Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
very true sis, but certainly not, always true.Perplexed, this might be the most interesting part of the forums,
but you cant judge IQ's after only a few posts.
I'm sorry P I guess now I know why I haven't seen the agnostic icon before. Too bad I would have loved to interact with you. I ride bicycles regularly with an attorney who is a professing atheist. We've had lots of lively discussions over the years. And, not surprisingly , it's his IQ that' s his biggest hold up in coming to an experiential knowledge of the truth IMO...of course.haha, an interesting coincidence.
I suppose I am really an Atheist, but it is only fair to label myself as Agnostic as it cant be proven either way. I really dont like labels though.
I signed up to answer the OP, I thought it was an interesting idea.
My thoughts are for you Hillsage for I do enjoy your input even if we are not on the same page. But isn't that what this forum is about? The discussion is to stimulate others into thinking and then re-thinking their position and you always have promoted interesting thoughts, however unbibical they may seem. Why not start with addressing the scripture I posted?No, I hope this wasn't wholly intolerable for you he-man. As I repeatedly tried to tell you, posts longer than a screen size, kinda are for me. If one can't get a point across with fewer words it certainly isn't proverbial. Be blessed
Thank you Jesus for this response he-man.My thoughts are for you Hillsage for I do enjoy your input even if we are not on the same page.
Truly spoken as one schooled by man. And a claim I'd willingly bow to. But, OTOH, I believe I am more perceptive to that truth which must be Sspiritually taught/revealed (Not asking for agreement on that pointBut isn't that what this forum is about? The discussion is to stimulate others into thinking and then re-thinking their position and you always have promoted interesting thoughts, however unbibical they may seem.
I would have hoped to say; becasue I'm gonna have fun with an athesist. But unfortunately that excuse seems to be fading.Why not start with addressing the scripture I posted?
My point, from the beginning was this; Moses never knew what Jesus was relating to be 'the truth', as it was veiled through the Law under which Moses operated. IOW Moses never said the dead are raised....anywhere I know of.Luk 20:37 Now, that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob
Could you please explain to me what is your exegesis on Romans if Moses and Abel did not think he would be resurrected?
Case in point. All, not just these, which you've shared prior have been NT. The NT is the OT 'revealed' and that truth was 'concealed' to those under the OT.Rom 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
YOU are RIGHT!Where in the Scriptures do you see the Angel of Death if it is not our Heavenly Father who controls life and death of every living thing? Then your DEATH ANGEL is non-existantly DEAD.
Hope this is short enough to expand your comprehension
It was shorter.In Christ,
he-man
Thank you Jesus for this response he-man.I honestly wondered. But now I must add, I still do wonder if you even consider me as a brother in Christ. Or are my many unorthodox views too grave (sic) for me to be resurrected unto life.
Truly spoken as one schooled by man. And a claim I'd willingly bow to. But, OTOH, I believe I am more perceptive to that truth which must be Sspiritually taught/revealed (Not asking for agreement on that point) And those 'Sspirit views' still crash with the views of modern day pharisees just as they did in Jesus' days.
How then could Moses understand God if He is not the God of the Living and the God of the dead? "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.My point, from the beginning was this; Moses never knew what Jesus was relating to be 'the truth', as it was veiled through the Law under which Moses operated. IOW Moses never said the dead are raised....anywhere I know of.
Sorry, but that did not apply to Moses who prophesied the coming of Jesus.Case in point. All, not just these, which you've shared prior have been NT. The NT is the OT 'revealed' and that truth was 'concealed' to those under the OT.
No, my friend, there is NOTHING contained within the ENTIRE Bible that I have found that offers JUSTIFICATION for men believing DIFFERENTLY than in the TRUTH that has been delivered by God through prophet, apostle or His Own Son. There is CERTAINLY NO ENCOURAGEMENT offered within it's pages. Where you came up with THAT idea is about as confusing as the idea itself.
A lot of it was never truth to begin with. For example, slavery is no longer acceptable and therefore was never a truth.
If it wasnt open to interpretation, people couldnt offer thier own opinion. It should clear, precise and to the point.
haha, an interesting coincidence.
I suppose I am really an Atheist, but it is only fair to label myself as Agnostic as it cant be proven either way. I really dont like labels though.
I signed up to answer the OP, I thought it was an interesting idea.
To me that means YOU 'in Christ' signing off, not me.Didn't you see my signature?
