It's a shame that they don't have a big book with all the scripture written down in it, so you don't have to go through a sanctified haint to read and understand it.
Welcome Guest!
Beliefs
- Thread starter Brother David
- Start date
Spotlite
Resident Homesteader
I’m just going to politely disagree. I find it hard to perceive that so many folks are running around trying to make excuses for what they want to believe.
If there’s nothing there to find, it’s pretty impressive for those that hang on to that for a lifetime.
Then there are those that are impatient like myself, I’m moving fishing spots pretty quickly.
Spotlite
Resident Homesteader
You don’t have to do that anyway.
Brother David
Senior Member
Sorry I didn't see my phone change it from doctrinal.Definition of docturnal
1: of, relating to, or occurring in the doctor's office.
2: active at the ER.
WaltL1
Senior Member
I have about given up on trying to post on here from a phone
gemcgrew
Senior Member
All in fun. I knew what you meant when I read it. I figured if Bro. David took the time to make a new word, the least I could do is make the definition.
Brother David
Senior Member
I have about given up on trying to post on here from a phone
A few years ago my wife and I decided to remove the internet from home . I have the internet at the office and through my cellphone . I don't bring my laptop home anymore , home time is home time . It makes it easier and harder .
And yes I despise spell check !
Brother David
Senior Member
That was the original intent of the Cannoized Bible . One thing I have to remind myself of is that the Books of the Bible were written in Aramaic , Hebrew and Greek and that there's always something lost in translation . Hence extremely thick commentaries that even drive those called to study a little bonkers . I am a Terrible chapter and verse guy , so I try to relate content to Author and I often paraphrase .
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
If scripture was Canonized by a Council of men in Nicea, do we still need the Holy Spirit to make it make sense?
Weren't these man actually writing the "Word of God?"
I've always wondered how much of was from God vs man's translation considering these men were the voice of God.
I've never figured out why it took councils of men and more than one council to figure out what God was saying.
I would have rather God just worked through one man to canonize and make it readable. Then we wouldn't need the Holy Spirit to make sense of scripture.
We could use the Holy Spirit's guidance for the other aspects of our daily living such as forgiving others, etc.
Brother David
Senior Member
I think I understand where you're going but remember the Bible , as we know it , was transcribed and assemble by early "Catholic Monks " , thus the KJV ( simple answer ) . The writings in which are included , for lack of a complex answer , are what the early Church Leaders deemed pertinent .
To only allow the Holy Spirit to have influence in specific aspects of our lives only puts parameters on what God can do . The Holy Spirit should guide everything we do , remember the Holy Spirit is not a thing but a He .
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
I scratch my head at Pope selections. The Cardinals are all supposed to be guided by the same Holy SPIRIT that is talked about in here constantly. And the vote for the Pope is never Unanimous.
Hmmmm
Israel
BANNED
For those who can receive it. (is it ever any other way?)
I quickly found at least 15 references to "scribes and pharisees" recorded as spoken by Jesus. Most on here, calling themselves either believer or unbeliever, alike have a general sense of how these are pronounced. In what context Jesus mentions "scribes and pharisees". Though Jesus never flatters anyone, these references are as far from commendation as one could probably imagine.
And we know also what the scribes...do.
Yet Jesus maintains a particular relationship to "the scriptures" regardless of any esteem we might infer (or lack thereof) to those charged or engaged with its "passing down". In short, even if the men who transcribe them may be scoundrels (my words) another man would have to exercise great care to any surmising therefore of casual dismissal of what Jesus esteemed highly. Jesus never says, one way or the other, never enters into any speculations, one way or another, about what would (or could) appear as an area into which a man might go to navigate in regards to the scriptures.
"The men are not the "best men" who have given us these scrolls upon which they have worked their transcription...how do I know their (even pronounced!) poverty of character has not infected them?"
How do I know (or any man know?) what I receive is not corrupted...by the handling of corrupt man? How do I know this is what Isaiah even said...and if even so, how do I know he heard it from the Lord? Simply because Isaiah has said so? Simply because my parents handed me these scrolls and told me they are "holy"? Simply because my tribe...says so? How do I know? Can I know?
This venue does not lend itself to this exploration. But God does. God will reason with a man over these questions for the whole of a lifetime, if a man has them.
Jesus surely was not naive as to the motives of men's hearts. Nevertheless he plainly declares purity, that singleness of eye has both its rewards if found (because faith convicts him of its reality), and consequences if ignored. Or relegated to "non-existence" by unbelief. And He is unashamed to say it is only found "in Him".
Cherry picking (but more the motive for it) and likewise naive gullibility (and no less its motive for it) are not things I have found God unwilling in which to engage a man in reasoning.
God knows the single question above all that only He can answer for any man, and it is not a thing I have found Him unwilling to entertain...even if it sound all faithless.
"Is there anything at all then...that can be trusted?"
Any who, at all?
The giving from and reception of that answer can only come from One place, and it is only asked from one place to any sincerity. Where the man knows he dare not even trust himself. (and that knowing is as miraculous a gift...as any)
To this answer the man is continually provoked. And provoked to relief.
It is hard to kick against the pricks.
I quickly found at least 15 references to "scribes and pharisees" recorded as spoken by Jesus. Most on here, calling themselves either believer or unbeliever, alike have a general sense of how these are pronounced. In what context Jesus mentions "scribes and pharisees". Though Jesus never flatters anyone, these references are as far from commendation as one could probably imagine.
And we know also what the scribes...do.
Yet Jesus maintains a particular relationship to "the scriptures" regardless of any esteem we might infer (or lack thereof) to those charged or engaged with its "passing down". In short, even if the men who transcribe them may be scoundrels (my words) another man would have to exercise great care to any surmising therefore of casual dismissal of what Jesus esteemed highly. Jesus never says, one way or the other, never enters into any speculations, one way or another, about what would (or could) appear as an area into which a man might go to navigate in regards to the scriptures.
"The men are not the "best men" who have given us these scrolls upon which they have worked their transcription...how do I know their (even pronounced!) poverty of character has not infected them?"
How do I know (or any man know?) what I receive is not corrupted...by the handling of corrupt man? How do I know this is what Isaiah even said...and if even so, how do I know he heard it from the Lord? Simply because Isaiah has said so? Simply because my parents handed me these scrolls and told me they are "holy"? Simply because my tribe...says so? How do I know? Can I know?
This venue does not lend itself to this exploration. But God does. God will reason with a man over these questions for the whole of a lifetime, if a man has them.
Jesus surely was not naive as to the motives of men's hearts. Nevertheless he plainly declares purity, that singleness of eye has both its rewards if found (because faith convicts him of its reality), and consequences if ignored. Or relegated to "non-existence" by unbelief. And He is unashamed to say it is only found "in Him".
Cherry picking (but more the motive for it) and likewise naive gullibility (and no less its motive for it) are not things I have found God unwilling in which to engage a man in reasoning.
God knows the single question above all that only He can answer for any man, and it is not a thing I have found Him unwilling to entertain...even if it sound all faithless.
"Is there anything at all then...that can be trusted?"
Any who, at all?
The giving from and reception of that answer can only come from One place, and it is only asked from one place to any sincerity. Where the man knows he dare not even trust himself. (and that knowing is as miraculous a gift...as any)
To this answer the man is continually provoked. And provoked to relief.
It is hard to kick against the pricks.
Last edited:
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
I honestly applaud your writing skills. I promise you I do.
But all this style is your thoughts, your version of what Jesus is to you, what version this guy needs to be in order for you to carry on.
I can't hold that against you.
But I can't take it as anything more than your version of what you need a god to be, and it is eerily similar to what the anonymous authors of what became scripture did.
They "knew" Yeshua about as well as you do.
If any of it, old or new, was anything more than wishful thinking, these constant assertions and claims wouldn't need to be made.
Last edited:
Spotlite
Resident Homesteader
I scratch my head at that entire organization.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Yeah, but they've been around the longest. That organization is what made what you read and worship today......
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
You do realize that same organization decided on how you should believe the Trinity, works, grace, election, predestination, and scripture renditions?
Even with the Protestant Schism, they kept most of what the original Church believed about most of what was decided on at the councils.
The schism was mostly about works and buying one's salvation. They kept the parts about the Canon and the Trinity.
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
Which goes back to this council of men who were deciding for the rest of us how it was. We were too dumb. We were too protesting. We couldn't stay with what God had given these men. They knew better than us.
They got it directly from God.
Except? The works part. They got all the rest right but didn't hear God correctly on the works part. They got the Trinity part right. They got the correct books in the Bible right. But somehow they completely missed what God was conveying to them on a works based salvation.
They got it directly from God.
Except? The works part. They got all the rest right but didn't hear God correctly on the works part. They got the Trinity part right. They got the correct books in the Bible right. But somehow they completely missed what God was conveying to them on a works based salvation.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Were those parts actually "right" or just agreeable because they are likable enough to go along with them?
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
Finally God gives men the power to figure it all out for the rest of us and we go and cause a schism. Now we've got hundreds of different denominations all thinking they know what God said when he appointed these councils at the beginning to stop this from happening.
Then we go as far as believing some of what happened at the councils is God inspired but some of it isn't.
No wonder people scratch their head at the schism.
Last edited:
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
I'd say either all of it was right or none of it was. If the works salvation was wrong then so is the Trinity. If the works based salvation is wrong then so is the Canon. The book of Enoch comes to mind. I think it should be Canon.
Edit; not really wrong but missed. Not all from God but man. Not inspired but voted on. Just like the Democrats and Republicans coming together. It was men, men with faults, humans.
Maybe they got some of it right and I'm sure they got a lot wrong.
Otherwise God would not need a council of men. He'd use one man at the most or tell us himself.
Last edited:
Similar threads
