Know Your Adversary

[Israel]

Mercy has already been pled for and answered for "what does not know what it does". And it is worth considering whether mercy shall ever appear elsewhere. Except to what does not know what it does...

 

[Israel]

Jesus made a statement in his rebuke of Satan after Peter had advised the Lord (quite strongly in fact it is called rebuke of the Lord by him, Peter) what things were to be "far from Him". It took place when the Lord spoke to the disciples of the things soon to be done Him.

And having taken him aside, Peter began to rebuke him, saying, 'Be kind to thyself, sir; this shall not be to thee;'
and he having turned, said to Peter, 'Get thee behind me, adversary! thou art a stumbling-block to me, for thou dost not mind the things of God, but the things of men.
Young's Literal Translation

The word for adversary there "Σατανᾶ·" "Satana" should not be hard to recognize as also used elsewhere. Satan, the adversary...or the adversary, Satan. That, or he, which opposes.

But whether one cares to frame that word Satana/Satan to a more personal conclusion of single entity, spiritual "embodiment" (what is not of spiritual embodiment if seeing the Christ of God?) matters little...unless...by convenience (and deceit) one cares to, and is careful to, restrict that Satana as "a" something of which he could never be part.

Let's be clear here, the testimony of the scripture is not that Jesus "spoke into the air" but rather "and he having turned, said to Peter".
Said...to Peter.

As much as one might care to distance themselves from such rebuke, (and seeing by the Lord) they would likewise have to distance themselves from Peter as being some sort of uniquely set example of which they have no part nor collusion. But even if the understanding that "to distance one's self from Peter" is to also distance one's self from His Lord is rare, it does not make it any less true.

This also comes to mind in such considerations with the washing of feet where a certain disciple resisted and was told by the Lord certain things.

Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
"If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me"

The part Peter then took was, at least as for what to him was, an even greater washing, then.

Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.

The Lord's work though is sufficient, as much as we might seek to add when sobered smartly by the reality of Jesus proclamation of what has no part with Him. What He does not wash.

That wanting, or attempt to "add" is always cautioned against by the spirit of Christ.

But these points can be considered as much as one is allowed, and as need be to the Lord's glory and purpose.

The terrible feeding and feedback loop that remains a prison till broken by Christ with His feeding of Himself to us and for us, is all and only what can destroy it.

Consider, whether you hold Satana as personal singular entity or not:

for thou dost not mind the things of God, but the things of men.

For whether one does or not, Satana is what "does not" mind the things of God...but minds the things of men. If some personal discreet entity matters little here; for if so, his is the minding of men and their things and likewise feeding these back to men, this very minding. If something other as in "and having turned, said to Peter" it remains the things of men (or in this case, a man) that are always opposed to the things of God in an adversarial manner. Men's thoughts and mindings are always in opposition. Adversarial.

We are surely told this elsewhere, of an enmity that exists, an hostility latent to both spirit and flesh. Each at war with the other. There is no accord come to in this, both "sides" hold hostility against the other. There is no peace made between them, no coming to terms, no tolerance born of weariness that leads to some form of resigned coexistence. It is to the death.

If we are witnesses to this, the consciousness of this, we must know it is not the consciousness of man from which it either springs nor originates. Man cannot help himself from "siding" with man, (as he is one) seeing according to man, and man's (men's) thoughts. Even most personally with what he considers "his own" thoughts.

In one way it seems to leave a man in a quandary, a vexing and frustrating position, of "how to know?"

But in quite another it is greatest of relief granted in witness of this consciousness granted by another in the stripping away of that grinding and burdensome necessity of "need to know"...under which the mind of man tirelessly strives in hostility.

These, the labors it presents for approval as sufficient sacrifice "in order to know".

In the work of God to strip away other and reduce all to Christ, is the way Christ is magnified as sole and only source of glory to man, and right recipient of all glory...even from man.

Mercy has already been pled for and answered for "what does not know what it does". And it is worth considering whether mercy shall ever appear elsewhere. Except to what does not know what it does...

Our testimony remains of neither doing nor having ever done anything "right", but we are only witnesses to that consciousness that declares "He does all things well". With this we are allowed, and as only by grace, to agree.

We are either witnesses to consciousness of truth, or we hold all consciousness as only "our own". And our eye shall be evil.

If one has some doubt that the writers of the gospels had not sufficient spiritual insight, nor communication with the Father of spirits to rather write "and Jesus turning said to the spirit controlling/using Peter"...then you will indulge your own doubts.

"and he having turned, said to Peter".

There is much to seeing what is uncovered in Jesus being the "true and faithful witness".

Even witnessing all taking place. And knowing source.

 

[gordon 2]

Peter as an adversary and Knox's source for his idea of God is not such? Hum. How can I be sure? Knox indicates that the prophetic inspiration, the fact of it, is of the very the nature of God, so by the nature of the prophet's works they indicate the nature of God? Is this what he is saying?

"...but we say that all things be so present before God, that he doth contemplate and behold them in their verity and perfection. And therefore it is that the Prophets oftentimes speak of things being yet after to come, with such certainty as that they were already done. And this Prescience of God do we affirm to be extended to the universal compass and circuit of the world, yea, and unto every particular creature of the same."

Where is Knox getting his ideas from? From the style of Prophets? or some other? What is his sources in and out of the world? If Peter stumbles on his own saliva, Knox does not? What is the difference between the two?

Prescience is not anthropomorphically derived?

 

[Israel]

There's only one "place" to go to learn the answer "how can I be sure?" Both Knox and the scriptures may be a help by provocation, but as far as a surety, neither Knox nor the scriptures are Him.

By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

 

[gordon 2]

There's only one "place" to go to learn the answer "how can I be sure?" Both Knox and the scriptures may be a help by provocation, but as far as a surety, neither Knox nor the scriptures are Him.

By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

Ok, yet even Jesus' testament said he did not know all things as only the Father knew some things which were hidden to him.??? How much more would some things be hidden to the best human being after Jesus?

How do you glean God's nature from Jesus testament? How do you proceed or how were you informed?

 

[gordon 2]

You appear to already be holding the key. And I am in much joy over it.

And I sense a liberty to say that since you do, you are spared any so called long winded abusing in many words.

I am fearful that you would change your ordinary habit on my account! For real!


When our world will be or was changed, yours and mine, and the world of others..

"5Let no one on the housetop go back inside to retrieve anything from his house.

When those days came or will come only the Father knows."

From such an event in time, in our individual histories, in our generation God can be described as only Him in the know from outside of time and in time when with Him man from Him will dine? From this we describe God?

And like Knox's groping of the prophetic statement that that the word is said as done in the future is as good as done now so God is a similar seer? These are the mental gymnastics of the commentators on the nature of God?

 

[gordon 2]

Isreal do you know what was God's nature when Adam walked with Him and fed on the food of the tree of life? What were the actualities of Adam's God then? In the beginning God said let there be light... ( this was light before there was the sun's light) and then (“Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”)

Pause{ ever wonder why a spiritual forum is pertinent in the mix of hunting forums? This last quote might be it. )

This is getting complicated but I " feel" that God was in the beginning inside of us and outside of us, that somehow God had a personality in us and outside of us. The speaker of light, that was not the sun's light, was the beginning of all things. Do you think that maybe if I could find out what the first light was it would describe God? I'm not sure I could get it right... and far less from the bravado of the prophets or my interpretations of Christ on how one's world comes to an end.???

What can I know much more than from the heart and the senses that God is the sower of love and so love in the world? That is love in us and love outside of us.??? What can I know more from Christ than the love that proceeds from the worship of God and the love that does not? Do I stand in judgement from every word that proceeded from the mouth of God as the ancients were or do I stand for a new heart that now feeds on The Light Of The World? (Am I ahead of myself and so I am what I accuse others to be?)

 

[Israel]

Did I sense a little something in the "Hum" of

Peter as an adversary and Knox's source for his idea of God is not such? Hum.

as though Peter was being used as example of a something (by not getting it...to even resisting it) while another (Knox) is then used as an example (a man like and no more nor less than Peter) of one having "got it?" And "getting it"?

Maybe even like "don't consider Peter...consider Knox as better?"
And I agree, one would be right to ask "How would one know?"


But...that is not my proposition.

If they are both men (and they are) and I, also a man, juxtapose them as if in some comparison to particularly make my own point, even in seeming opposition, then rightly that "Hum" I sense directed to me...is well...right.

Particularly if I can also receive this question in like manner in sum of my own contributions when weighted with those of others

These are the mental gymnastics of the commentators on the nature of God?

For I am due any and all question as to whether "just playing games"...or "mental gymnastics".

So now, if even before I didn't include Knox in anything "about Peter"...I surely have...now. So we got at least three "in the box"...Peter, Knox (by your question)...but also me. We can add you if you are willing and make it an even 4.

First though, if I can make it abundantly clear, I am not unmindful of other things Peter has said...and done.

"Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God"

And for convenience' sake, if you can receive me as also having read his epistles...those SURELY...also. And together with some of his preaching (as in Acts)...even...MORESO. Along with those epistles!

What a record! and wonderful! Acts, his epistles, the tenure of his devotion! I am very grateful for Peter, and his record. And God forbid...even God judge me...if any seeming "hilighting" by me is to the end of diminishing him in God's service through Christ to make myself appear a "something". Like I can "judge" Peter!

But for some purpose (and, if we can agree God's) we have come far along already...together. For "some" purpose a man whose testimony of Christ is exemplary, no less has included "in the record" exchanges, events, declarations...that actually are no less exemplary...but of something else. Examples of "things" tending to appear less than the testimony of Christ, if you (we) will. (But which in truth do testify of Christ's ability to save!)

Rebuked of Paul for hypocrisy, declaring his willingness to go to prison and death with Jesus (above his brothers)...and even in my poor example of rebuking the Lord.

(And God forbid I neglect to mention "the record" also includes all the disciples of making a like declaration as to their devotions to Christ)

Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples. Mt 26:35

Appears disciples have a long history of thinking one thing of themselves until the truth is revealed. And often thinking themselves "better" than their brethren.

Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.


LORD! Why? Why this record of Peter's boasting, Peter's presumptuousness to advising you to the extent of rebuking of you? Why this mention of his fearing certain's opinions that he be moved to hypocrisy? (even after the resurrection)
To be rebuked openly by Paul? Lord, WHY? Why do you want me to know Peter..."Like that?"


Oh.


It's not Peter? It's not Peter used as "exposed"? It's not Peter...you want me to know as he is.

Oh.


It's me.

Oh.
Yes.

Such sight takes away...almost...(ahhh! sweet almost!) all hope.
But surely all hope for myself, of myself.

Lord, can you do for a man as you have done with Peter? Will you?


Please, Lord? A hypocrite, a liar to himself of his esteem of himself, a liar to you...a rebuker and advisor...of you? A man often fearful of how he will be received or seen of others? Lord...please.

If you don't do something...(haha!)

What is/was needed is what is done.


Bless you for Peter! Bless you for seeing to it such record is preserved that another man might have hope! Even a man who now, in all his own self exaltation sees he once thought he could think better of himself than a "one" like Peter...sees how much more depraved he has been than anything ever mentioned of Peter. Can you save a man like that, Lord?

The answer is too plain..."If I cannot, who can or will?"

"To whom shall we go..."



Are we yet "ruined" to everything else, all else we might look to, see some glimmer of a false hope, some grasping at flotsam for floating to keep our heads above water...or are we wrecked by the love of God in Jesus Christ?


To whom shall we go?

Oh but there is so much of light and comfort...so much yet to be heard, seen, known. Learned....So very very much by His crewmen.

As to Knox, I know so little "about him"...but sometimes a man might learn he can say (or do) wonderfully inspired things along with stupidly ill considered things so that he not forget, for at least this time in our tents, to working of dependence that is to a full salvation revealed when they are "put off" that for now...

"We hold this treasure in earthen vessels"

I can no more judge Knox right than I can judge Peter...right or wrong...I can see no farther than I see.


And even there...especially there...it is no seeing of my own...that does anything for me.

And others are free to judge, God knows I cannot prevent it, nor even influence it.

When one is judged of others and takes offense there he learns who the adversary is.


Himself.

 

[gordon 2]

Did I sense a little something in the "Hum" of

as though Peter was being used as example of a something (by not getting it...to even resisting it) while another (Knox) is then used as an example (a man like and no more nor less than Peter) of one having "got it?" And "getting it"?

Maybe even like "don't consider Peter...consider Knox as better?"
And I agree, one would be right to ask "How would one know?"


But...that is not my proposition.

If they are both men (and they are) and I, also a man, juxtapose them as if in some comparison to particularly make my own point, even in seeming opposition, then rightly that "Hum" I sense directed to me...is well...right.

Particularly if I can also receive this question in like manner in sum of my own contributions when weighted with those of others


For I am due any and all question as to whether "just playing games"...or "mental gymnastics".

So now, if even before I didn't include Knox in anything "about Peter"...I surely have...now. So we got at least three "in the box"...Peter, Knox (by your question)...but also me. We can add you if you are willing and make it an even 4.

