This is almost a test question

[amigo de christo]

Pope Francis said our DeSire - state lacking in light (in Latin l believe) - is the source of energy because we are so eager to see, trying to find a hole on the wall to get glimpses.

I think theology (not that I know almost anything at all anyway) is a tool we inevitably develop in this unstoppable effort!

my dear friend . that is one man NONE should have heeded . I prayed for his repentance while he lived .
I never saw it . These people are preaching anti christ to the false religoins as well as to christendom .
THEY are lying to us all . And we just need to come out from amongst them
and never look b ack . Learn JESUS . Learn His teachings well .
Learn all the scriptures well . I tr uly wish i had be tter news for us , BUT THIS world is going down
on JESUS Day as well as a lot of folks even within christendom and its merged ecumeincal harlot
and the false religoins . I truly pray for them , IF ONLy , IF only they had heard , if only they had
come to the TRUE CHRIST and not to men in wool who fleeced them all . I have many tears for many people my friend .
Let us get in the b ible and learn for ourselves , being hearers and d oers of the Word .

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Quite the contrary I mix with protestant brothers all the time! I have just spent an hour this morning at my local protestant Church with the pastor for our monthly ecumenical prayer

Isn't Mary the ultimate intercessor - our goto person when we find so difficult to stop sinning

Well then enjoy your false doctrine.

By the way, it ends badly due to not being biblical (ecumenical movement and Mary having anything to do with salvation)

Jesus taught that real believers pray directly to the Father in His Name. (the Name of Jesus)

I do feel Catholicism is my home but man, I have my huge respect and reverence for protestant movements

Catholics will give you the boot if they hear you say this.

Catholics believe one cannot be saved unless they are catholic.

Just ask your local priest, and this is what he will tell you.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Sorry I am not qualified to answer this but this person seems far better for this!

I’m sorry but his words do not carry any weight with me....eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood literally, is against God’s Law, making Christ’s Disciples into cannibals. Would Jesus teach his Jewish disciples to break God’s Law ?

The bread and wine are entirely symbolic.
In context, Matt 26:29 continues on from Jesus instituting the new covenant. In various Catholic editions like the Kx it reads: “I shall not drink of this fruit of the vine again, until I drink it with you, new wine, in the kingdom of my Father”...which shows that Jesus referring to what was in the cup as being “this fruit of the vine,” and that was after Jesus had said, “This is my blood.” So context argues with the CC view which seems strange that Jesus was offering his literal flesh and blood even before his death.....?

Nothing the RCC teaches is biblical.....it is twisted and has been twisted for a very long time.

Mary does not hold any place in Scripture, except as the mother of Jesus....the Catholic Church elevates her in idolatrous worship as a medatrix, when it was Jesus who holds that unique position. (1 Tim 2:6-6)

You do yourself no favours by blindly accepting what they say....check it out for yourself before you commit to anything. The Bible is God’s word...the church teaches the words and doctrines of men.
The Bible exposes them, which is why they hide behind the ECF for some of their teachings....No writings of the ECF’s made it into Scripture, neither did their creeds come from Scripture, but loosely gives the idea of Scripture.

Jesus foretold this apostasy.....so he expected it....and told us to be carful of wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Look at what they do....not just what they say.....

 

[yasuaki]

Well then enjoy your false doctrine.

By the way, it ends badly due to not being biblical (ecumenical movement and Mary having anything to do with salvation)

Jesus taught that real believers pray directly to the Father in His Name. (the Name of Jesus)




Catholics will give you the boot if they hear you say this.

Catholics believe one cannot be saved unless they are catholic.

Just ask your local priest, and this is what he will tell you.

Just last month we had Christian Unity week and held a service with the Angliocan Church :-)

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Just last month we had Christian Unity week and held a service with the Angliocan Church :-)

The ecumenical movement is false doctrine.

It's a gathering of different false and fake religions claiming to be Christians

They are not Christians because they don't teach the Doctrine of Christ.

2 John 1:9
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

The catholics don't teach the Doctrine of Christ which can only be found in the New Testament.

