Re: satan the devil , his Capitalism
Jim Ledford
>
> God would NEVER sanction refusing someone a
> kidney transplant because they can't pay for it.
>
Mar 5:25 And2532 a certain5100 woman,1135 which
had5607 an(1722) issue4511 of blood129 twelve1427
years,2094
Mar 5:26 And2532 had suffered3958 many
things4183 of5259 many4183 physicians,2395
and2532 had spent1159 all that she had,3956, 3844, 1438
and2532 was nothing3367 bettered,5623 but235 rather3123
grew worse,2064, 1519, 5501
Mar 5:27 When she had heard191 of4012 Jesus,2424
came2064 in1722 the3588 press3793 behind,3693 and
touched680 his846 garment.2440
Mar 5:28 For1063 she said,3004 If2579 I may touch680
but his846 clothes,2440 I shall be whole.4982
Mar 5:29 And2532 straightway2112 the3588 fountain4077
of her846 blood129 was dried up;3583 and2532 she felt1097
in her body4983 that3754 she was healed2390 of575 that
plague.3148
when people turn in need to other people they receive
not that which they need. people place their trust in
government and their needs are not met. people turn to
doctors and they are not healed.
recently I've learned, witnessed and seen a truth and
this truth is, The Lord God Almighty wants you well.
He don't want to see you sick and suffering. He did
not give you life to see you in pain.
we now live in the time known as Grace. God's Grace
is all about forgiveness and a portion of that forgiveness
is about each of us learning how to forgive one another.
that forgiveness is also about God wanting to give forgiveness
to each one of us for our sins and unrighteousness.
God the Father and creator of ALL things has through
His grace created a means for each and everyone of us
to receive His complete and total forgiveness.
we've all had our conflicts with one another and during
such times we've each felt the emotional strife and churning
inside of ourselves creating the unpleasant feelings brought
on by the argument, disagreement, misunderstanding or out
and out full fledge shouting match.
sometimes we decide to forgive and attempt to put to
an end this unpleasant situation and with the offering
of a genuine from the heart apology where we seek nothing
for ourselves, where we place the other person first with
a caring for their feelings and well being we in the offering
of a genuine from the heart apology actually receive a healing
for that which feels so very wrong inside of us. we did our
best to show love and in that attempt weather or not the person
this apology was directed towards forgives, we know we did what
the Father would have us to do and therefore it is The Father
who heals us of what was wrong inside. God loves us all and
He don't want to watch us hurt. He don't want to see you or
me in pain of any kind, emotional or physical.
Mark 5:25-29 is but one example of a person taking
their problem to another person. as in all cases of
not taking problems to The Lord God Almighty, the
person was not made better but only made worse.
it is by faith and that faith is a gift from The
Lord God Almighty, that we, as in each one of us
can have life. the rebukers will scoff at that
and laughingly say "I have life now." I tell them,
no you don't because I've been where you are now and
that is not life. that is not living with peace and
a knowing in your heart of how all things are going
to be ok. a peace of knowing of how The Lord God
Almighty has already fixed what satan the devil stole
from each of us. rebuke if you must, but expect no
argument from me with you concerning your unbelief for
that is not what Jesus would have me to do with His
love for you.
there is a better life. it's a gift from God. a
gift He wants to give to each of us for free and
all we need do is yield and receive.
Pastor Dave
<jim...@bellsouth.net> spake thusly:
>recently I've learned, witnessed and seen a truth and
>this truth is, The Lord God Almighty wants you well.
>He don't want to see you sick and suffering. He did
>not give you life to see you in pain.
Although sometimes sickness is the result of our sin,
even as Christians (1 Corinthians 11:28-32).
But you are right in that if a Christian is following
the Lord, then in general, they should be well.
>we now live in the time known as Grace. God's Grace
>is all about forgiveness and a portion of that forgiveness
>is about each of us learning how to forgive one another.
>that forgiveness is also about God wanting to give forgiveness
>to each one of us for our sins and unrighteousness.
Our new life comes to us as a gift of God's free grace
and must be expressed in a new way of living and is
automatically, for those under God's grace.
Those who have received God's grace must be thankful.
Those who are greatly loved must show great love to others.
Those who live because they are forgiven, must themselves
forgive (Matthew 18:21-35).
Those who know God as their loving, Heavenly Father must
accept His providence without bitterness and honor Him
at all times, by trusting in His protective care.
In other words, God's children must be like their Father
and their Savior and be utterly unlike the world.
And so to your words, I say, "Amen, brother!". :)
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
The end timers believe in a literal, physical
New Jerusalem. But is that what Scripture teaches?
No, it doesn't! So what is the New Jerusalem? It
is amazing what the end timers miss, especially
since it is stated clearly that the New Jerusalem
is the bride of Christ, the church.
Revelation 21:1,9-10
1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the
first heaven and the first earth had passed away.
9) And one of the seven angels who had the seven
vials full of the seven last plagues came to me and
talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show you
the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great
and high mountain and showed me that great city, the
holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God
Jim Ledford
>
> Mar 5:25 And2532 a certain5100 woman,1135 which
> had5607 an(1722) issue4511 of blood129 twelve1427
> years,2094
> Mar 5:26 And2532 had suffered3958 many
> things4183 of5259 many4183 physicians,2395
> and2532 had spent1159 all that she had,3956, 3844, 1438
> and2532 was nothing3367 bettered,5623 but235 rather3123
> grew worse,2064, 1519, 5501
> Mar 5:27 When she had heard191 of4012 Jesus,2424
> came2064 in1722 the3588 press3793 behind,3693 and
> touched680 his846 garment.2440
> Mar 5:28 For1063 she said,3004 If2579 I may touch680
> but his846 clothes,2440 I shall be whole.4982
> Mar 5:29 And2532 straightway2112 the3588 fountain4077
> of her846 blood129 was dried up;3583 and2532 she felt1097
> in her body4983 that3754 she was healed2390 of575 that
> plague.3148
>
> when people turn in need to other people they receive
> not that which they need. people place their trust in
> government and their needs are not met. people turn to
> doctors and they are not healed.
http://www.wral.com/aphealthandwellnewsnews/5202469/detail.html
Workers Receive Fake Flu Shots
when people don't know The Lord God Almighty they are alone with
their fear. satan working in that place will lead them out of fear
to run seek help, protection and assurances of their safety. most
always for their frantic efforts they receive only exactly that which
satan has prepared for them. they get lies, deceit then used abused
and laughed at. see, satan is a thief and a liar. satan steals life
and uses lies to achieve his means to kill and destroy the very life
The Lord God Almighty gave to each of us as a free gift. satan steals,
it's satan's job to steal and satan is rather good at his job.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
> the rebukers will scoff at that
> and laughingly say "I have life now." I tell them,
> no you don't because I've been where you are now and
> that is not life. that is not living with peace and
> a knowing in your heart of how all things are going
> to be ok. a peace of knowing of how The Lord God
> Almighty has already fixed what satan the devil stole
> from each of us. rebuke if you must, but expect no
> argument from me with you concerning your unbelief for
> that is not what Jesus would have me to do with His
> love for you.
>
> there is a better life. it's a gift from God. a
> gift He wants to give to each of us for free and
> all we need do is yield and receive.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Jim Ledford
> Jim Ledford:
>
> >recently I've learned, witnessed and seen a truth and
> >this truth is, The Lord God Almighty wants you well.
> >He don't want to see you sick and suffering. He did
> >not give you life to see you in pain.
>
> Although sometimes sickness is the result of our sin,
> even as Christians (1 Corinthians 11:28-32).
1Co 11:29 For1063 he that eateth2068 and2532 drinketh4095
unworthily,371 eateth2068 and2532 drinketh4095 damnation2917
to himself,1438 not3361 discerning1252 the3588 Lord's2962
body.4983
1Co 11:30 For this cause1223, 5124 many4183 are weak772
and2532 sickly732 among1722 you,5213 and2532 many2425
sleep.2837
an over weight diabetic had their eyes opened by the Lord.
as they were taught more and more by The Holy Spirit they
had received from Jesus, they learned of how they did not
have to suffer. as we shared fellowship over His Holy Word
they shared 1Co 11:29-30 and a confession by faith of faith in
how God Himself had healed them and made them whole by freeing
them from insulin dependence.
a flesh and blood doctor took their money and then played
golf with his buddies of this world who are employed in the
pharmaceutical industry. they take money from my brother in
Christ no more.
Mar 5:26
reveals the worldly physicians game of
how they create their own stream of income.
I've never met a physician of this world who
is yielded to The Lord God Almighty and do not
expect to.
>
> But you are right in that if a Christian is following
> the Lord, then in general, they should be well.
The Lord God Almighty is The Father who loves His
children. His are His and can never be taken away
and for that they are protected, cared for and have
their needs met. those who will not and have not yet
by their own choice received the free gift of salvation
are much like a child who ran away from home and chose
to live alone in the street, providing and seeking out
for themselves as to their needs.
>
> >we now live in the time known as Grace. God's Grace
> >is all about forgiveness and a portion of that forgiveness
> >is about each of us learning how to forgive one another.
> >that forgiveness is also about God wanting to give forgiveness
> >to each one of us for our sins and unrighteousness.
>
> Our new life comes to us as a gift of God's free grace
> and must be expressed in a new way of living and is
> automatically, for those under God's grace.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
>
> Those who have received God's grace must be thankful.
>
> Those who are greatly loved must show great love to others.
>
> Those who live because they are forgiven, must themselves
> forgive (Matthew 18:21-35).
>
> Those who know God as their loving, Heavenly Father must
> accept His providence without bitterness and honor Him
> at all times, by trusting in His protective care.
>
> In other words, God's children must be like their Father
> and their Savior and be utterly unlike the world.
Jam 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the
Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their
affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
any and all other aspects of the word 'religion' are man made
to suit the needs and desires of man.
all religion is man made to serve man. the word
'religion' is used by humans to control other humans.
Jesus was never recorded as having used the word 'religion'.
Jesus never said people are saved by 'religion'. Jesus said
people are saved by faith.
I get very annoyed by people who think their deeds are
going to earn them salvation. salvation can not be earned
or bought by any human. no amount of money given to a church
will open the door of heaven to any man. no deed by any man
will open the door to heaven.
there is ONLY ONE way into heaven and that is by faith
and that faith is not of ourselves, the faith was and is
a gift from God. the ONLY deed that will open the door
of heaven for any human was done by The Lord Jesus Himself.
man likes to act as if he is serving mankind. the truth
is, man serves himself by his own default nature to sin.
ONLY The Lord God Almighty has salvation for mankind
and only by faith can a man receive that salvation.
that needed to be repeated from words sent out last week
because to many people are caught by the false teachings
of man made religion. caught and enslaved they are and
then lost.
>
> And so to your words, I say, "Amen, brother!". :)
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave
> 1st Century Church of Christ
>
> The end timers believe in a literal, physical
> New Jerusalem. But is that what Scripture teaches?
> No, it doesn't! So what is the New Jerusalem? It
> is amazing what the end timers miss, especially
> since it is stated clearly that the New Jerusalem
> is the bride of Christ, the church.
>
> Revelation 21:1,9-10
>
> 1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the
> first heaven and the first earth had passed away.
> 9) And one of the seven angels who had the seven
> vials full of the seven last plagues came to me and
> talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show you
> the bride, the Lamb's wife.
> 10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great
> and high mountain and showed me that great city, the
> holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God
CURRENT SERIES
Escape the Coming Night
http://www.turningpointradio.org/radio.html
http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Turning_Point/Archives.asp
david jeremiah is doing a fair job of making some
things reveal themselves in his current series. you
can click around on his web links and listen as you
please. david's teaching coincides with the clarifications
I've received from The Holy Spirit in my own studies of this
book called Revelation.
I feel so very sad inside for the lost and unsaved. for what
it was they have not been able to enjoy in this life. for what
they have needlessly had to endure in this life and for how they
die and live no more after this physical life is over for them.
the message God has asked me to relay, convey, spread and send:
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
it's free! The Lord God Almighty has already done all that
need be done in order that we may be saved from sin and the
unrighteous nature of our own selves.
me, I am nothing more than the donkey our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ rides upon.
Pastor Dave
<jim...@bellsouth.net> spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> Jim Ledford:
>>
>> >recently I've learned, witnessed and seen a truth and
>> >this truth is, The Lord God Almighty wants you well.
>> >He don't want to see you sick and suffering. He did
>> >not give you life to see you in pain.
>>
>> Although sometimes sickness is the result of our sin,
>> even as Christians (1 Corinthians 11:28-32).
>
>1Co 11:29 For1063 he that eateth2068 and2532 drinketh4095
>unworthily,371 eateth2068 and2532 drinketh4095 damnation2917
>to himself,1438 not3361 discerning1252 the3588 Lord's2962
>body.4983
>
>1Co 11:30 For this cause1223, 5124 many4183 are weak772
>and2532 sickly732 among1722 you,5213 and2532 many2425
>sleep.2837
Just FYI, quoting the Strong's numbers in with the text in
a message like this, just makes it annoying to read. :)
>I get very annoyed by people who think their deeds are
>going to earn them salvation.
Agreed. Good works flow FROM salvation, not TOWARD it.
Ephesians 2:10 shows this. We are saved UNTO good works.
There IS a time line involved. :)
Revelation is past history. That's one of the things that
the quote above shows. New Jerusalem is us, the church.
The angel says to John, "Let me show you THE BRIDE.
And what does the angel show him? New Jerusalem.
Who is the bride of Christ? THE CHURCH. Thus, it is
not a literal city and it is already here.
Note also that Revelation says that there would be no
temple in it, because the Lord is the temple thereof.
