What are we really dealing with here?

[Naomi25]

The RCC herself claims one doctrine above all others as being essential to faith and practice...in fact she believes or professes that all her dogmas and doctrines are built on that one tenet of their faith...the trinity. Or at least, their version of it. Now if you look into the history of how the orthodox doctrine of trinity was first brought about, the means by which it was first established in the Christian church, and through whom it was established, it may well cause current believers in that doctrine some cause for embarrassment. That fact that those original promoters of the doctrine had great difficulty in explaining it in terms anyone could understand, yet demanded everyone believe it anyway, smacks of fraud to me. Particularly when it is realized that it is only an assumed doctrine in the first place.

Tell me...can you fully explain and describe God to me? Tell me about every part of him and his nature? I assume not, the reason being...our God is far beyond human understanding and knowing. Would you want a God you could fully know? If you, in your human, limited understanding, could fully grasp God...what does that say about him? There is a reason we will spend eternity learning about him...he is infinite. Now...if you think you can do better than any man before you trying to explain how the bible clearly and repeatedly somehow says that "God is one" and yet "God is three persons"...then go ahead friend. I suspect you'll end up where everyone else has. Or else having to deny that the bible says it at all....oh wait.

The other fundamental belief of Catholicism, one which they hold particularly dear to their heart; one which they created themselves and boast of for that reason; and because almost everyone agrees with her on that one precious doctrine, Protestants included who ironically claim sola scriptura, Rome claims it as a sign that all agree with her authority to create it in the first place...being a doctrine that comes from tradition and not from scripture. It is also a doctrine she is avidly promoting today throughout Europe...has been a principle topic in many papal encyclicals over the last 20 or so years, and was used throughout Papal history as an excuse to persecute those who did not accept it. That doctrine is Sunday sacredness. Anyone who accepts Sunday sacredness is submitting to Papal authority, and denying the authority of scripture. Rome herself boasts that by the simple fact that Sunday is universally accepted, it shows she has power to implement doctrine that in the past is contrary to God, but because they have the power to bind and loose, God accepts the new rules. Which of course is typical Antichrist mindset...us in place of Christ. Our day in place of Christ's day. They even had the gall to call Sunday the Lord's day. Such is 'in your face' blasphemy.

Oh please! Quite apart from showing your colours (hello SDA!), Paul addresses this head on!

Romans 14:5-6a: One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord.

Col 2:8-10: See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority...
Col 2:16-17: Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ...

Basically, Paul is saying that Christ has abolished the need for strict rules and regulations, having fulfilled them in his own body and sacrifice. Especially the Sabbath, as we see earlier that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Basically...it's important for man to rest, and to honor God. It doesn't matter what day we do it on. If your spirit convicts you to do it on a Saturday...more freedom to you. But don't you dare accuse people they have no right to do it on any other day they choose. Paul gives us the authority to do it on any day we choose. On every day we choose.

Now of course there are other doctrines of Rome we will all disagree with. But those are the two main ones which Protestantism has inherited, and seem very reluctant to let go...despite that fact that neither are taught explicitly in the Bible. So much for sola scripture.
One last thought. If the trinity is the foundation of Catholicism as she boasts, and it is proved that Rome is the Antichrist (and it can be)...how can the root be true and all the branches and fruit be false? What we know is that all the doctrines and dogmas are false...how can they be founded on truth? Including Sunday?

That's it? The Trinity and Sunday worship? Right. Yes, I can see how the Roman Catholic Church is secretly infiltrating and destroying our faith. Thank you.
You do realize that we have our own people, with their own theological reasons for having the doctrines of the Trinity and Sunday worship? They're pretty good, actually, you should try reading some some time. It might open your eyes a bit.

 

[Naomi25]

The false doctrine of the Trinity
The false doctrine of eternal torment as the wages of sin.
The false doctrine of the immortality of the soul.

These three doctrines are in complete opposition to the doctrine of the ransom.

