Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-30-2017 2:32 PM
449 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,236 Year: 6,842/21,208 Month: 2,603/2,634 Week: 266/525 Day: 25/74 Hour: 2/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Author Topic:   Did Jesus teach reincarnation?
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9348
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 136 of 166 (777658)
02-05-2016 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by jaywill
02-05-2016 12:23 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
Maybe you consider very much of the New Testament as a weak argument.

Cute.

The New Testament is a great argument for the concepts it teaches. However, some points of doctrine that various groups of Christians believe are essential, are not clearly taught in the New Testament. For those concepts, the New Testament provides ambiguous and sometimes contradictory answers. I've seen you and others twist in the wind and deny that some verses are contrary to some doctrines you insist on.

On the relationship between God and Jesus, we have verses that clearly present a Father and Son relationship between the two with strong indications of the two of them being separate, and other verses that are argued to say that Jesus is God. People differ on the interpretation of those verses.

I didn't mention Christianity at all. Christ said "Why do you persecute Me."

Here is what you actually said, jaywill. Message 127

jaywill writes:

2.) Paul, speaking of his past as a strict thiestic Pharisee, now confesses to us that he had committed blasphemy when persecuting the Christian church.

In short, you talked about Paul persecuting the Christian Church without quoting a single verse. Perhaps you actually meant to make a different argument. But even given the actual question, we know that what Paul actually did was to attack Christ followers for following Christ. We are still left with the problem that your definition of blasphemy being incorrect and in fact limited to directly attacking God's divinity for the sole purpose of making this argument.

Go with the discussion in that article then.
That is no loss to me personally.

But it seemed like you were still wavering about the article's points.

I was still wavering, at least for the purpose of this discussion. It turns out that the actual evidence that Paul believed that Jesus was God is rather thin. The actual best verse I saw quoted in the article is the argument that Paul called Jesus the Creator. I also spent some time online looking at other arguments.

In the end, I conclude that even if Paul's opinion is not conclusive, Paul is just one opinion and my own opinion does not change just because of what I can or cannot find Paul to say.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by jaywill, posted 02-05-2016 12:23 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Admin, posted 02-05-2016 9:56 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 142 by jaywill, posted 02-06-2016 9:41 AM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9348
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 137 of 166 (777659)
02-05-2016 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by jaywill
02-05-2016 12:23 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
Tell me about the best argument that causes you to accept Jesus' divinity.

I thought I would address this question more directly. There are separate questions about whether Jesus is divine and whether he is Yahweh. In my opinion Jesus divinity is unquestioned, and Paul is clear about that. What is less clear are the details of how that divinity works. In short what is at question is not the divinity of Jesus, but the nature of the Trinity at a level of detail that I personally find unimportant and probably not resolvable to my own satisfaction.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by jaywill, posted 02-05-2016 12:23 AM jaywill has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12395
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 138 of 166 (777660)
02-05-2016 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by NoNukes
02-05-2016 9:40 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
NoNukes replying to Jaywill writes:

We are still left with the problem that your definition of blasphemy being incorrect and in fact limited to directly attacking God's divinity for the sole purpose of making this argument.

I don't know if this helps, but I think Jaywill is using a specific definition of blasphemy, something like this one from Young's Compact Bible Dictionary:

quote:
BLASPHEMY (speak, reviling) Dishonoring and reviling the name, work, or being of God by word or deed. It is sometimes translated "cursed" or "profaned" (1Ki. 21:10, 13; Isa. 52:5; Eze: 20:27; 36:20). Death by stoning was the penalty (Lev. 24:16). See CURSE

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2016 9:40 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by jaywill, posted 02-05-2016 8:23 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12826
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 139 of 166 (777664)
02-05-2016 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by jaywill
02-04-2016 1:03 PM


Re: (Un) Conspicuous Appearances?
jaywill writes:

You are skeptical about everything except your own skepticism.


On the contrary, I welcome any criticism of what I've said.

