Don't let the Bible get in the way of your Christian beliefs

I did not remember whether or not the Da Vinci Code mentioned the Trinity.

I do remember that they did an awfully poor job of Church history.

 

The whole question of the Trinity is the nature of Christs divinity ?

 

So, in your opinion, is Christ Divine?

 

Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise ?

 

Don't know yet, that is what I am trying to figure out. Now let me ask you this:

Is the Holy Spirit divine?

BTW: Answering a question with a question, such as what you did above, is actually evading the process of answering the question.

 

sure; the liars are still walking around and unforgiven!

 

Who are those "liars"? Do you have any proof of your claim that "the liars are still walking around and unforgiven."?

 

I dont forgive YOU.

I am a witness, just in case any need any proof!

p.s..... i have to prove nothing to you!

 

I am not asking for your forgiveness, just the names of those that you have deemed as "liars". Are you too much of a coward to throw a name on that arbitrary title that you so loosely use? no manhood about yourself?

BTW: You are a 'witness' to what?

 

Undear enemy mine - the difficult question is not "Is the Holy Spirit divine?" - because even lots of very serios phycicists of all religions seem to be convinced we are able to talk about parallel universes although we are only a product of the evolution of this creation here. How could this be possible without [the] Holy Spirit? Specially if this points of view are not only thinkable (what's astonishing enough) - if this points of view on our real natural evironment would be even true - then we are completly unable to say where such toughts could come from, because this are tranzendent ideas trusting in the might of the logos only.

So it's indeed not a good question to ask "Is the Holy Spirit divine?" - whatelse could the Holy Spirit be? The much more astonishing question is "How is the Holy Spirit a kind of person in identity with god father and god son?".

For example: Some convertits from the Islam are reporting that the Holy Spirit spoke directly with them to do the step to become Christians. I was very astonished when I heard this the first time. I always felt the Holy Spirit is part of me - for example if I'm looking for truth independent from my person - and I dont remember any feeling that he's outside of me. Perhaps I don't feel the Holy Spirit outside while I'm stepping through an spiritual wasteland? Or is this beause I became very heavy hospitalized and traumatized when I was a very little child - while only god helped me not to become a mental degenerated human being? Whatever - the real interesting question is in my eyes: How is it that the Holy Spirit is a person like god father and god son? And I fear this question is not open for discussions. Perhaps it's only open for a heart full of love. So for you personal the most important question could be: "What is my antisemitism doing with me?" I'm for example convinced that every antisemite would murder me immediatelly if he could do so because his society [of of antisemites] would legalize to murder Jews. Although I think too you are living in the thoughts never you would do so - this explains maybe your inner distance from god whose son became a jewish child of his jewish mother Mary and his jewish father Joseph.

http://youtu.be/oH7sRjm9C2c

 

What a waste of time and energy.

http://youtu.be/tjUnVo-LQN4

Im Wald is so staad,
alle Weg san vawaht,
alle Weg sann vaschniebn
is koa Steigl net bliebn.

Hörst D´as z´weitest im Wald,
wann da Schnee oba fallt,
wann si´s Astl o´biagt,
wann a Vogel auffliagt.

Aba heunt kunnts scho sei,
es waar nomal so fei
es waar nomal so staad,
dass si gar nix rührn tat.

Kimmt die heilige Nacht.
Und da Wald is aufgewacht,
schaugn de Has´n und Reh,
schaugn de Hirsch übern Schnee.

Hamm sie neamad net gfragt,
hot´s eahr neamad net gsagt,
und kennan s´do bald,
d´ Muatta Gottes im Wald.

Ludwig Thoma

 

To which you must be referring to your example of posting something in a language that is not the common language used on this forum. OK.

 

I would say that the Holy Spirit is divine, were it to exist but, there is no emperical evidence that it does indeed exist.

Jesus was the only one whose baptism involved the Holy Spirit .. biblically speaking .. so it is my contention that us regular humans do not have contact with the Holy Spirit, at least not on a regular basis.

 

Then correct yourself and say what you believe instead of making a conjecture. The truthful expression that you are attempting to make would be "I would say that the Holy Spirit is not divine, because it does not exist, its non-existence is supported by a lack of empirical evidence."

Congratulations on your having denied the existence of the Holy Spirit, which in effect is an act of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Now you ironclad that Blasphemous act by making a very FORMAL ARGUMENT against the Holy Spirit. Your true colors are shining brightly. Maintain your status quo or strive a little harder, and I am certain that you will be given a first class passage to an eternity that you really don't want to be a part of.

 

the same life of all that is, is the same light of all that is; light

biblically speaking: bathing can make a new man out of anyone, equally.

in the first century, bathing was not a normal action.......

Heck nostradamus saved many of europe from the plague just by teaching people to bath and that was 1500 yrs (appox) from jesus time.

you wouldnt be alive without it

 

You lack understanding of how the term "emperical evidence" applies.

Just because we have no emperical evidence of God does not mean God does not exist.

I believe in God.

It is you that asks for emperical evidence at every turn, therfor it is you that does not believe in the Holy Spirit.

Nonsense .. I made a straitforward claim. "Jesus was the baptism where the Holy Spirit was present"

If you claim differently then prove it. Where else in the Bible does the Holy Spirit come out to play ?

 

And you still evade the request previously made to you for your explanation of that "emperical evidence". Just because you make the claim that I have a misunderstanding, does not make that claim a fact. Regardless of how many times you repeat the claim. Show your proof.

Then why do some non-theists resort to making a claim that God does not exist when they consider a lack of 'emperical evidence'. What right do they have to make such a claim when they have no "emperical evidence" one way or the other. I can tell you why. It is because there is no such thing as "emperical evidence". The proper spelling is "empirical evidence". You want to speak about "emperical evidence" and you can't even get the spelling correct.

Good for you.

No! You are wrong again. I usually ask for 'objective empirical evidence'. Also I have never required anyone to PROVE the existence of the Holy Spirit.

"so it is my contention that us regular humans do not have contact with the Holy Spirit, at least not on a regular basis."

In that statement above, you deny that the Holy Spirit has contact with regular humans and especially on a regular basis. Therefore, you deny the Power of the Holy Spirit.

I don't make claims, I only speak the truth.

"Act 2:1 ¶ And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

Can you comprehend that portion of scripture?

 

I gave you a definition previously but I will give you another. You have no clue what you are talking about by requesting empirical evidence for history. It makes no sense.

Now explain what the difference is between "objective empirical evidence" and "empirical evidence".

Acts was not even written untill many decades after Christ (80-130 AD) and we do not know who wrote it (perhaps the same author as luke as one seems to copy the other in many places) and the passage you quote has zero to do with Jesus in that Jesus is not even mentioned or alluded to.

Finatical rituals and traditions were common to many religions at the time. These rituals were not part of Church tradition handed down from James and Peter.

The Author of Luke was presumed to know Paul. James and Peter, leaders of the Jerusalem Church after Christ, did not think much of Paul.


Here is what Eusebius had to say about such traditions:

 

Definitions are a dime a dozen. I did not ask for a definition, I asked for an explanation. Do you not know the difference between definition and explanation? There is a subtle difference you know.

I have asked for more than 'empirical evidence', I have asked for "objective empirical evidence". See that word 'objective'... that means in relation to evidence -- tangible items that will conclusively prove the point under discussion. Example: In such a case as Socrates, I would need to see the remains of one that was called Socrates, and then have verifiable PROOF that said remains was in FACT the remains of Socrates. Tangible, verifiable PROOF does not include OPINIONS of others.

See above paragraph.

Were you there at the writing of Acts to act as a witness of when it was written? No? Then your claim is based on the subjective opinion of others.

What are "Finatical rituals"? You keep referencing this thing you call the "Church", but you always leave it hanging in limbo as to what you are referencing. I believe you and I are operating on two distinctly different meanings of the term "the Church". My reference is toward ALL the followers of Christ as opposed to some organization that arbitrarily calls itself 'the Church' such as the RCC. So, from my point of view, those traditions were a part of 'the church' long before "the Church" was organized and took on the name of the RCC.

So what? I don't think much of the Pope.

More opinion? Is that really all you have to offer?

 

Your opinion of the Pope is not relevent. The opinion of James and Peter of Paul is quite relevant IMO to the validity of Pauls teaching.