Well, I suppose it all depends on how you look at it, doesn't it? Like...why do you guys think us Protestants have just tripped merrily along after the RCC on some of these things? Because we're gullible? Stupid? Blind? Or maybe, it's in the bible.
Maybe we believe in the Trinity, not because of the "mother church", but because we see the bible telling us that "God is One", and then showing us God in Three Person's...acting separately, playing different functions within the Godhead. We can either deny that God is then 'One', or we can deny, as some do, the deity of Christ and the person-hood of the Spirit. The bible forbids this. So there we are, remaining faithful. No need of RCC interference at all.
The doctrine of eternal torment for the wages of sin. No one seems to like that one. I can't blame them, it's horrifying. But so was what Christ had to endure on the cross. If our sins were not weighty, then Christ's sacrifice wasn't either. And yet we know from scripture that on that cross he drank the full cup of the Fathers wrath...for us. Those of us "in him". And that wrath was great...and I'm not just talking the physical pain Jesus endured. I'm talking about the separation he experienced when God the Father turned away from him and for the first time in eternity they were not 'one'. Christ's cry of "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" rings through the ages. How can you say that that is not worth eternal punishment? How is it that you are able to judge what sin against a holy God is worth? And what Jesus paid to meet it? The bible tells us that it is an eternal punishment. If for some reason you want to pretend all the times Jesus says "forever and ever", or "eternal punishment"...he doesn't actually mean 'eternal' or 'forever', then go ahead, but you won't convince most people who have access to a dictionary.
Immortality of the soul. Well...true immortality would be existing forever, like God, and clearly we don't meet that criteria, as we are not God, and we all had a clear beginning. The bible teaches that God will grant to us life everlasting, due to the tree of life. When sin first came to the Garden of Eden, God barred Adam and Eve from the Garden and the Tree of Life, thus sparing Adam and Eve, and any person afterwards, from living in sin forever. The tree is again revealed to us in the New earth. Does this mean those suffering will eat of the tree? I don't know, the bible doesn't say, but it does say they will live in their torment forever. And that we will also live forever.
Matt 25:45: And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

So, you know, rail all you want against us or the RCC, but these things are in the bible, quite plainly. Not sure how you rationale them away.

 

[APAK]

Nowhere in Scripture is it stated that angels are immortal, nor that mankind restored will be immortal. While, on the contrary, it is a quality which is ascribed only to the DIVINE NATURE—to Jehovah (1 Tim 6:16; 1:17), to Jesus in his present highly exalted condition, and to the Church, the "little flock," the "Lamb's wife" and "joint-heir," when glorified with him (2 Tim 1:10).

Despite what is commonly taught not all believers are going to receive immortality, only those who make their calling and election sure, who are proven faith even unto death will receive the crown of life. (Rev 2:10).

The definition of MORTAL is, a state or condition of being liable to death. Not a condition of death, but a condition in which death is a possibility.

The definition of IMMORTAL is, a state or condition not liable to death. Not merely a condition of freedom from death, but a condition in which death is an impossibility.

Harvest 1874:

You said: "Nowhere in Scripture is it stated that angels are immortal, nor that mankind restored will be immortal."

I beg to differ...read your Bible..for starters here are these verses...

(Mat 22:29) But Jesus answered and said to them: You are mistaken, as you neither know the scriptures, nor the power of God.
(Mat 22:30) For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven.
(Luk 20:35) But they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage.
(Luk 20:36) Neither can they die any more; for they are equal to the angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (ALL NEV)

You said: "While, on the contrary, it is a quality which is ascribed only to the DIVINE NATURE—to Jehovah (1 Tim 6:16; 1:17), to Jesus in his present highly exalted condition, and to the Church, the "little flock," the "Lamb's wife" and "joint-heir," when glorified with him (2 Tim 1:10). "

Angels are messengers/instruments of God performing and partaking of the divine will of God...I also used 'true believer'...meaning part of the ekklesia.....I guess they were not the words you use or want to see...?

You said: "Despite what is commonly taught not all believers are going to receive immortality, only those who make their calling and election sure, who are proven faith even unto death will receive the crown of life. (Rev 2:10)."

