 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1766
|
 Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
JB,
| JB wrote: | | ego eimi in the LXX and In the New testament are in the same tense, voice and mood. Do you know what that means? I really doubt it. |
I do know what it means. It means you still do not understand my point. You like to make a point, state the proof, and when that proof is shown to be based on a fallacy you proceed as though you made no mistake. 
| JB wrote: | | You can't even come up with the Hebrew text that you originally referred to in regards to the translation of eimi. What's the deal? You seem to think that by making critical statements with out support that you can discredit others on this forum. |
I said you can use any one you want in the original language. 
| JB wrote: | The Bible Shows God created through Jesus. Does that make Jesus God?
Absolutely. Once again you fail to read the text. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. |
I read the text. God did indeed create the heavens and the earth. God also delivered the Israelites from Egypt. Yet he did this through Moses. God did indeed give the Israelites His law. Yet he did this through Moses. Just like God created through Jesus!!!
John 1:3 All things came into existence through him
If Jesus is God because God worked through him, then Moses must be God as well. 
| JB wrote: | | But before you do that explain how your organization can change the tense in the Greek (eimi) apart from proper Greek parsing. You are starting to sound like the Pope who believes that he has the authority to change |
At John 1:1 my Bible translates the imperfect form "eimi" as "was". How does your Bible translate it?
At John 8:58 my Bible translates the present form as "have been". That word means to be, to exist, to happen, to be present.
Hence before Abraham existed Jesus was present, or Jesus had been. The sentence creates the context. 
John 8:58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”
The same imperfect form of eimi is translated throughout the NT as -was, were, had , had been.
Sorry! No case for it to mean infinite past. 
You are taking the meaning of "imperfect" and trying to create a new meaning for eimi. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Paul2
Big Goldfish
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 69
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Virbate AKA Vibrate,
| You wrote: | | Everything comes from God |
I agree..."nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is..."
| You wrote: | | God is the creator of everything. |
I agree...if you mean the Father is the creator of everything He is not.
| You wrote: | | This means that as far as being a person, when we see Jesus, we see the whole, complete, full personality of God. So we see God, in the form of a person. |
I agree...if you mean: in Jesus we see the Father, but Jesus is not the Father.
| You wrote: | | The anointed is God |
If you mean Christ is the same person as the Father, I disagree.
If you mean Christ is ELOHIM because His Father is ELOHIM, I agree.
If you mean Christ represents the Father, I agree.
| You wrote: | | the Holy Spirit is God |
I agree...if you mean that the Father and the Holy Spirit are the same person.
I agree...if you mean the Father is the only true God.
"that they may know Thee, the only true God"
| You wrote: | | How is that, Paul? |
Helpful... thank you
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Virbate
Ferret
Joined: 20 May 2008
Posts: 113
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is Christ the same person as the Father? An interesting question. This question seeks to apply the principle of distinct personalities to the principle by which God reveals Himself through Christ.
Let us examine and define these two principles, and see if we can consider them together, to deal with this question.
First the principle of distinct personalities:
We all feel distinct from others. Why is this? How real is this feeling? Well God is one, and we stem from Him, so how can we be distinct from each other? Not as far as the level of the source of our being, surely. And not as far as the essential fabric of our constitution, surely. Both of these belong to God, for every person and every living being. So what then? Where does this feeling of being distinct come from?
Well, obviously there is the physical element. I occupy this tent in a way that you surely do not. Each has his own tent, and all that goes with it. So clearly we can discern a distinct form, as far as the tent, and its attributes.
Interesting. We have unity with God and each other as far as the source of our being, and its essential fabric and constitution. But as far as the form we have a distinct status. so where does one begin and the other end? Where does unity begin, and distinct status end?
Can you find an answer to that question?
The answer is in God's word. God, the creator, establishes where anything ends or begins. God is the source of our being, and God is its essential fabric and constitution. But God is also the one who establishes a unique form for me, and another for you. As far as God is concerned, therefore, there is no distinction, except that He has created two forms. Their constitution contains the same fabric, Himself. They both have the same source, Himself. Both of their forms also are established and maintained by Himself.
