Government!
I was not raised as a Christian, We used to mock the Catholic children who went the opposite direction to go to school, But as I look back I can see and remember the subtle changes in the Community's I lived in, changes that started long before I received Salvation.
Your Dream might just be the conformation to the reality of today, for it is just like what Hitler did with the children he used to create the SS, trained up to not only turn their parents in for infractions against the Regime, but to have no emotional concern for people, This is History repeating itself, for son will tune against father and daughter will turn mother, this what we will be Faced with!

 

[Hidden In Him]

The Department of Education was started, as to teach people to read, and in doing so they would be able to read their Bibles, and then Govern themselves according to the Word of God!
BUT, the Spirit of the Anti-Christ has used those in Power to create a new Department of Re-Education, which teaches people to depend on themselves and Government!
I was not raised as a Christian, We used to mock the Catholic children who went the opposite direction to go to school, But as I look back I can see and remember the subtle changes in the Community's I lived in, changes that started long before I received Salvation.
Your Dream might just be the conformation to the reality of today, for it is just like what Hitler did with the children he used to create the SS, trained up to not only turn their parents in for infractions against the Regime, but to have no emotional concern for people. This is History repeating itself, for son will turn against father and daughter will turn against mother. This what we will be Faced with!

Great point bringing up the youth. We've been seeing this for some time, actually. I get amazed when I will be talking in public to a group pf people with a Christian t-shirt on, and a young person will just look at me with this spirit of contempt in his or her eyes, and I can't figure out what I've done wrong until I realize my shirt says something about Christianity. The same spirit that is anti-Governance is also strongly anti-Christian, because "God and country" are pictured on the same page as being "dictators" of sorts. It's the Satanist mentality, and they are engraining it in the youth very effectively, especially through issues like homosexuality. Christians, and the Christian God, are viewed as "hateful" because of their stand on the issue, and that it displeases Him.

 

[Stranger]

You have our Lord being insulting? There are two interpretations to His addressing Peter as "Satan," neither of which support the notion that He was insulting him, Stranger. One of the things you need to understand here is the SPIRIT behind what is said. The derision you write in half the time is almost tangible. This is not the Spirit of God. When there is a call to chastise, even graphically, it is not done in a spirit of derision. Correction, rebuke, even with warnings of coming judgment, yes. Derision, no.

Answer me this, before I go on to deal with the rest of your verses: Does the Spirit of God always operate out of love? Let's see if we can't get into some agreement here.


"Withstood him to his face" does not mean "got in his face and got ugly with him." It means opposed him publicly.


Yes, but this was a manifestation of judgment. Not one of simply being rude to people. There's a massive difference there.


LoL! You think that's what he was saying here? :) (Don't get upset. I'm just finding this one humorous).

Go ahead and respond to the rest of it if you wish, but I would ask you that if the Lord sanctions being derisive and insulting to people, how do you reconcile that with passages that command believers NOT to do so?

You wanted verses. I gave them to you.

Jesus Christ was not worried about being insulting to people. (Matt. 23:1-36)

You can find (Gal. 5:12) humorous all you want. That is what Paul is saying.

Stranger

 

[Hidden In Him]

You wanted verses. I gave them to you.

If you can defend your argument, then answer my questions.

Answer me this, before I go on to deal with the rest of your verses: Does the Spirit of God always operate out of love? Let's see if we can't get into some agreement here.

Go ahead and respond to the rest of it if you wish, but I would ask you that if the Lord sanctions being derisive and insulting to people, how do you reconcile that with passages that command believers NOT to do so?

 

[Stranger]

If you can defend your argument, then answer my questions.

I did, I gave you the verses you asked for.

I showed you that Jesus Christ wasn't worried about insulting people when they need to be insulted.

How do I reconcile that? Just like Christ reconciles that. It depends on the situation.

And still waiting for your interpretation of (Gal. 5:12) which you deemed so laughable.

Quantrill

 

[Hidden In Him]

I did, I gave you the verses you asked for.

I showed you that Jesus Christ wasn't worried about insulting people when they need to be insulted.

How do I reconcile that?

Play fair. :) I'll answer your questions if you answer mine.

And still waiting for your interpretation of (Gal. 5:12) which you deemed so laughable.

Ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς. It is a reference to them as being spiritually uncircumcised. It could be translated and interpreted one of two ways soundly, but I will give you the one that holds more weight. "I would even that they become cut off, those throwing you into confusion." He was saying he wished for them to be eliminated from the congregation of the Just altogether, since they were spiritually uncircumsized.

To tell them they needed to turn themselves into eunuchs seems to make no intelligible sense in context.

 

[Truth]

Play fair. :) I'll answer your questions if you answer mine.


Ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς. It is a reference to them as being spiritually uncircumcised. It could be translated and interpreted one of two ways soundly, but I will give you the one that holds more weight. "I would even that they become cut off, those throwing you into confusion." He was saying he wished for them to be eliminated from the congregation of the Just altogether, since they were spiritually uncircumsized.

To tell them they needed to turn themselves into eunuchs seems to make no intelligible sense in context.

Sorry, I have heard this before, But I think! and only Think! Paul was expressing to them to go and re-circumcise themselves, not become Eunuchs!!! Circumcision was all about the Land, nothing more, nothing Less!

 

[Nancy]

God has been so merciful in giving us wisdom and time to "be prepared".
Spiritually I mean. :)
I am sure quite a few of us had days way back, when he harkened to the voices telling us to stock pile food , water and such like..been there, done that..and now eaten all that was stock piled back in the 70's before it all spoiled.

Good post @ByGrace!
"But spiritually, Woe unto them who do not know how to discern the spirits, and how to combat them...for whatever comes against us on two legs, will indeed be empowered by the spirits of the Evil one."
We ALL need to pray to have discernment.. it is so very important. We need to pay heed to the many warnings in scripture as satan is very good at what he does. We need to stop him in his tracks and let the Word of Gods truth saturate your mind and heart.
Blessings aplenty to you!
-nancy

 

[Stranger]

Play fair. :) I'll answer your questions if you answer mine.


Ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς. It is a reference to them as being spiritually uncircumcised. It could be translated and interpreted one of two ways soundly, but I will give you the one that holds more weight. "I would even that they become cut off, those throwing you into confusion." He was saying he wished for them to be eliminated from the congregation of the Just altogether, since they were spiritually uncircumsized.

To tell them they needed to turn themselves into eunuchs seems to make no intelligible sense in context.

Look it up in Strong's Concordance. Number 609. "To amputate", "To mutilate (the privy parts)", "cut off"

It is used three other times in the New Testament.

(Acts 27:32) "Then the soldiers cut off the ropes of the boat, and let her fall off."

(John 18:10) " Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear...."

(Mark 9:43) " And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off:...."

Paul used that word because that is the thought he wanted to display.

Stranger

 

[Hidden In Him]

Look it up in Strong's Concordance. Number 609. "To amputate," "To mutilate (the privy parts)", "cut off"

It is used three other times in the New Testament.

(Acts 27:32) "Then the soldiers cut off the ropes of the boat, and let her fall off."

(John 18:10) " Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear...."

(Mark 9:43) " And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off:...."

Paul used that word because that is the thought he wanted to display.

Stranger

Yes, well its more general sense is simply "to cut off," as your quoted verses show. Now there's no disputing that ἀποκόπτω can be translated as "to castrate or make a eunuch," and it is in some places outside the NT. So this would be a valid translation if the context were to fit. But now, that's the question.

The fuller passage reads:
"For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision avails any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which works by love. Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? This persuasion cometh not of him that calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubles you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offense of the cross ceased. I would they were even cut off which trouble you." (Galatians 5:6-12)

The words "you" in this passage are all in plural, which means he was addressing them as a congregation, not individually. And his desire was that a little leaven not leaven the whole lump. So he was expressing his desire that they be cut off from the congregation before they did (notice that the KJV here translates the middle as transitive and passive, meaning he wished others would "cut them off," not that they would cut themselves off. So if the meaning here is "castrate," then he would have been saying "I wish someone would castrate them," which is not only a pretty rough command to carry out in real life with grown men, but also a really harsh sentence even on a heretic, LoL. :) ).

Anyway, he was really just saying he hoped they be cut off from the congregation altogether before they corrupted it. The allusion to circumcision here may or may not even itself be present.

 

[Nancy]

Look it up in Strong's Concordance. Number 609. "To amputate", "To mutilate (the privy parts)", "cut off"

It is used three other times in the New Testament.

