Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

Prometheus Lass Conversations with San Diego...

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 10000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 10, 2012 5:23:45 PM PST
(Set up at the request of San Diego).

Here it is. I can't wait to see what happens.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 5:29:30 PM PST
Banner says:
Hi Lass,
What is this?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 5:34:14 PM PST
It started on the Hell and morality thread. San Diego decided that since I was one of the youngest on the thread, he or she (can you help me with that one San Diego...apologies, I should probably know) would use me (a little child shall lead them...or in this case...a plumpish 33 year old) :-) to teach and explain much of his/her (apologies again) knowledge.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 5:39:15 PM PST
Banner says:
Ah ok thanks for explaining. I peeked over on that thread and I think it's a she btw. :) She mentioned her husband teaching I think.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 5:42:22 PM PST
Okay. Thank you for clearing that up!

Posted on Feb 10, 2012 6:44:12 PM PST
Ryan Willis says:
Can I have in on this thread too? I was very interested in reading San Diego's posts on that thread. Though now, Prometheus, giving his age makes me feel like I'm a toddler.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 6:49:36 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Feb 13, 2012 10:43:45 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 7:37:42 PM PST
That is Prometheus LASS! :-)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 7:38:01 PM PST
No. A poster here.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 7:38:27 PM PST
Ryan Willis says:
Alright, Prometheus Lass it is then :P

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 7:40:03 PM PST
:-)

I have to be careful because there is a poster here whose name is Prometheus (it should have occurred to me that there might be a male out there who might pick that name, but it never did), and people occasionally confuse me for him and vice versa. Though I don't think he posts much anymore?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 7:41:03 PM PST
Ryan Willis says:
My bad then. For some odd reason I thought the "Lass" part was just part of the name wasn't gender oriented. My apologies for not noting that sooner.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 8:26:06 PM PST
*s*

S'okay. Totally! I wish that they gave us italics, because I hate having to emphasize things by essentially yelling online with the caps!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 11, 2012 9:31:51 AM PST
Feb 10, 2012 8:25:11 PM PST Prometheus Lass says:
Also, I did create the post. Amazon terms of service will be what it is, but I think we should go ahead and move this over there...so maybe if you haven't already, c and p this to the thread, and I will c and p my answer.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 11, 2012 12:37:35 PM PST
I thought it might be easiest if we each c and p our own posts in order from the beginning of the conversation on the other thread,

that way nobody is confused by the difference in the header verses who is actually speaking.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 11, 2012 1:17:49 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Oct 17, 2012 3:48:21 PM PDT
Chronologically first.
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2012 2:41:47 PM PST
San Diego - "Miller" street (and... says:
Since I entered into this discussion on a legitimate question by Anne Rice from some time back will confine my answers to that and (maybe in the future) some of the subsequent questions posed by other participants.

I am an older woman (late 80's) and as such naturally health is failing so will be brief each time and may only access email threads every other day or so. If you choose to know more than that about me see a reader comment on the following book (Four Major Cults) which should be sufficient for this venue.

Anne mentions in above: Supercessionism, or Covenant/Replacement theology. "A rose by any other name is still a rose". For a detailed familiarity with that subject suggest the following book: Dr. Renald E. Showers - The Coming Apocalypse.

For a succinct explanation (and "checkmate" chess function) the following will allow you to be on the reality side of the subject. Note that in the following Covenants (Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic) of the Old Testament all three are one sided. Normally when one has a contract (in this day and age) or a Covenant (in the Old Testament) at least two parties are subject to the terms of the contract. In these three only one individual (God) is tasked with fulfilling the terms. No human has to do anything to validate the execution of said contracts. As such they are unconditional, literal, eternal, and depend solely upon the integrity of God for their fulfillment. Jews (literal, physical) are the recipients Rom.9:4. Gentiles are excluded Eph. 2:11-12.

