The real cancer

Simple answer. He does NOT cause the death of ANYONE.

 

Wow, you finally get it G. God in fact does speak through us. Of course not all that we speak is of Him, but when the words we speak are the Words of the Bible and truth that has been revealed to us then in fact it comes from God. Though many will claim a word from God does not necessarily mean it is as many have been fooled and others have said so for devious reasons.

 

No, this testimony of faith was written in prison by a pastor of whom somebody who witnessed his execution by the Nazis said: „In the almost fifty years that I worked as a doctor, I have hardly ever seen a man die so entirely submissive to the will of God „.

And of course Bonhoeffer based his beliefs on the bible.
The cup this hymn speaks of is a reference to Matthew 26:36-46 where Jesus prays in the garden of Gethesemane „O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.„ The idea that we need not be afraid of suffering and death because we live in hope for heavenly salvation can be found all through the letters of Paul. Some examples: Romans chapter 8; 2. Corinthians chapter 5 and 2. Corinthians 12 12:8-10.

Is it possible you're confusing me with somebody else? Nowhere did I state that we have it all figured out. Quite the contrary.

Of course when it comes down to it like anything else in His creation suffering and tragedy comes from God. As to why He allows or even wills it to happen I have no idea. As it says in Isaiah 55:8-9:
„“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.““ But we in all suffering we can put our trust in the Lord because as Paul says in Romans 8:28: „And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.“

That doesn't mean we should stop doing medical research or should deny taking the medicine a doctor prescribes. Doing that would be rather dumb: As it says in Ecclesiastes 7:17b: "Do not be a fool--why die before your time?"

 

Read, in the Bible, the story of the woman with an issue of blood. She had spent much on treatment from the doctors of her time over a number of years, when the only help that could be had for her was literally at her fingertips and free for the asking. This is a matter of 'faith' vs 'lack of faith'. Either you will place your trust in man (science and doctors) or you will place your trust in the Lord.

 

No my friend, I have always understood. I have been immersed in it all my life, from baptism, Sunday School, Confirmation, Church 3 times a week during Christmass and 2 times a week during lent. I have been surrounded by Ministers and have friends who are Priests.

I have been witness to disagreements where two people "speaking in tongues" at the same Church came up with different "Truths". It was my Father that had to settle the dispute.

I have studied the Bible, taken classes on Religion in College, and studied history including Biblical history .. and so on.

So yes .. I get it.

When you speak the words of the Bible you are speaking the words written by humans. We do not know which is accurate and which is not. We know that there has been at least some interpolation, and other stuff is spurious, and that Biblical Scholars have been debating back and forth for years.

I tend to rely most on the actual words that were attributed to Jesus, others rely on different parts of scripture.

The message that each person takes out of the Bible, is a personal revelation.

The "Truth" is that none of us knows for sure whether or not this personal revelation comes from God or not.

To claim that my belief/revelation, is better than someone elses because I have a direct connection to the Holy Spirit, is blasphamy.

Christ says Matt 23 - call not yourselves Master, Father, or Rabbi. There is only one Master - Jesus, there is only one Father - God in Heaven.

If you say .. " I know the truth of scripture better than you do because of my special connection to the Holy Spirit" you are putting yourself in the place of Christ.

There is a difference between preaching the Gospel and speaking for God.

One should never claim a word from God .. Ever.

"Just say yes or no, anthing else comes from evil" This is about swearing oaths but applies just as well to claiming to speak for God.

Go have a read of Matt 5 "The Sermon on the Mount" and see how many conflicts you can find with modern Christianity.

Here is one to start you off:

Is this in keeping with the belief "Just believe that Christ died for your sin and you will go to heaven"

This in fact it says the exact opposite. Does Christ ever claim the above ?

Should Christian special interest groups get engaged in making laws to put people in Jail ?

Should there be an oath sworn to God in the Christian marriage ceremony ?

 

At the emphasized text above, I notice that you neglected to offer any information relating to the use of the term 'rabbi'. Why?

"Mat 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
Mat 23:6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
Mat 23:7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ. "

It seems that you might have assigned some of the titles in a wrong manner according to scripture. So why did you misapply the titles that are plainly given in scripture?

As to your charges of blasphemy...

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G988&t=KJV
Where have I committed any of the acts described in the definition of the word 'blasphemy' as given in the Strongs Bible Dictionary? Where ever that word is used in the NT, it is used consistently with no variance in definitions

My actions of speech have consistently given credit to the Holy Spirit as being the provider of the interpretation(s) that I have received for various scripture. I have never claimed or even asserted that the interpretations were my own. (you refer to them as revelations ... so be it ... that is your view and choice of wording). Even up to this moment, you have not attempted to show where I have blasphemed against God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit... you merely keep repeating the same ole chant without showing either evidence to support that chant or proof that would prove your assertion.

Now shall we discuss your action of denying the Holy Spirit to have the necessary power and authority to approach one person or a trillion persons with a 'revelation' is in effect denying the power of the Holy Spirit.