And the Christ, the anointed, who possesses the indwelling Holy Spirit, which is the very Spirit of God? His tent is also one such form, with the same characteristics, except that it is without sin.
So you ask the question is Jesus the same person as God. Really? You're really asking that question? What could you possibly mean? What are you asking? I'm sorry but that is not an honest question. It is a very subtle form of attack, to confuse and divide God's people.
I remember another question that had the very same style, and tone. It came from the same source:
"Did God really say 'you must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul2
Big Goldfish
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 69
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Virbate AKA Vibrate,
Gn 2:7 And forming is YHVH Elohim the human of soil from the ground, and He is blowing into his nostrils the breath of the living, and becoming is the human a living soul.
Gn 3:19 In the sweat of your face shall you eat your bread, till your return to the ground, for from it are you taken, for soil you are, and to soil are you returning."
| You wrote: | | God is the source of our being, and God is its essential fabric and constitution. |
Yes. God is the source of our being.
No. We are constituted as the union of our body and our spirit and we are living souls.
The Father (God) is spirit, so God's essential fabric and constitution is spirit. Satan is a wicked spirit. Satan is not essentially God. We are not essentially God. I am me and you are you. You are not me. I am not you. I am not the Father. You are not the Father. The Father is the only true God.
| You wrote: | So you ask the question is Jesus the same person as God. Really? You're really asking that question? What could you possibly mean? What are you asking? I'm sorry but that is not an honest question. It is a very subtle form of attack, to confuse and divide God's people.
I remember another question that had the very same style, and tone. It came from the same source:
"Did God really say 'you must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" |
False implications:
Anyone who asks the question "is Jesus the same person as God" is a dishonest person who asks the question in order to confuse and divide God's people in a subtle attack inspired by Satan himself.
Anyone who asks the question "is Jesus the same person as God" uses the same tone as Satan did in Eden.
"Is Jesus the same person as God?" and "did God really say 'you must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" are the same Satanic style of question.
| You wrote: | | Is Christ the same person as the Father? |
This question is the original question at the beginning of your post and is said to be interesting and the implication is that it is a worthwhile question and that the questioner seeks truth.
Funny how this question suddenly became a devious question just by changing the word "Christ" to "Jesus" and "the Father" to "God". What kind of subtlety is at work here?
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Virbate
Ferret
Joined: 20 May 2008
Posts: 113
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Paul said: | Quote: | Is Christ the same person as the Father?
This question is the original question at the beginning of your post and is said to be interesting and the implication is that it is a worthwhile question and that the questioner seeks truth.
Funny how this question suddenly became a devious question just by changing the word "Christ" to "Jesus" and "the Father" to "God". What kind of subtlety is at work here? |
You asked the question first of all. A question composes two parts - it includes a reference to a point of fact, and it also includes uncertainty about that point. When I repeated it, I was using the question as a means to introduce the rest of what I had to say; I was not indicating any uncertainty about the point.
You, on the other hand, asked the question in a way that indicated that you do not accept the concept of unity, and your question made my response necessary. My comment was not about the words of the question, which we both used, but my comment was about the tone and implication of asking the question. In my case it was to introduce a positive statement, but in your case it was to introduce an element of uncertainty.
Clearly, you have been trapped in what I have referred to as the "doctrine approach". You see doctrine as the way to truth, instead of seeking the heart of the matter. Therefore you have broken the commandments by establishing an idol (non-entity) for worship - the idol of "doctrine approach".
I have already dealt with the doctrine approach in earlier posts. Check the whole thread of the current forum, and you'll see you're basically using the same approach as TBax. I'm sure there are some doctrinal differences which you believe make your approach different to his, but from my perspective they are the same, just different. Check my post on Fri May 16, 2008 7:57 pm when I summed up what is going on here.
