FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


What about the baptism of the Holy Spirit





nickfyoung
One of the main controversial views of the Pentecostal movement has been their claim that there is a second experience for believers known as the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is evidenced by the receiver of this baptism speaking in 'tongues'. or unknown languages, or as some say 'gibberish'. This experience, once received, is supposed to bring the believer access to greater power and the gifts of the Spirit. Hence we have miracles and healings happening in many Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. These healings, have of course, been refuted by many but at the same time many have been medically documented. There is no doubt as to the authenticity of some of these documented healings and of course, no doubt in the minds of the many thousands of the undocumented healed. The claim is that whatever happened in the early church is till happening and even dead being raised has occurred.
The cessationists believe that the Holy Spirit gifts died with the apostles but it seems they were mistaken. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are alive and well along with many counterfeits of course, and are still flourishing in many churches. It is a real treat to watch the the power happening right before your eyes.
Dialogist
A lot people within the Pentecostal churches have been deemed to have these special powers of healing. William M. Branham springs to mind, him especially as he seemed to be revered as some sort of 'angel' by his followers. People like him would normally be seen as a fraud to many, myself included. He was just a human being as far as I know. I do believe many are gifted with a certain divinity from all kinds of practices due to their relationship with a higher order, however. Many from asceticism, meditation and good intentions and others just due to extremely hard spiritual work, sometimes not even in religious sense, as I believe a lot of artists and musicians channel 'white-magic' by simply keeping the celestial wireless open and receptive. I think there's a necromantic distinction between possession and inspiration and it can easily be drawn by simply looking at the intentions of the 'medium' and the media they are hoping to conduit. Renaissance artists like Donatello, compared to Aleister Crowley, for example. It's the philosophy of the practitioner that comes into question, not whether it is fraudulent or actual or not. Simon Magnus' conversation with St. Peter is a remarkable and educational example of this. Simon wanted everyone to see how divine he was and got two broken legs for his troubles. He was looking to furnish his ego rather than his soul. So in Christian theology, I would beware any man who claims to have supernatural healing powers, fully mindful of how David Icke reminded us all that we will probably deny the second coming of Christ as a fraudulent impostor too (and again), but still, I'm cynical about American prophets, whether it be Joseph Smith or even Jim Morrison.

That doesn't address your point though which I will do now - I think if a mass of people believed they received healing through spiritual or supernatural powers from the hands of a mere-mortal, it was more than probably due to auto-suggestion or mass shared experience. Belief is a tremendously powerful thing and I do and have always believed that psychological problems are stress related and cortisols are known to rise and fall with exercise and 'liberation', if you will. Some people, not all are just so neurotic that they can convince themselves they are sick when they aren't and inversely cured when they aren't or are when they were never medically sick in the first place. Better yet, cure themselves with homeostasis alleviation. So is the minister performing these miracles a fraud? Only if he asks for money. Other than that, if he's helping people and attributing the powers to good instead of evil, he is an angel. And that goes Bono and Bob Geldof too. I'm not really interested in their egos, just the good they do/have done. If they do any, egotistical good-done is still better than an integral, respectable nothing-done, any old day of the week.

So my answer is basically, good luck to them, but be very careful what your intentions are. You're not God. You're just a dude.
nickfyoung
Have been watching a series of DVDs recently titled 'God's Generals' and it is mainly documentary style of some of the big healing ministries of the last century. The pioneers of this type of ministry if you like.
Some of these guys and women, had extraordinary ministries with many healings and drawing crowds every night in the thousands.

If you talk about people getting healed as some sort of psychological event then some of the more outlandish healings documented would discount that.

One guy on several occasions is supposed to have taken dead bodies and stood them against a wall and watched as they crumpled back to the floor. As he did this several times they eventually came back to life. Like to have seen that.

Another guy had a lady come to him with some sort of disorder making her grossly overweight to the point it was killing her. After he preyed for her and she was unconsciousness on the floor thousands watched as 120 lbs melted from her body. When she stood up her underwear dropped to the floor as it was a tad to big now.

On another occasion one of these guys was visiting a town and he was so famous by then they emptied out the hospital and brought all the sick to his meeting. One guy was on his last legs on a hospital bed that they had wheeled in and he had his doctor with him monitoring him.
When it was his turn to be healed the minister asked what was wrong. He couldn't even talk at that stage and his doctor said he had cancer in the stomach. The guy ministering wound up his fist in a circular motion and punched this sick guy in the stomach which finished him off. The doctor was indignant accusing the minister of killing him and he was going to be sued by the family etc..
The minister just continued on the line of sick people and after he was about 6 more down the line the guy jumped up off his bed and ran down to thank him, completely well.

These DVDs are documented happenings of real people doing real stuff. Some of the later ones actually had some old footage of some of this stuff happening.
darthrevan
The claims of the Pentecostal is true, that the Holy Ghost gives you abilities; though of course the most common is speaking in tongues; being able to understand tongues; and the rarest gift is healing. I have seen many people speaking in tongues in a Pentecostal church. Now if I go to a Baptist I would not likely see one person speaking in tongues.

There is one preacher I have seen, who seems to understand tongues. I believe Pentecostal is the right way to go; though that is my belief.
nickfyoung
darthrevan wrote:
The claims of the Pentecostal is true, that the Holy Ghost gives you abilities; though of course the most common is speaking in tongues; being able to understand tongues; and the rarest gift is healing. I have seen many people speaking in tongues in a Pentecostal church. Now if I go to a Baptist I would not likely see one person speaking in tongues.

There is one preacher I have seen, who seems to understand tongues. I believe Pentecostal is the right way to go; though that is my belief.



Can't go far wrong with a good Pentecostal church.
loveandormoney
Quote:


One of the main controversial views of the Pentecostal movement has been their claim that there is a second experience for believers known as the baptism of the Holy Spirit.


Holy Spirit has nothing to do with Baptism.
Please read it in the bible.

[/quote]
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
Quote:


One of the main controversial views of the Pentecostal movement has been their claim that there is a second experience for believers known as the baptism of the Holy Spirit.


Holy Spirit has nothing to do with Baptism.
Please read it in the bible.

[/quote]


Have a look in Acts and you will find that believers were baptized in water and then baptized with the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues.
loveandormoney
Where is this described in the bible?
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
Where is this described in the bible?



Acts 1:5,
loveandormoney
Acts 1:5,

Good morning
Jesus is talking about baptism and Holy Spirit.
So the group stayed 40 days together in a house.
And did more.
Did You do the same?

Regards
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
Acts 1:5,

Good morning
Jesus is talking about baptism and Holy Spirit.
So the group stayed 40 days together in a house.
And did more.
Did You do the same?

Regards


No need to wait now. He is here and available to those who ask.
loveandormoney
The question is : How to ask.
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
The question is : How to ask.



Ask and you will receive. Just say something like, 'Hey God, thank you for being there when I need to talk to you. I would really like to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Can you give me that now. Thank you God.'
loveandormoney
Ask and you will receive.

Good morning.
Bible does say somethink different.
Please look
MT 7,7 and 7,8

Regards
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
Ask and you will receive.

Good morning.
Bible does say somethink different.
Please look
MT 7,7 and 7,8

Regards


7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
Can't go far wrong with a good Pentecostal church.


You can.

You can,

1. Subscribe to Pentcostalism as the only way in the "once-for-all" ethos that it has. And (not "or")...
2. You can discard all other credibly supported teachings of ecclesiology to achieve this end.

So yes, you can far wrong with a good Pentacostal church.

I mean the topic is a gimme, which is why I haven't addressed it with any particular seriousness up until this point. The trinity depends on the holy spirit. The last supper has Christ and The Holy Spirit in the same upper room. Pentacostal teachings require the Holy Spirit to don the trinity configuration pre-crucifixion, and then untriplet itself for later sacramental rites. This is not acceptable. Concerning pre and post confusions. The anointing of Holy Water in post-baptismal ritual is to signify the introduction of the Holy Spirit's part in the Baptism. So all Christianity (including your weird brand) already covers this base. Catholicism just knows it has. Catholicism even asks The Holy Spirit to the arbitary encore that you place so much stock later on too. We call this Confirmation. Ironically, if you don't get confirmed, as I believe Pentcostals don't, you don't get the "special outpouring of the Holy Spirit" as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

Catechism of the Catholic Church wrote:

1300 The essential rite of the sacrament follows. In the Latin rite, “the sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by the laying on of the hand, and through the words: ‘Accipe signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti’ [Be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.].”114 In the Eastern Churches of Byzantine rite, after a prayer of epiclesis, the more significant parts of the body are anointed with myron: forehead, eyes, nose, ears, lips, chest, back, hands, and feet. Each anointing is accompanied by the formula Sf?a?? ?ve?µato? ????o? (Signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti): “the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.”115 (699)


So you're not actually a Pentacostal church, even by other's definition. You're in quite literal terms, every thing but Pentacostal.

In terms of a Protestant Reformist theology (I often wonder what the hell you even regard yourself as you just look, sound and act like an athiest): You are not even required to recieve sacrament, holy water or be in the presence of a priest (or "minister" like that counts) to be baptised:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_church

Another atheistic Invisible Pink Unicorn philosophy.

Awesome!

Why don't you find a real faith?
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
Can't go far wrong with a good Pentecostal church.


You can.

You can,

1. Subscribe to Pentcostalism as the only way in the "once-for-all" ethos that it has. And (not "or")...
2. You can discard all other credibly supported teachings of ecclesiology to achieve this end.

So yes, you can far wrong with a good Pentacostal church.

I mean the topic is a gimme, which is why I haven't addressed it with any particular seriousness up until this point. The trinity depends on the holy spirit.


Quote:
The last supper has Christ and The Holy Spirit in the same upper room. Pentacostal teachings require the Holy Spirit to don the trinity configuration pre-crucifixion, and then untriplet itself for later sacramental rites
.


Not sure exactly what you mean here, can you elaborate a little please.

This is not acceptable. Concerning pre and post confusions. The anointing of Holy Water in post-baptismal ritual is to signify the introduction of the Holy Spirit's part in the Baptism. So all Christianity (including your weird brand) already covers this base. Catholicism just knows it has. Catholicism even asks The Holy Spirit to the arbitary encore that you place so much stock later on too.


Quote:
We call this Confirmation.



Yes, the Anglicans have what they call confirmation too. We believe that your confirmation evolved from the baptism of the Holy Spirit of the early church.

Ironically, if you don't get confirmed, as I believe Pentcostals don't, you don't get the "special outpouring of the Holy Spirit" as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

Catechism of the Catholic Church wrote:

1300 The essential rite of the sacrament follows. In the Latin rite, “the sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by the laying on of the hand, and through the words: ‘Accipe signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti’ [Be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.].”114 In the Eastern Churches of Byzantine rite, after a prayer of epiclesis, the more significant parts of the body are anointed with myron: forehead, eyes, nose, ears, lips, chest, back, hands, and feet. Each anointing is accompanied by the formula Sf?a?? ?ve?µato? ????o? (Signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti): “the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.”115 (699)


So you're not actually a Pentacostal church, even by other's definition. You're in quite literal terms, every thing but Pentacostal.

In terms of a Protestant Reformist theology (I often wonder what the hell you even regard yourself as you just look, sound and act like an athiest):



Quote:
You are not even required to recieve sacrament, holy water or be in the presence of a priest (or "minister" like that counts) to be baptised:



That is right, I even led the communion last week as a layman. We believe that there is only one mediator between us and God and that is Jesus who is sitting at the right hand of God interceding for us.
We believe that Jesus has given us all authority on earth to lay hands on people to heal the sick and cast out demons etc.



Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_church



Never actually come across the invisible church in that context. I know that some protestants believe that the Catholic church is some sort of antichrist and that is taught in some circles.

Another atheistic Invisible Pink Unicorn philosophy.

Awesome!

Why don't you find a real faith?



Had a mate who was dying of cancer and ended up in a Catholic hospital. He was a Pentecostal but converted to Catholicism before he died.


Can I ask you about the movement in the Catholic church towards Pentecostalism, or at least getting baptized in the Spirit.


The guy below I saw once on video when he spoke to a AOG conference and he claimed to be baptized in the Holy Spirit.

"Fr Dean Braun MSG

Fr Dean Braun
This speaker bares his soul to his audience as he attempts to explain the love of God that has consoled and carried him through a most draining, and sometimes, disturbing journey of his encounters with the figures of security and/or authority that we all meet at the many stages of our lives- 'friends', bullies, parents, teachers, collegaues, priests, bishops... etc. the titles of his tapes voice the challenges and situations faced, but through it all, Fr Dean shows how peace can ultimately be found. He has found great appeal in the Gospel Business Fellowship as well as in the wider Christian churches here in Australia and has been guest speaker at world pentacostal & charismatic conferences. Although domiciled in the USA, in the late 80's he became a member of the Misionaries of God's Love, a priest formation community based in Canberra, Australia."
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:


Can I ask you about the movement in the Catholic church towards Pentecostalism, or at least getting baptized in the Spirit.



I don't know of any. We're already considering ourselves baptised in the Holy Spirit anyway. Catholicism is the mortal destination pre exit for most Christians. Recants, reversions, conversions etc, seem to have Catholicism as the last port of call. It's usually the first religious preoccupation of the sources of some of the most aggressive atheism too, so I don't know what that tells you. There's a prodical son analogy lurking in here somewhere. Catholicism isn't really a preference for most Catholics because most Catholics are in Europe and Africa and if they've not ultra religious Hispanic, latino, etc then they are God fearing Bible singing and dancing Africans. It's usually a really family orientated faith which serves as an identity, politically and socially. You don't really not become a Catholic, even if you're Mexican gangbanger or a Italian prostitute or Irish republican. Who more apt anyway. That modern Romeo and Juliet remake (the one with Leonardo Di Caprio) the guy had the Sacred Heart on his pearl handled pistol grips and on his tshirt. That wasn't as sacrilegious in hispanic quarters as it might have been in England or America. And America is where Pentecostalism is taken the most seriously because the priests wear regular clothes and have their own tv shows and merchandise you can buy. They have their own youtube channels. It's not for me, thanks. If there's any conversions to Pentecostalism from Catholicism, it would probably be mainly in the United States. If it could qualify/quantify for "mainly". I'm not saying that it's a step down, but if they don't like us, we tend to make pretty damn sure of it. We either make Mother Tereseas or Christopher Hitchens'es, we don't do Kent Hovinds.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:


Can I ask you about the movement in the Catholic church towards Pentecostalism, or at least getting baptized in the Spirit.



I don't know of any. We're already considering ourselves baptised in the Holy Spirit anyway. Catholicism is the mortal destination pre exit for most Christians. Recants, reversions, conversions etc, seem to have Catholicism as the last port of call. It's usually the first religious preoccupation of the sources of some of the most aggressive atheism too, so I don't know what that tells you. There's a prodical son analogy lurking in here somewhere. Catholicism isn't really a preference for most Catholics because most Catholics are in Europe and Africa and if they've not ultra religious Hispanic, latino, etc then they are God fearing Bible singing and dancing Africans. It's usually a really family orientated faith which serves as an identity, politically and socially. You don't really not become a Catholic, even if you're Mexican gangbanger or a Italian prostitute or Irish republican. Who more apt anyway. That modern Romeo and Juliet remake (the one with Leonardo Di Caprio) the guy had the Sacred Heart on his pearl handled pistol grips and on his tshirt. That wasn't as sacrilegious in hispanic quarters as it might have been in England or America. And America is where Pentecostalism is taken the most seriously because the priests wear regular clothes and have their own tv shows and merchandise you can buy. They have their own youtube channels. It's not for me, thanks. If there's any conversions to Pentecostalism from Catholicism, it would probably be mainly in the United States. If it could qualify/quantify for "mainly". I'm not saying that it's a step down, but if they don't like us, we tend to make pretty damn sure of it.


Quote:
We either make Mother Tereseas



I was reading somewhere that there is some evidence that Mother Teresa was 'super spiritual or baptized in the Spirit'. Apparently she was often in trouble during her training because she would go off into trances etc.



or Christopher Hitchens'es, we don't do Kent Hovinds.
loveandormoney
nickfyoung wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
Ask and you will receive.

Good morning.
Bible does say somethink different.
Please look
MT 7,7 and 7,8

Regards


7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.


Good morning:

These are the words in the bible:


7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened




But You are reading:
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

Regards
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
Ask and you will receive.

Good morning.
Bible does say somethink different.
Please look
MT 7,7 and 7,8

Regards


7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.


Good morning:

These are the words in the bible:


7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened




But You are reading:
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

Regards



I can't see any difference in meaning there. What am I missing.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:

I was reading somewhere that there is some evidence that Mother Teresa was 'super spiritual or baptized in the Spirit'. Apparently she was often in trouble during her training because she would go off into trances etc.


Well I don't know what evidence is garnered from being agape, but its a common attribute of the stigmata and other, other-level saints. She's not a saint yet though, because The Church's stance is like, "nice miracle!... Now do it again." While the Congregation for the Causes of Saints requires verifiable evidence of 'super spirituality', some meagerly spiritual governing bodies don't have the same exhaustive criterion for beatification towards canonization: Me, for example. She physically dragged lepers out of sewer drains as a pensioner and took them and washed them down with her bare hands. This puts her slightly higher than Dorothy Day in my book, but I guess a book about it has to be written by somebody.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:

I was reading somewhere that there is some evidence that Mother Teresa was 'super spiritual or baptized in the Spirit'. Apparently she was often in trouble during her training because she would go off into trances etc.


Well I don't know what evidence is garnered from being agape, but its a common attribute of the stigmata and other, other-level saints. She's not a saint yet though, because The Church's stance is like, "nice miracle!... Now do it again." While the Congregation for the Causes of Saints requires verifiable evidence of 'super spirituality', some meagerly spiritual governing bodies don't have the same exhaustive criterion for beatification towards canonization: Me, for example. She physically dragged lepers out of sewer drains as a pensioner and took them and washed them down with her bare hands. This puts her slightly higher than Dorothy Day in my book, but I guess a book about it has to be written by somebody.



Funny how we have that difference in saints too. Protestantism teaches that all are saints once born again.
loveandormoney
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.














Good morning
Let us read the bible.

Matthew.


1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Oh
why there is not written: Do not jugde.
So here we go.
Every word You say is used against Yourself so take good care for Your ugly words.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
The future will be same and more.
and then there is the logic proof at the end.
Be careful with ugly words, You be punished three times or more.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
The word is why. Why do people are searching dirt at strange places
and how to handle this.
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Question,this is a question.
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Logical?
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,
What does that mean? Are there people existing, talking with animals.
What else is the holy?
neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
The meaning is, the pearl like You do see it, it is out of the view of the pig a stone. So You throw stones at animals, that does make stone at an animal. Humans are animals.
lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Logic?
7 Ask, and it shall be given you;
Asking is help.
seek, and ye shall find;
Seek is pleasure.
knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Because of You did try.
8 For every one that asketh receiveth;
Question does mean answer.
and he that seeketh findeth;
Like a circle.
and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Because the knock is the opener.
9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
What is bread?
What is a stone.
Look Jesus and the devil in the desert.They are talking about stone and bread.And who is the father?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
Where is the fish?Oh my goodness,Jesus gave fish and bread to the people.
The serpent is clear.
So Jesus is defending his father.
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
Why are You angry with god?
12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
but all this is saying the old testament.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
Funny how we have that difference in saints too. Protestantism teaches that all are saints once born again.


And what about after they've performed this arbitrary, non-supervised, non-church requiring, non-priest requiring ritual of lip service and ceremony? Are they then advised to log on to the internet and tell people they are depraved and are going to burn in hell? Is that saintly to you? I mean sanctimony is part and parcel of western Christian misunderstanding, but at least put the work in.

I've got news for you. No priest, no church, no holy water, no Holy Spirit. You have never been baptized. Not even once.

Hell is it?

I can't say myself, as I'm a saint.
darthrevan
loveandormoney wrote:


Holy Spirit has nothing to do with Baptism.
Please read it in the bible.



Actually you must be Baptized first before you can recieve the Holy Spirit and also repent from your sins.
Dialogist
darthrevan wrote:
Actually you must be Baptized first before you can recieve the Holy Spirit and also repent from your sins.


That doesn't work out though because you receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. It's like saying you need to be baptised before you can be baptised.
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.














Good morning
Let us read the bible.

Matthew.


1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Oh
why there is not written: Do not jugde.
So here we go.
Every word You say is used against Yourself so take good care for Your ugly words.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
The future will be same and more.
and then there is the logic proof at the end.
Be careful with ugly words, You be punished three times or more.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
The word is why. Why do people are searching dirt at strange places
and how to handle this.
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Question,this is a question.
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Logical?
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,
What does that mean? Are there people existing, talking with animals.
What else is the holy?
neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
The meaning is, the pearl like You do see it, it is out of the view of the pig a stone. So You throw stones at animals, that does make stone at an animal. Humans are animals.
lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Logic?
7 Ask, and it shall be given you;
Asking is help.
seek, and ye shall find;
Seek is pleasure.
knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Because of You did try.
8 For every one that asketh receiveth;
Question does mean answer.
and he that seeketh findeth;
Like a circle.
and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Because the knock is the opener.
9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
What is bread?
What is a stone.
Look Jesus and the devil in the desert.They are talking about stone and bread.And who is the father?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
Where is the fish?Oh my goodness,Jesus gave fish and bread to the people.
The serpent is clear.
So Jesus is defending his father.
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
Why are You angry with god?
12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
but all this is saying the old testament.