I am now requiring you to own up to your assertions with regard to 'blasphemy' and show where I have stated anything that diminishes the name of God, the power of the Holy Spirit or the Name of Jesus our Lord, the Christ and King and 'ONLY potentate'.

 

There was no need.

No I didn't .. Master is Jesus .. God is in heaven.

As soon as you say you know the truth of certain scripture on the basis of conversation with the Holy Spirit, you are saying that your speech is not your own but that it comes from God.

When you claim that you know the truth of scripture, over that of the interpretation of someone else, because of your communication with Gods messenger the Holy Spirit ..

This is blasphamy.

 

Why was there no need?

Well, what about Rabbi? or; What about the Holy Spirit? Where do those titles fit in? What roles are played by those entity bearing those titles?

God, the Holy Spirit; Yes! A part of that Triune nature of God. So what is your point? Don't say blasphemy, because the definition of the term blasphemy does not fit the bill in what I have been doing.

So, in essence what you are saying is that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul were not speaking the words of Jesus or of God or of the Holy Spirit when they 'composed' the various works of the NT. What you are further saying is that your 'private interpretation (an interpretation in which the Holy Spirit is not declared to be the source of interpretation) is better than the interpretation that I offer and which I give credit to the Holy Spirit. Interesting. I did not know that you KNOW more about the Bible than does the Holy Spirit.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1793&t=KJV

"1) to light upon a person or a thing, fall in with, hit upon, a person or a thing

2) to go to or meet a person, esp. for the purpose of conversation, consultation, or supplication

3) to pray, entreat

4) make intercession for any one"

"Rom 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God. "

If you are declaring that what you have written is 'blasphemy', I will not argue with your own self judgment.

 

I see you are having trouble understanding this distinction. Let me try an example.

Lets say I read some scripture and say "I think it means this"

You read the same scripture and you say you think it means something different.

Then you say that you know "the Truth" of that scripture because of your conversation with the Holy Spirit. (Which is exactly what you have done)

What you are saying is that you know Gods thoughts in relation to that particular scripture.

Do you know Gods thoughts ?

 

I am not saying anything of the sort.

Matt was writing about what Jesus said and did.

Matt did not claim that the words he wrote came to him from conversations with God.

 

But you did say it.

So, you were there to witness what Matt said that Jesus said? That would constitute hearsay evidence and is inadmissible. How do you know that Matt did not have conversation with the Holy Spirit about Jesus? Remember, the book of Matthew was not written till after the death of Jesus.

In fact, the scripture itself claims the opposite of what you are declaring:
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: "

Matt did not have to make such a declaration, as Paul straightened that issue out real quick. Yeah I know, now you want to claim that Paul was a fraud or a worshiper of Satan, or a false prophet.... The only problem with that sort of assertion, is the fact that you cannot prove such an assertion.

 

Say what .. I have no idea what you are talking about.

What are you talking about .. dreaming up senario's not to help your case ?

More dreaming ?

Right .. like Timmothy is inspired scripture.

I do indeed believe that there is such a thing as inspired scripture...

What I do not believe is that what you say is inspired ... False prophet.

 

Let's see now... what were we talking about... oh yeah... you said "I am not saying anything of the sort.[/QUOTE]

So what was 'it' that led you to make that sort of response? Now it is your turn.

Likewise.

Likewise.

So now you are denying what is written in scripture. Wonderful. So much for your understanding of the Bible.

Not possible, when you deny scripture.

That is a problem of yours. I care not whether you 'believe' me. The point is now centering around the fact that you are denying what is written in scripture. Name calling? That is a typical trait of some atheists. Are you also now proclaiming to be an atheist? Also note: the Moderators don't take a liking to people resorting to 'name calling'. I don't care about the name calling, as I know that you cannot prove your claim that is associated with the name-calling. Do you even know what the meaning of the word "prophet" is?

BTW: There is no such book in the Bible as "Timmothy".

 

You can believe all scripture is inspired if you like. I do not share that belief.

I do not deny what is written. I just do not believe that all scripture is inspired.

The point is still that you say that your words about scripture are "inspired".

I do not believe that either.

 

That is your prerogative. Do as you please. CHRISTIANS BEWARE: Giftedone is openly and publicly admitting that he does not believe in the authenticity of the Word of God.

LIAR: Christians BEWARE: Giftedone is now caught in a lie, from one statement to the next.

No! You have said that my words are 'inspired'. I have simply stated that the words that I use in giving an interpretation of specific scripture is words given to me by the Holy Spirit. Keep the facts straight.

Again, that is your prerogative.

 

You don't get it, do you?
Yes, God may work miracles here and there. And it's only natural for us to pray for one when we're afraid, in despair and in a hopeless situation. And yes, even the most atheist of doctors who only knows the least bit of the 'placebo-effect' will agree that the mind is a powerful thing and having faith may help you to a certain extent. But you may want to have some chemo and morphine anyway. It's not an "either or". Should any modern day faith-healer ever tell you that you should stop seeing a regular doctor, run! http://whatstheharm.net/faithhealing.html

These days chances are that God won't work a miracle however faithful you are and however hard you pray. Why not? Because God doesn't work like a jukebox where you insert a prayer and out comes what you wish for. It's "Thy will be done", not yours or mine.

