 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > help with john 6 and exegesis | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/23/2004 7:24 AM (GMT -6) |   | Ah yes - but Jesus' ethical teachings are validated by His resurrection. Ghandi taught much the same things as far as ethical teachings go. It is not the adherence to Jesus' teachings that makes one a Christian, although I agree with you that if one follows Christ, one should walk as He walked. The distinctive thing about Christianity is the belief in the death, resurrection, and subsequent appearences of Jesus.
Albert: If a person claims to follow Christ, they should attempt to emulate his lifestyle.
Response: I agree. And this is one reason I say that (institutional) Christianity was already corrupt by 325. It's hard to find Christ-like behaviour at Nicea.
My weekend is starting to wind down, I will get back to your thoughts on Romans 9 as I am able.
- Hobbes | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/24/2004 7:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
I apologize in advance for not yet getting to Romans 9 - I WILL address your questions - but life is intruding at the moment and I don't have time to devote to it. I have been thinking about it and will respond when I can.
I basically agree with you that Jesus was superseding the OT. He said, "You have heard it said 'an eye for an eye' [quoting the Law of Moses] but I say...
I would be interested in how you would deal with, "I came not to negate the Law but to fufil it..." (paraphrase - don't have time to look it up!)
- Hobbes | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/25/2004 1:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
quote:
In all the cases I quoted, it's the Hebrew verb sane', which has pretty much the same meaning as "hate" in English (in opposition to "love"). It doesn't just mean emotionally hate, ...
If those psalms are by David, the fact that he was a king of a theocracy is relevant. He bore the sword of God's vengence with more "theological" force than do governments today, even. The average Israelite had no such authority to "hate" in that manner - at least outside of the promised land. Would you contend that a Jew of the dispersion (before Christ's time) living in Rome had the right to treat Roman citizens hatefully?
quote:
It doesn't just mean emotionally hate, and I'm not sure we're supposed to do that, anyway.
I would say we're not commanded to hate emotionally, but not forbidden either - it depends on why you hate. Even God hates, and He is morally perfect.
quote:
Pr. 25:21-22 is a bit ambiguous, because it continues "for you will heap coals of fire on their heads, and the LORD will reward you", which tends to imply a motive of storing up judgement against your enemy.
The same motive is in the Romans passage ("for by doing so you will heap coals of fire on their head!").
quote:
In Mt. 5:17-18, Jesus states that he has not come to “abolish but to fulfill”, and then goes on to say that nothing will pass from the Law e{w" a]n pavnta gevnhtai, until all is fulfilled1. The implication is that after all is fulfilled, the Law will pass away. Elsewhere Jesus says o nomo" kai oi profhtai ew" iwannou, “the law and the prophets [were] until John”2. Jesus' statement about the validity of every “jot and tittle” is qualified immediately by the phrase “until all is fulfilled”. This qualifies Jesus' statement not just temporally, but also in terms of meaning. Every “jot and tittle” must be upheld, not because it has great ethical validity, but because of its fulfillment aspect. Jesus sees the value of every “jot and tittle” of the Law in terms of its foreshadowing of himself, not in terms of its morality3. The phrase “these commandments” in Mt. 5:19, is often regarded as referring to the Law, but more likely refers to Jesus' own commandments as elaborated in the Sermon (Banks, 1975, 222-223). It is this higher ethic of Jesus that exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees and Scribes, that is, the righteousness of the Law (verse 20).
The phrase "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law" can only be reasonably interpreted to mean the Mosaic Law in the full context. The whole passage shows that it is the DOING of that law that He was saying was important, and that it was not to be done until "heaven and earth pass away":
5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law OR THE PROPHETS. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. 5:19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees,23 you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
I know of only 2 interpretations of "until heaven and earth pass way;" - the preterist and the pre-millenial. To be logically consistent, the preterist would have to apply that passage until at least A.D. 70 or thereabouts.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/25/2004 4:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Hobbes,
I know where you're comming from, I'm seeing it in what you are writing, and you are leaning towards what might be termed "spiritual knowledge". That is what I mean anyway, where people kind of bypass the old read it and learn it method and opt directly to getting the knokwledge via spirit. It's called, to sum it up in one word "Mysticism". And those boys I was talking about that condemed the non Christian Gnostic sects, were what are called "Christian Gnostics". Origen was one of them who strongly refuted the non Chritian Gnostics, and believed the same thing they did, go his spirit info from the same place, and wound up giving a eastern mystic interpretation to scripture. Which when taught and beleived by others, then opened them up to the same spirit, and it WAS NOT the spirit of Christ, nor the holy spirit, nor God.
There are two spirits and two sources for knowledge, the spirit of God, and the spirit of the god of this world. One is the spirit of truth and the other the spirit of error. But the spirit of error can come like "an angel of light". And it just loves to fill you in on what it want's you to think the bible is all about. IT's been masqueraiding as the holy spirit for a LONG time now. IT gives men the interpretation to scripture when they are in one of their "states", then they write it down and this knowledge from a devil becomes doctrine. Then when a person it taught that interpretation or doctrine in the normal manner, like through reading or preaching and they accept it, it gives the same spirit of error, the same demon a path into that persons brain. And then they start getting the same so called "revelation" when they read the scripture.
But it's all a BIG HOAX! But the experience is so STRONG in people it's hard to convince them that they are getting their understanding from a devil and not God. Martin Luther for example was really into the German Mystics of his time. And so on down the line clear back from the first century men have tapped into the wrong spirit to get knowledge of interpretation of the Word. That is why even if you learn by reading, a false doctrine of these men, it's called a "doctrine or teaching of devils". It starts out as revelatory knowledge received by a spirit (NO LEARNED), is then written down and passed on to others.
Really this is just a mimic of how true men of God received the Word of God. God via revelation gave them knowledge. Then they taught it and when people believed it, they received the holy spirit. This same knowledge given by God to men when written down IF understood properly will bring a spirit with it, that holy spirit. If not understood properly will bring a spirit of error with it. This is the law of the spirit world and of how written and spoken words transfer spirit to a man. But there is only ONE holy spirit and many many spirits of devils roaming around and maybe not behind every BUSH, but definately behind every BOOK and the words that come out of mens mouths.
I'll go into biblical detail on this later.
God bless
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/25/2004 7:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Larris,
Ok, you’re making a distinction that I wasn’t making. When I said “Gnostics” I was thinking “Christian Gnostics” as opposed to “non-Christian Gnostics.” I suppose you would say that there’s no such thing as a CHRISTIAN Gnostic?
Larris: I know where you're coming from, I'm seeing it in what you are writing, and you are leaning towards what might be termed "spiritual knowledge". That is what I mean anyway, where people kind of bypass the old read it and learn it method and opt directly to getting the knowledge via spirit.
Response: I’m responding to Albert’s proposition of “more creative ways of reading the Bible” (my paraphrase). What I have suggested is that there is a way of thinking that is more intuitive, not linear, and makes non-linear connections between things and that this way of thinking is viewed as not legitimate in the West but was viewed as legitimate in the Biblical culture. This might explain Paul’s use or application of OT texts out-of-context, 3 examples of which Albert has supplied and asked me for my opinion. I would argue that this is NOT “getting the knowledge via spirit.” It’s merely a way or a mode of thinking in which we in the modern west are retarded.
To Albert – struggling for time, bear with me, please.
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/25/2004 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Hobbes and Albert,
quote:
I suppose you would say that there’s no such thing as a CHRISTIAN Gnostic?
Oh "Contraire", A Christian follows Gnostic mysticism and he's a Christian Gnostic. However since they don't want you to think they got any of their ideas from that direction they just drop the "Gnostic". It's another method of deceit where you believe and practice the same things, have the same basic idea-ology, but call it by different names and use a lot of synonyms. Then everyone that doesn't know the other real well, falls for plagiarism (my spelling is probably atrocity...ou...s???) and IDEA theft.
quote:
Response: I’m responding to Albert’s proposition of “more creative ways of reading the Bible” (my paraphrase). What I have suggested is that there is a way of thinking that is more intuitive, not linear, and makes non-linear connections between things and that this way of thinking is viewed as not legitimate in the West but was viewed as legitimate in the Biblical culture.
WHOA...slow down...lots of ideas there (I'm talking to my brain.)
OK....first of all the word "intuitive", definitely a mystic word, and hence a Gnostic word since the Gnostic were mystics. What you might think is "intuition" is in fact info via the spirit realm. Man gains knowledge in TWO ways, he either learns it and uses his deductive powers that lie naturally in the brain God gave him. Or a spirit tells him something that he could not have possibly known by his five senses.
Women for instance don't really have some super power or 6th sense of intuition, i.e. "woman's intuition". Their brain just is real good at noticing contradictions or similarities, and their brain puts info and evidence together in such a manner as to catch their kids every time they lie et. And they have things within their very nature itself that might be called "intuition", but it's just a natural thing to them, it's not actually intuition.