First though, if I can make it abundantly clear, I am not unmindful of other things Peter has said...and done.

"Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God"

And for convenience' sake, if you can receive me as also having read his epistles...those SURELY...also. And together with some of his preaching (as in Acts)...even...MORESO. Along with those epistles!

What a record! and wonderful! Acts, his epistles, the tenure of his devotion! I am very grateful for Peter, and his record. And God forbid...even God judge me...if any seeming "hilighting" by me is to the end of diminishing him in God's service through Christ to make myself appear a "something". Like I can "judge" Peter!

But for some purpose (and, if we can agree God's) we have come far along already...together. For "some" purpose a man whose testimony of Christ is exemplary, no less has included "in the record" exchanges, events, declarations...that actually are no less exemplary...but of something else. Examples of "things" tending to appear less than the testimony of Christ, if you (we) will. (But which in truth do testify of Christ's ability to save!)

Rebuked of Paul for hypocrisy, declaring his willingness to go to prison and death with Jesus (above his brothers)...and even in my poor example of rebuking the Lord.

(And God forbid I neglect to mention "the record" also includes all the disciples of making a like declaration as to their devotions to Christ)

Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples. Mt 26:35

Appears disciples have a long history of thinking one thing of themselves until the truth is revealed. And often thinking themselves "better" than their brethren.

Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.


LORD! Why? Why this record of Peter's boasting, Peter's presumptuousness to advising you to the extent of rebuking of you? Why this mention of his fearing certain's opinions that he be moved to hypocrisy? (even after the resurrection)
To be rebuked openly by Paul? Lord, WHY? Why do you want me to know Peter..."Like that?"


Oh.


It's not Peter? It's not Peter used as "exposed"? It's not Peter...you want me to know as he is.

Oh.


It's me.

Oh.
Yes.

Such sight takes away...almost...(ahhh! sweet almost!) all hope.
But surely all hope for myself, of myself.

Lord, can you do for a man as you have done with Peter? Will you?


Please, Lord? A hypocrite, a liar to himself of his esteem of himself, a liar to you...a rebuker and advisor...of you? A man often fearful of how he will be received or seen of others? Lord...please.

If you don't do something...(haha!)

What is/was needed is what is done.


Bless you for Peter! Bless you for seeing to it such record is preserved that another man might have hope! Even a man who now, in all his own self exaltation sees he once thought he could think better of himself than a "one" like Peter...sees how much more depraved he has been than anything ever mentioned of Peter. Can you save a man like that, Lord?

The answer is too plain..."If I cannot, who can or will?"

"To whom shall we go..."



Are we yet "ruined" to everything else, all else we might look to, see some glimmer of a false hope, some grasping at flotsam for floating to keep our heads above water...or are we wrecked by the love of God in Jesus Christ?


To whom shall we go?

Oh but there is so much of light and comfort...so much yet to be heard, seen, known. Learned....So very very much by His crewmen.

As to Knox, I know so little "about him"...but sometimes a man might learn he can say (or do) wonderfully inspired things along with stupidly ill considered things so that he not forget, for at least this time in our tents, to working of dependence that is to a full salvation revealed when they are "put off" that for now...

"We hold this treasure in earthen vessels"

I can no more judge Knox right than I can judge Peter...right or wrong...I can see no farther than I see.


And even there...especially there...it is no seeing of my own...that does anything for me.

And others are free to judge, God knows I cannot prevent it, nor even influence it.

When one is judged of others and takes offense there he learns who the adversary is.


Himself.

My bad. I assumed that the topic of the tread was false vs real theology with implication on our understanding of God, the Christian walk, doctrines etc.... I had not idea that it was about what wretches we all are and that Christ (God) nevertheless is the Savior of all ?

 

[Israel]

True. I'm finding at first impressions that for some in Christianity the nature of God seems as important as the Good News. Almost a frontispiece to the cross, almost, or the cross is a frontispiece with purpose to the knowledge of God's nature. But I will try to study this more... before I make more strange and blanket statements. It is definitely a significant source of comfort for some and seems requisite.

Despite your more recent posts in response to what appears my apocryphal attempts or even stabs at Christ, I cannot but ask how one comes to setting the nature of God (and such knowledge or understanding) as against the Good News (the gospel of Jesus Christ) that some measurement of importance might be introduced or inserted to imply a measurable difference as exists between them?

