here is the truth

[thereselittleflower]

You conviniently left out the rest of the scripture I listed:

(26) These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.

And in context, "them that seduce you" are those who deny Jesus is the Christ, the verse I did quote. . it all goes back to that verse.

So again, I ask, who is denying that Jesus is the Christ?

(27) But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

John is a difficult book. It is difficult because of the underlying Greek and the tense/mood/ he uses with the verbs.

v 24:

1Jo 2:24 ¶ Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.​

This is the context of v 26. They had already been taught the Christian faith, already had the proper foundation for Chrsitian faith and living laid by the Apostle John!

They had already HEARD from John the correct teaching and instruction in the Christian faith.

They had no need of "any" man to teach them this again. They had already been taught by the man John. They had already "heard" from John's own mouth the correct teachings of the Christian faith.

The fuller context of this verse is what is in the first verse you quoted . . . those who deny that Jesus is the Christ which are those who seduce.

These are the 'any' man John was referring to, those who wanted to 're-teach' these chrsitians the 'chrsitian faith' which contradicted John's teaching.

A historical perspective is also in orde . . . the ones who John was referring to were the gnostics . . .

These are the "any" man John was referring to.

Look at the Greek word translated "any man" . . . English does a very poor job of communicating what is in John's letters:

Lexicon Results for tis (Strong's 5100)
Greek for 5100

Pronunciation Guide
tis {tis}

TDNT Reference
Not Available

Root Word
an enclitic indefinite pronoun

Part of Speech
pron

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) a certain, a certain one

2) some, some time, a while​

​

See, something quite different than is communicated in the English translation.

John is speaking of a certain man or certain men .. the gnostics who were trying to corrupt the teaching John gave them "in the beginning".


It does not say what you want it to say.

I would continue this conversation with you if you were to provide scriptural references for your scriptural assertions.

I have given scriptural references where appropriate.

Again, God said "let us reason together" not "let's toss scriptures back and forth at each other" or "let's reason from the scriptures together" . ..


Peace

 

[livingword26]

And in context, "them that seduce you" are those who deny Jesus is the Christ, the verse I did quote. . it all goes back to that verse.

So again, I ask, who is denying that Jesus is the Christ?




John is a difficult book. It is difficult because of the underlying Greek and the tense/mood/ he uses with the verbs.

v 24:

1Jo 2:24 ¶ Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.​

This is the context of v 26. They had already been taught the Christian faith, already had the proper foundation for Chrsitian faith and living laid by the Apostle John!

They had already HEARD from John the correct teaching and instruction in the Christian faith.

They had no need of "any" man to teach them this again. They had already been taught by the man John. They had already "heard" from John's own mouth the correct teachings of the Christian faith.

It does not say that they had heard the correct teaching from John. It says that they had recieved the annointing from the Holy one which would teach them all things. The word "again" also is not in there.

1Jo 2:20-21
(20) But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
(21) I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

He even says that they knew the truth from the Holy Spirit before he wrote the letter.

The fuller context of this verse is what is in the first verse you quoted . . . those who deny that Jesus is the Christ which are those who seduce.

These are the 'any' man John was referring to, those who wanted to 're-teach' these chrsitians the 'chrsitian faith' which contradicted John's teaching.

A historical perspective is also in orde . . . the ones who John was referring to were the gnostics . . .

These are the "any" man John was referring to.

Look at the Greek word translated "any man" . . . English does a very poor job of communicating what is in John's letters:

Lexicon Results for tis (Strong's 5100)
Greek for 5100

Pronunciation Guide
tis {tis}

TDNT Reference
Not Available

Root Word
an enclitic indefinite pronoun

Part of Speech
pron

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) a certain, a certain one

2) some, some time, a while​

See, something quite different than is communicated in the English translation.
​

John is speaking of a certain man or certain men .. the gnostics who were trying to corrupt the teaching John gave them "in the beginning".

Again, the point is not really who the false teacher is, the point of the scripture is that we have access to the truth. We have access to God through His Spirit that He has given to us. His Spirit and His word keeps us from false doctrines.

NT:5100 tis (tis); an enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object:

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

What are we to preach. What is the point of the gospel. I am preaching Jesus Christ, the Word of God. I am preaching salvation, sanctification and teaching from His Spirit. You are preaching the Catholic church. Salvation, sanctification and teaching through men. Indeed, we all need the body of Christ, and indeed there are authorities to submit to. But Christ is our ultimate authority, even here and now. False doctrines can not be fought by mans ideas and by mans organizations and creations. The church is not what you think it is.

 

[Rick Otto]

"Can you show me the scripture that clearly states that the Holy Spirit is:

1. Co-equal with the Father and SOn
2. Co-Eternal with the Father and Son
3. Co-Eternally PREexisting with the Father and Son"

It gives me great pleasure to share with you, the scriptures that "clearly" (to an uncluttered mind), give everyone paying attention, the Trinitarian dogma you require.

Funny thing is, I got it from the Catholic Encyclopedia!
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm#II

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Hey Rick, thanks for the invite but I've left the world of hermantuetics far behind when talking with christians... I'll pipe up now and then if you wish. The trouble is, I have always tended to use hermy for Bible translations, rather than theological discourse. Using it with non-christians who appreciate having a book come alive, rather than christians intent on murdering meaning and truth beneath docrtine and insecurity. (not aimed at anyone here!)

My hermy-arguey days are over, hopefully. I prefer to starve with the poor nowadays -- call it a seasonal thing!

In terms of the Trinity, interesting that it didnt exist untill Jesus was physically born -- until then father and son were non-seperate, while one with the brooding birthing-spirit?

 

[thereselittleflower]

"Can you show me the scripture that clearly states that the Holy Spirit is:

1. Co-equal with the Father and SOn
2. Co-Eternal with the Father and Son
3. Co-Eternally PREexisting with the Father and Son"

It gives me great pleasure to share with you, the scriptures that "clearly" (to an uncluttered mind), give everyone paying attention, the Trinitarian dogma you require.

Funny thing is, I got it from the Catholic Encyclopedia!
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm#II

Well then, where are the scripture? Why haven't you produced them?


What you are doing is substituting a strawman argument for the one I actually made.

This is either deliberate or a result of misunderstanding what I am arguing.

I did NOT say that there are no scriptures which can be used to SUPPORT this dogma.




I asked for and said there are no scripture which CLEARLY STATE this dogma.


Two different things altogether. Supplying something which shows how scriptures can be used to IMPLICITLY support this dogma is not responsive in anyway to what I said and asked for.

Again:

Can you show me the scripture that clearly states that the Holy Spirit is:

1. Co-equal with the Father and SOn
2. Co-Eternal with the Father and Son
3. Co-Eternally PREexisting with the Father and Son"

Cleary states . . EXPLICIT proof . . . not implict support.


Care to try again?




Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

It does not say that they had heard the correct teaching from John. It says that they had recieved the annointing from the Holy one which would teach them all things. The word "again" also is not in there.

1Jo 2:20-21
(20) But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
(21) I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

He even says that they knew the truth from the Holy Spirit before he wrote the letter.

Again, the point is not really who the false teacher is, the point of the scripture is that we have access to the truth. We have access to God through His Spirit that He has given to us. His Spirit and His word keeps us from false doctrines.

The point is, who was John actually referring to and what is the proper context of his words.

The point is, your superficial reading of John's words in the English langauge, a translation far removed in time and space form the original langauge, culture and time, while ignoring the historical context results in the WRESTING of scripture.

I gave you the BACKGROUND for this letter . . that means it is BACKGROUND information and is not contained explicitly in the writing itself .. otherwise, it would not be BACKGROUND info.

John was battling gnosticism. That is a historical fact.

To strip his words from their historical context and to neglect the underlying Greek to render a superficial read in an English translation far removed in time and space from the people and culture and langauge and time it was written in is to simply do grave violence to the scriptures.

Peter said this:

the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures,
2 Peter 3:16​

If you choose to remain ignorant of the historical context these words are set in, of the gnostic beliefs and teachers John battled, then you fall prey to exactly what Peter warned about above . .

Wresting the scriptures!


And this is what you are doing.

NT:5100 tis (tis); an enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object:

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

And? Pretty much what my source said too.

Again, stripping John's words form their context is simply employing the logical fallacy known as proof texting. . you can make any scripture say anything you want . . . that is called eisegesis, reading into scripture what you want itto say.

But understanding it within its proper context is necessary to arrive at a proper understanding of its message.

What are we to preach. What is the point of the gospel. I am preaching Jesus Christ, the Word of God. I am preaching salvation, sanctification and teaching from His Spirit.

Umm . . all you are doing is teaching from your fallible understanding of scripture and the Holy Spirit.

Nothing more.

You are preaching the Catholic church.

Really?

Salvation, sanctification and teaching through men.

Really?

Indeed, we all need the body of Christ, and indeed there are authorities to submit to. But Christ is our ultimate authority, even here and now.

At least here is something we can agree on!

False doctrines can not be fought by mans ideas and by mans organizations and creations. The church is not what you think it is.

I think the Church is Christ's body . . .what do you think it is?



Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

Hey Rick, thanks for the invite but I've left the world of hermantuetics far behind when talking with christians... I'll pipe up now and then if you wish. The trouble is, I have always tended to use hermy for Bible translations, rather than theological discourse. Using it with non-christians who appreciate having a book come alive, rather than christians intent on murdering meaning and truth beneath docrtine and insecurity. (not aimed at anyone here!)

My hermy-arguey days are over, hopefully. I prefer to starve with the poor nowadays -- call it a seasonal thing!

In terms of the Trinity, interesting that it didnt exist untill Jesus was physically born -- until then father and son were non-seperate, while one with the brooding birthing-spirit?

I have to question your understanding of the Trinity, for what you proposed above is a heretical notion, that God the Father and God the Son became separate.

The Trinity is indivisible - even through the incarnation . . God the Son did not separate from God the Father simply because God the Son became incarnate.



Peace

 

[AvgJoe]

The Church is made of with the pure of heart from all denominations who are earnestly trying to follow Christ and his example studying the Bible and spreading the Gospel and love.

According to the Bible, the church is the Body of Christ, and the body of Christ is all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 12:13).

 

[Rick Otto]

Theresa, differences without distinctions in ref; to the original thesis are beside the point, and obsessively focused on an analytical clarity that you find in clinical, scientific, or the critical analysis offered by forensics in a criminal case, but the preponderance of evidence is the standard in civil court.
And I insist remaining civil.

Thanks, Flan...
I hear ya. I'm workin' nights & homeschoolin our son days, so I have basicaly 2 venues, and now it's too cold to play my guitar outside... so this appliance is starting to rival my toaster & coffee pot on importance,... nawhhhh... whaddidido wid dat blacberry jam???

 

[thereselittleflower]

Yes, rick, Clearly states.

Because that is the standard that is used against our beliefs some protestants don't agree with.

If you do not apply the same standard to your own beliefs, then that means you use a double standard . .

Those who use double standards are hypocritical in their requirements of others. . don't you agree?


For evidence of this in play, see post #33 where this line of questioning began with another poster demanding clear, explicit proof from scripture for something we Catholics believe.

Do you believe it is right to hold belief in the Trinity to a different, lessor standard of proof than Cathlic beliefs one doesn't agree with?



Peace

 

[Rick Otto]

It is the same standard, but applied without prejudice and sophistry, thus the different perceptions of what is clear and what isn't. I saw it play when Bill Clinton tried to weasel out of HIS obvious guilt with a sophistry over the definition of "is".
I thought I'd already made plenty of statements clarifying my consideration of double standards being hypocritical. In fact most those statements were in regard to yours, so I'm wondering if you aren't being faceteous.

Peas

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I have to question your understanding of the Trinity, for what you proposed above is a heretical notion, that God the Father and God the Son became separate.

The Trinity is indivisible - even through the incarnation . . God the Son did not separate from God the Father simply because God the Son became incarnate.



Peace

I actually stated that they were non-seperate prior to Jesus birth. I did not use the term "separation" in reference to Jesus becoming human.

They were only separated when Jesus took my sin away from me and held it on the cross. I think he claims to have done the same for others too, but few seem to realise. It would be heretical of me to suggest that God the Father remained non-separate when God the Son took sin upon himself.

It is we who make distinctions of the facets of God, atributing a triune nature to God and then to humans (which may or may not be heretical). The Jews alluded to no more than 2 facets to God, remaining unsure how the Messiahs relationship to God would be outworked. 4 seemed to be a promising number for a while, more than 7, but we seem to have ended up with 3 - which, of course, would be heresy to those living through the Old Testament.

Guess which word I hear used to dismiss everything under the sun (lit. under God)? And which word annoys and rubs at that place I cant scratch -- that dark, dark place called my soul. Mwahahahahahahaha.

Erm... I was invited here to spout trash right?

 

[thereselittleflower]

I actually stated that they were non-seperate prior to Jesus birth. I did not use the term "separation" in reference to Jesus becoming human.

They were only separated when Jesus took my sin away from me and held it on the cross. I think he claims to have done the same for others too, but few seem to realise. It would be heretical of me to suggest that God the Father remained non-separate when God the Son took sin upon himself.

Do you understand the hypostatic union and the 2 natures of Christ, distinct, but indivisible?

The understanding that you are promoting was condemned by the Early Church as heretical.

Definition of Chalcedon (451 AD)

We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten -- in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the "properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one "person" and in one reality <hypostasis>. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word <Logos> of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]e Nicene Creed> has handed down to us.​

God the Son and God the Father are One in BEING .. One in SUBSTANCE . . that is what the Nicene Creed states. That is what we acknowledge we hold to . .

Never did they cease being One in BEING, One in SUBSTANCE.