Essentially any "religion/cult" that states they are the replacement for literal/physical Jews detailed in those Covenants is taking on a task and taking on the originator of the contracts (and doing so) with a "bad/incorrect mental attitude". Analogous to running into a brick wall at seventy miles an hour. One is not going to come out of the impact in good condition (hint: comment in Rev. 22:18-19). This is the same type of M.O. that you and I would do to anyone in our human relationships who is lying to or abusing children. We would do so in a temporal context and the individual (mentioned speaking in the above ref.) will be doing so in an eternal context. "Forewarned is forearmed".

This leads to a reality of the subject not yet understood by the participants of these threads. You will note that in my above comment "Supercessionism" I did not include the full statement by Anne, "Christian Supercessionism". Reason being is that Supercessionism or Covenant/Replacement theology is a derivative of Religion (not Christianity). The two are antithetical in that Christianity is not a religion.

In theology the definition of religion is "any attempt by man to appropriate the grace of God by what man does". Definition of Christianity is a "supernatural way of life based on a personal relationship with an individual" i.e. Christ.

The above statement is a definition only and not a description of all the attendant realities. A full description (8 or 9 pages) of a new spiritual species in the universe (2Cor. 5:17) is longer than allowed in this format. Nota Bena: at no time in the Old Testament were any believers stated to be in union with the three members of the Trinity "you in me and I in you" Jn. 14:20 etc. If one of the participants of this thread has a web site and would like to post the (above mentioned 8 or 9 page) description in Toto will provide such.

One final comment. All of the above subject matter should have been provided by any minister, priest, pastor whom you might have fraternized with for any length of time in the past. If they did not, then one of two realities was in operation. Either they were ignorant or if they did know the subject matter and choose not to instruct someone asking intelligent/legit questions then the comment (taken from my sons when raising them in the 60's) "he is a jive turkey" is applicable and you would have been well advised to turn around and walk away. Speaking from experience (and old age) life is too short to suffer fools (who are either ignorant or arrogant or both).

Am tired and need to rest. (personal information)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 11, 2012 1:57:24 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Oct 17, 2012 3:49:06 PM PDT
Chronologically Second:

Joe1013 says:
You can have neither a contract or a covenant between both parties giving consideration. Otherwise it is only a gift, not a promise or an agreement.

<<In theology the definition of religion is "any attempt by man to appropriate the grace of God by what man does". >>

This is not a definition in theology that I have ever encountered.

<<All of the above subject matter should have been provided by any minister, priest, pastor whom you might have fraternized with for any length of time in the past. If they did not, then one of two realities was in operation. Either they were ignorant or if they did know the subject matter and choose not to instruct someone asking intelligent/legit questions then the comment "he is a jive turkey" is applicable and you would have been well advised to turn around and walk away. Speaking from experience (and old age) life is to short to suffer fools (who are either ignorant or arrogant or both). >>

I do not believe that all ministers, priests or pastors would have given the same responses on the subject matter. In fact I'm about 100% certain this is correct.

Not all of life's questions are necessarily an 'either-or' proposition.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego says:
For Joe1013 & A.R. and anyone else with more than a passing interest.

Why am I not surprised regards the above statements and AR's questions?
Reasons are as follows.
Growing up as a teenager in Mission Hills during the 20's & 30's my family in general was not interested in "church" type function. I on the other hand had a desire so walked to the local Congregational church. Did not receive any information regards the Gospel and as a result was simply a church going unbeliever. In late teens an aunt from the Midwest usually spent the summers with us. She was Christian Science (Cs) and hauled me off to that organization during that time (Cs - being a cult, naturally no Gospel was presented). After reaching adulthood and being able to make up my own mind along with the mobility of a vehicle I choose a High Episcopal church to go to. Enjoyed the pomp and circumstance & atmosphere (which were intended to make one "feel" closer to God). Again no presentation of the Gospel and as such was still a religious church going unbeliever. When married for the first time after the war it was to a Roman Catholic. Naturally their policy was one had to be Roman Catholic to be married. And since their attitude was High Episcopal is a kissing cousin status to their organization (and the priests wanted another breeding female (producing children) to fill the pews and (to contribute to their power lust) they naturally said all I needed to do was take a few familiarization classes and I was in. Again no presentation of the Gospel and for the next 20 years was simply a church going (Roman Catholic) unbeliever. Around age 40 was "sitting on the dock of the Bay" eating lunch reading a bible and another lady sat down next to me and asked if I knew what I was reading. I said no not really. During the preceding decades nothing of substance was presented/detailed regards the Gospel or correct content of the Canon.
During that lunch break the correct content of the Gospel was pointed out in various vs. and by simple acceptance of the facts I became a Christian - illus. Jn. 3:36A.

After husband number one passed away I remarried. This time to a Christian. His first twenty years of professional function was as a theologian teaching ministers, priests and pastors. During that time of lecturing his voice began to give out so he changed professions and went into federal law enforcement for the final 20 years. In discussions we had regards my experiences as an unbeliever his comments explained volumes.
One statement went something like this. Roughly 98% of the Roman Catholics priests he dealt with had been religious unbelievers, 100% of the various cult ministers/pastors had been religious unbelievers, roughly 50 % of the Baptist preacher boys had been religious unbelievers, roughly 75 % of the Methodist ministers were religious unbelievers, and so on and so on down the line of the various denominations, religions & cults. By way of explanation/example/application he used "Nicodemus" as a representative (if you want a detail of that conversation post a request to "San Diego" and will do so at a later date).

Old age calls, end day one, need to rest.

When I showed him this post and your statement "This is not a definition in theology that I have ever encountered." He chuckled and said - not surprised - considering most of those he taught had skulls full of mush - some of whom were there because an aunt or grandmother wanted a priest to be in the family or they had failed at selling insurance & figured fleecing sheep in the pew (from a pastor/minister position) would be a good option for making a living since they were too old to dig ditches.

When asked about your comment "You can have neither a contract or a covenant between both parties giving consideration. Otherwise it is only a gift, not a promise or an agreement."
His answer: simply inform Joe1013 that when viewed from his/mans side of the fence it could indeed be regarded as a gift. From Gods side it is a Covenant. Given the fact that the Bible has to be interpreted in the time it was written (not today's legal functions) and the execution of said covenant was and will be conducted over a passage of time that only God has the ability or inclination to execute. And by stating the Covenant particulars ahead of time and then executing said Covenant (in all of the necessary aspects) over the millennia it functions as a testimonial to the faithfulness of God even after all the repeated failures of mankind - which in the final analysis is just one item of what God is teaching in a practical sense - Grace.

And for a classic example of the difference between a religious unbeliever and a Christian note the following self analysis done by "Saul of Tarsus" who is later "Paul the apostle".
In the "before picture" this is his reality, "sinners; of whom I am chief" 1Tim. 1:15 - and why was he chief of sinners? Because all the negative thought & subsequent actions listed in that chapter were precipitated by the fact that he was at the top of the heap in being an unbelieving religious Pharisee and the attitude & function goes with that baggage. Simply stated, God hates religion. For a definitive set of comments on that attitude see the paragraph (*second in line after next.) that details a number of conversations Christ had with religious individuals of his day.

In the "after picture" now functioning as a Christian, "Paul, an apostle", 1Tim.1:1 - 2Tim.1:1 spent the rest of his life (to the point of execution by beheading) explaining "don't be like I was, religious, rather get saved and then tell religions to "pack sand".

*And if you need an illustration from the life of Christ, note the following. The Scribes were the religious liberals of the day and the Pharisees were the religious conservatives of that period. And what was the reality/analysis placed on these individuals by Christ? Nota Bene: Jn. 8:44; Mt. 12:34; Mt. 23:33; Mt. 23:37 (for those of you who use GPS) this is just a sample of four point tracking to designate religions/cults and the individuals who populate those realities. And what is the principle behind those statements/function being executed by Christ? "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus" Phil. 2:5. For those reading this post that option (choice - which how A. R.'s first question - free will is posted) is (the ball is in your court) available. Now all you need is a little more information on how, what, when, where etc.