Is something between the gospel and the giving of the knowledge of God (even as to His nature) that I am lacking sight of?

Presently, I see none.


The wonder of Christ dying for my sin in His service to His Father (which I, [or any man] receive as consequence to Christ's obedience to that Father) is the door of taking away all that hindered clarity of that; His (and our) God and Father.

Our linear dispositions to reason and reasoning must be, and I would maintain, can only be, broken by that cross you mention.

The setting of all our reasoning "upside down" that it might be "rightside up" is no small wonder and (as I see it) accomplished in and by no other way. But the device of it, if we might call that torture stake a device (as a man might view a thing devised) is not outside the purview of God.

Men see events and distinguish between them. Even to assigning some importance because they sense them as happening either "before them" or even to them.

And so the man (even the so called "Christian man") occupies his place, even his own place of referral. One man says "Christ was crucified 2000 years ago for me" and is not wrong. Yet another man says He is "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world" and also, is not wrong.

And the interesting thing is, "they" can be the same man, not denying a fulfillment as taking place in time...but coming to some understanding that all things as seen in time come from the place of the unseen...till allowed sight...even of unseen things.

These few words, if a man were to apply his own sensing and reasoning can never, from that his own sensing and reasoning...be resolved to sense of his own reason(ing)

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Who is the "we"? Is it the "we" who say it, or repeat it? Is it the we who say "I believe the Bible" (and all therein?). Is it the we who say:

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Or is it lie? Is there no "we" at all, just Paul musing aloud as witness to his own mental gymnastics? Does one or any "have to" believe Paul? The same man who said he is nothing but also said:

Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

"otherwise minded" to what? Paul's perfection? Is that it?

Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

O! But here's an interesting statement, Paul's laying claim to that apprehension! "for which also I am apprehended of Christ".

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.


Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy. This is the "why" of why I was shown mercy. This is the why of "why" I was/am apprehended of Jesus Christ.

Is Paul lying? In either being to himself the chiefest of sinners...or that even "this is a faithful saying and worthy of ALL acceptation:

that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

ALL?

I have no doubt as to how much is conducted in methodologies, even systematologies with graphs, charts, time lines, multiple choice questions...even essays and the like. Settings of priorities and such as called ministry to "get the right(est) answer". Even "study guides" for understanding and catechisms.

Who said they were the chiefest of sinners?

Oh! Did you say Paul? Excellent, excellent...now, let's move on to the next question...what progress you are making!

But I want simple "common sense" answers to the issues and problems I face..."as a christian"...I need methods taught, not some indecipherable jargon and esoterica.

Sho nuff.

Look at what is unseen.

 

[gordon 2]

I must come to the conclusion that I have the hysterics of a teenage school boy and these are not appropriate for any believer past 15. Question after question birthing questions.

I shall mature now to take the pill of belief and let God do the rest... I think Saint Paul just presented himself to me as I am and I recoil at myself seeing what was once the unseen face of Paul full of acne and so my face full of acne and acne scars from a head and heart full of questions.

Nevertheless I now believe alone, nothing else! ... And let God sort out the rest. I have bought the soap-- Being Told.

Praise the Lord for bros Israel whom I hold in greatest affection. Amen

 

[Israel]

While I do not disagree; is not the percieved nature of that relationship important?

[like I said, you don't need to know, unless ....]

“For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My Sake will find it.” This follows in all three of the Synoptic Gospels just the same. You could even have included Jesus’ warning in Matthew 10:38 about this: “And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me,” which is smack-dab in the middle of the other warning passage you quoted, Matthew 10:38, part of a larger passage in Matthew 10:32-39


The passage in Matthew 10 is the one where Jesus says He didn’t come to bring peace, but rather a sword (verse 34) and to “set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be those of his own household” (verses 35-36), following which He says in verse 37, “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me,” after which Jesus says that whoever doesn’t take up his cross and follow Him is not worthy of Him.

All of this, of course, seems very dire and downer-ish, and in many ways, it is. But Jesus, again, gives the passage its context when, in verses 32 and 33, just before what I’ve quoted here, He tells us: “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father Who is in Heaven; but whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father Who is in Heaven.” This whole passage here is about primary, fundamental identification with Christ Jesus as both our Source and Redeemer; as the God whose will and path are the very reason for our existence. We are not to be confused as to what our ultimate source and reason for being is, and our families are only our proximate sources and secondary reasons for being. If we confuse the ultimate and the proximate here (even here, where our families are generally massively central and important to us), we commit idolatry; we make our family members idols.