Don't feel bad, none of the so called protestant denominations teach the Doctrine of Christ either

 

[yasuaki]

The ecumenical movement is false doctrine.

It's a gathering of different false and fake religions claiming to be Christians

They are not Christians because they don't teach the Doctrine of Christ.

2 John 1:9
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

The catholics don't teach the Doctrine of Christ which can only be found in the New Testament.

Don't feel bad, none of the so called protestant denominations teach the Doctrine of Christ either

Isnt't there this famous Paul rant about having different factions within the same Church?

 

[rockytopva]

Isnt't there this famous Paul rant about having different factions within the same Church?

And it is a rule here...

[*]Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christians.

Though churches can go off in the wrong direction our response on this board is to provide an argument against what we would consider the bad doctrine. With some good arguments along with a little scripture. Not to condemn the whole nine yards as heretics.

 

[Wrangler]

I’m sorry but his words do not carry any weight with me....eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood literally, is against God’s Law, making Christ’s Disciples into cannibals. Would Jesus teach his Jewish disciples to break God’s Law ?

Then Jesus should not have metaphorically commanded cannibalism AND do it in such a way that those that heard him thought he was literally advocating for it and breaking God's law.

Commanding homosexual marriage or being part of a harem and cannibalism is not the way to garner followers from the masses. Just saying. Of course, if you start with the premise that everything he said is AOK, then you have to resort to Circular Reasoning.

Do You Understand That We Are the Bride?

Recently, I wrote articles about being servants and being sons. The vastness of our relationship with God is beyond human ability to describe. Thus we grasp at metaphors and analogies, attempting to see with clarity that which is greater than the human mind can fathom. However, these relational...

calvarychapel.com

Here Comes the Bride: The Church as the Bride of Christ

Many of us (I suspect this is especially true of men) have trouble connecting with the image of the church as a bride. But this is, perhaps, the richest of all biblical metaphors of the church. It …

shaynelooper.com

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/18ht24z

HurryAffectionate364​

I am wrestling with it too bro, it sounds gay, icky, and weird to me. You can be faithful, honourable, committed, loyal, and devoted to your father in heaven just like we are to our country, the metaphor of being our man-god Jesus's bridge is a terrible metaphor.​

lawlzicle​

I love Jesus but I don't want to be any man's bride.​

RightCheck1951​

Maybe it is more in the sense of taking on a new last name... being part of the family of Jesus. They could have termed it adoption, but they termed it marriage. It is goofing us up​

iddo968​

Yeah i am completely uncomfortable with it which is why i sought out this subreddit. I just want the Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth to be my big bro who gives me man hugs and fist bumps, which i have felt about him for many years. Not to do some unspeakable act to me. I am not kidding and this is a serious post. I think the canonization of all of Paul's writings were hasty. Maybe they should have included the book of Iddo instead.​

RightCheck1951​

The metaphor never felt right for me either. As a woman, it felt like I was to be part of a harem. You are being more honest than most. I hope you find something that fits with logic. I haven't yet.​

 

[Pearl]

I do feel Catholicism is my home but man, I have my huge respect and reverence for protestant movements too! In fact my hero Toyohiko Kagawa was a Protestant pastor who became Nobel prize candidate for Literature/Peace many times over. ( I think his statue is in National Cathedral next to Martin Luther King Jr.)

Having said that :

I don't belong to any particular denomination, I am just a follower of Jesus who has been spiritually reborn. And whilst I believe that the RCC has deceived millions of people and by their teachings have prevented them from knowing the truth; I also believe that there are genuine souls who really do want a real relationship with Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit rather than just the trappings of religion. The bible tells us that God looks at a persons heart.

1 Samuel 16:7
The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”

 

[Aunty Jane]

Then Jesus should not have metaphorically commanded cannibalism AND do it in such a way that those that heard him thought he was literally advocating for it and breaking God's law.

It was a test.....have you read the whole passage? Jesus gives you the reason.....why do you question him?
Who can tell Jesus that he “should not have” done anything? Where does such a judgment come from?

After Jesus said what he did.....
“Many of his disciples said, “This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it?”

Jesus was aware that his disciples were complaining, so he said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what will you think if you see the Son of Man ascend to heaven again? The Spirit alone gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But some of you do not believe me.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning which ones didn’t believe, and he knew who would betray him.) Then he said, “That is why I said that people can’t come to me unless the Father gives them to me.” At this point many of his disciples turned away and deserted him. Then Jesus turned to the Twelve and asked, “Are you also going to leave?” Simon Peter replied, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words that give eternal life. We believe, and we know you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:60-69 NLT)

At this point, he was concerned only with the ones God had ‘given’ him.....and their response was his main concern. He knew that these were going to be the backbone of his ministry once he returned to heaven, so that is why he tested them. They stayed for the explanation...they didn’t judge what he said with mere human ears and human judgment.....who else were they going to go to for spiritual nourishment and truth?

Those who turned away, if they were given by the Father, would return, those who believed only what they heard and judged accordingly, would probably justify their departure and a return to their old ways? Jesus did not run after them pleading for them to stay and hear his explanation, which he would have given to them, had they asked. The apostles were the ones who heard Jesus’ illustrations, and if they were not clear, they asked him to explain them. Do you see the difference?

Jesus doesn’t need to run after anyone....the Father brings them to him. (John 6:65)

Commanding homosexual marriage or being part of a harem and cannibalism is not the way to garner followers from the masses. Just saying. Of course, if you start with the premise that everything he said is AOK, then you have to resort to Circular Reasoning.

Knowledge of the truth never requires circulator reasoning. People who are spiritually deaf will never “get it”.
Who commanded homosexual marriage, being part of a harem or cannibalism? Certainly not Jesus!

Those who read Scripture and come to those conclusions are not “drawn” by the Father. (John 6:44)

Do You Understand That We Are the Bride?

Recently, I wrote articles about being servants and being sons. The vastness of our relationship with God is beyond human ability to describe. Thus we grasp at metaphors and analogies, attempting to see with clarity that which is greater than the human mind can fathom. However, these relational...

calvarychapel.com

Here Comes the Bride: The Church as the Bride of Christ

Many of us (I suspect this is especially true of men) have trouble connecting with the image of the church as a bride. But this is, perhaps, the richest of all biblical metaphors of the church. It …

shaynelooper.com

Some very good points are raised in these quotes. Those who have human thinking on these topics need to read those explanations and see the spiritual nature of Jesus’ words....not doing what those you quoted below are doing....completely devoid of spiritual understanding....not “drawn” by the Father at all.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/18ht24z

HurryAffectionate364​

I am wrestling with it too bro, it sounds gay, icky, and weird to me. You can be faithful, honourable, committed, loyal, and devoted to your father in heaven just like we are to our country, the metaphor of being our man-god Jesus's bridge is a terrible metaphor.​

lawlzicle​

I love Jesus but I don't want to be any man's bride.​

RightCheck1951​

Maybe it is more in the sense of taking on a new last name... being part of the family of Jesus. They could have termed it adoption, but they termed it marriage. It is goofing us up​

iddo968​

Yeah i am completely uncomfortable with it which is why i sought out this subreddit. I just want the Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth to be my big bro who gives me man hugs and fist bumps, which i have felt about him for many years. Not to do some unspeakable act to me. I am not kidding and this is a serious post. I think the canonization of all of Paul's writings were hasty. Maybe they should have included the book of Iddo instead.​

RightCheck1951​

The metaphor never felt right for me either. As a woman, it felt like I was to be part of a harem. You are being more honest than most. I hope you find something that fits with logic. I haven't yet.​

These comments betray a complete lack of spiritual comprehension. They would have been among those who walked away....and if they retained that mentality, they would have justified staying away. So be it.

This is separating people like “the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats”.
Which category will we be found in?

 

[Adventageous]

First time posting. This doubles as a test and also a simple question.

Jesus died for our sins. On the third day he rose from the dead.

Our sins are now forgiven?

So what do we have for any further discussion??

Hi. Glad to meet you.

Yes, Jesus died for the sins of the whole world:

1Jn_2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.​

Yes, Jesus died and on the third day arose from the dead.

Mar_9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.​

​

Luk_24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.​

​

Act_10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;​

Yes, all the sins of the whole world are already forgiven in Christ Jesus:

2Co_5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;​

2Co_5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.​

​

Col_3:13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.​

​

Rom_3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;​

​

1Jn_2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.​

​

1Jn_4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.​

So, since the debt is fully paid in Jesus, your question, "So what do we have for any further discussion??"

Simple, accept the offer in Christ Jesus. Just because the payment was provided, means nothing until the person who has a debt accepts the grace extended.

Act_2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.​

​

Act_2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.​

​

Act_3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;​

​

Act_17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:​

​

2Sa_22:4 I will call on the LORD, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies.​

​

Psa_18:3 I will call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies.​

It is an exchange of our old life of sin for His righteous life. We are now to live as He is / would on earth.

Feel free to consider this material also:

- Behold the Lamb -

- The Astonishing Doctrine -

- Forgioveness & Reconciliation -

I also have free materials for you to consider if you want:

(5TB worth of free materials) - Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Texts, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine

(Latest materials) - Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Texts, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine

 

[Wrangler]

It was a test.....have you read the whole passage? Jesus gives you the reason.....why do you question him?

I asked no question. Jesus failed the test. You re-read the posts.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I asked no question. Jesus failed the test. You re-read the posts.

Are you serious? “Jesus failed the test”? What test was that? Yours?...and the judgment given by others in your quotes? What moronic testimony!...and you agree with their sentiments?

James 1:13-15...
“When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone. 14  But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. 15  Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn sin, when it has been carried out, brings forth death.”

Neither God, nor his son try us with evil....but they will test out the potential for evil in us...”enticed” by our own flawed definition of his words and actions, (in this case) we choose to accuse the son of God for failing ‘our’ test......how ironic that by your own words, you should be failing ‘his’!

In case you hadn’t noticed....Jesus was a perfect son of God, unaffected by the inheritance of Adam’s sin.
He failed no test of God. (Psalm 2:12)

 

[Wrangler]

Are you serious? “Jesus failed the test”? What test was that? Yours?...and the judgment given by others in your quotes? What moronic testimony!...and you agree with their sentiments?

Agh, rather than admit error, you resort to Ad Homenim.

I just used AI to answer the question I could not in reference to Matthew 22:30; what OT verse says we are not married in the afterlife. Here was it's response:

The Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) do not contain a passage that explicitly says “people will not be married in the after‑life.”​

​

What the OT does provide are a few ideas that help explain why such a statement isn’t found:​

​

Marriage is presented as an earthly institution.​

​

Genesis 2:24 – “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” The wording (“shall become one flesh”) is tied to the lived reality of a husband‑wife relationship on earth.​

Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 26:1‑4 (Deuterocanonical, used in some traditions) speaks of marriage as a blessing for this life, not as a condition for eternity.​

The OT’s view of the after‑life is vague.​

​

Most OT books focus on this‑worldly blessings, covenant fidelity, and the nation of Israel rather than detailed doctrines about personal existence after death.​

Passages such as Psalm 146:4 (“His breath goes out, he returns to the dust”) and Ecclesiastes 12:7 (“the dust returns to the earth as it was…”) treat death as a return to the ground, without describing a continued marital status.​

Later biblical teaching addresses the question.​

​

The New Testament clarifies the matter in Matthew 22:30 (and parallel verses in Mark 12:25 and Luke 20:35): Jesus says that in the resurrection “people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” This is the primary scriptural source for the idea that marriage does not continue after the resurrection.​

Because the Old Testament does not develop a doctrine of personal after‑life relationships, there is no verse that says we will not be married after death. The teaching that marriage ceases in the resurrected state comes from the New Testament, not from any OT passage. If you’re looking for a scriptural basis for the “no marriage after resurrection” view, the relevant citation is Matthew 22:30 (and its synoptic parallels).​

Fortunately, AI did not resort to personal attack. It acknowledges a deeper truth implied in the question, that the OT’s view of the after‑life is vague. AI didn't attack how stupid I was for recognizing this truth.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Agh, rather than admit error, you resort to Ad Homenim.

Where did I do that? I was shocked that you would even say something like “Jesus shouldn’t have” done something! All he said and did was in obedience to his Father. I wasn’t attacking you, but defending him.

I just used AI to answer the question I could not in reference to Matthew 22:30; what OT verse says we are not married in the afterlife.

Why are you moving the goalposts? This is an entirely different topic now.....
What AI says is based on its programming.....as imput is without spiritual comprehension.....so is output.
It is good for established facts, but not a good source for interpretation of Bible verses that require a different mode of thinking. AI is devoid of such thinking.

Here was it's response:

The Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) do not contain a passage that explicitly says “people will not be married in the after‑life.”​

​

What the OT does provide are a few ideas that help explain why such a statement isn’t found:​

​

Marriage is presented as an earthly institution.​

​

Genesis 2:24 – “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” The wording (“shall become one flesh”) is tied to the lived reality of a husband‑wife relationship on earth.​

Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 26:1‑4 (Deuterocanonical, used in some traditions) speaks of marriage as a blessing for this life, not as a condition for eternity.​

The OT’s view of the after‑life is vague.​

​

Most OT books focus on this‑worldly blessings, covenant fidelity, and the nation of Israel rather than detailed doctrines about personal existence after death.​

Passages such as Psalm 146:4 (“His breath goes out, he returns to the dust”) and Ecclesiastes 12:7 (“the dust returns to the earth as it was…”) treat death as a return to the ground, without describing a continued marital status.​

Do you realize that “the OT’s view of the afterlife is vague” because it doesn’t speak about an “afterlife”...it speaks about “life and death”.....but certainly not as Christendom understands those concepts.

To a Jew, death resulted in a time of complete unconsciousness in the grave, (Sheol. Eccl 9:5, 10) with a view to resurrection.....which was a return to life in the future, under Messiah’s Kingdom....the “mystery” of which was not revealed until Jesus began his teaching ministry.

There was no concept of “life after death” as an instantaneous thing, where the “soul” departs from the body to go somewhere else. (Ezekiel 18:4) That idea was borrowed from pagan teachings.

The “soul” as Jews understood the word, was the whole living, breathing person or creature. Animals in the Hebrew Scriptures were also “souls”, who died the same death as humans....all ceased breathing....none were ever promised everlasting life....
Solomon wrote....
“I also said in my heart about the sons of men that the true God will test them and show them that they are like animals, 19  for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20  All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust.” (Eccl 3:18-20)

No immortal souls....and hence no mention of marriage in an afterlife. Their concentration was getting there and being raised back to life on earth. Would they still be married to their spouse?
Jesus told us, what no one told them back then, as it was not the time to reveal it.
So.....

Later biblical teaching addresses the question.​

​

The New Testament clarifies the matter in Matthew 22:30 (and parallel verses in Mark 12:25 and Luke 20:35): Jesus says that in the resurrection “people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” This is the primary scriptural source for the idea that marriage does not continue after the resurrection.​

Because the Old Testament does not develop a doctrine of personal after‑life relationships, there is no verse that says we will not be married after death. The teaching that marriage ceases in the resurrected state comes from the New Testament, not from any OT passage. If you’re looking for a scriptural basis for the “no marriage after resurrection” view, the relevant citation is Matthew 22:30 (and its synoptic parallels).​

Consider the reasons for such a situation.....why would resurrected ones not marry?
What was considered the end of a marriage in Bible times? Death and infidelity were the only grounds to end a marriage which freed the innocent mate to remarry. A widow could marry again and more than once if her spouse died before she did.....so when the resurrection takes place, as Jesus mentioned in his illustration of the seven brothers marrying the same widow, (which triggered this question) whose wife would she be in the resurrection. Jesus’ answer? None of them.

Can you imagine resurrected ones coming back to expect a reunion with their former spouse, only to find that they were married to someone else......or even to several other spouses? How awkward!

What is the whole reason for marriage in the first place? Does God require animals to marry? Are they constrained by the same moral laws that we are? Obviously not, as we alone are made in God’s image.

God uses the familial relationships that we understand because he instituted them. How would we understand “father and son”....”husband and wife”....”morality and immortality”...”obedience and disobedience”....without understanding our place in God’s arrangement for the perpetuation of life on this planet?......no animal consciously abides by those concepts, as this is how God reveals himself to us as his children. We understand those relationships and how they apply to us in our relationship with him because he set them.

Fortunately, AI did not resort to personal attack. It acknowledges a deeper truth implied in the question, that the OT’s view of the after‑life is vague. AI didn't attack how stupid I was for recognizing this truth.

Defending my God is my job.....I don’t recall ever saying that you were “stupid”...but perhaps if the cap fits...you were the one who put it on....telling the truth is not something I will ever apologise for.

AI is not judging your heart......but Jehovah is....and that goes for all of us.
Tread carefully because you are walking on shaky ground. When you demean the Son, (which you did) you offend the Father, whose words he spoke.
Your failure to comprehend his words doesn’t make him wrong....he owes you no apology.

Take a good look at yourself and your attitude, and think back to God’s response to those who questioned Moses’ authority...and he was not the perfect Son of God.

 

[soberxp]

First time posting. This doubles as a test and also a simple question.

Jesus died for our sins. On the third day he rose from the dead.

Our sins are now forgiven?

So what do we have for any further discussion??

Because I like to talk, it has nothing to do with saving.(无为而治.)

The way of heaven is to reduce the excessive and increase the insufficient.(天之道，损有余，而补不足)

 

[Wrangler]

Where did I do that?

From your opening salvo, including this gem.

What moronic testimony!

which is ironic given your penchant for putting your intellect on a pedestal But are unable to entertain different modes of thinking.l Instead, just Ad Homenim.

not a good source for interpretation of Bible verses that require a different mode of thinking

Why are you moving the goalposts? This is an entirely different topic now.....

Moving goalpost. Introduce new topic. Not the same. I just wanted to introduce an entirely different topic - without starting a new thread.

It is good for established facts, but not a good source for interpretation of Bible verses

I didn’t ask AI for interpretation but OT facts. The question is; does Jesus know that “the OT’s view of the afterlife is vague” because it doesn’t speak about an “afterlife” when he said the audience should know this based on the OT. And do you know this? See verse 29 where Jesus replied, “Your mistake is that you don’t know the Scriptures.”

So, either:

• you are right that the Scriptures (OT) do not contain this information.
• Jesus is right and this information IS in Scripture.

So, I used AI to ascertain the fact of the matter. Perhaps this is outside your capacity to invoke different modes of thinking and discussing but I hoped not. I hoped we could discuss it sans Ad Homenim.

 

[soberxp]

From your opening salvo, including this gem.


which is ironic given your penchant for putting your intellect on a pedestal But are unable to entertain different modes of thinking.l Instead, just Ad Homenim.







Moving goalpost. Introduce new topic. Not the same. I just wanted to introduce an entirely different topic - without starting a new thread.



I didn’t ask AI for interpretation but OT facts. The question is; does Jesus know that “the OT’s view of the afterlife is vague” because it doesn’t speak about an “afterlife” when he said the audience should know this based on the OT. And do you know this? See verse 29 where Jesus replied, “Your mistake is that you don’t know the Scriptures.”

So, either:

• you are right that the Scriptures (OT) do not contain this information.
• Jesus is right and this information IS in Scripture.

So, I used AI to ascertain the fact of the matter. Perhaps this is outside your capacity to invoke different modes of thinking and discussing but I hoped not. I hoped we could discuss it sans Ad Homenim.

“afterlife”
When God made human beings, is it for life forever?
What if forever means nothing change forever?
And what is afterlife?

 

[Aunty Jane]

From your opening salvo, including this gem.

Read it again Wrangler...my description was in reference to your quotes, not you. It was their statements that I described as “moronic” and you agreed with them.....you took the ball and ran with it....drop the ball....it wasn’t even in the game, unless you threw it in.

which is ironic given your penchant for putting your intellect on a pedestal But are unable to entertain different modes of thinking.l Instead, just Ad Homenim.

You are a hard person to disagree with Wrangler....any disagreement with you, and you come out swinging....is that your natural approach to what you then describe as me “putting my intellect on a pedestal”...any wonder you are afraid of the truth...you might have to change your beliefs and attitude.

Your beliefs seem to be very loosely based on Scripture and your approach to Christianity is solely on your own terms....you don’t deal with the truth presented from the Bible, but accept only your definition of it. So where does your definition come from? I know your approach to Bible study is not grounded in thorough research of your own, but gleaned from your own sources.....can you afford to do that, given the outcome that the Bible gives us for not doing our own homework. Are we just looking for those who agree with us....or are we going to defend a solidly researched subject that is close to our heart?
Knee jerk reactions don’t really achieve anything.

Moving goalpost. Introduce new topic. Not the same. I just wanted to introduce an entirely different topic - without starting a new thread.

You introduced a new topic altogether.....you moved the goalposts because you didn’t have a valid response to your first argument....you deliberately distracted from that.....let’s keep it real.

I didn’t ask AI for interpretation but OT facts. The question is; does Jesus know that “the OT’s view of the afterlife is vague” because it doesn’t speak about an “afterlife” when he said the audience should know this based on the OT. And do you know this? See verse 29 where Jesus replied, “Your mistake is that you don’t know the Scriptures.”

Does it not stand to reason that if the OT does not speak of an “afterlife”...that Jesus would expect them to believe their Scripture? The apostate Jews later adopted belief in an afterlife, despite their Scripture never mentioning it.
It gives a totally different impression about what happens at death......is there a “spirit” (a separate conscious entity) inside of our human bodies that leaves this world to go somewhere else when we stop breathing?
If the OT answer is no, then the NT answer is also NO. The truth does not change, but can be clarified when God deems it it the time to reveal it. (Prov 4:18)

What Jesus teaches about death is a new kind of resurrection, one that was part of a “mystery” revealed by Jesus himself....but not clearly understood by his disciples until Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit revealed the whole story to them....about what God’s Kingdom is....and their role in it.

There are actually two resurrections, neither of them requiring an immortal soul. “Souls” in the Bible are living, breathing creatures, so what is resurrected when Jesus comes back for his elect is a “spirit”, (not a soul)....raised in the same kind of spirit body that Jesus received at his resurrection. (1 Pet 3:18)
This is what it means to be “born again”.....being given a new body to dwell in the presence of God in heaven where Jesus went to “prepare a place” for his anointed ones.

So, either:

• you are right that the Scriptures (OT) do not contain this information.
• Jesus is right and this information IS in Scripture.

There is no “either”...both are correct. OT Scripture does not mention an immortal soul that survives the death of the body....and Jesus also teaches that there is no such thing as an immortal soul.
Those resurrected to heaven are spirits, and those resurrected back to the earth will again become “living souls”....as God first intended for the human race....to live on earth in Paradise forever. (Rev 21:2-4)
How is that a difficult concept?

So, I used AI to ascertain the fact of the matter. Perhaps this is outside your capacity to invoke different modes of thinking and discussing but I hoped not. I hoped we could discuss it sans Ad Homenim.

I’m sorry if you took my response as “ad homenim”, but if you read through what I actually said instead of taking offence at what you thought I said, our exchanges would not have to be so argumentative.

I have no hostility toward anyone who holds to any belief.....but I am not going to sit here as a disciple of Jesus Christ and have people demean him. If you want to question God or his son, that is your business...but don’t make it mine....or I will defend them with the only weapon I have....God’s word.

 

[Wrangler]

You are a hard person to disagree with Wrangler....any disagreement with you, and you come out swinging

Projecting. See above moronic comment. Where you tell me to read it again. Honestly, this arrogance from you is hard to take. It’s not bad enough that you‘re pedantic and long winded, you have to be arrogant right off the bat when anyone shows “different modes of thinking” than you consider remotely legitimate.

You read again what you added after that moronic comment … What moronic testimony!...and you agree with their sentiments? A little humble introspection of how this could be construed as Ad Homenim would go a long way. This part of your personality, come out arrogantly swinging makes me not want to even engage with the topic of how expressing ideas of cannibalism and homosexual marriage might not be received well.