Old age calls, end day two, need to rest.

Let's use a (minor sample of a religious pipeline - among many) modern day application. Most of you have been approached by two young men (Mormons) at some point in time. They are engaged in the required two year (proselytizing) required of them by the cult (see book - Four Major Cults - on Amazon) to which they belong. So what is the reality of these two individuals? See the statements listed in paragraph above (*) made by Christ regards religions and their adherents. And for a closer look at what Mormonism calls itself, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Long title that "sounds good" but what is the reality? The Mormon organization is neither the church, nor are they of Jesus Christ nor are they latter day saints. They are simply religious unbelievers. So what shoes fit those feet? Let's have Christ give you the answer, Mt. 23:15. Now you know why God despises religion. According to prior Amazon thread content A.R. has a bad taste for "Christianity" (and from her experience/understanding she is correct) only one item need be adjusted (which will then cause a cascade effect on all related subject matter). Knowledge as to how to tell the difference between Religion and Christianity or to use plain language again lets have Christ call the shot: Jn. 8:32. Whenever A.R. posted the original question (years back?) someone should have provided the above information long ago. She has been thinking just as God thinks (only transposed the meaning in these discussion threads between religion (remember the "Bad Dates" grab in "Raiders of the lost ark") vs. Christianity. The only problem, she was not informed of the difference between individuals who are religious and those who are Christian. Nota Bene: A.R.'s status currently is the same as Saul's in Acts 22:6ff and 24 hours later (after having a brief chat with Christ - someone who is oriented to reality) Saul is no longer anti-Christian (to the point of rounding up and executing said individuals) but rather Paul the apostle to the Gentiles. And the rest is history.

As a great grandmother I naturally have varying ages of posterity to the second and third generation. Any time they choose to not listen to reason or get down on the floor and have a temper tantrum when they do not get their way I simply turn around and walk away.
God functions in the same manner. If individuals are argumentative, obstinate, hostile, arrogant, etc he is a gentleman and leaves them to their own devices (you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink). Volition (read choice) is the deciding factor (tipping point) in how God operates (Jn. 7:17). If the human wants to argue with God as to the meaning of what was written it is a foregone conclusion as to who loses the argument (1Pet. 1:23). God/Word was around long before any human came into existence and will be around long after human history had been terminated (Jn. 1:1-14). Two practical human illustrations: If A.R. pens a novel, who dictates the reality of what is on the page? Do the words on the page dictate to A.R. or does A.R. determine what is written and its meaning? Same for whoever pens a thread to this discussion. Do the authors dictate the reality or do the words (& readers) dictate to the author?

To date most (99.9%) of what A.R. has been fed (by individuals who pretend to be something or to have some type of "christian" stature) is religious B.S. (ref. Christ comments Mt. 16:6; 16:11-12; Mar. 8:15 & 12:38; Lk. 12:1 & 20:46; Col. 2:8). When Christ repeats a point it is for emphasis and use to the reader. I had the same bad taste in my mouth for the first 40 years regards what was supposedly "christian" (such had been presented by religious unbelievers). Once the clarification was made as to what religion was and how God felt about it (despises it) then the bad taste was eliminated (read spit out) and the remainder was useful and beneficial. And the building (walk on to spiritual maturity) that occurred during the next 40 years is what precipitates the content of this post.
If A.R. wants the correct answers to her questions all she need do is post a simple yes or no (sit back and relax) and the integrity of the Trinity will handle the rest (Mt. 19:14; Mar. 10:14; Lk. 18:16). Remember though that the attitude will be a deciding factor (remember Jn. 7:17 mentioned above). If she merely posts so as to engender controversy, to fill time or for amusement, engage in philosophical discussions or obtain material for a book - then dead silence. If she genuinely wants a dialogue with God and answers to legit questions she will not be disappointed (Jn. 6:37).
Old age calls, end day three, need to rest.

