The Three Jahovah's of the Bible

Originally posted by TaraLou
reply to post by oliveoil

 

My position is this - I am a firm and fervent believer in Jesus Christ.

I am a believer in God and the devil.

I am not a believer in churches (manmade, manipulative) or the bible.

If you don't mind me asking, where did you learn of God and Jesus and the Devil from?

reply to post by oliveoil


No problem - from my parents who dragged me to a Christian church.

Jesus, I knew in my heart, somehow.

So...the others could be lies.

reply to post by oliveoil

Someone had mentioned that a mans mind was his spirit.Wouldn't a mans mind be part of his body thus being physical and not spiritual?

The brain is physical. The mind is not. This is why the word "spirit" was used in the verse in question. And I did not say that every instance of the word "spirit" meant "mind". Only in the above quoted verse that I posted earlier.

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by Orrfyreus

 

To olive oil: I read your post that you claim was off the top of your head, and I am sorry but I do not believe that entire post was off the top of your head.

Your response was.

I did have my own source of information( a bunch of papers on my desk)

Now are you saying this post is not true? I am confused. You wrote that the post was off the top of your head, then you say you had papers in front of you. And now you say it was actually off the top of your head?

I believe I have all I need at this time. Thank You.

You have a Merry Christmas

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by Orrfyreus

 

Reread what I have said before. My reasoning with the word "spirit" meaning "mind" is only in the sense of this one verse:

"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thessalonians 5:23).

I see no explanation of what the spirit is in this verse at all. It merely lists the Spirit, Soul and Body. So your reasoning of why the Spirit is the same as the mind in fact comes from somewhere else.

reply to post by Orrfyreus


You have to look at the context of the verse. The biblical definition includes the "mind" and if most instances inquire the spirit to be a breath, wind, or being of some kind, then where does the mind fit in? In the above verse, the context supports the "mind" in this instance because the other meanings don't make a lot of sense. Just think about it.

Originally posted by TaraLou
reply to post by oliveoil

 

No problem - from my parents who dragged me to a Christian church.

Jesus, I knew in my heart, somehow.

So...the others could be lies.

Amazing isn't it, you already knew. When we look at Paul's explanation of the Gentile practices to James the head of the church in Jerusalem. We discover that the gentiles did not need to be placed under the law of Moses, because they also KNEW. The law is a teacher, but if one already knows, no need for that particular teacher.

Your teacher is the Holy Spirit, the Helper. No need for you to worry about each of the 603 laws Moses wrote. Obedience in Christ is all that's needed.
He will do the rest.

Have you ever read any of the church history? It is quite interesting to watch the progression of the RCC verses the different path of the Eastern Orthodox. Both were one church until 1054. Then there was a short period of time where the RCC had 2 popes at the same time. While the eastern orthodox do not have a pope.

Merry Christmas



[edit on 25-12-2009 by Orrfyreus]

reply to post by Locoman8


I have thought about it, and I disagree, it is a stretch, actually I see it as a far reaching stretch. Too far for me personally.

reply to post by Locoman8


It was difficult but I managed to figure it out And this makes sense.
Now,
So if the spirit animates the soul, The spirit must be life. Also, if the spirit is breath, breath must be life too. (he breathed life into them) am I at least close? (baby steps)

reply to post by Orrfyreus

Now are you saying this post is not true? I am confused. You wrote that the post was off the top of your head, then you say you had papers in front of you. And now you say it was actually off the top of your head?

OKAY!!!! You busted me!! Its all untrue. All of it.....UNTRUE!!!! Its all a LIE!!!
EVERYTHING I SAID.

Get real.

I would like to make a couple comments regarding Strong's concordance.
While it can be a very useful tool for locating words in the bible, I do not blindly trust the dictionary part of the concordance.

I have found too many times that erroneous definitions have been added to try and explain the poor translation and poor choice of words the translators used.

If you look at a definition of a word in Strong's concordance, then the definition should also exist in other places. If when looking at definitions of words in a place that does not have religious overtones and the definition does not exist, I cross it out in the concordance, because it lacks accuracy.

There are more than a handful of these.

It also goes the other way, when the definition in Strong's matches the outside definitions, but the word used in the translation clearly misrepresents the definition that word gets changed in the passage.

There are hundreds of examples of this.

I will post one example here.

In the book of Revelation there are 4 horses described. They were white, red, black, and ashen.
Ashen is color that refers to the color of ashes, or gray, also pale.
So a gray pale colored horse.
Later revisions dropped the gray part and the color became pale.
The only problem is pale is not a color.

When we look at the actual word that was to be translated we see the word chloros. The definition of chloros is green, and in some instances a pale green when referring to a gaseous form like chlorine. And one can also find some definitions include a greenish/yellow pale color when referring to gaseous forms like chlorine.

I find no definition for chloros to be a pale gray.
The color is green or pale green.
You will not find the word green in your translation when referring to the fourth horse.

The original was accurate, the translation is not. And don't even get me started on transliteration strategies they used. LOL

Don't blindly trust the translators, or Strong's.

Did they really say CAMEL through an eye of a needle?
Or was it ROPE through an eye of a needle?

Have a Merry Christmas








[edit on 25-12-2009 by Orrfyreus]

reply to post by oliveoil


One of us is being real, the other is not.

reply to post by Orrfyreus

When we look at Paul's explanation of the Gentile practices to James the head of the church in Jerusalem. We discover that the gentiles did not need to be placed under the law of Moses, because they also KNEW. The law is a teacher, but if one already knows, no need for that particular teacher.

These people knew because it was all that was talked about among them. It was common sense not to kill, steal, eat blood ect.. The main focal point of the debates was circumcision.

The reason she knows Jesus and the law is because of the New Covenant, not from the council of Jerusalem

reply to post by Orrfyreus

Later revisions dropped the gray part and the color became pale.
The only problem is pale is not a color.

either is gray, or black , or white. This is clearly a bad example.

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by Orrfyreus

 

When we look at Paul's explanation of the Gentile practices to James the head of the church in Jerusalem. We discover that the gentiles did not need to be placed under the law of Moses, because they also KNEW.

This statement is referring to the gentiles during the time of Paul.
This does not refer to Taralou.
I do not understand how someone could come to that conclusion.

These people knew because it was all that was talked about among them. It was common sense not to kill, steal, eat blood ect.. The main focal point of the debates was circumcision.

Nonsense, they knew because God revealed it to them.

The reason she knows Jesus and the law is because of the New Covenant, not from the council of Jerusalem

Again NONSENSE. Taralou knows because God showed her.

The comparison being made is that God showed both the gentiles during Paul's life, and Taralou almost 2000 years later.

For someone to make a connection between the decision from Church in Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago and Taralou's personal revelation from God, is nothing more than nonsensical.

Where is the ignore button?

reply to post by oliveoil


Chloros does not mean gray, black or white.

It means green.

Originally posted by TaraLou
reply to post by oliveoil

 

It is my belief that the bible was written by a lot of different men, who all probably lied (well, isn't that what people do all the time?)

We have seen a perfect example in here on this thread.

Someone professing to be a follower of Christ. First makes a claim, then when confronted changes her mind, then changes it again.

All three of her posts referring to "posting off the top of her head"
cannot be true

I do not blame you one bit for thinking the bible is written by men who probably lied. You are absolutely correct. People lie all the time.

reply to post by Orrfyreus

.This statement is referring to the gentiles during the time of Paul.
This does not refer to Taralou.
I do not understand how someone could come to that conclusion.

because taralou said

Jesus, I knew in my heart, somehow.

and you said

Amazing isn't it, you already knew

then you said,

the gentiles did not need to be placed under the law of Moses, because they also KNEW.

"they also knew" means you were referring to Taralou statement that she knew.

Nonsense, they knew because God revealed it to them.

now your making sense. And how did God reveal these laws to them. Through Moses, handed down though generation after generation.Which means they already knew. Common sense. Just like you know not to stick your finger in a light socket.

Again NONSENSE. Taralou knows because God showed her.

Again, now your using the old noodle . This is exactly what I said. The New Covenant of Jesus, where the laws are written within the hearts of men.

Originally posted by Orrfyreus
reply to post by oliveoil

 

Chloros does not mean gray, black or white.

It means green.

Well guess what, Green is Pale (cool) in nature, and is a color. so your example is still a bad one.

Originally posted by Orrfyreus

Originally posted by TaraLou
reply to post by oliveoil

 

It is my belief that the bible was written by a lot of different men, who all probably lied (well, isn't that what people do all the time?)

We have seen a perfect example in here on this thread.

Someone professing to be a follower of Christ. First makes a claim, then when confronted changes her mind, then changes it again.

All three of her posts referring to "posting off the top of her head"
cannot be true

I do not blame you one bit for thinking the bible is written by men who probably lied. You are absolutely correct. People lie all the time.

Now your gonna try and twist what I said and use it as a crutch against me to discredit the Bible? how pathetic is that?
Oh and by the way, I'm a He and not a She. Got it? get it? Good!!