Super Moderator florduh Posted September 15, 2011 Super Moderator Share Posted September 15, 2011 Florduh, could you PLEASE explain to me what this text means:Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. It means that any prophecy found in the Scriptures did not originate with the prophet. OR it means that Scriptural prophecy should not be interpreted, but read plainly. OR it means, with a stretch, that the HS will interpret for you and ostensibly any believer who reads it. What are you getting at? That the text is unclear? It means that the HS inspired the writers and that the HS is needed to explain what is written and the HS will not lead someone to believe something contrary to what the Word says. Capice? Why am I not surprised that you have the only correct interpretation of this controversial verse. Oh, I know - because you are particularly smug and arrogant, even for a Christian. What I mean by that is you interpret verses like everybody else while claiming your infallibility because you have the HS, and any who disagree, obviously don't. You think, or more likely were told, that the HS tells the true believer what the Bible really means, so of course you must believe you have that supernatural guidance that others lack. Thinking you have a special understanding of Truth, you can't recognize your own arrogance. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Here I sit on a Sunday morning with my coffee and thoughts. So many years, Sunday morning was for church. It still feels a bit funny, but I am getting used to it. (and enjoying it) So my thought this morning is on the topic of 'blasphemy of the holy spirit'. I'm positive that I have committed that unforgivable sin. I have rejected all of it, the whole gospel. Now, my silly question is......for those of us who once 'knew the truth' and rejected it, I wonder what would happen if we decided to accept the lord jesus back into our lives. Would he 'save' us and forgive us again? I am not going to do this - I was just wondering, if god would give us a second chance? What about the 'atheist in the fox hole' who once knew the lord and now he is scared for his eternal life and does scream out for the lord to save him? He once knew the truth - would god show mercy on him? Some of you here are great bible scholar's and I depend on you for your help in understanding. What do you think about this scripture? Even when I was a christian, I always worried that I failed this test because I always did question the bible. Matthew 12:31-32 31 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 "And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the {age} to come. This reminds me of a guy I heard on Christian talk radio years ago. He said that according to blah blah scripture once you are saved you CANNOT sin again because Jesus' covenant does not provide for that. He was trying to say that only past sins were washed clean, so hey one more sin and you are toast! When I heard that, logic stepped in and told me that it isnt really reasonable to expect imperfect human beings to never ever sin again. My 'legal' thinking response to this was that Jesus didnt forgive just past sins but ALL sins past, present and future. I always used John 3:16 to trump all other scripture. So I suppose if you asked for Jesus to take you back you would have to quote John 3:16 and he would be obliged to stand by it now, wouldn't he? lol. God may quote Matthew 12:31 and make reservations for me in hell but I would yell John 3:16 right back at him. Which scripture holds more weight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 The bible translators forgot to put a comma so it should have read "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee Today, shalt thou be with me in paradise. Fee, Fi, fo fum. I smell the blood of a Seventh-Day Adventist...that is their interpretation of the verse. How could a translation of the bible, which is supposed to be the inspired word of god be missing a comma? God forgot a comma!? Really? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 He has to do it for the greater good of His creatures, to vindicate His character so they can know they can trust Him for their security. God CANNOT lie, He says vengeance is His (NO jihad for Christians!) , people are not to take revenge now so to prevent that God will give out the punishments to suit the crime at a later time; He cannot change His word. "God cannot change his word." "God cannot lie." Therefore he is not all powerful. If god was all powerful he could do any thing he wants. He could lie and he could change his word if he felt like it. A faulty concept is that god must behave the way the bible says, yet god is also all powerful. It does not compute. But really this whole thread is a debate about parts of a fictional book called the bible so why is it important to debate it? Then again I've seen people banter about Star Trek characters too...hmmm. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 How am I doing on the whole blasphemy thing? Do I need to dial it up a bit or have I hit the point of no return yet? Oh, you're a goner already! Cooool See, Agi is blaspheming by taking the place of God and saying you committed the unpardonable sin and you are doing it too, condemning yourself. But by your reasoning,YOU are condemning yourself by taking the place of God to say that AtoO condemned himself! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 How am I doing on the whole blasphemy thing? Do I need to dial it up a bit or have I hit the point of no return yet? Oh, you're a goner already! Cooool See, Agi is blaspheming by taking the place of God and saying you committed the unpardonable sin and you are doing it too, condemning yourself. But by your reasoning,YOU are condemning yourself by taking the place of God to say that AtoO condemned himself! I shall be a marshmallow in the camp fire of the kingdom of god. Roasting till I'm tortured enough for the zombies to consume my flesh and drink my blood all at the will of the eternally loving god. Blessed is the love of he that tortures mortal souls out of the goodness of his loving jealous vengeful heart. Amen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I shall be a marshmallow in the camp fire of the kingdom of god. Anyone have any graham crackers and chocolate? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I shall be a marshmallow in the camp fire of the kingdom of god. Anyone have any graham crackers and chocolate? The zombie god will provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 How could a translation of the bible, which is supposed to be the inspired word of god be missing a comma? God forgot a comma!? Really? Yes, the biblegod had a senior moment when the author was waiting for "The Word From On High". Or the pen of inspiration ran out of ink, and when the writer began again, he forgot where he left off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 "God cannot change his word." "God cannot lie." Therefore he is not all powerful. If god was all powerful he could do any thing he wants. He could lie and he could change his word if he felt like it. A faulty concept is that god must behave the way the bible says, yet god is also all powerful. It does not compute. Right. He could change His mind and decide to show mercy to every being that ever lived. Everyone gets a free ticket to heaven. Let's party with God! He's awesome! But no. Revenge by torturing His creation when it's too late to learn any lesson is more important. But really this whole thread is a debate about parts of a fictional book called the bible so why is it important to debate it? Then again I've seen people banter about Star Trek characters too...hmmm. :-) If society didn't put up with all the religious B.S. that directly affects everyone, replying to Thumby would be a waste of time. It helps to speak our minds here because we aren't heard in real life. Let's face it. Believers in general can and do abuse us, and get away with it. Their fruits show, and they're rotten to the core. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 But by your reasoning,YOU are condemning yourself by taking the place of God to say that AtoO condemned himself! She that hath an ear, let her hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 So lets not have any laws on this planet (or the universe) and no penalties for breaking them, lets have anarchy and a free-for-all. Or... God can show himself instead of hiding behind a book that needs magical inspiration from some supernatural spirit that only talks to those who already are predisposed to believe in such thing. Thumbelina: Awwww, I can understand why you feel the way you do, Ouro. Ouroboros said: When a person is not believing in your God's laws, he or she is not breaking the law of gravity. I think you might confusing laws of nature and laws written by sheep herders and fishermen. Thumbelina: I was refering to the laws on this planet that can land a person in jail or fined, like tax fraud or defamation or assault or murder etc. The principles of the ten commandments are ETERNAL and that is what I meant. When a person flaps their arms and dives off a bridge they are going to encounter the law of gravity but they are breaking a commandment that says thou shalt not murder. The people's sins that they CLUNG to will cause them to be hurt, it is a consequence. Thumbelina: I was refering to the laws on this planet that can land a person in jail or fined, like tax fraud or defamation or assault or murder etc. The principles of the ten commandments are ETERNAL and that is what I meant. When a person flaps their arms and dives off a bridge they going to encounter the law of gravity but they are breaking a commandment that says thou shalt not murder. Ouroboros said: Sin is not the same as breaking the law of gravity or other physical laws. Thumbelina: I explained that that is not what I was referring to. Sin began in PERFECT heaven in the presence of a PERFECT and Holy God. Ouroboros said: Besides, breaking God's law is done by just not believing in Jesus. Thumbelina: Well yeah, we are saved by grace through FAITH. We ALWAYS fall short of God's glory and trying to be saved by works is LEGALISM and tummy rot (it does NOT work). The GOODNESS of God leads believers to repentance and God then gives them the power to do good works and He gives them the RIGHT MOTIVES; that's called worshiping in spirit and in truth http://bible.cc/john/4-24.htm ; http://bible.cc/1_timothy/1-8.htm Ouroboros said: The penalty is eternal torment. It's excessive penalty for a stupid law. If God was real, he would know what I mean. Thumbelina: I am an atheist too!! I'm an atheist toward the God you just described; infinite punishment for FINITE