Political Crossfire Forums

[Jonah]

psholtz wrote: John wrote: psholtz wrote: John wrote: It's about having Faith in a historical figure.
Christianity is about having faith in God, John..

Quote: In the man who is Christ...hence the name "Christianity"
The Christ is no man, John..

According to Christianity....the Messiah (Christ) is Jesus.
According to a strange sect of Judaism called Zionist Christianity, what you wrote above is true.

Isaiah 28

10 For it is:
Do and do, do and do,
rule on rule, rule on rule [a] ;
a little here, a little there."

11 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
God will speak to this people,

12 to whom he said,
"This is the resting place, let the weary rest";
and, "This is the place of repose"—
but they would not listen.

The rules refer to the law, the resting place refers to Christ as our rest. Who are the foreign lips and strange tongues reference to? :)

psholtz wrote: John wrote: Jesus Christ is God.
The early Christians held no such belief.

Let's not forget the Apostle Thomas, the Apostle Paul, etc. But I suppose you'll quote an A.D. date attached to when the first time the term "Christian" was ever used. :roll:

psholtz wrote: John wrote: Start a thread in the religion section on NeoPlatonism if that's what you want to discuss.
Christianity .. esp Pauline Christianity .. is *extremely* Neo-Platonic

Have a look:

http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2004/april/mtpub2.asp

"Pauline Christianity" may be *extremely* Neo-Platonic, but Neo-Platonism can not always be termed Christian, am I right?

[psholtz]

Jonah wrote: Isaiah 28

10 For it is:
Do and do, do and do,
rule on rule, rule on rule [a] ;
a little here, a little there."

11 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
God will speak to this people,

12 to whom he said,
"This is the resting place, let the weary rest";
and, "This is the place of repose"—
but they would not listen.

The rules refer to the law, the resting place refers to Christ as our rest. Who are the foreign lips and strange tongues reference to?
I don't know .. this is some strange Jewish prophecy, and like I just said, Zionist Christianity (or any flavor of Christianity that takes for itself a human "Messiah") seems to me to be more a sect of Judaism than anything.. a highly unusual sect, perhaps, in that it chooses to brazenly ignore the Law of Moses, but otherwise no more odd than the Jews who believe Simon bar Kochba or Shabbatai Zvi were the "Messiah"..

Beyond that, you seem to be insinuating that this passage is somehow a "prophecy" for your Jesus of Nazareth. I see no such indication anywhere in the New Testament Scriptures. If there is such justification, please cite chapter and verse (in the NT) where I can find this passage in Isaiah referenced.

Such a verse may exist in the NT, but if it does, I'm not familiar w/ it.

If such a verse does *not* exist, then know that you have no authority for making such a conjecture other than your own imagination, something that God Himself warns quite sternly against. To wit, again from Isaiah:

(The Lord saith): All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations.
-- Isaiah 65:2

Quote: psholtz wrote: John wrote: Jesus Christ is God.
The early Christians held no such belief.

Let's not forget the Apostle Thomas, the Apostle Paul, etc. But I suppose you'll quote an A.D. date attached to when the first time the term "Christian" was ever used.
The Apostles Thomas and Paul did not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was God Himself.

Quote: psholtz wrote: John wrote: Start a thread in the religion section on NeoPlatonism if that's what you want to discuss.
Christianity .. esp Pauline Christianity .. is *extremely* Neo-Platonic

Have a look:

http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2004/april/mtpub2.asp

"Pauline Christianity" may be *extremely* Neo-Platonic, but Neo-Platonism can not always be termed Christian, am I right?
Genearlly speaking, Neo-Platonists are not idolators, so in the modern (i.e., your) sense of the word "Christian", you're right, they probably should not be labeled as such. However, Neo-Platonists are quite familiar w/ the concept of the Christ, as is evident from the writings of Plato himself, St. Paul, or any of the later Neo-Platonists.

At least you admit that Christianity is Neo-Platontic, though.. :tu: :-D

[Random Evil Guy]

Jonah wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: Jonah wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: John wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: John wrote: Quote: Makes sense with or without Jesus. The value is in the lessons he taught, whether He actually lived (which I believe He did) or He was a fictional character. The lessons are real. The philosophy is real. The legends (not using that word as a derogatory) built around Him may give Him additional credibilty, but they are not necessary for His words to have power. Tolerance, respect for others, self-sacrifice, these are all valuable concepts in and of themselves.

