It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I'm telling others what the Bible says, based on the knowledge of those who followed him directly and/or by the power of the Holy Spirit. Sorry if you don't like it.
Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Deetermined
You're telling others what you interpret the Bible to say.....
But you denigrate others for having the power of the Holy Spirit to determine for themselves what the message was.
I don't like you pretending that you know everything, that is correct. But I don't "hate" you. I just think you are misguided, just like you think others (including myself) are misguided. You don't have a monopoly on the truth; and I'm sorry if you don't like it. But it is what it is.
Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Toadmund
If I'm not mistaken, isn't anyone free to bring up and discuss again anything that's been posted previously?
Feel free to pick up where you left off.
Do you have a text reference for this, so I can review it for myself? I don't follow videos where I can't research the resources for myself.
The story of Jesus and the Adulteress (John 7. 53–8. 11) is fraught with historical and literary problems, many of which have seemed insoluble. On only two points is there a scholarly consensus: the passage did not originally form part of the Fourth Gospel, and it bears a close resemblance to Synoptic, particularly Lukan, traditions about Jesus.
The arguments for these judgments are overwhelming and do not need to be repeated here. In some respects these unanimous conclusions have themselves brought into sharp focus the thorny problems of the story's textual and pre-literary history: (1) Textual. Since the oldest and best textual witnesses of the Gospel of John do not contain the passage, how should the allusive references to it from the second and third centuries be evaluated? journals.cambridge.org...’
Right then. Jesus said one Greek word, but a word with two meanings, and Nicodemus understood the wrong meaning. This isn't just my own interpretation; it's the view of (among others) the NET Bible: This is a favorite technique of the author of the Fourth Gospel, and it is lost in almost all translations at this point.
John uses the word 5 times, in 3:3, 7; 3:31; 19:11 and 23. In the latter 3 cases the context makes clear that it means "from above." Here (3:3, 7) it could mean either, but the primary meaning intended by Jesus is "from above."
Nicodemus apparently understood it the other way, which explains his reply, "How can a man be born when he is old? He can't enter his mother's womb a second time and be born, can he?" The author uses the technique of the "misunderstood question" often to bring out a particularly important point: Jesus says something which is misunderstood by the disciples or (as here) someone else, which then gives Jesus the opportunity to explain more fully and in more detail what he really meant. Emphasis mine.
What the author of John apparently failed to consider is that this misunderstanding between Jesus and Nicodemus cannot have occurred, since Jesus and Nicodemus would have been speaking Aramaic, not Greek, and there is no such double meaning in Aramaic.
but I think some major research is in order.
Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by Deetermined
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."
If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."
For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit"
By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all."
Meaning HE IS IN ALL, not just the Christian. He came to save the WHOLE WORLD, meaning EVERYONE... not just the Christian. If you understood his story outside the Bible you would understand how his story since creation is one of awe!
"1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,"
"I've had it with you! You're hopeless, you religion scholars, you Pharisees! Frauds! Your lives are roadblocks to God's kingdom. You refuse to enter, and won't let anyone else in either. You're hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You go halfway around the world to make a convert, but once you get him you make him into a replica of yourselves, double-damned." (Matthew 23:13-15)
"Don't set people up as experts over your life, letting them tell you what to do. Save that authority for God; let him tell you what to do. No one else should carry the title of 'Father'; you have only one Father, and he's in heaven." (Matthew 23:9)
I hold true for myself what I have taught myself. This is my life to do what I may and I guarantee you I will never listen to a preacher tell me who my Father is in Heaven or tell me how to love Jesus. I definitely do not need you to teach me the same dogma I have learned many times over as it is not true within my spirit. AT ALL.
Not everything was meant to be revealed to all. Notice how you keep saying "I hold true what I taught myself", "this is my life to do what I want". As long as this is how you really feel, God won't show you his will.
And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form,
The phrase bn ilm ("sons of the gods") is also attested in Ugaritic texts, as is the phrase phr bn ilm ("assembly of the sons of the gods").
Elsewhere in the Ugarit corpus it is suggested that the bn ilm were the 70 sons of Asherah and El, who were the titulary deities of the people of the known world, and their "hieros gamos" marriage with the daughters of men gave rise to their rulers.
25 The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs.
26 I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men: 27 Were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy, lest their adversaries should behave themselves strangely, and lest they should say, Our hand is high, and the Lord hath not done all this.
God doesn't listen to everyone when their only purpose for seeking him is to fulfill their own will and not his.
When people develop a relationship with God through prayer and Bible study, repenting, and an honest to God desire to do God's will and not their own, then he fills you with the Holy Spirit and answers prayers.
Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by windword
I'm not seeing any proof that El Elyon and Yahweh are separate deities.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with God being displeased with his people.
Jesus was displeased with his people too.
And just how much of that research was dedicated to just the Holy Spirit and nothing else?