But you don't have any. Your only response was, "I belief, I believe, I believe...." Say something substantive and watch me agree with you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by jaywill, posted 02-04-2016 1:03 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by jaywill, posted 02-05-2016 8:58 PM ringo has responded

  
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 140 of 166 (777686)
02-05-2016 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Admin
02-05-2016 9:56 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
BLASPHEMY (speak, reviling) Dishonoring and reviling the name, work, or being of God by word or deed. It is sometimes translated "cursed" or "profaned" (1Ki. 21:10, 13; Isa. 52:5; Eze: 20:27; 36:20). Death by stoning was the penalty (Lev. 24:16). See CURSE

I find it helpful. Thanks.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Admin, posted 02-05-2016 9:56 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 141 of 166 (777688)
02-05-2016 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by ringo
02-05-2016 10:50 AM


Re: (Un) Conspicuous Appearances?
quote:
On the contrary, I welcome any criticism of what I've said.

But you don't have any. Your only response was, "I belief, I believe, I believe...." Say something substantive and watch me agree with you.


So to you to "believe" is beggarly and weak ?
I mean do you consider that if someone "believes" then that which is "believed" simply MUST not be true ?

IE. "Oh, you believe. Well, if you have to BELIEVE, then that means what is BELIEVED is unsure and probably not reality."

Perhaps to you, "belief" is like a poor stepchild. "Oh, you poor, poor fellow. You only have your belief. Now me, I have mathematical certainty and science and all this really solid stuff! "

Well, the Bible tells us upfront in no uncertain terms, that these things about God are a matter of our believing His word.

You could consider "belief" in God's word as necessarily a humbling matter.
You can consider "faith" as God's way to bridge the, perhaps infinite gap, between what we are as limited creations and what He is as the eternal unlimited uncreated Person.

Someday, you should get a good concordance of the New Testament out and look up all the verses in the Gospel of John on the word "believe" . Maybe a slight change in your attitude serve you well.

A concluding verse in John's Gospel -

"Moreover indeed many other signs also Jesus did before His disciples, which are not written in this book.

But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His name." (John 20:30,31)

Yes, I believe. But it is not a blind leap of believing. It is a believing in which a confirming experience of having "life in His name" assures me that I AM on the right track to believe in Jesus, the Son of God.

My experience as a Christian has been believing with a real sense of confirmation that He in Whom I believe is reality.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by ringo, posted 02-05-2016 10:50 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by ringo, posted 02-06-2016 10:53 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 142 of 166 (777704)
02-06-2016 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by NoNukes
02-05-2016 9:40 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
The New Testament is a great argument for the concepts it teaches. However, some points of doctrine that various groups of Christians believe are essential, are not clearly taught in the New Testament. For those concepts, the New Testament provides ambiguous and sometimes contradictory answers. I've seen you and others twist in the wind and deny that some verses are contrary to some doctrines you insist on.

Would you give me an example of where I twisted in the wind some verses contrary to some doctrine I insisted on ?

Give me your strongest example from this discussion ? Where did I twist something to deny a contradiction to something I said was en essential doctrine ?

quote:

On the relationship between God and Jesus, we have verses that clearly present a Father and Son relationship between the two with strong indications of the two of them being separate,

The discussion I have labored on and will probably do so again, shows that though Father, Son and Spirit are distinct, they are not separate. This was shown in the experiencial passage that the Spirit of God was also the Spirit of Christ which was also Christ Himself.

Romans 8:9-11 suggest that the one in whom God dwells cannot detect any difference of separation between the Three of the Trinity.

Do you find me to be saying that "twist[ing] in the wind" something ? I am quoting the Apostle Paul's teaching.

Did I twist something about God when I said that it was probably impossible to explain fully the Trinity but was not difficult to experience God ? Was that twisting ?

quote:

and other verses that are argued to say that Jesus is God. People differ on the interpretation of those verses.

That's fine. My main point was that to the one who has the happy experience of receiving Jesus to be the INDWELLING One as in Romans 8, he can detect no separation between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Do you agree on any level that this is both experiencially so and apparently so from what Paul wrote in Romans 8:9-11 ?

It seems to me that if I said the Trinity could be fully explained THEN I would have to twist paradoxical passages which did not agree with some particular aspect I thought essential.

