Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. - John 6:63
Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - I Corinthians 2:14
For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. - Isaiah 55:10-11
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:1-9
Indeed, the Obama candidacy is quite revealing of how easily people are convinced by a charismatic leader. The interview of one of his supporters recently was a classic example because when asked for just one of his legislative accomplishments, couldn't think of any.
Maranatha, Jesus!!!
” Not everyone can perceive the difference between the words of God and the words of men.”
I take it you can? :)
Why do you suppose +John’s gospel is called the “Holy Good News according to John”? and not as I had otherwise proposed. A plot of those Roman Catholics established by Constantine the Great? Why not perhaps called something along the lines of “Holy Good News according to John which The Church understands one way but which those of you who are self defined as the elect or God’s sheep will know is actually God’s very words taken down by his secretary +John for you alone, well maybe along with Calvin et al, to really, honest to goodness understand and not for mega sinners like +John Chrysostomos or +Gregory Palamas let alone the common run of sinners who humble themselves in churches and monasteries to understand?
Why yes, Alamo girl can! !.
3 reasons:
1.Unity
2.Prophecy (Thus saith the Lord)
3. Power, authority
“1.Unity”
With whom? Clearly not The Church; something newer then?
“2.Prophecy (Thus saith the Lord)”
By whom about what?
“3. Power, authority”
From whom to whom and how?
(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. - Romans 11:8
Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. - Matthew 13:9
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. – Matthew 13:10-13
Please consider yourself pinged to 2746.
Like I said, I take it YOU can? :)
2:Prophecy: Revelation from God to His prophets, divine pathos: all prophecy points to Christ and ends in Christ
3: Power and authority: the power contained in the Gospel of Christ to change lives, to change the world.
The gospel of John, or according to John does not affect the message of John. The book is not history or a biography of Jesus. It is pure theology, and written for theological reasons.
Yes, any grade school “scientist” can dissect a mouse. The trick is in putting it back together again.
It is through love for one another that must always be the first step for protestants and Catholic/Orthodox or any group to have open dialog.
That said,I find illogical for anyone to try and compare Joseph Smith,Ron L Hubbard to the Dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.
You further go on to say..
“”To me, all of the doctrines and traditions of men – all of them across the board - are broken cisterns that can hold no water.””
Can you imagine where we would be today if the Catholic Church had NOT made the Divinity of Christ and Trinitarian Baptism and many other things Dogmatic, thus “concrete truth”?
You already have groups like Joseph Smith (who you felt compelled to compare to Catholic teaching) who deny the Divinity of Christ.
I thank God for the Dogmatic teaching of the Church that makes things “concrete” to protect against mass heresies from arising.
AMEN!
“1. Unity: the bible is One book. there is One God and One revelation of that God. There is One Shepherd, and One flock.
2:Prophecy: Revelation from God to His prophets, divine pathos: all prophecy points to Christ and ends in Christ
3: Power and authority: the power contained in the Gospel of Christ to change lives, to change the world.
The gospel of John, or according to John does not affect the message of John. The book is not history or a biography of Jesus. It is pure theology, and written for theological reasons.”
Just so I get this straight, lest I accuse anyone of something they neither believe nor claim, are you saying that the foregoing is why AG can discern the very words of God from those of +John, or +Luke etc? Is she assuredly part of that One Flock? Is she a prophet? Does a life changed by familiarity with the Gospels necessarily empower one to spot God’s words among the background noise of other Apostolic writings? :)
INDEED.
A bit rushed so no detailed response. I just agree with all you said.
Incredibly sobering, imho.
Seems like the globalist puppet masters have mostly selected actors for quite some time . . . folks who are very maleable, directable, controllable . . . who’s only claim to fame is intense identification with the globalists traitorous goals and methods. Shrillery is the perfect example. Obumma is not far behind. And McChurian is not that far behind Obumma.
And still some folks think it’s just another bona fide election instead of a huge charade.
That EARS TO HEAR issue is going to increasingly be a life or death issue in this sphere literally; as it has always been vis a vis eternal life.
God has been putting broken souls and bodies back together for quite a long time. Quite easy enough for Him who’s Word is the paragon example of obedient action in this time/space dimension and every other . . . poured forth.
NARROW, RIGID, DOGMATIC
assumptions, presumptions, fabrications, fantasies, extrapolations, inferences
based on . . . faint fog, sky hooks and quick sand
are common to most RELIGIOUS groups sooner or later—the longer they exist, the worse it tends to get.
It’s shocking the numbers of RC edifice folks who are blind to such a common human and group phenomena.
I know there are RC edifice sociologists and psychologists. I guess it must be selective teaching as well as selective perception and rubberized texts.
Oh, yes, the God's mouthpiece in flesh.
Yes, the words of God. When you ascribe John 6:63 to the Apostle John and not God, it shows the impassable divide between us.
I don't know what Bible you use, but all the bibles I have seen say Accoding to John, not Accodring to God. Now you are re-writing the Bible too?
Let me see: so far we have a self-appointed mouthpiece of God, and now changing the Bible, by being "inspired," I presume?
Again you demand physical proofs of the Spirit
I am simply responding to your matter-of-fact claims. If you can't back up your claims, keep them to yourself, or simply state them as your belief and not a fact.
T_c: If this were the case then God could never had revealed himself. This has never been the position of the Church
Wrong. The Church always taught that God is incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, eternal, etc., in other words something other than creation.
God condescends to reveal himself mediated through the categories of the human mind...God is so very different from the ‘categories’ of the human mind that He isn’t even ‘one’ the way we usually think of ‘one’*** If this were the case then God could never had revealed himself. This has never been the position of the Church. God condescends to reveal himself mediated through the categories of the human mind...
Yes, God did condescend (finally, after the Jews failed Him over and over), by taking on the human nature and appearing to us as a rather unlikely man, poor, born of a teenage unwed mother, almost as a reminder than that our fancy should not "create" God the way we want Him to be.
BTW, the Old Testament God was abything but condescending.
and not that we can utterly know his essence but we certainly are capable of knowing of his nature...
That's an oxymoron. Nature and essence are one and the same thing. We can enver know His essence/or nature.
otherwise we could say nothing about him.
What we can say about God is what the believers hold was revealed. No single word can describe Him, nor can a thousand words descirbe Him. Nothing can describe Him.
But there is really very little we can say about God as He really is.
I referenced the Bible. I know you reference the Bible when it fits your purposes and trash it when it hurts but I don’t engage in such incoherent logic
Nothing in the bible says anything that you concocted.
I don't trash the Bible. I call it the way it is. I don't worship it as some do.
kosta: But, that’s not our theology, as t_c claims.
t_c: My post showed the logical conclusions of holding to the freedom of man and it still holds, to your chagrin
Your logical conclusion is wrong. It does not accurately describe our theology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.