Son of the Ruach ha Kodesh

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Alright lets try another approach...

Romans 4

1What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.



Justtified by Faith Only...



James 2:21-24

21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Alright lets try another approach...

Not until you answer this:

Who do you think that "WE" is above? ^^^

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Are you suggesting James is included in "WE" even after he is dead?

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Are you suggesting James is included in "WE" even after he is dead?

Yep, that precisely what the Jerusalem council was called for. To decide if Gentiles needed to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses. See Acts 15 and Galatians. And it doesn't matter if he is dead or not, he was alive when he cast his vote at the council.

That "WE" is the decision of the Jerusalem Council of the apostles. And don't quote me on this part: I think it was after the first council, I could be wrong and that issue may have been addressed at the second.

reply to post by Iason321

John. 1:1
Jesus (the "Word") is called "God."

John 1:1 says the Logos is God.
God manifested himself at the Baptism of Jesus and continued to manifest Himself through Jesus by His spirit which indwelt Jesus.
When Thomas said "My Lord and my God!" he recognized Jesus as being the embodiment of God.

Jesus was not a zombie or something but willingly submitted to God's will, though he understood that he was also god, in that he existed before that life, with God and in an equality of form of existence.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

So, you are above God, and can declare what God is by saying so?
You might want to quote a verse to back up your claim or as it stands, you are the Super God of the Universe, by your own pronouncement.

reply to post by Iason321

If you believe wholeheartedly in the Trinity, then you should be able to see how Jesus is the Son of the Spirit. We are ALL Sons of God, and since God is a triune God, we are all sons of the Father, we are all sons of Jesus, and we are all sons of the Spirit.

I don't know where you get your version of Trinity from but it does not cut it with any accepted version.

The Holy Spirit is "sent" by the Father and Son, as he also "proceeds" from them.

the Pope himself

reply to post by NOTurTypical

And Peter wrote that after he and Paul had their bout. Peter either did that letter by his own pen or by an appointed Amanuensis, he was in prison at the time and on the verge of being martyred. If you look at Acts 15, I think, Peter is telling all the apostles in Jerusalem about that instance with Paul and that he was wrong. that was the first Jerusalem council, there were two. And Paul was at both.

Either Paul is lying, or the writer of Acts is lying, since Paul says he only went to one council. I would believe Paul and take Acts as "historical" fiction.
There is no evidence that Peter ever wrote anything, including through an "amanuensis", which is just something made up to account for all these extraneous books with the name of Apostles attached to them.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Who do you think that "WE" is above?

That goes back to verse 9.
What shall we conclude then?
This is a rhetorical device where the "we" in verse 28 (For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.) is including the reader.

If my posts above seem a little contradictory, as in how I might give someone a hard time for giving the formula "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.", and then turn around and quote the Pope, well, that would be right, it is a little contradictory.
God is complex and not so simple to explain, but things like specific verses in the New Testament, and church dogma are. There aren't verses in the Bible that say "God the Son". There are also none that say, "God the spirit" as if you could separate the two things.
The Gospel of John was written in Greek, and a word shows up in the first verse, Logos, which had been used to explain a concept in different ways depending on the philosophy or religion that used it as a term. To me, what we see John doing is setting the record straight as to how to understand what the Logos is, and it is God. So he says it, the word (Logos) is, God. It does not go on to say the Logos is something or someone else. Jesus was obviously in the picture, where the Logos could not properly make itself know to people until it did so through Jesus, but it never directly says the word is Jesus.
My point being, we can describe the scripture but we probably can not describe God other than by direct quotes from the New Testament, and outside of that has to be relegated to speculation.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And Peter wrote that after he and Paul had their bout. Peter either did that letter by his own pen or by an appointed Amanuensis, he was in prison at the time and on the verge of being martyred. If you look at Acts 15, I think, Peter is telling all the apostles in Jerusalem about that instance with Paul and that he was wrong. that was the first Jerusalem council, there were two. And Paul was at both.

Either Paul is lying, or the writer of Acts is lying, since Paul says he only went to one council. I would believe Paul and take Acts as "historical" fiction.
There is no evidence that Peter ever wrote anything, including through an "amanuensis", which is just something made up to account for all these extraneous books with the name of Apostles attached to them.

Who do you think Silvanus and John Mark were?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

So, you are above God, and can declare what God is by saying so?
You might want to quote a verse to back up your claim or as it stands, you are the Super God of the Universe, by your own pronouncement.

Why do you love to straw man people so much? That's just creepy man, I've never said i was God.

EVER. I think i'm going to start doing the exact same to you, not to anyone else, just specifically to you. Anything you say I'll twist it up, shake it around, add my own opinions of what I wished and hoped you'd say, then throw my concoction at you and try to make it stick while I sit in the seat of Moses with a smug self-righteous look on my face. All the while my head is in my own arse and I smell NOTHING!!!

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And Peter wrote that after he and Paul had their bout. Peter either did that letter by his own pen or by an appointed Amanuensis, he was in prison at the time and on the verge of being martyred. If you look at Acts 15, I think, Peter is telling all the apostles in Jerusalem about that instance with Paul and that he was wrong. that was the first Jerusalem council, there were two. And Paul was at both.

Either Paul is lying, or the writer of Acts is lying, since Paul says he only went to one council. I would believe Paul and take Acts as "historical" fiction.
There is no evidence that Peter ever wrote anything, including through an "amanuensis", which is just something made up to account for all these extraneous books with the name of Apostles attached to them.

Read Acts 21: 17-18. Paul again "met with James and all the elders" in Jerusalem during his 2nd visit there. (Acts 15 being the first) And that's rather remarkable, we can trust the gospel according to Luke but not Acts, which is basically Luke Volume 2... By the SAME freaking author, LUKE.

You gotta teach me this style you got. Where anytime the Word of God slaps you silly with the text then you find a way to disregard the book entirely.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Who do you think that "WE" is above?

That goes back to verse 9.
What shall we conclude then?
This is a rhetorical device where the "we" in verse 28 (For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.) is including the reader.

Lets go back to chapter 1 even, how about that?

His very first "we" statement is talking about the "grace and apostleship..."

Really? He's telling his audience, who he is trying to teach, that they took part in the conclusions of the letter he is writing to them??



"What shall we say?" -----> rhetorical device

"Therefore we now conclude" ---> Not a rhetorical device, it's the conclusion to his argument. (therefore)

reply to post by jmdewey60

but it never directly says the word is Jesus.

Perhaps John didn't take us all for complete morons??

He also says that (logos) "became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) amongst us."

The entire gospel according to John is about Jesus, hellooooooooo McFly!!!

reply to post by NOTurTypical

"Therefore we now conclude" ---> Not a rhetorical device, it's the conclusion to his argument. (therefore)

Wow!
I think you may have a problem.
Is everything you read literal to you?
So according to your logic, when Paul says, "What shall we conclude then?" all the other council attendees are magically included in this conversation he is conducting in his letter.
No, Paul is conducting a conversation between himself, and the reader, and draws them into an imaginary conversation where he is trying to get the reader to agree with him.
No wonder you don't get things in the Bible since you are unable to grasp simple concepts of literature.
My recommendation is, considering this crippling handicap you have, to stop posting your inane opinions on religion.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I think you may have a problem.
Is everything you read literal to you?

No, I've been on debate teams, and am learned in logical fallacies and rational thought processes.

"Therefore" when included in a formal argument tells the reader/listener that the conclusion to the premise is to immediately follow.

I think I'm beginning to understand why you straw man so much, you've never taken a course or read a book on fallacies and rational logic and the processes entailed to reach a valid logically sound conclusion.

My recommendation is

Save it, NOT INTERESTED!

I'm not interested in the snake oil you're selling magic man.

reply to post by jmdewey60


*Ahem*

Who do you think Silvanus and John Mark were?

Please.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Who do you think Silvanus and John Mark were

I don't think I need to take a course in fallacies to recognize the fallacy in proving the legitimacy of a book by using an argument from that very book.

Also, where 1 Peter says "Through Silvanus, whom I know to be a faithful brother, I have written",
The God's Word version translates it:

I've written this short letter to you and I'm sending it by Silvanus, whom I regard as a faithful brother. I've written to encourage you and to testify that this is God's genuine good will. Remain firmly established in it!

The Weymouth New Testament version translates it:

I send this short letter by Silas, our faithful brother--for such I regard him--in order to encourage you, and to bear witness that what I have told you is the true grace of God. In it stand fast.

Look up by way of your favorite search engine, this PDF to see the arguments that support that translation:
SILVANUS WAS NOT PETER’S SECRETARY:
THEOLOGICAL BIAS IN INTERPRETING
dia; SilouanouÅ . . . eßgraya IN 1 PETER 5:12
E. RANDOLPH RICHARDS

Mark, I would guess, was a name the writer of Acts got from Philemon 1:24

Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my colaborers, greet you too.

and he used it to explain things where he would have had difficulty tying thing together otherwise (including what to call the first person character in his fictionalized version of the early history of Christianity).

reply to post by NOTurTypical

All the while my head is in my own arse and I smell NOTHING!!!

And how is that a change from your current condition?
You don't have to actually say the words that you are above God Himself when you take the position of ordering God and defining him by your own terms. If you want to criticize me for something, that is what I'm here for, that is the purpose for forums, not preaching. You need to start your own club if you want to enforce orthodoxy according to your version of what that means.
Trying to force the world into conformity with your opinion of the way things are by bullying the members of a forum is like trying to cool the world by opening your front door and letting your air-conditioned air go outside.