Unless you can respond intelligently to that post, showing that you have understood what I said, there is really no need to continue, is there? No need to just keep rehashing the same old empty and pointless argument over and over, without going anywhere. So see if you can understand that post. And if you're tempted to say you can't understand it because it doesn't make sense, check the flow of discussion after that, where clearly at least one other person was able to understand and appreciate what I said. If people are having a conversation you don't understand, it means you're missing something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul2
Big Goldfish
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 69
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Virbate AKA Vibrate,
| You wrote: | | The anointed is God. |
| I wrote: | | If you mean Christ is the same person as the Father, I disagree. |
Yes... I can see that my statement implies:
"Are you saying you believe that Christ is the same person as the Father? If so I believe you are mistaken."
Evidently you perceived my statement as a very subtle form of attack, to confuse and divide God's people. And yet I have consistently stated my position that there is only one true God Who is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The question "Is Christ really the same person as the Father?" could be construed as being in the same style and tone as Satan's question in the garden. But I did not ask that question. And even if I had done so, who would I be attempting to divide? TBax? No, he believes Christ is not the Father. Then would I be attempting to divide Trinitarians? No, they believe Christ is not the Father. So who are the ones I would be attempting to confuse and divide? Could it be those who believe Christ is the Father? Aren't they already divided off and apart and already confused? But this is all hypothetical because I did not ask the question "Is Christ really the same person as the Father?".
As for the doctrinal approach, you seem to be under the illusion that your philosophy is somehow not doctrine and not a doctrinal approach. You are espousing a philosophy. You are teaching doctrine.
I read the post you suggested I read and I partly summarise it as:
Your approach is the correct one.
Anyone who disagrees is potentially divisive.
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Virbate
Ferret
Joined: 20 May 2008
Posts: 113
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Paul said: | Quote: | I read the post you suggested I read and I partly summarize it as:
Your approach is the correct one.
Anyone who disagrees is potentially divisive. |
Yes, you have it exactly. When you call my position a philosophy, I am not against that statement. It is God's philosophy. It is also a doctrine.
So yes I say I am right and anyone who disagrees is wrong, and I am teaching a philosophy and a doctrine. You're right about all that. Don't you also do the same? Everyone who believes they are right shares these things in common.
The question is whether my philosophy is merely a philosophy, or my doctrine merely doctrine, or my claim to be right merely a claim. That is the question.
When you ask the question: "Is Jesus really the same person as the Father", is it a question of labels, and semantics, or is it a real, profound, and meaningful question that has importance to our lives? If you have indeed read my posts, surely you realize that this is the question I'm asking. Right?
My point is that if your objection is merely about semantics, then it is not worthwhile. Furthermore, it is divisive, since it tries to make a division based on nothing. Also [pay attention here] if your objection is based on doctrinal discrepancies, but not on discrepancies at the heart of the matter, then it is also not worthwhile. In this case your objection would be very divisive indeed, because it would be actually promoting an anti-Christian way of thinking, separating the concept of doctrine from its correct root and foundation in the heart of the matter.
So I teach doctrine and you teach doctrine. My doctrine is rooted in the heart and soul of the matter, in the spirit, in real, living faith, practically. It is not just an idea floating around unattached, trying to find something to which it can GRAFT itself.
If you will check back in the conversation between myself and TBax, you will see that I asked him simply to discuss his doctrine from the perspective of the heart of the matter. I explained in great detail about why this pre-requisite is necessary to correct discourse. Here is a synopsis of that explanation, for you and me now:
You don't know me, and I don't know you. We are not mind readers, but have to use words. Words can be used in false ways, so someone who is speaking the truth must be willing to motivate his claims according to a mutually agreed, higher standard than mere words or ideas.
Anyone can create a circle of logic and refuse to step out of it, and they will be unreachable by reasoning because they incorrectly interpret anything that is said to them in terms of the circular logic system (organization) that they embrace.
If your doctrines and philosophies are not a circle of logic, then they must have a foundation other than themselves. Many people try to say that the bible is their foundation, but this is not going to work. While I respect the bible, it takes the Holy Spirit, and the teaching of Jesus to interpret it correctly. It does not stand on its own. There are obviously many possible interpretations of the bible. Those who refuse to engage in true dialog, but claim that the bible is their source are actually stealing the bible from the people, by clouding up the truth about what it is. They are cursed by Jesus at the end of the book of revelations for doing this.
