Religion

[vantexan]

Don’t forget that I also believe the Holy Spirit of God, the same Spirit that is in Jesus, who is one with the Father actually and literally has taken residence in my physical body, which is the temple of the living God.

I believe that is true for you as well.

And yet you reject Jesus's chosen Apostles. You literally give yourself more standing with God than they have.

 

[Integrity]

And yet you reject Jesus's chosen Apostles. You literally give yourself more standing with God than they have.

Not more, equal.

 

[vantexan]

Not more, equal.

If you say they're wrong about this or that when they were chosen by Jesus to lead and grow his Church then you are putting yourself before them.

 

[Integrity]

If you say they're wrong about this or that when they were chosen by Jesus to lead and grow his Church then you are putting yourself before them.

Not true. I am chosen by Jesus as they were chosen. Do you not believe that you were chosen by Jesus as well?

 

[vantexan]

Not true. I am chosen by Jesus as they were chosen.

Nope.

 

[BrownFlush]

I do believe you are sadly mistaken.

The problem that I see is that the religious text you seem to hold the Father, the Son and the Spirit in subjection to, says itself that there is so much more to Jesus’s life and ministry than what is actually in the documents that historic church leaders collected and deemed scripture.

Anyway this collection of manuscripts didn’t become the book that is known as the Bible for quite sometime.

It is fairly obvious that Paul continued to struggle with his Pharisee tendencies in his life but there is no evidence that he is referencing a book that didn’t even exist yet.

The entire context of 1 Corinthians 12,13,14 is not about Jesus at all.
Paul was speaking of the fact that the New Testament Scriptures had not all been given, and that when they were perfected, or completed, for that is the meaning of the word "perfect", then that which was in part, namely spiritual gifts or divine knowledge, prophecies, and tongues, were to be done away: "...but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away."
Sorry, Jesus is not to be done away with.
Whatever the" part" is that Paul is talking about (here it direct revelation, not Jesus) the whole when it comes is going to be the same thing. The Word of God in written form, not temporary direct revelations here and there.

 

[Integrity]

The entire context of 1 Corinthians 12,13,14 is not about Jesus at all.
Paul was speaking of the fact that the New Testament Scriptures had not all been given, and that when they were perfected, or completed, for that is the meaning of the word "perfect", then that which was in part, namely spiritual gifts or divine knowledge, prophecies, and tongues, were to be done away: "...but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away."
Sorry, Jesus is not to be done away with.
Whatever the" part" is that Paul is talking about (here it direct revelation, not Jesus) the whole when it comes is going to be the same thing. The Word of God in written form, not temporary direct revelations here and there.

I do not share your point of view.

 

[BrownFlush]

I do not share your point of view.

Surprise! Surprise!Surprise!--Gomer Pyle

 

[BrownFlush]

I do believe you are sadly mistaken.

The problem that I see is that the religious text you seem to hold the Father, the Son and the Spirit in subjection to, says itself that there is so much more to Jesus’s life and ministry than what is actually in the documents that historic church leaders collected and deemed scripture.

Anyway this collection of manuscripts didn’t become the book that is known as the Bible for quite sometime.

It is fairly obvious that Paul continued to struggle with his Pharisee tendencies in his life but there is no evidence that he is referencing a book that didn’t even exist yet.

Amazing.
When the plain truth of the scripture exposes you as a fraud, you question the reliability of the Bible.

 

[Integrity]

Amazing.
When the plain truth of the scripture exposes you as a fraud, you question the reliability of the Bible.

Written religious tradition does contain truth but my view is that it is not the Truth. I believe absolutistic thinking pertaining to religious traditions is dangerous.

 

[BrownFlush]

Written religious tradition does contain truth but my view is that it is not the Truth. I believe absolutistic thinking pertaining to religious traditions is dangerous.

I know. You are the exception.
Having God talk directly to you certainly should take precedence over some old antiquated book that makes this claim for itself...
"All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; sothat the man of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work."- 2 Timothy 3:16-17
The rest of us will just have to make do with the Bible.

 

[Fred's Myth]

I know. You are the exception.
Having God talk directly to you certainly should take precedence over some old antiquated book that makes this claim for itself...
"All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; sothat the man of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work."- 2 Timothy 3:16-17
The rest of us will just have to make do with the Bible.

And yet no claim to Sola Scriptura.

 

[BrownFlush]

And yet no claim to Sola Scriptura.

Looks like your battle cry is not Scripture only, but no Scripture that is contrary to what I want to believe.
Your lack of confidence in the Scriptures and their all-sufficiency is as obvious as @Integrity.
The Protestant reformation despite the apostasies, the wars, and all social upheavals, the church in both the East and West
continued the careful transmission of the Scriptures from generation to generation. Even following the Protestant Reformation, the numerous independent churches attempted to keep one another in check through an appeal to the authority of the written word.
The leaders of the Reformation held two distinctive doctrines: (1) the way to God is through faith in Jesus Christ, not through “any human mediator,” such as pope or priest; and (2) the Bible is the “final authority” for doctrine.
Reverence for the Scriptures is not learned from the world. Modernism has played a big part in your speak and attitude. Look to Jesus and follow Him in all things (Heb. 12:1- 2).
Remember also that faith comes by “hearing the word of God” (Rom. 10:17), not by what classroom professors teach or books ABOUT the Bible.
I read what others say, whether I agree or not, but I read critically and cautiously. Don’t be deceived into thinking that new is better. Modernism goes way back.

