I have been reading you and quantrills garbage during most of this thread and the fault is that you 2 are incapable of being fair with anyone that is just a lie who's talking
Consider the following :- In about 49 AD , the Jews were expelled from Rome for "rioting at the instigation of Christ". John of Zebedee ( St John the Divine to you) was capable of fervent action in the expectation of heavenly support . But Rome would not tolerate such fanaticism and pushed him and fellow supporters back to Greece which then was the eastern limit of Rome . John came with Jesus ( that will not go down well ) to the island of Patmos where he wrote under instruction the first part of the book of Revelation with letters to the seven churches of the provinces of Asia , conveying the will of Jesus of many different problems both moral and doctrinal that were troubling them . Etc etc etc The support references are all within the Dead Sea Scrolls which tells you why American scholars ( own about one half) and the Vatican are rather keen to keep as much of this as possible as a work in progress and not a subject for open discussion . The gist of this post is to suggest to you is that Revelations has a clear and identifiable historical basis and that once the Pesher is understood , the text has a very clear and simple message .With reference points with the Gospels and Acts throughout . But no message about the end or beginning of this world or a next world . Just local chit chat . Your problem is that Pesher in terms of Biblical Scholarship is probably a totally new concept . So , if you are truly interested to find out more , you will have to do your own research and make up your own minds in the context of modern findings and not just handed down stories where most of the meat has been removed . It is probably best that traditional Christians continue to believe what they have become happy with as most of the new material is far too radical for acceptance by traditionalists . There's nothing worse than upsetting a person with faith . Other than upsetting two or more .
Thomas Paine makes a interesting point on revelations no so much a point against how catholics interpit it but deff one against protestants.
When I read the Bible I read about seeking knowledge. If your beliefs do not make sense, even in relation to the Bible, perhaps the spririt being consulted should be questioned. The Bible says not to consult spirits.
I find it odd that you provide very little Biblical references for many of your claims. Paul had a vision. Unfortunately the stories of this vision contradict each other. In one story the men with Paul hear a voice but see no one. In the other story the men with Paul do not hear a voice and see a light. At least one of these stories has to be false. (not the word of God) Paul did not seem to have approval of the disciples so I do not think that he "knew" the risen Christ real well or obtained any revelations as you claim. Pauls teachings also differ from the teachings of Jesus. This is a doctrine created by man. Where does Jesus claim any of this ?
Just because your reading of scripture is different does not mean you have "the truth" and I do not. That I want to share my religious convictions with you does not make my heart cold. Perhaps it is you that is not receptive to the truth.
Unfortunately you have not shown fault with any comments nor shown how the Bible refutes anything I have said. What is childish is making claims but giving no support for those claims.
Such knowledge is only obtainable and beneficial if you are first born-again. Thus you are in no position to say whether or not my belief makes sense. Your sense is that of the world. My sense is based on that of God and the wisdom of God. The Spirit of God. Quantrill
John 3:3-7 " Jesus answered and said unto him,...Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God....Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee,Ye must be born again. " There is no contridiction in Acts 9 and Acts 22. Those that were with Paul heard, but didn't hear. They saw, but they didn't see. In Acts 9 they heard 'a' voice, but not 'the' voice of Acts 22. In Acts 9 they saw no man, but in Acts 22. they saw light Quantrill
" Of course one can not enter the kingdom of God until one is "reborn"/ resurrected. Nope .. in one version they hear a voice in the other they do not. In one they see a light, in the other story there is no mention of a light Two completely different and contradictory stories.
John 3:3-7 "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit" 1Cor. 2:10-12 " But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what manh knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. " Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. " The Christian is born again. He has the Spirit of God in him, now. Quantrill
The Christian is born again at the moment he believes in Jesus Christ as his Saviour. Eph.1 12-13 " That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye belileved, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise. " Romans 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. " Nope...no contridiction. They hear but don't hear. They see but don't see. God wasn't interested in them knowing what He was saying or revealing to Paul. Quantrill
Matt 16: 20 Then did he charge his disciples that they may say to no one that he is Jesus the Christ. .23 and he having turned, said to Peter, `Get thee behind me, adversary! thou art a stumbling-block to me, for thou dost not mind the things of God, but the things of men.' And someone who lies to others and then themselves.... is the walking dead 28 Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.'
I don't know why you guys want to cast pearls before swine. Sometimes, it is indicated in the bible it is best to remain silent in situations such as this. Keep silence when the hearers would despise the truth. ■“Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words” (Proverbs 23:9). ■“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces” (Matthew 7:6). ■During His time on earth, Jesus didn’t reveal Himself as Lord and Savior to everyone He met, and He often spoke in parables so that only those with “ears to hear” would understand the truth (Matthew 13:9–16).