Conclusion (using the KISS principle). What would be a brief summery of the above post?
Items A & B: .
A. What is God's (i.e. Christ) current attitude (and final action) toward religion in general and the adherents' of said M.O. (if they continue in it to the point of physical death) ref. Mt.7:22-23; Lk13:27 (hint, if you want the broader picture as to how such application would function on a day to day and person to person level for you as an individual in your everyday life suggest reading all of Lk.13). In today's vernacular "tough love" from a lady or if a male construction worker "skip the B.S" m.o. toward the arrogant religious types and grace toward the needy.
B. What is a recommended attitude/function (among many) that is 180 degrees opposite of religion? I.E. Christianity. Ref. first - Jn. 3:36A then Phil. 2:5 then Mt. 11:28 then Rom. 12:2 then Isa. 26:3 then Isa. 40:31. Ever hitch a horse to a carriage? Remember the ditty "don't get the cart before the horse". And what happens if you do? Do not let the above sequence get out of functioning order. The horse (Christ/ doctrine) pulls the cart and the humans (who are Christians) are along for the ride. Religion places the cart in front of the horse and demands that you (anyone they can get their hands on and fleece) get out and push. Religion says do, do, do. Christ says done (Jhn. 19:30).
If the readers of this post want (a litmus test) to be able to differentiate
Between a Christian and a religious unbeliever let me know and will detail in a subsequent entry.

As you can see old age has its benefits in wisdom and experience. But it also has its shortcomings. Now at my age, I am tired and need to rest. (personal information)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 11, 2012 4:22:08 PM PST
Ryan Willis says:
Very well said, San Diego. Replacement theology is something a lot can fall into, some teach it intentionally but some teach it ignorantly, nonetheless it is a theology that has only had a negative impact. It is a clear case that God's covenants stand on His basis that He is the one who see's to their fulfillment according to what He said. Aside from that theological aspect, Replacement theology completely goes against the character of God that the scriptures testify. To say that God replaced Israel with the church and that the Jews lost their covenant somehow is to shame God's faithfulness. Logically Replacement theology will lead one to conclude that IF God did cut off Israel then what's to stop Him from cutting off the church too?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 11, 2012 5:37:32 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 11, 2012 6:07:45 PM PST
For those individuals who are not familiar with the subject matter on this one post by Ryan Willis suggest the following as a basic read.

The Coming Apocalypse: A Study of Replacement Theology vs. God's Faithfulness in the End-Times

And to add a small item of reality to what is contained in the above book. When "Supersessionism, Replacement or Covenant Theology" are mentioned they are one and the same, "a rose/pig by any other name is still a rose/pig".

To place in proper perspective (reality check). If you want to have these; "Supersessionism, Replacement or Covenant Theology", as your house quests. Or as the policy and procedure of an institution to which you belong. Then you would have them delivered in "plain brown wrapper". And after becoming familiar with them and what they stand for or what they have executed in history your attitude would probably be that of how you view child molesters. At least it should be.

All three are not a part of Christianity or Biblical Theology. They are offshoots of trees (read organizations) mentioned here (Mt.23:15 & Mt. 23:33). In that order intentionally by Christ so as to give you an idea as to how God (Christ) views such teaching and the individuals who propagate it. And what you personally would do with child molesters.
So also is the policy and future procedure Christ will execute (Rev.22:18-19 & 20:15).
So what might be a practical application in dealing with organizations and individuals who try to incorporate you into such thinking or action? What do you do if you step in dog droppings? Wipe your feet and move on i.e. Mt.10:14; Mar. 6:11; Lk. 9:5.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 11, 2012 9:36:58 PM PST
I have forgotten the order slightly of the posts, but I believe you asked me a direct question in one before I responded to you, however, if I have the order wrong, let me know!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 11, 2012 9:59:26 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 11, 2012 11:53:53 PM PST
We will deal with questions next time and straiten out the sequence a little.
At this point beneficial if you know more about who you are talking to.
Based on what you have read in the posts and what is in my profile go ahead and send me a post that details what you know about who I am.