I.e., the Lord dwells within the city and what does
Scripture say about the church as a whole? That it is
the temple of God. And God dwells in the temple
(re:Old Covenant). So when God dwells in the city,
which is the bride and the bride is the church, that
shows us that the New Jerusalem is already here and
it is called "the church".
the Danimal
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:33:59 -0500, Jim Ledford
> <jim...@bellsouth.net> spake thusly:
>
> >Pastor Dave wrote:
> >
> >> Jim Ledford:
> >>
> >> >recently I've learned, witnessed and seen a truth and
> >> >this truth is, The Lord God Almighty wants you well.
You have not "witnessed" any such thing. You have
not seen God. You have not seen anything for which the only
explanation is God.
What you have witnessed is a Universe whose every feature
and behavior conforms to the laws of physics.
The word to describe people who hear voices and see visions
nobody else can see is "schizophrenic." In general, these
people are thought to be mentally defective because they
don't function well in life.
If someone who hears God speaking could actually perform
at a level superior to the average person, then he'd have
some credibility. But it never works that way.
In general, the people who do best in life are those who
have the most accurate perception of reality. Hearing voices
that nobody else can hear, and seeing visions nobody else can
see, is a departure from reality.
> >> >He don't want to see you sick and suffering. He did
> >> >not give you life to see you in pain.
Suppose you have a child, your child is sick, and you have
the power to heal your child. What do you do?
1. Restore your child to health.
2. Let your child remain sick because he lacks faith in your
ability to cure him.
Few parents expect their children to be perfect before helping
them out. In general, most parents tolerate mistake after mistake
from their children, and continue to help them in every way they
can anyway. Why? because (a) they are genetically programmed to
love their children, and (b) they know every child makes mistakes.
How is it that imperfect human parents nonetheless tend to be
far more tolerant and forgiving than the supposedly perfect God?
How many parents would ignore their child's cries of pain and
let the kid suffer and die, to teach him a lesson?
If a human parent neglects or tortures his child the way God
neglects or tortures His children, we throw that parent into
jail.
This is yet another example of the moral relativism of Christians,
made necessary by their fundamentally contradictory belief system.
Imagine, a "loving" God who smites His own churches with hurricanes!
If you had all of God's power, would you be as wantonly destructive
as God is? Would you send hurricanes and floods and volcanic eruptions
and mudslides and tsunamis and plagues to massacre your followers
and destroy the churches they built to honor you, just to see if
the survivors will still show proper appreciation?
> >> Although sometimes sickness is the result of our sin,
> >> even as Christians (1 Corinthians 11:28-32).
And exactly when is that? Everybody sins, according to the
preposterously impossible standard of righteousness one might
cobble together by selecting or ignoring various verses from
the Bible. Under which circumstances does sin produce sickness,
and when does it not?
Look, either God forgives your sins, or he doesn't. If he forgives
your sins, how can your sins make you sick?
And if God only sometimes forgives your sins, how can you know you
are saved? What if you die and get to heaven and your lottery
ticket turns out to be no good?
If you work on the Sabbath, does God punish you with sickness
for that?
When you see a sick person at your church, do you tell
him he is sick because of his sin?
> >1Co 11:29 For1063 he that eateth2068 and2532 drinketh4095
> >unworthily,371 eateth2068 and2532 drinketh4095 damnation2917
> >to himself,1438 not3361 discerning1252 the3588 Lord's2962
> >body.4983
Given that everybody sins, how do you know when your particular
sins have rendered you unworthy?
Which sins is God OK with?
Why is God as sloppy as your Yankee government, which wrote a
tax code so complex and ambiguous that no two accountants can
agree on exactly how much tax you owe? Can't God get his point
across more clearly than a bunch of Yankee politicians and
tax bureaucrats?
If God is going to smite you with sickness, wouldn't it be
more "loving" for God to give you a clear explanation of when
the sickness is the result of your sin, and when it is for
some other reason?
Now granted, God doesn't owe anybody anything, but to be
considered "loving" he has to show more care than that.
If a human, say a terrorist, deliberately unleashes a plague
on a population that kills a million people, would we consider
the terrorist to be "loving" toward his victims?
If not, why do you consider God to be "loving" towards the
millions of people he tortures to death with cruelty far
beyond anything terrorists have yet devised?
> >1Co 11:30 For this cause1223, 5124 many4183 are weak772
> >and2532 sickly732 among1722 you,5213 and2532 many2425
> >sleep.2837
Paul wrote from the primitive ignorance of his time, more
than a thousand years before the germ theory of disease.
Today scientists can explain many diseases, and cure some of
them. All indications are that as time goes on, scientists
will probably explain more diseases more accurately, and find
cures for more diseases. In fact, nobody knows of any reason
why any disease should be forever incurable. As far as anybody
can tell, all of sickness and health just comes down to
shoving molecules around, and scientists are getting steadily
better at shoving molecules from sick arrangements to healthy
ones. The only holdup seems to be that these molecular arrangements
are complicated and take a while to figure out, and molecules are
small so it's tough to get at them.
> Just FYI, quoting the Strong's numbers in with the text in
> a message like this, just makes it annoying to read. :)
Who is going to care any more what the Bible said about
sickness, when science has cured every disease?
And why would Jesus have allegedly worked all those miracles
instead of telling people what scientists would eventually
figure out on their own anyway? Even if any of those miracles
actually happened, they only helped the immediate beneficiaries,
whereas when science eradicates another disease, it never has
to bother anyone else again. Even if bioterrorists re-introduced
smallpox or polio, public health authorities could eradicate
those diseases again.
> >I get very annoyed by people who think their deeds are
> >going to earn them salvation.
> Agreed. Good works flow FROM salvation, not TOWARD it.
Annoyed is what people get when they believe things they cannot
prove. It's frustrating when other people believe different things
and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it, because you
can't explain why you believe your way rather than their way.
It's like when fans of opposing sports teams argue about whose
team is better before the game. The only way to settle it is to
let the teams decide it on the field.
Since religious people fabricate their beliefs out of their
emotions and imaginations, there's nothing constructive they
can do when they run into other kinds of religious people
who have different emotions and imaginations, and make all the
same sorts of lying shitsack religious arguments.
There are some things all sane humans can agree on. For example,
we can all agree it is bad to be torn limb from limb, or to have
molten lead poured into our eye sockets. These kinds of physical
experiences, and our reactions to them, are pretty much universal
among humans. If you want to have productive discussions with
people, that's what you discuss: reality. The things everybody
can agree on, with proper exposure to the facts. If the facts
are lacking somewhere, then shut up until you find the facts.
Religious experiences aren't based on facts. Every religion produces
similar religious experiences, but from that common emotional
phenomenon, different people tack on vastly contradictory
doctrines having nothing to do with the experiences themselves.
Religious feelings themselves are a real neurological phenomenon,
like having a dream, or having an orgasm, and so is the human
tendency to falsely associate those feelings with a virtually
infinite variety of mutually-contradictory doctrine.
But just as many foods can taste good, and many sex partners
can give you a great orgasm, so too can many different kinds of
religions with every imaginable religious doctrine deliver the
same kinds of religious emotions.
Religious people are like kids who have sex for the first
time and think there is something unique about their first
partner. Wow, nobody else ever made me feel like that! But in
fact, quite a few people could.
The same religious emotions that convince a Christian that Jesus
really did walk on water and rise from the dead just as readily
convince a Muslim that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is
his Prophet.
> Ephesians 2:10 shows this. We are saved UNTO good works.
> There IS a time line involved. :)
Actually the Bible is equally supportive of salvation by
faith and salvation by works.
Just as the tax code can be, in some situations, equally supportive
of you getting to take some deduction, or not getting to take it.
It simply depends on how a person chooses to selectively string
together particular passages while ignoring the contradictory
passages.
That is why the Bible continually fosters further disagreements
and divisions. Because it's a logically sloppy mish-mash of
writings by dozens of different authors spanning several centuries,
assembled many more centuries after the fact by committee.
Indeed, the various major schisms of Christianity can't even agree
on which books to include in their Bibles. Eastern Orthodox,
Roman Catholic, and Protestant Christians all recognize different
canons.
Like everything else in religion, there is no logic to it. Men
simply concoct religions. And then spend their careers lying
about it.
> >> The end timers believe in a literal, physical
> >> New Jerusalem. But is that what Scripture teaches?
> >> No, it doesn't! So what is the New Jerusalem? It
> >> is amazing what the end timers miss, especially
> >> since it is stated clearly that the New Jerusalem
> >> is the bride of Christ, the church.
So is that what the hurricanes smashing the churches are all
about? Christ having rough sex with his bride?
> >> Revelation 21:1,9-10
> >>
> >> 1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the
> >> first heaven and the first earth had passed away.
> >> 9) And one of the seven angels who had the seven
> >> vials full of the seven last plagues came to me and
> >> talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show you
> >> the bride, the Lamb's wife.
> >> 10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great
> >> and high mountain and showed me that great city, the
> >> holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God
> >
> >CURRENT SERIES
> >Escape the Coming Night
Ever read Hal Lindsey's Late Great Planet Earth books from
the 1970's? How about the works of eschatology from
earlier generations?
Every generation of Christians, starting with the first,
thought it was The One.
Hal's arguments were as compelling during his time as any
similar arguments being made today. Turns out they weren't
worth the paper they were printed on. But a lot of people
made a lot of money selling them to the previous generation
of religious dupes.
> >http://www.turningpointradio.org/radio.html
> >
> >http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Turning_Point/Archives.asp
Cha-ching! How much of your money has this charlatan parted
from you?
> >david jeremiah is doing a fair job of making some
> >things reveal themselves in his current series. you
> >can click around on his web links and listen as you
> >please. david's teaching coincides with the clarifications
> >I've received from The Holy Spirit in my own studies of this
> >book called Revelation.
Suppose you are wrong, and The Holy Spirit has not told you
this. Suppose instead you have been deceived by Satan
masquerading as The Holy Spirit.
How do you suppose God would treat you if you falsely claimed
to speak for The Holy Spirit when you were actually speaking
for Satan?
Perhaps God would treat you the same way he has treated some
of those Arab Muslims---by making them petroleum billionaires
who can shut down the U.S. economy whenever they feel like it.
In the meantime, God is smashing the churches of the True
Believers with one hurricane after another.
> Revelation is past history.
History is never established from a single record. Just as Moses
said you never condemn a man to death on the word of a single
witness.
To establish history requires investigating all available lines
of evidence and seeing that they agree.
For example, some aspects of classical Roman history seem fairly
solid, because records of some particular events by multiple
writers survive today. In some cases, both the supporters and opponents
of a particular person or cause left us writings about it, providing
some raw materials from which scholars can make some objective
conclusions.
In contrast, the oldest writings about Christianity that weren't
written by Christians came along fairly late in the game.
Christianity wasn't large enough for quite a while to have
attracted the attention of many people who didn't have a stake
in promoting it.
If you think you'll get objectivity about snake oil from a
snake oil salesman, well there are plenty of snake oil salesmen
eager to meet you.
> That's one of the things that
> the quote above shows. New Jerusalem is us, the church.
> The angel says to John, "Let me show you THE BRIDE.
> And what does the angel show him? New Jerusalem.
> Who is the bride of Christ? THE CHURCH. Thus, it is
> not a literal city and it is already here.
Notice how both of you are adding words to what's
in the Bible. You have to do this, because the Bible itself
is too vague in many of these passages to have a specific
meaning.
If you believe God placed every word in the Bible deliberately,
why do you suppose God deliberately chose to not make sense?
Why is the Bible a book so vague and sloppy that men would have
to fight wars over it for thousands of years?
The most destructive war in U.S. history was fought over
slavery, with both sides claiming the Bible supported their
cause. The South needed to do less twisting of the Bible because
the Bible plainly tolerates slavery from beginning to end.
The same Bible which prohibits a vast number of specific
sins never tells slaveowners to free their slaves! Isn't that
remarkable? God believes it is more evil to carry a suitcase
on the sabbath than to own another human being.
The apostle Paul even returned a runaway slave to his owner!
> Note also that Revelation says that there would be no
> temple in it, because the Lord is the temple thereof.
> I.e., the Lord dwells within the city and what does
> Scripture say about the church as a whole? That it is
> the temple of God. And God dwells in the temple
> (re:Old Covenant). So when God dwells in the city,
> which is the bride and the bride is the church, that
> shows us that the New Jerusalem is already here and
> it is called "the church".
How do you know when the Bible is an allegory, and when to
take it literally?
Perhaps sin, and God, and Jesus, and the miracles, etc.
are all allegory too.
Given the tens of thousands of distinct belief systems
that have schismed within Christianity, how do you know
yours is the right one? How do you know any of them
are right?
Why do you proclaim as fact what is merely your opinion?
If you claim to know something, and you cannot prove it,
then you are a liar. Do you consider telling lies to be
a sin?
Do you like it when people present claims to you as facts,
and later it turns out they had nothing to base their claims
upon? Most people feel strongly victimized by that. That's
why everyone despises a liar.
Religious liars try to escape judgement by pushing the
resolution of their claims off to some inaccessible time
or place. But occasionally religious liars slip up by
making actually testable predictions. When they do, their
accuracy is never better than what we expect from random
guessing.
It's interesting that in primitive cultures, including the
primitive culture that produced the Bible, people sometimes
decided what to do by casting lots. When you don't know
something, a roll of the dice is as good a guess as any.
It's more honest to base your decisions on a visibly random
process than to roll the dice in your imagination and claim
you have something more than that.
-- the Danimal
Pastor Dave
<dmo...@mfm.com> spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:33:59 -0500, Jim Ledford
>> <jim...@bellsouth.net> spake thusly:
>>
>> >Pastor Dave wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jim Ledford:
>> >>
>> >> >recently I've learned, witnessed and seen a truth and
>> >> >this truth is, The Lord God Almighty wants you well.
>
>You have not "witnessed" any such thing. You have
>not seen God. You have not seen anything for which the only
>explanation is God.
>
>What you have witnessed is a Universe whose every feature
>and behavior conforms to the laws of physics.
>
>The word to describe people who hear voices and see visions
>nobody else can see is "schizophrenic." In general, these
>people are thought to be mentally defective because they
>don't function well in life.