crime = UTTER, UTTER rubbish! The law is righteous http://bible.cc/romans/7-12.htm Ouroboros said: Your idea of sin, law, and penalty all comes from a book that was written by people you don't even know. You're putting trust in Paul, Peter, and John, even though you have never met them and you really don't know where they're coming from. On the other hand, you distrust thousands of scientists that are living at this moment, even though they are providing evidence, experiment, and extremely logical conclusions. Thumbelina: Yet skeptics of the bible trust the Annals(Tacitus). My idea of sin, law and penalty came from the Holy Spirit which INSPIRED the biblical writers. I'm putting trust in God. Beloved ( ha, I feel weird addressing you as such, we're usually fighting ), modern science is an amassing of all the observations that occurred in the past and most scientists in the past believed in a God. Atheists like to claim all the credit ( 'we know a lot now, we don't need God') but man is just coming full circle just to realize that God was right in the first place. People discovered quarantine from the bible and the rule of washing hands before going from patient to patient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Lister,_1st_Baron_Lister , the bible taught that waste needs to be buried Deuteronomy 23:12, 13 ; it taught that there are laws of health that need to be followed to avoid diseases. Daniel and his buddies did not eat the King's delacacies in Babylon. If those principles are followed we won't have that health care crisis. The bible says a merry heart is like medicine, modern science is now " discovering" that a depressed state of mind inhibits immune response. Eh, the bible has a wealth of info that slow poke scientists are now discovering, we just have to learn the hard way I guess. http://www.hope-of-israel.org/bihealth.htm --- Ouroboros said: Consider this Thumb. What's the difference between this world and Heaven? Thumbelina: God is in heaven and He's visible to the angelic host, there is no death or sickness there, it is beautiful and pristine etc. Ouroboros said: If Heaven is better, why didn't God create this world the same way from the start? Thumbelina: Who said God did not Create this world perfect? He said it was good and very good! Sin/trangressing the Law/disobedience caused pain, suffering, death and decay. to come about. Ouroboros said: If this world is the best of all worlds, then Heaven can't be better. Thumbelina: Who said this world is the best of all worlds? This planet is miniscule compared to what's out there and we have garbage and poo and all sorts of stinky things down here and we have Savior I Need, SIN! Ouroboros said: If law doesn't exist in Heaven, then why is it necessary here? But if law does exist in Heaven, but people don't want to break the law, then why didn't God make that here? Thumbelina: My friend, laws are everywhere; God's moral Laws are eternal. If there is no law than there is no transgression or sin. Satan wanted to do away with God's laws! Alas, so do a lot of humans. I poder these themes A LOT and I think before sin, God's laws were stated in the affimative, like the principles of the 1st 4 commandments could have been come let us be together and enjoy each others company. God is so wonderful and cool that praises for Him was voluntary and inherent in His creatures. The other 6 commandments deal with intrpersonal relationships, 5 of them are stated in the negative but they have a positive aspect to them. Thou shalt not kill would have been something like, actually, all sin starts as covetousness so the principle of not covetting would have been there. Perhaps it would have been stated as "You have a VAST universe to enjoy with infinite resources, I made them and you for my enjoyment and love so, enjoy it!" Ouroboros said: And if law does exist in Heaven but Free Will does not, then again, why didn't God do that here as well? Thumbelina: Law existed in heaven, Lucifer was a covering cherub who was in God's presence A LOT. In the earthly sanctuary model which was a pattern of the true heavenly sanctuary, there were two angels with wings covering the ark of the covenant and INSIDE the ark of the covenant was the Ten Commandments so yes law DID exist in heaven. Prior to sin there was no knowledge of evil by created beings. Created beings are NOT innately immortal so they cannot be totally free; they have freedom of choice. The choice is to obey God perpetually and have eternal life which is contingent on Him or disobey God perpetually and eventually face eternal death (NOT dying). Ouroboros said: Heaven can't be a better place or this current world is imperfect (God's "perfect" creation is flawed). Thumbelina: Of course this world is imperfect, it is CURSED! Even heaven got tainted because sin started there. All taint will be eradicated when God destroys sin, sinners, death and hell ---> http://bible.cc/revelation/20-14.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Thumbelina: People used reasoning like that to inspire bigotry against Christians in the past. You are being a superficial reader. God's Law CANNOT be changed, the wages of sin is death. It was either Jesus or us. Jesus fulfilled the penalty for the law, he died as a human and His blood covers any willing believer. Have you ever pondered why a being that existed before everything else - mind you, that means he existed BEFORE evil and sin - would create those things? Have you ever wondered why the wages of sin is death? Have you ever wondered why blood is required to "free" you? Why would an omniscient all powerful being do something like that? Seems much more like a construct of primitive man then it does an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent superpower. Hey, derpy derp I always ponder those themes. God created calamity and not law breaking, His creatures had freedom of CHOICE. God laying down His life for man is a paradox that works. He didn't create law breaking, but he did create the laws. You still haven't explained why a perfect God would desire blood to cleanse sin. If God created everything then he created the fact that the wages of sin is death. Why would he do that? Why are the wages of sin not a time out? Or life imprisonment? But no, the wages of sin, (the law that your loving god created) is ETERNAL HELLFIRE. You also purport free will, but nowhere in the bible does it say free will exists. In fact, it says God knows everything we are going to do before we do it. That doesn't seem like free will at all. What is wrong with the laws? Read Exodus 20. Blood represents life, the life is in the blood http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/12-23.htm The bible teaches all of those concepts and it explains why God did what He did. In ancient culture, people understood those concepts; we have to place ourselves there and not look at it with a 21st century mind. The blood is symbolic for death which is the WAGE of sin. You did not read what I wrote in a few posts back? The rebels were not and will not be repentant , if God does not kill them (not keep them alive roasting forever) they will be unhappy and they will make others' lives miserable too because they HATE God's laws. I said freedom of CHOICE. I looked up a definition for free will a while back and it seems to imply that free will means living without laws and penalties so now I prefer to use "Freedom of CHOICE". Freedom of choice is stated in the bible: 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Gen 2:16-17 Do they want to live in bliss AND obedience or do they want to die and not exist any more? Knowing someone is going to do something beforehand does not mean that a being is causing it. And to you symbolism is worth it for people to have to kill things to appease god? You do realize that is what it is right. You're worshipping a god that demands to be worshipped, and if you don't, you burn in hell for eternity. Thumbelina: Thumbelina: God commands us to worship Him for our own benefit. He does stipulate IF we love Him then we can keep His commandments. People who worship God out of fear end up hating Him. Why does a parent command their child to respect them? Is the parent being selfish? No, children do stupid things to themselves and others and a parent wants to prevent that. Noggy/Derpy Derp: Are you kidding? Try taking a step back from assuming this is true, and just look at all of this. Look at it from the point of view of an objective skeptic. I had the hardest time dealing with that shit when I was a christian, but I trusted god because thats "just the way it is". But all the bullshit makes a lot more sense when you think about it from a different perspective, the same perspective you view other faiths. Its just as stupid as those. Really. I wanna just shake you so you can live your life freely to be who you want to be. People who are trapped in this mindless faith make me so so sad Thumbelina: I can see that skeptics look at the pain and suffering and wonder about how could a God allow it but this world is not only misery, is it? Sometimes one has to look at the glass as half full and the believer that looks to God sees the glass as full and running over. A friend of my family's--actually she is family, she is related to an in law -- son is paralysed with multiple sclerosis, what hope does atheism offer to this young man for a disease that has no cure? What comfort does atheism offer anyone who is in a really bad way, especially when life gave them a terrible blow? What hope would atheism have given to Troy Davis if he really was innocent? I am free, when I was secular I was a slave (though silly me did not realise it at the time, I was self righteous) If secularism and spiritism is all there is then I might not have been born http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/15-19.htm , that is a DEPRESSING thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Agi, the last time you posted this, I got annoyed (sorry, Jesus says I ought to be longsuffering). God had to wriite a second set of commandments after the people behaved unseemly, actually they were downright IMMORAL and DISOBEDIENT (read what they said in Exodus 20:19) What you cited happened at the end of that when Moses had to get a second set of Commandments for he broke the first set. The Ten commandments (God's permanent law ) are DIFFERENT fom Moses' law (temporary law because the people broke the permanent law). It even says in the chapter that you sited that Moses was amazed at how God can be forgiving, God could have destroyed everybody. The texts you cited were interspersed with the ten commandment Law to show the people were breaking the Law, it was to remind them of it and therefore encourage them to seek