Based on recent discussions at other blogs, I am offering the opportunity for anyone to pick a topic on which they'd like to focus for the purpose of determining why I believe as I do. In responding, I will not ask any question of my own toward the questioner intending to determine his position, but only to have a question clarified in order to more clearly articulate my position. Here are some qualifications:
1. Should anyone take up the challenge, I reserve the right to pick from amongst multiple topics, which topic I will address.
2. If there appears to be multiple "votes" for any particular topic, I might use that as the determining factor, while still reserving the right to choose.
3. I reserve the right to determine any topic suggested to be inane and idiotic, simply because it strikes me thus. I will allow for brief arguments in response to my rejection, should I post a reason for rejecting it.
4. I WILL delete or mock any attempted abuse of this opportunity. I am sticking my neck out here and would like to believe that risk will be respected.
5. In responding to questions, I may call for relevance. It would save time if the relevance for a question is provided at the same time a question is asked, though it doesn't mean that relevance will be perceived in such a manner that I feel compelled to respond. Likely, I'll simply ask for more explanation.
This is all pretty much how I would like all discussions to run as pertains the seeking of understanding. But as recent discussions have shown, going back and forth often results in tangents, diversions, equivocating and outright dodging of questions. If I restrain my own desire to question my interrogator, it is my hope that I can exhaust any line of questioning on any given topic to the extent that I have a complete and firm position on it.
Anybody up for this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
64 comments:
How could you be Bears fan?
Because they are not the Chiefs.
Next question.
Why do you think the Holy Spirit is trapped in a two thousand year old text thereby closing off the Gospel?
Why do you believe that human beings should not all be equal when it's clear that that is where we are headed anyway?
Why should food, housing, and healthcare not be free when speech and education are?
Why won't you work for a better system than capitalism when it is clear that capitalism only thrives when it makes a lot of people poorer in order to make others rich?
It's my own fault for not spelling things out more plainly so that the highly educated and well read could understand. I don't know why it must be said, and I would have thought such people were intelligent enough to assume, but questions to me should reflect and refer to positions I've actually taken.
Nonetheless, I will respond to the four questions by the false priest.
1. I do not think the Holy Spirit is trapped anywhere.
2. All human beings are equal in the sense that they should be treated as such under the law. This is something highly educated and well read intellectuals should already know. But people are not equal in the sense of being identical and therefore capable of doing the same things equally well, and thus are not entitled to anything but that which they are capable of acquiring or doing.
3. Freedom of speech was intended to provide the liberty to speak against the government without fear of prosecution or persecution for merely disagreeing. This is something highly educated and well read intellectuals should already know.
I do not believe that education should be "free" and never truly has been. Our tax dollars pay for public education. But aside from vast problems with the current system, I would only see it amended and improved and not eliminated. We need to improve it so that kids are actually educated and also imbued with wisdom so as to limit the numbers of highly educated and well read like feo who are as intelligent as a box of rocks.
Food, housing and health care? Only a highly educated and well read intellectual would suggest that any of that could be or would be actually free. Someone will be paying for it, and right now, there is nothing preventing the highly educated and well read intellectual from providing free food, housing and health care for as many people as they like. Put up or shut up, feo.
4. One would think a highly educated and well read intellectual would know how capitalism works before suggesting that it only thrives when it makes a lot of people poorer in order to make others rich. In fact, it's a completely stupid and baseless thing to say even for a highly educated and well read intellectual. But feo's special that way. There is no better economic system available to us than capitalism for providing the most opportunity for the most people willing to assert themselves. In the meantime, highly educated and well read intellectuals like feo should immediately cease making others poorer in their quest to enrich themselves, and instead, do what most of the wealthy do and provide goods and services of higher quality at better prices. The people you've driven into poverty will thank you for it.
1. I see. The problem isn't what you believe, it's that you can't see what you believe - you don't your faith as it is in real life.
Millions of gay and lesbian folks praying in church today, leading worship, presiding over the sacraments, their faith shaping and informed by their identities.
But you just can't acknowledge the freedom of the Holy Spirit, not because you don't believe it, but because you refuse to allow it.
2. It's often the laws that keep people from being equal. This is where you can't think. Laws are passed by the majorities. So, often, they laws themselves are unequal.
Try to be a little deeper, Marshall.
3. You've said nothing about the freedom of speech as free - you've only commented on one sense for which speech can be used. You'v again used diversion to divert from the point.
Tax dollars go to a lot of things. Roads, for instance. But we often have to pay for cars and gas, etc. Nonetheless, the roads are free to use on a daily basis.
Tax dollars also are used to protect free speech. Nothing is essentially free, but only relatively so.
Free speech and education and voting are relatively free. This is so because the founding policies of the country were often wary of creating a terrific gap between elites and common people such as yourself.
So, two hundred years later, why shouldn't food, housing, and healthcare -- all basic human needs be more equitably or justly secured for all our citizens?
Here we have an issue where it's not that you can't see what you believe, but you really aren't aware of what you believe.
4. You don't anything about economics and economic systems, do you? It wasn't a fair question to give you.
Here's a hint: when you list countries by GNP per capita, the US is 7th. After countries with socialized domestic policies.
So here's a case of what you believe simple being massively uninformed.
"I see. The problem isn't what you believe, it's that you can't see what you believe - you don't your faith as it is in real life."
No. The problem is that you lack the honesty to deal in reality, projecting upon me what you need to be real in order to maintain your false and perverse stance of moral superiority.
"Millions of gay and lesbian folks praying in church today, leading worship, presiding over the sacraments, their faith shaping and informed by their identities."
Whereas real Christians shape and form their identities by their faith and the true teachings of Scripture. Thanks for proving that you, and those like you, are idolatrous self-worshipers, putting your own desires and preferences above the Will of God.
"But you just can't acknowledge the freedom of the Holy Spirit..."
What I acknowledge regarding the Holy Spirit, because it is true, is that It will not contradict the teachings of Scripture. It will not, through the desperate desires of morally bankrupt people, like yourself, make what is sinful into something good. It cannot. Only false priests would insist otherwise.
"It's often the laws that keep people from being equal. This is where you can't think. Laws are passed by the majorities. So, often, they laws themselves are unequal."
When you can find such a law and show how I've supported it, then you can comment in such a way. As such, this supposition of yours is irrelevant as support no such law. If you are referring to state constitutional amendments codifying the actual definition of marriage, then you are, as usual, off base. None of these laws/amendments deny licensing on the basis of so-called "orientation". They apply equally to everyone based on the criteria of each state's laws for license qualification. The underage can marry once they are of age. Those who are horny can marry those for whom they are horny as long as they pick just one of them to marry. Those who are hot for their mothers can marry as long as they are not related to the person they choose to marry. And those who get a tingle for someone of the same gender can marry as long as they pick someone of the opposite gender. No one is denied. If you wish to regard yourself as unequal because you cannot marry in a manner not covered by your state's criteria for qualifying for a license, that is a personal problem, an inferiority complex, a false charge of victimhood, for which there are professional counselors available. But there is no "inequality" simply because you want what the law does not provide you. Whiner.
Try to be a little more honest.
"You've said nothing about the freedom of speech as free - you've only commented on one sense for which speech can be used. You'v again used diversion to divert from the point."
I've referred to the intention of the 1st Amendment regarding free speech. There is no other understanding that matters, unless you are inventing another idiotic point to defend. Thus, it is you who is diverting by bringing this up in a comment regarding what is or isn't free for all.
"Here we have an issue where it's not that you can't see what you believe, but you really aren't aware of what you believe."
Here we have another issue where you see what doesn't exist, and then hope to project upon someone with 20/20 vision an inability from which he doesn't in the least bit suffer.
If you actually have a point in bringing up what is, isn't or should or shouldn't be free, make it in a manner that indicates you can form a coherent one.
"Here's a hint: when you list countries by GNP per capita, the US is 7th. After countries with socialized domestic policies."
Here's a hint: When people like you vote for the people you vote for, no economic system will benefit anyone. It isn't capitalism that has put us in 7th place. It is the policies of people you help put into office because of your own lack of intelligence in understanding how economics works.
... "real Christians shape and form their identities by their faith and the true teachings of Scripture."
Almost exactly what I said in describing what our gay Christian brothers and sisters do.
With this exception: it does go in the other direction as well. Modern identities also shape and inform faith. Thus, we no longer hold with "women shall be silent in the church." Women are fully equal in spiritual, pastoral, and sacramental leadership and communal faith.
Again, Marshall, if all you are going to do is spew that lukewarm regurgitated knee jerk reflex spit of faith of yours, then no one is going to learn anything genuine about why you believe the crap that you do. Or why you can't apply the few genuine nods you give to heaven.
___________
"What I acknowledge regarding the Holy Spirit, because it is true, is that It will not contradict the teachings of Scripture."
You don't know Scripture, then.
"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."
____________
"When you can find such a law and show how I've supported it..."
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2009/03/18/racism-in-legislation-ending-the-rockefeller-drug-laws/
http://www.hrw.org/united-states/us-program/unfair-immigration-policies
____________
"It isn't capitalism that has put us in 7th place. It is the policies of people you help put into office..."
Newsflash, since all you have is unsupported denial: we drop when a Republican is in the White House.
"Almost exactly what I said in describing what our gay Christian brothers and sisters do."
Perhaps in your fevered imaginings absolute opposites are "almost exactly" the same, but not here in the real world. Absolute opposites, which describes our corresponding statements, are by definition, no where near the same, being, you know, absolute opposites. This might be hard for highly educated and well read intellectuals like yourself to understand, but up is simply not down.
And it doesn't go in the other direction as well for any true Christian, because it isn't a matter of going with the flow. "Modern identities" is just a false priest way of saying "I worship myself". Any person of character is a consequence of conscious decisions to be a person of character. Such people do not simply label themselves as such, but work to become and remain people of character. For the true Christian, he studies Scripture to find what pleases God and becomes, to the best of his ability, a person defined by what Scripture teaches regarding what pleases God. His faith in God's existence compels him to change for God's sake, to something pleasing to God, forsaking all worldly influences in order to focus on that which pleases Him.
YOU, on the other hand, dictate to God by your self-serving notions regarding faith being influenced by the effects of the worldly, rather than the other way around like real Christians seek to do.
"Thus, we no longer hold with "women shall be silent in the church.""
When you can present Scriptural support for this change, you'll at least prove you've actually read Scripture. But this change, having no Scriptural basis, is then an example of letting worldliness dictate instead of faith. Indeed, it is clear that this change is the result of whining women and weak-willed men, not people of faith seeking to do God's will. There is no inequality in Scripture's roles for men and women.
_____________________
"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."
On what basis do you take this to mean that the Spirit will guide us away from the clear teachings of Scripture toward that which is contrary to it? What makes you think the Spirit would lead us to anything that is contrary to what Christ taught, especially regarding the fact that He did not come to do away with the Law? You insert your preference into this verse, making it mean what you need it to mean in order to justify your morally corrupt positions.
"When you can find such a law and show how I've supported it..."
You haven't shown in either of your links that the laws referenced therein are "unequal", or applied unequally.
The first is mere race-baiting nonsense. As usual, they whine about being unequally punished for the same crime perpetuated in the same frequency. Nonsense. The first problem here is that they are whining. Secondly, if you get busted, suggesting that others aren't getting the same level of punishment is not a viable argument. Don't break the law and there is no complaint. Third, regardless of how many of each race are getting sentenced, each race is getting sentenced. The law is equally applied.
Sourcing race-baiters is never a good plan if you want to be taken seriously.
Your second link is almost as questionable as the first from the standpoint of the source itself. But worse, it provides no description of just how the laws are resulting in the alleged human rights violations of which it speaks. It seems clear enough that it is referring to those "immigrants" who violate our laws and sneak in without going through the legitimate immigration channels. To then whine that law enforcement is violating their rights is laughable in view of the fact that they broke the law.
So once again (actually twice, since you wasted my time with two irrelevant links) you fail in your typical epic manner. Sad.
________________________________
Newsflash: Read this link, and instead of pretending you know something about what presidents can do, think instead of states long dominated by leftist leaders, like Michigan and Illinois, to see how your brand of politician impacts the economy.
Well there you go, Marshall. I believe in things. I believe in the life of the Holy Spirit. I believe in the hope for true - God given - equality. I believe in people of faith, all people of faith. Because I believe that we are made in God's image ( a part of the Old Testament that you deny). And I believe that those of us who believe can share with God in doing divine work, just as St Peter says.
You can't explain your beliefs. All you have in your soul are stubborn denials.
You're a shame to your own post.
Yes you do, feo. You believe that the Holy Spirit will contradict previous revelations recorded in Scripture. You believe that God/Jesus can say one thing, and later, to people like you, the Holy Spirit will say the exact opposite.
You believe in acquiescing to whiners who cry that they are being treated unequally, when that isn't true.
"I believe in people of faith, all people of faith."
You don't believe in me, Craig, Glenn, Neil, Bubba, Mark, nor anyone else whose faith aligns with the clear teachings of God/Jesus as recorded in Scripture.
I believe we are made in God's image, even false priests like you, and that is the reason why it is wrong to murder, as stated in the Old Testament. I don't believe, like you do, that being made in God's image means we can decide for ourselves what is or isn't sinful.
I believe that people like you share with the Father of Lies in doing evil work. I believe that because it is true based on God's will as recorded in Scripture, which you dismiss in favor of what you falsely attribute to the Holy Spirit.
AS yet, you really haven't asked me to explain my beliefs. Rather, you have asserted and projected on to me beliefs you need me to have in order to rationalize your own false character.
Any time you are ready to actually engage in serious discussion, I'm here for you not holding my breath.
As I wrote, but you can't read, you don't have beliefs to explain. You have denials that you aren't honest enough to own as yours. That's why I dont believe in you and your kind, Vagueries, Inc. You are people of denial not people of faith. Simply read what you write and own it.
feo,
Your arrogance is truly your greatest characteristic. I can't say that I've ever experienced anyone who surpasses you in that regard. It is astounding that you actually insist that you have the insight to suppose that I am in denial about anything that you could possibly discern. It must really chafe your ego to know that your pathetic attempts to posture yourself as intellectually superior are wasted here. You're simply not.
"...you don't have beliefs to explain"
What lunacy! You haven't even touched on anything that I do believe. Instead, you've questioned me about things YOU want me to believe so you can justify your irrational attitude toward me and the easy manner in which I continue to shred your failed and laughable posing of intellectualism.
"You have denials that you aren't honest enough to own as yours."
What the hell is this even supposed to mean? What is it you, in your fevered imaginings, think I'm denying? I do deny that you got game, but that's obvious. I do deny that you're a Christian or have any idea what the Christian faith is all about. You prove that with uncanny regularity. You've done it in this very thread with your twisted and unBiblical understanding of the Holy Spirit.
Why don't you just put on your big boy pants, drop the pretense, which only makes you look like an unholy idiot, and actually engage like a mature adult who at least tries to act like the Christian you wish you were? You'll find it much easier sailing than trying to score points despite your inability to do so.
Again, I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to be a man. You're much to heavily invested in being something far less. But it's "Anything Can Happen Day", so who knows?
I'm curious as to why God would have stopped inspiring scripture around 2,000 years ago, apparently ceasing to inspire his Word after only 2/3 of history.
Thoughts?
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."
I've been engaging in necropharmacology on you.
Jim,
Two problems with your question:
1. I don't see as how that complies with the purpose of this thread as stated in the very first sentence of the post. That is, when have I ever stated that I believe that God stopped inspiring Scripture? Which leads to...
2. Do you understand the concept of God inspiring Scripture? When a person or event inspires a movie, does it continue to inspire after the movie is made? I don't think so. Inspiration drives the making of the movie, or the writing of a text. After the task if written, it is then a question of whether or not one is inspired to read the text.
In short, you question is really inane. Feel free to try again.
feo,
It isn't so much that I have a problem with people like yourself (God help us if there are too many) making assertions. It's the unsupported assertions that stand as lie without that support. Clearly, yours are a case of bearing false witness or you would provide that support and explain how it...you know...supports your assertion.
Case in point: Where have I demonstrated that I've renounced the use and authority of reason. You have yet to demonstrate that my reasoning is unsound in any way. You only whine in a manner that reiterates that you don't like the conclusions to which my reasoning leads me. But I knew that already, just as I know, for example, that Dan doesn't agree with my conclusions. Fine. Explain where I go wrong. It would seem to me that such that seems so obvious should be equally easy to explain, even for a highly educated and well read false priest such as yourself. And hey! That should be an example for you. I don't merely assert that you're a false priest. I constantly expose you as such when I respond to your poor understanding of Scripture you seek to employ to condemn me, your poor application of Scripture in those few instances you attempt to demonstrate superior understanding and of course in pointing out your very unChristian use of the derogatory.
Point 2: You've yet to show how I in any way hold humanity in contempt. Is it because I hold YOU in contempt that you then suppose that to me you represent all of humanity? Despite the fact that we are all born into sin, I just couldn't exist in this world believing YOU are representative of my fellow man. That would be just too much to bear. No. What is true is that you need to believe I hold humanity in concept in order for you to somehow hold moral high ground, given that your support of immoral behavior won't allow for a legitimate placement there.
You have been engaging in mere sophistry, self-delusion, the bearing of false witness (not unexpected considering your priesthood) and self-worship. What you haven't done is demonstrate a capability for engaging in mature and honest disagreement. Fortunately for you, my contempt for you does not squeeze out hope that you could repent and overcome your cherished shortcomings.
Marshall believes God is only as great and free as Steven Spielberg's Lincoln. So not as great, really, as Spielberg.
Reasonable.
And there you go again making another unsupported assertion. This thread was supposed to be dealing with my actual positions, not with what you want to believe my positions are. I find it incredibly sad that you don't possess the integrity and honesty to engage accordingly. Not surprised, of course, just incredibly saddened.
Indeed, if you has any honorable intention of determining just what my position on a previously discussed topic is, or my positions on most anything, for that matter, this thread stands as the perfect opportunity for that purpose. It seems fairly obvious, unfortunately (but again, not surprisingly), that you are far more concerned with engaging in a very non-Christian demonizing. How that squares with your alleged faith is anyone's guess.
Here's a hint for you, false priest: I believe God is indeed great and worthy of all praise and adoration. What you mean by "free" is likely to include free to inform decadent and immoral people like yourself of something that totally contradicts what He has revealed to us already, as recorded in Scripture. That's not really a belief, though. That's a fervent hope of someone who can find no legitimate justification in Scripture for choosing to believe that sinful behaviors have been somehow elevated to non-sinful status, if not outright blessed.
Mark,
"when have I ever stated that I believe that God stopped inspiring Scripture?"
What exactly IS Scripture?
feo,
I'm saddened, though again, not the least bit surprised, that you continue to lie or post false assertions without corroborating evidence in support. As such, I will continue to delete such childishness.
Jim,
Mark hasn't posted since the very first comment. I'll assume that's a typo.
In any case, I'll bite.
Scripture is the collection of 66 books found in the Christian Bible. What is the purpose of asking this easily researched question? I'm guessing somehow it relates to your weird question regarding God no longer inspiring what He had already inspired.
Look, perhaps you and feo don't understand the concept of inspiration. Inspiration is a cause. It is only ongoing if what it compels is not yet completed. That is to say, if one is inspired to act, one might feel inspired throughout the commission of the act. Once the act is completed, however, there is no more inspiration as what was inspired has come to pass. Thus, that act was inspired, but the act, having been completed is no longer inspired.
Now, Scripture might inspire us as we read it. It would be nice if it inspired feo to a life of Christian faith, rather than his nonsensical bastardization. Indeed, something more satanic inspires him to pretend he cares about Scripture and its teaches, to say nothing of Who inspired Scripture to begin with.
But inspiration is akin to provocation, to being compelled. It is causal. It happens before. Scripture was written as a result of divine inspiration.
I hope this clears up your confusion.
Yes, I meant Marshall.
I asked the question because I wanted to understand the precise definition of "Scripture" from an expert on the subject. I believe you have given it to me here.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will), but the last of those books were inspired sometime over the first century CE or almost 2,000 years ago. Furthermore, there were a number of books that some religious leaders considered to be inspired while others apparently did not, but generally the list of 66 was determined by certainly inspired men around the 4th century CE.
My question is, if Scripture was inspired by God, and surely it is, and God started with Moses, why did he stop with John and Paul in the first century?
Or has God not stopped inspiring others to write Scripture and there is no council today to judge that such inspirations are worthy of being named Scripture?
I'm shocked! Shocked that when your stupidity becomes clear to you, you would delete the evidence.
Especially since all I did was quote you and illustrate what you said.
But, it's consistent with your character.
Once again, feo, since this seems difficult for a highly educated and well read intellectual to grasp, assertions are not facts, and you have yet to demonstrate stupidity on my part. I was going to add "try as you might" at the end of the previous sentence, but you don't really try to support anything you say, you just say it.
Sure, you quoted me, but then you asserted a meaning that you didn't even try to corroborate. It stands as mere assertion at best, but the reality is that you are simply lying and talking trash. But, it's consistent with your character. Grow up.
Jim,
"I asked the question because I wanted to understand the precise definition of "Scripture" from an expert on the subject."
I'm no expert, nor have I ever claimed to be or sought to project that notion.
You still seem to have some trouble with the concept of the Bible as a tome inspired by God. This is something Paul has stated in one way or another, and with which others have concurred, including most Christians. That isn't to say that God doesn't inspire people in other ways to do any number of things.
The problem is in suggesting that somehow, all one has to do is presume to be inspired by God and it doesn't matter what belief or action results, but that the insistence that it was inspired by God, or in feo's case, the Holy Spirit, and the rest of the world must regard it as on the same level as Scripture itself. How do the rest of us judge this? We cannot, of course. This inability on our part to assess the credibility of such claims does not in any way mitigate the truth of the claim that Scripture is inspired by God. All we can do is to compare the new "inspiration" to see if it in any way conforms with Scripture, which is our only reliable source, as well as an example for the logic of the "inspiration".
For example, feo's insistence that "equality", by which he sometimes means those who engage in homosexual behavior, is the work of the Spirit. But where in Scripture do we sin, especially one so distinctly condemned as this particular abomination, later blessed by God as a good or beneficial action pleasing to God? There is no such evidence for such an occurrence. feo would look to the role of women in the church as evidence of such a shift. But this is not something we can justifiably ascribe to the work of the Spirit as much as to the desires of mankind. Paul seems to be the last word on the subject with no later contradiction in Scripture that I can recall. Paul was more than just inspired, as you may remember. He was spoken to directly by Christ Himself.
Regarding other books not included in Scripture, those authors may indeed have felt inspired. But the authors of the 66 don't necessarily make the claim and thus are included. The claim is made by those who included them. However, I'm not sure that that claim, regardless of who made it about any given book, is the reason it was included anyway. That is, not amongst the criteria considered for inclusion.
As to inspiration now, 2000 years removed from the most important events, does God inspire? Of course He does. But for the observer to determine what is or isn't, a comparison to Scripture is all we've got, otherwise any preferred crapola qualifies if one insists one is so inspired. Are you so gullible that such is all it takes to form a basis for belief? If the "inspired" works consist of anything in direct contradiction to Biblical teaching, I would expect that honorable men would at the very least, reserve judgement.
"You still seem to have some trouble with the concept of the Bible as a tome inspired by God."
Not at all. I understand it completely.
"and the rest of the world must regard it as on the same level as Scripture itself.
I'm not saying that at all. What I'm asking is how do we know that the 66 books chosen in the 4th century from a greater number of available books are the last works inspired by God that He intended to be considered worthy of the description of "Scripture"?
"a comparison to Scripture is all we've got"
How does one compare? Isn't the New Testament quite different from the Old yet I say unto you, "Is it not Scripture?"
"You still seem to have some trouble with the concept of the Bible as a tome inspired by God."
...I said, and you responded...
"Not at all. I understand it completely."
Then why ask? Again, when have I ever stated that I believe that God stopped inspiring Scripture?
"What I'm asking is how do we know that the 66 books chosen in the 4th century from a greater number of available books are the last works inspired by God that He intended to be considered worthy of the description of "Scripture"?"
And I would like to know why you feel compelled to ask me? Did you think the purpose of this post is to simply ask me absolutely anything that flies out of the nether regions of your mind? I'm pretty sure the purpose was to ask questions related to things I've discussed, but I guess I wasn't specific enough. Fine. I'll assume you aren't just playing games and respond nonetheless, assuming also that you are up for speculation, since such a question can only provoke speculation. I cannot presume to know the minds of those who made such decisions, but I can presume that they, too, were inspired by God, as well as knowledgeable enough to know which were most appropriate for inclusion.
Were other books not included inspired by God as well? Who knows? What does it matter? Are you lobbying to have the Bible revamped? Do you have any reason to believe that some or any books not included were indeed inspired by God?
There are those that would ascribe all manner of nefarious reasons why those who decided omitted some books, favoring those included over them. I have never seen anyone provide any evidence that those deciding made their decisions out of anything more than a studied and carefully considered methodology that resulted in the Bible as we now have it. If the Gospel According to Thomas, Judas, Mary or Bob didn't make the cut, it was likely for reasons having to do with either repetition, nothing to corroborate what it claimed within, the time in which it was written being too distant from the events of which it spoke and for outright BS. Overall, I have faith that if God intended that any of those books should be included, they would have been included. Why do you doubt?
"How does one compare?"
How does one compare anything, Jim? By putting the two together and seeing if they conform. The Bible is the standard and anything claiming to revelatory must conform with what we have. If you do not understand how the Testaments work together, then you need to do more study. I don't know that I could properly explain it, nor is this the best venue for doing so.
So once again, why these particular questions? I'm certain you have some specific motive for asking beyond mere curiosity. Let's hear it.
"when have I ever stated that I believe that God stopped inspiring Scripture?"
You said that Scripture is the 66 books of the Bible. That implies that God stopped inspiring Scripture almost 2,000 years ago.
"Were other books not included inspired by God as well? Who knows? What does it matter?"
It begs the question: Has God inspired other works SINCE the 4th century CE that HE deems to be Scripture? How do we know that God's word is ONLY 66 books, the last of which was written 2,000 years ago?
When we compare the New Testament to the Old, there are numerous contradictions from one to the other. So how do we know inspired writings from the last two centuries are not intended by God to be Scripture even if they do not conform exactly to earlier writings that are Scripture?
You want to be stroked for your beliefs, Marshall. And beliefs are assertions not facts.
The problem is you don't know what categories are and when you assert one you can't stay consistent to it because you over each what you do know. Which is little enough.
So, to your assertions one can only do two things. Make counter assertions (to which you don't know enough to respond and remain in the categories as you've set them) or show how you are self-contradictory (to which you are not bright enough to deal with but just bright enough to know that you either must change the subject or delete the pertinent parts of conversation).
Here, you've done both.
That's quite a fantasy, feo. It never ceases to entertain how you think you're the least bit capable of knowing my mind.
The problem is that you don't know jack but like to posture yourself as one who does in order to impress. Your failure at accomplishing this is an obvious source of great frustration for you and for that I am very sorry and sore from laughter.
And of course there's the problem of assertions. I defend mine, you just make yours. Your counter assertions are really responses to my debunking and rebutting your initial assertions which are never made with any legitimate evidence in support, if any is provided at all (which is rare). This is never more true in your assertions regarding how I contradict myself. You'll need far more than merely saying so to force that falsehood to be accepted as even possible, much less true.
As to what I delete, I was clear as to why. How pathetic that you now try to project upon me reasons that are also untrue. I continue to pray for your insecurities. What a struggle that must be for you!
The ease with which Marshall rolls out bullshit beliefs belies belief. How simple it is, and natural, for him to jerk God around on a chain that keeps the mystery of the Creator and the life of the spirit from upsetting Marshall's white apple cart. First, God works on a clock. "It [inspiration] is only ongoing if what it compels is not yet completed." Then, he makes God disappear the second John the Evangelist puts down his pen; God and his inspiration have to flee. "Thus, that act was inspired, but the act, having been completed is no longer inspired."
And there is this bon mot of contradiction: "How do the rest of us judge this? We cannot, of course. This inability on our part to assess the credibility of such claims does not in any way mitigate the truth of the claim that Scripture is inspired by God."
The reasoning of this hermetic balm to Marshall's anxiety of life would rule out the NT as inspired. After all, the Bible was settled -- by inspiration -- at the 24 books of the Tanakh.
When Paul and the Gospel writers and Peter and whoever else wrote christian testimony, no one thought they were adding to the Bible. Paul had his Bible and, in light of God doing a new thing, reflected upon it.
So, one could well ask the question that Marshall thinks is unanswerable then: "How do the rest of us judge this? We cannot, of course. This inability on our part to assess the credibility of such claims does not in any way mitigate the truth of the claim that Scripture is inspired by God."
But we did judge. By the body of the church in the context of debate and discernment, Christians decided that God had done a new thing and then inspired new scriptural witness to the new thing. Our trust was in the Holy Spirit of God guiding the church. Despite Deuteronomy -- Holy Scriptural injunction -- which warned against anyone adding to scripture.
We added to it. Because God did a new thing.
Turns out God cannot be chained. Certainly not by something as puny as Marshall.
So, too, the Holy Spirit -- who is God, despite Marshall's rhetorical and, no doubt, unconscious denial of this bedrock Christian truth -- has led the church to all kinds of new things over the many centuries. First, Gentiles, too, of all things, were saved. Then barbarians of all stripes across all lands.
Lately, black folks, too, have so graciously been allowed a smidgeon of holiness by rednecks like Marshall.
What's funny is how Marshall cannot come straight out with his denial that women are fully equal as ministers of the church. He denies them that God-given capacity.
As he denies so much else that God continually gives -- not chained to a ticking alarm bell of cut off inspiration -- but continually giving his life for his creation, out of all time, above all time, for ever and ever.
Which is why, Marshall, you are no frustration. Fleas of the imagination make no bite.
Of course, we can never expect Marshall to understand how to apply his own dictums. He can't grasp such things.
feo,
What a cacophony of crapola you spew! Is there ever to be a time when you actually back up an assertion of yours? An accusation? A projection? I await such not holding my breath.
"First, God works on a clock."
Evidently, you neither understand what inspiration is and means, any more than does Jim, nor do you possess the brain power to follow the clear explanation I provided. Let's try it this way and hopefully it'll make more sense to you: In saying "Scripture is inspired by God", what is meant is that those who penned Scripture were inspired to write it as God wanted it written. Consider the more literal interpretation you insist upon. You are saying that paper with ink smeared upon it are inspired. The authors were inspired by God to write Scripture as God wanted it to be written. To interpret "Scripture is inspired" as if it is an ongoing process is ridiculous, even for you. It would mean that it is a constantly morphing text, which isn't a surprising thing for a lefty to suggest since he needs that ambiguity to force his own preferences into the text. But it just confirms how false you are as an allegedly seminary trained "Christian".
"And there is this bon mot of contradiction."
And yet you've exposed no contradiction on my part at all. This is particularly true when considering the context of the quote you idiotically believe you've exposed as a contradiction. It was in reference to random claims of inspiration by God, and to that, if you had the comprehension skills to see, I explained that all we can do is compare what is claimed to have been inspired to Scripture. Paul tells us to do this in Galatians. It's a sound practice and if you ever get around to studying Scripture, you'll learn this, too. Good luck with that.
"When Paul and the Gospel writers and Peter and whoever else wrote christian testimony, no one thought they were adding to the Bible."
Nor did they have to. But Peter himself in 1 Peter 3:15-16 refers to all of Paul's letters, placing them on the same level as the God-breathed writings of the OT. (He even makes reference to you, you lucky dog, when he speaks of the ignorant and unstable). And of course, you might not know, but Peter was an apostle of Christ, so I'm guessing he might have been inspired. The same with John and James and Jude (though they aren't all apostles). So for your to suggest that only the OT is inspired by God is a stretch of the first magnitude, like so much of your typical commentary (OK...like ALL of your commentary).
"By the body of the church in the context of debate and discernment, Christians decided that God had done a new thing and then inspired new scriptural witness to the new thing."
No, they didn't. They simply decided that those NT books belonged in a compilation of books that included OT books. They felt the words of the apostles and brothers of Christ were likely inspired by God as was the OT. And that isn't "adding" to Scripture at all. That warning was in reference to alterations of commands, adding that which God did not say or deleting what He did say, such as homosexual behavior being an abomination.
"Turns out God cannot be chained."
Good thing I never try. But you do far worse dictating to God what is or isn't from or of Him. May He have mercy on your for your arrogance.
"So, too, the Holy Spirit -- who is God, despite Marshall's rhetorical and, no doubt, unconscious denial of this bedrock Christian truth."
I'm sure you would no doubt like to believe this is true, so desperate are you to find something to which you can point with contempt and proclaim that you've found error. How sad that you can't back it up. Sadder still that you would try rather than own up to your false accusation. Note how I tie the Trinity in this quote of mine from above: You believe that God/Jesus can say one thing, and later, to people like you, the Holy Spirit will say the exact opposite. Obviously that wouldn't happen being that the Holy Spirit is God.
"First, Gentiles, too, of all things, were saved. Then barbarians of all stripes across all lands."
Didn't you say you went to seminary? What did you do there? Laundry?
In Isaiah 45:22 the Lord says, through the prophet Isaiah: “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.”
God did say to Abraham, “in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:3).
In John 10:16 Jesus says, “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”
"Lately, black folks, too, have so graciously been allowed a smidgeon of holiness by rednecks like Marshall."
You've already confirmed yourself as liar and slanderer. There's no reason to confirm it over and over again. Any chance you'll actually back up this accusation some day?
"What's funny is how Marshall cannot come straight out with his denial that women are fully equal as ministers of the church. He denies them that God-given capacity."
No I don't. Paul and God does. Those two are such un-PC misogynists!
"As he denies so much else that God continually gives -- not chained to a ticking alarm bell of cut off inspiration -- but continually giving his life for his creation, out of all time, above all time, for ever and ever."
God gave His life for us once for all time. He doesn't need to do it "continually". This is basic Scriptural teaching. You'll find it in a book we Christians like to call, "the Bible". Try reading, studying and understanding it before your next visit here.
"Fleas of imagination" indeed.
Marshall: "Again, when have I ever stated that I believe that God stopped inspiring Scripture?"
Earlier Marshall: "That is to say, if one is inspired to act, one might feel inspired throughout the commission of the act. Once the act is completed, however, there is no more inspiration as what was inspired has come to pass. Thus, that act was inspired, but the act, having been completed is no longer inspired."
Even earlier Marshall: "When a person or event inspires a movie, does it continue to inspire after the movie is made? I don't think so."
And latest Marshall: "To interpret "Scripture is inspired" as if it is an ongoing process is ridiculous..."
Back, once more, to middle Marshall: "Again, when have I ever stated that I believe that God stopped inspiring Scripture?"
____________________
We're dealing here, Jim, with a guy who cannot connect his own thoughts across more than 12 hours or so.
Impossible to converse with a four year old who forgets everything after a nap.
___________________
Marshall: "You still seem to have some trouble with the concept of the Bible as a tome inspired by God. This is something Paul has stated in one way or another..."
Not at all.
Romans 10
But the righteousness that comes from faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say?
“The word is near you,
on your lips and in your heart”
(that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved.
Here, St. Paul is saying that no one is saved by a tome or by laws or anything written. The law (the Jewish Torah) is death, he says.
Salvation life is believing and confessing with one's whole self that Jesus is the Christ. When one does, one is enacting scripture themselves in that moment.
...one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved...
“The word is near you,
on your lips and in your heart”
_____________________
Marshall: "You still seem to have some trouble with the concept of the Bible as a tome inspired by God.... and with which others have concurred
Not at all.
Hebrews 4
Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Marshall: "When a person or event inspires a movie, does it continue to inspire after the movie is made? I don't think so."
You make me laugh, Marshall, every time. A flea of rigid and desiccated imagination.
Feodor: By the body of the church in the context of debate and discernment, Christians decided that God had done a new thing and then inspired new scriptural witness to the new thing.
Marshall: No, they didn't.
Peter: And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?” When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, “Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life.
_________________
Marshall: They simply decided that those NT books belonged in a compilation of books that included OT books.
They weren't NT books yet, idiot, until they decided. That's what made them NT books. Until then - hundreds of years after the writers lived - they were scattered letters and writings never collected.
So, it was the church gathered in the name of God and in holy and rational deliberation that established the canon of the NT -- and the OT for that matter. And so it is the church gathered in similar deliberation that pressed on to find women equal under the eyes of God and in sacred worship, and now gay and lesbian and transgendered and bisexual people as full faith worshippers and equally capacitied spiritual leaders.
Just as the church gathered proclaimed faith in three persons as one God. Unlike yourself where, here, you rhetorically deny that the Holy Spirit is God:
"but that the insistence that it was inspired by God, or in feo's case, the Holy Spirit, and the rest of the world must regard it as on the same level as Scripture itself."
And, lastly, I'll leave with the thing I knew you couldn't understand because it asks you to comprehend the implications of what you write.
You write this:
"The problem is in suggesting that somehow, all one has to do is presume to be inspired by God and it doesn't matter what belief or action results, but that the insistence that it was inspired by God, or in feo's case, the Holy Spirit, and the rest of the world must regard it as on the same level as Scripture itself. How do the rest of us judge this? We cannot, of course."
The problem, of course, is that this very path of logic can be used to deny that the NT is inspired. YOU, Marshall, are implying that the NT is not inspired, not me. I was pointing out that when the various books of christian witness were gathered and judged as to whether they should be bound as additional scripture, you're words could have been raised very easily... and may well have been:
"The problem is in suggesting that somehow, all one has to do is presume to be inspired by God and it doesn't matter what belief or action results, but that the insistence that it was inspired by God, or in feo's case, the Holy Spirit, and the rest of the world must regard it as on the same level as Scripture itself [for the 4th century church, this would be the OT only]. How do the rest of us judge this? We cannot, of course."
Thus, your stilted logic denies the condition upon which the NT was collected as inspired scripture.
But this mid-level discussion is too deep for a flea.
feo,
One would assume it to be true, but a highly educated, well-read intellectual should understand that one does not do an end zone dance until after he crosses the finish line. The result could be, as it is here with you, a fumble and turnover. I haven't much time at present, but I must at least address your first fumble. You highlighted the following twice, hoping to "catch" me in a gaffe:
"Again, when have I ever stated that I believe that God stopped inspiring Scripture?"
The gaffe, however is yours, as any honest person (you should study up on what constitutes an honest person---it's quite clear you have no idea) can plainly see, I asked this in response to a specific comment of Jim's. Since the point of this post, as I've explained to you more than once by now, is to ask me questions regarding positions I've taken, his suggestion that I took a position as to whether or not God still inspires Scripture had no basis. The subject had never come up, so my wonderment was reasonable and thus specifically directed. Thus, what I said afterwards regarding inspiration is not a contradiction, except in your desperate attempt to catch me in one. How sad and pathetic you are! I feel so badly for you that your life is so consumed with finding fault in others while so routinely exposing your own.
I'll elaborate and respond to the rest of your desperate attempts as time allows. Hope you can hold it until then.
Marshall,
My first comment here was not so much asking you anything about previously-stated positions, but was in fact a contribution to this comments thread. I'd like to believe you can discern the difference, but I'm not so confident.
Yes, I understand the concept of inspired Scripture. Yes I understand that God's word as contained in the 66 books of the Bible was inspired by God AND continues to inspire people.
The question you either don't understand or refuse to answer is:
Is there literature or even spoken word originating post 4th century that is or was inspired by God and meant by Him to carry the same weight as any writing by Moses or Peter or any other text of the "original" 66?
Yes or no? Please explain.
"I'd like to believe you can discern the difference, but I'm not so confident."
Yeah, because nuance translates so well in this medium. As to your question, I'm quite sure I provided an answer, though you've given me reason to doubt you're able to discern it. Here it is again:
What difference would it make one way or the other? Do you have a specific writing or spoken word in mind that you are lobbying for inclusion in the Bible? If each of the books or letters NOT included were all inspired by God, what then? I don't believe determining Godly inspiration was criteria for inclusion, but after the Bible was compiled came the belief that all within is the inspired word of God. We could speculate in any number of ways and the question would stand: what difference would it make?
"Since the point of this post, as I've explained to you more than once by now, is to ask me questions regarding positions I've taken"
Which, of course, is not what's inferred by the title of your post: "Ask Me Anything"
Going to show for the zillionth time how you can't even keep yourself straight.
"Which, of course, is not what's inferred by the title of your post: "Ask Me Anything""
Yeah, because titles of books, stories, articles, songs, poems...they ALWAYS tell you EXACTLY what is contained within. Sure. Never happens any other way.
For the zillionth time, you fail to demonstrate what you so desperately wish was true about me, while perfectly illustrating yet again what we now know so well about you.
You are still apparently missing the point. I'm not talking about books existing in the 4th century.
I'm talking about the books written since then.
So, Jim, let me understand you clearly. Are you asking for my speculative opinion on an issue of which I never spoke in the past? You want to know what my opinion is regarding whether or not God still inspires people to write what might be His intentions for us, and/or that He inspired more books than have been included in what we now refer to as the Holy Bible?
I have no idea.
"Yes" or "no" works equally well here. Pick one and call it a day or get to your real point if one is lurking.
"You want to know what my opinion is regarding whether or not God still inspires people to write what might be His intentions for us."
In the sense that such writings would be Scripture.
Yes.
"Would be" in whose opinion or authority? What purpose would be served by adding to what is now considered Scripture? How could we certify that what is allegedly inspired by God is useful in any way that would justify its addition to what is now considered Scripture? Anything that is repetitive would be redundant and unnecessary, don't you think? Some would say that there is repetition already, though repeating God's Will wouldn't be enough for some people, while not repeating something often enough is excuse enough for others.
I can't see how I could possibly elaborate on "I have no idea" regarding whether or not God still inspires some to write what might qualify for addition to Scripture, nor do I have any idea how we could justify such an addition without some divine indication (like new prophesy coming true, for example).
Just where are you going in insisting on this line of inquiry? Assuming my answer is not satisfactory in your mind, what of it?
"I can't see how I could possibly elaborate on "I have no idea" regarding whether or not God still inspires some to write what might qualify for addition to Scripture, nor do I have any idea how we could justify such an addition without some divine indication (like new prophesy coming true, for example)."
Your answer is perfect. You don't have any idea. So it's quite possible that God HAS inspired Scripture even in the last 40 years and the prophecy of marriage equality is nearing fulfillment.
What "prophecy", and on what basis would you consider it a legitimate revelation from God? In what possible way has God inspired Scripture (assuming you're referring to what the average Christian church refers to as "the Holy Bible") to suggest what its words do not say or to suggest something that contradicts what it clearly does?
In short, you're not making any sense at all. What's more, your last comment changes the terms. Be clear. Are you referring to Scripture as we know it, or that which in your opinion is something that is in addition to Scripture as we know it? God already inspired the authors of the 66 books that comprises the Bible. He may have inspired other authors to write letters or books NOT included in the Bible. Christian churches go by the 66 (except for Roman Catholics---but they do not recognize any additional books). That's really all you need to know.
It seems clear that your problem is in the fact that there is no justification for the fantasy of "marriage equity" as implied by the proponents of SSM. Religiously speaking, you've got nothing but wishful thinking that clearly conflicts with all that Scripture says in reference to human sexuality, marriage and family.
Thus, if you could present some more recent letter or book that you would regard as inspired, and which is not already included in Scripture, I would soundly reject it if it contradicted what is now considered the inspired Word of God.
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!"
"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it"
The church decided to bypass Deuteronomy.
"The church decided to bypass Deuteronomy."
Really? Which church? Some of your stripe think Jesus subtracted from what God commands. You'll just pretty much say anything, won't you?
Which church? I'm glad you asked, Marshall, as you've been unclear since you've been blogging.
The answer is the christian church.
As for subtracting from what God commands, that would be the antinomian protestant church as variously descended from Luther which proclaimed the OT law inapplicable except where it agrees with the gospel and natural law.
Decidedly not what Deuteronomy meant.
Thus, we have our example from the church's departure from Deuteronomic edict.
So, we, too, as the conciliar church can and should interpret written scripture in the light of the living gospel and our progressive knowledge of natural law.
Just like the early protestants.
But I'm talking about the actual Christian church, feo. Not the one you've made up in your head. Finding that some OT laws are no longer applicable is one thing. Suggesting none of them are is idiotic, as it is still forbidden to believe in false gods, for example. This is one you should keep close to heart before you take another breath. I'm sorry your vast seminary training didn't teach you how to distinguish between that which stands and that which no longer does. But Christ's work on earth ended some and strengthened others. It's all there is the gospels and other NT books. Try reading them once in a while.
Oh, yes. As for natural law? It remains the same as it always has. We are created male and female for a reason, as God stated early on and both Christ Himself and Paul reiterated for the benefit of those like yourself, who do not understand natural law.
"Some of your stripe think Jesus subtracted from what God commands."
"Finding that some OT laws are no longer applicable is one thing."
So, it's clear that you, too, think Jesus subtracted from the OT. Which goes against the injunction of Dueteronomy.
How are you able to make claims against Deuteronomy? On the basis of various and multiple church councils deciding so.
And since the church is the body of Christ and the bride of Christ -- that being the living Christ -- so, too, the church -- deliberating together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit's presence (with whom we are baptized and whom Christ promised would come to help us go forward into things he did not raise at the time)... deliberating together things subtracted and things added to the NT as the gospel of grace leads us into deeper and richer love.
Which answers these questions you've repeatedly asked and received repeated answers:
"in whose opinion or authority?" Again, the church deliberating in love on our experience worshipping the living God. Sure, backwater communities are slow to come around. Same as when Gentiles were deemed equal believers or when Revelation was added or, for that matter, Hebrews, II John, III John, etc. which were controversial.
"What purpose would be served by adding to what is now considered Scripture?" Again, as God is living and God's love eternal and unfathomable, we continue to grow in our knowledge of love as St. Paul says. Thus, being the body of Christ living in the Holy Spirit, we come to know things in God's time. Women are equal to men in all things spiritual and moral. Children are full persons and should not be worked or harmed. Sexuality is a continuum just like personality and is part of our precious imaging of God's self.
Beautiful! Who can deny the wonder of God's works?
"So, it's clear that you, too, think Jesus subtracted from the OT."
Clearly this is the opposite of what I said, regardless of your inability to understand (or even my ability to properly articulate). That Christ made some OT law no longer applicable does not mean He subtracted from the Law, especially given that He is the fulfillment of the Law. Various church councils merely clarified this fact. In other words, they did not come to any decisions about whether or not to regard one Law or another as still applicable, they discovered which would be and which wouldn't by studying the teachings of Christ and His apostles.
Women were never unequal. They had their roles and men other roles. Teaching men about God is not one of their roles according to Scripture. That doesn't make them unequal no matter how many "progressive" Christians try to pretend so, and it doesn't make Paul misogynistic, either. Sexuality is a constant, with genders having their roles dictated by why we were created male and female. Your false preaching of what it means to "grow in knowledge" is typical, but a wickedness that is exactly the type of adding and subtracting that is prohibited. It certainly isn't the manifesting of God's works, but of man's. You are of the world.
"That Christ made some OT law no longer applicable does not mean He subtracted from the Law."
Priceless.
Even more priceless: Matt 5:17
Romans 10:4
Galatians 3:23-25
Ephesians 2:15
You've raised contradictions within the NT; tensions which you must ignore given that your faith lies in a printed Jesus.
Epically priceless.
It's also entertaining that you either were unaware of this issue (showing that you really don't know scripture) or were comfortable with blithely ignoring the contradictions to try to escape failure - the probable answer - in which case the quality and motive and spirit of your faith is revealed.
Entertaining and priceless is your use of verses that don't support your position, though posture yourself as if you have actually scored a touchdown. None of the verses you've presented demonstrate that Christ subtracted from the Law. Two of them refer to the effect of the law on us in lieu of Christ's promise, with Ephesians referring to the separation between Jew and gentile because of the Law. And Romans 10:4 is really a reiteration of Matt 5:17.
And in misusing and misapplying these verses as you do, in order to justify female priests and the homosexual agenda, under the guise of being moved by the Holy Spirit (rather than the truth of it...that you are moved by the flesh and worldly passions), the quality, motive and spirit of your "faith" is confirmed, as it had been for so long now. You are indeed the false priest.
from Marshall:
"That Christ made some OT law no longer applicable does not mean He subtracted from the Law."
from Galatians:
"Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian..."
and from Ephesians:
"He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances..."
from Marshall, having now - presumably - read both Galatians and Ephesians:
"None of the verses you've presented demonstrate that Christ subtracted from the Law."
again, from Galatians:
"But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian.."
and, again, from Ephesians:
"He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances..."
Endlessly entertaining.
And Romans 10, Marshall, has the complete opposite thrust of Matthew 5. Something we should expect since the writer of Matthew is a staunch defender of Jewish precedence and practice as a deeper truth which Israel has departed from and to which Jesus calls them back but with now new transcendent meaning. Paul, however, finds that while Judaism was the forerunner or mentor, even, like a teacher or disciplinarian (as in Galatians), the teacher/disciplinarian has been surpassed and is no longer needed. A larger truth has been found.
In this way, Matthew cannot have Jesus do away with the law in 5:17: "I come to fulfill it not do away with it," while Paul cannot abide those who think that new Christians need the law, "For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."
Two absolutely opposite takes on the role of the law.
Which doesn't disturb the faith of millions of those Christians with a mind and a heart. But does for Marshall and those filled with fear and anxiety. And helicopter manuals.
To think that you wasted your money on a seminary education that left you so devoid of understanding.
I'm sorry, that isn't fair...to the seminary. Unless it was a seminary intended to create false priests, in which case it was money well spent...if such can be said about learning to be a false priest.
None of what you've tried to pass off as support for your position is. The Ephesians piece, for example, refers to laws that separate Jew from Gentile. Christ removed all barriers to non-Jews from coming to God. Thus, laws that reflect the separation between the two groups are no longer in effect.
The rest, without searching out the exact verses provided by a false priest too cowardly to provide it, most likely, since it is so common in Paul's teachings, merely refers to the fact that one is no longer saved by perfect observance of the law, but by faith in Christ. But the very same Paul who authored all of the Epistles you cited clearly reveres the law, specifically the moral laws of the OT, in knowing what sin is, in order to distinguish between behaviors that please or displease God.
Real Christians understand the distinctions, while false Christians use those verses to rationalize rejecting God's will for our behavior. In doing so, false Christians like you demonstrate a deceitful mind and a dark heart.
They also like to think that real Christians, or those like myself working hard to be, are filled with fear and anxiety. We're actually filled with joy and gratitude that our Lord has sent us a Savior to act as our path to God the Father without having to suffer for our sin. We have no reason to fear or be anxious. But thanks for your concern nonetheless. Better that you focus it on your own very shortcomings.
Post a Comment