Hope you get my point. Question is, what is your source? Are you able to motivate your claims? And if so, what is the motivation for the question you're asking; why is it important to you, from the heart? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Virbate
Ferret
Joined: 20 May 2008
Posts: 113
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am justifiably very cautious of people who place a big emphasis on doctrine, when they do not place a bigger emphasis on the root of correct doctrine, which is the heart of the matter. This is is common in churches all over the world, that I know they belong to the synagogue of Satan, and not to the truth.
I don't care what you call yourself: JW, Trinitarian, LDS, Baptist, Catholic, whatever; I use only one single criterion to know who is true. If you want to talk about labels for the sake of labels, then count me out. I see you as a warmonger and a criminal, who tries to destroy God's people with lies. But if you want to talk about the root, and the heart and the soul, then by all means I am eager to learn about the labels that you use, so that I can improve my own vocabulary.
Now I don't know anyone on this forum. We have no history together, or very little. So if you come to me out of nowhere trying to talk about doctrine, without first obeying the correct protocols of saying what you are about, I will have to talk to you from around my shield. When you obey the protocols and explain what you are about, then we will be able to reason together if what you describe is the heart and soul of truth.
I am not looking for any formula; there are no magic words or key phrases. But when you know God, and you speak clear words, with a sound mind, about what you know, I will know that you are talking about God, because I know Him too. God says that whenever we meditate together on Him, He will be there to join our minds in Holy communication. Jesus said something like that... I'm paraphrasing here.
Beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing. Trust no-one in these times. Protect yourself at all times.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul2
Big Goldfish
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 69
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Virbate AKA Vibrate,
| You wrote: | | So yes I say I am right and anyone who disagrees is wrong, and I am teaching a philosophy and a doctrine. You're right about all that. Don't you also do the same? |
You say everything you believe is correct. I seek to put the strongest case for what I believe is right, but I don't claim to know absolutely that all my beliefs are correct. My beliefs are open to review.
Yes, you are teaching doctrine and yet you say such things as the following as if you are on a higher plane.
| You wrote: | | When I talk about the heart of the matter, it's like a foreign language to someone who thinks in doctrinal terms... |
-------------------------------------------
| You wrote: | | When you ask the question: "Is Jesus really the same person as the Father" |
You have misrepresented what I said, if "you" means me.
| You wrote: | | When you ask the question: "Is Jesus really the same person as the Father", is it a question of labels, and semantics, or is it a real, profound, and meaningful question that has importance to our lives? If you have indeed read my posts, surely you realize that this is the question I'm asking. Right? |
I wouldn't be participating in this thread, if I didn't think it were worthwhile.
| You wrote: | | I see you as a warmonger and a criminal, who tries to destroy God's people with lies. |
Please clarify who you are calling a warmonger, criminal and liar.
| You wrote: | | I am justifiably very cautious of people who place a big emphasis on doctrine... |
Isn't your main emphasis on doctrine? Should others be cautious of you for the same reason?
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Virbate
Ferret
Joined: 20 May 2008
Posts: 113
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Paul, you seem to be reading an not understanding what I'm saying. Maybe too many words are confusing you. Simple question; I will put the key point I am making in bold, so you can know what to focus on:
Do you know the difference between doctrine without a root, and doctrine rooted in the reality of the heart of truth?
If you do know the difference, then all you need to do is 1) Define that root principle; 2) Make your statements in terms of that root principle, which you have defined.
Until then, your words remain words.
Paul wrote: | Quote: | | You say everything you believe is correct. I seek to put the strongest case for what I believe is right, but I don't claim to know absolutely that all my beliefs are correct. My beliefs are open to review. |
It's very good that you admit this. My knowledge of the Gospel is not up for debate. It is 100% beyond any doubt, because it is even the basis that I use for judging ideas, so I cannot judge it according to any other basis. The Gospel is the most fundamental reality of understanding.