I do consider the indwelling of the Triune God for man's experience to be essential to the Christian indeed. But that the Trinity is mysterious or has paradoxical or even seemingly contradictory concepts about Him, I have not once denied here.

I have no need to twist. I only have need to confess, as I have, that the Trinity is probably impossible to fully explain.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2016 9:40 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2016 2:25 PM jaywill has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 12826
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 143 of 166 (777705)
02-06-2016 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by jaywill
02-05-2016 8:58 PM


Re: (Un) Conspicuous Appearances?
jaywill writes:

So to you to "believe" is beggarly and weak ?


Yes.

jaywill writes:

I mean do you consider that if someone "believes" then that which is "believed" simply MUST not be true ?


I consider that if one person believes that Jesus taught reincarnation and another person believes that He didn't, they can't both be right. There are (at least) as many false beliefs as true ones.

jaywill writes:

Perhaps to you, "belief" is like a poor stepchild.


Yes. See above.

Jesus Himself invited Thomas to examine the evidence. When there is evidence, it trumps belief.

You seem to forget that I agree with you about what Jesus taught. I just pointed out one weak spot in your reasoning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by jaywill, posted 02-05-2016 8:58 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9348
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 144 of 166 (777717)
02-06-2016 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by jaywill
02-06-2016 9:41 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
Would you give me an example of where I twisted in the wind some verses contrary to some doctrine I insisted on ?

No. It was not a productive thing to say and I should not have made the comment. I apologize for saying it.

The discussion I have labored on and will probably do so again, shows that though Father, Son and Spirit are distinct, they are not separate.

That is what you are attempting to show. It is a matter of opinion as to whether you have been successful. I don't believe it is possible to make the showing you are attempting, so lack of success is not completely your fault. For example, some people might believe an instance of God speaking of His Son, with pride, and in the third person, is absolutely conclusive on the issue.

Romans 8:9-11 suggest that the one in whom God dwells cannot detect any difference of separation between the Three of the Trinity.

Correct. It "suggests" but does not prove. A reading of those verses that would indicate otherwise is to consider Paul as using an analogy between the Spirit of Jesus dwelling in his believers and the Spirit of God which raised Jesus. In particular 8:11 seems to literally express a First Person->Third Person relationship wherein God resurrected Jesus rather than Jesus resurrecting himself.

Further, I find it nearly impossible to read 8:17 which makes us God's joint heirs with Jesus as not stating a separation between Father and Son. If there is actually no separation it is despite rather than according to the text.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by jaywill, posted 02-06-2016 9:41 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by jaywill, posted 02-06-2016 3:47 PM NoNukes has responded

    
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 145 of 166 (777720)
02-06-2016 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by NoNukes
02-06-2016 2:25 PM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
No. It was not a productive thing to say and I should not have made the comment. I apologize for saying it.

Accepted.

quote:

jaywill:
The discussion I have labored on and will probably do so again, shows that though Father, Son and Spirit are distinct, they are not separate.

Nonukes:
That is what you are attempting to show. It is a matter of opinion as to whether you have been successful.


" And the Lord is the Spirit ..." (2 Cor. 3:17a)

I interpret that to mean that the Lord is the Spirit.
How do you interpret that ?

If I so interpret that the Lord is the Spirit would that not explain why Paul uses the Spirit of God and Christ interchangeably in Romans 8:9-11?

quote:

I don't believe it is possible to make the showing you are attempting, so lack of success is not completely your fault.

Is the New Testament also at fault for saying -

"And the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom." ?

Explain how I have failed to show that the Lord is the Spirit but the New Testament has not in informing me that " ... the Lord is the Spirit "

Why do I have a lack of success when I quote the plain words of the New Testament.

quote:

For example, some people might believe an instance of God speaking of His Son, with pride, and in the third person, is absolutely conclusive on the issue.

If you are referring to Matthew 17:5 where a majestic voice said -

"This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I have found my delight. Hear Him!"

I have not now nor previous had any intention to deny -

quote:
" ... an instance of God speaking of His Son, with pride, and in the third person, is absolutely conclusive on the issue. "

Did I deny that it was God speaking to His Son ?