This is what I meant by a 'true believer'.....I guess they were not the words you use...?

And what's your definitions of mortal/immortal all about?

Are you a hit-and-run poster? I can do without you replies if that is your intention. Your types of replies usually are not conducive to edifying discussions because all that you have written are one-way cryptic messages.

Did you really attempt to respond to my statements with a discussion in mind, or just show me what you know about the subject and as superfluous information? I learned nothing from your reply.

APAK

 

[Naomi25]

We accept Christ as our personal Savior, and that he died not only for the Christian, but for the whole world. (1 Tim 2:5, 6; 4:10; John 3:16)

Well...you seem to be one of these rare creatures who actually come out and say what they believe. Thanks. You don't see that often...mostly you get hedging. In return, I'll answer honestly and do my best to address each issue.

While God clearly desires all to come to him (1Tim 2:3), and Christ's ransom is open for the whole world (v6), we know not all accept:
Matt 7:13-14: “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

John 14:6: "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Matt 25:41-43:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’

These are just some verses, but we see clearly that Jesus knows that many will not come to him and except the sacrifice he will make. And as he is the only way, they will only find destruction.

We accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God and study it in its entirety - seeking the harmony of the complete Scriptural testimony. (2 Tim 3:16, 17)

We believe that each individual is responsible to personally study and prove the interpretation of the Bible for themselves. (2 Tim 2:15) We strongly recommend topical Bible study as the best means of arriving at God's meaning on any particular subject.

While every Christian should do these things, yes, do you note Paul saying in 2 Tim 3:10 "you have followed my teaching.."? In Romans 12:7 he speaks of the gift of teaching, and again in 1 Cor 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11.
In Col 3:16: Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
And of course 1 and 2 Timothy are epistles on how to be a good teacher within the Church. My point is: While self led study is important, God also calls us to sit under teaching. We know no man is perfect in their interpretation, be that our teacher, or us. But when we combine our own study, with the understanding of our (hopefully studied Pastor) and the Holy Spirit, we can trust that God will lead us to a correct understanding of his word. Or at least begin to guide us. We always need to be praying that we will be open to the Spirit's leading on anything we are misunderstanding, or anything he wants to show us. And that, in turn, leads back to study, and teaching, and more prayer!

We encourage a complete, personal consecration of our all to God, accepting the trials and sufferings that such a life brings as not worthy of comparison with all the joys and glories to come. (Rom 12:1, 2; 8:17-19, 22-23; 2 Tim 2:11, 12)

We believe:

Both the Old and New Testament are God's inspired words; the primary source of all Truth.

Man did not evolve but was created.

God created his only-begotten Son, Jesus. Jesus in turn created all other things.

You had me up until "God created his Son". Nope. Sorry, can't agree to that. I've just recently gone through all this with APAK, and really, really can't be bothered to do so again. But let's just say that I believe that the bible is chock full of verses that state that Jesus is eternal, like the Father. He is not created, not less than.

Jesus descended from heaven to earth and was born of Mary as a perfect human man, NOT as God in flesh.

God raised Jesus from death in a Spirit body, not in a physical body of flesh.

The Holy Spirit is Jehovah's active power and force, NOT a person.

The Trinity is nowhere to be found or taught in the Bible (except by those who have wrestled the scriptures, twisted them to imply something which they do not).

Again, I think the bible can prove you endlessly wrong about Jesus being God. Was he completely human here on earth? Yes. But also God. The wonder of it.

If Jesus was only raised as spirit, how come people were able to touch him, and he was able to eat?

If the HS is not his own person, how come he gets referred to as "he"? And how come he gets referred to separately from God The Father?

Well...I'd say the Trinity makes more sense of the scriptural verses, then cutting out the deity of Christ or the HS. I'd say that there are plenty of verses that back both up, and it is, in fact, you that are 'wresting' the scriptures to make them say something they are not. Again, you can see the conversation with APAK to see the many verses that plainly state that Jesus IS God.

Man is mortal he does not possess an immortal soul. (Man does not possess a soul, man is a soul), and the soul ceases to exist after death.