Love your nieghbor and be kind can be found in other religions. But Christianity is a bird of a different color. It's about having Faith in a historical figure. In the man who is Christ...hence the name "Christianity"

Does it matter if the concepts exist in other faiths? Is this about living right or being right?

Christianity was nearly extinct at the time of Constantine's deathbed conversion. It didn't become the forcce it is today because of it's truth, but because of it's political success.

It exists becuase of something that happened in history.

And Christianity was not nearly extict at the time of Constantine's death.

A few hundred Christians living in caves or hiding their beliefs and a Roman emperor who had vowed to eradicate them from the face of the earth is pretty close to exinct. If Constantine had not converted (if he ever really did) Jesus would be as much a topic of conversation today as Zoraster.

It exists because of the story of something that happened in history, whether it actually happened or not. Christians don't believe in Jesus and then accept the story, they believe the story and then accept Jesus.

Not at all true. Christianity exists because God exists and is working on people's hearts to this day.


does that mean allah, shiva, brahma etc also exist?

Well, the Muslims believe in allah, and as I understand it, they base this partially on the Torah. I believe in the God who inspired the Torah, don't know that "allah" is His name, though.

Shiva and brahma fall more under the category of the bible's definition of the "god of this age." :wink:

ah bit of a pathetic god, isn't it. can't even get his message across without someone mixing it up...omnipotent? :lol:

[DwightEisenhower]

psholtz wrote: If such a verse does *not* exist, then know that you have no authority for making such a conjecture other than your own imagination, something that God Himself warns quite sternly against. To wit, again from Isaiah:

(The Lord saith): All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations.
-- Isaiah 65:2

He's referring to people who walk in ways not good, and therefore he assumes that their imaginations are likewise not good. This verse demonstrates the difference between the Image of God and the Image of Self; it doesn't say that we shouldn't have imaginations. I would think that would be obvious.

[mattwa33193]

John wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: John wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: John wrote: Quote: Makes sense with or without Jesus. The value is in the lessons he taught, whether He actually lived (which I believe He did) or He was a fictional character. The lessons are real. The philosophy is real. The legends (not using that word as a derogatory) built around Him may give Him additional credibilty, but they are not necessary for His words to have power. Tolerance, respect for others, self-sacrifice, these are all valuable concepts in and of themselves.

Love your nieghbor and be kind can be found in other religions. But Christianity is a bird of a different color. It's about having Faith in a historical figure. In the man who is Christ...hence the name "Christianity"

Does it matter if the concepts exist in other faiths? Is this about living right or being right?

Christianity was nearly extinct at the time of Constantine's deathbed conversion. It didn't become the forcce it is today because of it's truth, but because of it's political success.

It exists becuase of something that happened in history.

And Christianity was not nearly extict at the time of Constantine's death.

A few hundred Christians living in caves or hiding their beliefs and a Roman emperor who had vowed to eradicate them from the face of the earth is pretty close to exinct. If Constantine had not converted (if he ever really did) Jesus would be as much a topic of conversation today as Zoraster.

It exists because of the story of something that happened in history, whether it actually happened or not. Christians don't believe in Jesus and then accept the story, they believe the story and then accept Jesus.

Christianity was legalized well before Constantine's conversion. And the whole point of him doing it was to have an instant army of Christians who would fight for him. (Because there were a lot of them)

Persecution only caused Christianity to grow.

Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 after he supposedly had a vision of himself winning the battle of Chrysopholis with a cross on his standard. The question is whether he actually had the vision on his own or was manipulated through suggestion during illness or poison since it is believed that Christian "spies" had worked their way into positions close to him, like his personal valets. He did not legalize it in order to get Christians to fight for him.

Up until that point, Constantine spent much of his time joyfully torturing and mudering Christians. There were not many left when he stopped. He had vowed to kill them all, and he was the kind of guy who did what he set out to do.

[DwightEisenhower]

mattwa33193 wrote: John wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: John wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: John wrote: Quote: Makes sense with or without Jesus. The value is in the lessons he taught, whether He actually lived (which I believe He did) or He was a fictional character. The lessons are real. The philosophy is real. The legends (not using that word as a derogatory) built around Him may give Him additional credibilty, but they are not necessary for His words to have power. Tolerance, respect for others, self-sacrifice, these are all valuable concepts in and of themselves.

