The Revealing of Jesus Christ

[Craig]

What this took you 6:20 seconds to post after I posted it? Once again, demonstrating you would not understand the disagreement and just ignore it. The more you do this, the more it is obvious you are the one with the problem because I have been more than fair.

[Taffy]

What this took you 6:20 seconds to post after I posted it? Once again, demonstrating you would not understand the disagreement and just ignore it. The more you do this, the more it is obvious you are the one with the problem.

Craig ,Im as familier with the scriptures as many..as Mentioned in the last post..im not pitting scripture against you..

you can call it what you will Craig ,.....I must remember not to ask your two simple questions to which you still havent agreed or disagreed once you actually understood MY STAND POINT nOT asummed you did and made me out to lie( AGAIN ANY SUCH APOLOGY..NOPE)...with but diverted Elsewhere...But thats fine..and if you have no desire to admit you were wrong concerning at one time a part of the Theme of this thread , AS YOU PREACHED WITH SUCH PASSION THEN AS YOU DO NOW.....then that tells me something too Bro....OK...


Be Blessed ,and if wish to have the Last word then Please do so Bro....

for im done like others here  and before ,discussing anything else with YOU.

Taffy

[Craig]

Again, nothing even that previous post, addressed anything. Repeating what you said, doesn't change the facts. You failed to come to understanding of the supposed disagreement, because you do not want to take the time to understand the position in which you are presumably disagreeing to. So don't try to pass it off as anything more than what it is, you do not wish to discuss this because you are not willing to take the time to understand exactly what it is which I am saying.

I must remember not to ask your two simple questions to which you still havent agreed or disagreed once you actually understood MY STAND POINT nOT asummed you did and made me out to lie

How about you apologize for the times prior to that incident, of which I am fully aware you think was 'putting words in your mouth', and be the example instead of pointing fingers and being so stubborn?

you were wrong concerning at one time a part of the Theme of this thread

Now concerning that incident I am fully aware. The whole incident where I asked you to re-read and re-post the quote, which you still have not. The incident where I rephrased myself to communicate what I meant, but you still took the old quote and misunderstood. Where you had implied earlier that silver ore was talking the silver was the spirit and the dross carnality of mankind, and then you changed it the Silver being the blood of Jesus Christ and the dross mankind.

Which I didn't challenge, because at no time did Jesus need refining....but I won't go into that.

So what is there for me to apologize for? You changed your position, or your the clarification of your position in I am not a mind reader because your question had the presupposition that the Silver Ore was the individual, the dross was your carnality and silver was the spirit. Therefore, I have nothing to apologize for, you clarified your position and I didn't challenge it any further.

[Molly]

The word 'physically' is used wrong, what you mean is 'naturally'. If you did mean 'phyiscally', then you and I differ and I believe you are mistaken in how the resurrection of the dead works. The resurrection of the dead is of the body sown naturally and raised spiritually. The dead is sown a is natural body, and raised up spiritual spiritual body. Both the natural and spiritual body are physical, but the spiritual is not limited to the physical. By faith, we are already raised in the resurrection which has yet to happen for us who continue to live in this body.

Craig could you expound on this a little more?  You say 'we are already raised in the resurrection..'

You also say 'the spiritual body [is] physical.'

I'm wondering if we are raised with Christ in this lifetime [in some manner] at which point judgment begins at the house of God?

Also, what is that translation you are using?  It's really beautiful.

[Taffy]

Silver Is his Blood Craig, Tis His Blood Cleanses Purifies.....As ya Know the IRON and Brass , is for mine, relates to the carnality of Man..our flesh....POST 132

CRAIG=Where you had implied earlier that silver ore was talking the silver was the spirit and the dross carnality of mankind, and then you changed it the Silver being the blood of Jesus Christ and the dross mankind.



If your Not  A MIND READER  Craig STOP assuming what you think others are thinking..


The above says ..THE SILVER..not the silver  ore which you ADDED, which I commented on  later.....From the onset ive proposed the meaning OF  Silver\blood\christ ...Purified in HIS blood till we see face to face.....the Dross being the Carnilty of man which remains in the fire..

.

why did I add the these questions which for mine could have been simply answered

the IRON and Brass , is for mine, relates to the carnality of Man..our flesh....

[
so maybe the question is...what Does His Blood purRify us of....well thats Sin isnt It?...so what SINS?...THE SPIRIT?

THE ANSWER CRAIG is the FLESH.....which is the Dross ,which is Has its part in the fire..IT WASNT 100S of questions,one answer would have been suffice...

The only reason Im responding Craig..is that One was Made out to be A LIAR...and ive just read your post to NatHAN about One who  LIES bro...not nice is it...

I made my point Clear Craig,  yet you ASSUMED by stating YOU KNEW what I believed by filling in the Gaps yourself...

By your question you revealed your proposition, I already knew you thought the Silver and Dross spoke of the individual person.

so you must be a MIND reader..but a VERY BAD ONE AT THAT.... :sigh:

[Craig]

The word 'physically' is used wrong, what you mean is 'naturally'. If you did mean 'phyiscally', then you and I differ and I believe you are mistaken in how the resurrection of the dead works. The resurrection of the dead is of the body sown naturally and raised spiritually. The dead is sown a is natural body, and raised up spiritual spiritual body. Both the natural and spiritual body are physical, but the spiritual is not limited to the physical. By faith, we are already raised in the resurrection which has yet to happen for us who continue to live in this body.

Craig could you expound on this a little more?  You say 'we are already raised in the resurrection..'

Yes, by faith, we have been raised with Christ Jesus, and by the Spirit, we are presently seated in high places with Christ Jesus. That means even though we have yet to experience what happens after we physically die, we get to experience the fullness of Life (eternal life) even while we live.  It is this understanding, which causes confusion because we live in a promise in which we have been given and sealed by the Spirit as if it were already completed.

From this point, neither Taffy or Nathan understand what John said in 1 John 3:2-3, which says, "Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure."

Those who continually deny that there is a "what will be", do not realize there is a "what will be" and make the mistake that is has already come to pass. Jesus is who was and is and is to come, and we live life 'Now', but that does not neglect the 'is to come' either.

You also say 'the spiritual body [is] physical.'

Yes. The body which you shall receive, is the same body in which Jesus was raised. The resurrection is not just one of the heart and mind, but also of the body. Yes, we are the Body of Christ, and many try to tie the Body of Christ as being the Spiritual Body in which we are raised, in essence this is true but concerning the resurrection of the dead and the body in which they are raised, Paul was specific along with all the other disciples including John, we have individual bodies united with Christ, in the same way a husband and a wife are of one flesh, but separate.

I'm wondering if we are raised with Christ in this lifetime [in some manner] at which point judgment begins at the house of God?

Judgment begins in the house of God among those who still live in the body. We guide and help each other live to the truth of reality, so the judgment of the house of God is now and is among it's members. This judgment is happening now within the church and the Body. I do not believe we are ever bodily resurrected while we are still living in this body, the natural body is sown and spiritual body is raised.

Of course, again, I understand some believe that Paul was talking about the LAW written on stone, versus the LAW written on the heart and means nothing more. I have investigated this avenue and found it only belongs to those who have willfully died to the carnality (flesh) and walk by the spirit. It does not apply to those who have not ceased willfully living to the carnality (flesh) and deny the spirit.

At the same time, Paul says it clearly, if there is not what will be, it then just this life, from our physical birth and to our physical death, that we that we have hope and should this be true (that there is no 'what will be') then we are to be pitied more than all and our faith is in vain.

1 Corinthians 15:19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

There is more than this present life and it's battle with carnality and our choices to live by the spirit and live by the flesh. Even now, those who deny they are not presently in a spiritual battle, then find no value in continually needing to renew their mind by the washing of the Word and to continually repent when they have wronged one another. They are also found in error, because if they truly were of pure spirit, then there would be no contention anywhere in their lives especially concerning them. That freedom they claim to have is not an actual reality until they have left this world completely, that means their physical birth and physical death are part of God's plan. So you get the saying, "some people have become so spiritually high minded, they become of no earthly good.

Also, what is that translation you are using?  It's really beautiful.

NIV, NASB and AMP

[Craig]

Taffy, Jesus Christ does not need refining, so when silver is being refined, it is always talking about the ore. So now it appears either you are not being fully truthful with what you believe, or you are trying to hang me on a technicality which is of your making failing to admit you are wrong.

[Nathan]

Okay, Craig is it?
Here's how it's coming across . . . you're not one who flows in a river that doesn't meet the standards you've established.  Your arguments are coming acrossed as confrontational and it tethers the ability for one to fly.  For me and my inability to use physcially versus naturally . . .I said what I said "on purpose" because when you're dealing with the subject of natural versus spiritual . .  I try to purposefully avoid using natural unless it's speaking of carnal . .to me, they are one and the same . . . so that's why I didn't state "naturally" dying.  Because SPIRITUALLY speaking . . it is my CARNAL nature that MUST DIE.  And you misquoted me on that as well . . .I never said your spirit dies . . .and this is our problem . . .you want all of us to speak with your vocabulary and if we don't, you divide our message up and find ways to basically hack it up to by the time it's done . .all that's left is an argument.

I have no qualms with you . . .I don't dislike you, I don't even know you . . .so how you've come to the conclusion that you have the right and authority to become an administrator to everyone on the forums is beyond me.  

Can you answer this . . .in all these arguments with me, Taf and I noticed you had to step in and correct others on your version of what free will is so it's not just us . . . . has all of this been out of the unction of the spirit?  Or is this the workings of your mind?  Because usually, when it's out of the spirit, the end result is edifying others, uplifting, building up . . .

Good grief . . .
From this point, neither Taffy or Nathan understand what John said in 1 John 3:2-3, which says, "Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure."

Dude, you're wearing out the saints with this!

Do you not understand that this was written 2000 YEARS AGO!  The day has changed  He HAS appeared to us . .that's what this is all about!  That's why I can tell you I do not dress myself in armor anymore!  That's why I've turned my weapons into plowshares.  I'm not here to go to war with your words . . . but I will tell you the way you're enforcing your beliefs is yesterdays manna and THAT'S the main reason why I stated earlier you're not one that's flowing "with" the river.  You've made your stand and now change is coming and you're not willing to accept it.

It's not about the lake of fire . . .eternal security .  .UR or any of that . . .it's about walking in TOTAL TRANSFORMATION and that included how we're to apply Scriptures.  All those other things are bits and pieces of this . . . but I do not WANT to be bound by your standards . . . I am applying MY FREE WILL .  .I choose to fly without hanging on to a translation of something that may or may not be taken out of context. 

I'm just not seeing the abundant life promised to us in your version of how you're seeing things.  Show me the life, then I'll take notice of your words.

[Taffy]

Taffy, Jesus Christ does not need refining, so when silver is being refined, it is always talking about the ore. So now it appears either you are not being fully truthful with what you believe, or you are trying to hang me on a technicality which is of your making failing to admit you are wrong.

all I was attempting to do was Take it One small step at a Time,,,thats all, starting with two simple questions to GRASP YOUR stand POINT.not mine.....but within two or three posts we are going throu half the Bible touching on various subjects...

I dont read MINDS Craig , and in the main most of your words fly over me head..ive told you this many times...so WHEN I Speak To you I endeavour to take it in small steps....then work out by question to why?....
nO I wasnt out to trip you like you proposed in the last thread we spoke on....just wanting to KNOW more of what you believed..be it going back to basics and then build from there....That Was IT...

I never stated Christ needed Refining, I mentioned he was the Hidden Man , Likened to the silver....not the ore,..being refined throu HIM seeing face to face....i stated this from the OFF.

all I mentioned was we are refined thru his BLOOD and FIRE...maybe you misunderstood Craig and jumped to premature conclusions.

If ya still wish to put the blame at My door bro..thats fine,no worries for there are bigger concerns than this..
Peace Bro

:icon_flower:

[laren]

Do you not understand that this was written 2000 YEARS AGO!  The day has changed  He HAS appeared to us . .that's what this is all about! 

Hi Nathan,

this statement i don't disagree with, but I come to the conclusion through a preterist view.

How do you come to this conclusion?  Why wasn't John seeing things "through the spirit, or Paul seeing things "through the spirit" in the same way as now 2000 years later.

What is the change that happened??  back then the Spirit gave life.  Now the spirit gives life??  Why were they seeing things in the natural then, and now we are not too??

would love to hear what u see as having changed in the last 2000 years, and why we now "should see" the written word as ALL spiritual and that  back then they weren't.

thanks

laren

[Craig]

Okay, Craig is it?
Here's how it's coming across . . . you're not one who flows in a river that doesn't meet the standards you've established.

Not at all, there is a standard already in place for constructive discussion in which disagreements are addressed. It is actually formalized and standard across any forum in which communication is exchanged. The only places that these rules of discussion are forfeited seems to be religious forums, whether they are CU or not.

It is definition, proposition, presupposition, and conclusion. If a point of contention is being addressed, define the contention and the words used, next supply the proposition and presupposition of the words used and next make your conclusion based on the definition, proposition and presupposition.

I could say that you are coming across, cavalier and I would be correct even if that is not how you are coming across to someone else, because to me you are cavalier. Perception is fickle, a righteous judge does not deal with perception, he deals with facts and some of those facts include from perceptions of misunderstanding which have been exaggerated in order to sideline the main point of contention. Do not go beyond the point of contention, do not make a deal that there is contention. DEAL WITH THE POINT OF CONTENTION. 

I have not established these rules, I uphold these rules.

Your arguments are coming acrossed as confrontational and it tethers the ability for one to fly.

Let me clean that up for you. I am not confrontational, I address the issue at hand the whole point is so that a person does not fly with misunderstanding. The ability for one to fly only comes when there is agreement, not disagreement otherwise it becomes a detrimental and not an asset in the discussion.

For me and my inability to use physcially versus naturally . . .I said what I said "on purpose" because when you're dealing with the subject of natural versus spiritual . .

If you purposely used the word physical, then as I said, I am in disagreement because the spiritual is also physical.

First point of rules of discussion, the definition. Without definition, a person can be saying the same word and meaning it completely differently. If you think that the spiritual body is not physical, then you neglect the affect the spirit has on the physical universe. If you think that the spiritual body is not natural, then you are correct since it transcends all things.

I try to purposefully avoid using natural unless it's speaking of carnal . .to me, they are one and the same . . . so that's why I didn't state "naturally" dying.

Good, however in Scripture natural is never used to speak of the carnality of man. So where you got the definition of natural to mean carnal, is beyond the reasonable scope of this discussion as natural is not commonly referred to as carnal in any sense else where. Though, now I know you think natural means carnal, it sure clears up that point of contention, now doesn't it?

Because SPIRITUALLY speaking . . it is my CARNAL nature that MUST DIE.  And you misquoted me on that as well . . .I never said your spirit dies . . .and this is our problem . . .you want all of us to speak with your vocabulary and if we don't, you divide our message up and find ways to basically hack it up to by the time it's done . .all that's left is an argument.

It is your problem, not mine. I work to create an even playing field, that includes understanding the definitions being used. If you refuse to align your definitions with mine then you are the one causing the contention, not I. I have no problem using your words and definitions to communicate, I even gave you plenty of room in my reply to you, to clarify your words and definition. You expose a source of pride, when you believe that is to be a problem.

There is no argument as long as the point of contention is all that is being discussed.

Can you answer this . . .in all these arguments with me, Taf and I noticed you had to step in and correct others on your version of what free will is so it's not just us . . . . has all of this been out of the unction of the spirit?  Or is this the workings of your mind?  Because usually, when it's out of the spirit, the end result is edifying others, uplifting, building up . . .

Actually that is your perception interfering with what is actually happening. I can prove rationally, logically, the definitions of words, and people need to stop and realize that what they are saying does not mean what they are communicating because they don't use the same words. People have a hard time understanding that they are using a word incorrectly. Yes, it is out of the unction of the spirit, even Jesus cleared out the Temple with a whip by the unction of the Spirit, you have added your presumption of what it means to live out of unction to the spirit.

In concerns to 'free-will', I will correct it every time someone uses free-will instead of what they actually mean which is 'Free Moral Agent' and 'Self-determination' because free-will mean the ability for the will to make choices and learn from those choices, which is what we all have. Free-will does not have the power or knowledge to invent choices that don't exist, free-will does not mean freedom, it means freedom of the will, in regard to choices it is presented.

In the same way I correct those who use 'free-will' falsely, I will also correct those who use 'aionios' to mean perpetually.

By making this an issue versus spirit and mind, you have shown yourself in contempt, and have placed yourself in a place that you don't want to be. I have battled through this battle for a very long time, and have come out victorious every time. It is a path you do not want to go down, whether people love me or hate me for it, I have been long vindicated that what I am doing is out of the Spirit, unless of course you think God is an author of confusion.

Good grief . . .
From this point, neither Taffy or Nathan understand what John said in 1 John 3:2-3, which says, "Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure."

Dude, you're wearing out the saints with this!

No, I am wearing out those who refuse to address the internal contradictions they create by professing a belief which cannot be substantiated. It only wears out a few [editted: didn't mean to name names of who I think are worn out by it], and now you, if you continue to give off-cuff comments about what I believe without ever actually understanding what it is I am saying. I have tried many avenues, but you have now made comments where none should be made, and so now you have been clumped up with the other who fails to recognize that they are also part of the problem.

Do you not understand that this was written 2000 YEARS AGO!  The day has changed  He HAS appeared to us . .that's what this is all about!  That's why I can tell you I do not dress myself in armor anymore!  That's why I've turned my weapons into plowshares.  I'm not here to go to war with your words . . . but I will tell you the way you're enforcing your beliefs is yesterdays manna and THAT'S the main reason why I stated earlier you're not one that's flowing "with" the river.  You've made your stand and now change is coming and you're not willing to accept it.

I am a partial-preterist. Not a full preterist like yourself. Since you are a full preterist, you believe there is nothing left to come. Now you have also used the fallacy of false dilemma, in which you make my beliefs, which by the way you have so far failed to comprehend since you have placed me in a futurist/dispensationalist position and not partial preterist position, old manna. Next, another fallacy of 'flowing with the river', in which if I am not in your river, then I must be on the wrong river. Boy oh boy, I saw through the second this post was made. Get out of your high position pastor, you are thinking more highly of yourself than you ought. I am a pastor too, and been in the ministry for over 18 years even as a child. So I say this in grace, and as I warned you once in this thread, and now the second time, the moment you make it personal is the moment you have forever made it your problem and you will have to learn to accept the consequences of those actions. This is not a threat, this is a point of fact you will face a constant battle over it. Talk to Taffy, or any one of the members here, I have come through this but others have not.

Just for the record, I was not your enemy and if I didn't care I wouldn't talk about it to you. You need to know what it is you are getting into, which some people don't realized. Some big taboo's, don't make it personal and don't put spirit and mind in contention, because the mind that is in submission to the spirit, speaks spiritual things.

[Craig]

In the main most of your words fly over me head..ive told you this many times
:icon_flower:

[/quote]

Then we both agree it is mutual misunderstanding and then both share the responsibility that our misunderstandings and our inability to reconcile why what the problem was before caused more problems than it was worth. For that I apologize to the forum and to you. I am pleasantly happy to admit, the problem is we just cannot understand each other.

[Taffy]

In the main most of your words fly over me head..ive told you this many times
:icon_flower:

Then we both agree it is mutual misunderstanding and then both share the responsibility that our misunderstandings and our inability to reconcile why what the problem was before caused more problems than it was worth. For that I apologize to the forum and to you. I am pleasantly happy to admit, the problem is we just cannot understand each other.
[/quote]

Not on all issues Craig, this you know,far from it, just maybe  our perspective differs from time to time...

but there are times when I definately agree with what your saying..thanks for ending this peacably bro :icon_flower:, and apologies to you also. :icon_flower:

[Craig]

Sorry, I should add:

....cannot understand each other [in some things.]

[Nathan]

After this I'm finished . . . you've set yourself up on a pious pedastal and assume you are right above anyone with a difference of opinion.  You've accused me of things you know not of.  You've pegged me with titles that are not accurate.  It's in your own mind that you have succeeded in your arguments . . . none of us intended for this to get to where it has in the first place.  I've come here to glean truth from what others share, and in turn, share so that others can glean, you've done nothing but critique and disrupt.  I am finished.

I am a partial-preterist. Not a full preterist like yourself. Since you are a full preterist, you believe there is nothing left to come.

I have in no way proclaimed to be a "full" anything.  I've never said there is nothing left, you are doing the very thing you accuse others of, you have put words in my mouth that I never said.  There is no growth here . .there is no life . .only self-justification and false accusations.  Enjoy your sword, but know, it's what's keeping you bound and in doing so, you choose to keep others from flying.

[Craig]

After this I'm finished . . . you've set yourself up on a pious pedastal and assume you are right above anyone with a difference of opinion.  You've accused me of things you know not of.  You've pegged me with titles that are not accurate.  It's in your own mind that you have succeeded in your arguments . . . none of us intended for this to get to where it has in the first place.  I've come here to glean truth from what others share, and in turn, share so that others can glean, you've done nothing but critique and disrupt.  I am finished.

You have made it your problem Nathan, because you are a defender personality. You perceived a problem and came to defend that which you felt was some how unjust. You take sides, even when you shouldn't. Let me make this clear. I cannot disrupt a discussion I am already part of, do you understand this? Next if you cannot accept critique or let it run like water of a duck's back then it is your pride which offended. It is not in my imagination that I have succeeded in my points, I have many supporters who tell me in private and can explain it in detail, what I just said and why there is a problem in our discussions. I accept no threat from anyone, and I am fully aware of all fall out of any and all my actions and quite prepared for it when it happens.

You made it personal Nathan, that is your downfall and you are offended because you made the offense your cause to be champion and gain 'friends'. It works for awhile, but in time people will notice, there are numerous people who have come into this forum using such tactics, people learn the second time.

Enjoy your sword, but know, it's what's keeping you bound and in doing so, you choose to keep others from flying.

Titus 1:9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

[Nathan]

Not offended . . .just tired of butting my head against the wall with you . . . we're on different pages and that's that.

[Craig]

Not offended . . .just tired of butting my head against the wall with you . . . we're on different pages and that's that.

That is fine, then admit this is the problem. Frustration in communication is a problem we all deal with. If we are on different pages, then that is what it is. I hold major reservation concerning certain styles of communication, yours is one of them and it seems I know how to aggravated it. What it is called is a personality difference, you find my structured and rational communication style as an impediment to your ability to fly communication style.  I should walk away and just leave it, but like you, we have to come up and talk about it and air our concerns even if they aren't even real or valid and because we have two different communication styles, we clash. Don't make it personal. I will tell you why making it personal is not good, because I defend myself.

[arcticmonster2003]

Not offended . . .just tired of butting my head against the wall with you . . . we're on different pages and that's that.

That is fine, then admit this is the problem. Frustration in communication is a problem we all deal with. If we are on different pages, then that is what it is. I hold major reservation concerning certain styles of communication, yours is one of them and it seems I know how to aggravated it. What it is called is a personality difference, you find my structured and rational communication style as an impediment to your ability to fly communication style.  I should walk away and just leave it, but like you, we have to come up and talk about it and air our concerns even if they aren't even real or valid and because we have two different communication styles, we clash. Don't make it personal. I will tell you why making it personal is not good, because I defend myself.

:tongue:

[Nathan]

And that is the difference between turning our weapons in to plowshares . . . you defend yourself, I don't need to, as I just did a terrible display of that here . . .I did anyway, but I don't need to.  I plant, you don't like what's planted . . .that's your business . .but I'm not going to defend the seed . .it's not even mine in the first place.  I don't make this stuff up.  There are many around who see these things also and no one "taught" or "instructed" them what to look for, Grace just reveals it to them.  I'd understand it if I was a rogue in my "seeing" things differently . . .which I am in any religious setting.  It's denominational heresy and I'm fully aware of that . . .but if that isn't going to stop me, then neither is a bunch of words that come across my computer screen from someone I've never met.

  If you have such a handle on explaining it, then you should also know how to control it.  Otherwise, what's the point of having such knowledge?

There needs to be "some" sort of closure to this . . .I'm not walking away from the forum and I'm not going to change my way of seeing things so I'm sure there will be other topics that you won't be able to resist taking more jabs at me.

It's not our writing, it's our thinking that's different.  I'm fully aware of all the reasons why you reject my approach . .I came from where you are.  The only difference is, I let go.  I do regret letting you pull me in though . . . it's the very thing I preach about others avoiding.  We're to be eagles and when we become tangled in earthiness . . .we become no good to anyone.

I know that there are many out there that still gain from the conversations.  I would like to continue being a part of what they gain.  Mud-throwing isn't going to cut it and I do apologize for that.  You call it as you see it, you justify why you can call it the way you do . . .I reject your titles and accusations and justify why I can label you and . . .we're off.  And in the end, all we did was show the world what a perfect example of a clanging symbol looks like.

With all due respect, whether you appreciate my approach or not, I'd much rather go back to following the sound and get out of this clatter of noise.

Blessings.

[Nathan]

Oh, and by the way . . . it's "aggrivate"  not aggravated. :HeartThrob:

[Taffy]

time here for beddies...just going lock the thread, when Martin or others mods ARE around he\they may opt to open it...

good night to you all.

[martincisneros]

Has it really been necessary [or at least preferable] to lock this thread randomly like that?  It's going to be two more hours before I can fully give the net my time, but I'll err on the side of naivete of "what could possibly go wrong in two hours?" LOL!

[Craig]

And that is the difference between turning our weapons in to plowshares . . . you defend yourself, I don't need to, as I just did a terrible display of that here . . .I did anyway, but I don't need to.  I plant, you don't like what's planted . . .that's your business . .but I'm not going to defend the seed . .it's not even mine in the first place.  I don't make this stuff up.  There are many around who see these things also and no one "taught" or "instructed" them what to look for, Grace just reveals it to them.  I'd understand it if I was a rogue in my "seeing" things differently . . .which I am in any religious setting.  It's denominational heresy and I'm fully aware of that . . .but if that isn't going to stop me, then neither is a bunch of words that come across my computer screen from someone I've never met.

Perhaps our definitions of defending oneself is obscured by misunderstanding, because this sure looks like you are defending yourself now.

If you have such a handle on explaining it, then you should also know how to control it.  Otherwise, what's the point of having such knowledge?

Ecclesiastes 1:18
For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.

There needs to be "some" sort of closure to this . . .I'm not walking away from the forum and I'm not going to change my way of seeing things so I'm sure there will be other topics that you won't be able to resist taking more jabs at me.

I don't carry grudges, but it sure seems to me that you are one who might, looking at your 'replies' in response to my statements on other threads have been petty at best.

It's not our writing, it's our thinking that's different.  I'm fully aware of all the reasons why you reject my approach . .I came from where you are.  The only difference is, I let go.  I do regret letting you pull me in though . . . it's the very thing I preach about others avoiding.  We're to be eagles and when we become tangled in earthiness . . .we become no good to anyone.

Let us be clear with each other, I didn't pull you into anything, you are responsible for every words and deed you commit, I have no power over you to do anything. You willingly participated, unwilling to admit this at this time to admit that you are responsible.

I know that there are many out there that still gain from the conversations.  I would like to continue being a part of what they gain.  Mud-throwing isn't going to cut it and I do apologize for that.

I accept your apology.

You call it as you see it, you justify why you can call it the way you do . . .I reject your titles and accusations and justify why I can label you and . . .we're off.  And in the end, all we did was show the world what a perfect example of a clanging symbol looks like. With all due respect, whether you appreciate my approach or not, I'd much rather go back to following the sound and get out of this clatter of noise.

I believe it was very productive, we got apologies all around for the mistaken understandings, we aired out our concerns and things were explained and understandings were confirmed. I did not lack any love in my replies, so unless you lacked love in your reply, the only example of clanging symbols here is the music I was listening to as I wrote this. Perhaps you may need to clarify and re-address this. I am interested in wondering how a disagreement and an appeal to communication lacks love and is of 'clanging symbols'. I cannot see the connect, perhaps I am not as 'spiritual' as you to think that mutual communication and dealing with contention when it arises constitutes clatter of noise. I have theories, but ones I would not say here because we are trying to reconcile our difference not create more.

Oh, and by the way . . . it's "aggrivate"  not aggravated. :HeartThrob:

There is meaningful correction, and then there is pettiness, this is an example of the latter. I don't care if I spelt it wrong, you knew what I meant and that is what matters.

[pneuma]

The Tares Craig are likened to those who sleep or those who are withOUT....,those who are DEAD in Christ,..why are they dead,?... because of their carnality....thats why its burnt..and it matters very Much that is  now, For HE IS the Resurrection in the Hearts of Men....to those who believe.

The reapers are the ANGELS,..

1Th 5:10  Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live TOGETHER with him.

Brother, we can both quote the scriptures and youll we see what you see, and Ill see what I see ,and never the twain shall meet, thats the point Nathan made....

Im spirrtual Craig...listen to Pauls words..SIN has NO hold on me...Im dead to it...

Rom 8:1  [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


Rom 8:2  For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.


Rom 8:3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:


Rom 8:4  That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


Rom 8:5  For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.


Rom 8:6  For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace.


Rom 8:7  Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Rom 8:8  So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.


Rom 8:9  But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.


Rom 8:10  And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.

Rom 8:11  But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Your seing the resurRection as something literal in the future,,im sorry bro...thats NOW, im not going to go around and around because we will get Nowhere,maybe thats the reason some here see things differently ,even thou we read the same scriptures and for sure Craig, Im not pitting scripture against scripture with you or anyone,...


weve gone off what SILVER means..Dross, and youve made no mention of what I said in anyway shape of form to be correct..not even when ya believed in TWO FIRES and preached it from the HILT...cos I was one you preached it at!

do I see a Formal recognition that you Now see differently.and that you were wrong some time back?...no!..just more preaching from the Hilt...my words then never changed your thoughts ,althou others said the same things to you...AND  I DONT SEE THE POINT now.


Im not saying the lake is NOT for the destruction OF THE FLESH ( CARNALITY)...AND IM NOT SAYING EITHER THOSE IN HIM are not purified through HIS BLOOD....

Irrespective of the time element Craig....EACH man will be cleansed, Be it now through HIS Blood or whats termed the LAKE of FIRE where the flesh is consumed....its still HIM.



It obvious we dont see eye to eye with this and thats fine by Me...im not here to refute your words ,...i post what im led to see from whats written .. and I care not if you agree or not....

I just started asking you a few questions to see what you thought...interested to know why?..... but I  have no need for a scriptural war.



I  also dont agree that our carnality ( THE ENMITY)is only Destroyed when we literally Die Craig..

Rom 7:25  I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Just wanted to say amen bro, (we do see this much alike) before bowing out of this thread.

God bless