Does the golden rule save without the cross?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I am making no jokes. I know what I believe and I responds to you and anyone else accordingly. And I do not believe love is for the confused. So, yes, dig it up, because whatever I said I never meant what you obviously think I did.

you said this in connection with my suggestion that Paul be reconciled with Christ, and not the other way around. And on the same subject, "read some Paul and voila" is your initial heart-response to how to manifest the message of the Cross in our lives. No doubt you will change both of these, but i would ask you to examine why your gut response was not first "Read some Christ and voila?"

It seems like a lot of effort is expended attempting to distance Christ from the Cross, and every time we get close to this discussion...something happens to disrupt it. And i see that we are prolly not going to have that discussion now, either, but i would ask at what point did it seem prudent to follow Paul, and argue with Christ?

Or, since that is likely an unkind way to put it--although after 'love is for confused people' you'll have to pardon me if i have lost all measure there--what is it about Paul that appeals to you, that you always--or we'll say 'predominantly'--quote Paul?

[shazeep]

How long would your doctrine stand if you had to support it solely with...well, Christ?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by YounginHope

Lol, this is how it starts. One guy confesses and rats the rest of us out! Lolo I say

nah--better to realize why he asked the question, and answer him not a word. It is completely irrelevant, of course, and he is just avoiding answering his own question, back at "gutless," and is busy trying to tell me i don't know what Anarchy means, if i am not also convinced that it means Chaos. As if Chaos is not what the empire is already dishing up every day.

This is how you avoid finding truth--call them a liar, or antichrist, or get Righteously Indignant, or deflect some other kind of way. Get a competition going; then nobody wins.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

you said this in connection with my suggestion that Paul be reconciled with Christ, and not the other way around. And on the same subject, "read some Paul and voila" is your initial heart-response to how to manifest the message of the Cross in our lives. No doubt you will change both of these, but i would ask you to examine why your gut response was not first "Read some Christ and voila?"

It seems like a lot of effort is expended attempting to distance Christ from the Cross, and every time we get close to this discussion...something happens to disrupt it. And i see that we are prolly not going to have that discussion now, either, but i would ask at what point did it seem prudent to follow Paul, and argue with Christ?

Or, since that is likely an unkind way to put it--although after 'love is for confused people' you'll have to pardon me if i have lost all measure there--what is it about Paul that appeals to you, that you always--or we'll say 'predominantly'--quote Paul?

I already explained my use of Paul. But here it is again.

I particularly said Christ and Paul do not disagree. That's first to know. Secondly, Jesus admitted he spoke vaguely in contrast to what he could have said. And he noted he had MANY things to say to them but they could not bear them. So, he told them they'd have to wait for the Spirit of truth to come and guide them into all truth. That happened in Acts 2. And after the Spirit came, and starting leading their understanding into all truth, they began to EXPOUND in an EXPONENTIAL manner on everything Christ taught. Their words were FAR MORE plain than Christ's, and Christ said everyone int eh world would believe on Him through those apostles' words in John 17:20.

Have you heard of the rule of thumb that the plainest reading is the one to prefer and stand on when a question exists about any certain issue? Well, Paul's words were far more plain to follow than many of Christ's. Jesus spoke vaguely and almost to the point of confusion for many hearers. lol. Read John 6 and see how His use of flesh and blood sounds like cannibalism. Peter barely grasped it then, but the majority missed it totally and walked away from Him.

While Jesus said He spoke vaguely, Paul said he spoke with plainness of speech.

John 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

John 16:12-13 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. (13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

2 Corinthians 3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

How long would your doctrine stand if you had to support it solely with...well, Christ?

Jesus Himself said we would not get everything by His words alone.

John 16:12-13 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. (13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

John 14:25-26 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. (26) But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


But I see you are using the reasoning the muslims use. They only take what Christ said, despite Christ's words telling us to believe on Him through the APOSTLES' WORD in John 17:20, and they reject anything said by the apostles.

[shazeep]

the difference being that now you are lying, and you have no quote to back you up, as i have only suggested that the Apostles be reconciled with Christ, and not the other way around. Also, you are using the first two verses there--which refer to the Holy Spirit--to back up the third--which refers to the Apostles as witnesses, and you mostly make a good case for why the RCC did not allow the uneducated to read the Bible, i guess, but hardly one for arguing against Christ in favor of Paul, not that i expect that to stop you.

[shazeep]

While Jesus said He spoke vaguely...

Mr Blume, parables are not vague if you are not an idiot, and i seriously doubt that Christ was oblivious to the reaction that would be engendered by His declarations in John 6, and was relying on the Apostles to clarify for Him, as you seem to be espousing. If you cannot reconcile your doctrine solely with Christ, i hate to break this to you, but we have Scripture for those too, and you are just painting yourself into another corner.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

the difference being that now you are lying, and you have no quote to back you up, as i have only suggested that the Apostles be reconciled with Christ, and not the other way around. Also, you are using the first two verses there--which refer to the Holy Spirit--to back up the third--which refers to the Apostles as witnesses, and you mostly make a good case for why the RCC did not allow the uneducated to read the Bible, i guess, but hardly one for arguing against Christ in favor of Paul, not that i expect that to stop you.

Now I am lying?

Dude, you're out of your mind. Simply put. Wow.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

While Jesus said He spoke vaguely...

Mr Blume, parables are not vague if you are not an idiot, and i seriously doubt that Christ was oblivious to the reaction that would be engendered by His declarations in John 6, and was relying on the Apostles to clarify for Him, as you seem to be espousing. If you cannot reconcile your doctrine solely with Christ, i hate to break this to you, but we have Scripture for those too, and you are just painting yourself into another corner.

You are just trolling again. I think there's a chance you can talk, and then you pull these stunts.

I'm done for good now.

Let me leave you with this footstomping bug killing note, to show your thoughts up for the unbelieving nonsense they really are.

John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;


Jesus prayed for everyone to believe on Him THROUGH THE APOSTLES' WORD. He would not have said that if looking solely at what He said was sufficient.

You obviously have something against the cross (you won't even share it with muslims), and those who preach it, THAT much that Paul's emphasis on it would offend you to this extent.

>>Mic drop<<

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Now I am lying?

Dude, you're out of your mind. Simply put. Wow.

well, you are obviously trying to make me into a Muslim, or somehow else suggest that i am doing it wrong, reading the Bible wrong or whatever. I don't mean to keep bringing your statements up to rub your nose in them--or be called a liar for it--but these are statements that you cannot defend--at least not with Scripture imo--and you know they are back there, whether i misunderstood "i extend the Golden Rule to those who demonstrate they will extend it to me" or not.

So you end up in these dead end conundrums, wherein you cannot even show that you believe what you say you believe, so then i must be made into a liar, etc, so that you can be right? I didn't start this conversation by calling you a liar, did i? But i am pretty sure "All Catholics Are Lost" is a lie, and it seems that about 2/3 of readers agree. Why not read to John 17:20 in that context?