Paul wrote: | Quote: | Yes, you are teaching doctrine and yet you say such things as the following as if you are on a higher plane.
You wrote:
When I talk about the heart of the matter, it's like a foreign language to someone who thinks in doctrinal terms... |
The word "yet" implies a contradiction, but there is none. I teach about the higher plane, which is where knowledge of the Gospel resides. Someone caught up in "doctrine speak" is cut off from that plane, so cannot understand anything I say.
Paul said: | Quote: | You wrote:
When you ask the question: "Is Jesus really the same person as the Father"
You have misrepresented what I said, if "you" means me. |
I guess you're trying to mince words again. You said Jesus is not the same person as the Father, which is what I said you said. What has been misrepresented?
Paul said: | Quote: | You wrote:
I see you as a warmonger and a criminal, who tries to destroy God's people with lies.
Please clarify who you are calling a warmonger, criminal and liar. |
How about this idea? Read the sentence that I wrote before, and read the whole paragraph, and the whole post, instead of just picking out one sentence. I wrote:
| Quote: | | If you want to talk about labels for the sake of labels, then count me out. I see you as a warmonger and a criminal, who tries to destroy God's people with lies. |
How can you not know who I'm calling a warmonger. It is whoever uses labels for the sake of labels.
To recap, my point has always been that there are two traditions - the truth, and the doctrine approach. Both use doctrine, but the truth uses doctrine as a tool to describe the truth, whereas the doctrine approach uses doctrine with no basis. I have stated over and over again that the only valid basis is the heart of truth, and that for a doctrine to be true it must stem from and describe that heart of truth. Why do you continue not to respond to this point? Simply define and motivate your source according to the heart of truth, and explain your doctrine in terms of that source. Then we can discuss. Or if you want, you can continue to run around asking what this word and that word really mean. That simply means you want to talk about words. I want to talk about the heart of the matter, and use words only in that context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rocket
Kitten
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| First of all, the original Bible was written in Aramaic. The Greek Bible is a translation just as the English version is a translation. The original language of Yeshua and the Apostles was Aramaic. This ancient language did not contain descriptive adjectives so it was easy to translate it any way the translator saw fit, whatever denomination whether Catholic or Protestant. There is an original copy in Syria with translations on line, but all, again, are translated to suit the denomination translating it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul2
Big Goldfish
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 69
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Virbate AKA Vibrate,
| You wrote: | | When you ask the question: "Is Jesus really the same person as the Father" |
| I wrote: | | You have misrepresented what I said, if "you" means me. |
| You wrote: | | I guess you're trying to mince words again. You said Jesus is not the same person as the Father, which is what I said you said. What has been misrepresented? |
Anyone reading this forum can see that I did not ask the question "Is Jesus really the same person as the Father", so why claim I did?
| You wrote: | | I see you as a warmonger and a criminal, who tries to destroy God's people with lies. |
| I wrote: | | Please clarify who you are calling a warmonger, criminal and liar. |
| You wrote: | How about this idea? Read the sentence that I wrote before, and read the whole paragraph, and the whole post, instead of just picking out one sentence.
|
I have a better idea - you said it - so you clarify it.
| You wrote: | Paul, you seem to be reading an not understanding what I'm saying. Maybe too many words are confusing you. Simple question; I will put the key point I am making in bold, so you can know what to focus on: Do you know the difference between doctrine without a root, and doctrine rooted in the reality of the heart of truth? If you do know the difference, then all you need to do is 1) Define that root principle; 2) Make your statements in terms of that root principle, which you have defined.
Until then, your words remain words.
|
This is my perspective. You prefer to communicate without defining your own terms. You mostly prefer not to make any reference to specific Bible passages to back up your teaching. You think anyone who wants to debate whether the "trinity" is fact or falsehood in concrete terms (what God has said) is divisive. You have not defined the root or principles of your own philosophy. You talk about principles, but don't reveal how you derived those principles. You talk about the heart of the truth/matter, but don't state your case for what that is from the scriptures. You want others to explain to you what you mean to prove they are on the right track (as defined by you). I'm not necessarily interested in your opinion. What I want to know is, what has God said, what are His exact words and what do they mean.