In Christ,
Gosh he-man I'm kinda liking this side of you. I often suspected a computer generated picture and bible programmed software as the source of so much 'bible writing'.he-manCase in point
I suspect that 'spirit returning unto God' sorta left there soul body here in the Jewish mindset. And not being 'born from above' (acceptable term?) they related more to their corporeal existence. Just thinking, can't support that POV.
Job 12:16 With him is strength and wisdom: the deceived and the deceiver are his. How then could Moses understand God if He is not the God of the Living and the God of the dead? "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
OOOOH now we're getting into the definition of 'eternal' in scripture which, as you know, we Universal Reconciliation people have a whole different take on.Exo 15:18 The LORD shall reign for ever and ever
oh oh I have a whole theology concerning "The book of the life of the lamb" not founded on the one you are trying to support. Sorry, sure not a one screen rebuttal, this one."The book of the living"—"the book of life"—the book of God’s writing—is not merely a register of those who happen to be alive at any given time. It "contains the list of the righteous, and ensures to those whose names are written therein, life before God, first in the earthly kingdom of God, and then eternal life also" (Keil).
Doesn't fit my POV either, same as above.Thus Moses declared his willingness—nay, his wish—that God would visit on him the guilt of his people, both in this world and the next, so that he would thereupon forgive them. [The Pulpit]
Pretty good one. But not uncrackable IMO. Daniel was a sealed book. The book of the Revelation says "Do not seal up these words" and it's been 2000 years..hmmm, think about it. Many agree Daniel was sealed for 400 years and then it was opened/fulfilled. In this time frame physical Israel's judgment and the end of "the law and the prophets" was dealt with, according to the prophecies of Daniel. No 'last week' for us, in that Dan 'week-gap' theology. Those who were risen from the graves at the crucifixion of Jesus we have no record of concerning how they finished their lives before dying again prior to Danny's 400 being 'up'. Some may have been faithful some may not have. Some walked faithfully in 'age-during life' some didn't.Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Sorry, but that did not apply to Moses who prophesied the coming of Jesus.
Deu 18:15
Yep, all consistent with my POV on the book of the life of the lamb....but not yours.The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken
Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Don't you know the Song of Moses
Rev 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.
Of course there is one truth, and yes, water is wet. It clearly understood, proven and written in such a way that it is easy to understand why water is wet and undebatable. There is no room for interpretation, it is clear and precise.
The bible however is far from precise and open to interpretation, hence the confusion.
The bible is messy, written in an old laguage, hard to translate and largly irrelevant to todays society. It should have been updated through the centuries, but somehow it wasnt.
Psalm 11:4 The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord is on his heavenly throne. He observes everyone on earth; his eyes examine them.I suspect that 'spirit returning unto God' sorta left there soul body here in the Jewish mindset. And not being 'born from above' (acceptable term?) they related more to their corporeal existence. Just thinking, can't support that POV.
That is from the OT Deu 18:15 How then, could Moses know that God would raise up anyone and write about the Resurrected Jesus?? It is apparent that you do not know the Song of Moses.oh oh I have a whole theology concerning "The book of the life of the lamb" not founded on the one you are trying to support. Sorry, sure not a one screen rebuttal, this one.
That is because no one has yet risen from the grave but Jesus Christ. Not even David.Pretty good one. But not uncrackable IMO. Those who were risen from the graves at the crucifixion of Jesus we have no record of concerning how they finished their lives before dying again prior to Danny's 400 being 'up'.
You do realize that Perplexed appears to be abiding to the MOD's admonishment that; "only orthodox and unorthodox Christians" may post here, don't you? He professed to be "agnostic, if not truly atheist". So don't waste a bunch of time expecting a rebuttal.And that is WHY we MUST rely upon the Holy Spirit's 'guidance and conviction' in order to UNDERSTAND what is written within it's pages.
MEC
He understood the OT 'grace and law' God, Jehovah. He did not understand the 'kingdom of God' "grace and truth" god as manifested by Jesus. Truly, that kingdom was not even visible or enterable until after being born-again/from above (Now, is either then acceptable?) according to John, and the new covenant.How then could Moses understand God if He is not the God of the Living and the God of the dead when Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were already in the grave?
MAT 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.How then, could Moses know that God would raise up anyone and write about the Resurrected Jesus?? It is apparent that you do not know the Song of Moses.
Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken
Not according to my 'a fore noted paradigm'....Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Thus Moses declared his willingness—nay, his wish—that God would visit on him the guilt of his people, both in this world and the next, so that he would thereupon forgive them. [The Pulpit] That is because no one has yet risen from the grave but Jesus Christ. Not even David.
Joh 3:13
OK brother, brother, brother....Answer? answer? answer?. I admit, YOU GOT ME. Don't gloat just yet though.And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,the Son of man which is in heaven.
Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Tell me who sent the firey serpents and what was the purpose of it? Isn't it strange that God would use the likeness of a Snake to heal all who looked at it?
Num 21:6 And the LORD sent fiery<G8313> serpents <G5175> among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
[SIZE=+2]שׂרף [/SIZE] [FONT=tempus sans, tempus sans itc]sa-raph [/FONT][FONT=tempus sans, tempus sans itc]Cremate (V) [/FONT][FONT=tempus sans, tempus sans itc][SIZE=-1]2512 (V) [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=tempus sans, tempus sans itc][SIZE=-1]8313 [/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=+2]נָחָשׁ [/SIZE] [FONT=tempus sans, tempus sans itc]na-hhash [/FONT][FONT=tempus sans, tempus sans itc]Serpent [/FONT][FONT=tempus sans, tempus sans itc][SIZE=-1]2395 (N) [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=tempus sans, tempus sans itc][SIZE=-1]5175 [/SIZE][/FONT]
This peculiar method of cure was designed, in the first instance, to show that it was the efficacy of God’s power and grace, not the effect of nature or art, and also that it might be a type of the power of faith in Christ to heal all who look to Him because of their sins [JFB]
Spiritually, therefore, we have in this passage Christ lifted up upon the cross in the likeness of sinful flesh in order to save from the deadly virus of sin and from eternal death all those who will raise the eye of faith to him [PULPIT]
Oh wow, yes I see it now! That example can be compared equally with two Christains that disagree with whether Jesus is God or not.
Now I understand, maybe not logically why, because like the above example it is not logical. Someone saying they knew a Catholic who alledgedly practiced Voodoo represents a Catholic who does not agree with other Catholics when the Church forbids it is illogical. It does not represent disagreement on beliefs, it represents a Catholic who wrong in what they say or do.
Instead of just be wrong about something (like the Westboro nutjobs), it seems that it is assumed everyone is right in whatever they want to believe and the difference just represents disagreement. If that is the case and the way the OP is looking at the entire spectrum of individual human faith, then yes I can see how someone could say no two believers hold the same beliefs. Not everyone likes PB&J for example.
Then some are not paying close enough attention. BTW it would be considered rude and unChristian to embarrass someone like John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi publically. Just because someone claims to be a faithful <whatever> it does not follow that it is true that they are or that their life represents that.But Doc, the examples are RAMPANT. Mafioso members CLAIM to be Catholics and according all the books I have read and movies I have watched, the Catholic Church ACCEPTS them as MEMBERS of the Catholic Church.
And did Jesus "ACCEPT" the sinners or throw them out of His midst?ButAlmost the ENTIRE GROUP of those living SOUTH of the US border are practicing a form of Catholocism that INCLUDES their PREVIOUS PAGAN BELIEFS. They are Catholic/PAGANS but the Church ACCEPTS this so long as they claim to be Catholics FIRST. The Church may publicly SAY they are opposed to such methods of worship, but they ACCEPT them nevertheless.
Zero that I am aware of. It is the media that makes such things a spectacle, not the Church.Every time we see the claims of SEEING the 'vigin Mary's' FACE on a loaf of bread or 'statues crying blood', it COMES from the people I have referenced. Those of Mexico, Central or South America.
And I ask YOU: How MANY of these instances does the 'Roman Catholic Church' ACCEPT as AUTHENTIC.
Exactly, which proves my point. Such people doing such things DO NOT represent a Catholic who disagrees with what other Catholics believe. Such people represent Catholics who have erred in such thinking. Just as you state, a person claiming to be faithful to some body of beliefs yet obviously acting or speaking against those beliefs is lying to themselves and others.You give your answer but I'll offer MINE as well: NONE. The RCC accepts NONE as AUTHENTIC. Yet BOTH these GROUPS claim a COMMON belief and acceptance of the SAME religion. Yet ONE group PLAINLY recognizes the Fallacy of the other in it's CLAIMS. This is NOT MUTUAL AGREEMENT on BELIEF. This is at BEST, a common understanding and belief in only CERTAIN aspects of this 'religion'. Obviously those that are SEEING statues bleed or CLAIMING to have seen this is NOT in agreement with the REST of the 'Church'. For the REST of the 'Church' does NOT accept such claims as AUTHENTIC.
Am unaware of anyone being excommunicated or "kicked out" for being divorced. Excommunications are rare and generally reserved for blantant acts by those in public eye, and AFTER they have been privately (and repeatedly) rebuked and asked to correct the issue. Patience is also suppose to be a Christian virtue.And how does one CLAIM to be a Catholic that has been KICKED out of the 'Church'? To the 'church', they are NO LONGER Catholic. But to the one that makes such claims, (you know, like after a divorce or any other reason that the 'Church' deems fit to 'excommunicate one of it's members), are they REALLY any LESS Catholic AFTER a divorce than they were BEFORE? I mean one's BELIEFS are one's BELIEFS regardless of whether they DIVORCE or NOT.
Why stop at divorce? How does one explain any Christain that sins?And how do you explain one that BELIEVES as the Catholic Church TEACHES that would consider DIVORCE to start with? If the person didn't BELIEVE in divorce, how would they choose THAT as their solution?
Well am not sure what to believe now as earlier it was said to be two, that were a couple (as in relationship). Regardless what one represented as them telling others what Catholic believed contained blantant errors when compared to what is in the Catechism. So while one may have dicussed at great lengths particular issues with this couple they do not sound like a very reliable source for what a faithful Catholic is suppose to believe.Once again, I have discussed theology with MORE Catholics than any other denomination over the years.
Well given some here think when to eat or not eat a sin offering is on the same level with what is a group of Christians is to believe is True about God for example, am not sure what this statement really means. Some Catholics disagree about when we should bow - that is a trivial matter of tradition (little t) - for example. That is not proof of disagreemnet about "CORE beliefs.And I have YET to find TWO that are in complete agreement on what it is that they BELIEVE.
Again the Catechism is quite clear on what the Trinity Doctrine is and what it means. It is also not a simple concept, at least not when contemplating the fuller meanings of it. So the fact one orthodox may "correct" another only means one of them is wrong - it does not follow that the Trinity Doctrine has many different meanings or understandings. And that is true whether one speaking of any Catholic or of any orthodox. The fact many may not be able correctly express principles of that Doctrine every time they write something on an internet forum also does not make one's case. It simply means they err, which we all do.Even here on this very forum, when the concept of 'trinity' is discussed, a Catholic is JUST as prone to correct a Catholic on their beliefs of this issue as a NON trinitarian is likely to DISAGREE.
And I admitted in my first reply that such Catholics exist. Did Jesus deny the faith of little children?You may well find TWO individuals that are completely IGNORANT of what they CLAIM to believe in and follow so far as the Catholic Church is concerned. But the TRUTH is, when it comes down to the intricate details, most aren't even able to CONTEMPLATE whether they agree or disagree for the simple FACT of ignorance. MOST Catholics don't even KNOW what it IS that they CLAIM to believe in and FOLLOW. At least this has been MY EXPERIENCE when discussing Catholic issues WITH those claiming to be Catholic.
There is a story/legend of a vision Saint Thomas Aquinas had regarding the quest for truth/knowledge regarding the Trinity Doctrine in fact. As I recall the message was all the works/efforts he had done his "knowing" everything was as impossible as the boy on the beach trying to empty the ocean into a hole in the sand.I have a Jewish friend, (by birth), who knows MUCH LESS about Judaism than I DO. And I am NOT a JEW. He gathers with his family for 'holy days' and such, but doesn't know hardly ANYTHING about Jewish HISTORY or what those following Judaism BELIEVE.
well ok, but one did say some pretty harsh and false things about the Church. Regardless, my point remains that what one has witnessed are not examples of what one claims. They are examples of ignorance, being child like and people just being wrong.So you are not dealing with someone just TALKING. You are dealing with someone that has spent MANY years studying and witnessing what is going on around me. And PLEASE don't try and turn my HONESTY into some personal AGENDA against the Catholic Church. I have NO REASON to 'pick on' ANYONE. I have placed us ALL in the 'same boat' INCLUDING myself.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because I have a much more positive outlook and also generally give people the benefit of doubt, which includes the benefit of being human - which includes the right to be wrong and make mistakes.But I'll defend my words if you force the issue. Your attempt to place YOUR 'church' and what YOU believe in a DIFFERENT light doesn't ADD UP. YOUR 'religion' is JUST as fraught with those that have DIFFERENT beliefs about the SAME religion as ANY other from MY experience. You have simply chosen to either IGNORE the fact or deny it. Makes no difference one way or the other. I have offered what I have offered in TRUTH. No DESIRE to fool YOU or anyone else. I have offered these things in the HOPES that they may be able to OPEN THE EYES of SOME. Not ALL. For MOST live in a constant state of denial and that is the ONLY way they are able to live with themselves or anyone else.
Am not aware the Church makes such a claim. They would say both our Lord and Saint Paul clearly indicating complete chastity, (as in remaining a virgin), is higher calling than the opposite and one that is fitting (IOW a good thing) for those who choose to set themselves apart for a life of ministry. Futhermore since the same Church allows exception - (a converted married minister becomes a Priest in New Orleans Diocese I believe for just ONE example) am unclear why one thinks this unsupported claim about the Church is true, except perhaps one of those Catholics friends said so (they were wrong). In the RC it is the norm because that is our tradition (little T) and because the Church beleives it is fitting that it be so. From the Catechism - note the word NORMALLY.As just ONE example of how YOUR beliefs are INCOMPLETE about your OWN religion, I have a couple of questions for YOU to answer everyone following this thread:
Where in the Bible does the Catholic Church CLAIM they have been instructed to be CELIBATE?
That claim can only be found in written source in Jack Chic tracts. The title however is fitting for the Mother of God and Mary in the greeting given Her by the angel before she said anything indicates a very special person. And if by worship one means Catholics give something to someone that they should only be giving to God alone, well that would be a sin - and clearly so as it is against something we call the 1st of ten commandments.And WHERE in the Bible does the Catholic Church CLAIM they are instructed to worship MARY as the Queen of Heaven.
As those questions have been answered, am not stuck in anything.You see, you are STUCK in a 'religion' that CAN'T answer these questions.
Well the truth is online for all to see, no need to believe me and certainly no need to believe false claims or Jack Chic tracts. A tradition (small t), like celibacy for higher orders is not a "CORE belief". If it were then we could not have examples of married Priests, yet we do. These things have explanation. Just because some have not bothered to ask the right people or look in the right places, it does not follow there is no answer.Because there is NO SUCH INSTRUCTION in the Bible. These are merely TRADITIONS that can't even be explained. Yet they are CORE beliefs in this 'religion'. And I could ask DOZENS more that you could not answer as well. If you can't ANSWER the question, how do you FOLLOW such BELIEFS in TRUTH?
No, and if a Catholic says that they are simply wrong, as Nancy Pelosi and Kerry are about abortion for example. The Truths that Catholics are suppose to hold to are NOT open to interpretation. And being Catholic is about a submission to the teaching Authority(that is not a person or persons BTW) given the Church, such that even if one does not understand or even if one finds something difficult to accept - we are suppose to humbly submit that thing is still True none the less. Again refusing to do that means that person is not being a faithful Catholic.So if there IS NO ANSWER, then such answers are OPEN to INTERPRETATION according to EACH that TRIES to answer them.
Exactly my point about a Catholic politician claiming there is nothing wrong with their stance on abortion. Claiming something to be so is not the same as it being so. Just because someone says they are a faithful Catholic does not make it so anymore than someone claiming to "know Him" means they really "knows Him".Hmmmm...........WHO would do ANYTHING in the 'name of Christ' other than a CHURCH? A GROUP of those PROFESSING to be FOLLOWERS? Yet MANY will be told by Christ Himself that HE DID NOT EVEN KNOW THEM. If He didn't or doesn't KNOW THEM, they certainly don't KNOW HIM. They were or ARE simply USING His NAME. For their OWN designs and benefits. NOT from actually being TRUE FOLLOWERS.
Appreciate your sincerity and sorry but I do get touchy/defensive of the Church.I didn't approach this subject LIGHTLY. They aren't just RANDOM thoughts or ideas. It is an accumulation of MANY YEARS of experience. The results of MUCH study and prayer.
That is more than one page you are complaining about in my post to you. Let's not be hypoctitical. now!#159 I see YOU saw the same misconception as I, so far as what you replied to Josephus MEC
Mar 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Spirit, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit off My right until I place Your enemies as a footstool for Your feet."He understood the OT 'grace and law' God, Jehovah. He did not understand the 'kingdom of God' "grace and truth" god as manifested by Jesus. Truly, that kingdom was not even visible or enterable until after being born-again/from above (Now, is either then acceptable?) according to John, and the new covenant.MAT 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The question is asked because neither they, nor Moses had a 'bright' OT answer back then, for what Moses spoke prophetically as a "shadow of things to come" were so, even unto him, as a prophet. Not according to my 'a fore noted paradigm'....
But the 'churches' won't teach you this. They want you to keep coming back. And if they EVER started TEACHING the TRUTH, no one would. For once one is Able to come to the TRUTH, they will recognize just how CHILDISH the 'churches' truly ARE. Not even capable of teaching the congregation to CRAWL, much less walk or RUN.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?