forgiveness. Moses law was annulled at the cross. So what you're saying is that god didn't expect this to happen. guess he's not omnipotent after all. Down right incompetent actually from what I can tell. He forces someone to do wrong then punishes them for doing wrong because he's an asshole. Really. If I did that or anyone else did that, that is what we'd be called. An asshole. Your god is an asshole. Thumbelina: God knows the end from the beginning http://bible.cc/isaiah/46-10.htm; He permitted evil for the greater good http://bible.cc/nahum/1-9.htm He made Adam and Eve who knew nothing of good and evil.Ever met someone like that? They exist today. They are called sociopaths. They can kill a person and feel nothing is wrong. They know nothing of good or evil. Thumbelina: Good can exist without evil but evil CANNOT exist without good. Adam and Eve existed for a time without any sin in their lives. God did not want them to know of the pain sin causes before they did it, that would not have been fair, they had perfect, selfless natures. God made sociopaths then blamed them for not listening to him.He cursed their entire line from there on. Yes, for eating a fruit that he knew that they would eat since he claims to be all knowing...oh wait that means he's either a liar or an asshole. I vote for both. I regularly condemn fictional characters btw. In book and TV and this god character is the worst of the lot. Thumbelina: God did not make any sociopaths, by using their freedom of choice to go against their God given consciences and therefore they disobeyed God and consequently they became selfish and carnal. Self preservation became man's # 1 pursuit. Our genes come from the disobedient duo so yes, we have selfish proclivities but like them, we have freedom of choice; choose life or choose death. Have you ever seen the show called "Bait Car"? Do you think the police are wrong for putting the car there? Are the car thieves not free to leave someone else's property alone? Someone could have a stack of millions of dollars in front of me and I won't touch any of it for it is not mine. Adam and Eve will be in heaven or so it seems, they were sorry for their sins so they won't be complaining about God putting the tree of knowledge and evil to test them and give them a choice. Where do you get the knowledge of what is good and evil from, your own head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 The Ten commandments (God's permanent law ) are DIFFERENT fom Moses' law (temporary law because the people broke the permanent law). It even says in the chapter that you cited that Moses was amazed at how God can be forgiving, God could have destroyed everybody. The texts you cited were interspersed with the ten commandment Law to show the people were breaking the Law, it was to remind them of it and therefore encourage them to seek forgiveness. Moses law was annulled at the cross. This is cherry picking at its worst. There was no "temporary" law. Ask any Jewish scholar. Jesus came not to change the law or do away with any law. Thumbelina:Yes they were temporary, why would God perpetuate the killing of animals as well as some rules about ritual cleansings when these things will not occur on the new earth and when they were pointing to our need for Jesus? The ancestors of the Jews had egg on their faces for not paying attention to prophecy or using eisegesis instead of a thus saith the Lord and it is those supposed scholars that cherry pick to cling to wrong beliefs. It is the 10 Commandments that were written in stone and therefore, permanent. Ya can't nail stone to a cross! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 What that means is God permits evil/sin to manifest itself through evil people. It shows WHY the Law is NEEDED. Unfallen beings did not understand it but NOW they do. They know that the rules are for their love and protection. They were appalled by Pharaoh's lawlessness. No. If God were all loving and all powerful, this would never exist. There would be no need to have the law. You are simplistic, Thumbelina. I wish you would stop trolling these forums. The law say don't covet, lie steal, murder, commit adultery and to HONOR ones parents, are you saying there was no need for rules commanding created beings to do those things? --> For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. http://bible.cc/romans/5-13.htm The other laws are about worshiping God whom all goodness stems from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 You are simplistic, Thumbelina. I wish you would stop trolling these forums. But she's the biblegod's sales rep. She needs this job. Salvation is free but you guys are interesting, I won't like you to "die". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 That was good. I needed a laugh. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 It is good to do good on the Sabbath and Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath Luke 6:9 Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it? http://bible.cc/luke/6-5.htm (Please, please, look at the cross references to this text, it shows that the OT and NT are in harmony) The Sabbath is about relationships, all unnecessary pursuits should be put aside during that time. Those Pharisees were being evil to people who needed healing and they were a burden to the regular folks (don't spit on the ground on Sabbath because it is work and you will irrigate grass; oh puleeze! ). They did not understand the spirit behind the Law. Sabbath is a ten commandment Law (in order to maintain an abiding relationship with God); circumcision is Moses' law (temporary law, to remind the Israelites that they sinned or broke the ten commandments and they needed to circumcise their hearts). The Jews idolized the rituals instead of being compassionate to others. The bible is replete with TYPES ( 6. A figure, representation, or symbol of something to come, such as an event in the Old Testament that foreshadows another in the New Testament. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/type ) of Christs. They are OBJECT lessons, Sir. Look, he lies about going to the feast of Tabernacles and then he tries to say that what he has been doing is no different from anyone else and is the same thing as keeping the Sabbath and circumcision (or circumcision on the Sabbath to be more precise). Now you're going on about how he's "Lord of the Sabbath" like it should matter (the Jews had a god and it wasn't this guy). The Pharisees were just one of the sects of the Jews. Thumbelina: You don't have the texts quoted so you sort of lost me in this convo'though i think I do have the gist of it . Jesus did not lie about anything, He kept the Sabbath in spirit and in truth. The disciples were hungry and they went and got something to eat which was perfectly lawful for them to do --> http://bible.cc/luke/6-1.htm ; http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/23-25.htm Those PITAs (Pain In The A **) /Pharisees were after Jesus and accusing Him of reaping, threshing and winnowing , I think. You are right those Pharisees http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pharisaical had a god http://bible.cc/galatians/4-8.htm ; http://bible.cc/2_corinthians/4-4.htm who encouraged them to be PITAs. It matters that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath because it says so in the text I know the Pharisees were just one of the sects of the Jews. In Luke 6 http://kingjbible.com/luke/6.htm, the Pharisees (some of them) were one of the sects that was mentioned and the one that most people talk about. I know there were Scribes and Sadducees and Essenes also. I'm pretty sure Moses gave the ten commandments. The story has him breaking them. And getting totally different ones in fact. So it seems they showed up right with Moses. But circumcision seems to have come around with Abraham. So you've got these things backwards. Thumbelina: Yes, yes there were two sets of ten commandments that were written in stone, the first ones were broken when tMoses saw the people having pagan orgies by the golden calf. God has an everlasting covenant http://bible.cc/genesis/17-7.htm that He kept on renewing with willing participants and during different times He had different symbols for believers to demonstrate that they are entering a covenant with Him ( from Jesus' time to today we have baptism). Moses had to write things down as man was becoming more and more sinful and stupid and forgetful and the oral tradition would have gotten messed up because of that. Writing things down ensured that subsequent generations would rightly understand the covenant with the help of the HS of course. There is no foreshadowing "types" in the OT. If the NT authors wished to utilize pre-existing types from the OT within their writings then that may well be but it's nothing magical. Thumbelina: It's not magical to those who are perishing http://bible.cc/2_corinthians/4-3.htm Thumbelina said: It's only equivocation to waywards. I did not say they were equals, that will be blasphemy. There is no loophole, God knows the heart and David was a man after God's heart. David believed in God even though his flesh was weak at times (he payed for it too, his family was a mess!) I have no idea what the term "to waywards" means. I've not heard it. Thumbelina:You don't know the meaning of it but you sure are livin' it, huh? *snicker* I can only guess from what you're saying. It seems similar to "a means to an ends." However, either your comparison is going to be apt or it is not. You want to seem to talk about David now which was not the point. I'll take this as an indication this whole side-discussion was not really relevant. Thumbelina: You kinda lost me here, fella. but yeah it has a means to an end; it weeds out the tares that won't depend on God to understand the texts and then obey them. .............. Thumbelina said: Yup, God's peops (people) know this. mwc said: And yet I demonstrated otherwise. Thumbelina: You lost me again, what were we discussing? ................ Thumbelina said: What that means is God permits evil/sin to manifest itself through evil people. It shows WHY the Law is NEEDED. Unfallen beings did not understand it but NOW they do. They know that the rules are for their love and protection. They were appalled by Pharaoh's lawlessness. mwc said: That's not what it says. I gave the verses. There's nothing to state or demonstrate otherwise. There nothing there like you're saying. What is there contradicts you. The bible and you disagree. Thumbelina: That is what the biblical narrative states and it is a major theme in the bible. The bible cannot be read superficially otherwise one would conclude that God is malevolent. mwc: Exodus 10 1 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his officials, in order that I may show these signs of mine among them, 2 and that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I have made fools of the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them—so that you may know that I am the Lord." He is hardening their hearts, on purpose. So that he can SHOW OFF. So that they can tell stories of how he MADE FOOLS of them and so they can know he's a real god. This is him DOING the act TO the Egyptians. Not letting them do it to themselves. It DOES NOT say they are making fools of themselves. Not enough? Thumbelina: The hardening that Pharaoh did was akin to this: Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. http://bible.cc/acts/26-28.htm He got evidence and convictions about the truthfulness of the gospel but he hardened his heart, he rejected truth, the truth hardened him instead of softening him! God gets our attention through the Word (this is His main avenue) or through miracles or through permitting the devil to get a go at us or by removing his hedge of protection from us but it is up to us to soften our hearts when convicted and evidence is presented or to harden our hearts and reject it like this bloke --> http://bible.cc/acts/24-25.htm AND Pharaoh. mwc: Exodus 10 24 Then Pharaoh summoned Moses, and said, "Go, worship the Lord. Only your flocks and your herds shall remain behind. Even your children may go with you." 25 But Moses said, "You must also let us have sacrifices and burnt offerings to sacrifice to the Lord our God. 26 Our livestock also must go with us; not a hoof shall be left behind, for we must choose some of them for the worship of the Lord our God, and we will not know what to use to worship the Lord until we arrive there." 27 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he was unwilling to let them go. Pharaoh tells them TO GO. LEAVE. Hit the bricks. Get to stepping. He gives in. So Moses heaps on more demands. More and more. He needs every single solitary thing. And what happens? The "LORD HARDENED PHARAOH'S HEART, and he was unwilling to let them go." So Pharaoh was willing to let them go, gives in to all previous demands, but a little heart hardening, and the deal is off. All in-line with what we got before the challenges even started back in chapter 4 that said kids are going to die because of some heart hardening on the "Lord's" part. Thumbelina: God is the supreme potentate and He owns everything (heh, heh --> http://bible.cc/psalms/50-12.htm) . He commanded Pharaoh to let ALL His people go but Pharaoh wanted to retain some of the Israelites as slaves and that bastard kept on consenting to certain terms and then reneging on them when he got a REPRIEVE; read it properly, that is what the narrative says! mwc: This is the story. The actual (reasonably translated) words. Where does it say that this anonymous Pharaoh was "evil" and, as such, old YHWH was going to be crafty and let him hang-himself as opposed to being his usual nice-guy self, force Pharaoh to be friendly and everyone's best buddy like he's been doing his whole life? Thumbelina: Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I have sinned against the LORD your God, and against you. http://bible.cc/exodus/10-16.htm Ex 10:16 That bastard is a type of devil, he only relented when he felt the pinch but when he felt good and safe again he wanted to oppress God's people; that kind will NEVER change. mwc Thumbelina: T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 What are you talking about? Jesus went to heaven and came back and appeared to MANY. It would seem that He will keep His scars forever ---> http://bible.cc/zechariah/13-6.htm What? Are you high? Say "no" to meth. Thumbelina: I don't smoke, my body is the temple of the HS. God says be holy as He is holy, can you picture God on meth? Don't answer that, you are a mischievous one. Actually, my naughty, evil-surmising side that I NEED to kill, was wondering if you got some of Derpy Derp's doobies but I wanted to behave so I did not say it. It doesn't say that and quoting a source that doesn't say that doesn't make your case. It still doesn't say that. Thumbelina: Jesus was resurrected and retained His scars and the text I cited seems to imply He will remain that way. If your "jesus" went to heaven and came back 8 days later...then...that's the second coming. That counts. Thumbelina: Please tell me you're kidding? The parousia or second coming will entail Jesus coming as King of kings and Lord of lords and where EVERY eye will see Him. mwc: So you believe in some "yo-yo" god-man. And all because you want him to go up to heaven on that first day, come back down a week later, spring back up after that, plop back down again to fish, once again hit the skies then fall back down over and over until he's fed up. Or we are. But does he do this now? No. That would really count as the "second coming" and we can't have that until he means it. But as long as he doesn't mean it then why not? Go ahead and pogo around the planet. Just tell everyone, at the end of each meeting, "This doesn't count as a 'coming'" and he's golden. Thumbelina: The bible says that Jesus dematerialized when Cleophas and the other guy finally recognized Him. I think the bible says He appeared through a door that was closed. Oh and I was wrong, Jesus and the angels move faster than the speed of light, light is too slow to keep up with them. mwc: Zechariah wasn't talking about your "jesus." He was talking about his own messiah. Then Zechariah died. If people adopted Zechariah's ideas and twisted them around that's not really Zechariah's fault. He has his ideas and they never seemed to manifest themselves. He tried. He failed. That's par for the messianic course. Thumbelina: Oh but I believe he was. The stories in the bible point to Jesus and a lot of them describes the battle between God and Satan and their disciples. The bible uses types in order to get a basic teaching across eg. Is this text talking about literal Elijah?: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:" http://bible.cc/malachi/4-5.