Devils will make you think you have some high form of "intuitive" power, they do it to people all the time. They know where every thought and word resides in your brain. All they have to do is poke a spiritual finger in there and it brings things to your mind. In brain surgery if they put a probe on different parts of the brain, the person will speak and say different things depending on where the probe is placed. Well spirits are extremely smart and understand exactly how our brains work and so can manipulate electrical impulses to bring forth ideas and memories. They just love to study the Word with you and try and give you some hokey false idea about what is being said. And once you accept one thing, they try another and another and another. And if you don't catch your mistake, you get led off into false doctrine land. Which I might add is where all our renowned Church fathers and theologians have gotten us.
What is the proof of that? Well, let's take what you guys have been talking about, as far as Jesus and the apostles interpretation of the Old Testament. Now according to what you have learned through Christianity (same thing I learned by the way.), according to that they seemed to be putting the wrong time frame on things, or as you said "taking it out of context". BUT what if they are interpreting those texts rightly according to both context and time frame and all the great theologians that have passed down ideas to us are the ones in the WRONG.
You know a theologian or some such looks at the scripture and they look at what they think is the historical context, and they see some events in history that looked like what it said in the scripture. Then they come to a conclusion and they pass a judgment and they preach a sermon, and they write a book and it becomes etched in stone for the next generation after generation.
And then we come along and we read a prophecy in the scripture and we think to ourselves because of what we have been led to believe, we think OH that already took place. BUT what if ONLY something SIMILAR took place that looked like what was said? What IF the prophecy hasn't really happened yet? Again what IF something happened that was only SIMILAR to something else that was yet to take place in the future?
Let me show you a few reasons why I am saying this. (Believe me I have a lot of reasons, but only time for a few here now.)
First of all we have been taught and led to believe that Jeremiah was a prophet to Israel. And because we been taught that, we often don't see some things that were said to Jeremiah in the right light. Take for instance the following.
Jer. 1:4
Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the NATIONS.
1:10
See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms to root out and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build and to plant.
Jeremiah was not a prophet TO Israel, he was a prophet to THE NATIONS, of which one just happened to be ISRAEL. That is he was primarily a prophet to the GENTILES.
Sounds crazy I know, you think I nuts, go ahead admit it. I thought I was nuts too for a long time. But here's something else you should take a look at.
Let' take 1st Peter. Peter after his intro and speaking to the believers about the trial of their faith states:
Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. OF WHICH SALVATION....
What SALVATION is that? That would be that new type of salvation in Christ, the new covenant, the gospel of grace et.
...of WHICH SALVATION, THE PROPHETS
What "prophets"? As you will see he's talking about the OT prophets.
of which salvation the prophets HAVE INQUIRED AND SEARCHED DILIGENTLY, who prophesied of the GRACE that SHOULD COME TO YOU.
Peter is talking to GENTILE believers here. And he's telling them about the Prophets of the OT. who prophesied about the grace that would come upon the Gentiles, and he's telling them that not only did they prophesy these things, but that they also "INQUIRED and SEARCHED" diligently about it. What was it they wanted to know?
(11) Searching what, or WHAT MANNER OF TIME....
The inquired, that is they asked God. The searched, that is they SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES, they had available to them at that time. And they wanted to know something about the TIME of something what was that?
Searching what or what manner of TIME, the spirit of Christ, which was IN THEM did signify when it (the spirit of Christ) testified BEFORE HAND THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST AND THE GLORY THAT WOULD FOLLOW.
The prophets prophesied BEFORE it happened, of the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that would follow. And the prophesied of the GRACE, the SALVATION that would come to the Gentiles. And they wanted themselves to KNOW WHEN THIS WOULD ALL TAKE PLACE. Sound familiar? Don't a lot of people today want to know WHEN a lot of prophecies in say Rev. are going to take place. Or WHEN Jesus is going to come back. I believe the big shots named that eschatology, the study of end time things et.
Well that's what the prophets wanted to know and the prayed and asked and searched diligently over the scripture they had available to them. Probably even read their own writings trying to figure it all out. And almost every single one of them really believed that what they were prophesying was going to take place in THEIR LIFETIME. But guess what, they found out WHEN it was going to take place.
1:12
Searching what or what manner of TIME, the spirit of Christ, which was in them did signify when it (the spirit of Christ) testified before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that would follow.
UNTO WHOM IT WAS REVEALED.....
God REVEALED it to them, because they ASKED him, AND most importantly because the SEARCHED for the answer, via searching the scripture they had. And just what did he reveal to them?
Unto whom it was revealed that NOT UNTO THEMSELVES, but unto US, DID THEY MINISTER, the things that are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the holy ghost send down from heaven.
The prophets like Jeremiah did NOT prophesy unto themselves, meaning they did not prophesy for THEIR TIME concerning the sufferings of Christ and the GLORY that would follow. HOWEVER when they all started out prophesying they all thought they were prophesying for their OWN TIME. And usually it was not revealed to them, until shortly before they died.
It was the same with the New Covenant prophets. They thought Jesus would come back in their lifetime, and spoke in that context. They did not know WHEN exactly, but they all believed it would be within their lifetime. But as you read their writings, you see that those writings change as it is REVEALED TO THEM, that they are going to die before the Lord returns.
So when you read the prophets, you have to rightly divide THE TIME. Peter said they prophesied of a certain time period. That would be "The suffering of Christ and the glory that would follow." Of course we know that means from the TIME of his conception and birth up to his death and resurrection, then on to the GLORY that would follow.
In other words Peter, Paul and others are not the ones interpreting things out of context. The explanation for how they interpreted the Old Testament is they did it right and we're doing it wrong. It's not that we have to get more "creative", we just need to do what they did, and know how and why they did it. It's getting "creative" in interpretation that has led us to not understanding what they did to begin with.
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/25/2004 7:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Larris,
Maybe you should ask me what I mean by "intuitive" rather than defining it for me and then jumping to conclusions based on YOUR definition?
- Hobbes
To all: My participation will be curbed for a short season.  I want to give priority to Albert's question to me concerning Romans 9. I will offer that shortly. I will continue to read this thread more or less daily but my responses will be short. I find it all very interesting but I have more pressing buisiness to attend to right now. | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/26/2004 7:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
Thanks that made me feel good. I enjoy your posts also and just conversing you with in general. And I appreciate the way you confront me when you don't agree with what I say.
Quote from Hobbes.
"Maybe you should ask me what I mean by "intuitive" rather than defining it for me and then jumping to conclusions based on YOUR definition?"
WHOA, now we are getting into that Socrates Plato stuff of "defining terms". And in a sense we have to do that, because often what one person means by a word is not how the other takes it. And thus "misunderstanding" arises, and offences are taken. Did not mean to offend you by what I was saying, you misunderstood me. And therefore you need to define to me what you yourself are meaning by "intuitive". To understand you properly I need the following questions answered.
1. How are you seeing that word, that is what is your definition of it.
2. How are you taking that definition of it for application.
3. What do you mean by using intuition as you define it, for being creative with the interpretation of the scripture?
My definition of Gnostic "intuition" was accurate, as was my other definition of Woman's intuition. One by not using reason, the other based on reasoning and knowledge acquired often "called" intuition, but not really as it was originally intended to be used.
Web. Dic.
Intuition
1. A looking upon; seeing either with the physical eye or the EYE of the mind; contemplation, sight.
2. Knowledge obtained, or the power of knowing, without recourse to inference or reasoning; innate or instinctive knowledge; insight
familiarly, a quick or ready insight or apprehension.
3. Philos. Immediate apprehension or cognition; either by faculty or power of such apprehension or a particular act or instance of it. Intuition is applied to direct or immediate knowing, whether MYSTICAL, perceptional, intellectual, reflective, or mediate knowing.
(Which cards in your wallet?)
Intuitive
1. Seeing clearly; as intuitive vision.
2. Knowing or perceiving by intuition: capable of knowing WITHOUT DEDUCTION OR REASONING.
IF a man KNOWS something without having learned it by the use of deduction or reasoning, then he got it in one of only TWO ways. 1. It is latent within his nature he was born with it. Or 2. Someone or some THING told him.
The question HOW did the apostles know how to interpret scripture is easily answered in the fact that JESUS TOLD THEM. They did not learn it, they did not reason it out, they did not receive it via Holy Spirit, and they were flat out taught it FIRST and in person by the Lord himself. And then they taught what he taught them.
John 14:15
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
What or which "comforter" is Jesus speaking of here?
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
In this case he is speaking of HIMSELF personally.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
When was it that the world would see him no more? It was AFTER the ascension. Before that everyone in the world who happened to be within eyesight could see him. But AFTER the ascension he would only show himself IN PERSON to his disciples.
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
They did what he said to do, and as a result he literally manifested himself to them. That is came to them personally or spoke to them AUDIBLY.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Well now if you are his abode, he can show up at that abode anytime he wants to.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
TWO comforters are mentioned in this teaching. 1. the Holy Ghost which would be given on the day of Pentecost, which would bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever he had taught them IN PERSON. THEN as they remembered and KEPT his commandments, they proved that they loved him and so then ANOTHER COMFORTER, namely HIMSELF could and would come to them. This was all dependent though on weather or not they kept his commandments, proving that they really did love him.
As they kept his commandments, those things he taught them previously in the flesh, in person during his ministry on earth, he SAW THEM doing it, and then he asked his father if he could visit them and Dad said Yes Son go ahead. THEN in those personal visits he taught them more, which they in turn taught to others in the NORMAL way, and wrote down most of what he taught them. It was all received in the NORMAL way.
Even a personal visit from Jesus Christ, and him telling them something was all NORMAL excpet for the fact that we don't tend to think of a personal visit from the SON OF GOD as normal. However the original 11 were with him both before he took on that immortal glorified body and after. Therefore to see him to talk to him to them was NORMAL. IT was normal to the original apostles, but not to Paul, it freaked him out and blinded him. I mean how would you react if someone you thought was DEAD showed up and talked to you in PERSON. Did he see the literal body of Christ, no. But he saw a great light and that light blinded him. And he heard his voice, becuase Jesus was there. Jesus can speak to a person, and he can show his body to them, as he did to John in Rev.
Rev. 1:12
and I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven gloden candlesticks; and in the midst of the seven golden candle sticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down ot the foot, and girt aboaut the paps with a gloden firdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as shite as snow; and his eyes were as a falme of fire; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a shrp twoedeged sword: and his countenance was as the swin shineth in his strength. AND WHEN I SAW HIM, I fell (the usual reation) at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saing unto me, Fear not; (by interpretation SNAP OUT OF IT, it's ME.)
I am the first and the last; I am he that liveth and was dead and behold i am alive for evermore, Amen (by interpretation, THANK GOD, I don't have to go through that again!)WRITE the things which thou hast seen.
All of this done IN PERSON, with the aid of HIS angle, probably Michael, who as he also said in Daniel was the only one who truly held with him in these things, but also could have been Gabriel. Seeing these persons is tramatic, but just as REAL as you or me.
The apostles did not get anything by "intuition", they got it first hand in EVERY instance. ALL the Holy Spirit was to do was bring what he had ALREADY told them to their remembrance.
Now because the believers of the first century knew this, that there were TWO comforters, that the first was given unconditionally upon the initial belief of Jesus Christ. And they knew that it's job was not to TEACH but to bring what was taught to a persons remembrance, so that the person could then DO the sayings, commandments of Jesus Christ. BECAUSE of knowing these two things, they fully expected to receive ANOTHER COMFORTER after the first comforter of the Holy Spirit. That is they also wanted a "personal visit", that personal presence which gave the power to ask anything and have it be done.
BUT to get there was a LOT of WORK. It is a LOT of WORK to remember his commandments and DO THEM. Takes a lot of repentance a lot of study a lot of retaining and a lot of practice. You got to show that you are worthy of him in that manner that he would actually want to come hang out with you.
Now since this was so much WORK, and people are many times basically LAZY and want everything RIGHT NOW, it made the believers susceptible to a FALSE TEACHING, a GET IT NOW teaching.
2 Cor. 12:2
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. FOR if he that comes preaches ANOTHER JESUS, whom we have not preached, or if you receive ANOTHER SPIRIT, which you have not received, or ANOTHER GOSPEL, which you have not accepted, you might well bear with them.
There is in FACT ANOTHER JESUS, ANOTHER SPIRIT AND ANOTHER GOSPEL, other than the real Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the real gospel. And all are received by believing the teaching of someone who is not teaching quite the original. And they are a LOT EASIER to follow than what Jesus said you had to do. Only thing is, you wind up just getting a devil spirit calling himself JESUS.
This happens ALL THE TIME. These guys that flap their gums on TV and tell you that Jesus came into their Hotel room before they came to preach and the shakhana glory shone round, and Jesus told them what to say to you, are in fact POSSESSED with ANOTHER Jesus, ANOTHER spirit, and preach ANOTHER Gospel. Practically ALL the so-called great Church fathers were in the same boat. And when you believe their writings and follow their teachings, that opens you up to the same type of Spirit. Because SPIRIT is passed on thorough WORDS. And devil spirit coming as angles of light, and impersonating Jesus or the Holy Spirit just love to fill your head with false enlightenment, so that you can be "INTUITIVE" to the spirit, and hence think that you are somehow "INTUITIVE" to what scripture means. But in reality you are just being hood winked.
People think that because they have a spiritual "EXPERIENCE", where these things happen that they are true. Yes the experience is true, it happens, but the knowledge you get from it is a LIE. NOTHING I know today, have I gotten by a "spirit", what I know today, I learn from coming to an understanding of the Written Word by using deductive reasoning God given to every man and by READING. As I put info in my head and then endeavor to DO as the Lord commands in my personal life, I learn more. The Holy Spirit helps me remember what I have already put into my head so that I can do it.
Now unfortunately I stumble and fall a lot, and have not as yet been totally faithful at doing some of the things Jesus commanded. Have a real problem with my anger and my mouth of which bitter water can flow at any given time. BUT I'm working on that. But at the times when I have proved faithful, what I ask I receive. However never have I as yet proved to be a total keeper of his commandments long enough to have Jesus actually come in person. I have not overcome to that point as yet.
Most importantly I DO NOT SEEK a personal visit, nor do I seek a spiritual EXPERIENCE, I only seek his righteousness in my life, by endeavoring to LIVE as he commanded. You cannot SEEK a personal visit, once you get on that level that's mysticism and you'll get a personal visit all right, but it will not be from Jesus, it will be from something that has stolen his credit card and taken over his identity, and that's "the card you will then have in your wallet". Yea you got Jesus credit card, and your buying anything you want, but Jesus didn't give it to you. I believe that's called "FRAUD".
By the way, you got all upset because I didn't understand what you meant by "intuitive", and lost the main point of the post, which was what Peter said about what TIME the prophets prophesied of.
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/26/2004 8:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Larris,
You said, Did not mean to offend you by what I was saying, you misunderstood me.
And also, you got all upset because I didn't understand what you meant by "intuitive", and lost the main point of the post, which was what Peter said about what TIME the prophets prophesied of.
Response: I was not offended, neither was I upset. You’re jumping to conclusions about the way I feel in the same way you jumped to conclusions about what I meant by, “intuitive.”
I DID get the point of your post, the point about getting the time right. I just don’t have time to respond to everything you say. I find your points of view interesting and provocative, however, so keep writing and I’ll keep reading.
In the interest of defining terms, what do you think is meant by one of the definitions you gave me for, “intuitive” which was, “Seeing with the eye of the mind.” What do you think “the eye of the mind” means?
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/26/2004 11:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
In the interest of defining terms, what do you think is meant by one of the definitions you gave me for, “intuitive” which was, “Seeing with the eye of the mind.” What do you think “the eye of the mind” means?
It's not what I think it means, it would have to be defined according to what those who wrote the definition think it means. What did they think it meant?
Web. Dic.
Eye, usage 3. With reference to the "minds eye":
The faculty or action of
intellectual discrimination or inner perception; consideration or contemplation;
mental regard; as the advantage did not escape his eye;
rational power; as he needs all his eyes to work though the difficulty;
point of view; as judgment; opinion; estimation; as, to note logical distinctions with a keen eye.
These things varry in men according to their knowledge and experience which gains knowledge according to the natural God created powers of the brain to learn, reason and discern from what one has learned.
HOWEVER, there is a knowledge that men don't learn, that is placed in there brian via devil spirit, that seems to be enlightenment, and is knowledge, what you might term "spiritual" knowledge. Some think that this knowledge is an "inner light" that every man is born with, BUT IT'S NOT! Some think that this knowledge is a "spirit guide", and some think it's God, or Jesus or the Holy Spirit. However it's all the SAME spirit, one cleaver devil with many cleaver disguises.
Matt 6:22
The light of the body is the EYE: if therefore thine EYE be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine EYE be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness.
IF you have spirutal knowlege of any sort,it comes from one sourse or the other. IF you think that your knowledge is coming from God when it's really coming from a demonic angel of light type source, then your spiritual knowlege that is supposed to be light is really darkness. You wind up being in a state where you think you know when you don't. And if you think you know when you do not know, you are really in trouble. IF the truth you think you have is really error, how GREAT IS THAT ERROR.
This demonic "eye of the mind" will also help you develop all kinds of creative ways to interpret scripture, as you hang out and "perceive" what he's telling you. It's an inner KNOWING, mixed with a spiritual experience, that just has to be REAL. And so since you know it's REAL, you automatically think it's HOLY, when it's NOT! That is why it is SO HARD to convince someone who has had or has these experiences that it's not God they are dealing with, cause it FELT SO GOOD becoming ONE with THE ONE. Makes you feel so wise, so knowing, so "SPECIAL", so "SPIRITUAL".
It's actually spiritual whoredom, the same thing Eve did, in listening to the serpent, and going against God's WORD as it was given word for word. But then I am of the personal opinion, that Adam was so intent on getting to work that day, that he probably gave her the short version of what God said.