Gender:
Age:
Education:
Professions:
Location on the face of the planet:
Health:
Family:
Composition:
and anything else that your perception may want to include.
If something is missing or needs more information that is useful for this trip down memory lane I may or may not fill in.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 11, 2012 10:18:55 PM PST
I will complete this tomorrow.

I am already up way too late.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012 10:33:33 AM PST
Gender: Female
Age: I had the impression that you were in your 80's but if you were a teenager in the 20's that would put you closer to 101 or 102?
Education: started with a BA, assume moved to a BS in Engineering?
Professions: Engineering and Newspaper publishing
Location: San Diego, of course
Health: I believe you mentioned that you were suffering from Alzheimers. I am sorry. That illness is such a terrible thief. Slowly stealing everything from you and your loved ones.
Family: Close enough knit that your aunt stayed with you while you were growing up for quite awhile.
Composition: (in terms of Adam and Eve question: body, soul, and spirit!)
Otherwise, do not quite get what you are referring to here.

You can seem a bit terse, but as you mentioned. Time is running short. I know you mentioned the first stage of Alzheimers. I do not know if that is the one you are in. I hope that there is plenty of time to complete this discussion. If not, I hope there is someone with your knowledge that can take over for you -- and maybe keep us posted on how you are doing!

You certainly seem like a very, "no nonsense" person who has a very firm view of what and how things should be.

I was a bit surprised by your mentioning the number of pastors known by your husband the theological teacher who were unbelievers. Most of the pastors I have known have not been unbelievers at all. My parents are both pastors, and have been since I was about 10, though my dad was ordained when I was more like 6.

Can't wait for your next post!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012 1:25:21 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Oct 17, 2012 3:51:42 PM PDT
All of the personal information is reasonably close. To put a little flesh on the bones will add the following.

The Aunt mentioned just stayed about a month or so each summer. My mother's sister who needed some San Diego sun after a hard upper Midwest winter. The house is still there (in the middle of Mission Hills) but naturally I have moved on from where I grew up.

Adjust the age to birth in the early 20's. My profile picture is when we were taking family portraits and since my mother and I were the same stature and we wanted a little dress up I simply put on one of her dresses and redid the hair. At that age from our pictures we were practically twins.

The pertinent health info (since it is germane to this ongoing conversations cause and content) will add the following. Around 40 years ago I was one of the first to receive the then (new) HRT. The composition of which (untested sufficiently at the time) precipitated my first breast cancer fifteen years ago. The treatment of which included at that time a five year regimen of tamoxifen. Two years into the (5 year) tamoxifen cycle it caused uterine cancer which necessitated the normal full surgery for that type. Last year the breast cancer came back which necessitated another full surgery and three months of radiation. To repeat a comment made by my husband. "The physicians were sincere (in what they had prescribed) but were still sincerely wrong".
The Alzheimer's functioning first starts with short term memory loss (which is where I am now).
So that you understand a nuance of the mechanism, the memories are still there (if you have a light on your desk and it is turned off is there anything wrong with the light, no) when an Alzheimer's moment steps in it is the same as if whatever memory (short, medium or long term) is being affected is turned off. The memory is still there, just switched off. When and for how long depends on the disease process. At this stage all my medium and long term memory is still there and functioning. The disease progress is unknown as to time line. Varies from as little as a few years to fifteen or more. So if this conversation continues it will be at about this pace of one or two posts a day, not more and occasionally sometimes less due to doctor appointments, age and how I feel each day.

Which brings us to (just one) the reasons for this conversation you and I will be having (if it continues). If not familiar with the book (on Amazon probably) "Tuesdays with Morrie", suggest a glance. That will give you the gist. If you and I continue this will be a book for posterity (which is one of my intents for those whom I leave behind). And just as with the book mentioned it will be circulated nation and then world wide in numerous languages.

Composition is correct. All you need to flesh that statement out is add Christian. Since all unbelievers are not Christian and are only dichotomous (body and immortal soul only).

Here is a principle that will track through our subject matter. Just because someone says they are "Christian" does not make it necessarily so (remember the physicians mentioned above were "sincere" but were still sincerely wrong).

Which brings us to an item that will (as we walk through the question and answer) explain volumes. And pertain to your understanding of who is and is not a (believer/Christian). Even if they are in "the ministry" that does not confer the reality. Read the passage on Nicodemus (Jn. 3:1 thru 3:13) and tell me what you see.

And in answer to one of your prior posts. Yes we have one or two question and answer posts missing. Will glance at the thread and when I find them will copy and paste to this thread. (personal information)

Posted on Feb 12, 2012 2:23:26 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 13, 2012 3:00:40 AM PST
Chronologically third:

San Diego to P.L.

Will use a Question (Q) and Answer (A) format where I (for the most part) will play both sides.
If I leave a question unanswered for you to respond too will insert (your turn).

Repeat of the question: (Q). What was the "composition" of Adam and Eve when created? (A) is three fold.

The answer you gave was correct as regards overall "description". Now we go into detail which will be important (will have a ripple effect - instantaneously - throughout the rest of the Canon both old and new portions). Illustration of what we will be doing in the following conversations over time: Prov. 27:17 and Luke 24:32.

1. (Q) what are you writing with?
(A) a body.

2. (Q) What is mentioned here? Mt.16:26 & Mar. 8:36
(A) a soul

3. (Q) What is added here? Heb. 4:12
(A) a human spirit (note the s is small not a capital)

4. (Q) What is left out here? Jn. 4:23
(A) a soul

Summery 1: When Adam & Eve are created it is as a body, immortal soul and human spirit (trichotomous).
They were told Gen. 2:17 (in your English text) "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die".
And since this is a reality, "God [is] not a man, that He should lie" Num. 23:19.
And you are not seeing Adam and Eve die (physically) that day. Then you know that some other type of death is being referred to. And in this case you are correct. What died that day? The human spirit of each. The Hebrew in this passage states "dying you shall surely die" two deaths. I.E. the consequence of spiritual death is eventually physical death. And they did die physically 900+ years later.

Insert an important point here that has bearing throughout the Old and New Testament.
When the statement is made 2 Tim. 3:16 "All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God" it
refers only to the original text i.e. Hebrew in O.T. and Koine Greek in N.T.
Any other language is a translation and naturally in any translation from one language
to another items/meaning/idioms will be lost in the translation. As a result if you have
any one say to you that there are discrepancies/contradictions/errors etc in the Canon,
simply ask them if they mean in the Hebrew or the Greek. There are no
discrepancies/contradictions/errors in original text.
That is why the statement is made 1Cor. 14:33 "God is not [the author] of confusion".
If a human is confused as to the content of the Canon it is not because of a deficiency on Gods part. There are four main causes of lack of understanding regard content of the Canon. Ignorance, arrogance, or as in the case of (a sample religious unbeliever who does not have a human spirit and as such cannot understand Spiritual reality) Nicodemus Jn.3:1-12. And the forth malfunction on the part of human comprehension of the Canon deals with believers only and that is when they are out of fellowship ref. 1Cor. 3:1-4.

Summery 2: When Adam & Eve are created it is as a body, immortal soul and human spirit (trichotomous).
The day they eat of the tree they die spiritually. Note what happens. Previously they have had daily fellowship with the second person of the Trinity when he came walking in the Garden. Now that they are spiritually dead - no fellowship - in fact they run and hide. (you can ask yourself where else in the Canon you see the mention of mankind wanting to be hidden from the presence of God). What else do you see in this scene? Note the fig leaves. This is a classic sample of what the base line mentality of religion (Christianity is not a religion) happens to be. Religion says "if we are right with each other then we must be right with God, in fact (this is where the arrogance of religion enters in) he will have to accept us. But as you see from Isa. 54:6; Mat. 5:20; Rev. 20:12 etc such is not the case.