How about I believe this and also that "the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17) ?
Am I twisting things to believe both ?
The Bible says both.

I can detect no separation between the Father and the Son when I enjoy the indwelling Person of God.

quote:

jaywill:
Romans 8:9-11 suggest that the one in whom God dwells cannot detect any difference of separation between the Three of the Trinity.

Nonukes:
Correct. It "suggests" but does not prove.


Good enough. "Suggest" or "prove" ... don't misdirect your blame to me.
I just am happy to believe all that the Scripture has taught me in this.

What do you think is the suggestion of this passage -

" the last Adam became a life giving Spirit " (1 Cor. 15:45)

What do you think it proves when the NT says -

" For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord ... " (2 Cor. 4:5a)

Yet above it says - "And the Lord is the Spirit ... " (3:17a) .

Does this suggest to you why Paul uses "the Spirit of God" interchangeably with "Christ" in Romans 8:9-11 ?

quote:

A reading of those verses that would indicate otherwise is to consider Paul as using an analogy between the Spirit of Jesus dwelling in his believers and the Spirit of God which raised Jesus. In particular 8:11 seems to literally express a First Person->Third Person relationship wherein God resurrected Jesus rather than Jesus resurrecting himself.

How about I believe both? I mean God the Father raised Jesus and Jesus raised Himself.

How about along with it saying God raised Him I also accept that He had the authority to lay down His life and He had the authority to take it up again also ?

" For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself.

I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again." (John 10:17,18)

How about I just trust God Who has uttered both things ? Jesus said He would raise up His slain body in three days -

"Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again." ( John 2:19)

This would explain why the Apostle Paul would use interchangeably that the One indwelling the believers is "Christ" and "the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead."

quote:

Further, I find it nearly impossible to read 8:17 which makes us God's joint heirs with Jesus as not stating a separation between Father and Son. If there is actually no separation it is despite rather than according to the text.

The theological term coinherance is useful. It means that One lives in the Other. It means within This One that One lives. And within that One this One lives.

The Father lives in the Son and the Son lives in the Father and they come as the Holy Spirit - being the Divine "WE" to indwell the lovers of Christ.

" Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him,

and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)

That would certainly explain why the coming into man of the Holy Spirit is the coming in of the Father and His Son as the Divine "We" to make an abode with the Christian.

You could say that the "Spirit of God, ... the Spirit of Christ, ... Christ, and the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead" are One mysterious indwelling God Who is also a divine "We".

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2016 2:25 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2016 8:08 PM jaywill has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9348
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 146 of 166 (777725)
02-06-2016 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by jaywill
02-06-2016 3:47 PM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
How about I believe both? I mean God the Father raised Jesus and Jesus raised Himself.

That explains how you resolve a textual issue in your own mind. But the evidence does not come from the text, but from an idea you have before looking at the text. However you came to your conclusion, it probably was not from reading 8:11.

The Father lives in the Son and the Son lives in the Father and they come as the Holy Spirit - being the Divine "WE" to indwell the lovers of Christ.

I don't see how this addressed the point, which is that the most direct reading of the text actually suggests something quite different. I am not trying to convince you that Jesus is not God. I'm only suggesting that it is not completely clear what Paul's thinking on the issue is.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by jaywill, posted 02-06-2016 3:47 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by jaywill, posted 02-07-2016 7:12 AM NoNukes has responded

    
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 147 of 166 (777742)
02-07-2016 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by NoNukes
02-06-2016 8:08 PM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
That explains how you resolve a textual issue in your own mind. But the evidence does not come from the text, but from an idea you have before looking at the text. However you came to your conclusion, it probably was not from reading 8:11.

My attitude is one of finally realizing that I do not HAVE to be able to reconcile seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible on the Triune God's mysterious nature. Rather than use one passage to suppress the truth of another, I trust that both are true.

This is more a surrender to the words of Scripture after a long period of seeing Christian brothers debate verse against verse.

And once again, subjectively, neither I nor the audience of the Roman letter can practically detect any separation between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit there. Subjective experience is important. It is very important.

You only have one "Person" Who indwells the believers there. That is one "Person" with interchangeable titles.

quote:

jaywill:
The Father lives in the Son and the Son lives in the Father and they come as the Holy Spirit - being the Divine "WE" to indwell the lovers of Christ.

Nonukes:
I don't see how this addressed the point, which is that the most direct reading of the text actually suggests something quite different. I am not trying to convince you that Jesus is not God. I'm only suggesting that it is not completely clear what Paul's thinking on the issue is.


On the point of verse about being co-heirs with Christ, I may not have sufficiently considered your point and will revisit it. Off the top of my head I think you spoke to verse 17.

I'll look at that again.

quote:
Further, I find it nearly impossible to read 8:17 which makes us God's joint heirs with Jesus as not stating a separation between Father and Son. If there is actually no separation it is despite rather than according to the text.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2016 8:08 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2016 7:20 AM jaywill has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9348
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 148 of 166 (777743)
02-07-2016 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by jaywill
02-07-2016 7:12 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
My attitude is one of finally realizing that I do not HAVE to be able to reconcile seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible on the Triune God's mysterious nature. Rather than use one passage to suppress the truth of another, I trust that both are true.

I am sure that is exactly the method that people use to come up with understandings that are completely different from your own. And it is impossible to tell from the text who is correct.

I never claimed that any passage of the Bible was not correct. In fact, if we assume that they are all correct, then the question becomes how do we reconcile apparent conflicts and what is our starting point for resolution. There should be a way to do a text first, doctrine second reading. If not, then your doctrine is not grounded in scripture.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by jaywill, posted 02-07-2016 7:12 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by jaywill, posted 02-07-2016 10:52 PM NoNukes has responded

    
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 149 of 166 (777763)
02-07-2016 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by NoNukes
02-07-2016 7:20 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
I am sure that is exactly the method that people use to come up with understandings that are completely different from your own. And it is impossible to tell from the text who is correct.

So we throw up our hands and resign ourselves that it is "impossible to tell from the context who is correct" ?

Now what ? We don't be too pushy ? We dare not teach or fellowship the "impossible to tell" something passages ? We remain suspicious of each other that nothing should be believed too much ?

quote:

I never claimed that any passage of the Bible was not correct.

I apologize if I seemed to say that about you falsely.

quote:

In fact, if we assume that they are all correct, then the question becomes how do we reconcile apparent conflicts and what is our starting point for resolution. There should be a way to do a text first, doctrine second reading. If not, then your doctrine is not grounded in scripture.

I think the spirit and tone of the chapter is experience and enjoyment of God Himself.
What understanding enhances that, I think you should go for. Hold fast the Head - Christ. It enriches my Christian walk to see the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are indwelling me, giving life, being the realm to walk in and live in.

Concerning textural difficulties, I did write above that it was difficult for translators to know if the human spirit is meant or the Holy Spirit is meant in certain passages. And I gave what I think is the best way IMO to understand it. Actually I went through much show the obscurity in this as to what Paul may have meant.

If you want to emphasize the separateness of the Three of the Trinity in verses 9 - 11 rather than their coinherence, go ahead. I will continue with a clear conscience, to show people how the labels are used interchangeably.

Do you agree to this? Or is there a need for one of us to tell the other to STOP explaining Romans 8:9-11 in some manner ?

I don't sense the need to oppose you saying it is impossible to tell what Paul meant, if you want to. I remain enthusiastic that this passages shows one mysterious three-one God dispensed into His believers to be life to them.

Don't be too bothered if you see me labor the point again with another poster.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2016 7:20 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2016 2:47 AM jaywill has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9348
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 150 of 166 (777765)
02-08-2016 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by jaywill
02-07-2016 10:52 PM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
we throw up our hands and resign ourselves that it is "impossible to tell from the context who is correct" ?

I think there are some cases where we should avoid telling others that they've missed the point. The things on which all Christians should agree are fairly small in number.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by jaywill, posted 02-07-2016 10:52 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by jaywill, posted 02-08-2016 9:48 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017