Love your nieghbor and be kind can be found in other religions. But Christianity is a bird of a different color. It's about having Faith in a historical figure. In the man who is Christ...hence the name "Christianity"

Does it matter if the concepts exist in other faiths? Is this about living right or being right?

Christianity was nearly extinct at the time of Constantine's deathbed conversion. It didn't become the forcce it is today because of it's truth, but because of it's political success.

It exists becuase of something that happened in history.

And Christianity was not nearly extict at the time of Constantine's death.

A few hundred Christians living in caves or hiding their beliefs and a Roman emperor who had vowed to eradicate them from the face of the earth is pretty close to exinct. If Constantine had not converted (if he ever really did) Jesus would be as much a topic of conversation today as Zoraster.

It exists because of the story of something that happened in history, whether it actually happened or not. Christians don't believe in Jesus and then accept the story, they believe the story and then accept Jesus.

Christianity was legalized well before Constantine's conversion. And the whole point of him doing it was to have an instant army of Christians who would fight for him. (Because there were a lot of them)

Persecution only caused Christianity to grow.

Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 after he supposedly had a vision of himself winning the battle of Chrysopholis with a cross on his standard. The question is whether he actually had the vision on his own or was manipulated through suggestion during illness or poison since it is believed that Christian "spies" had worked their way into positions close to him, like his personal valets. He did not legalize it in order to get Christians to fight for him.

Up until that point, Constantine spent much of his time joyfully torturing and mudering Christians. There were not many left when he stopped. He had vowed to kill them all, and he was the kind of guy who did what he set out to do.

It's also worth noting that Constantine knew nothing about Christianity when he converted, even thinking that the "war God" Jesus would help his campaign.

[Random Evil Guy]

DwightEisenhower wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: John wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: John wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: John wrote: Quote: Makes sense with or without Jesus. The value is in the lessons he taught, whether He actually lived (which I believe He did) or He was a fictional character. The lessons are real. The philosophy is real. The legends (not using that word as a derogatory) built around Him may give Him additional credibilty, but they are not necessary for His words to have power. Tolerance, respect for others, self-sacrifice, these are all valuable concepts in and of themselves.

Love your nieghbor and be kind can be found in other religions. But Christianity is a bird of a different color. It's about having Faith in a historical figure. In the man who is Christ...hence the name "Christianity"

Does it matter if the concepts exist in other faiths? Is this about living right or being right?

Christianity was nearly extinct at the time of Constantine's deathbed conversion. It didn't become the forcce it is today because of it's truth, but because of it's political success.

It exists becuase of something that happened in history.

And Christianity was not nearly extict at the time of Constantine's death.

A few hundred Christians living in caves or hiding their beliefs and a Roman emperor who had vowed to eradicate them from the face of the earth is pretty close to exinct. If Constantine had not converted (if he ever really did) Jesus would be as much a topic of conversation today as Zoraster.

It exists because of the story of something that happened in history, whether it actually happened or not. Christians don't believe in Jesus and then accept the story, they believe the story and then accept Jesus.

Christianity was legalized well before Constantine's conversion. And the whole point of him doing it was to have an instant army of Christians who would fight for him. (Because there were a lot of them)

Persecution only caused Christianity to grow.

Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 after he supposedly had a vision of himself winning the battle of Chrysopholis with a cross on his standard. The question is whether he actually had the vision on his own or was manipulated through suggestion during illness or poison since it is believed that Christian "spies" had worked their way into positions close to him, like his personal valets. He did not legalize it in order to get Christians to fight for him.

Up until that point, Constantine spent much of his time joyfully torturing and mudering Christians. There were not many left when he stopped. He had vowed to kill them all, and he was the kind of guy who did what he set out to do.

It's also worth noting that Constantine knew nothing about Christianity when he converted, even thinking that the "war God" Jesus would help his campaign.

you mean to tell me jesus/the abrahamic god wasn't a war god? so what's the deal with revelations and, basically, the entire old testament then...?

[DwightEisenhower]

Random Evil Guy wrote: DwightEisenhower wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: John wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: John wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: John wrote: Quote: Makes sense with or without Jesus. The value is in the lessons he taught, whether He actually lived (which I believe He did) or He was a fictional character. The lessons are real. The philosophy is real. The legends (not using that word as a derogatory) built around Him may give Him additional credibilty, but they are not necessary for His words to have power. Tolerance, respect for others, self-sacrifice, these are all valuable concepts in and of themselves.

