The real cancer

It is not my fault that you feel trapped by your own words. Do not shoot the messenger.

There is not much to see through. If you do not like my definition and think it is wrong then say where it is wrong or give one of your own.

My definition of "inspired scripture" is:

Scripture where the words written come to the writer from the Holy Spirit.

What is your definition ?

 

Perhaps you can help us out as an objective 3rd party.

Incorp does not like my definition of "inspired scripture".

My definition of "inspired scripture" is:

Scripture where the words written come to the writer from the Holy Spirit.

What would be your definition ?

 

Now we concur on the above since you have explained your position. Language is sometimes tricky, and I have to resort to making inquiry so that I can determine precisely what the speaker is saying.

Authentic meaning that the stated author is the author. Scholars living today or even a hundred years ago were not present to witness 'who' wrote those scriptures, therefore, all they have is a 'best guess' chance of either being right or wrong. They, like the scientists cannot prove what they suspicion.

I don't interpret scripture. When there is a question in my mind about the scripture, I pray about that issue and ask the Lord to provide me with guidance on what it means. I adhere to the scripture wherein it states;
"Pro 3:1 ¶ My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
Pro 3:2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.
Pro 3:3 Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart:
Pro 3:4 So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.
Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Pro 3:6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. "

First of all the link you referenced to which I addressed with my comment "Nice quote, too bad it is not from the Bible." was in fact not the Bible. Your attempt to offset my comment would have been better had it originated in your own mind rather than leaning on the opinion of other people. The same applies to the link you have posted just above. I have stated several times on this forum that I do not adhere to the "orthodoxy" and have explained why. So your orthodox judgment means nothing to me.

Such as the claims made by the folks who published the article on 'orthodoxy'?

Then you certainly must understand my position when I question people on this forum. It is because I am not only suspicious of them, but also because I do not trust them.

So, you are indicating that you also think that I am a prophet? Or that I have made a claim that I am a prophet? That is totally laughable. I have made no such claims. I don't make claims, I speak the truth.

I will say Praise the Lord to that affirmation of faith.

Logic? Logic as used on this and most other forums is a perverted man-made tool that was designed by people who held an agenda that spoke against the existence of God. That incoherent logic that I use is the logic supplied to me by the Holy Spirit.
"1Cr 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Cr 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1Cr 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
1Cr 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
1Cr 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."

I have not blown anything up. I have merely asked him to support his accusations which he refuses to do. On the secular side of life, I cannot allow his statements to go uncontested as that would be an acquiescence to those things that he has stated. I do not tolerate misrepresentations or lies.

 

No wonder the unbeliever is confused, for Christians can't even agree about the most important tenets of the Word.

 

I believe the reason we don't see more healing and miracles is that we tend to ask for God to do something, when in fact He's already done it. We are to believe then receive.

Do you want to see more healings and miracles? Instead of telling God about your problem, speak to the problem about your God. We have the power and authority to do so in the name of Jesus. As was mentioned in similar terms, God is not a vending machine for us to pray and ask for something or to attempt to persuade Him, no, He has already provided us everything we need. Believe and receive.

 

Well, whether one believes in the literal or not, if one can't accept the Holy Bible as the Word of God, then we have a problem. What is one's Faith based on?

Nancy Pelosi stated that we must pass the bill before we can read what's in it or something such.

God says that we must believe before we receive and I do believe this infers the undertanding and revelation that the Word gives us through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

 

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (II Timothy 3:16)

"testimony of their faith that is affected by the authors' personal beliefs and historical context." (junobet)

No argument from me, however this in no way means that the substance of what was wrote was outside the bounds of God's purpose.

 

Perhaps I may have missed an earlier post where this was discussed. Can we Christians now be inspired of the Holy Spirit? Isn't this how we grow in the Word, from milk to meat?

 

LIAR you are. I never said that I did not like that definition. I merely stated that the definition was the one of your preference and your choosing. No discussion was held with regard to my liking or disliking, acceptance of or denial of that definition.

The difference is in your skewed meaning of the clause "Speak for God". Now if you will clarify that clause and the fullest intent you have behind the meaning of that clause then we can continue this discussion. But I am not going to step into any of your little 'words of art' traps by agreeing to something wherein you might be applying an undisclosed meaning or application to the clause(s) or word(s). Now it appears that you are attempting to drag someone else into your little trap while disguising the trap by saying I did not like your definition.

Proof of your lie is in the message just prior to the one that I am answering now. In your message you directed to me, you asked if I did not like your definition, and then you immediately follow up by saying in your statement above that "Incorp does not like my definition of "inspired scripture". ", a declarative statement of alleged fact. In other words a LIE.

 

The question is to define what "inspired scripture" means.

For example. We have writings from early Christians that are not considered "inspired" "The word of God"

Perhaps a better way to put it:

Is "inspired scripture" the word or words of God.

The words given to man from the Holy Spirit or God himself.

 

It is you who is the disingenuous one. Your cry and scream about my definition and then call me a Liar for stating that you do not like my definition.

You keep getting trapped by your own words in your attemp to avoid giving direct answers.

You are the one that nit picks and avoids definitions and you keep claiming that I am misinformed and/or have misinterpreted what you have said.

Now I ask for a definition for clarification and you call it a trap.

The real reason you do not want to give a definition is because you know that by doing so you will be caught in a lie.


Your words:

Words given to man by the Holy Spirit are "by definition" inspired.

What is your definition of "inspired scripture or inspired words" I will make it easy for you.

Just answer yes or no.

Are words given to man by the Holy Spirit "inspired"

 

It is clear from the text below and that you did not like my claim that your words were inspired.

Lying requires intent. There is no intent to Lie.

Since I have previously given you a definition of "inspired words" = words that are given to humans from Holy Spirit.

It is obvious you do not agree with this definition.

If you do agree with my definition of Inspired words = words that are given to Humans by the Holy Spirit

Then you agree that your words are inspired words.

If you disagree with my definition .. Then you are a Liar for calling me a Liar when I stated that you did not like my definition.

I see why you think this is a trap, but it is a trap of your own making.

Do not blame me for pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.

You should be thanking me for showing you the false nature of a destructive mind control technique often used by Cults.

This is a serious topic for me and I am not the one Lying and trying to skirt around the issue and avoid the topic.

This is one of the major signs that one is under the influence of such techniques.

 

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

You keep missing the point. I think you are reading too much into things.

This is not about whether or not "inspired" scripture is better than scripture written by humans on what they witnessed.

The question here is in relation to what constitutes "Speaking for God" and if this is ok for humans to do this.

Literally "Speaking for God" is not reading the Bible and telling others what God says in the Bible.

Speaking literally for/as God is saying:

"God came to me and we had a conversation and this is what God told me to tell you people to do"

Or some variation of that theme.

This is what some of the Roman Emperors would do. Kings had Divine Right .. their edicts were taken as "the word of God"

The Pharaohs were considered half man half God after going through the King Making ritual.


This is what is being discussed.

Not telling others about the Bible.

 

Projecting again. Show where this "cry and scream" is regarding 'inspired'. You can't because it does not exist.

The word 'inspired' was not one of my originally used words. That word was introduced by you as a means attempting to entrap me in the act of making a claim.

You are right on that one. I do nitpick words and definitions. Why... because of the very thing that you are doing by throwing into the discussion points (words not previously a part of the discussion) that need clarification of your intent before an answer can be made. You avoid giving response to those inquiries and instead go off on a tangent and misrepresentation with lies of what I have previously stated.

No! If you check the record, you will find that I called it a 'trap' before you requested a definition. You are now caught in another lie.

More projection coming from the mouth of one who told a lie between two consecutive postings.

What are my words?

I have not argued against that definition. Which is a part of the lie that you stated earlier.

You have already given my definition of the word 'inspired'... it is the definition found in any college level dictionary. I have no private definition.

To what question? Your quotes do not show on the screen when you are on 'ignore'. Be more specific.

Well of course they are. By definition. Now what is your point? Now you are wanting to say that I am speaking for God when I admit that the words I use are 'inspired' as you have chosen to represent them? I do not speak for God. If you want to make that claim, then be ready for the same accusation to be directed back at you whenever you use a quotation from the Bible. "All scripture is the inspired word of God." Are you ready to eat that poison pill?

 

Is this what you are wanting to hear; the authority vested in me to quote scripture and to interpret the Word of God?

"1Pe 2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:"

Of course you will reject that scripture, because you think that Paul is a false prophet. And you call yourself a Christian or a Theist (believer in God)?

Or how about this one: "Gal 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. "

or

"Eph 6:20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak. "

Now do your little devil worship and reject all of those scripture.

 

You are so stupid in your attempts to twist portions of the Bible to make it read the way you want it to read, while at the same time, you reject other passages that would serve to correct and admonish your feeble attempts.

"Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? "

As a child of God, and according to His word, I too am a 'god' and an Heir to his kingdom. As such, I have the authority to vested in me through His Son, Jesus, the Christ, to do many things that you are seemingly not aware of.

 

When you refer to 'early Christians' are you referring to the Book of Thomas, Book of Mary or the like?

 

I think the discussion of "Speaking for God" is a bit off the mark. Too much emphasis on this and not enough about the "cancer" which is the topic of this thread. Let's refocus.

I also think the posts are getting too personal and negative. Let's uphold our fellow Brothers-in-Christ, let the naysayers beat on us. Would you all pause, punt, then go for the goal without tripping each other up? I will do my part as well.

 

I can respect that suggestion.

 

As the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian we in fact do have God within us, I'm just cautious about using the term "god" since it brings to mind far reaching thoughts that the non-believer and Sunday Christians may have. Also the use of such term in the LDS and some other religions that have a totally different meaning of the use of "god". Know what I mean?

 

Using the term "god" or "gods" is no sin, else Christ would not have made such a reference, nor would the same sentiment have been published in the book of Psalms. Grammar itself would identify such usage as something that is inferior to "God"; and in the Strongs exhaustive concordance and dictionary, the word is given the following meanings. The meaning that I am imparting is that listed under number 4:

"1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities

2) the Godhead, trinity

a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity

b) Christ, the second person of the trinity

c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity

3) spoken of the only and true God

a) refers to the things of God

b) his counsels, interests, things due to him

4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

a) God's representative or vice-regent

1) of magistrates and judges"

I do not lean on my 'feelings' when using the term, as feelings are something that relate back to the old man (sometimes referred to as the 'self'). What I do lean on when using that term, is the fact that Jesus made the statement, and I do not believe that Jesus would have made the statement if He were not sincere in His belief and KNOWledge. There are many other scriptures that point in that direction and give to man a special relationship with God: Such as when He stated that man was created in His image (a spiritual likeness).

Of course those that do not believe what the Bible says, will also more than likely take offense to such usage, and subsequently will put on display their own doubt with regard to the Bible. I place no doubt on the Bible and when I encounter something that is not clear in my mind, I consult with the Holy Spirit and receive an answer.

 

Good.

You say that the Holy Spirit speaks to you.

When you speak the words that come to you from your conversations with the Holy Spirit to others, they should be taken as "inspired".

by definition.

 

No .. like Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and so forth.

 

Speaking for God has everything to do with "the Cancer" of unbelief.

The horrible evils done by the Church for over 1000 years, Torturing people, Killing people, Genocide, Buring heretics and anyone else who they thought disagreed with them, Persecuting and killing Jews...

most of this was done on the basis of a religious leader (The Pope in most cases) claiming to speak on Gods behalf.

When Jesus talks about the "abomination of desolation" (awfull horror) .. the false prophets that would come .. this is what he is speaking about.

This is the "root cause" of evil and the "Truth" of scripture IMO.

 

That decision would be up to those "others"... not me, not you.