Dolores wrote: Sc do you eat sour pickles for breakfast, because you are the most negative, bah hum bug person I have ever met. I bet you keep a scowl on your face most of the time and who in the world would want your religion?!!
Thanks for the chuckle, Dolores.
I think some on this forum need to lighten up and read 1 John 3:16-24 to learn who God sees as His sons and daughters. Too many tiny boxes of tradition created as litmus tests.
Get Real wrote: i am struggling with a weird health problem where all chemicals are making my eyes nose and mouth burn, it seems to also be emanating from the walls, i can't even wash a load of laundry without "paying for it" i have made sulfate free shampoo so i can wash my hair, i put mineral oil paste in my eyes each night
I agree with Dave and others. It sure sounds like you have a build up of toxicity which is literally poisoning you from within. Your body is telling you there is something seriously amiss. A little personal experience with this myself.
Toxicity can come through what you eat, drink, breath, absorb through your skin, from retaining waste in your bowels too long or any combination.
I'd encourage you to do some internet research but be cautious. There are all sorts of supplement manufacturers that claim their products can cure it all. But if several claim a certain cocktail of herbs is helpful to cleanse the colon for example..... its probably true. A colon cleanse may be a good place to start as most all toxicity reaches your cells the same way the nutrients from the food you eat does...... through the colon.
B. McCausland wrote: Biblical debate parts from revealed truth as an absolute, so both parties endeveour to find proof from the content of Scripture to support the particular opinion. The support of the argument should not proceed from rationalistic devises, but from the Scripture text itself at face value, taking into consideration grammar, context and word meaning. Any other notion, sounds as a distorted/presumptious game related to sophistry. My apologies for this; no insult intended, the comparison is given just for clarification.
No insult taken.
I can agree with this if by "revealed truth" you mean fallible doctrines. Personally, I consider the sum of scripture as revealed truth (Deut 29:29) but I can work with your definition.
As for grammar and context..... no problem. Word meaning...... I suspect we part ways there as you don't seem too keen on allowing God to define His own words. Apart from that, isn't what you wrote above pretty much what I've been saying about biblical debate all along? A doctrine is set on the table and measured by scripture? But a debate cannot continue to a conclusion unless both parties agree to be bound by scripture. We've been there before but you chose to bail.
B. McCausland wrote: 1. Thanks for your compliment about the 'cross' post 2. Sorry Lurker, it is difficult to fathom the meaning of your previous post. However, Humanistic debate does not coincide with Biblical debate, because Humanism does not part from certainties, but suppositions/theories that need to be proved. We do part from revealed truth that does not need to be ‚Äėproved‚Äô
1) You're welcome.
2) There you go again wandering off into la la land. The meaning of my previous post was to answer your absurdity with absurdity.
As for biblical debate, you're still clueless. Debate deals with objective biblical facts such as your mortal body at this time is "in Adam". That fact proves your appeal to 1 Cor 15:52 does not establish imputation of original sin..... an assertion I'd guess you would have wagered an arm and a leg would put an end to the debate.
. . .
Nails....... The NLT and NIV render it nail while most other translations render it nails. The lexicon doesn't offer any help whether the underlying word, defined "nail", should be rendered singular of plural. I question whether a plural translation is required by the Greek language and may be a subjective judgment call of the translators.
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to **execute wrath** upon him that doeth evil.
Rom 1:18 For **the wrath of God** is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness...
So Caesar, according to you, is in heaven. I bet Obama would love to know about that.
John UK wrote: Bro, I am thinking that the common belief is that the cross was in two parts, an upright and cross beam. However, Matthew 27:32 KJV (32) And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross. It would have been virtually impossible for any man to bear two pieces of heavy wood.
I think what you are saying without saying it is........ there is no way to know from scripture the exact form of a cross. If that be so, and it is, should we use a parallel of sc's argument that pictures of Jesus are a 2nd commandment violation because we don't know the likeness of Jesus? Since scripture doesn't reveal the form of a cross, is it a 2nd commandment violation to attempt to portray it? Or if we accidently get it right, is it OK? Or shall we say that since its been done for centuries by God fearing Protestant churches/congregations, it must be OK? Or shall we get our approval from early church historians whose writings may be representative of early church history but are not part of HS inspired scripture?
Just thinking out loud...... trying to find some consistency in how images, and especially a cross, are interpreted in light of the 2nd commandment which I suspect you are seeking as well.
John UK wrote: Lurker, thanks for the response. Plenty to think about there. Do you have access to Greek tools and resources? I am thinking about the translation, whether it should be something like pole, stake. With multiple crucifixions it would have made sense to have just an upright. Back later.....
The only thing I have available to me is the Blue Letter Bible...... most helpful resource. I know nothing of the original languages. I don't pay too much attention to the definitions offered as they are the thoughts of fallible men. I prefer to let God define His own words and terms.
For example......... the following tab in BLB gives many translations of the same verse for comparison.
B. McCausland wrote: Lurker: We set Scriptures on the table and we draw doctrine from it, not the other way round
Ha! If I said the sky was blue you'd say "No, it's green."
DEBATE, B. Once again you prove my point you are clueless about the discipline of debate. We don't debate to create doctrine...... we debate to subject doctrine to the final authority....... to test it.
You have no interest in debate. Your sole purpose here is to impose your doctrines on all the heretics here who don't agree with your version of truth.
John UK wrote: Is that cross an adequate representation of the cross we read about in the NT?
A few things to consider, John:
"nailing it to his cross" implies wooden. Most crosses atop steeples are metal.
"Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree". Again, wood but also adds another consideration. No indication it must be carved into a particular shape.
"take up his cross daily, and follow me." Indicates a meaning beyond literal.
Finally..... the gender of cross/tree is masculine. That may not seem important to most but when compared to an olive tree (Rom 11:24) whose gender is feminine, it is important..... not to determine what species of tree Jesus was crucified on but in learning the meaning of the cross beyond the literal sense.
Backing up a bit; I commented to sister B. that she was clueless about debate. The whole purpose of debate is to set a doctrine on the table and measure it by scripture and agree to be bound by scripture. Twice she dug her heals in refusing to answer questions which would have proved her assertion wrong (mortal bodies in Adam or in Christ and biblical examples of images not forbidden by God). This tells me she has no interest in truth but in defending and imposing her pet doctrines at the expense of truth.
John UK wrote: I'm not sure which is worse, bro. "Twisted, darkened mind" or "hyper Wesleyan arminist immersionist Anabaptist Vatican Supporter". You never hear things like that on "Happy Days". Heyyyyy
Both the same and no surprise either. Both insult launchers hail from the same militant hyper reformed camp who seek to impose their version of truth on everyone just like their mother before them. The one is in you face while the other tries to hide behind God. Disgusting.
B. McCausland wrote: 1. Stating truth and facts with respect does not constitute insult. This is intrinsic to debate. 2. There is no exception clause: the commandment is one. 3. Literacy is part of understanding; plain language skills cannot be denied, but at the peril of twisting facts, or perverting meaning. 4. No need for this. The whole context of Scripture backs the plain interpretation of the commandment
Ah yes, I see the insults, er..... facts continue unabated. SteveR has nothing on you except you cloak your insults in a thin veil of piety and humility.
An old saying: If you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging and the last thing to do is throw rocks at those looking down at you.
1) You are clueless about the discipline of debate.
2) Then all images are forbidden without exception. There you go John. You had better stop painting pictures, you unregenerate heathen.
3) Scripture interprets scripture.... God defines His own terms.
4) IOW, you can't produce a single biblical example of an excepted image. Of course you can't for there are none. But that won't prevent you from clinging to tradition and proclaiming it "truth".
A bit of friendly advice: Cut your losses. You are out of your element.
B. McCausland wrote: Sorry, Lurker, when reading any text, man is meant to use basic/honourable literary skills, granted by God at creation. Syntax order, vocabulary, grammar rules and word meaning are hard to bend except by twisted mind settings. "What you do with them is between you and God. He can't prove anything to a closed mind" Regretfully
Your insults are noted.
Now, since you obviously hold to the 2nd commandment exception clause, believing that anyone who doesn't have a twisted, darkened mind should be able to see it; it should be a light thing for you to provide a list of biblical instances where the exception clause was utilized by God's people, either OT or NT. I'm not talking about the God ordained images so don't even think about that.
Once again, I offer you the opportunity to make good on your insults.
John UK wrote: 1) Well bro, it is a fact that God instructed the making of many images, the tabernacle is a good example.
2) Maybe the following verses, which include sun, moon, stars, show the worship angle better. Deuteronomy 4:15-19 KJV
1) Yes He did. But we also know that the first temple was a figure of Jesus who was to come and He came in the likeness of the first covenant. More importantly, I don't see God ordained images as proof of an exception clause. God is not bound by His own commandments for if He were, He is unrighteous for killing His enemies in judgment.
2) Moses also summarized....
Deut 4:23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, **or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.**
No hint of exception.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. I believe I've said all I can say on the subject.
B.McCausland wrote: Sorry, Lurker, the verses do not prove images were not literal. God is showing the futility of trusting in them.
The texts are God's view of the forbidden images. What you do with them is between you and God. He can't prove anything to a closed mind.
John UK wrote: Lurker wrote: "Agree. So if literal obedience is absurd then a literal interpretation produces the absurdity."
Lurker, a literal interpretation would be absurd only if v4 and v5 were separated, but that would produce two commands.
Yes, John. But......... I fail to see how v5 was given as a condition to v4 eg: an allowance for images provided they are not worshipped. I just don't see it but even if my spiritual eyesight is impaired; learning how God sees the forbidden images should tell us whether v5 is an exception clause or a "furthermore" statement, which is the direction of my previous post.
Btw, I see our old hyper sparring partner Presby fka Pew View fka Seaton, has checked in again. Strange how he can level charges of hatred and contempt against you yet fail to see his intentional misrepresentations of what you believe as lies. I suppose, being a "real Christian" from the "true church" and all, these things are pleasing to God.