"JUST LOOK EVE, I DON'T HAVE TIME TO EXPLAIN IT ALL, JUST DON'T TOUCH IT OK. SEE YA LATER, I GOT TO GO PLANT A TREE, WHY DON'T YOU COOK US UP SOMETHING GOOD FOR SUPPER. (SMOOCH, SMOOCH)"
When you do not know God's actual WORD on a matter, it's fairly easy for some smooth talker to come along and twist things up for you. Spirits are VERY smooth operators, and they know just what kind of bait to use to real us in. That is why the WRITTEN WORD, properly and accurately understood is of vital importance. A spirit comes along and tries to tell us something, and we compair it to the WRITTEN WORD...i.e. "IT IS WRITTEN". Or a person with a spirit in them comes along and tells us something and we compair it with the WRITTEN WORD...i.e. "IT IS WRITTEN".
Jesus knew THE WRITTEN WORD, however so did the devil and the devil tried to trip him up with a hokey interpretation. I bet he said things that are not recorded, like for instance;
"Well you know Jesus this things been copied over and over and we have no originals, how do you know it's GOD'S WORD? I mean according to some of the experts the book of Daniel is not authentic. And there's some books that aren't even in there that have been written. Who decided what books should be in that written Word you are quoting there? How do you KNOW it's God's Word? I mean look buddy, I'm here, I'm with you, if anyone should know what's what it's me, so just listen to me and I'll let you KNOW what's going on."
Thank God Jesus didn't fall for that! No he responded with IT IS WRITTEN, and he believed God enough to trust that God was fully able to produce a WRITTEN document, that would give him enough knowledege to know who he was and who his father was in a bunch of old copied writings.
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/27/2004 8:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
I apologize for taking so long to get to this. I have too much to do! This is (finally!) my response to your request for me to deal with the 3 examples you gave from Romans 9-11 where you believe Paul is interpreting the OT in a “creative” way; and not the “normal” way WE would interpret it. Of course, you beg the question concerning “normal.”
First of all, I see what you’re saying, and I understand why you say what you do. However, I’m going to suggest that perhaps we are taking Paul too literally, and holding him to a method in his use of OT texts to which he himself did not adhere. We do this because – again – we think like Greeks. We are overly literal, sequential, imposing one-to-one relationships as opposed to parallel or circular relationships.
Keep in mind that, as I told Larris, when I say that we think like Greeks, I do not mean that we think like Plato. More like Aristotle – but Aristotle amplified by CENTURIES – the result of which is scientific rationalism.
As you may remember, our conversation went thusly:
Hobbes: I think that many times we view the NT authors as interpreting the OT texts in “odd ways” because we DON’T GET WHAT THE NT AUTHORS ARE SAYING. If we did, their use of the OT would not be odd. It would make perfect sense. This happened to me on Romans 9-11.
Albert: OK Hobbes, that's a very good example, so let's pursue it. I'll give you some concrete instances where I think Paul doesn't interpret the text in its normal sense, and I'd be interested to see how you handle it.
Number 1: In Romans 9:25-26 Paul quotes Hosea 1:9-10. However, in context Hosea 1:9-10 is clearly speaking of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, who were rejected by God, being accepted by him again. But Paul applies it to the Gentiles.
Response: Paul is NOT applying Hosea 1:9-10 to the Gentiles. You’re not seeing the context in Rom 9. Paul is saying that IN THE SAME WAY that God, in Hosea, told the Northern Kingdom that they were not His people and that He would call them, “My people”, IN THE SAME WAY God is telling the Gentiles that even though they were not His chosen, He is calling them “sons of the living God. Notice verse 25, “As He says ALSO in Hosea…” The words, "AS...ALSO" indicate that Paul is NOT saying that Hosea was talking about the Gentiles. It indicates Paul is saying that JUST LIKE God told Israel of their restoration in Hosea…so He is telling the Gentiles of their inclusion. It’s not a LITERAL “this-is-the-same-as-that” type application, you Greek-literal-thinking westerner you! 
Albert: Number 2: In Romans 10:20 he quotes Isaiah 65:1, which in context refers to rebellious Israel, but applies it to Gentiles.
Response: How is it that Paul is applying this to Gentiles? In the preceding verse (v. 19) he explicitly says that he is speaking of Israel. In the following verse (v. 21) he explicitly says he is speaking of Israel. In the next verse (11:1) he is explicitly speaking of Israel. How is it that he is speaking of Israel in all the surrounding text but not in verse 20? Do you think he would switch from Israel in verse 19 to the Gentiles in verse 20 and back to Israel in verse 21 without telling anybody? The issue in the immediate context is whether or not ALL Israel has heard the gospel. The implication is that if they have not, then God is unjust for judging them for not obeying that word. That is, the pot could then rightly say to the potter, “Why does He still find fault?” or “Why have you made me thus?” But Paul is saying that they HAVE heard and God is judging them on the basis of their response to the good news. Even though they did not seek Him, He found them, even as Isaiah said. But they rejected Him, and now He judges them, as Isaiah also said.
Albert: Number 3: In Romans 10:6-7 he claims that Deu. 30:11-14 refers to Christ. Not on my reading of it, it doesn't!
Response: Again, I think you are taking Paul’s use of the OT too literally. I don’t think Paul is saying that Moses is referring to Christ. He is saying that the word of faith in Christ is like the word of faith in the covenant of Moses. In both cases it is near you, in your mouth and in your heart. In both cases it is not too hard, nor too far away. Moses is referring to the word of the covenant; Paul is referring to the word of faith in Christ that he is preaching.
There is a parallel being drawn:
Moses: It [the word of the Law] is not in heaven, that you should say, “who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?”
Paul: Do not say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven to bring Christ down?’
Moses: Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?”
Paul: (Do not say) “Who will descend into the abyss to bring Christ up from the dead?”
BUT WHAT DOES IT SAY?
Moses: But the word [of the Law] is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.
Paul: The word [of faith that we are preaching] is near you, in your mouth and in your heart.
One of Paul’s main points in Romans 9-11 is that Israel has been rejected of God on the basis of their behavior, their rejection of Christ, and that this is not what God wanted. Most of the OT passages cited illustrate that God has ALWAYS dealt with Israel on a conditional basis, not a monergistic basis. He gave them a covenant that could be kept. He dealt with them on the basis of their keeping or not keeping this covenant. He is dealing with the Gentiles in the same way. He has given a covenant that can be kept. It’s not too hard, nor is it far away. Paul is illustrating from the OT that this is how God has operated in the past concerning Israel, and Paul is declaring that this is how He’s operating now concerning the Gentiles.
You think that Paul is interpreting the OT in some kind of weird and wonderful way. Some kind of hidden, spiritual way. You say,
In other words, maybe God built a meaning into the text of which the author was unaware.
You do this because it appears to you that the NT authors are taking the OT verses out of context, applying them in ways that the OT authors obviously did not intend. I would suggest you re-examine what you think the NT authors are really saying. And I wouldn’t depend on centuries of western, theological, Greek-type “exegesis” if I were you. Just a thought.
Albert: OK, there are obvious differences between Hebrew and Greek thought. But something isn't right because it's Hebrew, anymore than something is wrong because it's Greek.
Response: That’s true - I agree - but don’t you think it would be a problem (arrogant, chauvinistic, and just plain stupid) to apply Greek modes of thought, definitions, and reality constructs to Hebrew texts? In order to understand Greek texts I should think like a Greek. In order to understand Hebrew texts I should think like a Hebrew. My contention is that, because of CENTURIES of the evolution of the Greek mode of thinking especially in the West, we have arrived at an overly rationalistic and literal way of thinking that makes it EXTREMELY difficult (if not impossible) for most of us to think like a Hebrew of Paul’s time, not to mention the centuries of Hebrew writing before the NT era. And so we have CENTURIES of philosophy and theology the content of which is applying Greek modes of thought to Hebrew texts – CENTURIES of arrogance, chauvinism, and just plain stupidity – even with the best of intentions and sincere seeking – masquerading as Truth. The result is an institution – Christianity – that is corrupt and rotten to the core. The nature of the problem is systemic and cannot be righted from within. Paul had to deal with God’s rejection of Israel and in so doing he stated, “…they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel…” Perhaps in the future, some apostle-like person will have to explain how “…not all Church is Church…”
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/27/2004 8:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Larris,
You said,
Eye, usage 3. With reference to the "minds eye":
The faculty or action of
intellectual discrimination or inner perception; consideration or contemplation;
mental regard; as the advantage did not escape his eye;
rational power; as he needs all his eyes to work though the difficulty;
point of view; as judgment; opinion; estimation; as, to note logical distinctions with a keen eye.
These things vary in men according to their knowledge and experience which gains knowledge according to the natural God created powers of the brain to learn, reason and discern from what one has learned.
Response: And that is how I meant “intuitive.” It’s a purely human activity. It’s a way of thinking.
1) It’s not sequential, it’s not linear.
2) It is not aware of time.
3) It is nonverbal-using non-verbal cognition to process perceptions.
4) It is analogic-seeing likenesses among things; understanding metaphoric relationships
5) It is spatial-seeing where things are in relation to other things and how parts go together to form a whole.
6) It is visual – pictorial – imagery
7) Intuitive-making leaps of insight, often based on incomplete patterns, hunches, feelings or visual images.
8) Holistic- (meaning “wholistic”) seeing whole things all at once; perceiving the overall patterns and structures, often leading to divergent conclusions.
Are you aware of Thomas Aquinas’ concept of “Poetic Knowledge”?
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/28/2004 1:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
quote:
Jefscott: If those psalms are by David, the fact that he was a king of a theocracy is relevant.
Albert: Even if they were all composed by David, which is doubtful, they were designed for general usage and singing. So I don't think you can get out of it that easily. Would you limit other things in the Psalms only to David?
The fact that the Psalms were for general usage and singing proves nothing about their application to an individuals life. I could sing a song taken from the Revelation about Christ coming and destroying people at His second coming without believing that I have the right to destroy people.
But please address the other part of my post, which is more to the point. Did an Israelite living in the dispersion before Christ have a God-given right to treat his Gentile neighbors hatefully?
quote:
Jefscott: The phrase "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law" can only be reasonably interpreted to mean the Mosaic Law in the full context.
Albert: That is entirely a matter of debate. I can't go into it here, but the work I cited, which takes my position, by a leading New Testament scholar, is Banks, R. 1975. Jesus and the law in the synoptic tradition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
In your quotation of 5:18 you underlined "until heaven and earth pass away" but you ignored the qualifying phrase "until all is fulfilled". I find this is a common feature of people who take your position; they simply ignore the clear qualification of the statement at the end of the verse.
I can't find that work on Amazon.com or ABEBOOKS.com so you'll have to provide the argument to make your case. Both phrases are qualifying. And this is common-sensical; He was saying that ALL will have been fulfilled when the heaven and earth will finally have passed away.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/28/2004 3:13 AM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
Hobbes, Are you aware of Thomas Aquinas’ concept of “Poetic Knowledge”?
I am both aware of his concept of Poetic Knowledge and aware of WHERE he got his concept of poetic knowledge.
quote:
Encyclopedia Americana, Thomas Aquinas
His knowledge of the literature of PHILOSOPHY and THEOLOGY is extraordinary. He makes greatest use of the writings of AROSTOTLE and St. Augustine, but countless other men are quoted: great Greeks and Romans such as SOCRATES, PLATO, PLOTINUS, CICERO AND SENECA;
And I am aware of what God’s Word says about this CONCEPT.
Col. 2:8 BEWARE lest any man spoil you through PHILOSOPHY and VAIN DECEIT, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world and NOT after Christ.
1 Cor 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1 Cor. 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to naught.
1 3:16: Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
1 Tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
You are trying to use methods of interpretation which are the very things Paul warned would lead a man to destruction. The very things that lead a man to pervert the true understanding of the Word of God. This knowledge came directly via the PRINCES OF THIS WORLD THAT COME TO NAUGHT! And when you accept these teachings you are accepting “doctrines of devils”. And when you accept a doctrine of a devil you get a devil, who is more than willing to make you think that you have some “special insight” into the interpretation of scripture.
WHAT????? Do you think Paul was just KIDDING?????????
Do you think that God is going to allow the eyes of your understanding to be opened to the truth of his Word, when you choose to DISOBEY his warnings? You speak of the negative influence of Greek thought and then you adopt the very kind of thinking that has led us away from the truth to begin with.
Until you do as Paul did and take his warnings seriously, you will never truly understand the scripture, because God will (if he has not already) send you a spirit of error and allow you to keep on deceiving yourself, and ultimately destroy yourself. What you are teaching, what you believe, and what you are practicing on the scripture comes directly via evil men, false teachers who were inspired by the devil and you are following their destructive ways. I hope you will eventually take heed to scripture more than you do to the very Greek philosophy and mode of thinking that you denounce and practice at the same time.
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/28/2004 7:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
Albert: I can't positively exclude your reading considered on its own, but in the light of how Paul treats texts in general, I think my reading is correct.
Response: Of course you do. As do I.
So how do you read what I just said?
1) That I agree with your reading or
2) That I think MY reading is correct IN THE SAME WAY that you think your reading is correct
Which meaning did I intend?
Seeing as how you say you can't positively exclude my understanding and seeing as how I concede that I can't positively exclude your understanding, where are we? Answer: disagreeing over POSSIBLE interpretations of a text with no way to definitively verify who's right, if anybody. Which is the definitive problem with exercises of this nature in general.
So let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right. What now? How would you propose that WE interpret scripture? If we can't NECESSARILY take immediate and historical context into account - if God has hidden a meaning in the text that cannot be arrived at through “normal” means, what do you propose to do to arrive at that meaning, and having arrived at it, how would you propose to communicate that meaning using proof texts the immediate and historical contexts of which have no necessary connection to said meaning?
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/28/2004 8:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hobbes: So let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right. What now? How would you propose that WE interpret scripture? If we can't NECESSARILY take immediate and historical context into account - if God has hidden a meaning in the text that cannot be arrived at through “normal” means, what do you propose to do to arrive at that meaning, and having arrived at it, how would you propose to communicate that meaning using proof texts the immediate and historical contexts of which have no necessary connection to said meaning?
2 Cor. 4:2 1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
What "hidden things of dishonesty" could Paul be speaking of, that caused him to walk in craftiness and handle the word of God deceitfully?
Col. 2:8 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Until you renouce the very thing that you are practicing on the scripture and quit looking to men like Aquinas and Origen and all the other philosophers you speak of, you will not be able to know the interpretation. For on the one hand you speak of how Greek thought has permiated and perverted our thinking about the Bible, on the other hand you are yourself emersed in Greek thought, and in Greek philosophy.
Aristotle's teachings were ALIVE AND WELL durring the time of Paul. Do you think he excluded those in his mention of philosophy? You want to find out the interpretation to God's word, without doing as God says to do. Before you can ever become truly wise in what God's word means, you need to renouce the teachings that you are holding, that came from the so called wise men of this world and choose to become a fool.
As Paul said, if any many thinks himself to be wise in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise. That is the only way one will truly become "born again", because a BABY KNOWS NOTHING. Nicodemus, thought he knew this and he thought he knew that, and Jesus told him a so called "master teacher of Israel" that he needed to get "born again", that is get to the place where he realized that everything he knew was SUSPECT to error, and therefore he really didn't know ANYTHING. Because until you renounce your teachings and just to to the WORD like a new born babe, Jesus CANNOT teach you anything. You can't teach a man who already thinks he knows!
Besides that God has a safeguard on his word, so that no matter how much you study it, if you are not obedient to it, you'll never know it. You can study till you are blue in the face, and just go in circles, God will see to it. God only reveals truth to his servants, and if you don't do what he says to do you are not his servant.
Until you say "Thoman Aquinas didn't know squat", and philosphy is in fact WORLD WISDOM, and then repent for following it more than the scriptures, and pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ to forgive you and help guide you into the truth, you will, I will, no one who ever holds to philosophy and theology will EVER know the truth.
By the way, what's the OBJECT here? I mean why are you arguing over this stuff (to all). What is the purpose, the motivation, what is it you want? What is the goal you've got here? Is it to know God, to know Jesus, to know the truth? And if so then WHY do you want to know God, why do you want to know Jesus, Why do you want to know the truth?
Motivation strongly determins WHY a person does any of this to begin with. And motivation absolutely determins weather or not you will ever know the truth period. I'll tell you my motivation for searching the SCRIPTURES and continually learning more. It's to LIVE AND NOT DIE. It's not just for "eternal life", it's for LIFE right now. Therefore since it's truly to me a matter of life and death, I'm going to do everything I can find in the Word of God that it says to do, so that I can know the TRUTH and LIVE. And though I am concerned with life on this earth, and staying alive, I am also concerned with my eternal life, because I don't just take it for granted like so many do.
Therefore when I read the word "BEWARE" I take heed to it and find out just exactly what I'm supposed to "BEWARE" of.
IF any of you are simply "hearers" and not "DOERS" of the Word, you are deceiving yourselves. Paul this and Paul that and blah, blah, blah. But you totally ignore what Paul tells you to do and then expect to know what Paul knew.
BEWARE
lest any man
SPOIL YOU
though
PHILOSOPHY....
You are being LED AWAY from the very thing you seem to be trying to get to, and you don't even realize it.
Please, please, please, please, please GOD open their eyes.
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/28/2004 11:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Hello Larris,
You assume because I mention Thomas Aquinas that I buy into all Greek philosophy lock stock and barrel. I am very aware of Aquinas’ affinity for Greek philosophy in general and Aristotle in particular. I am searching for some common conceptual ground in order to be able to present my ideas (both to you and Albert) concerning what the differences between Greek and Hebrew thought are, and how we’ve been affected when it comes to our Bible reading.
Unfortunately, what I get from you seems to me to be knee-jerk reactions based on certain words before you understand what I mean by them. Language is not set in stone. The meanings of words change over time. Dictionaries do NOT define words. Dictionaries REFLECT the definitions most commonly held at a given point in time. If you disagree with me on that just look at a 200-year-old dictionary and compare it with a modern one. (Take the word “gay” for instance.) What I mean by “intuition” may not be the same as how it is defined in Webster’s.
Larris: Until you renounce the very thing that you are practicing on the scripture and quit looking to men like Aquinas and Origen and all the other philosophers you speak of, you will not be able to know the interpretation…Before you can ever become truly wise in what God's word means, you need to renounce the teachings that you are holding, that came from the so called wise men of this world and choose to become a fool…Because until you renounce your teachings and just to to the WORD like a new born babe, Jesus CANNOT teach you anything. You can't teach a man who already thinks he knows…Until you say "Thomas Aquinas didn't know squat", and philosophy is in fact WORLD WISDOM, and then repent for following it more than the scriptures, and pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ to forgive you and help guide you into the truth, you will, I will, no one who ever holds to philosophy and theology will EVER know the truth….
Response: Well, Larris, may I say, kindly and gently without rancor, you have no idea what I have or have not renounced. I have in fact thrown away more books than most people read in a lifetime. I have in fact renounced, repented, turned from, rejected, and regretted my involvement in more philosophies, theologies, reality constructs, and religions (including so-called Christianity) than most people even know exist. So may I say, gently and without rancor, you don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to what I have or have not renounced. Secondly, I do not see that you are in any position to judge the health, or lack thereof, of my relationship to Christ, and how He has or has not revealed Himself (Truth) to me. I don’t think any of us are in a position to judge, merely from what we read on this board, what the conditions of the various participants are. I do appreciate what you have to say – as I said before I find it interesting and provocative, and I agree with a lot of it. I’m suggesting that you might get a more sympathetic hearing from other people on this board - and in general - if you toned down your style and reduced the angst level somewhat. When I make judgments, I highly qualify them by saying something like, “I say this in fear and trembling” or “I know I could be misjudging you…”
With that in mind, IF I have taken your statements above personally when you did not mean them personally, I hereby apologize, and retract what I have just said. If you meant them as I took them, then perhaps I might suggest that through your participation on this board, God is attempting some of the “character development” that you speak of in your profile. I have more to say about that, but will not do so unless I get some kind of indication from you that that may indeed be (at least part of) what is going on here and that you would be open to what I might have to say along those lines.
Larris: You are being LED AWAY from the very thing you seem to be trying to get to, and you don't even realize it.
Response: Gee, I guess the last 32 years of being LED AWAY from Greek philosophy (and all kinds of other sin) and LED INTO a personal, experiential, and self-evident love-relationship with God through Jesus Christ just doesn’t count, huh?
Larris: By the way, what's the OBJECT here? I mean why are you arguing over this stuff (to all). What is the purpose, the motivation, what is it you want? What is the goal you've got here? Is it to know God, to know Jesus, to know the truth?
Response: At the risk of being presumptuous (notice the qualifier, Larris?) I will speak for all when I say, Yes, I would say that that is the motivation of most of the people here. And we argue over this stuff because we believe there is value to dialog. Do YOU believe there is value to dialog, Larris?
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/28/2004 7:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Hobbes:You assume because I mention Thomas Aquinas that I buy into all Greek philosophy lock stock and barrel.
larris: Dear Hobbes, NO I don't think that you buy into all Greek philosophy lock stock and barrel. However Jesus said to beware the doctrine of the Pharisees and the Saducees and he compaired their doctrine to leven, saying a "little" leaven, leavens the WHOLE LUMP.
You say you are trying to express the difference between Greek and Hebrew thought. I have been studying this stuff now for 14 years, and deceived by it for the previous 10. Consiquently I got led into the study of a LOT of history, and part of the history was the influence of Greek philosophy on HEBREW THOUGHT. And what I found out was that in the end there is NO DIFFERENCE.
There is NO DIFFERENCE between Hebrew and Greek thought because by the time of Jesus the Jews were completely Helenized. The Pharisees and Saducees and Scribes were all taught Greek philosophy in their schools, however it wasn't CALLED THAT. What they did was adopt the theology and hermeneutics (poetics) of Plato and Aristotle and give it all Hebrew names to disguise what it was. Dose the word "Midrash" ring a bell?
It's easy to deceive people into thinking that somthing is not the samething as something else, when there is a change in language or synonym. One of the biggest reasons Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites, was because on the one hand they dispised the Greeks, while on the other hand they lapped up their philosophy and claimed it as their own. Then because the language of "Hebrew" itself had become the language of the school and synogogue, none of the common people were the wiser to their tricks.
It's no different in the way it went from Greek and Latin into English, to disguise what it was and where it came from. You wouldn't believe how many people don't know that theology began with Socrates and Plato, was adopted by the Christian and dubbed "Christian theology". People don't know the history of how it was the MAIN part of what was originally Greek philosophy. Heck, even the Arabs translated all the same garbage into Arabic and used it on the Khoran. Everyone wants to use it on their holy books to try and get an interpretation.
I believe you when you speak of all you've read and all you've been though in your search. I am not juding YOU, but I am seeing things in your words that you may not realize are there. Greek philosophy was designed to mutate along with belief and disguise itself as something else, when it's actually the same thing. So on the one hand you denouce it, and on the other hand you've still got it. Could be that you fell into it, by seeking to understand "Hebrew Thought" which is really Greek thought disguised in Hebrew terms and translated into English or along some such line.
Here's an argument for you. IF you are 32 I am 48, I have 18 years on you in this stuff. Gad, that's a whole teenager, graduated from highschool and legal to drink in some states. I have been researching the infulence of Greek Philosophy on the corruption of the understanding of the Word for 14 years. And before that I was thoroughly indoctrinated into it for 10. So that's 24 years of experience in coming to an understanding of this stuff, and when I say I hear Greek philosophy in your views, (just like I hear it in a lot of others views.) then I hear Greek philosophy in your views. You might have been led to think it's true Hebrew thought, but it's Greek theology. Aristotle never dropped Plato's theology, like it's claimed.
Jesus was the true Hebrew thinker, and the Hebrews of his time rejected his thoughts. They rejected his thoughts, which were true becasue the theology of Aristotle led them to corrupt the scrptures, though the guise of logical sounding study of the scripture. In truth is was just a means of perverting the scriptures as a means of using them for their own ends.
Truly I do not judge you yourself, but I do judge the words and ideas I hear coming from you. And the judgement is discernment of something I am as familiar with as my own right hand. I do not judge what I hear to condemn you, but to alert you, to warn you. If I saw you in person, and you were about to jump out in front of a Mac truck, not seeing it, I would yell at you to save your life. This is just the same thing, there is no evil thinking, no judgement of you personally involved. All I can say is that you can take it for what it's worth.
In the love of christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/29/2004 3:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Larris,
Larris: All I can say is that you can take it for what it's worth.
Response: Thank you larris, I will seriously consider what you say.
Larris: IF you are 32 I am 48,
Response: What I meant was that I have been a following Christ for 32 years. I’m quite a bit older than 32!
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/29/2004 5:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
quote:
Jefscott: But please address the other part of my post, which is more to the point. Did an Israelite living in the dispersion before Christ have a God-given right to treat his Gentile neighbors hatefully?
Albert: The Pentateuch is concerned with living in the land, not in the dispersion. I think it clearly teaches that they had the right to treat their external enemies hatefully. I've already shown that gentiles were not considered "neighbours" in the Pentateuch. They were not to mistreat aliens who dwelt within Israel. But that's a different story to the surrounding gentile nations. As for living in the dispersion, there are not direct instructions for how they should live under those circumstances. So the question can't be directly answered.
The Israelites had a DUTY to treat those idolaters in the land with less than kindness - just as those in authority today have the DUTY to bear God's sword of vengeance. But if you cannot conclude from that fact that the dispersed Israelites had a duty or right to treat Gentiles outside of the land hatefully, then your argument that the ethical system of the OT is intrinsically different from Christ's seems weakened. What was different was the promise of the land/theocracy and the unique duties involved therewith - not some intrinisic ethical difference about what "good" and "love" mean.
quote:
Jefscott: I can't find that work on Amazon.com or ABEBOOKS.com so you'll have to provide the argument to make your case. Both phrases are qualifying. And this is common-sensical; He was saying that ALL will have been fulfilled when the heaven and earth will finally have passed away.
Albert: It might be out of print then. Anyway, briefly, arguably the centre of Jesus' approach to the OT was in terms of its "fulfillment" in him. For example Luke 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you--that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.
Aye, but He went on to explain what he meant by that; He meant there were things that needed to be fulfilled of Him that THEY did not yet understand - i.e, "all" was implicitly being contrasted with "some". They knew SOME of the prophecies but not ALL. He was NOT saying that the OT did not prophecy about his still-future parousia, etc. Even the hyper-preterists say that it took until 70 A.D. for ALL the prophecies about Christ to be completely fulfilled. Besides, the "until" phrase says until ALL things be fulfilled - not just the prophecies about Christ.
quote:
Now in Mt. 5:18 he says that nothing will pass from the law "until all is accomplished". The Greek is unambiguous: heos means "until".
The same greek word is used in the phrase "until heaven and earth pass away," which is the FIRST (and most clear!) time qualifier in the passage. When do you think that will happen/happened?
quote:
That's why the law and the prophets were only until John.
The ressurection was later than John, anyway - so the law would have had to have been kept AFTER John's death even by your view.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/29/2004 8:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Hobbes,
In the course of the discovery and study of this stuff, I have forgotten many aspects that as we speak get called to mind. For instance what I said about the philosophies ability to "mutate". It has the ability to disguise it's self and create a counterfeit of the genuine article. This is why it is so dangerous and so hard for men to escape from. I saw this in regards to those coming out of "THE Church" during the Reformation.
For example, a man is raised and indoctrinated by a religion to believe certain things. For the most part then if he reads the Bible he will read those things into it. However he can on occasion given the right circumstances and the motivation, see beyond what he was taught, to what might be NEW truth. It is usually old lost truth, but to him it would be new truth. He looks at the powers that be, and sees that what they are teaching goes against what he is actually seeing for himself in God's Word. Hence he leaves THE Church or that Church and with that bit of truth a new denomination is started. Others leave with him or join him and espouse the new truth.
However when they leave, they leave the church, but they take the Churches theology, i.e. their methods and systems of study with them. Hence though they are out of the Church that deceived them to begin with, they take the very thing with them that was used to begin with to initiate the very deception they are trying to get away from.
That's why it's called the "Hermeneutical CIRCLE". Because those who are escaping from those who live in error, by the use of hermeneutics get led right back into the error they escaped from. We are truly seeing this process come full circle in that the protestant Churches are now going right back to Rome, via "ecumenicalism". If you do not learn to recognize the many mutated forms of Greek philosophy, you will always be in danger of accepting it in one of it's mutated forms and being led right back to where you started. However the UGLY BEAUTY of this diabolical deception is that YOU DON'T KNOW IT.
It's all pretty much done with "WORDS", that's why it is so important to understand and know the proper and concise meaning of words, since words are used to deceive one and bring one BACK into bondage. Take for instance the word "ecumenical". When this movement began it began in protestant Churches (brought in by false brethren unawares). These were Churches that NEVER would have accepted joining up with Rome in any way shape or form. It was given a name "ecumenical". You could be Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian, Methodist, Pentecostal, and charismatic, non-denom ET. but you could also have that title "ecumenical".
The word ecumenical was used to gradually get the protestant churches to accept fellowshipping with the Roman Catholic Church. All in the name of working together and tolerance ET. However the ecumenical idea began in the Roman Catholic Church, and if you look up the word ecumenical in the dictionary, you will find that one of it's synonyms is "CATHOLIC". It's just a matter of time, before it's the Lutheran Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Catholic Church, the Methodist Catholic Church ET. It basically already is, they just don't know it yet.
Ever since the chicks left momma church has been endeavoring to collect them all back under her wings. This was accomplished by education. That is the Jesuits have built a vast educational system of schools and universities where they have trained many TEACHERS according to their ideology of a ONE WORLD CHURCH. These teachers have gone out and infused these ideas under the guise of many names and titles into protestant and secular universities. Hence the ground was prepared to bring the way ward daughters back to mama Church.
However it dose not end with the Christian Churches, it also encompasses ALL religions. The Roman Catholic Church has always conformed it's teachings and beliefs to the various cultures and paganism of the people it converts. One has only to look at Mexico and South America to see the paganistic culture and religion of the people mixed with Roman Cathlicism. Or places like Haiti where Voodoo is commonly practiced among the Roman Catholic population.
The reason for this influx of paganism and Christianity is because of Greek Philosophy adopted and used by the believers coming out of the first century. You know how the Greeks no matter where they went adopted the gods of the people whose countries they went to. For instance Hermes was also the Roman god Thoth, and the Babylonian god Nebo. As the Greek encountered a religion, they adopted both the god that corresponded as closely to their own, and the IDEAS, the TEACHINGS of that god. And you could not tell where the original Greek idea left off and the alien one began. And in this matter the religion grew and swallowed up everything it came into contact with, including Christianity when it came along.
Not to mean to interpret prophecy, since that is not my intention here. But in truth Greek Philosophy is like a great ravenous beast, that swallows up and assimilates anything it comes into contact with, and as it swallow up each and every belief system, it GROWS and GROWS and GROWS. And eventually what you have though this system of eating and assimilating is a one world religion, where the only real difference between the different groups are the WORDS THEY USE TO DESCRIBE THEIR RELIGION. The beliefs are all the same basic thing, but they use different words to describe it. You and I could both say the same thing and be using different words to say it. Just like the example I used in the words "Catholic" and "Ecumenical".
I noticed this strange thing begin to happen, as I became untangled from the clutches of Greek philosophy via the theology of the Church. Christian friends that I had had for 20 years, seemed to get harder and harder to communicate with. Each time I would talk to them I came away thinking, that though we were using the same words, we were talking about completely different things. It was always very disconcerting, and left me slightly depressed after speaking with them.
What I came to find out, was that as I untangled myself from theology and began to understand the scriptures as they were meant to be understood, that though we were both using the same words of the word to communicate our faith, we were in fact not speaking the same language. What they meant by the words they used was, as I had previously understood them, not as I was coming to understand them. So yet we were both speaking English, both using the same words, but had very different ideas in our heads of what those words meant. And thought we used the same words, the ideas and understanding behind those words were at complete opposites from one another.
Now these were people that I had known for a LONG time, and people with whom I had had many conversations with, when we all believed the same exact thing. And as I grew out of those beliefs, I found that we did in fact almost come to speak another language. Deceit is complicated and simple at the same time. It’s simple in that all it really does is use words to deceive, by redefining what they mean. It's complicated when it encompasses hundreds of words that lead to ideas. For instance when you say the words "saved, grace and born again to a Christian, they have an automatic full-headed instant idea and understanding of what they think those words mean. Therefore all I have to do to lead them away from the truth, is redefine what those words represent. And the question for us becomes are we understanding the WORDS in the Word as those who wrote them understood them? OR do we understand them as those who became deceived later came to define them by combining the beliefs of Greek theology with them?
Even though the ministry I was first involved in that indoctrinated me into many standard Christian deception and doctrines, was in error. I am thankful that was the ministry I was first with. For they stressed the importance of not only the study of the Word of God, but the importance of the WORDS in the Word. And I developed a great love for Words in general. And this has led for me to be able to discern what is behind what I am reading or what people are saying to me.
I not only know in most cases what the actual words mean, but I also know the various definitions within Christianity of what they have come to mean. That is how truth from error is discerned, two people using the same words, but meaning totally different things, and you have to be able to discern this, in order to know where a person's coming from. The Bible calls this having your SENSES exercised to discern truth from error. The logical deductive powers of the brain, when it has enough information can discern truth from error in the words that people speak, once enough is spoken. However God combines this natural ability with the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit which also energizes the individual to discern "spirits" at the same time. However these TWO abilities, the physical mental and the spiritual can only work together when a man knows the truth and sticks to it.
Once the truth someone holds has been perverted, it circumvents the ability of the Holy Spirit within that man to discern the actual spirit at work in a situation. This is because once you have allowed any false doctrine or teaching to be accepted into your mind, ANOTHER spirit comes with it. A man can have both the Holy Spirit and a spirit of error. Paul made this clear to the Corinthians, when he told them he was concerned that if anyone came along telling them something about God or the Word or Jesus ET. that they might accept it. They already had the Holy Spirit, but Paul told them that if they accepted any false teaching whatsoever they would also be accepting another Jesus, another gospel and ANOTHER SPIRIT. Any divergence whatsoever from what Jesus originally taught creates ANOTHER GOSPEL. Since the gospel preached is what leads to the receiving of the holy spirit, ANOTHER form of it preached leads to the receiving of ANOTHER spirit that is not holy.
When I first believed in Jesus, his death, resurrection ET. I received the Holy Spirit. But no one taught me the scriptures and I stayed for many years out in the world without knowledge. But that same spirit, kept drawing me towards the Lord. Finally he drew me, and I got in a ministry that taught me the Word of God and taught me how to study the Word of God. Now today I know what they taught was in error, but they got me to the actual BIBLE, the word of God, the scriptures themselves. And because of my love for God and his written word eventually I was able to recover myself out of the error.
But when I sat through their teachings I also received ANOTHER SPIRIT besides the Holy Spirit. Now I did not know that I received another spirit, just like most of the time you do not FEEL when you receive the Holy Spirit. But false teaching ALWAYS brings ANOTHER SPIRIT with it, BECAUSE WORDS CARRY SPIRIT. Jesus said the words he spoke they were spirit and they were life. When another WORD another gospel is spoken, a perverted form of the original, it brings ANOTHER SPIRIT with it. And this OTHER SPIRIT will mimic the Holy Spirit and feed information into your mind.
The difference between these spirits, is that the Holy Spirit dose not speak of himself, he compels you, he draws you towards the Word of God contained in the Scriptures. And there as you through natural means of study and using your brain come to learn, he then helps recall to your memory the Word of God that you have studied and put in your brain. As you learn and gather more information that is accurate, and as he helps you remember what the Word says, eventually you learn enough to have many parts come together, to form an understanding. But he dose not give you the understanding. He simply leads and guides and helps you to learn FOR YOURSELF, in the manner we can learn anything else.