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Florduh, could you PLEASE explain to me what this text means:Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. It means that any prophecy found in the Scriptures did not originate with the prophet. OR it means that Scriptural prophecy should not be interpreted, but read plainly. OR it means, with a stretch, that the HS will interpret for you and ostensibly any believer who reads it. What are you getting at? That the text is unclear? It means that the HS inspired the writers and that the HS is needed to explain what is written and the HS will not lead someone to believe something contrary to what the Word says. Capice? Why am I not surprised that you have the only correct interpretation of this controversial verse. Oh, I know - because you are particularly smug and arrogant, even for a Christian. What I mean by that is you interpret verses like everybody else while claiming your infallibility because you have the HS, and any who disagree, obviously don't. You think, or more likely were told, that the HS tells the true believer what the Bible really means, so of course you must believe you have that supernatural guidance that others lack. Thinking you have a special understanding of Truth, you can't recognize your own arrogance. No capice, Florduh, no capice! I don't know how else to explain to you what words that say that the bible should not be intepreted according to private interpretations mean. Jose De Jesus De Miranda interprets the bible to say that sin does not exist but the bible INTERPRETS itself and it says that sin does exist. The devil hates God's Laws and false prophets repeat his lies. By checking their private interpretations against scripture a person is PROTECTED from being DUPED! http://bible.cc/matthew/24-4.htm ; http://bible.cc/ephesians/5-6.htm It's not about arrogance, it's about FAITH --> Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 The bible translators forgot to put a comma so it should have read "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee Today, shalt thou be with me in paradise. Fee, Fi, fo fum. I smell the blood of a Seventh-Day Adventist...that is their interpretation of the verse. How could a translation of the bible, which is supposed to be the inspired word of god be missing a comma? God forgot a comma!? Really? Fallible men translated it (from one language to another, even today certain expressions lose their "flavor" when translated) but it does not take away from the gospel theme in the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 He has to do it for the greater good of His creatures, to vindicate His character so they can know they can trust Him for their security. God CANNOT lie, He says vengeance is His (NO jihad for Christians!) , people are not to take revenge now so to prevent that God will give out the punishments to suit the crime at a later time; He cannot change His word. "God cannot change his word." "God cannot lie." Therefore he is not all powerful. If god was all powerful he could do any thing he wants. He could lie and he could change his word if he felt like it. A faulty concept is that god must behave the way the bible says, yet god is also all powerful. It does not compute. But really this whole thread is a debate about parts of a fictional book called the bible so why is it important to debate it? Then again I've seen people banter about Star Trek characters too...hmmm. :-) Omnipotence comes with certain inherent limitations which do not take away from the omnipotent one's power. God CAN"T lie, die (as God) or be deceived, Oh and He CAN"T save someone against their will! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 How am I doing on the whole blasphemy thing? Do I need to dial it up a bit or have I hit the point of no return yet? Oh, you're a goner already! Cooool See, Agi is blaspheming by taking the place of God and saying you committed the unpardonable sin and you are doing it too, condemning yourself. But by your reasoning,YOU are condemning yourself by taking the place of God to say that AtoO condemned himself! No my dear, I would be taking the place of God if I said he already condemnED himself. He's in the process of doing so. Is he in a saving relationship with God? Does he know about Christ and is he mocking, mocking, mocking Christ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. http://bible.cc/john/20-17.htm John 20:17 And he goes ahead and does it when? You're just agreeing with me that he's not ascending anywhere. mwc That same day; the bible does not mention the exact hour, minute and second. Can't agree with you, Bub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts