Returning to the Father

[Dallas]

I mean, if this is the discussion cool. But there is no sound biblical reference to the reasoning why, what we have is simply personal theory... no biblical understanding.

[Paul Hazelwood]

I mean, if this is the discussion cool. But there is no sound biblical reference to the reasoning why, what we have is simply personal theory... no biblical understanding.

What determines what is a "sound" biblical reference?

[Dallas]

Hey Shelia I can do that too....

Judges 6:20 The angel of God said to him, "Take the meat and the unleavened bread and lay them on this rock, and pour out the broth." And he did so.

Judges 15:8 "He struck them ruthlessly with a great slaughter; and he went down and lived in the cleft of the rock of Etam."


See, God commands us to kill people and rest in Him.


We can't just take scripture and use it for whatever purpose, it must be kept in context!!! Otherwise this foolishness continues.

[jabcat]

I mean, if this is the discussion cool.

I think that's exactly what it is Dallas.  Who do you see in this discussion insisting on their own POV?

Everyone here is looking within the scriptures, discussing thoughts, possibilities.  I believe in being scripture-oriented, but not necessarily just one person's interpretation of those scriptures.  That's why it's a discussion.  Do you have something you'd like to add besides disdain?

[Dallas]

What determines what is a "sound" biblical reference?

contextual reliability

Like I just showed, anyone can take any scripture and put meaning to it. But using scripture outside of it's origonal intended usage is irresponsible. Using a word outside of it's deffinition also.

[SQ]

Dallas I don't see you using scriptures in this thread, but you are saying those that do are taking out of context?
As for me I am just a student and learning, none of us has all truth yet as far as I know.

[Dallas]

Everyone here is looking within the scriptures, discussing thoughts, possibilities.  I believe in scripture-oriented, but not necessarily just one person's interpretation of those scriptures.  That's why it's a discussion.  Do you have something you'd like to add besides disdain?

Interpretation is one thing and everyone will have a slant on it, that's not the issue. The issue is complete irresponsibility to the obvious reshaping to context and missuse of words to further their own agenda.

Everyone can have their slant, that's interesting and cool....what's not is obvious attemps to argue and reshape for the purpose of reshaping.

[Dallas]

Dallas I don't see you using scriptures in this thread, but you are saying those that do are taking out of context?
As for me I am just a student and learning, none of us has all truth yet as far as I know.

Good, well at least we know you haven't read this from the beginning....

[SQ]

Dallas I don't see you using scriptures in this thread, but you are saying those that do are taking out of context?
As for me I am just a student and learning, none of us has all truth yet as far as I know.

Good, well at least we know you haven't read this from the beginning....

I have read all this thread and every post in it.
I was saying what scriptures you used don't prove your interpetation is any more right.
Ok, I will try and just read this thread here on. :thumbsup:

[jabcat]

SQ, you have every right to keep posting in this thread, and I encourage you to do so.

[jabcat]

Everyone here is looking within the scriptures, discussing thoughts, possibilities.  I believe in scripture-oriented, but not necessarily just one person's interpretation of those scriptures.  That's why it's a discussion.  Do you have something you'd like to add besides disdain?

Interpretation is one thing and everyone will have a slant on it, that's not the issue. The issue is complete irresponsibility to the obvious reshaping to context and missuse of words to further their own agenda.

Everyone can have their slant, that's interesting and cool....what's not is obvious attemps to argue and reshape for the purpose of reshaping.

For the sake of discussion then Dallas, without attacking anyone, what do you see as 1) complete irresponsibility [are we sure we wouldn't be judging if we claimed that?], 2) reshaping to context [your exception to what sheila said?], and 3) misuse of words?  Let's just talk, OK, and back this down and reason together.  Somebody might learn something if we're not careful ...

[SQ]

SQ, you have every right to keep posting in this thread, and I encourage you to do so.

Thank you, you are encouraging and this has been something of interest to me for quite a while.

[Dallas]

SQ, you have every right to keep posting in this thread, and I encourage you to do so.

Just for the sake of interest.....who said SQ didn't have the right?

[jabcat]

I interpreted SQ as "backing down" due to your comments, and saying she wouldn't post anymore, just read.

I'll let SQ speak for herself though...I was addressing her.

And I agree Dallas, context is important..and Spirit revelation, and accurate translation, and rightly dividing.  That's where the different understandings can come in.  I'm interested in discussion though, not silly struggling. 

Let's get back to discussing the topic.

[Dallas]

For the sake of discussion then Dallas, without attacking anyone, what do you see as 1) complete irresponsibility [are we sure we wouldn't be judging if we claimed that?], 2) reshaping to context [your exception to what sheila said?], and 3) misuse of words?  Let's just talk, OK, and back this down and reason together.  Somebody might learn something if we're not careful ...

Complete irresponsibility.... The book Moby Dick, is about a whale. For someone to come in and say it's actually a piranah would be irresponsible, one it's not true to the literature and it's quite misleading.

Reshaping, Shelia quoted scripture, that's fine. The problem is one can twist the meaning as a single verse to bring it into context with what we were discussing, but it has to be removed from the context from it's intended meaning. It stops meaning what it was talking about and becasme whatever Shelia needed it to talk about.

Numbers 20;7 Listen you rebels, must we bring you water

out of the rock?.THEN MOSES RAISED HIS ARM AND STRUCK

THE ROCK TWICE

-Shelia

Moses striking the Rock twice has absolutley no bearing upon whether Jesus had in fact died twice or once.


That's reshaping

[jabcat]

Again, I agree with context.

Maybe sheila will want to discuss why she understands it that way.  We'll see.

[SQ]

SQ, you have every right to keep posting in this thread, and I encourage you to do so.

Just for the sake of interest.....who said SQ didn't have the right?

No one did, I am here to learn and discussions are good to learn from.

[Paul Hazelwood]

What determines what is a "sound" biblical reference?

contextual reliability

Like I just showed, anyone can take any scripture and put meaning to it. But using scripture outside of it's origonal intended usage is irresponsible. Using a word outside of it's deffinition also.

What context is being shown unreliable in this thread?  Your example is an example that no one is asserting, and just because you maintain that it can be done, doesn;t prove anything in the thread is of that nature.

Perhaps prove an actual point being made in this thread that is contextually unreliable.

[Dallas]

Again, I agree with context.

Maybe sheila will want to discuss why she understands it that way.  We'll see.

There we go....now you are seeing my issue.

I don't care how she sees it, in fact I would love to try to wrap my mind around such an idea, because to me its completley flawed beyond reason...

But she doesn't, she puts, (not trying to pick on you shelia, you just happen to be the example), she puts it out there without reason, but as on a whim trying to prove or disprove, argumentatively.

Without discussion, but instead philosophical and mystically magical and unsubstantiated claims, people end up lost without biblical foundation to reason out thier views.

When I challenge someone, they get upset then everyone tries to back them up in order to show support for thier friend.

Again not a very healthy discussion platform.

[Dallas]

Perhaps prove an actual point being made in this thread that is contextually unreliable.

I just did with the shelia example. We were discussing the idea that because scripture says God chose us before the foundations of the world that proves that we were as spirits of sort before hand.

I challenged that statement saying, that reasoning is flawed for scripture also says that Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world, meaning Jesus and not Adam suffered the first death, that the first sacrifice for us didn't work therefore our God is weak, that Hebrews says Jesus died once, Hebrews says this repeatedly.

The Shelia quotes Numbers 20;7 Listen you rebels, must we bring you water

out of the rock?.THEN MOSES RAISED HIS ARM AND STRUCK

THE ROCK TWICE
-Shelia

Moses striking the Rock twice has absolutley no bearing upon whether Jesus had in fact died twice or once.


That's reshaping, and irresponsible.

[Paul Hazelwood]

I see your point Dallas, perhaps I am misunderstanding what your challenging specifically, are you challenging sheila's specific point about Jesus dying twice, or do you feel the idea of being spirits before our creation as humans is contextually irresponsible or both?

[sheila]

   Dallas,

   Your argument still doesn't hold water,as far as I see.

  for instance...Jesus spoke of many things in parable form..He

purposely said things in such a way..and often seemingly out of

context.He didn't break any context law.The law is for the

lawless..not the Holy Ghost.[in order that they may 'hear' but

not understand'


  example...the claims of Jesus about himself  John 8;48

  the conversation is about Jesus being a samaritan and demon-

possessed...Jesus counters with denial..stating anyone that

keeps his word will not see death.The Jews counter..now we

know for sure..even Abraham died...Jesus counters 'your

Father,Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day;he

saw it,and was glad.".The jews counter..your not yet 50 years old
and you have seen Abraham....Jesus replies.".before Abraham

was born,I AM."   At this they picked up stones to stone him.


   what do you imagine  being in the image of the last Adam..a

LIFE_GIVING SPIRIT could be.?


   Are we not to be in Jesus Christ image...a life-giving spirit..

  wouldn't that same spirit return to the Father?


   The interpretation of prophecy is NOT of man..in that you can

understand it through con-text....for the spirit is without

beginning or end.  DEAD LETTER OF THE WORD is what I

refer to as your context 'law'  It actually 'kills' that which is due

to be revealed...[and if it is 'hidden' then it is not apparent in

that letter of the 'word' or 'context'

and it must be revealed through Holy

Ghost/spirit.}..as Jesus told..He will lead you into all truth..

.

WORD+SPIRIT is the glorious

freedom of the SONS OF GOD......in the image of Christ....

a life-giving spirit

   only He can translate the word of God come in flesh..from

death to life.  The First-born of the dead is our 'pattern' son

unless you remain unregenerated and are 'from' below.



   Just what is the pattern of Him born of the will of God and

not man.?

   Your attitude[disposition] should be the SAME as that of

Jesus Christ; WHO BEING in VERY NATURE GOD, did not

consider equality something to be grasped, but made himself

nothing,TAKING THE VERY NATURE OF A SERVANT, BEING MADE

IN HUMAN LIKENESS, AND BEING FOUND IN APPEARANCE AS A

MAN, he humbled himself and became obediant to death-even

death on a cross!   Now, this is the image and pattern of the

last Adam..a life-giving spirit....and this same pattern we to are

all to bear the image of.

    I AM THE WAY and the TRUTH and the LIFE


   1 Cor 15;45 So it is written; the first man Adam became a

living being, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did

not come first, but the natural,and after that the spiritual. The

first man was of the dust of the earth, the secound man from

heaven. As was the earthly man, so was those who  are of the

earth; and AS IS THE MAN FROM HEAVEN,SO ALSO ARE THOSE

WHO ARE OF HEAVEN. And just as we have borne the likeness

of the earthly man, SO SHALL WE BEAR THE LIKENESS OF THE

MAN FROM HEAVEN

   

[Dallas]

I see your point Dallas, perhaps I am misunderstanding what your challenging specifically, are you challenging sheila's specific point about Jesus dying twice, or do you feel the idea of being spirits before our creation as humans is contextually irresponsible or both?

are you challenging sheila's specific point about Jesus dying twice

Yes.

or do you feel the idea of being spirits before our creation as humans is contextually irresponsible or both

Everyone is allowed to have a thought or an opinion, I'm not challenging the idea of pre-exsistance, I'm challenging people to explain where biblically they gain that understanding and why. Then I challenge their explanations because they resort to Context Irresponsibility to defend their theory.

[Dallas]

Dallas,

   Your argument still doesn't hold water,as far as I see.

  for instance...Jesus spoke of many things in parable form..He

purposely said things in such a way..and often seemingly out of

context.He didn't break any context law.The law is for the

lawless..not the Holy Ghost.[in order that they may 'hear' but

not understand'


  example...the claims of Jesus about himself  John 8;48

  the conversation is about Jesus being a samaritan and demon-

possessed...Jesus counters with denial..stating anyone that

keeps his word will not see death.The Jews counter..now we

know for sure..even Abraham died...Jesus counters 'your

Father,Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day;he

saw it,and was glad.".The jews counter..your not yet 50 years old
and you have seen Abraham....Jesus replies.".before Abraham

was born,I AM."   At this they picked up stones to stone him.

What argument doesn't hold water? I'm not making a point, all I'm doing is challenging the notion of pre-exsistance?

Als, what are you getting at here? There is no point, you stopped in mid thought?

[Dallas]

what do you imagine  being in the image of the last Adam..a

LIFE_GIVING SPIRIT could be.?


  Are we not to be in Jesus Christ image...a life-giving spirit..

 wouldn't that same spirit return to the Father?

What does that have to do with pre-exsistance and what does that have to do with Jesus dying twice? You are getting lost in a conversation I never had with you.

The interpretation of prophecy is NOT of man..in that you can

understand it through con-text....for the spirit is without

beginning or end.

So, because you can't understand it you are claiming no MAN can? That's mystcal non-sense. Some magical power from some magical being will give you magical insight. That sight then would make you quite special then eh? That is the reason why the bible says it's through wisdom that comes understanding, not the distorted mystical experience one can cook up in thier own mind. Even in Revelation the writer tells us, "let him who has UNDERSTANDING reckon the number of the beast." Not let Him who has mystical revelation.

Simply put, prophecy is quite over the heads of many, many people... not because it's special and they aren't but because they don't have the biblical litteracy to understand the bible. You woudn't ask a grade 3 math student to figure out nuculear physics...but you wouldn't exclude them the study that gets you there also. The bible is literature and must be read and understood as such...it's inspiered literature but literature non-the-less.