 

What are the straight facts here ?

Are words given to humans by the Holy Spirit "inspired" or are they not ?

 

Very few Christians apart from some fundamentalist evangelical sects, that are most prominently located in the USA, believe in literal verbal inspiration.

 

What say you on that same question? Don't bother. YOU have already answered the question. If you want to interpret what I have said as being an inspired word of God, then that is on you. I make no claims, I only speak truth. You might as well give up on your infantile little game of trying to trip me up, because you don't know the English language well enough to accomplish that task.

The straight facts are the facts that are recorded in this thread.

 

Who has said anything about 'verbal inspiration'? YOU!

 

Well, I was under the impression that you had a problem with Giftedone not believing the bible to be a 1:1 inerrant and literal word of God that was basically directly dictated to its authors rather than a testimony of their faith that is affected by the authors' personal beliefs and historical context.
So I wanted to inform you that - while probably all Christians regard the Bible as a sacred and inspired text that forms the source of their faith - only very few believe the Bible to be the former.

 

And all of that says what about YOU? You emphasize what you perceive of and within others, but you have stipulated nothing of your own personal standing.

When the word 'verbal' is used, usually there is the meaning of a spoken word as opposed to written word. A spoken word would imply the use of the ears to hear; the written word would imply either the use of the eyes or fingers (braille). Had I agreed with your comment where you mentioned 'verbal inspiration' would only have led to more infantile attacks by some others.

The problem I have with Giftedone is that he is constantly making accusations about me that he cannot support with any evidence other than the fact that He says I am guilty of such things as blasphemy. He refuses to even attempt to bring forth any evidence... just repeated accusations.

The subject concerning the Bible being the 'inspired word of God' said nothing about the Bible being either in error or inerrant. The issue was strictly dealing with the 'inspiration' part. Now, if you are saying that you do not believe what the scripture says about "all scripture is the inspired word of God", then that would also place you as one who questions the authenticity of the Bible. Do you think that God is incapable of making new revelations about His word as man progresses in his knowledge of the world? If you believe that God is limited, then you do not believe in the same God that I believe in. My God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent. So what is your position relative to God?

 

Indeed the straight facts are recorded

Words given by the Holy Spirit is the "definition" of inspired.

A person who claims their words are given to them by the Holy Spirit/God is claiming to speak for God.

Only a person blind to the truth would claim that they speak words given to them by the Holy Spirit and then try and state, in the same sentence no less, that this is somehow different than claiming their words are inspired.

 

That is your dogmatic interpretation that emerges from the privacy of your own mind. You cannot substantiate that claim to have originated from any place except the recesses of your mind.

No! You are wrong again. When someone is capable of seeing through your little charade as a trap, that someone is not obligated to play your little game. You have made the claim that my words (by your choice of definition) are 'inspired'. You have also made the claim that my words constitute 'speaking for God'. You have also made the statement that my words are an act of 'blasphemy'. Now, your latest attempt is stating that "Only a person blind to the truth would claim that they speak words given to them by the Holy Spirit and then try and state, in the same sentence no less, that this is somehow different than claiming their words are inspired."

It is only as plain as the nose on your face, that you are attempting to force me into making a claim. Here, let me help you get a grasp on reality:

"truth
4: a particular belief or teaching regarded by the speaker as the true one: often with the" I do not make claims, I only speak the truth.

Learn the English language and all of its nuances involved in the use of words, instead of making presumptions.

 

My personal standing? Having studied the Bible I think that some evangelical fundamentalists' belief that the Bible is a 1:1 verbally inspired word of God, free of historical context of its authors and to be taken literally in every single letter is scripturally unsustainable and that it can become a hindrance to correctly understanding its message. I believe it's a sacred text though that contains its authors' Godly inspired testimonies of faith that form the basis for my own.

Depends on what you mean by "authenticity". While I tend to agree with modern scholars that Timothy was probably not authored by Paul, I have no problem with said quote. I may hold different beliefs to yours though as to how to interpret it.

Not at all. You seemed to have a problem with it here though:

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/212915-real-cancer-15.html#post4622216 Not that I minded - IMHO the principle of "Sola Scriptura" is a safe base.


And I may doubt that somebody does indeed speak revelations of God, especially if all I have for it is this somebodies own claim. I certainly understand why people are suspicious of people making such claims. Not only from a secular but especially from a biblical point of view. We've been warned of 'false prophets'.

Seems to be pretty much the same as your position. He's my Lord and my father in heaven.

All in all to be honest I find it rather hard to detect a coherent logic in your posts though. I can but hope that I've answered all your questions.

As for your problem with Giftedone: No offense, but is it possible that the two of you are blowing things up a bit and by now are just arguing for the sake of arguing?