Love your nieghbor and be kind can be found in other religions. But Christianity is a bird of a different color. It's about having Faith in a historical figure. In the man who is Christ...hence the name "Christianity"

Does it matter if the concepts exist in other faiths? Is this about living right or being right?

Christianity was nearly extinct at the time of Constantine's deathbed conversion. It didn't become the forcce it is today because of it's truth, but because of it's political success.

It exists becuase of something that happened in history.

And Christianity was not nearly extict at the time of Constantine's death.

A few hundred Christians living in caves or hiding their beliefs and a Roman emperor who had vowed to eradicate them from the face of the earth is pretty close to exinct. If Constantine had not converted (if he ever really did) Jesus would be as much a topic of conversation today as Zoraster.

It exists because of the story of something that happened in history, whether it actually happened or not. Christians don't believe in Jesus and then accept the story, they believe the story and then accept Jesus.

Christianity was legalized well before Constantine's conversion. And the whole point of him doing it was to have an instant army of Christians who would fight for him. (Because there were a lot of them)

Persecution only caused Christianity to grow.

Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 after he supposedly had a vision of himself winning the battle of Chrysopholis with a cross on his standard. The question is whether he actually had the vision on his own or was manipulated through suggestion during illness or poison since it is believed that Christian "spies" had worked their way into positions close to him, like his personal valets. He did not legalize it in order to get Christians to fight for him.

Up until that point, Constantine spent much of his time joyfully torturing and mudering Christians. There were not many left when he stopped. He had vowed to kill them all, and he was the kind of guy who did what he set out to do.

It's also worth noting that Constantine knew nothing about Christianity when he converted, even thinking that the "war God" Jesus would help his campaign.

you mean to tell me jesus/the abrahamic god wasn't a war god? so what's the deal with revelations and, basically, the entire old testament then...?

I don't even know where to begin.

1. Jesus' ENTIRE message was to love everyone, especially your enemies. If you don't understand that, you don't understand Christianity.

2. Jesus didn't appear in the Old Testament. If you'd like to check you certainly can.

3. The Old Testament is not meant to be taken literally. If you believe God "flooded the Earth" and "appeared to people speaking down from the clouds" or whatever, you should also believe that wearing two different frabrics of clothing is punishable by death if you're a Christian, and the Earth should be no more than 6000 years old. I'm sorry; the OT can't be taken literally.

[Random Evil Guy]

jesus is god. god was an ****. jesus is an ****. simple logic...

[DwightEisenhower]

Random Evil Guy wrote: jesus is god. god was an ***hole. jesus is an ***hole. simple logic...

Have you read the New Testament?

[mattwa33193]

Random Evil Guy wrote: jesus is god. god was an ***hole. jesus is an ***hole. simple logic...

Assuming that Jesus was divine (which I don't, but assuming He was) -

God has moods. His mood swings might not seem too bad from His perspective, but being universally omnipotent is a pretty long lever so they look bad to us.

Or -

The whole monotheism - polytheism thing comes into play. Do polythiests see multiple gods because one God has mny moods, or are monotheists trying to cram multile gods into a single pesonality, leading to some seemingly erratic behavior. That would also raise the question of whether Jesus was a god himself, or if he was granted divinity and sent here then which god sent Him?

[Random Evil Guy]

mattwa33193 wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: jesus is god. god was an ***hole. jesus is an ***hole. simple logic...

Assuming that Jesus was divine (which I don't, but assuming He was) -

God has moods. His mood swings might not seem too bad from His perspective, but being universally omnipotent is a pretty long lever so they look bad to us.

Or -

The whole monotheism - polytheism thing comes into play. Do polythiests see multiple gods because one God has mny moods, or are monotheists trying to cram multile gods into a single pesonality, leading to some seemingly erratic behavior. That would also raise the question of whether Jesus was a god himself, or if he was granted divinity and sent here then which god sent Him?

how could a 'perfect, omnipotent, all knowing blabla being' have moods?

[DwightEisenhower]

Random Evil Guy wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: jesus is god. god was an ***hole. jesus is an ***hole. simple logic...

Assuming that Jesus was divine (which I don't, but assuming He was) -

God has moods. His mood swings might not seem too bad from His perspective, but being universally omnipotent is a pretty long lever so they look bad to us.

Or -

The whole monotheism - polytheism thing comes into play. Do polythiests see multiple gods because one God has mny moods, or are monotheists trying to cram multile gods into a single pesonality, leading to some seemingly erratic behavior. That would also raise the question of whether Jesus was a god himself, or if he was granted divinity and sent here then which god sent Him?

how could a 'perfect, omnipotent, all knowing blabla being' have moods?

God doesn't have moods. Underlying premise of Christianity = God doesn't change.

[psholtz]

DwightEisenhower wrote: psholtz wrote: If such a verse does *not* exist, then know that you have no authority for making such a conjecture other than your own imagination, something that God Himself warns quite sternly against. To wit, again from Isaiah:

(The Lord saith): All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations.
-- Isaiah 65:2

He's referring to people who walk in ways not good, and therefore he assumes that their imaginations are likewise not good. This verse demonstrates the difference between the Image of God and the Image of Self; it doesn't say that we shouldn't have imaginations. I would think that would be obvious.
I agree w/ everything you said.

The point is, interpreting Scripture is *not* one place where people should use their imaginations. There is a proper way to interpret Scripture, and many improper ways. If you want to know what Scripture really means, go find a teacher. Don't just sit around by yourself, trying to dream up new interpretations where the Gospel writers didn't see any.

That only leads down into a very deep hole.

[psholtz]

mattwa33193 wrote: God has moods. His mood swings might not seem too bad from His perspective, but being universally omnipotent is a pretty long lever so they look bad to us.
According to the Jewish Old Testament, God has many "moods" and is prone to throwing violent fits of anger. In reality, this probably means little more than that the Jewish people themselves in those days had many moods and were prone to throwing violent fits of anger. The god of a merchant is a merchant, etc..

In fact, God is eternal and does not change. There are no "moods" to be contended w/ ...

[Jonah]

psholtz wrote: Jonah wrote: Isaiah 28

10 For it is:
Do and do, do and do,
rule on rule, rule on rule [a] ;
a little here, a little there."

11 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
God will speak to this people,

12 to whom he said,
"This is the resting place, let the weary rest";
and, "This is the place of repose"—
but they would not listen.

The rules refer to the law, the resting place refers to Christ as our rest. Who are the foreign lips and strange tongues reference to?
I don't know .. this is some strange Jewish prophecy, and like I just said, Zionist Christianity (or any flavor of Christianity that takes for itself a human "Messiah") seems to me to be more a sect of Judaism than anything.. a highly unusual sect, perhaps, in that it chooses to brazenly ignore the Law of Moses, but otherwise no more odd than the Jews who believe Simon bar Kochba or Shabbatai Zvi were the "Messiah"..

Beyond that, you seem to be insinuating that this passage is somehow a "prophecy" for your Jesus of Nazareth. I see no such indication anywhere in the New Testament Scriptures. If there is such justification, please cite chapter and verse (in the NT) where I can find this passage in Isaiah referenced.

Such a verse may exist in the NT, but if it does, I'm not familiar w/ it.

If such a verse does *not* exist, then know that you have no authority for making such a conjecture other than your own imagination, something that God Himself warns quite sternly against. To wit, again from Isaiah:

(The Lord saith): All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations.
-- Isaiah 65:2

Quote: psholtz wrote: John wrote: Jesus Christ is God.
The early Christians held no such belief.

Let's not forget the Apostle Thomas, the Apostle Paul, etc. But I suppose you'll quote an A.D. date attached to when the first time the term "Christian" was ever used.
The Apostles Thomas and Paul did not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was God Himself.

Quote: psholtz wrote: John wrote: Start a thread in the religion section on NeoPlatonism if that's what you want to discuss.
Christianity .. esp Pauline Christianity .. is *extremely* Neo-Platonic

Have a look:

http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2004/april/mtpub2.asp

"Pauline Christianity" may be *extremely* Neo-Platonic, but Neo-Platonism can not always be termed Christian, am I right?
Genearlly speaking, Neo-Platonists are not idolators, so in the modern (i.e., your) sense of the word "Christian", you're right, they probably should not be labeled as such. However, Neo-Platonists are quite familiar w/ the concept of the Christ, as is evident from the writings of Plato himself, St. Paul, or any of the later Neo-Platonists.

At least you admit that Christianity is Neo-Platontic, though.. :tu: :-D

Here's your verse:
1 Cor 14
20Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. 21In the Law it is written:
"Through men of strange tongues
and through the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
but even then they will not listen to me,"[a] says the Lord.

22Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.

Make careful note of verse 22 as well.

Also, if the Apostle Thomas did not believe that Jesus was God, why did he exclaim, upon putting his hand into Jesus side, "My Lord and My God!"
Funny how Jesus neither rebuked him nor stopped him from worshipping him. :)

A perusing of Paul's espistles will clear up who he thought Jesus was. I'm not saying that these men thought Jesus was God the Father, they understood, though, that Jesus "and the Father are one." Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, "who proceeds forth from the Father."

[Jonah]

psholtz wrote: DwightEisenhower wrote: psholtz wrote: If such a verse does *not* exist, then know that you have no authority for making such a conjecture other than your own imagination, something that God Himself warns quite sternly against. To wit, again from Isaiah:

(The Lord saith): All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations.
-- Isaiah 65:2

He's referring to people who walk in ways not good, and therefore he assumes that their imaginations are likewise not good. This verse demonstrates the difference between the Image of God and the Image of Self; it doesn't say that we shouldn't have imaginations. I would think that would be obvious.
I agree w/ everything you said.

The point is, interpreting Scripture is *not* one place where people should use their imaginations. There is a proper way to interpret Scripture, and many improper ways. If you want to know what Scripture really means, go find a teacher. Don't just sit around by yourself, trying to dream up new interpretations where the Gospel writers didn't see any.
That only leads down into a very deep hole.

I already have a teacher. :-D
Scripture itself declares something totally contrary to what you've said:

1 John 2:27 "As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."

I'm not by myself! His Spirit abides and remains with me.

Interpreting scripture is *not* a place where a person can *ever* use his/her intellect by itself without the Holy Spirit. This is why you always disagree with what we understand scripture to say.

[psholtz]

Jonah wrote: Here's your verse:
1 Cor 14
20Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. 21In the Law it is written:
"Through men of strange tongues
and through the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
but even then they will not listen to me,"[a] says the Lord.

22Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.

Make careful note of verse 22 as well.
Yes, these are very Neoplatonic verses, I agree..

Quote: Also, if the Apostle Thomas did not believe that Jesus was God, why did he exclaim, upon putting his hand into Jesus side, "My Lord and My God!"
Funny how Jesus neither rebuked him nor stopped him from worshipping him.
What you just quoted to me (as if it were some kind of legal precedent) is nothing more than a children's story .. a children's story, moreover, which contains very deep and profound symbolism, all of which is utterly lost on you.

[psholtz]

Jonah wrote: I already have a teacher.
Then I guess your teacher needs to go out and find himself a teacher.

Quote: Scripture itself declares something totally contrary to what you've said:

1 John 2:27 "As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."

I'm not by myself! His Spirit abides and remains with me.
What makes you think that St. John had you (of all people) in mind as his intended audience when he was writing these verses?

Quote: Interpreting scripture is *not* a place where a person can *ever* use his/her intellect by itself without the Holy Spirit. This is why you always disagree with what we understand scripture to say.
I understand perfectly what you're trying to say about Scripture. You're saying that you're lazy, you're irresponsible, and that you desire someone else to vicariously atone for the sins that you yourself have committed. Nothing new or interesting in that. Same old business the human race has been up to for at least the past 5,000 years or so. Just know that such feelings are gravely in error and that they lead nowhere but down into the pits of Hell..

God gave man many gifts, all of which are required when living the life as Jesus taught us to in John 14:6 .. If all you're doing w/ your life is just sitting around and "reading" Scripture (in a pagan tongue like English, no less), then you've already missed the boat.

[Jonah]

psholtz wrote: Jonah wrote: Here's your verse:
1 Cor 14
20Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. 21In the Law it is written:
"Through men of strange tongues
and through the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
but even then they will not listen to me,"[a] says the Lord.

22Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.

Make careful note of verse 22 as well.
Yes, these are very Neoplatonic verses, I agree..

Quote: Also, if the Apostle Thomas did not believe that Jesus was God, why did he exclaim, upon putting his hand into Jesus side, "My Lord and My God!"
Funny how Jesus neither rebuked him nor stopped him from worshipping him.
What you just quoted to me (as if it were some kind of legal precedent) is nothing more than a children's story .. a children's story, moreover, which contains very deep and profound symbolism, all of which is utterly lost on you.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Whatever, man.

Catching psholtz is like grasping oil with the hands. :lol: