Holy Spirit......Christians ?

[theQuestion]

"examine those verses carefully"?
YOU say that?

You ignore every fact and scripture I give you.
I don't do 'one way' conversations,
Enjoy listening to yourself.

 

[101G]

"examine those verses carefully"?
YOU say that?

You ignore every fact and scripture I give you.
I don't do 'one way' conversations,
Enjoy listening to yourself.

I take this as a you have no clue as to sent the Holy Spirit. boy some enlightening information you're missing. but, I see you don't know nothing, even if the answer is right in front of your face. good night. always the same, can't answer a simple question. but a good avoidance mechanism.... LOL...

 

[theQuestion]

That is what such pretenders Always SAY.
YAWN

 

[amadeus]

Actually, those that left, starting their own churches, kept the basic dogmas and set up their own clergy.
If they were Christians, they would have discarded it ALL, and would HAVE no paid teachers...

Sometimes those leading the way away from Catholicism were really moving toward God in what they knew even if they really did not know much. Yes, they carried much error with them, but their intentions were still usually aimed in the right direction. The more serious problems were likely to arise and probably did with the second generation of members of the newly formed church. They had a tendency to set the new set of regulation in concrete rather than continuing to move on toward God as was often the intention of the first reformer for their group. Unfortunately, it seems that there are no exceptions to this tendency of the second generation to stagnate instead of continuing to flow ever closer to God. A new move toward God would have to wait for a new reformer. And so almost without exceptions on and on it goes.

To say that those who did not discard everything is to say that none of their hearts were right toward God and His Son... and that almost certainly not true. God is looking at the individual heart in spite of the error of any leaders involved.

 

[bbyrd009]

Sometimes those leading the way away from Catholicism were really moving toward God in what they knew even if they really did not know much. Yes, they carried much error with them, but their intentions were still usually aimed in the right direction. The more serious problems were likely to arise and probably did with the second generation of members of the newly formed church. They had a tendency to set the new set of regulation in concrete rather than continuing to move on toward God as was often the intention of the first reformer for their group. Unfortunately, it seems that there are no exceptions to this tendency of the second generation to stagnate instead of continuing to flow ever closer to God. A new move toward God would have to wait for a new reformer. And so almost without exceptions on and on it goes.

To say that those who did not discard everything is to say that none of their hearts were right toward God and His Son... and that almost certainly not true. God is looking at the individual heart in spite of the error of any leaders involved.

yes, we judge peoples' affiliations rather than their fruit, quite often. Even if i agree with Mr. the Q @ "If they were Christians, they would have discarded it ALL, and would HAVE no paid teachers..." that is prolly quite idealist (although i guess it is also likely a thriving aspect of the real Church, prolly happens every day, and we just do not consider it, whatever form it takes?). Or iow the "church" then was more or less like the "church" is now, a Political Body, first and foremost?

Luther has come down to us as a saint, mostly, right--but he did some pretty heinous stuff during the Reformation.
It could even be remarked that he changed from Paul to Saul in the process, i think?

 

[amadeus]

yes, we judge peoples' affiliations rather than their fruit, quite often.
Amen, this is so even among people who are all here today. When it comes to those living in early generations and even earlier centuries good judgments are at least difficult but often really impossible to make.

Even if i agree with Mr. the Q @ "If they were Christians, they would have discarded it ALL, and would HAVE no paid teachers..." that is prolly quite idealist (although i guess it is also likely a thriving aspect of the real Church, prolly happens every day, and we just do not consider it, whatever form it takes?). Or iow the "church" then was more or less like the "church" is now, a Political Body, first and foremost?

Yes, it is very idealist.

Consider a person was really always moving upward toward God, but his ending point on the surface seemed to be lower than the starting point of another person who never moved at all. Would not the former would have ended up closer to God than the latter?

Luther has come down to us as a saint, mostly, right--but he did some pretty heinous stuff during the Reformation.
It could even be remarked that he changed from Paul to Saul in the process, i think?

Absolutely. Luther did some things that would be considered terrible to any one. But, when we consider all of his circumstances there is a lot of evidence in his favor as well. I wouldn't want to make a final call on his end with God. But to hear many Catholics tell it he was the worst of devils with no redeeming qualities.[/QUOTE]

 

[theQuestion]

I judge the claims made by comparing them with scripture, and praying for guidance.

 

[101G]

Since you haven't address #120. let discuss this then.

Simple.
Jesus and God's Breath ('spirit') are constantly shown to be a person and a power.
Jesus is ANOINTED by Spirit at Baptism.
He is led by Spirit.
Spirit is drained OUR of him.
He said he would SEND God's Spirit ('Comforter') after returning to heaven.

And SO much more.

in John chapter 14, the Lord Jesus made these statement.
#1. John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever".

#2. John 14:18 "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you".
but he said that he word MANIFEST himself. and you do know the difference between a "manifestation" and an "appearance". the Lord Jesus manifested himself to his disciple, and he will appear. so when did the Lord Jesus manifested himself to his disciples, remember he "manifested" himself. please answer.

 

[theQuestion]

What about YOU, amadeus?

 

[twinc]

Since you haven't address #120. let discuss this then.

in John chapter 14, the Lord Jesus made these statement.
#1. John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever".

#2. John 14:18 "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you".
but he said that he word MANIFEST himself. and you do know the difference between a "manifestation" and an "appearance". the Lord Jesus manifested himself to his disciple, and he will appear. so when did the Lord Jesus manifested himself to his disciples, remember he "manifested" himself. please answer.

 

[theQuestion]

Twinc- your post is blank....

 

[twinc]

Jn 14:16&18 are not addressed or apply to us
as regards appearance something can appear and yet not be but to manifest is to be - twinc

 

[theQuestion]

"Manifest":
1- Readily perceived by the senses and especially by the sense of sight
2- Easily understood or recognized by the mind

 

[amadeus]

What about YOU, amadeus?

Since you did not specify, I am not certain what it is you are asking me about? Please clarify!

 

[theQuestion]

I judge the claims made by comparing them with scripture, and praying for guidance.
What about YOU, amadeus?

 

[101G]

"Manifest":
1- Readily perceived by the senses and especially by the sense of sight
2- Easily understood or recognized by the mind

if you dress up as the Easter bunny, and hopped around are you the Easter bunny? yes or no.

but your definition states, "Readily perceived by the senses and especially by the sense of sight". so the people saw a Easter bunny.
definition 2, Easily understood or recognized by the mind. if you hop like a Easter bunny so the people "Easily understood or recognized by the mind" that you're an Easter bunny, you talk like a Easter bunny. well by your definitions, if it look like a Easter bunny, and walk like a Easter bunny, and talk like a Easter bunny then you must be the Easter bunny, correct, going by your definitions.... (smile).

 

[twinc]

if you dress up as the Easter bunny, and hopped around are you the Easter bunny? yes or no.

but your definition states, "Readily perceived by the senses and especially by the sense of sight". so the people saw a Easter bunny.
definition 2, Easily understood or recognized by the mind. if you hop like a Easter bunny so the people "Easily understood or recognized by the mind" that you're an Easter bunny, you talk like a Easter bunny. well by your definitions, if it look like a Easter bunny, and walk like a Easter bunny, and talk like a Easter bunny then you must be the Easter bunny, correct, going by your definitions.... (smile).

you would appear to be the Easter bunny but not really be the Easter bunny - twinc

 

[101G]

you would appear to be the Easter bunny but not really be the Easter bunny - twinc

that's my point, but did you not manifest as the E. bunny.

see the source is not in the outer appearance, or manifestation. it's the PERSON 1st or 2nd. example, God appeared in a cloud by day, is God the Cloud? no, God spoke to Moses in a burning bush is God the Burning bush? no. God spoke to men by an angel is God an Angel. no. listen, the cloud is the cloud, the bush is the bush, the angel is the angel, they are their on source, and was just used as a medium for a second person. but if God was the cloud, then it's FIRST PERSON. no medium needed. when God showed up in his OWN body, who is it? GOD. scripture, 1 Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory". now the Question who flesh did God manifested in? his OWN. FIRST PERSON. understand when the lord said, "my" Father" he's saying my Spirit, when the Spirit say "my" Son he's saying my Flesh. First PERSON. I suggest you read this post again for clarity.

 

[amadeus]

I judge the claims made by comparing them with scripture, and praying for guidance.
What about YOU, amadeus?

What claims should I be judging? Probably the ones that God has put before me and to which He has given me words with which to respond.

I always try to go the lowest room and then let God elevate me if He chooses to do so. Prayer is what has led me to go to the lowest room:

"When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;
And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.
But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.
For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Luke 14:8-11

I remember long ago being in a place, which some people have called a church where two men argued as which of them should be given a regular seat on the platform [a floor raised up by one or more steps higher than the level where most of the congregation sat] because I guess they each thought that they were worthy. They at the time both got their way, but now the place is bar [place serving alcoholic drinks] the pastor has move to another state and the two mentioned men have gone other ways.

 

[tigger 2]

Re Msg #125.
This is intended only as a helpful hint. There is no such word in English as "prolly." You probably mean "probably."