There is much more but you should try and address what has been presented in a coherent way first.

You have presented zero evidence that meets your criteria ("were you there at the writing").

Obviously you are not a witness to the writing of anything in the Bible so you have no evidence that meets your criteria so there is no need to proceed further.

You can not use the Bible as evidence for your belief because you do not believe in things that you were not there to witness.

 

Neither are the opinions from other people that you have posted.

Yes! I suppose you would think that your delusional opinion of what James and Peter stated would be relevant. Self aggrandizement.

I have. You should try comprehending what I have written.

I have. The testimony given to me by the Holy Spirit. But of course you reject the idea of the Holy Spirit being capable of communing with anyone in this day and age. . . thus you, attempting to limit the power of the Holy Spirit.

Geographically (not having visited that area of the world) or chronologically (not there during that era) You are correct, but for you to say that I have no evidence is a presumption on your part due to your willful rejection of the testimony given by the Holy Spirit.

Well, as for using the Bible for evidence, I have been corrected by one of the non-theists on this forum on that matter. That non-theists indicates that she uses the Bible as PROOF of her claims. So, if a non-theist can use the Bible for such purposes, then I suppose it is OK for me to do the same.

 

I am not the one that says the Bible can not be used as evidence (proof is stretching it a bit).

It is your criteria that excludes the Bible as evidence. Your criteria is that one needs to be there at the writing to act as a witness otherwise you reject the evidence as subjective opinion.

You can not have your cake and eat it too.

On the basis of your criteria for acceptable evidence, evidence from the Bible is ruled out.

In regards to evidence from the Holy Spirit. It is not empirical evidence because it can not be verified by others independently.

I do not "willfully reject" the testimony of the Holy Spirit ?

I would be fully willing and gratefull even to accept your testimony in relation the Holy Spirit if you were able to get a few simple answers from the Holy spirit in relation to Biblical questions.

Unfortunately you can not seem to obtain answers to simple questions and this casts doubt on either your credibility or the identity of the Spirit that you converse with.

 

Quite a contrast there GO. From one post to your very next post, you make a 180 turn regarding the Bible being used for evidence. You are now attempting to dictate to me what I can and cannot use as evidence. I suppose it is OK then for a non-theist to use the Bible for PROOF of her claims, while knowing that the non-theist does not believe in God, or Jesus as a deity, or the Holy Spirit. Your choice and use of logic is appalling. Shall we say that choice and usage creates a discriminatory animus at the least.

Show me specifically where I have rejected the Bible based on my not having been there. It is time to show and tell.

That is not true either. I baked a cake just last week, and now it is all gone. Ate it all by my lonesome self.

Only one major problem with your theory. I have previously stated that when I have a question pertaining to the scripture, I seek out the witness of the Holy Spirit to give me the interpretation of the scripture. Thereby validating the scripture. Now please try to PROVE that I don't seek out that most authoritative witness and also PROVE that I don't get responses. As for you attempting to refute my demand for proof by making a counter demand for proof that I did and that I did receive a response: READ MY MIND.

It is written in my words, and those words form a description.... much the same that a carved statue or a painting would do.

OK, then you are forced to reject the Holy Spirit. Which would imply that you are being forced to reject the Holy Spirit.

Ah... here we go on that age old question of yours pertaining to the speckled bear form South America. I have already told you what answer I got on that one.... my instructions for you were... ask for yourself. The fact that you have not received an answer or that you refuse to acknowledge an answer is sufficient to raise the red flag which screams out "He did not ask the Holy Spirit".

Unfortunately, you don't follow instructions.

 

This is all a big dodge of the central issue.

By your rules for evidence (nothing to do with my rules) .. the Bible is ruled out.

Your conversations with the Holy Ghost are not "Empirical Evidence".

These conversations can not be indepenently verified nor can the identity of your Spirit.

 

More of your renowned technique of pushing a delusion that you are suffering from. Instead of bringing forth the evidence to support your claims, you just keep right on repeating the same ole garbage and never bring forth any evidence. Whereas I have already stipulated my position relative to the Bible being a source of evidence.

Of course we (all of us Christians) understand your disdain toward the Holy Spirit.