ANOTHER SPIRIT receive from anything false you believe about God, will do that same thing BUT HE ADDS SOMETHING TO IT. He will mimic all the things the Holy Spirit does, but he will also feed you a whole false understanding in a moment of time, that you did not LEARN. He can do this through experiences such as dreams, visions, revelations, or what seems like moments of great "intuition". He will feed you feelings, hunches, spark your imagination, and give you an over all highly rapturous spiritual illumination. And YOU WILL THINK THAT IT IS GOD OR JESUS communing with you and guiding you into the truth. He is highly adept at playing with your imagination and emotions, your feelings. Because he knows that man is an emotional animal and that most men are very adept at following their "feelings". If it feels right, if it feels good, then how can it be evil. That is the way most men think, and so ANOTHER SPIRIT always comes as an angel of LIGHT.
There is a line of authority that must be followed to come to a knowledge of the truth. That line is as follows. God revealed the truth to Jesus, Jesus then taught the truth verbatim to his apostles and disciples and they in turn were to TEACH it to faithful men who were able to teach others, who in turn taught it to others and so on and so forth right on down the line. It began as a revelation from a spiritual source (God) to a chosen man, (Jesus) but then it became not a spiritual revelation, but a TEACHING that ANYONE could learn in the natural manner in which men learn things.
The problem was and is that man cannot hold on to the truth for more than about one generation. And even before the deaths of the apostles many of those who were taught the truth verbatim, began to mix Greek theology with it and pervert the original understanding. This was FORETOLD to take place even before it happened. Paul told the elders of Ephesus that after his departure, that not only would grievous wolves enter into the flock, but that even from among their own selves would men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after themselves. Peter warned of it, John warned of it, and who ever wrote Hebrews also warned of it. But Jesus warned of it first saying "Many shall come in my name, saying I am the Christ, meaning that he Jesus was the Christ, and would deceive many. During the time of Jesus they said he was not the Christ, and deceived many. But from that time on to ours many come and say, Yes Jesus is the Christ, and then they teach a false gospel, ANOTHER GOSPEL and deceive many. And many receive not only the Holy Spirit but also ANOTHER SPIRIT, which helps keep them in the error they have learned.
I had that spirit, I know how it works, and the only thing that saved me from it, was my love for the scriptures and my obsessive and constant study and search to see if not only what I was told was so, but also the very things in my own head, that I told myself. You don't have to have someone teach you anything false, as you study you are perfectly capable of coming up with errors all on your own. But having realized that I had been deceived I checked and checked and re-checked every thought I had.
Due to the fact that I even checked out my own feelings and seeming revelations to death with the scriptures, the spirit I had got so that it could not lead not speak to me any longer. Because everything it tried to tell me, I would eventually find out from God's word was not accurate. I am telling you this from hindsight, since at the time I did not know what was actually going on. For years I had thought that this spirit was the Holy Spirit.
The last time it ever really tried to hold on to me, I had recently come to the realization that everything I believed was suspect to error. I was engrossed in searching the scriptures, and had just begun to read the book of Revelation, something not really taught in the ministry of which I had been involved. Staying up late and reading well into the night, I became invoked with a glorious feeling of euphoria and well being. As I read the scriptures, they seemed to unfold in meaning before my very eyes. I understood EVERY WORD in an instant, and a glorious enlightenment and instant understanding began to envelop my whole being. It was like being in eternity, but still here on earth, and time seemed to disappear. Whole pictures and images flooded my being in an instant, and I swear I could hear angels singing to glory as this light of understanding flooded in.
I was up all-night and ecstatic the next day. I remember telling my husband of the glorious things I had learned the night before. I was on CLOUD 9. What a communion with God what an infilling of enlightenment. HOWEVER as the next few weeks went by, and I continued to engross myself in God's word, all he so called enlightenment I had received, started proving itself out word for word, to not line up with what the scriptures were actually saying.
Now do you know what MOST people do here? They throw away what the scriptures say and hang on to their EXPERIENCE. Then when and if they do go to the scriptures, they only go to the scriptures that they can take out of context that seem to prove out the enlightenment they were given in their experience. That is how all false doctrines start, with a spiritual enlightenment from ANOTHER SPIRIT while you are reading or studying the Word. It's how we got every false doctrine we have. Then to make the experience true, and the knowledge received from the experience valid or "inerrant", the scripture is then twisted to fit the experience. And what started out as spiritual revelation via ANOTHER SPIRIT, then become taught in the normal way to others via a system of interpretation. Which in turn leads to the person receiving the SAME SPIRIT that the teaching originated from, and thus once that spirit enters into them, it overrides the holy spirits still small voice and confirms the teaching.
For the most part the lying spirit will do the minimum he has to keep the person deceived and in bondage to the false doctrine. But the more the person gets committed to the Word, and the study of it, the stronger will get the experience he will give you. Thus again confirming the lie you have been led to believe. And in the end the scriptures become SECOND to the SPIRIT. And the person winds up following the revelations and feelings that this spirit will pour into them. And when they do go to the scriptures, it will only be to prove out what this spirit has told them.
I don't have those experiences any more, because I had a greater love and respect for the WRITTEN word, than I did for the experience. And I believed what I could read with my own two eyes more than I believed what that spirit infused me with. Consequently it had to go, but it endeavored to come back, by getting me to accept false teachings along the way to the knowledge of the truth. It really is a Pilgrims Progress, and though you may have escaped in one area, there is always another deception masquerading as the truth waiting to try and reel you in. It's the nature of the BEAST.
This is why when people talk about the interpretation of scripture, and creative ways to do it, via the spirit, or dreams or visions or imagination, or Christ leading them, I do not assume automatically that it is really Christ leading them. I know they think it is Christ leading them, because the experiences one receives are so strong and really quite glorious. But I am always suspicious when the scriptures begin to get second place and become subservient to the spirit doing the leading.
I was led toward knowledge that endeavored to belittle the scriptures, that is how I first came to read books like the Shepard of Hermes et. And then along the lines of questioning the books of the bible as we have it, till finally if I would have kept going that way, I would not have the respect for the written word as I do today. There is a line that must be drawn when one studies these things, in that anything that compliments and adds to the understanding of the written word and yet keeps it elevated and respected as the WORD OF GOD, can be kept, and anything that demeans or questions it must be thrown out. Otherwise you have no true standard by which to judge the spiritual experience and you can wind up being led by a spirit into the very error you are endeavoring to escape from.
Just as God was able to present the child Jesus with a written document with which to start him on his journey to know his Father, so God has also been able to present us with a written document, to begin us on our journey. The one thing the devil desires to destroy in our hearts is our reverence and respect for the WRITTEN WORD. Because that is the only true standard by which we can learn to discern both truth and error just by reading enough of it.
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/29/2004 9:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Hobbes,
The reason our knowledge of God must be pure with no admixture of philosophy of any kind, is because of WHERE the knowledge originates from.
In the OT there was what was called the vow of the nazerite. The were to drink no alcohol, because it not only impairs judgment, but because of the fact that it’s use carried “spirits”. Hence the reason and origins of why it is even called “spirits” in our day.
Another thing was that no razor was to pass over their head, and for that reason their hair grew very long. Hence the reason of Samson’s long hair as he was a nazerite. The reason that no RAZOR was to pass over their head, was because of WHERE the knowledge of metalurgy came from. It wasn’t that metal in and of itself was evil nor the use of it. But the knowledge originally was given to the sons of Cain by evil angels for an evil purpose.
Not letting a razor pass over their head, represented that their spiritual knowledge and the knowledge of how to live in general came from one single spiritual source, God himself, and that it was true and pure and correct and thus HOLY.
See that’s the point here that your spiritual understanding and it’s source is HOLY, CLEAN and UNDEFILED. Mixing the knowledge derived originally from devils with your knowledge of God, makes you unclean spiritually. That is the point of becoming completely unleavened from interpretations of God’s written word via philosophy. And understandings that are merely a form of eastern mysticism stated in biblical terms.
It’s not that we can’t know these things, we have to know them in terms of how they are used to corrupt the truth. It’s that they cannot be used on God’s HOLY written Word to come to an understanding of such. Because when you do that you are taking something that God deems HOLY and defiling it. Jesus spoke of the penaties for doing such in the end of Revelation, where he said if any man add to the words of this book, the plagues of this book shall be added unto him. If any man take away from the words of this book, his name will be taken out of the book of life.
Men treat the written word as if it is just another "common" book, the disect and the critisize and they deem it as they would any other book. There is no fear of how they handle it and no true fear of God. And they convince others with their arguments and false logic to mistreat it in the same manner. That is why they do not think there is anything wrong with taking pagan systems of teaching on the interpretation of written documents and applying them to the HOLY Word of God. But in the end they will be judged harshly for contaminating his Holy Word with the knowledge of evil that LOOKS GOOD.
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
| 102 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:29 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|