What you are sugesting is that they DID cease being one in BEING, one in SUBSTANCE . . that they separated . . that would make them TWO BEINGS . . . Not one.


That is a heretical notion that the Council of Nicea, giving us the Nicene Creed, deals with.


God is One . . it is HOW He is One that is of vast importance. Your positoin ultimately has Him being TWO for a period of time. . not One.

God was joined intimately and permenantly to Jesus' Human nature through God the Son in the hypostatic Union.

That Hypostatic Union is indivisible . . . once it was created, it remains indisoluable.

That does not mean that the Father suffered on the Cross . . it does not mean that Christ's Divine Nature suffered on the cross either . . . it is beyond our ability to comprehend.

It is we who make distinctions of the facets of God, atributing a triune nature to God and then to humans (which may or may not be heretical). The Jews alluded to no more than 2 facets to God, remaining unsure how the Messiahs relationship to God would be outworked. 4 seemed to be a promising number for a while, more than 7, but we seem to have ended up with 3 - which, of course, would be heresy to those living through the Old Testament.

Now you are promoting the idea of MODALISM . . facets of God, modes of God .. .

That is also another of the ancient Trinitarian heresies.

We are not talking about "facets" of God . .

God is 3 PERSONS . . One BEING. . . that is what we acknowledge in the Nicene Creed

Guess which word I hear used to dismiss everything under the sun (lit. under God)? And which word annoys and rubs at that place I ant scratch -- that dark, dark place called my soul. Mwahahahahahahaha.

Erm... I was invited here to spout trash right?

Were you?




Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

It is the same standard, but applied without prejudice and sophistry, thus the different perceptions of what is clear and what isn't. I saw it play when Bill Clinton tried to weasel out of HIS obvious guilt with a sophistry over the definition of "is".
I thought I'd already made plenty of statements clarifying my consideration of double standards being hypocritical. In fact most those statements were in regard to yours, so I'm wondering if you aren't being faceteous.

Peas

Let's review . .. .


It is perfectly acceptable to claim it is right teaching that the Holy Spirit is co-equal with the Father and the Son, Co-eternal and co-eternally pre-existing with the Father and the Son even though there is no explicit evidence in scripture to back it up . . .

So no expliciti proof is required to back this belief up, yet it is perfectly fine to accept it based on implicit evidence.

But if Catholics can't provide explicit evidence from scripture to back up beliefs you don't agree with, even though they have implicit evidence, this is not acceptable at all . . . .


You are not required to provide explicit evidence to back up these beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit . . part of the core and fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith. Impicit evidence is enough.


But Catholics are required to provide explicit evidence to back up our beliefs you don't agree with . . . implicit evidence is NOT enough


A Clear Double Standard if ever there was one no matter how you slice it or dice it . . ..





Peace

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

The understanding that you are promoting was condemned by the Early Church as heretical...

Never did they cease being One in BEING, One in SUBSTANCE.

What you are sugesting is that they DID cease being one in BEING, one in SUBSTANCE . . that they separated . . that would make them TWO BEINGS . . . Not one.

Interesting. The geezers you quoted were certainly promoting duoeity, but I do not. I have not made any supposition nor do I hold such a stance. Jesus, even in being seperated from God on the Cross, was not a separate entity -- but to be sure we dont know what was going on then and there.

You seem to think this is of some import when it is not. We have relations with our one God. Refering to God as Trinity is non-Biblical, but not beyond Biblicality. t is, however, tenuous in terms of pre-NT. The existence of God has always been a complex, sexual expression of distinctives that remain one -- like a couple in [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], I suppose. There is one God, possible this God has 3 aspects, definately one part has a human body, one has a spiritual "angleic" body and the other a brooding/birth-flux "body". But this has not always been the case

Heresy is the pursuit of Belief over Truth. You believe me to be wrong, fine. Please do not pursue me.

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

But Catholics are required to provide explicit evidence to back up our beliefs you don't agree with . . . implicit evidence is NOT enough

Lol. Parental Advisory, Explicit Evidence

Peace outta here like last year. Yoyo.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Heresy is the pursuit of Belief over Truth.

Heresy is promoting error that has been condemned as truth . . . . . .



Peace

 

[Rick Otto]

Heresy is a cake made of man claiming the corner on truth. For icing,... condemning his fellow man for not eating the cake.

 

[thereselittleflower]

And people will make up whatever definitions they prefer . . . no matter what that may be . . .



Peace

 

[Rick Otto]

And fabricate titles, wear outrageous costumes, make cryptic gestures & whisper mysteries...

Hey T, we're doin' pretty good here. We could be script writers. Maybe we shold blow this pop-stand & move to Hollywood?

Hey lady, have you seen that movie,"Thank You For Smoking"?