(Acts 27:32) "Then the soldiers cut off the ropes of the boat, and let her fall off."

(John 18:10) " Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear...."

(Mark 9:43) " And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off:...."

Paul used that word because that is the thought he wanted to display.

Stranger

Sorry to jump in here...if you 2 are speaking of Gal. 5:12
12 I would that they that unsettle you would even go beyond circumcision.
I'm sure someone would disagree but, I am pretty sure Paul was beig a bit facetious here basically, I wish they would cut the whole thing off, lol. Yes? No? Just wondering...

 

[Stranger]

Yes, well its more general sense is simply "to cut off," as your quoted verses show. Now there's no disputing that ἀποκόπτω can be translated as "to castrate or make a eunuch," and it is in some places outside the NT. So this would be a valid translation if the context were to fit. But now, that's the question.

The fuller passage reads:
"For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision avails any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which works by love. Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? This persuasion cometh not of him that calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubles you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offense of the cross ceased. I would they were even cut off which trouble you." (Galatians 5:6-12)

The words "you" in this passage are all in plural, which means he was addressing them as a congregation, not individually. And his desire was that a little leaven not leaven the whole lump. So he was expressing his desire that they be cut off from the congregation before they did (notice that the KJV here translates the middle as transitive and passive, meaning he wished others would "cut them off," not that they would cut themselves off. So if the meaning here is "castrate," then he would have been saying "I wish someone would castrate them," which is not only a pretty rough command to carry out in real life with grown men, but also a really harsh sentence even on a heretic, LoL. :) ).

Anyway, he was really just saying he hoped they be cut off from the congregation altogether before they corrupted it. The allusion to circumcision here may or may not even itself be present.

No, that 'is' what it means. And it is only used those 4 times in the New Testament.

The context does fit. It just doesn't fit you.

You say on one hand, 'if the context fit'. And the context is about circumcision. Then on the other hand, you say, 'The allusion to circumcision here may or may not even itself be present'. So, which is it?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Sorry to jump in here...if you 2 are speaking of Gal. 5:12
12 I would that they that unsettle you would even go beyond circumcision.
I'm sure someone would disagree but, I am pretty sure Paul was beig a bit facetious here basically, I wish they would cut the whole thing off, lol. Yes? No? Just wondering...

I don't think Paul was being facetious at all. I believe he was serious and meant it, for the reasons given in post #31.

Stranger

 

[Nancy]

I don't think Paul was being facetious at all. I believe he was serious and meant it, for the reasons given in post #31.

Stranger

I like Paul even better now...

 

[Hidden In Him]

Sorry to jump in here...if you 2 are speaking of Gal. 5:12
12 I would that they that unsettle you would even go beyond circumcision.
I'm sure someone would disagree but, I am pretty sure Paul was being a bit facetious here basically, I wish they would cut the whole thing off, lol. Yes? No? Just wondering...

That translation is basically what Stranger was talking about. "Go beyond circumcision" is insinuating castration.

As for the argument that he was being facetious, this would milden up the statement a little bit yes. But the problem there is he's talking very seriously about a serious issue, one he wouldn't be playing around with. So it stands to reason he is either doing one of two things: Using mockery and derision, or simply wishing that they be cut off from the congregation.

 

[Hidden In Him]

No, that 'is' what it means. And it is only used those 4 times in the New Testament.

It's used six.

You say on one hand, 'if the context fit'. And the context is about circumcision. Then on the other hand, you say, 'The allusion to circumcision here may or may not even itself be present'. So, which is it?

I was saying that there are two plausible interpretations, and I favored the one which says it is. But telling them to take the heretics out and cut their shalakies off is untenable, and not one of them.

 

[Stranger]

It's used six.


I was saying that there are two plausible interpretations, and I favored the one which says it is. But telling them to take the heretics out and cut their shalakies off is untenable, and not one of them.

Identify them.

Yes, I know what you said. You spoke out of both sides of your mouth. You made the point about 'context' and then said, 'context' didin't matter.

It is not untenable as I showed in post #31.

Of course it doesn't fit your approval. But then, the Bible wasn't written for you to 'approve' of. Was it?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

I like Paul even better now...

Indeed. Paul did not hesitate to speak his mind. And in this case, a mind that is inspired by the Spirit of God.

Stranger