 

[BrownFlush]

@Fred's Myth
Do agree with @Integrity claim that God speaks directly to him?

 

[Fred's Myth]

@Fred's Myth
Do agree with @Integrity claim that God speaks directly to him?

I can't speak for @Integrity.

As for myself I speak to God regularly, in various forms of prayer. I do not hear God's voice in response. I do, however, at times feel His response (the Spirit moves). That's why my faith is unshakeable.

Looks like your battle cry is not Scripture only, but no Scripture that is contrary to what I want to believe.

Your accusation over my 'battle cry' is an airball, totally missing its goal.

The leaders of the Reformation held two distinctive doctrines: (1) the way to God is through faith in Jesus Christ, not through “any human mediator,” such as pope or priest; and (2) the Bible is the “final authority” for doctrine.

Your knowledge of Catholic doctrine, and how it applies to my beliefs, casts no shadow, because it holds no light.

 

[BrownFlush]

I can't speak for @Integrity.

Deflect. I didn't ask you to speak for Integrity. I asked if YOU believed his claim that God speaks directly to him.

As for myself I speak to God regularly, in various forms of prayer. I do not hear God's voice in response. I do, however, at times feel His response (the Spirit moves). That's why my faith is unshakeable.

You keep "feeling". Paul "felt" crucifying Christians was what God wanted him to do until somebody blinded him. An "unshakable" faith based on feelings is a dangerous path. If you want to get emotional, get emotional about what the word of God actually teaches.

Your accusation over my 'battle cry' is an airball, totally missing its goal.

Not true. If one needs more than the Bible, he's looking for something more than what it offers.

Your knowledge of Catholic doctrine, and how it applies to my beliefs, casts no shadow, because it holds no light.

I can only "walk in the light" of the scripture.
You're right about my knowledge of catholic doctrine. But, I know enough to know there isn't anything like it found in the New Testament.

 

[Integrity]

https://drwilliamdoverspike.com/files/how_cognitive_distortions_affect_religious_fundamentalists.pdf

 

[Fred's Myth]

Deflect. I didn't ask you to speak for Integrity. I asked if YOU believed his claim that God speaks directly to him.

You keep "feeling". Paul "felt" crucifying Christians was what God wanted him to do until somebody blinded him. An "unshakable" faith based on feelings is a dangerous path. If you want to get emotional, get emotional about what the word of God actually teaches.

Not true. If one needs more than the Bible, he's looking for something more than what it offers.

I can only "walk in the light" of the scripture.
You're right about my knowledge of catholic doctrine. But, I know enough to know there isn't anything like it found in the New Testament.

You have no faith, and your beliefs are obstructing your relationship with your Creator.

God created us in His Image. Since He created us before taking human form, that Image must be spiritual. Spirit has no parts, therefore our spirit must be affixed with God's. Spirit's root meaning is best understood as breath. We communicate by manipulating our breath. God communicates by breathing His Spirit.So, when God communicates, or answers, your prayers, He is uttering His Holy Spirit to you.

If you can receive an utterance from God without feeling anything, you have no faith.

 

[BrownFlush]

You have no faith, and your beliefs are obstructing your relationship with your Creator.

The Bible says faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God. Rom. 10:17 The faith I have is a result of what the word of God says. It's solid. Nothing blind or mysterious. I can assure you it is doing anything but obstructing my relationship with my Creator.

God created us in His Image. Since He created us before taking human form, that Image must be spiritual. Spirit has no parts, therefore our spirit must be affixed with God's. Spirit's root meaning is best understood as breath. We communicate by manipulating our breath. God communicates by breathing His Spirit.So, when God communicates, or answers, your prayers, He is uttering His Holy Spirit to you.

If you can receive an utterance from God without feeling anything, you have no faith.

I notice that all your comments have no scripture. The first two lines I have read. After that, is there any Scripture to back all the blow and breathing in the rest of the comment? You know, something I can put my faith in because the Holy Spirit communicated by words to an inspired Apostle who wrote it down so I would be able to read it, understand it, and know it's true? Get the passage and then I'll be able to put my faith in what you're saying. But, I have to tell you, I've never read anything close to this.

 

[Integrity]

The Bible says faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God. Rom. 10:17 The faith I have is a result of what the word of God says. It's solid. Nothing blind or mysterious. I can assure you it is doing anything but obstructing my relationship with my Creator.

I notice that all your comments have no scripture. The first two lines I have read. After that, is there any Scripture to back all the blow and breathing in the rest of the comment? You know, something I can put my faith in because the Holy Spirit communicated by words to an inspired Apostle who wrote it down so I would be able to read it, understand it, and know it's true? Get the passage and then I'll be able to put my faith in what you're saying. But, I have to tell you, I've never read anything close to this.

What does Romans 7:6 mean? | BibleRef.com

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. - What is the meaning of Romans 7:6?

www.bibleref.com