Since this forum was set up to discuss the Bible in relation to whether the "Trinity" is fact or falsehood, and since you don't refer specifically to what the Bible says on the subject, why are you here? Are you here to disrupt the forum?
Paul
Last edited by Paul2 on Thu May 22, 2008 6:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul2
Big Goldfish
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 69
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rocket,
| You wrote: | | First of all, the original Bible was written in Aramaic... |
Did you mean to post this here? If so, please clarify how you see this as relevant.
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Virbate
Ferret
Joined: 20 May 2008
Posts: 113
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The root of everything is life. Or truth, love, spirituality... all of these words work. This is the root principle that I use, and how I interpret and understand the bible. This root exists and operates in the spirit of a man who is conscious of God. If you know what love is, and what truth is, then you will know what I'm referring to. Do you?
Now, are you asking me to defend this principle using the bible as a point of reference? The bible comprises words, which can be interpreted in many ways. In order to understand what it means you have to understand what it's talking about. You cannot figure it out from the text without having a point of reference in your own spirit. So if you want me to motivate the root of truth using just the bible as a point of reference, then I'm afraid we won't be able to move any further. This is not possible.
However, if you are aware of the root principle, which I have now defined, then we can continue to talk about the bible, because we will both know how to interpret what we read. We can proceed to talk about the trinity and all other ideas that have been brought up. Because we have a common point of reference, which is true, we will be able to do away with false concepts swiftly, and keep building up the truth.
So again, if you have understood my point in this post, I am saying that the root principle of reasoning must be something more fundamental than mere words. The meaning of the bible is not contained in words, but in the Spirit that inspires understanding of the truth described by those words.
Anyone who wants to talk about words, but does not want to build up their statements from the root of truth, which I have now defined, is lying. Anyone who is willing to implicitly and explicitly maintain the root principle of truth as a reference in all discussions is speaking the truth. I make this judgment based on the sure knowledge that truth belongs to the root principle, and true words can only describe and refer to the context of the root principle. Words used in any other context are false, and empty, since any other context is false and empty.
So what is your context? Is it the root principle I have described, or something else? Are you willing and able to discuss within the context of this root principle?
I guess you might say that I haven't said who I was talking about when I said they are a warmonger and liar. I was talking about any person who speaks without reference (explicitly and implicitly) to the natural, root principle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul2
Big Goldfish
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 69
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Virbate AKA Vibrate,
| You wrote: | | The root of everything is life. Or truth, love, spirituality... all of these words work. This is the root principle that I use, and how I interpret and understand the bible. |
So, you are saying truth is a principle which operates in you and this is how/why you know what the Bible means. I guess this is why you say that all your beliefs are true without doubt.
Evidently your claim is that since you know the truth is operating in you and all your beliefs are true, what you say in matters of doctrine is really God clarifying His word through you and if anyone disagrees with you in matters of doctrine they are really opposing God.
How do you know the "truth principle" is operating in you in such a way that you cannot err in matters of doctrine?
| You wrote: | | The bible comprises words, which can be interpreted in many ways. |
The bible comprises words, which are misinterpreted in many ways.
| You wrote: | | In order to understand what it means you have to understand what it's talking about. |
So, in order to understand what it means, you have to understand what it means (what it's talking about).
| You wrote: | | You cannot figure it out from the text without having a point of reference in your own spirit. |
In other words, unless God gives you understanding, you can't understand the Bible.
| You wrote: | | This root exists and operates in the spirit of a man who is conscious of God. If you know what love is, and what truth is, then you will know what I'm referring to. Do you? |
Yes, unless God gives you understanding, you can't understand the Bible.
The problem with your approach is that others claim that the truth operates in them in such a way that they do not err in matters of doctrine, but their versions of what is correct doctrine are discordant.
Paul
Last edited by Paul2 on Fri May 23, 2008 1:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
