Belief in god and the right to homosexuality? - Page 6

shazeep · #51 07-16-2016, 08:41 AM

i believe Greater love no man has, and the two are coequal, but could you provide your interpretation of what the verse means again? I don't want to mis-characterize it.

mfblume · #52 07-16-2016, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

i believe Greater love no man has, and the two are coequal, but could you provide your interpretation of what the verse means again? I don't want to mis-characterize it.

Sorry, not following your question. The two whats are equal?

shazeep · #53 07-16-2016, 11:17 AM

'the two whats are equal' has no bearing on the question, which is that you have explained what the verse does not mean, could you explain what it means, ty.

shazeep · #54 07-16-2016, 03:06 PM

ah, and my meaning was that the Cross is ultimately an expression of love, and the two are coequal in a spiritual sense, sorry.

shazeep · #55 07-16-2016, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

you have explained what the verse does not mean, could you explain what it means, ty.

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

is interpreted by you to mean

"it means the law, that tried to get man to love God and have faith but failed, tried to accomplish the same thing that faith accomplishes. It's not telling us what saves us. It's telling us that father and the New Covenant fulfills what Law tried to fulfil, so that the goal of every one of the laws of old is fulfilled without the law by grace."

shazeep · #56 07-16-2016, 03:22 PM

you don't think that maybe you are trying to reconcile Christ with Paul here a little bit?

mfblume · #57 07-16-2016, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

is interpreted by you to mean

"it means the law, that tried to get man to love God and have faith but failed, tried to accomplish the same thing that faith accomplishes. It's not telling us what saves us. It's telling us that father and the New Covenant fulfills what Law tried to fulfil, so that the goal of every one of the laws of old is fulfilled without the law by grace."

I made a typo. It should say, "It means the law, that tried to get man to love God and have faith but failed, tried to accomplish the same thing that faith accomplishes. It's not telling us what saves us. It's telling us that faith and the New Covenant fulfills what Law tried to fulfil, so that the goal of every one of the laws of old is fulfilled without the law by grace."

Quote:

you don't think that maybe you are trying to reconcile Christ with Paul here a little bit?

Just reading your words here and seeing how you think it is possible to reconcile Paul's words with Christ's, or vice versa, shows we are simply at polar opposites when it comes to the basic and fundamental concept of whose word the entirety of the bible really is. I believe it is God's Word. So, when you ask if I am reconciling Christ with Paul, you are again at odds with that basic understanding to which I adhere. To reconcile Christ's words with Paul's is to believe what I claimed was an antichrist concept. It implies Christ's words are superior to Paul's, and that Christ did not in effect write through Paul. when in reality Paul's words are Christ's words. And that's the thing I first started to speak about in this thread when I read your statement that Christ's words are superior to Paul's.

So, again, it goes back to the chasm of belief between our views where you distinguish Christ's words from Paul's as if one is MORE inspired than the other. Since I believe Paul's words ARE Christ's words, since Christ lived through Paul and in effect wrote those biblical writings attributed to Paul, reconciling one to the other, and vice versa, makes no difference to me. All are EQUALLY the Word of God.

Christ said he had many things to say to his disciples, but refused since they required the reception of the Spirit of truth to guide them into all truth. That Spirit came in Acts 2 and Paul received it later as did the initial 120. And Paul refers to that Spirit in defense of his inspiration of God when writing.

I think the difference between what each of us believe about THIS ISSUE of inspiration and the nature of the writings in the Books of the Bible are the reason we so seriously disagree with each other. It boils down to what you think of Christ's words in contrast to the remainder of the words of the Bible.

That is interesting, because you lived so long around Islamics and they think Christ's words ALONE are to be regarded and barely anything else in the New Testament.

mfblume · #58 07-16-2016, 04:11 PM

I meant to say more after this paragraph:

Christ said he had many things to say to his disciples, but refused since they required the reception of the Spirit of truth to guide them into all truth. That Spirit came in Acts 2 and Paul received it later as did the initial 120. And Paul refers to that Spirit in defense of his inspiration of God when writing.

Since Christ said he had many more things, he implied they were more profound and above the level they could receive at the time He stated that. That means, when those men did receive the Spirit and wrote as a result, their words actually go beyond what Christ said. They wrote things that were on a higher level than the words of Christ while He was on earth, BUT THEY WERE STILL CHRIST'S WORDS.

If I believed they were not Christ's words written through the new testament writers, I would reject them as Muslims do. But Christ did say:

John 16:7-14 KJV Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. (8) And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: (9) Of sin, because they believe not on me; (10) Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; (11) Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. (12) 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. (14) He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

And Paul's words as the other writers' words, fulfill that promise. They glorify Jesus and salvation by the cross.

So, the point is when you think I am reconciling Christ's words with Paul, it may appear that way to those who disbelieve Paul wrote under Christ's inspiration. But since the Spirit said deeper things through Paul than what Christ Himself was able to say due to the disciples lack of regeneration during the time of His earthly ministry, it is actually better to say, "Christ's words are being reconciled with what Christ later said through the apostles after their regeneration."

mfblume · #59 07-16-2016, 04:14 PM

Thank you for your more civil tone today. There is no valid reason why this cannot continue, and the insults cease.

shazeep · #60 07-16-2016, 08:43 PM

I made a typo. It should say, "It means the law, that tried to get man to love God and have faith but failed, tried to accomplish the same thing that faith accomplishes. It's not telling us what saves us. It's telling us that faith and the New Covenant fulfills what Law tried to fulfil, so that the goal of every one of the laws of old is fulfilled without the law by grace."

no prob, i don't get either one

Just reading your words here and seeing how you think it is possible to reconcile Paul's words with Christ's, or vice versa, shows we are simply at polar opposites when it comes to the basic and fundamental concept of whose word the entirety of the bible really is.

i know i keep bringing this up, but really you haven't acknowledged it, ever; doesn't 3 instances of Pauline legal doctrine culminating in Love unbeknownst to you tell you anything?

Help me out here--being the antichrist i get all these rules and such easily confused; but isn't that like the Golden Rule or something?
"Love your neighbor as you love yourself"

are you sure that is as universally understood in OP your way as you are saying? I mean do we need a poll or something...ya, i guess we need a poll or something...