Paul the Apostle

OE , you be trolling early this morning. :)

Nope, serious discussion.

What is Abrahams bosom, it is paradise Jesus refered to?

Gen 25:8, 2 Sam 12:28, Gen 49:29, Jesus refers to it in Luke 16.

Abrahams bosom is in many rabbinical writings, tge root word is garden or royal
park.

At transfiguration Moses and Elijah appear which implies a conscious existence before the resurrection.

What is paradise?

Eph 4: 8 thru 10

The opposite

Matt 12:40

1 Peter 3:19

Rev 9

Gen 6

Jude 6

2 Pet 2:4

1 Pet 4:5
 
Jesus does not have the power to forgive sins? Or, Jesus is not one with God?


1. The Trinity is an eternal truth about who God is.

2. The Trinity means that God exists as three persons—the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

3. The Trinity also means that these three persons eternally exist as one God.

4. Since the three persons of the Trinity share precisely the same attributes, whatever may be said of one member of the Trinity may be said of the other two.

5. The members of the Trinity are equal in every respect.

6. All three members of the Trinity have always existed.

All of that may be boiled down to two statements:

1. God exists in Three Persons.

The Father who is the Creator

The Son who is the Redeemer

The Holy Spirit who is the Sanctifier.

2. These three are One God.
United in substance
Never any disagreement
Never any conflict
Never any division



It is also interesting how it is that Jesus teaches his followers to pray:

He Does Gives Good Instruction.
MATHEW 6:5-15

5 "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites ; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
6 "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
7 "And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.
8 "So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
9 "Pray, then, in this way : 'Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.
10 'Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.
11 'Give us this day our daily bread.
12 'And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 'And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.']
14 "For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15 "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions


Do we take Jesus's advice as to how to prayer (no mention of Jesus or faith, simply the acknowledgment that there is a great God in heaven, the acknowledgement that we have transgressions, and the request that we be forgiven with the same standard that we forgive others), or do we take the advice of later "Christians" and pray to Jesus and put our faith in Faith?

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,





Further, Jesus states very clearly:

Here, one cannot argue that this is "intercession"; rather, Jesus clearly states one will be forgiven for blasphemy against Jesus (i.e., not believing in Jesus) and, more than that, for every single sin that one would commit. The only unforgivable sin, according to this statement, is acting against the dictates of one's own conscience (which is exactly what Aquinas says circa 1256).



Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is a clear and consistent rejection of the Saviour, Jesus… and you can’t be saved and reject Jesus at the same time.
How can one be saved if they do not believe in Christ?
Even those who do not believe can hear the gospel, realize they are a sinner and repent, they will be forgiven. No one can be forgiven if they do not believe there is a God to forgive them. It's simple.



How I understand the message of Jesus in the Gospels is:

God is Truth
Jesus is Reason
Nobody can reach Truth without Reason

The Holy Spirit is Conscience
Conscience guides actions
Reason, aimed at Truth, can serve to inform and influence one's Conscience.

If you ever act against your Conscience, you are certainly committing a sin; acting in accord with your Conscience, you might commit a sin, but that sin is forgivable because you were acting according to your Conscience.

No disrespect TRUT, but it appears you do not have a clue what salvation is. The Bible is not a philosophy book and can not be interpreted as one.
 
No disrespect TRUT, but it appears you do not have a clue what salvation is. The Bible is not a philosophy book and can not be interpreted as one.

1. No one has a clue what salvation is; they have hope that there is salvation, but nobody knows the tiniest bit about what that will be like.

2. I choose to interpret the bible as a philosophy book; as a book no more divinely inspired than any other work. I also choose to not believe in miracles; therefore, I either look at the Gospel writers as liars or as story/fable tellers. I choose the latter and, therefore, there must be an underlying allegory. The allegory that the trinity is Truth-Reason-Conscience makes perfect sense and serves to avoid the contradictions that are contained in single gospel books. This is important because contradictions point to untruths; if two things contradict, then at least one of them (if not both) must be untrue. So, either the gospel writers are lying (as their are internal contradictions in each of their accounts) or they are telling a tale with a deeper meaning.

3. Your statements:
1. God exists in Three Persons.

The Father who is the Creator

The Son who is the Redeemer

The Holy Spirit who is the Sanctifier.

2. These three are One God.
United in substance
Never any disagreement
Never any conflict
Never any division

serve to contradict your earlier statement re: Jesus deferring to intercessory prayer. Jesus is obviously requesting (i.e., desiring) that the individuals be forgiven, yet you state that God would not forgive them: that is a disagreement, a conflict, and a division (and, changes the role of Jesus as Redeemer to the Father as Redeemer).
 
No disrespect TRUT, but it appears you do not have a clue what salvation is. The Bible is not a philosophy book and can not be interpreted as one.
Interpretation is the only argument and has been since the book was written.
 
1. No one has a clue what salvation is; they have hope that there is salvation, but nobody knows the tiniest bit about what that will be like.

Anyone that that truly been saved will disagree with you.


2. I choose to interpret the bible as a philosophy book; as a book no more divinely inspired than any other work. I also choose to not believe in miracles; therefore, I either look at the Gospel writers as liars or as story/fable tellers. I choose the latter and, therefore, there must be an underlying allegory. The allegory that the trinity is Truth-Reason-Conscience makes perfect sense and serves to avoid the contradictions that are contained in single gospel books. This is important because contradictions point to untruths; if two things contradict, then at least one of them (if not both) must be untrue. So, either the gospel writers are lying (as their are internal contradictions in each of their accounts) or they are telling a tale with a deeper meaning.



This says all you need to say. You do not believe and try to discredit the word of God as much as you possibly can.
3. Your statements:


serve to contradict your earlier statement re: Jesus deferring to intercessory prayer. Jesus is obviously requesting (i.e., desiring) that the individuals be forgiven, yet you state that God would not forgive them: that is a disagreement, a conflict, and a division (and, changes the role of Jesus as Redeemer to the Father as Redeemer).

Again you are trying to distort the Word of God.
 
Nope, serious discussion.

What is Abrahams bosom, it is paradise Jesus refered to?

Gen 25:8, 2 Sam 12:28, Gen 49:29, Jesus refers to it in Luke 16.

Abrahams bosom is in many rabbinical writings, tge root word is garden or royal
park.

At transfiguration Moses and Elijah appear which implies a conscious existence before the resurrection.

What is paradise?

Eph 4: 8 thru 10

The opposite

Matt 12:40

1 Peter 3:19

Rev 9

Gen 6

Jude 6

2 Pet 2:4

1 Pet 4:5

Abraham's bosom was the place to which the poor man Lazarus was carried by the angels when he died. The Roman custom of reclining at meals was common among the Jews. Such positioning placed one in the bosom of the neighboring person. To be next to the host, that is to recline in the bosom of the host, was considered the highest honor. Thus, to be in Abraham's bosom was to be in a position of honor. In Luke 16:22-23, Abraham's bosom is pictured as a place of blessedness and honor. The poor man was comforted after death by being given the place of closest fellowship with the father of the whole Hebrew nation.
 
Neverending
I'm no scholar or really that well versed in the teachings but isn't someones interpretation the basis for their faith? Who is to say that their interpretation is right or wrong? What would the bible be without it and would there be only one denomanation?
 
Again you are trying to distort the Word of God.

1. Nobody living can claim that they have been truly saved; in fact, I would conjecture that to claim that one has already attained salvation would be nothing short of heresy and blasphemy.

2. It is not the word of God. It is the words of men who wrote stories. Some of the stories are great; some are not. Were an omnipotent and omniscient being to write a book, it would not be so self-contradictory, and were such a being to take such an effort to convince persons of his system why not just make it absolutely clear? The closest thing humans have to any "word of God" are reason and conscience.

3. I am not distorting anything; the gospels are either taken literally and are therefore full of untruths, or they are taken allegorically. So, it is either discard them in their entirety, or glean some insight into human nature and morality from them. I think there is some insight to be gleaned.
 
I'm no scholar or really that well versed in the teachings but isn't someones interpretation the basis for their faith? Who is to say that their interpretation is right or wrong? What would the bible be without it and would there be only one denomanation?

Without interpretation every single word would have to be read and taken literally; when one even refers to context they are, by deed, interpreting the text.

I do not think there is a book in the world that is not meant to be interpreted in some fashion.
 
I'm no scholar or really that well versed in the teachings but isn't someones interpretation the basis for their faith? Who is to say that their interpretation is right or wrong? What would the bible be without it and would there be only one denomanation?

:)
 
Without interpretation every single word would have to be read and taken literally; when one even refers to context they are, by deed, interpreting the text.

I do not think there is a book in the world that is not meant to be interpreted in some fashion.
Ha! This reminds me of a scene from Andy Griffith where Briscoe Darling asks Andy in reference to Barney...Is he arguing with me?
 
I'm no scholar or really that well versed in the teachings but isn't someones interpretation the basis for their faith? Who is to say that their interpretation is right or wrong? What would the bible be without it and would there be only one denomanation?

Why the hell did I take greek and hebrew in seminary? I should have asked you to write an exemption letter for me!
 
I'm no scholar or really that well versed in the teachings but isn't someones interpretation the basis for their faith? Who is to say that their interpretation is right or wrong? What would the bible be without it and would there be only one denomanation?

You are 100% correct.

My earler statement "The Bible is not a philosophy book and can not be interpreted as one."

I should have not worded it as I did.

My point being the Bible was written by men inspired by the Word of God.
This is believed by those who have faith in God.
It is not believed by those who do not believe.

I should have said "The Bible is not a philosophy book and should not be regarded as one"
 
You are 100% correct.

My earler statement "The Bible is not a philosophy book and can not be interpreted as one."

I should have not worded it as I did.

My point being the Bible was written by men inspired by the Word of God.
This is believed by those who have faith in God.
It is not believed by those who do not believe.

I should have said "The Bible is not a philosophy book and should not be regarded as one"

So, in your opinion, the bible has nothing to offer non-believers? If that is the case, then Christians should save some money, stop their evangelical mission trips, and stop handing bibles out.

Moreover, if the bible were not supposed to be interpreted, to any degree, in a philosophical manner, then why did the gospel writers borrow so many aphorisms from Plato (e.g., "I am the way, the truth, and the light", "tongues of fire descended", etc.)?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
You are 100% correct.

My earler statement "The Bible is not a philosophy book and can not be interpreted as one."

I should have not worded it as I did.

My point being the Bible was written by men inspired by the Word of God.
This is believed by those who have faith in God.
It is not believed by those who do not believe.

I should have said "The Bible is not a philosophy book and should not be regarded as one"
:thumbsup:
 
So, in your opinion, the bible has nothing to offer non-believers? If that is the case, then Christians should save some money, stop their evangelical mission trips, and stop handing bibles out.

Moreover, if the bible were not supposed to be interpreted, to any degree, in a philosophical manner, then why did the gospel writers borrow so many aphorisms from Plato (e.g., "I am the way, the truth, and the light", "tongues of fire descended", etc.)?

You love to twist things around.

You do not want to discuss the Bible you want to discredit it in every way you possibly can. You have 100% right to do that. We are all free to worship or not worship in the way we choose.

It is difficult to have a discussion about God with someone who does not believe in God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
You love to twist things around.

You do not want to discuss the Bible you want to discredit it in every way you possibly can. You have 100% right to do that. We are all free to worship or not worship in the way we choose.

It is difficult to have a discussion about God with someone who does not believe in God.

How am I discrediting the bible? I am actually stating that it has a lot to offer to individuals who do not believe the Jesus is God or that the events in the bible ever actually occurred in history.

Also, where did I say that I do not believe in God? I do not believe in Christianity. There is a difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

VN Store



Back
Top