We do not believe in the doctrine of “eternal torment” as the wages sin, death is the wages of sin. "Hell" is from the same Greek and Hebrew words for "grave," describing the sleep of death, NOT eternal torment.

We believe we are now living in the "time of the end", the time of the “harvest”; the separation of the wheat and the tares has commenced, the “sickle of truth” is the dividing tool.

Earth will never be literally destroyed or completely depopulated.

In the Kingdom, Christ will rule the earth in righteousness and peace.

There are two phases to the kingdom, the earthly phase which will be inhabited by restored mankind, and the spiritual phase which will be inhabited by those begotten of the spirit, those who have experienced a change of natures.

By their faithfulness to God, the obedient of mankind will be granted what our original parents lost-everlasting life in human perfection on a paradise earth.

This is just some of what we believe, there’s more but this should prove sufficient enough for you to get the jest of what we believe.

Hang on! You believe that we are not immortal...that our souls (who we are...we can agree to that) cease to exist after death. Are you saying that for all those who have died up until Christ's return, even those 'redeemed', are just "gone"? Or are you saying that when he returns they'll be resurrected as 'spirits'? Because the first just does not fit with scripture at all, and the last...well, it doesn't fit either, but it's also not a rational follow on from your first statement...that we are not immortal and we cease to exist at death. If we...who we are, are brought back, then we, ipso facto, continue on. So...we're either immortal, or we're not. You can't have it both ways...

As far as the eternal torment thing goes...I think I may have just answered this in a previous post....

 

[Naomi25]

Any church, individual, NGO, or state controlled entity that deems it appropriate to impose on others any religious conviction, right or wrong, and threaten some form of compliance order or inducement or threat of punishment, is making themselves 'god'. Such is the RCC, and such are many Protestant churches as well. And such will be that soon to come global counterfeit that enforces the mark of the beast.

Well...I suppose it depends on what you mean. Part of me agrees with this absolutely, but then...context and, well, specificity. Are you talking about religions that decide they must impose their will on others outside of them by force, like Islam? Or are we talking a denomination seeking to remain true to their beliefs from outside pressure to change? Because I think internally, we should have the right...must have the right, to say..."this is what we believe the bible saying, and we will not change what we believe, not for you, or anyone." I would even push it as far as saying that we ought to retain our right to carry those beliefs with us, as long as they are not forcing others into contrary actions. In other words...if I want to pray at work, or school, what's it to do with you...I'm not making you pray.
I suppose we're sneaking into religious freedom territory...but then...so is the topic. But I think when we begin talking about "imposing beliefs on others...right or wrong"...we do need to be careful to go into specifics. Too much is being lost today because liberals want a blanket suppression on religion.

 

[amadeus]

The scriptures state that we are to grow BOTH in the graces (the fruits of the spirit) AND in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. The two go hand and hand it is impossible to grow in the graces without a corresponding growth in knowledge, and of course vice versa.

This is why we have some naive Christians who are all HEART (zeal), and no knowledge, and others who are all HEAD and no heart.
>>>>>
The scriptures likewise point out that we should always be prepared to give an answer for the hope that is within us to any who ask, but if you have not taken the time to study the doctrine, your questioner can easily stumble you and and make you look foolish, and not only you, but likewise the Word of God which you profess to believe. Skeptics love naive Christians.

How could anyone accept the word of one who isn't even sure about the truths they professes?

You speak a rather different language on these things than I do. You speak of a balance between "graces" and "knowledge" whereas I would speak of a balance between the raw unquickened Word and the Holy Spirit. If either one falls behind the other too much the result could be fatal , but that is a simplistic statement of it.

Jesus was the embodiment of the two for He was the Word of God and He was always Alive. We are to be like Him. Some people know a lot of scripture, but lack in the Holy Spirit and miss God. The reversed imbalance is not better. We are eat His flesh and drink His blood. Without the flesh there is nothing to quicken. Without the blood there is a dead carcass.

 

[mjrhealth]

Both the Old and New Testament are God's inspired words; the primary source of all Truth.

Well actually His Holy Spirit is the primary source of truth, just rejected by most.

 

[mjrhealth]

No, not 'just' a guilty. The RCC has so much more to answer for, which is why God took so much effort to warn us of her abominations. He hasn't singled out any other institution with as much detail and volume as He has the RCC. Not even Islam.

All are guilty, all will be judged, one sin is no worse than another in God eyes, it is men who do such foolish things. One religion is just as bad as another, and they will all fall, when the truth comes to light.

 

[mjrhealth]

grow BOTH in the graces (the fruits of the spirit) AND in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We are supposed to come into teh "knowledge" as In "knowing", Jesus Christ. There is a huge difference in knowing about one and knowing one, only one is done through a relationship, teh other through much wasted study and learning.

 

[brakelite]

Well...I suppose it depends on what you mean. Part of me agrees with this absolutely, but then...context and, well, specificity. Are you talking about religions that decide they must impose their will on others outside of them by force, like Islam? Or are we talking a denomination seeking to remain true to their beliefs from outside pressure to change? Because I think internally, we should have the right...must have the right, to say..."this is what we believe the bible saying, and we will not change what we believe, not for you, or anyone." I would even push it as far as saying that we ought to retain our right to carry those beliefs with us, as long as they are not forcing others into contrary actions. In other words...if I want to pray at work, or school, what's it to do with you...I'm not making you pray.
I suppose we're sneaking into religious freedom territory...but then...so is the topic. But I think when we begin talking about "imposing beliefs on others...right or wrong"...we do need to be careful to go into specifics. Too much is being lost today because liberals want a blanket suppression on religion.

Hi Naomi. This thread is about exposing the RCC for who it really is. A religion that confesses or professes to be Christian, but in reality is the ultimate expression of Antichrist practice and teaching, as has been detailed previously. Part of that revealing must include what has, for most of its existence, been an innate mindset that deems it appropriate to use force to compel others to submit to papal authority and dogma, and has done so on numerous occasions over a period of over 1000 years costing the lives of millions in the process.
And that is the main reason that motivated this thread... The threat of future force as revelation 13 clearly shows in its due warning against the mark of the beast and the death sentence imposed on all dissenters. The Mark is clearly a religious dictate, denying food, property, and life to any who choose to reject it, and if as has been shown, that the RCC is the beast, then the mark belongs to the RCC. Thus it must be an RCC sign or mark of authority. Yes, it is a religious liberty issue. It certainly is not about my demand to impose my beliefs on others, but certainly about my own right of conscience. And yours. And even of Catholics.
I agree with you though that our rights stop the moment they interfere with others rights.

 

[brakelite]

Tell me...can you fully explain and describe God to me? Tell me about every part of him and his nature? I assume not, the reason being...our God is far beyond human understanding and knowing. Would you want a God you could fully know? If you, in your human, limited understanding, could fully grasp God...what does that say about him? There is a reason we will spend eternity learning about him...he is infinite. Now...if you think you can do better than any man before you trying to explain how the bible clearly and repeatedly somehow says that "God is one" and yet "God is three persons"...then go ahead friend. I suspect you'll end up where everyone else has. Or else having to deny that the bible says it at all....oh wait.



Oh please! Quite apart from showing your colours (hello SDA!), Paul addresses this head on!

Romans 14:5-6a: One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord.

Col 2:8-10: See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority...
Col 2:16-17: Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ...

Basically, Paul is saying that Christ has abolished the need for strict rules and regulations, having fulfilled them in his own body and sacrifice. Especially the Sabbath, as we see earlier that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Basically...it's important for man to rest, and to honor God. It doesn't matter what day we do it on. If your spirit convicts you to do it on a Saturday...more freedom to you. But don't you dare accuse people they have no right to do it on any other day they choose. Paul gives us the authority to do it on any day we choose. On every day we choose.




That's it? The Trinity and Sunday worship? Right. Yes, I can see how the Roman Catholic Church is secretly infiltrating and destroying our faith. Thank you.
You do realize that we have our own people, with their own theological reasons for having the doctrines of the Trinity and Sunday worship? They're pretty good, actually, you should try reading some some time. It might open your eyes a bit.