>
>If someone who hears God speaking could actually perform
>at a level superior to the average person, then he'd have
>some credibility. But it never works that way.
>
>In general, the people who do best in life are those who
>have the most accurate perception of reality. Hearing voices
>that nobody else can hear, and seeing visions nobody else can
>see, is a departure from reality.
You have attributed a statement to me that I did not say.
See above and the same for what's below.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
The end timers believe in a literal, physical
New Jerusalem. But is that what Scripture teaches?
No, it doesn't! So what is the New Jerusalem? It
is amazing what the end timers miss, especially
since it is stated clearly that the New Jerusalem
is the bride of Christ, the church.
Revelation 21:1,9-10
Pastor Dave
<dmo...@mfm.com> spake thusly:
>> Revelation is past history.
>
>History is never established from a single record. Just as Moses
>said you never condemn a man to death on the word of a single
>witness.
Moses did not say that the Bible is not sufficient.
But I do use other records as well in establishing
my statement.
>To establish history requires investigating all available lines
>of evidence and seeing that they agree.
And they do agree that Jesus returned in 70 AD.
>> That's one of the things that
>> the quote above shows. New Jerusalem is us, the church.
>> The angel says to John, "Let me show you THE BRIDE.
>> And what does the angel show him? New Jerusalem.
>> Who is the bride of Christ? THE CHURCH. Thus, it is
>> not a literal city and it is already here.
>
>Notice how both of you are adding words to what's
>in the Bible. You have to do this, because the Bible itself
>is too vague in many of these passages to have a specific
>meaning.
I did not add any words at all. The bride of Christ is
the church and that is Biblical fact.
Now read the text...
Revelation 21:1,9-10
1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the
first heaven and the first earth had passed away.
9) And one of the seven angels who had the seven
vials full of the seven last plagues came to me and
talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show you
the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great
and high mountain and showed me that great city, the
holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God
The angel told John that he was showing him the bride.
The angel showed John New Jerusalem.
Believe it, don't believe it. That's up to you.
It does not change the text.
>How do you know when the Bible is an allegory,
>and when to take it literally?
Your question is designed to avoid dealing with
the fact of what I said.
>Why do you proclaim as fact what is merely your opinion?
The text says it clearly. Thus, it is not "my opinion".
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
The end timers believe in a literal, physical
New Jerusalem. But is that what Scripture teaches?
No, it doesn't! So what is the New Jerusalem? It
is amazing what the end timers miss, especially
since it is stated clearly that the New Jerusalem
is the bride of Christ, the church.
Revelation 21:1,9-10
Jim Ledford
> Jim Ledford:
> >Pastor Dave wrote:
> >> Jim Ledford:
> >>
> >> >recently I've learned, witnessed and seen a truth and
> >> >this truth is, The Lord God Almighty wants you well.
> >> >He don't want to see you sick and suffering. He did
> >> >not give you life to see you in pain.
> >>
> >> Although sometimes sickness is the result of our sin,
> >> even as Christians (1 Corinthians 11:28-32).
> >
> >1Co 11:29 For1063 he that eateth2068 and2532 drinketh4095
> >unworthily,371 eateth2068 and2532 drinketh4095 damnation2917
> >to himself,1438 not3361 discerning1252 the3588 Lord's2962
> >body.4983
> >
> >1Co 11:30 For this cause1223, 5124 many4183 are weak772
> >and2532 sickly732 among1722 you,5213 and2532 many2425
> >sleep.2837
>
> Just FYI, quoting the Strong's numbers in with the text in
> a message like this, just makes it annoying to read. :)
when I first downloaded and installed e-sword I
searched for a means to turn the Strong's numbers
on and off. I've not found that means yet and am
beginning to believe due to software constraints
the option is not available. they are valuable
for the linguistics translations from Greek and
Hebrew into English. for example, the meaning of
'The Holy Spirit' "An intercessor, consoler: - advocate,
comforter." one example of many and I believe you are
already well aware so I'll leave it at that. though, I
will stand firm in that the KJ Bible is the true Word of
our Lord, THE Lord God Almighty and needs no further
translations into soft speak or other forms of political
correctness.
> >I get very annoyed by people who think their deeds are
> >going to earn them salvation.
>
> Agreed. Good works flow FROM salvation, not TOWARD it.
>
> Ephesians 2:10 shows this. We are saved UNTO good works.
> There IS a time line involved. :)
AFTER The Holy Spirit entered into and unto me I was
changed and changed in a wonderful grand way that only
The Lord God Almighty Himself could do. His works are
so very awesome.
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let
him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come.
And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ lives now. Jesus Christ
is here now among us. He is risen from death in that He
died for us [in our place] then defeated death and Jesus
defeated satan the devil who works to cheat and steal life
from us. Jesus is married to life and therefore He is the
one also called the Bride. Lord Jesus is the ONLY church,
He is the church of ever lasting life given freely to all
who choose to receive by faith and faith alone.
The Lord God Almighty has prepared a place for us.
call it New Jerusalem or call it heaven. God's Word
is righteous and is the ONLY truth. HIS preparations
are complete and we need only to arrive.
much more is spoken of in the book called Revelation.
my favorite, the final and complete separation of the
righteous from the unrighteous.
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave
Pastor Dave
<jim...@bellsouth.net> spake thusly:
>> Just FYI, quoting the Strong's numbers in with the text in
>> a message like this, just makes it annoying to read. :)
>
>when I first downloaded and installed e-sword I
>searched for a means to turn the Strong's numbers
>on and off. I've not found that means yet and am
>beginning to believe due to software constraints
>the option is not available.
No, it isn't. You are quoting from the KJV+ module.
Download more modules and install them.
http://www.e-sword.net/bibles.html
The Bible says that believers make up the church,
the body of Christ.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
The end timers believe in a literal, physical
Jim Ledford
> Jim Ledford:
>
[....]
> >> a message like this, just makes it annoying to read. :)
[....]
> >beginning to believe due to software constraints
> >the option is not available.
>
> No, it isn't. You are quoting from the KJV+ module.
> Download more modules and install them.
>
> http://www.e-sword.net/bibles.html
I knew you knew :) thank you.
[....]
> >> (re:Old Covenant). So when God dwells in the city,
> >> which is the bride and the bride is the church, that
> >> shows us that the New Jerusalem is already here and
> >> it is called "the church".
> >
> >Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let
> >him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come.
> >And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
> >
> >our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ lives now. Jesus Christ
> >is here now among us. He is risen from death in that He
> >died for us [in our place] then defeated death and Jesus
> >defeated satan the devil who works to cheat and steal life
> >from us. Jesus is married to life and therefore He is the
> >one also called the Bride. Lord Jesus is the ONLY church,
> >He is the church of ever lasting life given freely to all
> >who choose to receive by faith and faith alone.
> >
> >The Lord God Almighty has prepared a place for us.
> >call it New Jerusalem or call it heaven. God's Word
> >is righteous and is the ONLY truth. HIS preparations
> >are complete and we need only to arrive.
> >
> >much more is spoken of in the book called Revelation.
> >my favorite, the final and complete separation of the
> >righteous from the unrighteous.
>
> The Bible says that believers make up the church,
> the body of Christ.
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for
the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the
body of Christ:
.
.
.
Eph 4:24
summary - believers renewed in the spirit of their
mind become the new man created in righteousness and
true holiness. there is but one who is the truth,
the true righteousness and the true holiness and that
one is The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. believers
renewed by the gift of God's grace are joined to this body
by the receiving of The Holy Spirit and therefore physically
do become the body of Christ. the entire body is to edify
and give all glory unto The Lord God Almighty and in doing
so the body comprises, constitutes and is the substance of
the one true church of Christ.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife,
even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is
the savior of the body.
knowing by His Word "Christ is the head of the church:
and he is the savior of the body."
_____________________
Pastor Dave
<jim...@bellsouth.net> spake thusly:
>> >beginning to believe due to software constraints
>> >the option is not available.
>>
>> No, it isn't. You are quoting from the KJV+ module.
>> Download more modules and install them.
>>
>> http://www.e-sword.net/bibles.html
>
>I knew you knew :) thank you.
You're quite welcome. :)
Also, click on the pull down menu to see more types of
things you can download and add in.
Pastor Dave
<jim...@bellsouth.net> spake thusly:
>> >Lord Jesus is the ONLY church,
>> >He is the church of ever lasting life given freely to all
>> >who choose to receive by faith and faith alone.
>>
>> The Bible says that believers make up the church,
>> the body of Christ.
>
>Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for
>the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the
>body of Christ:
>.
>knowing by His Word "Christ is the head of the church:
>and he is the savior of the body."
Agreed. But calling Him the head of the church and calling
Him the church, are two different things.
miguel
> In <7qu9m1du82205c6lg...@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
> <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:15:15 -0500, Jim Ledford
>><jim...@bellsouth.net> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>
>>>recently I've learned, witnessed and seen a truth and
>>>this truth is, The Lord God Almighty wants you well.
>>>He don't want to see you sick and suffering. He did
>>>not give you life to see you in pain.
>>
>>Although sometimes sickness is the result of our sin,
>>even as Christians (1 Corinthians 11:28-32).
>>
>>But you are right in that if a Christian is following
>>the Lord, then in general, they should be well.
>
>
>
>
> -- Steve
Bucket, extra crispy, please.
Pastor Dave
gunh...@NRismykicktoy.pacbell.net (Steve Chaney, still
taunting the happy fun ball) spake thusly:
>One quick question. What is the greatest commandment of all?
Love God.
Jim Ledford
> Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball spake thusly:
>
> >One quick question. What is the greatest commandment of all?
>
> Love God.
Mat 22:36
that was the question.
the answer was and is still:
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Steve, the second of the two is as follows:
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the
law and the prophets.
Steve, forgive those who have trespassed against you.
trust God for your salvation and be set free to live
and enjoy the life The Lord God Almighty has given to
you. God has salvation for us ALL and all we each need
do is accept His free gift by faith and by faith alone.
the Glory is God and His Glory is pure righteousness.
God loves you Steve, please allow Him to enter into your
heart and set you free of the worldly thing called hate.
love makes life grand and God is that love.
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave
Hi Dave :)
Jim Ledford
> Jim Ledford:
>
> >> >Lord Jesus is the ONLY church,
> >> >He is the church of ever lasting life given freely to all
> >> >who choose to receive by faith and faith alone.
> >>
> >> The Bible says that believers make up the church,
> >> the body of Christ.
> >
> >Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for
> >the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the
> >body of Christ:
> >.
> >knowing by His Word "Christ is the head of the church:
> >and he is the savior of the body."
>
> Agreed. But calling Him the head of the church and calling
> Him the church, are two different things.
yes. to me, The Lord Jesus Christ is the church and He is
the head of the church. Lord Jesus is to me all things that
are righteous where all glory is given to The Lord God Almighty.
for then I ask in His name of the Father, it will be done. God
is always good to me and I never deserve it.
ps: thanks for the e-sword tip :)
Your Name Here=Harvey
gunh...@NRismykicktoy.pacbell.net says...
>><jim...@bellsouth.net> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>>recently I've learned, witnessed and seen a truth and
>>>this truth is, The Lord God Almighty wants you well.
>>>He don't want to see you sick and suffering. He did
>>>not give you life to see you in pain.
>>
>>Although sometimes sickness is the result of our sin,
>>even as Christians (1 Corinthians 11:28-32).
>>
>>But you are right in that if a Christian is following
>>the Lord, then in general, they should be well.
>
>
>
To be honest and truthful. Not passing on any lies.
Religion is all a big lie. There is no God, god or gods. (or Satan -
sure there are evil people as such. Everyone is still responsible for
their own actions, although people are often led astray and
frequently are).
They are but figments of the imagination.
Harvey
Pastor Dave
<jim...@bellsouth.net> spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> Jim Ledford:
>>
>> >> >Lord Jesus is the ONLY church,
>> >> >He is the church of ever lasting life given freely to all
>> >> >who choose to receive by faith and faith alone.
>> >>
>> >> The Bible says that believers make up the church,
>> >> the body of Christ.
>> >
>> >Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for
>> >the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the
>> >body of Christ:
>> >.
>> >knowing by His Word "Christ is the head of the church:
>> >and he is the savior of the body."
>>
>> Agreed. But calling Him the head of the church and calling
>> Him the church, are two different things.
>
>yes. to me, The Lord Jesus Christ is the church and He is
>the head of the church.
"To me", doesn't matter. It is what Scripture teaches that
matters and frankly (no offense), your own logic defeats
you. If He is the head of the church and He is the church,
then logically, He is only the head of Himself. :)
Pastor Dave
<jim...@bellsouth.net> spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
What was your point? Did I not answer it?
--
Pastor Dave
Jim Ledford
> Jim Ledford:
> >Pastor Dave wrote:
> >> Jim Ledford:
> >>
> >> >> >Lord Jesus is the ONLY church,
> >> >> >He is the church of ever lasting life given freely to all
> >> >> >who choose to receive by faith and faith alone.
> >> >>
> >> >> The Bible says that believers make up the church,
> >> >> the body of Christ.
> >> >
> >> >Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for
> >> >the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the
> >> >body of Christ:
> >> >.
> >> >knowing by His Word "Christ is the head of the church:
> >> >and he is the savior of the body."
> >>
> >> Agreed. But calling Him the head of the church and calling
> >> Him the church, are two different things.
> >
> >yes. to me, The Lord Jesus Christ is the church and He is
> >the head of the church.
>
> "To me", doesn't matter. It is what Scripture teaches that
> matters and frankly (no offense), your own logic defeats
> you. If He is the head of the church and He is the church,
> then logically, He is only the head of Himself. :)
Dave, again you are back to looking for a fight where
you will not find one. picking at a person's words in
order to sound as if you have defeated them is not what
I'm going to involve myself with ANY LONGER in this life,
or in the next life.
God loves you Dave.
> --
>
> Pastor Dave
Pastor Dave
<jim...@bellsouth.net> spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
I made a logical statement and corrected an illogical
statement. I know you think that usenet is here just for
you and your opinions, but that isn't the case and when you
speak something in error, have the common sense to take
the correction, instead of trying to defend stupidity and
getting upset at someone else, because your statement
doesn't work out logically.
Your Name Here=Harvey
1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com says...
Christianity is a lie, and so too with Islam and
Judaism.
To an outsider, all these have the same kind of God -
one that does not make sense, nor add up -
nor do these religions' promises and claims.
Isn't it strange that they share common origins,
yet disagree with each other, although the Jews and
Muslims believe that Jesus was only a prophet,
and not the Son of God, nor a saviour.
I tend to agree with this - from what my senses,
awareness and feelings tell me, about all this.
Similarly Satan is a invention too, like God.
Not existing in the real world. We are always
responsible for our own behaviour and what we do.
Certainly there are bad influences around, by evil
people.
Harvey
Your Name Here=Harvey
God is a figment of the imagination, and is not 'real'.
Wby do you speak for God, like Christians do, and Muslims and
Jews.
Harvey
Jim Ledford
it is as if you are saying to me how you can look
into my heart and know.
the Body of Christ is the church we become a part of
when The Holy Spirit arrives unto us. The Lord Jesus
Christ is the leader in that no man will go unto the
Father unless they are brought to Him by the Son.
Jesus is the head of the church while at the same time
He is the church.
The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit are three yet but one.
Dave, I've read enough of your conversations on usenet
to see how if the wording used by another is not to your
exact belief then you'll work to change what is being said.
the truth is Jesus died in my place, for me so I don't
have to die. Jesus died in my place so I can be with
The Father for all eternity.
God loves me and I know this fact, God loves me.
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave
Pastor Dave
<jim...@bellsouth.net> spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
A load of crap. I went by your plain, typed statement,
which was incorrect. To now claim that I have to "look
in your heart", is disingenuous. Your attitude was clear.
>the Body of Christ is the church we become a part of
>when The Holy Spirit arrives unto us.
Then Christ is not "the church". He cannot be the leader
of the church and be the church that is comprised of
believers. That doesn't work out logically and getting
upset that I corrected you on that, only shows a lack
of maturity. That's it, plain and simple, whether you like
it or not and you act this way EVERY TIME you are
corrected on an illogical statement and you PRETEND
that I am attacking you. As I said, that shows IMMATURITY.
Pete Turk
<1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes
>>when The Holy Spirit arrives unto us.
>
>Then Christ is not "the church". He cannot be the leader
>of the church and be the church that is comprised of
>believers. That doesn't work out logically and getting
>upset that I corrected you on that, only shows a lack
>of maturity. That's it, plain and simple, whether you like
>it or not and you act this way EVERY TIME you are
>corrected on an illogical statement and you PRETEND
>that I am attacking you. As I said, that shows IMMATURITY.
>
Dear Pastor,
Immature or not, Jim Ledford is playing his usual
game, usual inasmuch as it long predated his _apparent_
conversion.
He needs to give every reader the impression that
he's being unfairly put-upon, that one-and-all are
out to attack him, so he can then come-out with his
implicit trump-assertion:
"you and everyone else around here hates me!!"
If you've read Eric Berne's 'Games People Play', you
might remember one of EB's 'games':- WOODEN LEG
and the player's 'pay-off' is to be able to whine to
his audience "you wouldn't hit a man with a wooden
leg!" Well, Jim's a long-standing player, as a
Google inside alt.romance and alt.romance.chat will
amply testify. Try 1998 thru 2002 inside alt.romance.chat
for starters.
You'll find his pre-conversion invective shockingly
different however. IMO he's no more a xtian than I
am (quite the opposite), though of course that's
something you'll make your own mind up about.
'If you hear that a mountain has moved,
believe; but if you hear that a man has
changed his character, believe it not.'
-- Mohammedan proverb
Pete Turk <Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk> ICQ# 11981084
RFA President and Moonshadow
--
May your doorstep ever be dirty.
-- Romany blessing
Jim Ledford
did you join the Body of Christ and are you a believer?
yes, no. if yes then you with Christ in you are the church
and thus with Christ in you Christ is also the church.
Jesus is our Saviour, teacher and leader. He leads us unto
the Father.
> That doesn't work out logically
logic is for the earth bound earth lover who is in
love with their self. as in prove this prove that
and do it with logic.
faith is for the believer in how The Lord Jesus Christ
died for all and in Him our sins were placed. faith is
for the one knowing of how and why God sent Himself as
the Lamb to this earth so that we might have life over
death.
> and getting upset
to state that you know what emotion I did or did not respond
with is to say "it is as if you are saying to me how you can
look into my heart and know."
> that I corrected you on that, only shows a lack
> of maturity.
God is the only one who is correct and the only one who will
be doing the correcting. maturity in humans is an emotional
state of being.
> That's it, plain and simple, whether you like
> it or not and you act this way EVERY TIME you are
> corrected on an illogical statement and you PRETEND
> that I am attacking you. As I said, that shows IMMATURITY.
Dave, there is not upset here in Jim concerning how you
responded to the wording used to state Jesus is the church
and Jesus is the head of the church.
here's something I read today. share your thoughts concerning
what you feel and what you hear God saying to you in reflection
to this scripture.
Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein:
for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb
are the temple of it.
John is telling us the believer how there is not a building
in heaven said to be the temple, i.e.: church. instead John
is making it clear of how the Lord God Almighty is the temple.
what say you concerning these words?
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave
Pastor Dave
<jim...@bellsouth.net> spake thusly:
>did you join the Body of Christ and are you a believer?
Goodbye Jim. I don't have time for people who can't
take a simple, logical correction and will argue, defending
stupidity (that stupidity being that you aren't taking a
simple correction), into futility.
>> That doesn't work out logically
>
>logic is for the earth bound earth lover who is in
>love with their self. as in prove this prove that
>and do it with logic.
Logic is a God given gift. You are acting foolish and
further foolish, when you now try to claim that logic is
evil. <chuckle>
"Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord"
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
What shall I render to the Lord
for all His benefits toward me?
I will take up the cup of salvation
and call upon the name of the Lord.
- Psalm 116:12-13
turtoni
"Jim Ledford" <jim...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:436A7015...@bellsouth.net...
i understood what you meant jim.
turtoni
>
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Pastor Dave
Jim Ledford
> Jim Ledford wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >Lord Jesus is the ONLY church,
> >> >> >> >> >> >He is the church of ever lasting life given freely to all
> >> >> >> >> >> >who choose to receive by faith and faith alone.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for
> >> >> >> >> >the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the
> >> >> >> >> >body of Christ:
> >> >> >> >> >.
> >> >> >> >> >knowing by His Word "Christ is the head of the church:
> >> >> >> >> >and he is the savior of the body."
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >yes. to me, The Lord Jesus Christ is the church and He is
> >> >> >> >the head of the church.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Dave, again you are back to looking for a fight where
> >> >> >you will not find one.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >it is as if you are saying to me how you can look
> >> >into my heart and know.
> >>
> >>
> >> >the Body of Christ is the church we become a part of
> >> >when The Holy Spirit arrives unto us.
> >>
> >
> > did you join the Body of Christ and are you a believer?
> > yes, no. if yes then you with Christ in you are the church
> > and thus with Christ in you Christ is also the church.
> > Jesus is our Saviour, teacher and leader. He leads us unto
> > the Father.
> >
> >
> > logic is for the earth bound earth lover who is in
> > love with their self. as in prove this prove that
> > and do it with logic.
> >
> > faith is for the believer in how The Lord Jesus Christ
> > died for all and in Him our sins were placed. faith is
> > for the one knowing of how and why God sent Himself as
> > the Lamb to this earth so that we might have life over
> > death.
> >
> >
> > to state that you know what emotion I did or did not respond
> > with is to say "it is as if you are saying to me how you can
> > look into my heart and know."
> >
> >
> > God is the only one who is correct and the only one who will
> > be doing the correcting. maturity in humans is an emotional
> > state of being.
> >
> >
> >
> > there is not upset here in Jim concerning how you
> > responded to the wording used to state Jesus is the church
> > and Jesus is the head of the church.
> >
> > here's something I read today. share your thoughts concerning
> > what you feel and what you hear God saying to you in reflection
> > to this scripture.
> >
> > Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein:
> > for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb
> > are the temple of it.
> >
> > John is telling us the believer how there is not a building
> > in heaven said to be the temple, i.e.: church. instead John
> > is making it clear of how the Lord God Almighty is the temple.
> >
> > what say you concerning these words?
>
> i understood what you meant jim.
God is always faithful. this afternoon He showed me how to
get the blasted third bolt off of that blasted ford tractor
starter. in the morning WE , that'd be God and I, are taking
that malfunctioning starting to a man who has God on his side
to have it repaired.
God is forever faithful to His children.
have a blessed By God day, evening and life Turtoni.
>
> turtoni
Jim Ledford
> Jim Ledford:
>
> Goodbye Jim.
good bye Dave.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can
he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
> Pastor Dave Raymond
Pastor Dave
>In <nupfm1dboogjlk9i1...@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
><1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 20:01:55 GMT,
>>gunh...@NRismykicktoy.pacbell.net (Steve Chaney, still
>>taunting the happy fun ball) spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>>One quick question. What is the greatest commandment of all?
>>
>>Love God.
>
>Ok, here are the top two.
>Mark 12:28-34:
>"28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together,
>and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the
>first commandment of all?
>29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O
>Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
>30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all
>thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the
>first commandment.
>31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
>thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
>32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth:
>for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
>33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and
>with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as
>himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
>34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou
>art not far from the kingdom of God."
>
>
>The HIGHEST commandment is to love God with all your might.
>The SECOND is to love your neighbor as you love yourself.
>
>There aren't any higher commandments than those, according to Mark
>12:28-34.
>
>
>Fiscal conservatism and the relentless pursuit of capitalism is very far
>away from that commandment.
>
>
>The Government threatens those who violate God's 2nd commandment with
>imprisonment; but Jesus promises eternal damnation for the same thing.
>
>
>Also ponder Matthew 25:31-46.
>
>
>
>
>Now as for the argument that "charity should take care of everything,"
>let's not forget that by giving your consumer dollars to Godless China
>(trust me, I'm not being sarcastic here), the world's largest provider of
>FORCED abortions and the biggest enemy of faith (including Christianity) in
>the world, and by contributing to Republican (and Democrat) causes that put
>the absolute right to corporate profits over the well being of people, you
>are in fact creating a much bigger mess for our country than charity can
>hope to clean up.
>
>Don't forget that many of these "Republicans" are hardly moral. Do I need
>to point you to a huge list of Republican leaders nailed for molestation?
>It frightens the heck out of me that so many Christians cower under the
>Republican tent without even caring that their own party is utterly fraught
>with immorality and, worst of all, supporting enemies of God overseas that
>are well along in their plans to bankrupt the very nation where
>Christianity has thrived the most. If China embargoes and thus takes down
>America, where will you have left to go?
>
>By turning the formidable might of the Christian vote and dollar against
>these godless forces - Democrats and Republicans alike - you conceivably
>could achieve what you're looking for.
>
>Sadly that requires getting off the Republican plantation and going
>independent, and realizing that unrestricted Capitalism is no better than
>Communism for the human spirit.
Do you have a point to make? It seems to be political.
What do I care about politics?
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
What shall I render to the Lord
miguel
Do you feel sexual attraction for Steve Chaney?
Pete Turk
<1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes
>>
>>Now as for the argument that "charity should take care of everything,"
>>let's not forget that by giving your consumer dollars to Godless China
>>(trust me, I'm not being sarcastic here), the world's largest provider of
>>FORCED abortions and the biggest enemy of faith (including Christianity) in
>>the world, and by contributing to Republican (and Democrat) causes that put
>>the absolute right to corporate profits over the well being of people, you
>>are in fact creating a much bigger mess for our country than charity can
>>hope to clean up.
>>
>>Don't forget that many of these "Republicans" are hardly moral. Do I need
>>to point you to a huge list of Republican leaders nailed for molestation?
>>It frightens the heck out of me that so many Christians cower under the
>>Republican tent without even caring that their own party is utterly fraught
>>with immorality and, worst of all, supporting enemies of God overseas that
>>are well along in their plans to bankrupt the very nation where
>>Christianity has thrived the most. If China embargoes and thus takes down
>>America, where will you have left to go?
>>
>>By turning the formidable might of the Christian vote and dollar against
>>these godless forces - Democrats and Republicans alike - you conceivably
>>could achieve what you're looking for.
>>
>>Sadly that requires getting off the Republican plantation and going
>>independent, and realizing that unrestricted Capitalism is no better than
>>Communism for the human spirit.
>
>Do you have a point to make? It seems to be political.
>What do I care about politics?
>
Do I see correctly?
You don't "care about politics", and, by this, you not only
don't involve yourself in politics, but don't involve _others_,
particularly non-theists, in any attempt to proselytise your
particular faith?
This last despicable practice is one of the lowest political
acts I could ever imagine (except for wars, crusades, economic
exploitation and all the rest, I suppose)
If you're sincere, then I'll gladly commend your stance to
any g*d-botherer I'm not able to avoid.
(Or wasn't this issue the politics you "don't care about"?)
>:-|
'Heathen, n.: A beknighted creature who has
the folly to worship something
he can see and feel.'
-- Ambrose Bierce 'The Devil's Dictionary' 1906
stealthaxe
news:tl8nm1536dphtnv87...@4ax.com:
> Pastor Dave <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
>>Do you have a point to make? It seems to be political.
>>What do I care about politics?
> Do you feel sexual attraction for Steve Chaney?
i have to admit, that was funny
stealthaxe
miguel
shhhhh
I'm hunting pastors.
the Danimal
> On 31 Oct 2005 14:38:48 -0800, "the Danimal"
> >To establish history requires investigating all available lines
> >of evidence and seeing that they agree.
>
> And they do agree that Jesus returned in 70 AD.
Why didn't anything change?
The first time Jesus was here, he started a major world religion.
How did this second return get no publicity? For example, I am
just now hearing about it, and I think I would have been in
position to hear about it earlier.
> >> That's one of the things that
> >> the quote above shows. New Jerusalem is us, the church.
> >> The angel says to John, "Let me show you THE BRIDE.
> >> And what does the angel show him? New Jerusalem.
> >> Who is the bride of Christ? THE CHURCH. Thus, it is
> >> not a literal city and it is already here.
> >
> >Notice how both of you are adding words to what's
> >in the Bible. You have to do this, because the Bible itself
> >is too vague in many of these passages to have a specific
> >meaning.
>
> I did not add any words at all.
Where does the Bible say: "Thus, it is not a literal
city and it is already here"?
But that's OK, I know the habit of lying is so deeply ingrained
in the religious mind that you can't see you are doing it even
when it is plainly documented as in the exchange above.
If I want honesty, I read the works of scientists.
> The bride of Christ is
> the church and that is Biblical fact.
>
> Now read the text...
>
> Revelation 21:1,9-10
>
> 1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the
> first heaven and the first earth had passed away.
> 9) And one of the seven angels who had the seven
> vials full of the seven last plagues came to me and
> talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show you
> the bride, the Lamb's wife.
> 10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great
> and high mountain and showed me that great city, the
> holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God
>
> The angel told John that he was showing him the bride.
> The angel showed John New Jerusalem.
>
> Believe it, don't believe it. That's up to you.
> It does not change the text.
The text describes a "great city" rather than
a church. A great city may contain churches and temples
and mosques and other places of worship, but it is not
a church. To be dynamic and vital, a great city needs to
be an ecosystem of competing ideas.
If John meant church why didn't he say church instead of
city?
> >How do you know when the Bible is an allegory,
> >and when to take it literally?
>
> Your question is designed to avoid dealing with
> the fact of what I said.
Specifically, I am asking how you know John means "church"
when he writes "city."
You "know" this not because John said it, but because you are
choosing to reject a literal interpretation of John's words and
substitute an allegorical interpretation instead.
You are free to believe whatever you like, but if you lie about
what you are doing, I will refute your lies.
> >Why do you proclaim as fact what is merely your opinion?
>
> The text says it clearly. Thus, it is not "my opinion".
The text clearly says a city descended from heaven. There
are no historical records of any such event ever having occurred,
and the archaeological evidence isn't there either. All known
cities, present and ruined, appear to have been built by humans
from the ground up, not descended from heaven already complete.
So this event of a great city descending from heaven has not
actually happened.
Something else may have descended from heaven, and perhaps
the word "city" allegorically stands for whatever that was, but it
was not a literal city. Whatever it was, it is invisible to the average
person and undetectable by all the instruments of science. Which
means it does not exist in the realm of "fact."
> --
>
> Pastor Dave
> 1st Century Church of Christ
>
> The end timers believe in a literal, physical
> New Jerusalem. But is that what Scripture teaches?
> No, it doesn't! So what is the New Jerusalem? It
> is amazing what the end timers miss, especially
> since it is stated clearly that the New Jerusalem
> is the bride of Christ, the church.
>
> Revelation 21:1,9-10
>
> 1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the
> first heaven and the first earth had passed away.
> 9) And one of the seven angels who had the seven
> vials full of the seven last plagues came to me and
> talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show you
> the bride, the Lamb's wife.
> 10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great
> and high mountain and showed me that great city, the
> holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God
Your interpretation of this plainly allegorical passage is
no more clear or obvious than any other. Your interpretation
merely fits better with your particular cognitive system. It
makes sense to you, but to someone with a different
cognitive system some other interpretation will make more
sense.
In any case, stop trying to pretend you are reasoning
with us. If you were reasonable, you would admit that
every religion is simply a guess and has no more chance
of being correct than any other guess. Your doctrine about
spiritual things is not based on any facts. When you die,
all the outcomes imagined in the various religions are equally
probable, along with outcomes not imagined by any religion
yet. Perhaps you will die and find yourself being judged
guilty by Allah for being a polytheist. Or maybe the Hindu
beliefs will turn out to be true and you will be reincarnated
as a rat. Or maybe you will die and go back to nonexistence
just as before you were born.
Your arguments for your particular guess are no more
convincing than a Muslim's arguments, as you can
quickly demonstrate by trying them on a Muslim trained
in the trickery of his respective religion.
It doesn't matter if John's ravings or hallucinations or
fascinating stories were recorded and transcribed to us down
through the ages with perfect accuracy, because the original
story is not based on facts.
If someone writes that he sees a great city descending from
heaven, and nobody else sees it, and the alleged city leaves
no trace anywhere on the surface of the Earth, then the descent
of this great city from heaven is not a "fact." It's just one guy
claiming to have seen something that nobody else can verify.
Lots of people make those kinds of claims all the time. Do you
believe all of them? With enough spin-doctoring such as
saying that John means "church" when he writes "city," you
can make anything unfalsifiable.
A logical person draws no conclusion until every alternative
conclusion has been shown to contradict the facts. No religion
can claim its doctrine about spiritual things is the only
conclusion consistent with the facts. If any religion could do
that, it would quickly become the universal religion, as
widely accepted as the belief that the Earth is not flat. Few
people doubt that the Earth is spheroidal, even though this
is difficult for most people to directly perceive, because the
evidence is accessible to all the smart people and is
overwhelmingly convincing to them.
No one religion is capable of convincing all the smart people,
because no religion is based on facts (insofar as its claims
about spiritual things is concerned---a religion may make
pedestrian claims about the ordinary lives of ordinary people
in the past, and these can sometimes be verified by
archaeology; but there are no facts to support the claims of
miracles and such).
Pastor Dave
<dmo...@mfm.com> spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> On 31 Oct 2005 14:38:48 -0800, "the Danimal"
>> >To establish history requires investigating all available lines
>> >of evidence and seeing that they agree.
>>
>> And they do agree that Jesus returned in 70 AD.
>
>Why didn't anything change?
Is that what your belief is based on? That things didn't
change to make living on Earth easier?
Show me Heaven. If you can't, then it must not exist,
right?
>The first time Jesus was here, he started a major world religion.
>
>How did this second return get no publicity? For example, I am
>just now hearing about it, and I think I would have been in
>position to hear about it earlier.
You assume His return was supposed to be physically visible.
Jesus did not say that and He did not say that His Kingdom
would be physical. In fact, He said the opposite.
The Jews today, as the Pharisees then, awaited a physical
kingdom. In fact, isn't that why they reject Christ as
Messiah? Because they don't see a physical kingdom set up?
But how did Jesus respond to their demand for a physical
kingdom?
Luke 17:20-21
20) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees,
when the kingdom of God should come, he answered
them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with
observation:
Note that the Pharisees wanted to know when the Kingdom
of God would come to the Earth.
Now what was Jesus' response???
"The Kingdom of God cometh NOT WITH OBSERVATION".
I.e., YOU WON'T SEE IT WITH YOUR EYES! :)
21) Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there!
for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
They WON'T say, "look here, or look there"!
The Kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU. It is NOT a new
literal, physical kingdom set up after the destruction
of heaven and earth.
Do you side with the Pharisees, or Jesus?
>> >> That's one of the things that
>> >> the quote above shows. New Jerusalem is us, the church.
>> >> The angel says to John, "Let me show you THE BRIDE.
>> >> And what does the angel show him? New Jerusalem.
>> >> Who is the bride of Christ? THE CHURCH. Thus, it is
>> >> not a literal city and it is already here.
>> >
>> >Notice how both of you are adding words to what's
>> >in the Bible. You have to do this, because the Bible itself
>> >is too vague in many of these passages to have a specific
>> >meaning.
>>
>> I did not add any words at all.
>
>Where does the Bible say: "Thus, it is not a literal
>city and it is already here"?
Where does the Bible say that it is? You are completely
ignoring what the Bible does say.
You are ignoring the text. What does it say?
>If John meant church why didn't he say church instead of
>city?
Because John didn't create the vision. And again,
you ignore what the text says, thinking that your questions
will somehow erase the words of the Bible.
The bride of Christ is the church and that is Biblical fact.
John the Baptist, speaking of Christ and His followers:
"He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of
the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth
greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy
therefore is fulfilled." - John 3:29
Paul, speaking of presenting the church as a virgin bride...
"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have
espoused you to one husband, that I may present you
as a chaste virgin to Christ." - 2 Corinthians 11:2
The bride is the church, period. Now read the text.
Revelation 21:1,9-10
1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the
first heaven and the first earth had passed away.
9) And one of the seven angels who had the seven
vials full of the seven last plagues came to me and
talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show you
the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great
and high mountain and showed me that great city, the
holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God
The angel told John that he was showing him the bride.
The angel showed John New Jerusalem.
Believe it, don't believe it. That's up to you.
It does not change the text.
>> >How do you know when the Bible is an allegory,
>> >and when to take it literally?
>>
>> Your question is designed to avoid dealing with
>> the fact of what I said.
>
>Specifically, I am asking how you know John means "church"
>when he writes "city."
>
>You "know" this not because John said it, but because you are
>choosing to reject a literal interpretation of John's words and
>substitute an allegorical interpretation instead.
>
>You are free to believe whatever you like, but if you lie about
>what you are doing, I will refute your lies.
And yet, you have been unable to do that, because they are
not lies. What is a lie, is your claim.
>> >Why do you proclaim as fact what is merely your opinion?
>>
>> The text says it clearly. Thus, it is not "my opinion".
>
>The text clearly says a city descended from heaven.
Revelation is a book of symbolism and you refute your
own argument, when you claim that it is a literal city and
yet, you do not await a literal beast to rise up out of the
water.
And we both know that you also believe in a new heaven
and earth, in which only the righteous dwell. And since
you do, please tell me, who are those outside of the gates?
The end timers (no offense, it just means anyone
who is still waiting for Jesus to return) tell us that
in this new heaven and earth scenario, that there
will be no more death. They refer us to Revelation
and show us the following passage, which comes
after it talks about the new heaven and earth being
created and the holy city coming down to Earth...
"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes;
and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow,
nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for
the former things are passed away." - Revelation 21:4
However, one of the passages that end timers also
use, to show that it is a literal, physical, Earthly
kingdom, is the following passage from Isaiah...
"There shall be no more thence an infant of days,
nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the
child shall die a hundred years old; but the sinner
being a hundred years old shall be accursed."
- Isaiah 65:20
So I have a question... three actually ("Come, let us
reason together, saith the Lord.")...
Since the end timers take this literally, if there
is no more death, then how is it that Isaiah,
who is also talking about the new heaven and
earth, says that a child will die 100 years old?
Is there death, or isn't there death?
You see, if we take it literally, then the Bible
contradicts itself, clear and simple and I'm
sorry, but there is no way around that fact.
My second question is... If the old heaven and
earth have passed away and the judgment has
taken place and all of the sinners are thrown in
the lake of fire (Rev 20:11-5), which happens
before the new heaven and earth, then who are
these people outside the gates of the New Jerusalem,
in the following passage, which comes after all of this
has taken place...
Revelation 22:14-15
14) Blessed are they that do his commandments,
that they may have right to the tree of life, and
may enter in through the gates into the city.
15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and
whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters,
and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Now please don't tell me that they're people who
sinned after the judgment. No one, knowing the
fate of those who sinned, is going to leave the
presence of God and sin, so that He can throw
them into the lake of fire. That's RIDICULOUS
to propose! Especially considering we are all
supposedly given new bodies and are free of
our sinful natures.
And we should note that the text doesn't say that
they get destroyed after that, so now you have God
taking refuge in the holy city, the New Jerusalem.
Yup. God is forced to hide out in this New Jerusalem,
in order to be free of sinners, since He cannot allow
sin into His presence. Thus, you make a refugee
out of God.
This leads me to my third question...
Question number 3 is, Given your scenario of
literalism, which places God as having created
this new heaven and earth, which taking their
conclusion to its logical end, has the earth
getting corrupted by sinners again, how do
they explain God having to take refuge in the
holy city, the New Jerusalem, since He cannot
live in the presence of sin? Did God give up
His perfect and holy Heaven, only to move
down here, to Earth, where the crime rate
would once again soar?
"Come, let us reason together...".
Now go ahead. Refute these "lies". You are calling
the Bible a lie.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
What shall I render to the Lord
Jim Ledford
>
[....]
>
> And we should note that the text doesn't say that
> they get destroyed after that, so now you have God
> taking refuge in the holy city, the New Jerusalem.
> Yup. God is forced to hide out in this New Jerusalem,
> in order to be free of sinners, since He cannot allow
> sin into His presence. Thus, you make a refugee
> out of God.
>
> This leads me to my third question...
>
> Question number 3 is, Given your scenario of
> literalism, which places God as having created
> this new heaven and earth, which taking their
> conclusion to its logical end, has the earth
> getting corrupted by sinners again, how do
> they explain God having to take refuge in the
> holy city, the New Jerusalem, since He cannot
> live in the presence of sin? Did God give up
> His perfect and holy Heaven, only to move
> down here, to Earth, where the crime rate
> would once again soar?
>
>
Dave that was captivating the way you wrote that in
order to make the point in which you are making to Dan.
I know you know The Lord God Almighty takes refuge from
no one and no thing. your writing was intended to make
a point and well, you had me going there for a minute.
good job for you in the way you did that Dave.
> Pastor Dave Raymond
Pete Turk
<1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes
>On 5 Nov 2005 17:12:37 -0800, "the Danimal"
><dmo...@mfm.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>>Pastor Dave wrote:
>>> On 31 Oct 2005 14:38:48 -0800, "the Danimal"
>>> >To establish history requires investigating all available lines
>>> >of evidence and seeing that they agree.
>>>
>>> And they do agree that Jesus returned in 70 AD.
"_all available_ lines of evidence agree this". Dave???
The 'agreements' that proceed out of your insanity IMO.
No? then tell us everything Josephus said about events
in 70 AD.
>>
>>Why didn't anything change?
>
>Is that what your belief is based on? That things didn't
>change to make living on Earth easier?
You know that Danimal is not saying that.
Try being honest with yourself, Dave, even if
you can't ever be honest with Danimal -- or with
anyone else.
>
>Show me Heaven. If you can't, then it must not exist,
>right?
If you can't, then its existence isn't _proved_,
Dave -- as you know as well as Danimal.
>
>
>>The first time Jesus was here, he started a major world religion.
>>
>>How did this second return get no publicity? For example, I am
>>just now hearing about it, and I think I would have been in
>>position to hear about it earlier.
>
>You assume His return was supposed to be physically visible.
What makes you sure? Is your insanity leading you
into a conviction that you can read Danimal's mind?
And 'physically visible'??? Everything's physical,
Dave. And if someone _thinks_ they saw a return,
its _objective_ visibility still isn't yet proved.
>Jesus did not say that and He did not say that His Kingdom
>would be physical. In fact, He said the opposite.
Nonsense. There's no record of the word 'physical'
(let alone the "opposite" whatever that is) being
used in writings you seem to hold dear.
And 'physical' wasn't used with its present meaning
before the 18th century.
>
>The Jews today, as the Pharisees then, awaited a physical
>kingdom. In fact, isn't that why they reject Christ as
>Messiah?
They'd waited for an 'Anointed' (masshiaH) who'd
lead them into throwing out the Romans and setting
them up once again as an independent theocracy.
A hope about as 'physical' as the Ghost Dances in America
succeeding in killing off North American white-men.
>Because they don't see a physical kingdom set up?
>But how did Jesus respond to their demand for a physical
>kingdom?
>
>Luke 17:20-21
>
>20) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees,
>when the kingdom of God should come, he answered
>them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with
>observation:
>
>Note that the Pharisees wanted to know when the Kingdom
>of God would come to the Earth.
>
>Now what was Jesus' response???
>
>"The Kingdom of God cometh NOT WITH OBSERVATION".
>
>I.e., YOU WON'T SEE IT WITH YOUR EYES! :)
>
>21) Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there!
>for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
>
>They WON'T say, "look here, or look there"!
>
>The Kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU. It is NOT a new
>literal, physical kingdom set up after the destruction
>of heaven and earth.
>
>Do you side with the Pharisees, or Jesus?
Danimal sides with people who do what they
can to find things out for themselves, and
not act like a 2/20/40/60/80-year old infant
who's never stopped leaning on others for
everything they believe in -- what you'd call
_faith_ but what in fact is blind _trust_.
>
>
>>> >> That's one of the things that
>>> >> the quote above shows.
Quotes DON'T show what things happened.
They show what someone at sometime SAID.
> New Jerusalem is us, the church.
>>> >> The angel says to John, "Let me show you THE BRIDE.
>>> >> And what does the angel show him? New Jerusalem.
>>> >> Who is the bride of Christ? THE CHURCH. Thus, it is
>>> >> not a literal city and it is already here.
" ... it is already here." ????
Here? It's only "here" in the sense of Terry
Pratchett's dragons, who'd start to exist once
people started to believe in them, but not before!
>>> >
>>> >Notice how both of you are adding words to what's
>>> >in the Bible. You have to do this, because the Bible itself
>>> >is too vague in many of these passages to have a specific
>>> >meaning.
>>>
>>> I did not add any words at all.
The whole set-of-books-called-Biblos are words
added on to earlier words, then freeze-dried into
a 'sacred' stability.
And every word from a fool just like you.
>>
>>Where does the Bible say: "Thus, it is not a literal
>>city and it is already here"?
>
>Where does the Bible say that it is? You are completely
>ignoring what the Bible does say.
As you are "completely ignoring" what the Protocols
of the Elders of Zion "does say".
Danimal very likely ignores both, for excellent
reasons that would apply to _both_ writings.
>
>
>>But that's OK, I know the habit of lying is so deeply ingrained
>>in the religious mind that you can't see you are doing it even
>>when it is plainly documented as in the exchange above.
>>
>>If I want honesty, I read the works of scientists.
>>
>>> The bride of Christ is
>>> the church and that is Biblical fact.
>>>
>>> Now read the text...
>>>
>>> Revelation 21:1,9-10
>>>
>>> 1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the
>>> first heaven and the first earth had passed away.
>>> 9) And one of the seven angels who had the seven
>>> vials full of the seven last plagues came to me and
>>> talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show you
>>> the bride, the Lamb's wife.
>>> 10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great
>>> and high mountain and showed me that great city, the
>>> holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God
>>>
>>> The angel told John that he was showing him the bride.
>>> The angel showed John New Jerusalem.
>>>
>>> Believe it, don't believe it. That's up to you.
>>> It does not change the text.
<translation>
because the text is there and says something
I achingly wish to be true, then goodbye integrity,
goodbye self-esteem, it's going to become the
truth for me.
Now to persuade, brow-beat, persecute even,
anyone who doesn't admit _my_ 'truth' is
THE truth!
</translate>
>>
>>The text describes a "great city" rather than
>>a church. A great city may contain churches and temples
>>and mosques and other places of worship, but it is not
>>a church. To be dynamic and vital, a great city needs to
>>be an ecosystem of competing ideas.
>
>You are ignoring the text. What does it say?
Danimal ignores that text. You ignore the text
of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I ignore
both ...
So what?
>
>
>>If John meant church why didn't he say church instead of
>>city?
>
>Because John didn't create the vision. And again,
>you ignore what the text says, thinking that your questions
>will somehow erase the words of the Bible.
"John didn't create the vision" you say???
You don't _know_ that John didn't do that very thing!
Plenty of people have had, have and will have hallucinations...
>
>The bride of Christ is the church and that is Biblical fact.
A number of atrocities are 'Protocols-of-the-Elders-
of-Zion facts'.
Neither your 'bride' nor my 'atrocities' are _facts_
Dave -- just a welter of propaganda from and for gullible
fools.
>
>John the Baptist, speaking of Christ and His followers:
>
>"He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of
>the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth
>greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy
>therefore is fulfilled." - John 3:29
A moment's thought would show you that 30-odd words
in whatever language would never be remembered verbatim
over _50_ years -- from j-t-b to j.
Far more likely they were simply thought-up by j who
"fulfilled his joy" by writing them down 50 seconds
later, putting-them in someone else's mouth for prestige.
>
>Paul, speaking of presenting the church as a virgin bride...
>
>"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have
>espoused you to one husband, that I may present you
>as a chaste virgin to Christ." - 2 Corinthians 11:2
>
>The bride is the church, period. Now read the text.
No, you read the text of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
first!
You won't? (I wouldn't blame you! :) So why push text that
doesn't belong in the s.s u.m.a a.s or a.r. newsgroups and
then _TELL_ us to read it?
>
>Revelation 21:1,9-10
>
>1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the
>first heaven and the first earth had passed away.
>9) And one of the seven angels who had the seven
>vials full of the seven last plagues came to me and
>talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show you
>the bride, the Lamb's wife.
>10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great
>and high mountain and showed me that great city, the
>holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God
>
>The angel told John that he was showing him the bride.
>The angel showed John New Jerusalem.
>
>Believe it, don't believe it. That's up to you.
>It does not change the text.
The same applies to text from the Bhagavad-Gita! ...
Believe it, don't believe it. That's up to you.
It does not change the text...
But here's a difference -- I'm not shoving the
text, offensive or not, believable or not, into
YOUR xtian face ...
>
>
>>> >How do you know when the Bible is an allegory,
>>> >and when to take it literally?
>>>
>>> Your question is designed to avoid dealing with
>>> the fact of what I said.
<translation>
Now how do I avoid answering this question and
make it seem _he_'s doing the avoiding?
Ah! I know:
"Your question is designed to avoid dealing
with the facts of what I said"
That's better! I DO love using words like 'facts'!
</translation>
>>
>>Specifically, I am asking how you know John means "church"
>>when he writes "city."
>>
>>You "know" this not because John said it, but because you are
>>choosing to reject a literal interpretation of John's words and
>>substitute an allegorical interpretation instead.
>>
>>You are free to believe whatever you like, but if you lie about
>>what you are doing, I will refute your lies.
>
>And yet, you have been unable to do that, because they are
>not lies. What is a lie, is your claim.
You're putting words into his mouth again, Dave!
And there's the actual lie -- from _your_ fingers.
>
>
>>> >Why do you proclaim as fact what is merely your opinion?
>>>
>>> The text says it clearly. Thus, it is not "my opinion".
>>
>>The text clearly says a city descended from heaven.
>
>Revelation is a book of symbolism and you refute your
>own argument, when you claim that it is a literal city and
>yet, you do not await a literal beast to rise up out of the
>water.
>
>And we both know that you also believe in a new heaven
>and earth, in which only the righteous dwell. And since
>you do, please tell me, who are those outside of the gates?
>
>The end timers (no offense, it just means anyone
>who is still waiting for Jesus to return) tell us that
>in this new heaven and earth scenario, that there
>will be no more death. They refer us to Revelation
>and show us the following passage, which comes
>after it talks about the new heaven and earth being
>created and the holy city coming down to Earth...
>
>"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes;
>and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow,
>nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for
>the former things are passed away." - Revelation 21:4
Go ahead, Dave -- immerse yourself
into this word-picture ...
a word-picture doesn't make what it's
a picture of, true ...
>
>However, one of the passages that end timers also
>use, to show that it is a literal, physical, Earthly
>kingdom, is the following passage from Isaiah...
>
>"There shall be no more thence an infant of days,
>nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the
>child shall die a hundred years old; but the sinner
>being a hundred years old shall be accursed."
>- Isaiah 65:20
another word-picture, Dave?
>
>So I have a question... three actually ("Come, let us
>reason together, saith the Lord.")...
>
>Since the end timers take this literally, if there
>is no more death, then how is it that Isaiah,
>who is also talking about the new heaven and
>earth, says that a child will die 100 years old?
>Is there death, or isn't there death?
>
>You see, if we take it literally, then the Bible
>contradicts itself, clear and simple and I'm
>sorry, but there is no way around that fact.
>
>My second question is... If the old heaven and
>earth have passed away and the judgment has
>taken place and all of the sinners are thrown in
>the lake of fire (Rev 20:11-5), which happens
>before the new heaven and earth, then who are
>these people outside the gates of the New Jerusalem,
>in the following passage, which comes after all of this
>has taken place...
arguing about what's in a word-picture, Dave?
>
>Revelation 22:14-15
>
>14) Blessed are they that do his commandments,
>that they may have right to the tree of life, and
>may enter in through the gates into the city.
>15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and
>whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters,
>and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
>
>Now please don't tell me that they're people who
>sinned after the judgment. No one, knowing the
>fate of those who sinned, is going to leave the
>presence of God and sin, so that He can throw
>them into the lake of fire. That's RIDICULOUS
>to propose! Especially considering we are all
>supposedly given new bodies and are free of
>our sinful natures.
>
>And we should note that the text doesn't say that
>they get destroyed after that, so now you have God
>taking refuge in the holy city, the New Jerusalem.
>Yup. God is forced to hide out in this New Jerusalem,
>in order to be free of sinners, since He cannot allow
>sin into His presence. Thus, you make a refugee
>out of God.
you're taking the word-pictures and now
your arguing about what's in the word-picture
just as if they were actually in existence!
>
>This leads me to my third question...
>
>Question number 3 is, Given your scenario of
>literalism, which places God as having created
>this new heaven and earth, which taking their
>conclusion to its logical end, has the earth
>getting corrupted by sinners again, how do
>they explain God having to take refuge in the
>holy city, the New Jerusalem, since He cannot
>live in the presence of sin? Did God give up
>His perfect and holy Heaven, only to move
>down here, to Earth, where the crime rate
>would once again soar?
>
>"Come, let us reason together...".
>
>Now go ahead. Refute these "lies". You are calling
>the Bible a lie.
>
"You are calling the Bible a lie" you say ...
Your last piece of crooked-thinking, Dave.
When Danimal doubts, or asserts, the non-facticity
of what you happened to assert -- you say that he calls
it a lie.
Look in your dictionary, Dave.
A lie is what someone says who:
-- knows what the truth is about something
-- _therefore_ knows what is _not true_ about
that something
-- chooses to present something he _knows_ to
be not-true as something which is true.
But everything you've been spouting has no relation
with truth, untruth, anything other than a string
of consolatory hallucinations from sick and hurt minds.
Those old writers were simply doing their dim best, and
they're weren't lying any more than they were 'truthing'.
So nurse your head, Dave, and have a nice day.
>:]
'Vanitas vanitatum, dixit Ecclesiastes;
vanitas vanitatum, et omnia vanitas.'
(Vanity of vanities, said the preacher;
vanity of vanities, and everything is
vanity)
-- Vulgate
Jim Ledford
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn61/pompeii.htm
think of the read as a history lesson.
:)
the Danimal
> On 5 Nov 2005 17:12:37 -0800, "the Danimal"
> >> On 31 Oct 2005 14:38:48 -0800, "the Danimal"
> >> >To establish history requires investigating all available lines
> >> >of evidence and seeing that they agree.
> >>
> >> And they do agree that Jesus returned in 70 AD.
> >
> >Why didn't anything change?
>
> Is that what your belief is based on? That things didn't
> change to make living on Earth easier?
Who said anything about making living on Earth easier?
We know the Roman Empire existed because it changed things.
The Roman Empire was obvious. Whether the existence of the
Roman Empire makes your life easier today is irrelevant. It could
have made your life harder. What matters is that Rome changed
the course of history.
The Bible describes the return of Jesus as an obvious event. Not
something most people would miss.
If you want to water it down to something undetectable, well that's
your right. In the U.S. we have the Constitutional right to believe
in any sort of nonsense whatsoever.
> Show me Heaven. If you can't, then it must not exist,
> right?
Show me Santa Claus. If you can't, then Santa Claus must
not exist, right?
Show me [insert any imaginary being]. If you can't, the
[insert any imaginary being] must not exist, right?
I don't know whether Santa Claus exists. I don't know whether
Jesus Christ is alive somewhere right now. I don't know if
Osama bin Laden is right about Allah. I don't know if I will die
and be reincarnated as a frog as the Hindus might predict.
The only thing I do know is that there are infinitely many possible
religions, all of which are equally likely to be true. That is, each of
them has one chance in infinity of being correct, given the available
data.
Suppose Santa Claus really exists, and because I did not believe
in Santa Claus, I will go to hell when I die. Am I worried? Should I
be worried?
Are you worried about incurring the wrath of Santa Claus because
of your unbelief? If not, then why not?
> >The first time Jesus was here, he started a major world religion.
> >
> >How did this second return get no publicity? For example, I am
> >just now hearing about it, and I think I would have been in
> >position to hear about it earlier.
>
> You assume His return was supposed to be physically visible.
I assume that the act of returning changes something which is
somehow detectable.
When you know someone who is gone away, and then who returns,
you do not necessarily have to see that person to detect changes
upon his return. But to know he has returned, you must definitely
be able to point to something which is visible and which cannot
be explained by anything but his return.
> Jesus did not say that and He did not say that His Kingdom
> would be physical. In fact, He said the opposite.
>
> The Jews today, as the Pharisees then, awaited a physical
> kingdom. In fact, isn't that why they reject Christ as
> Messiah? Because they don't see a physical kingdom set up?
> But how did Jesus respond to their demand for a physical
> kingdom?
>
> Luke 17:20-21
>
> 20) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees,
> when the kingdom of God should come, he answered
> them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with
> observation:
>
> Note that the Pharisees wanted to know when the Kingdom
> of God would come to the Earth.
>
> Now what was Jesus' response???
>
> "The Kingdom of God cometh NOT WITH OBSERVATION".
>
> I.e., YOU WON'T SEE IT WITH YOUR EYES! :)
So what makes you think it arrived in 70 AD?
> 21) Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there!
> for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
>
> They WON'T say, "look here, or look there"!
>
> The Kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU. It is NOT a new
> literal, physical kingdom set up after the destruction
> of heaven and earth.
>
> Do you side with the Pharisees, or Jesus?
I side with facts. Claiming that something invisible and undetectable
arrived in 70 AD has no relation to any facts. It is just a meaningless
statement. Something happened, but you can't see it, and nothing
changed. If it didn't happen, everything would be exactly the same.
So all you are doing is stringing words together for some sort of
mental amusement.
Either the return of Jesus in 70 AD had some effect, or it did not.
If there was no effect, then Jesus is ineffective. What sort of God
is ineffective?
> >> >> That's one of the things that
> >> >> the quote above shows. New Jerusalem is us, the church.
> >> >> The angel says to John, "Let me show you THE BRIDE.
> >> >> And what does the angel show him? New Jerusalem.
> >> >> Who is the bride of Christ? THE CHURCH. Thus, it is
> >> >> not a literal city and it is already here.
> >> >
> >> >Notice how both of you are adding words to what's
> >> >in the Bible. You have to do this, because the Bible itself
> >> >is too vague in many of these passages to have a specific
> >> >meaning.
> >>
> >> I did not add any words at all.
> >
> >Where does the Bible say: "Thus, it is not a literal
> >city and it is already here"?
>
> Where does the Bible say that it is? You are completely
> ignoring what the Bible does say.
So you are saying that all those millions of people who read the Bible
and get the idea that the return of Jesus is some kind of noticeable
event are just wrong about what the Bible says?
Look, I know the Bible says a lot of things. It's a hodge-podge written
by dozens of people over centuries, and then assembled by committee
centuries later. So of course people can get all sorts of different
doctrines
depending on which parts of the "the" Bible they choose to emphasize
or ignore.
The verse says "city," and your brain blanks that word out and
inserts something else. Do you have some kind of mental
condition?
If you think John meant something other than "city" when
he wrote "city," then why do you think Jesus really meant you
won't see the kingdom of God? Maybe Jesus really meant something
else.
If you say you can rewrite one part of the Bible, what's to stop anyone
from rewriting any other part?
I'm not saying you shouldn't revise the Bible; you have to, if you want
to concoct something resembling a coherent belief system, because
the Bible is riddled with contradictions. You simply have to
arbitrarily
choose to take some parts more literally than others. But to claim
your arbitrary interpretation scheme is somehow more valid than
anyone else's is about as silly as claiming Jesus is alive right
now and Santa Claus isn't.
Believing in Santa Claus is just as valid as believing in Jesus. There
is
no evidence for the existence of either one. There is also no way to
disprove the existence of either one. Jesus and Santa Claus are in a
dead heat as far as existence is concerned.
> >If John meant church why didn't he say church instead of
> >city?
>
> Because John didn't create the vision. And again,
> you ignore what the text says, thinking that your questions
> will somehow erase the words of the Bible.
You're the one erasing the word "city." Everybody knows what a
city is. If the Bible can say "city" and mean something else, then
maybe when the Bible says "church" or "bride" it means something
else.
> The bride of Christ is the church and that is Biblical fact.
The only fact is that you choose to take the word "church"
literally when it appears in the Bible, but you take the word "city"
to mean something else.
The average person understands what "church" means, just as
the average person understands what "city" means. Why do you
think the Bible uses the word "church" in a sense close to the
commonsense definition, but uses the word "city" means something
else altogether?
And is your interpretation of "city" consistent? The Bible talks about
a lot of cities. Do you think in all those instances the Bible was not
talking about literal cities, but something else?
How do you know when to take the Bible literally, and when to say
it means something other than what it says?
> John the Baptist, speaking of Christ and His followers:
>
> "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of
> the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth
> greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy
> therefore is fulfilled." - John 3:29
Did he say the bride is a city?
> Paul, speaking of presenting the church as a virgin bride...
How quaint.
> "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have
> espoused you to one husband, that I may present you
> as a chaste virgin to Christ." - 2 Corinthians 11:2
Again, nothing about cities. Also, the word "as" makes it
clear a metaphor is in use here. The verse that describes
the city descending from heaven does not say "as a city."
It plainly describes a city.
> The bride is the church, period. Now read the text.
Paul said the church is "as" a bride.
> Revelation 21:1,9-10
>
> 1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the
> first heaven and the first earth had passed away.
> 9) And one of the seven angels who had the seven
> vials full of the seven last plagues came to me and
> talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show you
> the bride, the Lamb's wife.
> 10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great
> and high mountain and showed me that great city, the
> holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God
>
> The angel told John that he was showing him the bride.
> The angel showed John New Jerusalem.
Yes, a city.
> Believe it, don't believe it. That's up to you.
> It does not change the text.
There's nothing in the text about a city/bride/church descending
invisibly, undetectably, and ineffectively from heaven in 70 AD.
You're trying to make sense of some ancient writings that are
basically nonsense. So you have to cheat by claiming you can
fulfill the Biblical prophecies with an invisible event.
The Jehovah's Witnesses play the same silly game. They kept
predicting Jesus' return by some future date, which came and went
with nothing obvious occurring, so they fudged and said Jesus had
returned "invisibly."
Whatever is that supposed to mean?
Do you understand what the word "mean" means? A word "means"
something if we can associate it with some sort of perceptible
object, event, experience, action, or something.
> >> >How do you know when the Bible is an allegory,
> >> >and when to take it literally?
> >>
> >> Your question is designed to avoid dealing with
> >> the fact of what I said.
> >
> >Specifically, I am asking how you know John means "church"
> >when he writes "city."
> >
> >You "know" this not because John said it, but because you are
> >choosing to reject a literal interpretation of John's words and
> >substitute an allegorical interpretation instead.
> >
> >You are free to believe whatever you like, but if you lie about
> >what you are doing, I will refute your lies.
>
> And yet, you have been unable to do that, because they are
> not lies. What is a lie, is your claim.
John did not write that the church descended as a city. He wrote that
a city descended.
Paul was more precise when he described the church "as a bride."
Do you understand the difference between a metaphor and a literal
declarative statement?
When the Bible relates the parables of Jesus, it tips off the reader
with "and he spake unto them with parables." The author is making
sure we know not to take the stories literally.
Where does Revelation say "None of this stuff actually happened the
way I am literally describing it"?
> >> >Why do you proclaim as fact what is merely your opinion?
> >>
> >> The text says it clearly. Thus, it is not "my opinion".
> >
> >The text clearly says a city descended from heaven.
>
> Revelation is a book of symbolism
Then how do you know when Revelation says "church" it literally means
"church"?
What is your formula for determining when God means what he says
and when he means something else altogether?
You remind me of the character from Alice in Wonderland who says,
"Every word I use means exactly what I choose it to mean. Nothing more,
and nothing less."
To make any sense at all of the Bible you must go
eenie-meenie-miney-moe
and pick some words to have literal meaning, and from them you can bend
all the other words around as necessary to fit.
Your error is being unaware of your own inconsistency. When you see the
word "church" you immediately sieze upon its literal meaning, because
that
makes sense to your cognitive system. It never occurs to you to
question
whether "church" might mean something other than the literal church.
Then you bend and twist all the other words as necessary to make them
fit.
> and you refute your
> own argument, when you claim that it is a literal city and
> yet, you do not await a literal beast to rise up out of the
> water.
Just because I can see that the Bible really says something does not
mean
I expect the Bible is really correct about what it really says.
Lots of people write lots of incorrect things, but we can be pretty
sure about
what they wrote. For example, if I write 2 + 2 = 5, that is wrong in
the
standard version of arithmetic, and you can be pretty sure what I mean
by
2 and 5. When I wrote 5 I did not mean 12 or 6 or 3.
> And we both know that you also believe in a new heaven
> and earth, in which only the righteous dwell. And since
> you do, please tell me, who are those outside of the gates?
Actually I believe everyone defines "righteous" differently from
everyone else, and even differently from himself at different times.
There are some actions most people can disapprove of, but even there
no two people disapprove to exactly the same extent. That is, for
example,
why people disagree on just how much they should pay in taxes to
oppose various types of crime.
> The end timers (no offense, it just means anyone
> who is still waiting for Jesus to return)
If you don't want to offend them, describe them with the label
they assign to themselves.
Would you refer to African-Americans as something other than
"African-Americans"?
> tell us that
> in this new heaven and earth scenario, that there
> will be no more death. They refer us to Revelation
> and show us the following passage, which comes
> after it talks about the new heaven and earth being
> created and the holy city coming down to Earth...
>
> "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes;
> and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow,
> nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for
> the former things are passed away." - Revelation 21:4
>
> However, one of the passages that end timers also
> use, to show that it is a literal, physical, Earthly
> kingdom, is the following passage from Isaiah...
>
> "There shall be no more thence an infant of days,
> nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the
> child shall die a hundred years old; but the sinner
> being a hundred years old shall be accursed."
> - Isaiah 65:20
>
> So I have a question... three actually ("Come, let us
> reason together, saith the Lord.")...
If the Lord knows what's good for him, he won't invite men to "reason."
Reason is the death of religion, because every religion is inherently
unreasonable. It asks us to believe in its particular doctrine by
presenting
arguments that work equally well for Santa Claus.
> Since the end timers take this literally, if there
> is no more death, then how is it that Isaiah,
> who is also talking about the new heaven and
> earth, says that a child will die 100 years old?
> Is there death, or isn't there death?
>
> You see, if we take it literally, then the Bible
> contradicts itself, clear and simple and I'm
> sorry, but there is no way around that fact.
Well of course. I've said so many times. The Bible is full of
contradictions,
and not just about little stuff---if anything the Bible considers worth
discussing
is unimportant.
Therefore, you must arbitrarily select some verses and declare
God wasn't kidding in those, but this other stuff doesn't mean what it
actually says, and you "prove" it by pointing to the verses you
declared
to have literal meaning.
The problem is that different people will select different parts of the
Bible as their literal starting point. The "end timers" as you call
them
start with a different set of verses to take literally.
It's like trying to squeeze the air bubbles out from a window decal.
You push the bubble down in one spot, and it must pop up in another
spot.
It's just like the question of why you regard certain ancient writings
as "scripture" while others are not "worthy" to be part of the canon.
All attempts to define a formula for judging the scripture-worthiness
of an ancient writing must boil down to circular reasoning. Ultimately,
whatever you put in the Bible, you put there BECAUSE YOU LIKED IT!
Or because you simply accepted what some committee of men liked
at one time in the past, while rejecting what other committees of other
men liked.
Not too surprisingly, different people like different things, so the
major branches of Christianity each recognize their own distinct
Bibles.
There's no getting around the FACT that everybody invents his own
religion. No two people believe EXACTLY the same religion, just
as no two people speak EXACTLY the same language. Your language
is your idiolect, and your religion is your idio-faith. Trying to
"prove"
your religion is the correct one is like trying to "prove" your
language
is the correct one. Both are simply mental constructs that will die
with you.
> My second question is... If the old heaven and
> earth have passed away and the judgment has
> taken place and all of the sinners are thrown in
> the lake of fire (Rev 20:11-5), which happens
> before the new heaven and earth, then who are
> these people outside the gates of the New Jerusalem,
> in the following passage, which comes after all of this
> has taken place...
>
> Revelation 22:14-15
>
> 14) Blessed are they that do his commandments,
> that they may have right to the tree of life, and
> may enter in through the gates into the city.
> 15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and
> whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters,
> and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
I don't know. I wouldn't want the hopeless task of trying to turn the
Bible into a coherent statement of fact.
Jeeze, if you think making sense of Revelation is tough, try the other
end of the Bible. Genesis starts off with a creation story that science
has proven to be total horseshit.
At least with Revelation, you might safely relegate the nonsense to
some future time, where science can't disprove it yet.
> Now please don't tell me that they're people who
> sinned after the judgment. No one, knowing the
> fate of those who sinned, is going to leave the
> presence of God and sin, so that He can throw
> them into the lake of fire. That's RIDICULOUS
> to propose! Especially considering we are all
> supposedly given new bodies and are free of
> our sinful natures.
I agree that if you attempt to read the entire Bible literally, you
would
have to reject all vestiges of logical thinking to keep your head from
exploding.
I'm simply pointing out the FACT that any choice of which part of the
Bible to take literally, and which parts to bend and twist to fit, is
100% pull-it-from-your-butt arbitrary. There's nothing in the Bible,
and nothing falling from the sky from God, that says "Here is what
the Bible really means." Whoever wrote the Bible left it up to every
reader to decide for himself what it means. Not surprisingly, there
are tens of thousands of distinct doctrinal interpretations of the
Bible.
> And we should note that the text doesn't say that
> they get destroyed after that, so now you have God
> taking refuge in the holy city, the New Jerusalem.
> Yup. God is forced to hide out in this New Jerusalem,
> in order to be free of sinners, since He cannot allow
> sin into His presence. Thus, you make a refugee
> out of God.
Oh, it's much worse than that. It's quite easy to make a SINNER out of
God!
For example, if you knew your neighbor was a pedophile wanted by
police, and you did not turn him in, you would be almost an accessory
to his crimes. Certainly you would be a SINNER if you could stop the
pedophile and you did nothing.
God knows where all the pedophiles are, and he does not report
them to the police. Therefore God is a SINNER!
The problem for God is that he was invented by a bunch of ancient
people who didn't know much and who hadn't thought these things
through.
> This leads me to my third question...
>
> Question number 3 is, Given your scenario of
> literalism, which places God as having created
> this new heaven and earth, which taking their
> conclusion to its logical end, has the earth
> getting corrupted by sinners again, how do
> they explain God having to take refuge in the
> holy city, the New Jerusalem, since He cannot
> live in the presence of sin? Did God give up
> His perfect and holy Heaven, only to move
> down here, to Earth, where the crime rate
> would once again soar?
You're making an argument of incredulity. Something doesn't make sense
to you, therefore it cannot be.
I don't know about you, but I have found the world to be capable of
some
things even when I don't understand them.
Look, if you want to believe the Bible, you have to believe in a
sinless God
who is an accessory to sin. All you can do with the logical
contradictions
in your belief system is to ignore them. You can't make them go away no
matter what sort of contortions you resort to.
> "Come, let us reason together...".
If we reason together, reason compels us to admit we simply don't know
whether Jesus is alive right now, just as we simply don't know whether
Santa Claus is alive right now. All we know about either one is that we
have no reason to believe they are alive.
Reason dictates that when we don't know something, we simply admit that
we don't know it, and we refrain from claiming we know more than we can
possibly know.
You don't know what happens when you die. You cannot know. You have
not died---I mean really died, with your brain decaying into mush,
beyond
any possibility of revival. You cannot communicate with anybody who has
died.
There is simply no reasonable basis for declaring your brand of
Christianity
to be true and all other brands to be false to varying degrees. Let
alone all
the other religions. The evidence for all their supernatural claims is
the same:
there isn't any.
Where humans are able to reason, they almost all agree. For example,
once upon a time most people believed the Earth was flat. Now almost
everybody knows the Earth is spheroidal. The evidence is irrefutable to
any reasonable human who examines the evidence.
That's the sort of thing people can "reason" about.
You cannot "reason" about why you arbitrarily select some parts of
the Bible as your literal starting point and then bend and twist the
other parts to fit. You could just as well have started with some other
verses, like the way the "end timers" did. And of course there are
thousands of denominations, schisms, and sects each with its
own formula for interpreting the Bible. And the other major religions
suffer from the same problem because their holy books are just as
sloppily written. In Islam, the Sunnis and Shi'ites take turns killing
each other over whatever nonsense they disagree about.
> Now go ahead. Refute these "lies". You are calling
> the Bible a lie.
The Bible demonstrably contains lies. For example, the Book of Genesis
clearly contradicts the facts about the origin of Earth and living
things.
The story of Noah and the Flood is complete nonsense. Even by the year
1800, the early geologists had found irrefutable evidence that could
not
possibly fit with the notion of a global flood recent enough for humans
to
have witnessed and left written records of.
But the lie I am talking about is different: your lie. You pretend
to use "reason" to determine what the Bible really means. But you
are not reasoning from facts. You are arbitrarily (i.e. for no reason)
picking some verses to be your literal starting point. You could just
as
reasonably throw darts at the Bible to select other verses.
If you want to be honest, just admit there is no reason to believe your
particular religion any more than anybody else's religion. Your beliefs
are no more reasonable than Osama bin Laden's, or a Hindu's, or a
Buddhist's.
Of course you cannot admit that because you are not honest. To be
honest, the first step is comprehending that just like everyone else,
you too have a cognitive system, and nobody's cognitive system is
a 100% correct interpretation of reality. There are only some that
work better than others, in some ways. Almost all of the recent
worthwhile progress has resulted from cognitive systems based at
least in part on the scientific method, which every religion
categorically
rejects.
-- the Danimal
Pastor Dave
<dmo...@mfm.com> spake thusly:
>I'm not saying you shouldn't revise the Bible; you have to, if you want
>to concoct something resembling a coherent belief system, because
>the Bible is riddled with contradictions.
You are wasting my time. I don't discuss the deeper matters
of Scripture, with those who reject God in the first place.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury
Pete Turk
<1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes
>On 8 Nov 2005 19:12:06 -0800, "the Danimal"
><dmo...@mfm.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>>I'm not saying you shouldn't revise the Bible; you have to, if you want
>>to concoct something resembling a coherent belief system, because
>>the Bible is riddled with contradictions.
>
>You are wasting my time. I don't discuss the deeper matters
>of Scripture, with those who reject God in the first place.
>
<translation>
This guy's too much for me! I _daren't_ face up to
what he's saying. I'll hunker down in this mental
Laager of mine for awhile. I just hope he goes away.
Perhaps I should think twice about crossposting into
alt.romance, alt.soulmates and soc.singles.
</translation>
'Illuminated missals -- spires --
Wide screens and decorated quires --
All these I loved and on my knees
I thanked myself for knowing these
And watched the morning sunlight pass
Through richly-stained Victorian glass
And in the colour-shafted air
I, kneeling, thought the Lord was there.
Now, lying in the gathering mist,
I know that Lord did not exist.'
-- John Betjeman 'Before the Anaesthetic
or A Real Fright' 1948
Jim Ledford
> Pastor Dave wrote:
> > the Danimal" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'm not saying you shouldn't revise the Bible; you have to, if you want
> >>to concoct something resembling a coherent belief system, because
> >>the Bible is riddled with contradictions.
> >
> >You are wasting my time. I don't discuss the deeper matters
> >of Scripture, with those who reject God in the first place.
> >
>
> <translation>
>
> This guy's too much for me! I _daren't_ face up to
> what he's saying. I'll hunker down in this mental
> Laager of mine for awhile. I just hope he goes away.
>
> Perhaps I should think twice about crossposting into
> alt.romance, alt.soulmates and soc.singles.
>
> </translation>
>
dave pretty much lives under attack from those who don't
appreciate how he insults and then retreats. I kind of
feel sorry for dave and when he gets mad I just back off
and let him be unto himself.
have a nice day Pete.
>
> Pete Turk <Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk> ICQ# 11981084
> RFA President and Moonshadow
> --
> May your doorstep ever be dirty.
> -- Romany blessing
for efficacious efficiency and multi tasking,
nothing beats a good straw broom.
Pete Turk
<jim...@bellsouth.net> writes
>Pete Turk wrote:
>
>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>> > the Danimal" wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>I'm not saying you shouldn't revise the Bible; you have to, if you want
>> >>to concoct something resembling a coherent belief system, because
>> >>the Bible is riddled with contradictions.
>> >
>> >You are wasting my time. I don't discuss the deeper matters
>> >of Scripture, with those who reject God in the first place.
>> >
>>
>> <translation>
>>
>> This guy's too much for me! I _daren't_ face up to
>> what he's saying. I'll hunker down in this mental
>> Laager of mine for awhile. I just hope he goes away.
>>
>> Perhaps I should think twice about crossposting into
>> alt.romance, alt.soulmates and soc.singles.
>>
>> </translation>
>>
>
>dave pretty much lives under attack from those who don't
>appreciate how he insults and then retreats. I kind of
>feel sorry for dave and when he gets mad I just back off
>and let him be unto himself.
>
>have a nice day Pete.
>
'Yes, I am proud; I must be proud to see
Men not afraid of God, afraid of me:
Safe from the Bar, the Pulpit, and the Throne,
Yet touch'd and sham'd by Ridicule alone.
O sacred Weapon! left for Truth's defence,
Sole Dread of Folly, Vice, and Insolence!'
-- Alexander Pope 'Epilogue to the Satires II'
Jim Ledford
> Jim Ledford wrote:
> > Pete Turk wrote:
> >> Pastor Dave wrote:
> >> > the Danimal wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>I'm not saying you shouldn't revise the Bible; you have to, if you want
> >> >>to concoct something resembling a coherent belief system, because
> >> >>the Bible is riddled with contradictions.
> >> >
> >> >You are wasting my time. I don't discuss the deeper matters
> >> >of Scripture, with those who reject God in the first place.
> >> >
> >>
> >> <translation>
> >>
> >> This guy's too much for me! I _daren't_ face up to
> >> what he's saying. I'll hunker down in this mental
> >> Laager of mine for awhile. I just hope he goes away.
> >>
> >> Perhaps I should think twice about crossposting into
> >> alt.romance, alt.soulmates and soc.singles.
> >>
> >> </translation>
> >>
> >
> >dave pretty much lives under attack from those who don't
> >appreciate how he insults and then retreats. I kind of
> >feel sorry for dave and when he gets mad I just back off
> >and let him be unto himself.
> >
> >have a nice day Pete.
> >
>
> 'Yes, I am proud; I must be proud to see
> Men not afraid of God, afraid of me:
> Safe from the Bar, the Pulpit, and the Throne,
> Yet touch'd and sham'd by Ridicule alone.
> O sacred Weapon! left for Truth's defence,
> Sole Dread of Folly, Vice, and Insolence!'
>
> -- Alexander Pope 'Epilogue to the Satires II'
pride defileth the man
--~~ by: God ~~--
Mar 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man,
that defileth the man.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed
evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mar 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit,
lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile
the man.
Pete, the poem you selected was inspiring.
thank you,
Jim
Pete Turk
<jim...@bellsouth.net> writes
likewise, Jim, your own use of the word 'pride'
enlightens one and all ...
There's the _pride_ which is our way of saying what
Romans called _superbitas_ and Greeks call _hubris_
which has far more to do with arrogance than any other
English word.
You're referring to that 'pride', I believe, Jim.
Then there's the pride in yourself when you quietly
pat yourself on the back for being your idea of decent,
your idea of integral, your idea of getting-where-you-
want-to-get-however-gradually.
Do you ever refer to this other 'pride', Jim?
And if you were in fact referring to neither, then
what are you talking about?
'To be nobody-but-yourself in a world which is
doing its best, night and day, to make you
everybody else -- means to fight the hardest
battle which any human being can fight; and
never stop fighting.'
-- e.e.cummings
Jim Ledford
> likewise, Jim, your own use of the word 'pride'
> enlightens one and all ...
>
> There's the _pride_ which is our way of saying what
> Romans called _superbitas_ and Greeks call _hubris_
> which has far more to do with arrogance than any other
> English word.
the Greeks have a word for love it is agapeŻ. to love with pure
charity in ones heart. a benevolence of and or a disposition to do
good with pure acts of kindness. agapeŻ love is the cleanest clearest
act of love one human can give to another human. it is the love Jesus
has for mankind. agapeŻ love is most rare in this day and age where
most humans only seek something in return for anything they give.
>
> You're referring to that 'pride', I believe, Jim.
yes. man has way to much pride in himself in that man thinks he
is the single source of all his achievements. man refuses to give
the GLORY of accomplishment to The Lord God Almighty where all GLORY
rightfully belongs.
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are
in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities,
or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things
consist.
>
> Then there's the pride in yourself when you quietly
> pat yourself on the back for being your idea of decent,
> your idea of integral, your idea of getting-where-you-
> want-to-get-however-gradually.
this reminds me of the dead Jim. the Jim who long ago worked
at ITT as a chip developer. some of the VLSI I designed had
as many as 6000 gate arrays contained in them. my arrogance
from my feelings of a vast superiority over my then assumed
lessors caused me a great loneliness, and at that time some
30 years ago I never understood how I was the source of my own
defeat. fortunately God opened my eyes and as a flower dies
unto itself so that it might produce seed for new life I also
died unto self and was given a new life. a life where now, I do
understand the Greek word agapeŻ.
>
> Do you ever refer to this other 'pride', Jim?
not anymore. humbled and broken of my old sin nature I have
been born again unto a new and better way of life and in this
life all GLORY is given unto The Lord God ALmighty.
>
> And if you were in fact referring to neither, then
> what are you talking about?
God and His love for us ALL. His gift of life eternal is for each
of us and all of us.
>
> 'To be nobody-but-yourself in a world which is
> doing its best, night and day, to make you
> everybody else -- means to fight the hardest
> battle which any human being can fight; and
> never stop fighting.'
>
> -- e.e.cummings
fighting on our own within our own power we fail to obtain
true ever lasting life and we'll never know the purest of
love as defined by the Greek word agapeŻ.
life is a gift from God. life eternal is another gift from God.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
peace unto you Pete,