Still didn't get more than 5 points though, did you? Even with the space between the copy and pastes. Have you tried http://www.lipsum.com/ ?
darthrevan
Dialogist wrote:

That doesn't work out though because you receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. It's like saying you need to be baptised before you can be baptised.


Actually I got baptised and then, I went to the alter sometime after and repented my sins and started to get the Holy Spirit. I ended up getting nervous or so and I stopped. Though what I felt was as a person described as being touched by the Holy Ghost. I would have gotten the Holy Ghost if I didn't get nervous. Some people do get the Holy Ghost during the baptism but not me.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
Funny how we have that difference in saints too. Protestantism teaches that all are saints once born again.


And what about after they've performed this arbitrary, non-supervised, non-church requiring, non-priest requiring ritual of lip service and ceremony? Are they then advised to log on to the internet and tell people they are depraved and are going to burn in hell? Is that saintly to you? I mean sanctimony is part and parcel of western Christian misunderstanding, but at least put the work in.

I've got news for you. No priest, no church, no holy water, no Holy Spirit. You have never been baptized. Not even once.

Hell is it?

I can't say myself, as I'm a saint.



I have been baptized twice actually. I was christened as a baby in an Anglican church by my parents. After I was born again I was baptized by immersion in an AOG church.

Yes, if you are a Christian, according to the Bible, you are a saint.
Dialogist
darthrevan wrote:
Dialogist wrote:

That doesn't work out though because you receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. It's like saying you need to be baptised before you can be baptised.


Actually I got baptised and then, I went to the alter sometime after and repented my sins and started to get the Holy Spirit. I ended up getting nervous or so and I stopped. Though what I felt was as a person described as being touched by the Holy Ghost. I would have gotten the Holy Ghost if I didn't get nervous. Some people do get the Holy Ghost during the baptism but not me.


Reminds me of an uncle of mine who jokes that he stopped going to church, not because he was afraid that God didn't exist but because he's afraid that he does (Catholics usually spend a lot more time in the confessional booth than other Christians because the laundry list of admissions is usually takes a good few hours to get through). I was just referring to the sacrament of baptism and that the holy water signifies the Holy Spirit confirming the baptism (in most traditional baptismal rites). Also this mainly happens in infancy so you'd be hard-pushed to willingly confess your sins and seek out the Holy Spirit while you're prime concern is mainly whether you've filled your pants or not. But judging by your adult? Baptism, then it seems you may have been close to that feeling. I would agree that you felt it when you felt it, if that's what you say. You know better than me.

But this thing of having a non-priest, baptise you is akin to marrying a hooker in Las Vegas by a fat guy dressed in an Elvis suit. It's easily annulled because it never really officially happened in the first place. Or "What happened in Vegas stays in Vegas", if you will. I believe a person can accept and receive the Holy Spirit without the Catholic Church's official stamp of approval, however, I don't believe that this is adequate. I would require an educated, trained, eligible and dignified Holy man to oversee and administer the Holy Spirit to me, personally (merely as a personal preference, regardless of what the Church requires). I would require this for me, personally, in the same as I would insist that a gas-safe plumber would be required to fix my boiler. Any random jackass just in off the street is not a valid or even reasonable proposition.

So no, you aren't baptised until an expert has seen that it has been done correctly. Otherwise, it's just witchcraft, occultism or ouija board mysticism. If I want to have my palm read I'll go to a circus.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
darthrevan wrote:
Dialogist wrote:

That doesn't work out though because you receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. It's like saying you need to be baptised before you can be baptised.


Actually I got baptised and then, I went to the alter sometime after and repented my sins and started to get the Holy Spirit. I ended up getting nervous or so and I stopped. Though what I felt was as a person described as being touched by the Holy Ghost. I would have gotten the Holy Ghost if I didn't get nervous. Some people do get the Holy Ghost during the baptism but not me.


Reminds me of an uncle of mine who jokes that he stopped going to church, not because he was afraid that God didn't exist but because he's afraid that he does (Catholics usually spend a lot more time in the confessional booth than other Christians because the laundry list of admissions is usually takes a good few hours to get through). I was just referring to the sacrament of baptism and that the holy water signifies the Holy Spirit confirming the baptism (in most traditional baptismal rites). Also this mainly happens in infancy so you'd be hard-pushed to willingly confess your sins and seek out the Holy Spirit while you're prime concern is mainly whether you've filled your pants or not. But judging by your adult? Baptism, then it seems you may have been close to that feeling. I would agree that you felt it when you felt it, if that's what you say. You know better than me.

But this thing of having a non-priest, baptise you is akin to marrying a hooker in Las Vegas by a fat guy dressed in an Elvis suit. It's easily annulled because it never really officially happened in the first place. Or "What happened in Vegas stays in Vegas", if you will. I believe a person can accept and receive the Holy Spirit without the Catholic Church's official stamp of approval, however, I don't believe that this is adequate. I would require an educated, trained, eligible and dignified Holy man to oversee and administer the Holy Spirit to me, personally (merely as a personal preference, regardless of what the Church requires). I would require this for me, personally, in the same as I would insist that a gas-safe plumber would be required to fix my boiler. Any random jackass just in off the street is not a valid or even reasonable proposition.

So no, you aren't baptised until an expert has seen that it has been done correctly. Otherwise, it's just witchcraft, occultism or ouija board mysticism. If I want to have my palm read I'll go to a circus.



See where you are coming from. I know there is 7 years of training to be a Catholic priest which is a lot of learning.
Mainstream Christianity require a 3 year degree in theology preceded by any other recognized degree. That is 6 years although only the last 3 are devoted to theology.
Pentecostalism only require a certificate in ministry which you can do in one year. I did mine in two years part time in the evening.
They require one to be baptized in the Spirit and operating in spiritual gifts as a prerequisite to ministry.

So to get back to your requirement of a qualified and trained priest to administer sacraments, I would rather be administered to by God himself than to rely on a man who may not even be a Christian. I know some mainstream ministers are there for the vocation, it pays well, and are not necessarily Christian, at least not by my definition any way.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
Funny how we have that difference in saints too. Protestantism teaches that all are saints once born again.


And what about after they've performed this arbitrary, non-supervised, non-church requiring, non-priest requiring ritual of lip service and ceremony? Are they then advised to log on to the internet and tell people they are depraved and are going to burn in hell? Is that saintly to you? I mean sanctimony is part and parcel of western Christian misunderstanding, but at least put the work in.

I've got news for you. No priest, no church, no holy water, no Holy Spirit. You have never been baptized. Not even once.

Hell is it?

I can't say myself, as I'm a saint.



I have been baptized twice actually. I was christened as a baby in an Anglican church by my parents. After I was born again I was baptized by immersion in an AOG church.

Yes, if you are a Christian, according to the Bible, you are a saint.


So technically you've been baptised 3 times. Once by Henry VIII, Once by Martin Luther (if we're still counting the incidental whim of "being Born-Again" as some kind of self-baptism), and once by some New-Jack independent spin-off that the Pentecostals (who themselves are a New-Jack independent spin-off - of the New-Jack independent spin-off of Protestantism) don't even recognise. So congratulations. That's a grand total of 3 times... and none in the eyes of the apostolic Church.

You remember the apostles right? They said stuff like...

Nickfyoung wrote:

"To all that are at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." - Romans 1:7


I believe this is the verse you're referring to when you once again misquote the Bible to serve your own ends? "Called to be saints" isn't the same as saying "you are" or even "will be" one, no more than me saying that "you are called to understand official and credible baptism" will stop your Protestant soul from withering away in Hades. It's just an invitation, not a promise. And as I hoped to point out with Mother Teresa, it's arguably not even a doable one (for most of us, at least). You can only try though, if you hold that verse with any kind of reverence. You may fail, but racking up all minus points as you've been doing with all of this false prophecy and blasphemy is perhaps not a good start. As I said, get baptised where ever you want, just stop lying about what the Bible says.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
Funny how we have that difference in saints too. Protestantism teaches that all are saints once born again.


And what about after they've performed this arbitrary, non-supervised, non-church requiring, non-priest requiring ritual of lip service and ceremony? Are they then advised to log on to the internet and tell people they are depraved and are going to burn in hell? Is that saintly to you? I mean sanctimony is part and parcel of western Christian misunderstanding, but at least put the work in.

I've got news for you. No priest, no church, no holy water, no Holy Spirit. You have never been baptized. Not even once.

Hell is it?

I can't say myself, as I'm a saint.



I have been baptized twice actually. I was christened as a baby in an Anglican church by my parents. After I was born again I was baptized by immersion in an AOG church.

Yes, if you are a Christian, according to the Bible, you are a saint.


So technically you've been baptised 3 times. Once by Henry VIII, Once by Martin Luther (if we're still counting the incidental whim of "being Born-Again" as some kind of self-baptism), and once by some New-Jack independent spin-off that the Pentecostals (who themselves are a New-Jack independent spin-off - of the New-Jack independent spin-off of Protestantism) don't even recognise. So congratulations. That's a grand total of 3 times... and none in the eyes of the apostolic Church.

You remember the apostles right? They said stuff like...

Nickfyoung wrote:

"To all that are at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." - Romans 1:7


I believe this is the verse you're referring to when you once again misquote the Bible to serve your own ends? "Called to be saints" isn't the same as saying "you are" or even "will be" one, no more than me saying that "you are called to understand official and credible baptism" will stop your Protestant soul from withering away in Hades. It's just an invitation, not a promise. And as I hoped to point out with Mother Teresa, it's arguably not even a doable one (for most of us, at least). You can only try though, if you hold that verse with any kind of reverence. You may fail, but racking up all minus points as you've been doing with all of this false prophecy and blasphemy is perhaps not a good start. As I said, get baptised where ever you want, just stop lying about what the Bible says.




I believe, as do most commentators. that when Paul is using called he is referring to predestination.

"The duty of Christians; to be holy, hereunto are they called, called to be saints. " http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=45&c=1&com=mhc

Mathew Henry commentary.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
darthrevan wrote:
Dialogist wrote:

That doesn't work out though because you receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. It's like saying you need to be baptised before you can be baptised.


Actually I got baptised and then, I went to the alter sometime after and repented my sins and started to get the Holy Spirit. I ended up getting nervous or so and I stopped. Though what I felt was as a person described as being touched by the Holy Ghost. I would have gotten the Holy Ghost if I didn't get nervous. Some people do get the Holy Ghost during the baptism but not me.


Reminds me of an uncle of mine who jokes that he stopped going to church, not because he was afraid that God didn't exist but because he's afraid that he does (Catholics usually spend a lot more time in the confessional booth than other Christians because the laundry list of admissions is usually takes a good few hours to get through). I was just referring to the sacrament of baptism and that the holy water signifies the Holy Spirit confirming the baptism (in most traditional baptismal rites). Also this mainly happens in infancy so you'd be hard-pushed to willingly confess your sins and seek out the Holy Spirit while you're prime concern is mainly whether you've filled your pants or not. But judging by your adult? Baptism, then it seems you may have been close to that feeling. I would agree that you felt it when you felt it, if that's what you say. You know better than me.

But this thing of having a non-priest, baptise you is akin to marrying a hooker in Las Vegas by a fat guy dressed in an Elvis suit. It's easily annulled because it never really officially happened in the first place. Or "What happened in Vegas stays in Vegas", if you will. I believe a person can accept and receive the Holy Spirit without the Catholic Church's official stamp of approval, however, I don't believe that this is adequate. I would require an educated, trained, eligible and dignified Holy man to oversee and administer the Holy Spirit to me, personally (merely as a personal preference, regardless of what the Church requires). I would require this for me, personally, in the same as I would insist that a gas-safe plumber would be required to fix my boiler. Any random jackass just in off the street is not a valid or even reasonable proposition.

So no, you aren't baptised until an expert has seen that it has been done correctly. Otherwise, it's just witchcraft, occultism or ouija board mysticism. If I want to have my palm read I'll go to a circus.



See where you are coming from. I know there is 7 years of training to be a Catholic priest which is a lot of learning.
Mainstream Christianity require a 3 year degree in theology preceded by any other recognized degree. That is 6 years although only the last 3 are devoted to theology.
Pentecostalism only require a certificate in ministry which you can do in one year. I did mine in two years part time in the evening.
They require one to be baptized in the Spirit and operating in spiritual gifts as a prerequisite to ministry.

So to get back to your requirement of a qualified and trained priest to administer sacraments, I would rather be administered to by God himself than to rely on a man who may not even be a Christian. I know some mainstream ministers are there for the vocation, it pays well, and are not necessarily Christian, at least not by my definition any way.


I really want to do the seven years. I don't want to become a priest because I'm not right for the job and I haven't been called to it. But I really want to do the training and then do something else. I also like peace and quiet and potato farming (for some reason?) Irish? I could live quite happily in a monastery. I hear they have web designers and all sorts nowadays.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
darthrevan wrote:
Dialogist wrote:

That doesn't work out though because you receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. It's like saying you need to be baptised before you can be baptised.


Actually I got baptised and then, I went to the alter sometime after and repented my sins and started to get the Holy Spirit. I ended up getting nervous or so and I stopped. Though what I felt was as a person described as being touched by the Holy Ghost. I would have gotten the Holy Ghost if I didn't get nervous. Some people do get the Holy Ghost during the baptism but not me.


Reminds me of an uncle of mine who jokes that he stopped going to church, not because he was afraid that God didn't exist but because he's afraid that he does (Catholics usually spend a lot more time in the confessional booth than other Christians because the laundry list of admissions is usually takes a good few hours to get through). I was just referring to the sacrament of baptism and that the holy water signifies the Holy Spirit confirming the baptism (in most traditional baptismal rites). Also this mainly happens in infancy so you'd be hard-pushed to willingly confess your sins and seek out the Holy Spirit while you're prime concern is mainly whether you've filled your pants or not. But judging by your adult? Baptism, then it seems you may have been close to that feeling. I would agree that you felt it when you felt it, if that's what you say. You know better than me.

But this thing of having a non-priest, baptise you is akin to marrying a hooker in Las Vegas by a fat guy dressed in an Elvis suit. It's easily annulled because it never really officially happened in the first place. Or "What happened in Vegas stays in Vegas", if you will. I believe a person can accept and receive the Holy Spirit without the Catholic Church's official stamp of approval, however, I don't believe that this is adequate. I would require an educated, trained, eligible and dignified Holy man to oversee and administer the Holy Spirit to me, personally (merely as a personal preference, regardless of what the Church requires). I would require this for me, personally, in the same as I would insist that a gas-safe plumber would be required to fix my boiler. Any random jackass just in off the street is not a valid or even reasonable proposition.

So no, you aren't baptised until an expert has seen that it has been done correctly. Otherwise, it's just witchcraft, occultism or ouija board mysticism. If I want to have my palm read I'll go to a circus.



See where you are coming from. I know there is 7 years of training to be a Catholic priest which is a lot of learning.
Mainstream Christianity require a 3 year degree in theology preceded by any other recognized degree. That is 6 years although only the last 3 are devoted to theology.
Pentecostalism only require a certificate in ministry which you can do in one year. I did mine in two years part time in the evening.
They require one to be baptized in the Spirit and operating in spiritual gifts as a prerequisite to ministry.

So to get back to your requirement of a qualified and trained priest to administer sacraments, I would rather be administered to by God himself than to rely on a man who may not even be a Christian. I know some mainstream ministers are there for the vocation, it pays well, and are not necessarily Christian, at least not by my definition any way.


I really want to do the seven years. I don't want to become a priest because I'm not right for the job and I haven't been called to it. But I really want to do the training and then do something else. I also like peace and quiet and potato farming (for some reason?) Irish? I could live quite happily in a monastery. I hear they have web designers and all sorts nowadays.


Then you could be more like Mr Bikerman, he has done some training in that area.


That is why I did the Pentecostal training. I wanted to know what they were teaching our pastors, not necessarily to be a pastor but just to learn stuff.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
Funny how we have that difference in saints too. Protestantism teaches that all are saints once born again.


And what about after they've performed this arbitrary, non-supervised, non-church requiring, non-priest requiring ritual of lip service and ceremony? Are they then advised to log on to the internet and tell people they are depraved and are going to burn in hell? Is that saintly to you? I mean sanctimony is part and parcel of western Christian misunderstanding, but at least put the work in.

I've got news for you. No priest, no church, no holy water, no Holy Spirit. You have never been baptized. Not even once.

Hell is it?

I can't say myself, as I'm a saint.



I have been baptized twice actually. I was christened as a baby in an Anglican church by my parents. After I was born again I was baptized by immersion in an AOG church.

Yes, if you are a Christian, according to the Bible, you are a saint.


So technically you've been baptised 3 times. Once by Henry VIII, Once by Martin Luther (if we're still counting the incidental whim of "being Born-Again" as some kind of self-baptism), and once by some New-Jack independent spin-off that the Pentecostals (who themselves are a New-Jack independent spin-off - of the New-Jack independent spin-off of Protestantism) don't even recognise. So congratulations. That's a grand total of 3 times... and none in the eyes of the apostolic Church.

You remember the apostles right? They said stuff like...

Nickfyoung wrote:

"To all that are at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." - Romans 1:7


I believe this is the verse you're referring to when you once again misquote the Bible to serve your own ends? "Called to be saints" isn't the same as saying "you are" or even "will be" one, no more than me saying that "you are called to understand official and credible baptism" will stop your Protestant soul from withering away in Hades. It's just an invitation, not a promise. And as I hoped to point out with Mother Teresa, it's arguably not even a doable one (for most of us, at least). You can only try though, if you hold that verse with any kind of reverence. You may fail, but racking up all minus points as you've been doing with all of this false prophecy and blasphemy is perhaps not a good start. As I said, get baptised where ever you want, just stop lying about what the Bible says.




I believe, as do most commentators. that when Paul is using called he is referring to predestination.

"The duty of Christians; to be holy, hereunto are they called, called to be saints. " http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=45&c=1&com=mhc

Mathew Henry commentary.


Nobody is "called" to prison.

You "call" invitations to people of free-will to make a decision upon whether they'll accept. I think "Sent" is the word you're thinking of, and unsurprisingly, it's just not there at all.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
Funny how we have that difference in saints too. Protestantism teaches that all are saints once born again.


And what about after they've performed this arbitrary, non-supervised, non-church requiring, non-priest requiring ritual of lip service and ceremony? Are they then advised to log on to the internet and tell people they are depraved and are going to burn in hell? Is that saintly to you? I mean sanctimony is part and parcel of western Christian misunderstanding, but at least put the work in.

I've got news for you. No priest, no church, no holy water, no Holy Spirit. You have never been baptized. Not even once.

Hell is it?

I can't say myself, as I'm a saint.



I have been baptized twice actually. I was christened as a baby in an Anglican church by my parents. After I was born again I was baptized by immersion in an AOG church.

Yes, if you are a Christian, according to the Bible, you are a saint.


So technically you've been baptised 3 times. Once by Henry VIII, Once by Martin Luther (if we're still counting the incidental whim of "being Born-Again" as some kind of self-baptism), and once by some New-Jack independent spin-off that the Pentecostals (who themselves are a New-Jack independent spin-off - of the New-Jack independent spin-off of Protestantism) don't even recognise. So congratulations. That's a grand total of 3 times... and none in the eyes of the apostolic Church.

You remember the apostles right? They said stuff like...

Nickfyoung wrote:

"To all that are at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." - Romans 1:7


I believe this is the verse you're referring to when you once again misquote the Bible to serve your own ends? "Called to be saints" isn't the same as saying "you are" or even "will be" one, no more than me saying that "you are called to understand official and credible baptism" will stop your Protestant soul from withering away in Hades. It's just an invitation, not a promise. And as I hoped to point out with Mother Teresa, it's arguably not even a doable one (for most of us, at least). You can only try though, if you hold that verse with any kind of reverence. You may fail, but racking up all minus points as you've been doing with all of this false prophecy and blasphemy is perhaps not a good start. As I said, get baptised where ever you want, just stop lying about what the Bible says.




I believe, as do most commentators. that when Paul is using called he is referring to predestination.

"The duty of Christians; to be holy, hereunto are they called, called to be saints. " http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=45&c=1&com=mhc

Mathew Henry commentary.


Nobody is "called" to prison.

You "call" invitations to people of free-will to make a decision upon whether they'll accept. I think "Sent" is the word you're thinking of, and unsurprisingly, it's just not there at all.



Sorry, I still believe Paul is addressing the Christians at Rome, those who are loved by God and those who have been called to be saints or called to be Christians.

Mathew Henry and the majority of recognized commentators see it this way.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:


Mathew Henry and the majority of recognized commentators see it this way.


Recognized commentators? Like the kind you recognize below YouTube comments?

Who is the "recognizee"? The answer is people of a reformist leaning. So the "majority of" simply refers to about 75% of the 5% of relevant Biblical commentary done in post-middle-ages. Which to most "recognized commentators" is, unfortunately, "too little, too late".

I'm not going to tear Henry a new one. I'll just say that his argument is 1500 year late thread-bump of a sticky that was settled in post 1.

If they were "summoned" (Greek) or "vocatis" (Latin) then no prizes for the first person to tell me how Bikerman didn't end up as a Saint.

Free-will, hmmm?

This argument is getting old. There's absolutely no logic in "calling" somebody towards a (mandatory) "predestiny" and them doing it, and then doing something else, unless of course, the only thing that was "predestined", was "free-will" itself.

So, no, fail. Everyone is a saint by God's open call to Rome. Nobody had a choice in the matter, yet only Paul, writer of the letter ended up as a Saint.

This judicatory God sure bends his own rules for human whim, doesn't he?

Right, you can explain this to me: How God insists that people will all be saints and that they have no say in it, yet 99.9% of them all seem to fail.

...Let me just stap myself in. Okay...shoot!
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:


Mathew Henry and the majority of recognized commentators see it this way.


Recognized commentators? Like the kind you recognize below YouTube comments?

Who is the "recognizee"? The answer is people of a reformist leaning. So the "majority of" simply refers to about 75% of the 5% of relevant Biblical commentary done in post-middle-ages. Which to most "recognized commentators" is, unfortunately, "too little, too late".

I'm not going to tear Henry a new one. I'll just say that his argument is 1500 year late thread-bump of a sticky that was settled in post 1.

If they were "summoned" (Greek) or "vocatis" (Latin) then no prizes for the first person to tell me how Bikerman didn't end up as a Saint.

Free-will, hmmm?

This argument is getting old. There's absolutely no logic in "calling" somebody towards a (mandatory) "predestiny" and them doing it, and then doing something else, unless of course, the only thing that was "predestined", was "free-will" itself.

So, no, fail. Everyone is a saint by God's open call to Rome. Nobody had a choice in the matter, yet only Paul, writer of the letter ended up as a Saint.

This judicatory God sure bends his own rules for human whim, doesn't he?

Right, you can explain this to me: How God insists that people will all be saints and that they have no say in it, yet 99.9% of them all seem to fail.

...Let me just stap myself in. Okay...shoot!



We are certainly going round in circles. Our definitions of all sorts of stuff are poles apart.

First we don't agree on the definition of a Christian.

Then we don't agree that Paul was addressing Christians.

Then our definition of saint is different.

I understand that you believe a Christian is made at the point of Baptism.

I understand that you believe that there were no Christians in the New Testament church.

I understand that you believe that a saint is made so by the Catholic church after fulfilling certain requirements ie two documented miracles.

I believe that a Christian is made when he makes an adult decision to commit himself to Jesus.

I believe this happened in the new Testament and so the new Testament church was made up of Christians.

I believe that the Bible calls all Christians saints.

In the context of what I believe the answer to your question would be that all Christians God calls as saints and 100% succeed.


I know that what you believe is what is taught by your church but that is the very reason there was the reformation.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:


Mathew Henry and the majority of recognized commentators see it this way.


Recognized commentators? Like the kind you recognize below YouTube comments?

Who is the "recognizee"? The answer is people of a reformist leaning. So the "majority of" simply refers to about 75% of the 5% of relevant Biblical commentary done in post-middle-ages. Which to most "recognized commentators" is, unfortunately, "too little, too late".

I'm not going to tear Henry a new one. I'll just say that his argument is 1500 year late thread-bump of a sticky that was settled in post 1.

If they were "summoned" (Greek) or "vocatis" (Latin) then no prizes for the first person to tell me how Bikerman didn't end up as a Saint.

Free-will, hmmm?

This argument is getting old. There's absolutely no logic in "calling" somebody towards a (mandatory) "predestiny" and them doing it, and then doing something else, unless of course, the only thing that was "predestined", was "free-will" itself.

So, no, fail. Everyone is a saint by God's open call to Rome. Nobody had a choice in the matter, yet only Paul, writer of the letter ended up as a Saint.

This judicatory God sure bends his own rules for human whim, doesn't he?

Right, you can explain this to me: How God insists that people will all be saints and that they have no say in it, yet 99.9% of them all seem to fail.

...Let me just stap myself in. Okay...shoot!



We are certainly going round in circles. Our definitions of all sorts of stuff are poles apart.

First we don't agree on the definition of a Christian.

Then we don't agree that Paul was addressing Christians.

Then our definition of saint is different.

I understand that you believe a Christian is made at the point of Baptism.

I understand that you believe that there were no Christians in the New Testament church.

I understand that you believe that a saint is made so by the Catholic church after fulfilling certain requirements ie two documented miracles.

I believe that a Christian is made when he makes an adult decision to commit himself to Jesus.

I believe this happened in the new Testament and so the new Testament church was made up of Christians.

I believe that the Bible calls all Christians saints.

In the context of what I believe the answer to your question would be that all Christians God calls as saints and 100% succeed.


I know that what you believe is what is taught by your church but that is the very reason there was the reformation.


Your staw man was a lot to take in but it didn't really answer my question.

Please answer my question without assuming what I believe by vauge misunderstandings of what I actually do believe (it's not relevant). I'm asking you how this is possible:

Dialogist wrote:

How God insists that people will all be saints and that they have no say in it, yet 99.9% of them all seem to fail.


"To all that are at Rome,... (no mention of 'Christians')"

This includes the guy that chopped St. Paul's head clean off, apparently. He's a Saint!

So again:

Dialogist wrote:

How God insists that people will all be saints and that they have no say in it, yet 99.9% of them all seem to fail.


I don't want to get into a debate about why Henry VIII burned down that Church that wouldn't put up with his murderous, thieving, despotic, bigamous ego any more, I just want you to address the logic of this "predestination" that "never quite works out" thing, for us. Once and for all, so it doesn't keep spilling out in future threads. Thanks, mate.
Dialogist
You probably won't. And if you do, it'll just more appeals to forgotten theologians who nobody took seriously the first time.

The reform, or the credulity behind the intelligent theology was all stolen from this man (who is legendary) in case you don't know...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More

He wrote everything that Henry VIII stole and attributed to himself (the seven sacraments) and also to Luther, who only ever wrote sporadically and patched over More's writings and it's really noticeable where he has done so (because it reads like... good, brilliant! good, interesting! good, NONSENSE, good, brilliant!... So you know which parts have been 'added'. Henry VIII later had More butchered to cover this up. More wasn't feeling The King and he made no bones about it. But anything you do see of quality within the "protestant" writings, that actually makes sense, is Catholicism, I'm afraid. The King's chosen first choice of religion, that simply wouldn't accept the syphilis ridden misogynist as anything other than the POS that he historically was. So eh, if you want to talk more about "Reasons for the reform", I'd be glad to do so, but I don't want to push you away from your faith in the process. I just want you to stop reading stolen material, poor imitations and counterfeit theology.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
You probably won't. And if you do, it'll just more appeals to forgotten theologians who nobody took seriously the first time.

The reform, or the credulity behind the intelligent theology was all stolen from this man (who is legendary) in case you don't know...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More

He wrote everything that Henry VIII stole and attributed to himself (the seven sacraments) and also to Luther, who only ever wrote sporadically and patched over More's writings and it's really noticeable where he has done so (because it reads like... good, brilliant! good, interesting! good, NONSENSE, good, brilliant!... So you know which parts have been 'added'. Henry VIII later had More butchered to cover this up. More wasn't feeling The King and he made no bones about it. But anything you do see of quality within the "protestant" writings, that actually makes sense, is Catholicism, I'm afraid. The King's chosen first choice of religion, that simply wouldn't accept the syphilis ridden misogynist as anything other than the POS that he historically was. So eh, if you want to talk more about "Reasons for the reform", I'd be glad to do so, but I don't want to push you away from your faith in the process. I just want you to stop reading stolen material, poor imitations and counterfeit theology.



Had a look at that Moore guy. Don't think I could use some of his quotes.

"throw back into your paternity's shitty mouth, truly the shit-pool of all shit, all the muck and shit which your damnable rottenness has vomited up".


I found, "Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition." Is that an acceptable version for you. I don't mind using any that are OK with you.

His version of the verse in question is,

"Ver. 6. Among whom are you also the called of Jesus. That is, you also are a part of those, who by his mercy, are called to this faith and belief in him. All beginning from those words in the third verse, who was made to him, &c. till the end of the sixth verse, are to be taken as within a parenthesis, which is not unusual in the style of St. Paul. Then he goes on after this long parenthesis. (Witham)

Ver. 7. To all that are at Rome...called to be saints. That is, who not only are named saints, but who by such a call from God, are to be sanctified by his grace, and to become holy, or saints. (Witham)"

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id145.html

Don't know if that makes it any clearer for us.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
truly the shit-pool of all shit


Very Happy I almost sprayed the screen with my beverage. Masterful use of prose. More was a badass as well as a goodie two shoes. It's always refreshing to see a Saint open up a can of whoop ass on somebody.

"For I am ashamed even of this necessity, that while I clean out the fellow’s shit-filled mouth I see my own fingers covered with shit."

It seems he had a Mozartesque affinity with feces but the purposefully repetitive sing-song prosody of the iamb certainly does carry a deft Heroic Couplet execution that Chaucer himself would have been proud of. But yeah, Luther deserves it because he was literally that full of it.

Nickfyoung wrote:
I found, "Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition." Is that an acceptable version for you.


I'm not really that hung up on which version you choose (although the 1800's part seems a bit problematic), I'm more concerned about the willful misreading of the verse itself. The verse is pretty much the same in most versions that I have seen, and it doesn't really suggest anything about predestination. You quoting and saying 'maybe that clears things up' doesn't either. I see no predestination allusions in the verse cited. I only see a logical discrepancy in the reading that you insist upon (that I can't even see literally, let alone metaphorically). While the original Greek and Latin versions do let a "Summon" or "Vocation" inference, which would aid your belief, they do little to support it, in that, the proposition doesn't make any sense when taken as that.

Something cannot have been predestined for you if you didn't satisfy its requirements, is what I am saying. Again... *sighs* (hopefully for the last time),

St. Paul was not writing to Reformist Christians with a specifically Calvinistic view of Christianity - it's extremely arguable that he was even writing to "Chrisitans" at all.

St. Paul does not mention "Christians" specifically but "those of you in Rome" (Either all Romans or just those of them who are congeal and welcoming to Christianity - *none had been baptised, as he alludes to.

St. Paul use of the word "calling" (in all translations and versions of the Bible can't really be 'changed' to mean 'made' or 'commanded to'. It just doesn't say that.

IF indeed, St. Paul is referring to predestination, then he lied, because those in Rome were not made saints, and some of them in fact beheaded him. You could argue that they were all made Saints by the Holy Spirit (and not the Church), even the executioners and Roman Emperors themselves and 'we simply don't know about it', but I'd have no argument for that, as it would just seem both irrational and pointless to discuss in terms of logic. If you are trying to put this verse in some kind of rational meaning, I would like it to stay that way. I'm not sure how you can overcome these problems to explain why you believe that St. Paul is inferring predestination, but to be blatantly honest, Nick, I don't think you can either. You're More than welcome to prove me wrong.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
truly the shit-pool of all shit


Very Happy I almost sprayed the screen with my beverage. Masterful use of prose. More was a badass as well as a goodie two shoes. It's always refreshing to see a Saint open up a can of whoop ass on somebody.

"For I am ashamed even of this necessity, that while I clean out the fellow’s shit-filled mouth I see my own fingers covered with shit."

It seems he had a Mozartesque affinity with feces but the purposefully repetitive sing-song prosody of the iamb certainly does carry a deft Heroic Couplet execution that Chaucer himself would have been proud of. But yeah, Luther deserves it because he was literally that full of it.

Nickfyoung wrote:
I found, "Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition." Is that an acceptable version for you.


I'm not really that hung up on which version you choose (although the 1800's part seems a bit problematic), I'm more concerned about the willful misreading of the verse itself. The verse is pretty much the same in most versions that I have seen, and it doesn't really suggest anything about predestination. You quoting and saying 'maybe that clears things up' doesn't either. I see no predestination allusions in the verse cited. I only see a logical discrepancy in the reading that you insist upon (that I can't even see literally, let alone metaphorically). While the original Greek and Latin versions do let a "Summon" or "Vocation" inference, which would aid your belief, they do little to support it, in that, the proposition doesn't make any sense when taken as that.

Something cannot have been predestined for you if you didn't satisfy its requirements, is what I am saying. Again... *sighs* (hopefully for the last time),

St. Paul was not writing to Reformist Christians with a specifically Calvinistic view of Christianity - it's extremely arguable that he was even writing to "Chrisitans" at all.

St. Paul does not mention "Christians" specifically but "those of you in Rome" (Either all Romans or just those of them who are congeal and welcoming to Christianity - *none had been baptised, as he alludes to.

St. Paul use of the word "calling" (in all translations and versions of the Bible can't really be 'changed' to mean 'made' or 'commanded to'. It just doesn't say that.

IF indeed, St. Paul is referring to predestination, then he lied, because those in Rome were not made saints, and some of them in fact beheaded him. You could argue that they were all made Saints by the Holy Spirit (and not the Church), even the executioners and Roman Emperors themselves and 'we simply don't know about it', but I'd have no argument for that, as it would just seem both irrational and pointless to discuss in terms of logic. If you are trying to put this verse in some kind of rational meaning, I would like it to stay that way. I'm not sure how you can overcome these problems to explain why you believe that St. Paul is inferring predestination, but to be blatantly honest, Nick, I don't think you can either. You're More than welcome to prove me wrong.



In his introduction to Romans Haydock says, " Of these fourteen have been penned on particular occasions, and addressed to particular persons, by St. Paul; the others of St. James, St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude, are called Catholic Epistles, because they are addressed to all Christians in general,"

And "St. Paul had not been at Rome when he wrote this epistle, which was in the year fifty-seven or fifty-eight, when he was preparing to go to Jerusalem with the charitable contributions and alms, collected in Achaia and Macedonia, for the benefit and relief of the poor Christians in Judea, and at Jerusalem;"


It does appear that there were Christians kicking about those days.


If we go on and look at verse 8,"First I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all, because your faith is spoken of in the whole world."


That would seem to indicate he was talking to Christians as he talks about their well known faith.

We have Jesus being predestined in verse 4, "Who was predestinated the Son of God in power,"

But we are not going to get any Calvinist predestination from a Catholic commentator of course.
nickfyoung
Found another Catholic teaching site. In their introduction to Romans they state, '

"In his letter to the Christians in Rome, St. Paul is reaching out to a faith community located across the Mediterranean Sea half a world away'at lease half a world away according to the Roman understanding of the extent of the world. Paul is facing a problem in attempting through the written word to favorably present himself to a community of believers he did not found and in fact to whom he has never been introduced. "


They are talking about a community of believers and Christians.

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/Romans/Chapter%201_The%20Righteousness%20of%20God.htm
loveandormoney
Quote:

Funny how we have that difference in saints too. Protestantism teaches that all are saints once born again.


And what about after they've performed this arbitrary, non-supervised, non-church requiring, non-priest requiring ritual of lip service and ceremony? Are they then advised to log on to the internet and tell people they are depraved and are going to burn in hell? Is that saintly to you? I mean sanctimony is part and parcel of western Christian misunderstanding, but at least put the work in.

I've got news for you. No priest, no church, no holy water, no Holy Spirit. You have never been baptized. Not even once.

Hell is it?

I can't say myself, as I'm a saint.




Good morning. Thank You for interesting thoughts.
OK
Maybe in Your family somebody declared "saint" and what does this change?

Are they then advised to log on to the internet and tell people they are depraved and are going to burn in hell? Are they then advised to log on to the internet and tell people they are depraved and are going to burn in hell? Are they then advised to log on to the internet and tell people they are depraved and are going to burn in hell?
What is the problem to say: I am happy. I do not need support.

Is that saintly to you?
No
every bad relationship one is preaching.


I mean sanctimony is part and parcel of western Christian misunderstanding, but at least put the work in.
I mean sanctimony is part and parcel of western Christian misunderstanding, but at least put the work in.
I mean sanctimony is part and parcel of western Christian misunderstanding, but at least put the work in.

Are You preaching?



I've got news for you. No priest, no church, no holy water, no Holy Spirit. You have never been baptized. Not even once.I've got news for you. No priest, no church, no holy water, no Holy Spirit. You have never been baptized. Not even once.
Are You preaching?
Based on?

Hell is it?

I can't say myself, as I'm a saint.
Thank You for nice preaching.

My question: Where does this way lead?
loveandormoney
Quote:
Yes, if you are a Christian, according to the Bible, you are a saint.


Please tell us the conditions?
Sorry for writing two posts this morning.

Is Old Testament still valid?

Is baptism by the 12 apostels still valid and is present Holy Spirit given during baptism or after baptism?
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

Found another Catholic teaching site. In their introduction to Romans they state, '

"In his letter to the Christians in Rome, St. Paul is reaching out to a faith community located across the Mediterranean Sea half a world away'at lease half a world away according to the Roman understanding of the extent of the world. Paul is facing a problem in attempting through the written word to favorably present himself to a community of believers he did not found and in fact to whom he has never been introduced. "


So why is St. Paul "facing a problem?"... Let's keeping reading directly on from where you have chosen to leave off....

"Paul is facing a problem in attempting through the written word to favorably present himself to a community of believers he did not found and in fact to whom he has never been introduced. The problem is that his reputation may have preceded him and this could be both a positive and a negative for Paul in his attempts to create a relationship with this faith community composed of both Jews and Gentiles. The sea Paul is reaching across may be more than a physical barrier there may also be other troubled waters that he will have to overcome, a sea of misunderstanding and false impressions."

False impressions? Concerning St. Paul? Never!

Let's keep reading...

"Question: What is it about Paul's reputation that may not create a positive impression? Hint: read Acts 9:21; and 21:18-21.

Answer: Some New Covenant believers remembered Paul as a persecutor of Christians before his conversion and still didn't trust his motives, other Jewish Christians, however, were still ardently attached to the traditions of the Old Covenant and these Jews accused Paul of being in essence a traitor to the faith of his own people."

"However, we can see that 9-10 years after this controversy should have been settled there were still Jewish Christians as well as Jews of the Old Covenant who viewed Paul as a traitor to his people. In Paul's visit to Jerusalem in the coming spring of 58AD, he would discover that his reputation had been tainted by accusations of abandoning the customs of his people the Jews. In his meeting with James, Bishop of Jerusalem and the Elders Paul gave a detailed account of all that God had one among the Gentiles through his ministry. James and the others, "... gave glory to God when they heard this. Then they said, 'You see, brother, how thousands of Jews have now become believers, all of them staunch upholders of the Law; and what they have heard about you is that you instruct all Jews living among the Gentiles to break away from Moses, authorizing them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices."Acts 21:20-21"

Don't cherry pick it. It is what it is.

So let's just agree that St. Paul was talking to Jews. St. Paul was also writing to inquire about his safety as he was a clear minded man and was under no illusion about his eventual fate (a bullet he'd seemingly all ready decided to bite regardless, anyway). Whether he was talking to Jews, gentiles, Jewish gentiles, Jewish Christians or just Roman subversives doesn't really have any thing to do with the lack-of-baptism expected to be found in any, or all. It has nothing to do with whether St. Paul was encrypting a "Predestination" riddle within his writings. And if he was, which as I have hoped to outline, is highly unlikely, I would like for you to demonstrate:

a) How, where and under what authority are you drawing this conclusion: Semantically, linguistically or metaphorically - in terms of 'reference', 'code', allusion' or 'inference'.

and ultimately:

b) How can his eventual execution and ultimate failure to canonize "All of (you in) Rome" possibly support a theory (or 'actuality', as you claim) of "Predestination"?
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:

Are You preaching?


While I would see nothing wrong with doing so, as it is a requirement of Christianity itself, as prescribed by Jesus Himself in Mark 16:15, I would probably find preaching in the faith forum somewhat of "Preaching to the Choir" redundancy, if of course, it wasn't overly-populated with non-believers woefully and unconvincingly failing at pretending to be foreigners. Then I guess (c)overt proactive indoctrination would be a fairly acceptable thing to do, in terms of a mutual motive. Not just for my neighbor's sake, but also for the sake of that lost, depraved individual who has resorted to skulduggery to preach his anti-preaching preach to me and mine, in "the faith forum". I guess I would also find it okay to usher fellow well-meaning Christians kindly away from posting personal musings, which could be misconstrued sometimes as negative and deliberately misleading propaganda about what the Bible allegedly teaches.

I guess I'd be justified in "Preaching" in light of these things, if indeed, I was doing that. So you know, this whole methodology of me supposedly using "aggression", "trolling" and "vociferous argumentation" to win friends and influence people and evangelise people toward "Christianity" is probably my secret intention. You've got me! Now I feel silly. Me bickering back and fourth with atheists really shows my unshakable faith and me bickering with (allegedly) fellow Christians themselves should have really endeared the casual reader to my peaceful, loving and benevolent cause. It was all such a cunning plan. And I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling kids.

loveandormoney wrote:

I mean sanctimony is part and parcel of western Christian misunderstanding, but at least put the work in.
I mean sanctimony is part and parcel of western Christian misunderstanding, but at least put the work in.
I mean sanctimony is part and parcel of western Christian misunderstanding, but at least put the work in.


Seriously, anyone with buttons: ^Livarsi na petra dila scarpa.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

Found another Catholic teaching site. In their introduction to Romans they state, '

"In his letter to the Christians in Rome, St. Paul is reaching out to a faith community located across the Mediterranean Sea half a world away'at lease half a world away according to the Roman understanding of the extent of the world. Paul is facing a problem in attempting through the written word to favorably present himself to a community of believers he did not found and in fact to whom he has never been introduced. "


So why is St. Paul "facing a problem?"... Let's keeping reading directly on from where you have chosen to leave off....

"Paul is facing a problem in attempting through the written word to favorably present himself to a community of believers he did not found and in fact to whom he has never been introduced. The problem is that his reputation may have preceded him and this could be both a positive and a negative for Paul in his attempts to create a relationship with this faith community composed of both Jews and Gentiles. The sea Paul is reaching across may be more than a physical barrier there may also be other troubled waters that he will have to overcome, a sea of misunderstanding and false impressions."

False impressions? Concerning St. Paul? Never!

Let's keep reading...

"Question: What is it about Paul's reputation that may not create a positive impression? Hint: read Acts 9:21; and 21:18-21.

Answer: Some New Covenant believers remembered Paul as a persecutor of Christians before his conversion and still didn't trust his motives, other Jewish Christians, however, were still ardently attached to the traditions of the Old Covenant and these Jews accused Paul of being in essence a traitor to the faith of his own people."

"However, we can see that 9-10 years after this controversy should have been settled there were still Jewish Christians as well as Jews of the Old Covenant who viewed Paul as a traitor to his people. In Paul's visit to Jerusalem in the coming spring of 58AD, he would discover that his reputation had been tainted by accusations of abandoning the customs of his people the Jews. In his meeting with James, Bishop of Jerusalem and the Elders Paul gave a detailed account of all that God had one among the Gentiles through his ministry. James and the others, "... gave glory to God when they heard this. Then they said, 'You see, brother, how thousands of Jews have now become believers, all of them staunch upholders of the Law; and what they have heard about you is that you instruct all Jews living among the Gentiles to break away from Moses, authorizing them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices."Acts 21:20-21"

Don't cherry pick it. It is what it is.

So let's just agree that St. Paul was talking to Jews. St. Paul was also writing to inquire about his safety as he was a clear minded man and was under no illusion about his eventual fate (a bullet he'd seemingly all ready decided to bite regardless, anyway). Whether he was talking to Jews, gentiles, Jewish gentiles, Jewish Christians or just Roman subversives doesn't really have any thing to do with the lack-of-baptism expected to be found in any, or all. It has nothing to do with whether St. Paul was encrypting a "Predestination" riddle within his writings. And if he was, which as I have hoped to outline, is highly unlikely, I would like for you to demonstrate:

a) How, where and under what authority are you drawing this conclusion: Semantically, linguistically or metaphorically - in terms of 'reference', 'code', allusion' or 'inference'.

and ultimately:

b) How can his eventual execution and ultimate failure to canonize "All of (you in) Rome" possibly support a theory (or 'actuality', as you claim) of "Predestination"?



Sorry cobber, we seem to be at cross purposes again. You are still talking predestination and I am just showing you that Paul was writing to Christians when he wrote Romans. And yes, there were problems with the Jewish Christians wanting to hold on to some of their old stuff. I always thought that the Catholic church has retained some of the Jewish traditions in the robes and incense etc. Is that fair or am I mistaken.

I haven't gotten to predestination yet, sorry for the confusion.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

I always thought that the Catholic church has retained some of the Jewish traditions in the robes and incense etc. Is that fair or am I mistaken.


Yes and no. The examples you gave are but the sentiment is a fair one. The vestments (literally latin for "clothing") are all atypical latin dress from early Rome. They all have latin names too. Camura, Biretta, il Capa, il zuchetto etc. They are specifically Roman orientated because that's when they came in and the Vatican has been careful to preserve all of these things to hold true to the 'right back to St. Peter' ethos. The incense is unsurprisingly Eastern in that is and has always has been a ritualistic symbolistic rite in the East since literally the year dot. They say it came in with the second temple but they don't really know. You'll find it in the Bible and you'll find it around Babylon (first temple) so it goes right back, and the relevance it has to Catholicism is the same as it has to Hinduism, Islam, Shinto, Buddhist, you name it. It's not that they all stole it from Judaism, it's that all religions began in the East. All religions began in the garden of Eden if we're being really philosophical about it. In any case, the historicity of incense supports that theory. The historicity of Ancient Greece/Egypt however, goes one better. I know the pharaohs liked their incense too so I guess the pharisees stole it from them. While it's hardly true that Catholicism utilizes anything uniformally "Jewish" (you're thinking of this lot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Church reason Mel Gibson got into so much trouble over Passion is because he dressed Jesus' accusers in exact current day GOC vestaments) - it doesn't really matter because we worship a Jew and we owe them half a Bible, one messiah and all 12 apostles, so trying to deny their contribution is like trying to say we were never born.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I haven't gotten to predestination yet, sorry for the confusion.


Good God, please no. Say it ain't so.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

I always thought that the Catholic church has retained some of the Jewish traditions in the robes and incense etc. Is that fair or am I mistaken.


Yes and no. The examples you gave are but the sentiment is a fair one. The vestments (literally latin for "clothing") are all atypical latin dress from early Rome. They all have latin names too. Camura, Biretta, il Capa, il zuchetto etc. They are specifically Roman orientated because that's when they came in and the Vatican has been careful to preserve all of these things to hold true to the 'right back to St. Peter' ethos. The incense is unsurprisingly Eastern in that is and has always has been a ritualistic symbolistic rite in the East since literally the year dot. They say it came in with the second temple but they don't really know. You'll find it in the Bible and you'll find it around Babylon (first temple) so it goes right back, and the relevance it has to Catholicism is the same as it has to Hinduism, Islam, Shinto, Buddhist, you name it. It's not that they all stole it from Judaism, it's that all religions began in the East. All religions began in the garden of Eden if we're being really philosophical about it. In case, the historicity of incense supports that theory. The historicity of Ancient Greece however, goes one better. I know the pharisees liked their incense too so I guess the pharisees stole it from them. While it's hardly true that Catholicism utilizes anything uniformally "Jewish" (you're thinking of this lot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Church reason Mel Gibson got into so much trouble over Passion is because he dressed Jesus' accusers in exact current day GOC vestaments) - it doesn't really matter because we worship a Jew and we owe them half a Bible, one messiah and all 12 apostles, so trying to deny their contribution is like trying to say we never born.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I haven't gotten to predestination yet, sorry for the confusion.


Good God, please no. Say it ain't so.



So you wouldn't go as far to say that, as some do, that Catholicism is a mixture of Christianity and Judaism or is that the Greek Orthodox lot.


We don't have to get into predestination. It was just the word called in the verse we were talking about alluded to it in my mind.
Dialogist
That was my way of advising *psst, let the "predestination" thing gooooo, it's completely absurrrrrd*.

I don't have anything against the Jews. I'm with Pope Benedict on this Jewish Deicide thing. It's time to put that to bed too. Funny how it took a former Hitler-Jugend to actually come out and say that btw. We owe them a great deal and should shoulder some guilt of our own concerning the "Christ Killer" nonsense that has polluted the mouths of otherwise great men since as far back as I can remember.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
That was my way of advising *psst, let the "predestination" thing gooooo, it's completely absurrrrrd*.

I don't have anything against the Jews. I'm with Pope Benedict on this Jewish Deicide thing. It's time to put that to bed too. Funny how it took a former Hitler-Jugend to actually come out and say that btw. We owe them a great deal and should shoulder some guilt of our own concerning the "Christ Killer" nonsense that has polluted the mouths of otherwise great men since as far back as I can remember.


Just reading a guy who maintains that the Jews murdered Jesus as well as hundreds of early Christians. Makes a pretty convincing argument from the Bible.
Dialogist
Yeah, it's like saying the Indians killed Gandhi. Excellent detective work on his part. A regular super sleuth. Point is, there was nobody else there.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Yeah, it's like saying the Indians killed Gandhi. Excellent detective work on his part. A regular super sleuth. Point is, there was nobody else there.


That is a good point..
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
Yeah, it's like saying the Indians killed Gandhi. Excellent detective work on his part. A regular super sleuth. Point is, there was nobody else there.


That is a good point..


It's pretty difficult to vindicate an entire creed of people based upon the geographical location of the incident, and what's more, it's just kind of naive to how its always gone, always goes and always will go. It's always one of your own who sticks the final knife in.

Jesus
Lincoln
Gandhi
Kennedy
MLK
Malcolm X
Rasputin
Caesar

et al.

"They come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." - Matthew 7:15
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
Yeah, it's like saying the Indians killed Gandhi. Excellent detective work on his part. A regular super sleuth. Point is, there was nobody else there.


That is a good point..


It's pretty difficult to vindicate an entire creed of people based upon the geographical location of the incident, and what's more, it's just kind of naive to how its always gone, always goes and always will go. It's always one of your own who sticks the final knife in.

Jesus
Lincoln
Gandhi
Kennedy
MLK
Malcolm X
Rasputin
Caesar


I always assumed he was killed because he claimed to be God and so committed blasphemy but Bikerman says that can't be construed from the Bible.

et al.

"They come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." - Matthew 7:15
Dialogist
The Muslims say the same thing. If you scan through The entire NT looking for "I am God", you're not going to find that. However, this debate is a popular and historic one and there's entire treatises about it. Entire scholarly articles and even some religions made out of it (Newton?) Ironically it took a Muslim to settle it. http://debatetv.org/?page_id=432 and he actually goes one further, he posits Jesus as Son of God (convincingly) in not just the NT but also the Qu'ran. Hahaha, nice work, son!

You can't ignore two things here: All the things Jesus did say and also, the reason he was executed at all. There's many verses that don't have any meaning without this implication. They are, in fact, just gibberish if one willfully tries to misunderstand them and only make sense within a divinity reading. So they either may as well not be there, or they are there, have a meaning and only one possible (and concurring and consistent) meaning can be derived from them.

http://carm.org/bible-verses-show-jesus-divine
http://www.gotquestions.org/is-Jesus-God.html

But basically, John 10:33 is all you need.

Kinda bored waiting for Sam Harris to grow a new idea to saturate down to the rest of you. These schoolboy 'zingers' got old, tired and decrepit many decades ago. Be sure to us know when you're done on the "Transubstantiation" chapters. Rolling Eyes
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
The Muslims say the same thing. If you scan through The entire NT looking for "I am God", you're not going to find that. However, this debate is a popular and historic one and there's entire treatises about it. Entire scholarly articles and even some religions made out of it (Newton?) Ironically it took a Muslim to settle it. http://debatetv.org/?page_id=432 and he actually goes one further, he posits Jesus as Son of God (convincingly) in not just the NT but also the Qu'ran. Hahaha, nice work, son!

You can't ignore two things here: All the things Jesus did say and also, the reason he was executed at all. There's many verses that don't have any meaning without this implication. They are, in fact, just gibberish if one willfully tries to misunderstand them and only make sense within a divinity reading. So they either may as well not be there, or they are there, have a meaning and only one possible (and concurring and consistent) meaning can be derived from them.

http://carm.org/bible-verses-show-jesus-divine
http://www.gotquestions.org/is-Jesus-God.html

But basically, John 10:33 is all you need.

Kinda bored waiting for Sam Harris to grow a new idea to saturate down to the rest of you. These schoolboy 'zingers' got old, tired and decrepit many decades ago. Be sure to us know when you're done on the "Transubstantiation" chapters. Rolling Eyes



We can go a step further and say that Jesus always was God right from the beginning. It was Jesus who walked in the garden with Adam, who appeared with the 10 commandments etc.
loveandormoney
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

Found another Catholic teaching site. In their introduction to Romans they state, '

"In his letter to the Christians in Rome, St. Paul is reaching out to a faith community located across the Mediterranean Sea half a world away'at lease half a world away according to the Roman understanding of the extent of the world. Paul is facing a problem in attempting through the written word to favorably present himself to a community of believers he did not found and in fact to whom he has never been introduced. "


So why is St. Paul "facing a problem?"... Let's keeping reading directly on from where you have chosen to leave off....

"Paul is facing a problem in attempting through the written word to favorably present himself to a community of believers he did not found and in fact to whom he has never been introduced. The problem is that his reputation may have preceded him and this could be both a positive and a negative for Paul in his attempts to create a relationship with this faith community composed of both Jews and Gentiles. The sea Paul is reaching across may be more than a physical barrier there may also be other troubled waters that he will have to overcome, a sea of misunderstanding and false impressions."

False impressions? Concerning St. Paul? Never!

Let's keep reading...

"Question: What is it about Paul's reputation that may not create a positive impression? Hint: read Acts 9:21; and 21:18-21.

Answer: Some New Covenant believers remembered Paul as a persecutor of Christians before his conversion and still didn't trust his motives, other Jewish Christians, however, were still ardently attached to the traditions of the Old Covenant and these Jews accused Paul of being in essence a traitor to the faith of his own people."

"However, we can see that 9-10 years after this controversy should have been settled there were still Jewish Christians as well as Jews of the Old Covenant who viewed Paul as a traitor to his people. In Paul's visit to Jerusalem in the coming spring of 58AD, he would discover that his reputation had been tainted by accusations of abandoning the customs of his people the Jews. In his meeting with James, Bishop of Jerusalem and the Elders Paul gave a detailed account of all that God had one among the Gentiles through his ministry. James and the others, "... gave glory to God when they heard this. Then they said, 'You see, brother, how thousands of Jews have now become believers, all of them staunch upholders of the Law; and what they have heard about you is that you instruct all Jews living among the Gentiles to break away from Moses, authorizing them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices."Acts 21:20-21"

Don't cherry pick it. It is what it is.

So let's just agree that St. Paul was talking to Jews. St. Paul was also writing to inquire about his safety as he was a clear minded man and was under no illusion about his eventual fate (a bullet he'd seemingly all ready decided to bite regardless, anyway). Whether he was talking to Jews, gentiles, Jewish gentiles, Jewish Christians or just Roman subversives doesn't really have any thing to do with the lack-of-baptism expected to be found in any, or all. It has nothing to do with whether St. Paul was encrypting a "Predestination" riddle within his writings. And if he was, which as I have hoped to outline, is highly unlikely, I would like for you to demonstrate:

a) How, where and under what authority are you drawing this conclusion: Semantically, linguistically or metaphorically - in terms of 'reference', 'code', allusion' or 'inference'.

and ultimately:

b) How can his eventual execution and ultimate failure to canonize "All of (you in) Rome" possibly support a theory (or 'actuality', as you claim) of "Predestination"?







Good morning
"In his letter to the Christians in Rome, St. Paul is reaching out to a faith community located across the Mediterranean Sea half a world away'at lease half a world away according to the Roman understanding of the extent of the world."

Sorry this is wrong.
Please read Paul ' s letters und You will see different words.
The Roman letter is a slave letter.


"read Acts 9:21; and 21:18-21. "
Sorry
read Acts 15 and then You can see, You are wrong.
Jewisch and not Jewisch problem was solved.

Or read Acts 22.
There is written, why the people did not like Paul.


Paul is totally different speaking about the Law then You.

"So let's just agree that St. Paul was talking to Jews."
Sorry this is wrong also, one letter was written by Paul, where he is talking to the Jews.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

We can go a step further and say that Jesus always was God right from the beginning. It was Jesus who walked in the garden with Adam, who appeared with the 10 commandments etc.


You can do, under the title "Trinity" but it seems rather counterproductive, in terms of instrumentation for all Christian viewpoints (ironically, especially, if you are Arian). "But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law" (Gal. 4:4). The 'sentiment' of the act and intention of this seems rather futile, if its just an empty, ceremonious gesture. And it sort of tarnishes the integrity of the trinity itself, if you will, in the very instance of holding strictly to it, because "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (John 1:1 and 14). And if you ignore this, then basically your monotheistic religion becomes semi-theistic almost, or rather whittles it down to just One God, one single entity, with no parental array and then actually starts chipping away at that, as if Jesus is God singularly and exhaustively, then you don't have a trinity, and what's more, you have the word of your remaining God compromised by denying verses such as those I have given examples of above. And if The Word became Flesh, then I guess Jesus paradoxically wasn't God at all, because The Word wasn't Godly. This is what happens when you slap the trinity stamp on absolutely all understandings, which you are required (Sort of) to do, but not in the instances of manifestation, revelation, embodiment and unfortunately for some, "transubstantiation". Because there's another character, "The Holy Spirit" and it isn't and yet is Jesus either/also.

Fig 1.



Fig 2.

nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

We can go a step further and say that Jesus always was God right from the beginning. It was Jesus who walked in the garden with Adam, who appeared with the 10 commandments etc.


You can do, under the title "Trinity" but it seems rather counterproductive, in terms of instrumentation for all Christian viewpoints (ironically, especially, if you are Arian). "But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law" (Gal. 4:4). The 'sentiment' of the act and intention of this seems rather futile, if its just an empty, ceremonious gesture. And it sort of tarnishes the integrity of the trinity itself, if you will, in the very instance of holding strictly to it, because "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (John 1:1 and 14). And if you ignore this, then basically your monotheistic religion becomes semi-theistic almost, or rather whittles it down to just One God, one single entity, with no parental array and then actually starts chipping away at that, as if Jesus is God singularly and exhaustively, then you don't have a trinity, and what's more, you have the word of your remaining God compromised by denying verses such as those I have given examples of above. And if The Word became Flesh, then I guess Jesus paradoxically wasn't God at all, because The Word wasn't Godly. This is what happens when you slap the trinity stamp on absolutely all understandings, which you are required (Sort of) to do, but not in the instances of manifestation, revelation, embodiment and unfortunately for some, "transubstantiation". Because there's another character, "The Holy Spirit" and it isn't and yet is Jesus either/also.

Fig 1.



Fig 2.




I picture God the father as this everywhere at once spiritual 'thing', sort of a huge presence and then Jesus becomes his physical manifestation when needed, ie to walk with Adam etc.

He was needed at the time of his sacrifice so he became wholly human to do that job.

And then he becomes the 'God' we will get to meet when we die etc.
loveandormoney
Quote:

you can do, under the title "Trinity" but it seems rather counterproductive, in terms of instrumentation for all Christian viewpoints (ironically, especially, if you are Arian). "But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law" (Gal. 4:4). The 'sentiment' of the act and intention of this seems rather futile, if its just an empty, ceremonious gesture. And it sort of tarnishes the integrity of the trinity itself, if you will, in the very instance of holding strictly to it, because "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (John 1:1 and 14). And if you ignore this, then basically your monotheistic religion becomes semi-theistic almost, or rather whittles it down to just One God, one single entity, with no parental array and then actually starts chipping away at that, as if Jesus is God singularly and exhaustively, then you don't have a trinity, and what's more, you have the word of your remaining God compromised by denying verses such as those I have given examples of above. And if The Word became Flesh, then I guess Jesus paradoxically wasn't God at all, because The Word wasn't Godly. This is what happens when you slap the trinity stamp on absolutely all understandings, which you are required (Sort of) to do, but not in the instances of manifestation, revelation, embodiment and unfortunately for some, "transubstantiation". Because there's another character, "The Holy Spirit" and it isn't and yet is Jesus either/also.



Good morning

"you can do, under the title "Trinity" but it seems rather counterproductive, "
Why do people make jokes about "trinity" without knowing it? Did they see the movie "Matrix"?


"But when the time had fully come,"
What is a full time. It is interesting, to make jokes about sentences, not understanding them.
What is halffull time?

"born under the Law, "
What does this mean?


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,"
Why making jokes about unknown sentences?

"Because there's another character, "The Holy Spirit" and it isn't and yet is Jesus either/also."
Jesus does say: You can blame god, no problem, You can blame jesus, also no problem.
But dont blame the holy spirit.

Regards
Dialogist
loveandormoney
Is this a Mac problem?
Related topics
The Whole "GOD" Thing
Ancient Script Says Jesus Asked Judas To Betray Him
Why do you want your kids to go to church? Or not?
questions for Christians
Isn’t Catholicism polytheistic?
HOW TO READ THROUGH THE BIBLE IN A YEAR
[Official] God - NO LONGER A STICKY
What is your choice?
Explain what the Holy Spirit is???
Do you have any faith that there is a "soul"
Rick Perry: Creationist, Global Warming Denier, Hypocrite
25 Myths About Christianity
Baptism in the Spirit
Definition of a Christian
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Faith

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.