Okay. We are dealing with just two topics, the trinity and Sunday sacredness. Not about your stance on those topics, we can discuss that on another thread, but the RCCs stance, and the fact that the RCC boasts that because Protestantism believes as they do, then Protestantism is surrendering it's Sola scripture claim to papal authority. That's not my boast, it's Rome's. And Rome has backed that claim up by persecuting both Sabbath observers and arians relentlessly up to the 17th century.
On what basis did they do this? On the basis that they believed they had the right to coerce others to hold the same views as Rome, conscientiously or not. In doing this they went beyond acting as God, for God never compels the conscience.
The Mark of the beast is a religious liberty issue. Protestants who believe as Rome believes will be quite safe, so you wont have any problem.
As to your contention that I am attempting to define God, you couldn't be more wrong. It is actually the trinity doctrine itself that is a human definition of God. Christianity would have been far better off if they had left such definitions alone and simply accepted what the Bible reveals rather than take several steps beyond to satisfy human ego. The Bible says Jesus is the Son of God. Thus God is His Father. The holy Spirit is described as the Spirit of God. The Bible says nothing about Christ being eternal. It says He is immortal, but it also says He was begotten. How can someone who is begotten not have a beginning? How can someone who is inherently immortal, die? And if Jesus did not die because He is part of a trinity and cannot be separated from the other members of the godhead because God cannot be separated, what becomes of the atonement? Did Jesus die or not? Is He a literal Son or not? Is God His Father or is the trinity His Father? Is He as old as His Father?
I would add that the reason Jesus is God is BECAUSE He is God's Son. Everything His Father is, Jesus inherited. And it is because He received life from His Father, He was empowered to give it back, thus the life Christ has is a gift, our perhaps better described as His rightful inheritance as a Son.

 

[APAK]

@Naomi25

Naomi, I just could not resist answering a segment of your reply you made to Harvest 1874 recently where you quoted me. My words, about seeing the Trinity ‘woven’ in scripture. And as you said ‘wresting; the scriptures to make them something they are not.” Of course, I beg to differ with you. I would say you are doing the wrestling and not I.

As I have NO filters or lens to look through when I search and understand scripture, you do – the Trinity lens, an obscure, mysterious relationship of gods that promotes a false Christ and denies the existence of his Father, and ours, as the only God.



Anytime you want to discuss any scripture, even other than the Trinity let me know.

Bless you,

APAK

 

[bbyrd009]

@bbyrd009 ...
also...as the angels had/has God's nature and immortality. Jesus in heaven has God's nature and immortiality, and we as true believers will have the same nature of God and immortality when we are also glorified and transformed...

the discussion has moved on quite a bit...but i would test each of these more myself. Bearing in mind that the authors of NT were aware that their audience had for the most part "made up their minds" about where they were going when they died--same as us--but were required to be more circumspect bc this doctrine came from Rome. We might even examine when exactly one becomes a "Son of God" to realize when one becomes "glorified and transformed."

bc see, Kaepernick has become "glorified and transformed" already, in a sense. Now i don't mean to say that the future will not bring other transformations, but i can suggest that anything that conforms to "death, more abundantly" should be suspect

 

[bbyrd009]

He might very well be. He might be a great guy and a good Christian. I just think that to take the seat that he did, he has to have a fundamental flaw in his understanding in what Jesus meant for the Church to be. In how he intended it to function, with the Spirit as helper, Christ as mediator and nothing or no-one needed as a go between of 'figure-head'.

i agree, but then we all do this imo, many ppl believe they can fix democracy from within too, etc, so i am not inclined to judge someone who is a cradle Catholic for their choices there. The Roman Catholic church is an institution, and God puts leaders in institutions, i guess. It's not how i would have done it myself, but then 1Sam8 tells me it isn't what God prefers either

 

[bbyrd009]

Or chocolate! "Free chocolate if you follow me!". That could work. What people won't do for chocolate...or free stuff. People are a little stupid...