And, of course, back in Jesus’ time, even as now, family members frequently demand primary loyalties above anything else, even if their demand interferes with God’s demands. This was especially true in New Testament times (as it still is in more traditional societies), where familial loyalty is seen as THE primary loyalty.


But, as Jesus teaches here, we cannot put those loves or loyalties, good as they may be in most cases, above our love and loyalty to Jesus. To do so is to deny Him and to, in turn, be denied His loyalty before the Father. This is a dire situation because we live, outside of a primary relationship with Christ, under the condemnation and wrath of God, as Jesus tells us in John 3, verses 18-20, and in verse 36. This is a miserable situation, which Paul talks about in Ephesians 2:1-3 where he describes the life of those outside of a relationship with Christ, as we all once were, as being “dead in trespasses and sins,” and “by nature children of wrath,” and, in Ephesians 4:17-19, as living with darkened understanding in the futility of our minds. Worse, to end life outside of a relationship with Christ causes you to be condemned to an eternity of torment separated from the goodness of God in **** (Revelation 20:11-15). A dire situation indeed.

This life of darkened futility and death as a result of humanity’s rebellion and Fall has bent us so that we naturally want to be our own standard of meaning. Truth is the “self:” our own self-referential darkness which leads us to value family, or our own desires, or our own futile plans to save our own lives above losing our own self-referential life for Jesus’ sake so that He can truly save our lives (Matthew 16:25).

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Theologies don’t matter too much when you are walking with Jesus. The think we must know is Him!

Cannot be stated often enough. Say it again.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

While I do not disagree; is not the percieved nature of that relationship important?

Is it not enough to love as a child and be loved as a child. There’s an innocence and wonder about it that is lost when one moves from living in it to stepping outside out it for the sake of deconstructing it to analyze it.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

The different perceptions of "In the Spirit" are remarkable when you have even a faint look at all the different sects within Christianity.

The prophets say.
The bible says.
Paul said.
Peter said.
Aquinas said.
Luther said.
Christ said.
The Holy Spirit reveals Christ-- yet Christians try to get a "God" with every item on the list, and less often with this one last item. Or so it seems.

So yes the perceived nature of God is important and also where one is fixated onto the list. The perceptions will vary depending on where your feet are planted. The articulations and the spirits will vary--- and so the perceptions.

I need the prophets.
I need the bible.
I need Paul.
I need Peter.
I need Aquinas.
I need Luther.
I need Christ.


Strangely I had no idea what I needed when I searched this list. I knew I needed something, but did not know what it was until the Holy Spirit showed up and informed me with Jesus. My experience of God is simple. It requires, no prophets, no bible, no Paul, no Peter, no Aquinas, no Luther.

My definition of God requires no grand view of all the books of scripture. It required Christ only and was revealed through the Holy Spirit alone. That is how it came to be for me.

Home run post.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

will worshippers.

wow. Showing that Brotherly love I see. Do you really equate Brothers who differ from you on doctrine with idolaters? Forget I asked that. The answer is obvious.

 

[gemcgrew]

wow. Showing that Brotherly love I see.

I have zero interest or desire to meet your standard.

Do you really equate Brothers who differ from you on doctrine with idolaters?

Yes, depending upon the doctrine.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

I have zero interest or desire to meet your standard.

It's not "my" standard.

“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

is a far cry from condemning fellow Christians who disagree with you on strict predeterminism as idolaters, but I guess it just a matter of one putting intellectual pride over petty application. It is what it is. If you're correct you can treat people anyway you wish and you're "in", but if you're wrong... As an aside, I don't think I would wish to go to a Heaven full of people who denigrate others simply because they can. I would have a hard time distinguishing it from the world I live in today.

 

[gemcgrew]

It's not "my" standard.

is a far cry from condemning fellow Christians who disagree with you on strict predeterminism as idolaters, but I guess it just a matter of one putting intellectual pride over petty application. It is what it is. If you're correct you can treat people anyway you wish and you're "in", but if you're wrong... As an aside, I don't think I would wish to go to a Heaven full of people who denigrate others simply because they can. I would have a hard time distinguishing it from the world I live in today.

So as not to be seen as nothing more than false inference, please point out where I have condemned a single person as an idolater, especially after I have already admitted to being one.

We can deal with each false inference as time allows.

 

[Israel]

Deep calls to deep.