Adam and Eve go from being trichotomous to being dichotomous (body and immortal soul only- which is the status of all unbelievers). What happens next?

Nota Bene: the fig leaves (i.e. religion) does not cut it. So the second member of the Trinity "kills" an innocent animal and provides coats of skins to Adam "Ish" in the Hebrew and "Isha" in the Hebrew (which they accept) and it is at this time that Adam now calls his wife "Eve" meaning "mother of all living" Gen. 3:20. At the acceptance of the skins for cover (and the rejection of fig leaves - religion) Adam and Eve go back to being trichotomous, i.e. believers. They are now able to have fellowship with God in time and in eternity. Acceptance of the coats of skins (in their case) is synonymous with the Israelis of the Exodus generation eating the Passover lamb (another innocent sacrifice by way of representation of what was to come when the second person of the Trinity takes upon himself humanity and goes to the Cross to die for the sins of the world) they looked forward to the Cross. We look backward to the Cross; time has no bearing with God. That is why your calendar is noted BC and AD. Just a little mundane hint to those members of the human race (outside eastern religions) as to who calls the shots from creation to the end of history. Same type of observation/comment God makes in the first chapter of Romans or Jn. 1:3 or Col. 1:16. Where have you seen that type of function before? Try baseball, three strikes your out. So also with the plan, principle and function of God. It need not be made any simpler/plainer. The reality of who he is, what he is, what he has done, what he is doing and what he intends to do is set forth in plain language.

The only righteousness/justice God accepts is his own. And the only way an unbeliever orients to the absolute righteousness and justice of God is via Jn.3:36A (and related passages) at which time the "judicial imputation" of the righteousness of God takes place,
Isa. 53:6; 2 Cor. 5:21. At which point two (main) items occur. Not only is the righteousness of God imputed to the individual but they are also "born again" i.e. a human spirit is made and the individual goes from being a dichotomous unbeliever to a trichotomous believer. So as a practical application when you walk down the street from now on all the individuals you see/interact/converse with will be one of two main categories. Either an unbeliever, dichotomous - body/immortal soul only. Or believer,
trichotomous - body/immortal soul/human spirit.

How & where would a person use one small portion of the above information in a practical sense?
Note the following M.O. of God and advised function for believers; 1Jn. 4:1 "but test the spirits".
In the future all you need do is when faced with someone who is of "some" stature or rank in a "religious organization" ask them to explain what "being born again" means.
If they cannot give you the correct information,
simply turn around and walk away.
If they are pulling down 50K to 100K a year as a "professional" of that religious system and do not know the answer to a simple base line question then they are in a position for which they are not qualified.
All of the above information transfer took place in roughly ten minutes 45 yeas ago (while eating lunch "sitting on the dock of the bay").
Which is why I suggested you use the stop watch while reading this post.
The information has been put to good use ever since.
Reality is nice and being cognizant of how God thinks/acts is useful.
Now you have a small idea as to why/how these - Isa. 26:3 & Jn.8:32 - function.

Any questions/clarifications needed, just ask.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400 Next ›
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Christianity forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
455 15 days ago
I don't get the basic concept 167 52 seconds ago
We are Living in the Last Days - A Biblical Prophecy Discussion Part Six 6480 1 minute ago
moment-of-broken-ness, part 2 5925 1 minute ago
Mary was Sinless -- Part XXIII 3793 2 minutes ago
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light Part 2 1356 3 minutes ago
Part 6 - the new thread 1430 10 minutes ago
Catholicism is based on Jesus Christ- Part 8 2603 27 minutes ago
Celsus question 1694 30 minutes ago
Will God Resurrect People for the Purpose of Punishing them? 51 31 minutes ago
To what extent do Literalist ID/Creationists End Times fundamentalists threaten Christianity: Part the Third , Would like to change this name to how to save the religions that were established by Moses, Muslim, Christian and Jew 6471 41 minutes ago
Is this your Christian nation in action ? 112 1 hour ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  56
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Feb 10, 2012
Latest post:  Feb 22, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions