Son of the Ruach ha Kodesh

reply to post by NOTurTypical

And that's rather remarkable, we can trust the gospel according to Luke but not Acts,

I trust the Gospel of Luke to pass along what sort of ways Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus, as considered once Christianity took root. I don't trust Luke regarding some of the quotes by it attributed to Jesus.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

He also says that (logos) "became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) amongst us."

A lot of people interpret it like that but it does not say that literally.
People who know New Testament Greek and have closely scrutinized that verse do not interpret it the way you do.
The general way these scholars would take it to mean is that as John the Baptist appeared on the scene, so did the Logos Sarx suddenly appear. Personally, I take "Logos Sarcx" to be the Word of God to mankind. The main point to understand is that the Word does not become a man, literally. It just does not say that.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I think I'm beginning to understand why you straw man so much, you've never taken a course or read a book on fallacies and rational logic and the processes entailed to reach a valid logically sound conclusion.

Taking a class in Logic does not somehow instill in a person the ability to think logically.
Some people do not get things, like someone might not be able to detect irony, or maybe someone lacks the appreciation of sarcasm and thinks the other person is being straight. People just have different limitations of abilities and I think you have one when it comes to when to take things as being literal. You can not detect when things should be taken figuratively, so that disqualifies you from being an interpreter of scripture because of the amount of figurative writing in the Bible. You should get an opinion from a professional regarding your handicap and when you have a conclusive finding, you should do the right think for the sake of others and stop spreading your error ridden weird interpretations that become a shadow of darkness and evil in other people's minds, with all the bloodshed you end up not only condoning but cheering on.
Here's an example of what I am talking about:
The other day I mentioned something written in the Gospel of John. You objected to me saying that because you said 'there is no such thing as the Gospel of John', not being able to interpret the title in any other way than the strictly literal, to where the title would have to mean a gospel about someone named John. That is a very serious problem and you should excuse yourself from your current activity because of the harm you are doing to the very name, Christian.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Look, you just said the other day that there were no catfish in Kansas. That's not true, I just got a call from my cousin who caught a 28 pounder last night.

Oh yeah, you're in a cult, you're the antichrist and you're going to Hell.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And that's rather remarkable, we can trust the gospel according to Luke but not Acts,

I trust the Gospel of Luke to pass along what sort of ways Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus, as considered once Christianity took root. I don't trust Luke regarding some of the quotes by it attributed to Jesus.

So you're going to pick and choose what you believe in the bible...OK.

If you're going to do that than just throw it all out and go be...something else that doesn't have anything to do with Jesus because if you're going to nueter the bible, you might as well have nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And that's rather remarkable, we can trust the gospel according to Luke but not Acts,

I trust the Gospel of Luke to pass along what sort of ways Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus, as considered once Christianity took root. I don't trust Luke regarding some of the quotes by it attributed to Jesus.

So you're going to pick and choose what you believe in the bible...OK.

Thomas Jefferson Theological Seminary?:

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Thomas Jefferson Theological Seminary?:

LOL. Thats funny. Wouldn't be the first person to cut out all the parts he doesn't like. This is how cults are made.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Thomas Jefferson Theological Seminary?:

LOL. Thats funny. Wouldn't be the first person to cut out all the parts he doesn't like. This is how cults are made.

Well, most people can't go to the Gnostic School of Theology at Alexandria, it doesn't exist anymore.

Irenaeus speaking of Marcion and his followers at Alexandria:

"Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic which they themselves have shortened."

"Ante-Nicene Fathers; Vol. I; pp 434-435"

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

So you're going to pick and choose what you believe in the bible...OK.

If you're going to do that than just throw it all out and go be...something else that doesn't have anything to do with Jesus because if you're going to nueter the bible, you might as well have nothing to do with it.

The above is probably an indication of your philosophy.
I think I have more faith than that, where I can pick and choose what is true and what is not and still be able to believe the true parts which are not dependent in my mind on their being a true "book".

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Look, you just said the other day that there were no catfish in Kansas.

It this what you learned being on the debate team, tell big, obvious lies to make your other lies seem believable?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Look, you just said the other day that there were no catfish in Kansas.

It this what you learned being on the debate team, tell big, obvious lies to make your other lies seem believable?

Oh no, there was no attempt whatsoever to deceive you or anyone else. I told you exactly what I was going to do to you on the previous page. Not my fault you have issues with reading comprehension.

You see to that.

I think i'm going to start doing the exact same to you, not to anyone else, just specifically to you. Anything you say I'll twist it up, shake it around, add my own opinions of what I wished and hoped you'd say, then throw my concoction at you and try to make it stick while I sit in the seat of Moses with a smug self-righteous look on my face. All the while my head is in my own arse and I smell NOTHING!!!

*sniff* *sniff*

Ahhhhhhh,.... I love roses.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

So you're going to pick and choose what you believe in the bible...OK.

If you're going to do that than just throw it all out and go be...something else that doesn't have anything to do with Jesus because if you're going to nueter the bible, you might as well have nothing to do with it.

The above is probably an indication of your philosophy.
I think I have more faith than that, where I can pick and choose what is true and what is not and still be able to believe the true parts which are not dependent in my mind on their being a true "book".

Did Jesus shed His blood for your sins?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Did Jesus shed His blood for your sins?

Jesus bled when he was crucified.
This was done to him by sinful people.
All the things Jesus did in connection to this were done because
people were under the power of sin, directly or indirectly.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Did Jesus shed His blood for your sins?

Jesus bled when he was crucified.

A little bit probably, he actually began to shed His blood when He was beaten before the High Priest. And then with the Roman scourging. That doesn't answer my question.

This was done to him by sinful people.

Yep, we're all sinful people. That doesn't answer my question.

All the things Jesus did in connection to this were done because
people were under the power of sin, directly or indirectly.

Everyone was a slave to sin before Christ's redemption. that doesn't answer my question either.


Here let me make it super simple, you seem to be having trouble with the test. Copy/paste into your reply:



Check One:

Q: Did Jesus shed His blood for the remission of your sins?

[ ] YES
[ ] NO
[ ] MAYBE
[ ] I DON'T KNOW

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”) in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we could receive the promise of the Spirit by faith.

Though Jesus was without sin, according to the Law, he was damned.
God vindicated (in the resurrection) Jesus by getting rid of the Law so that Jesus was no longer accursed.
Now we can be vindicated ourselves (at judgement) since we do not have to show compliance with all the stipulations of the Law of Moses.
Through the death of Jesus, the whole world is redeemed from the curse of the law.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Here let me make it super simple, you seem to be having trouble with the test. Copy/paste into your reply:



Check One:

Q: Did Jesus shed His blood for the remission of your sins?

[ ] YES
[ ] NO
[ ] MAYBE
[ ] I DON'T KNOW

www.Amazon.com

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”) in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we could receive the promise of the Spirit by faith.

Though Jesus was without sin, according to the Law, he was damned.
God vindicated (in the resurrection) Jesus by getting rid of the Law so that Jesus was no longer accursed.
Now we can be vindicated ourselves (at judgement) since we do not have to show compliance with all the stipulations of the Law of Moses.
Through the death of Jesus, the whole world is redeemed from the curse of the law.

I agree with all of that.

What about Him shedding His blood for the remission of your sins?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

What about Him shedding His blood for the remission of your sins?

That was shed in order to bring about the New Covenant, through which we can live a life acceptable to God according to the prophecy in Jeremiah 31
“Indeed, a time is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant . . . “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

What about Him shedding His blood for the remission of your sins?

That was shed in order to bring about the New Covenant, through which we can live a life acceptable to God according to the prophecy in Jeremiah 31
“Indeed, a time is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant . . . “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds.

Dude, can you not give me a yes or no answer? What is your problem? You are straight odd.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Dude, can you not give me a yes or no answer? What is your problem? You are straight odd.

You are "straight odd" by acting like you are the Grand Inquisitor, asking off-topic questions only to harass me.
If you have pat answers for these questions, then to me it is just an indication that you are in a cult that gives you set, defined answers to difficult questions, which makes your opinions worthless.
You are not asking me these questions because you want to learn anything, but to discredit me through personal attacks, since you have no real argument.
You have learned your fallacies well, as in how to use them.