That is a legitimate concern. I have thought on it often when in discussions on forums. But, on these forums I do not debate or discuss to convince the other person. The other person is already entrenched in their belief and have no desire to change and will not change. I do it because others read what is being said and it may will have an influence upon them. Plus, I find that Paul was prone to do the same thing. Acts 19:9 " But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus." Quantrill
Yes .. the dead are reborn of born of Spirit. A good explanation of the resurrection of the dead to be sure. These are Pauls ramblings and so not really of much interest to me. Paul did not even know Jesus and often says things that do not make sense in light of the teachings of Jesus. This passage says nothing about being "born again" so I am not sure why you bring it up. What Pauls conception of "the spirit of God" here is unclear as well. Paul claims to have had a vision and he is trying to convince others that he had a vision by talking about Ghosts and spirits. The versions of this story are conflicting as is shown in Acts and by his comments about his vision to the King. Then he is trying to claim he had access to "secret knowledge" through this spirit so as to be the leader of his flock. Later on in the Chapter he says something interesting (see above quote). Here he claims that no one knows the mind of God but claims that him and his followers have the mind of Christ (access to the secret knowledge) through his access to this spirit. Even Paul does not think that God (the Lord) and Jesus (Christ) are the same entity.
The new birth was proven in the Scriptures I gave you. Your not interested. Who cares? You believe the Scriptures are just ramblings, who cares? As far as that goes, Im not interested in your ramblings. The point is that the new birth is Scriptural and is not the resurrection after one dies. You wanted Scripture, then when its given, you simply say, its just ramblings. Then you give an opinion, without Scripture. Typical. Quantrill
Jesus does not claim this and you have not provided proof from scripture or anywhere else that he does. You have not addressed the fact that the comments of Jesus seem to be in relation to the afterlife. The concept of resurrection after death to the Jews was not doctrine at the time so they had trouble understanding it as is also obvious from John 3. The opinion of Paul, someone who did not even know Jesus, is just that "opinion". That said your quotes from Paul are not talking about a spiritual rebirth in the way Christ talked about it even if we did take the writing of Paul 30-40 years after the death of Jesus seriously. Paul has his own take, his own theory that does not seem to jive with the words of Jesus. Paul claiming "the mind of Christ" is definately a deviation from the words of Jesus where he says that there no one should be called Rabbi or Master. There are so many problems with this passage that you refuse to look at. More on this below. I post scripture all the time ? The scripture of John 3 that you gave refutes what you say .. do you need that reposted. I gave you quotes from Acts that give conflicting and contradictory stories of Pauls vision. The scripture you gave from Paul does not mention "rebirth" in the way Jesus talks about it. It talks being having the mind of Christ which is akin to blasphamy. Pauls claim to understand the truth because he has the mind of Christ is clearly against Christs teaching in Matthew. Matthew was not written (that we know of) until at least 80-100AD so perhaps Paul never knew this scripture. I do not know what the deal here is to be honest but his words are not in keeping with the teachings of the one true Master. Read the words of Jesus above and then read 1Cor 2:13. Claiming to speak in words taught by the Spirit is exaulting oneself to the level of Jesus. Paul and the others have "the mind of Christ" do they ? Driving the nail home that he speaks as the Messiah. One thing he does not do, and he states this clearly, is claim to know the mind of God. Clearly Paul did not believe that Jesus was God and this you have not even touched.
Sorry I have addressed the fact of the new birth and showed you in the Scriptures. New Birth is what is addressed in John 3, not resurrection. Pauls writings in the Bible are Scripture. The Scriptures I gave, in John 3, Eph. 1:12-13, and 1Cor.2:10-12, show that the New Birth is for now, not after the resurrection. Nothing you say after your Matt.23 quote makes any sense. So, as you can see, the New Birth is required by Jesus Christ, and explained and seconded by Paul. Quantrill
All you did was post a few Bible quotes most of which did not even support your claim and in fact refuted it, such as John 3. Your Pauline quotes are refuted by the words of Christ. That you do not understand how Paul is doing what Christ said not to is unfortunate. Not much can be said there. Paul set out on his own path. His claim "to have the mind of Christ" in conjunction with all his other self promotions is putting himself almost on the level of Christ. His claim that he knows things from messages from the Holy Ghost and then to go out and teach as if God is speaking directly through him is doing what Jesus said not to do quite clearly in Matt 23.
No, the Bible verses I gave you prove the New Birth. Both from Christ and Paul. Christ in John 3 declares the necessity of the new birth. Paul declares the truth of the existantant Spirit of God in the believer now due to the New Birth. Christ does not refute Paul and Paul does not refute Christ. What is written in the Bible is the Word of God, thus it is in agreement. Paul was obedient to the revelation Christ gave to him. You don't believe the Scriptures. Too bad. I do. Every believer in Christ has the Spirit of Christ and the mind of Christ. Not just Paul. Every believer who is born again has the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. Paul always brings glory to Jesus Christ, as does the believer in Christ. As I said, your use of Matt. 23 and all you said following, makes no sense. You simply don't believe the Bible. Quantrill