which is i guess why the Cult of Sol was so easy to fold in to the institutional "Christian" church

 

[bbyrd009]

Well...it's more of an "ipso facto" thing. The bible is a book (psst...books are full of words). The words are from God...some are right out of his mouth, or Jesus' mouth. Therefore, the Bible is God's word. Some guy might have told me this, but more likely I came to this startling conclusion myself. 'Cause I'm sharp like that.

i wouldn't deny that some are, yes, but for me the issue is revealed when we contemplate that the KJV is a Bible, and replaces PAssover with Easter, and then someone wants to insist that it is Word. Apart from the truth that if one calls Book Word, then by def they are not hearing Word, and would likely even dismiss It if they did

 

[bbyrd009]

So...if I'm reading you right, you're making the distinction between book (bible) and Word (Holy Spirit)?

yes, the same distinction Scripture makes, in many places. You cannot Quote "The Bible is the Word," and the relationship gets clearer the more you seek.

 

[bbyrd009]

Because I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just think you don't need to categorically pull them apart so much. Don't you feel the Spirit while reading the truth of God's word?

feelings are...not the best way to detect the Spirit, imo. i don't mean to say that emotions are bad per se, but they rep our "female," and imo one should find the Spirit from their male. Feelings are easy to "whip up," the heart is deceitful above all things, um, how else to illustrate this...preachers appeal to emotions, usually. Hence all the yelling and whatnot.

for an example, if you would like to post a truth that you have read from Scripture that you felt the Spirit in, i could reply to that.
You prolly aren't going to like it ok, but it would help to illuminate the nature of Scripture i guess.

i give you my word that it would help illuminate the nature of the Book. Now, has Mark Whittington(bbyrd009) just given you his word?

reflect upon the qualifications you would have to add if you were to tell someone, a cop say, that i had "given you my word" here. Iow you would have to add "well, i didn't actually hear him say it."

 

[bbyrd009]

Doesn't it echo in your soul? And then, even when not reading, the Spirit can whisper to you...sometimes it's just feelings, pressings upon the conscience. But other times he brings to mind those very passages, those truths.

all i can say here is that as long as Book is Word to you, you are running a light version of that program. Which might even be intentional. Not sure how i could show this in a post...what comes to mind is, right now when i post something like "they heard the Word, and then searched the Scriptures to see if it was true," guess i better Quote it, Acts 17:11,
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

you read one thing and i read another, essentially. ya, and there's nothing wrong with that per se, so i can already tell this line may not be productive, bc i certainly am not about to go commending myself to you, who have a better heart than me. It's strictly a personal thing. But you might see where there is Scripture that let's say the Spirit does not move you at all reading?

Let's keep in mind for instance that right now you are surely more likely to compare yourself with Jacob than Esau; so iow you associate with-
-{BDB Theological Dictionary and NOBSE Study Bible Name List both read Supplanter. BDB adds Heel, Overreach, One Closely Following. Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names reads He Will Supplant, A Heeler, One Who Trips Up or Takes Hold By The Heel.}-
-this guy, who literally put on sheep's clothing to (attempt to) fool his father, but are not getting any Spirit-feels at all reading Esau, who is Adam by another name, i could dig it up if you like. Which is not even a bad thing ok, Jacob becomes Israel, but it is woefully incomplete. Light-light version. I'm speaking generally here, this may not apply to you even, it was just the first example that came to mind. Esau is closed to...many believers iow.

i've rambled enough here i guess, but you might see that the truth is not always going to be a feel-good thing, and this does not mean that it is bad, just that it does not always fit with our expectations. Knowledge brings sorrow, but people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

 

[bbyrd009]

As David said...his word is as sweet as honey, and you can just savor it in your mouth...or soul. We don't need to...and shouldn't, separate them. They go hand in hand, and that's how God wants it.

i agree they go hand in hand yes, but hearing comes by the Word. So Word is surely much better IDed as that whisper you got that brought some Scripture to mind IRL, as you mentioned earlier.