Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 22 FirstFirst ... 391011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 212
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by kathryn View Post
    Good morning Rose....I had a continual prodding to send this this morning. I'm sure you've seen it before. It was the picture formed in the sand, by the seismic vibrations from the earthquake on 2/28, 2001. ..in your state of WASHington. (remember the twinned teeth of the Beloved in the S.O.S, are described as coming UP from the WASHing)

    Not long after I joined the forum, I had a strong sense in my spirit, that both you and Richard were going to play a very important role in the bringing down of carnal mindsets in the Body of Christ. I just didn't realize "how". Richard, I believe I was shown...was symbolic of the "Richard the Lion Hearted"...and you were the "Earthquake Rose".

    If you look at the picture in the sand...not only is it the "Rose of Sharon" blooming in the desert (sands of Abraham)...it is also the "head" of the "man-child"...crowning through the birth canal.

    http://www.earthquakerose.com/

    We're ALL in this process of transition Rose...and it's painful for both the mother and the "child"...The transition stage is that time when the woman tends to vomit on her husband's feet....and might bite him a time or too(as I did..har!) if he tries to "help". Just wanted to know that we love and respect you both and honor you. We couldn't have come to this stage without you....and it's ALL GOOD!
    Hi Kathyrn,

    What a lovely picture formed in the sand Thank you for posting

    Name:  pattern1.jpg
Views: 18
Size:  20.4 KB


    Earthquake Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathyrn
    What I am saying tonight, is that judging by your lack of response and the way in which you have responded when you have, you've lost your passion and curiosity...and that it seems to be time to either just drop the written Logos in discussion, or explore it scripture with scripture, interpretation with interpretation , using the criteria given to determine truth.


    My lack of response as you call it is using my limited time to focus my attention on the direction I feel led to go in. The written logos, was and is the basis for the conclusions I have drawn in my opening article the Male Bias of the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathyrn
    Both you and Richard have held us all to a high standard on this forum. That's what attracted me to it, and what has kept me here. Each of us has been given a unique gifting in the pursuit of truth, and we need one another to grow in our understanding. We can only do that, if we're willing to really open up to each other, and try to make an attempt at understanding what we are each seeing. You've made no attempt to understand mine...never asked a question such as "where do you see that in the word?" Or..."I see it this way because this and this scripture says otherwise". I've even given a dream in which I was given a mathematical formula (PI) describing a concept in scripture...a very detailed one...that took it out of the realm of typology completely...and no response.
    We each have our own path to follow, and right now I am not into the area of typology that you are, so I have chosen to devote my time to the things I feel are most appropriate. Instead of getting into a discussion with you about things that are in a different direction then I am going at the moment, I have remained silent and let others respond if they wish to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathyrn
    Aren't you a least a little curious as to how I can make such bold claims about typology...? Or are have you remained silent, simply because you haven't heard it put this way before...and you only answer posts that aren't challenging your understanding? What other conclusion could I come to? Please explain..because I don't want to misjudge ANYONE...let alone you! The whole thing has baffled me!
    To be totally honest with you at this moment I am not curious, if I had been I surely would have been asking questions. As I said earlier, my path is taking me in a different direction right now, and I am viewing the Bible as an expression of how ancient man perceived 'God', not as typologies pointing to 'God'.

    All the best,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by debz View Post
    I wholeheartedly agree with what Kathryn wrote here. Yes, even the part about honoring you, even though we are still "debating"

    I, too, believe the Bible Wheel, and both of you, are KEY to revealing a whole lot about what we are transitioning into.

    What hit me about this picture, in addition to the Rose, is how many see it as an "eye" -- it is the "singular eye" we've also been discussing on some other posts (Bob May, etc.).

    Love,
    Deb
    Hi Deb,

    The Bible Wheel most definitely has been the "Key" that has led Richard and I on this journey of transition we are walking on right now. It is what has kept me from completely discarding the Bible, while keeping me in the pursuit of truth. The journey we are on is getting more exiting every day.

    Let me also say that even if I don't respond to everyone's post, I still am very appreciate of the participation of all the wonderful people on this Forum...without you all it would just be me and Richard talking to ourselves...

    All the best,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prince George, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,163
    Rose:

    My lack of response as you call it is using my limited time to focus my attention on the direction I feel led to go in. The written logos, was and is the basis for the conclusions I have drawn in my opening article the Male Bias of the Bible.


    Fair enough Rose! I understand that focus thing I hope you can see Deb's perspective though

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by debz View Post
    (Continued from Post #86)

    Another scripture used to silence women is 1 Cor 14:34-36:

    34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. 36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?

    So which Law exactly says that women are to keep silent and it’s improper for them to speak in the church (or synagogue)? It’s not in the Mosaic Law. Go ahead and do a thorough search. You won’t find it, it’s not there…. So we see that there are seeming 'contradictions' again–so what could the real interpretation be?

    Most scholars of the New Testament who are familiar with the technicalities of the Greek language insist that parts of this letter to the Corinthians are actually quotes taken from another source–a letter written to Paul by the leaders of the church in Corinth (referred to by Paul in Chapter 7:1 when he mentions, 'the things about which you wrote.') Most of the specific issues that Paul addresses in 1 Cor, in fact, are topics that were included in that letter.

    Paul’s seemingly restrictive words about women in chapter 14 take on a different light when we consider that he was very likely quoting a letter from church leaders who were imposing on the young congregation a harsh, anti-woman position that was rooted in their rabbinical Jewish traditions.

    There are several reasons why scholars believe that verses 34 + 35 are quotes from their letter. The most important clue is that the Greek symbol n (with a grave accent) is used at the beginning of verse 36 to signal to the reader that the preceding statement is quoted. Because Greek does not have what we know as quotation marks, this device is used instead. This would explain why these verses SEEM TO contradict everything that Paul has said up to this point about the full participation of all believers in New Testament worship. The apostle has spent several chapters telling the Corinthians that all can prophesy 'one by one.' He even stated in 1 Cor 11:5 that women can pray and prophesy publicly. So why would he contradict himself here by saying that women can’t speak in church??

    Back to vs 34 where it says women aren’t allowed to speak: 'just as the Law also says…' What law is this verse referring to? There is no law in the Old Testament that says women cannot speak. There is no reference to a scripture given here. That’s because it is not referring to an Old Testament law but to a Jewish Rabbinical tradition that the Corinthian church had adopted.

    The harshness of the language in verse 35 gives us another clue that this 'Law' is actually a man-made rule invented by the same type of legalistic Judaizers that Paul publicly opposed in the churches of Galatia and Colossae. The phrase, 'It is improper for a woman to speak in church,' can actually be translated, 'It is shameful for a woman to speak.'
    Hey there Deb,

    I'm familiar with this proposed solution and agree that this is a pretty good possibility. It makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways to me. Unfortunately, there are two problems with it. First, it is a speculative solution. There is no way for us to know whether or not Paul was quoting the letter from the Corinthians on this point. Second, if it is correct it reveals an equally serious problem - how can we trust Scripture if God was so careless as to let Paul quote a letter without attribution, thereby allowing his words to be misinterpreted for 2000 years to oppress women, thereby causing untold suffering to countless people in the name of Holy Scripture? So which is it? Is God mysoginist or is God incompetent?

    Quote Originally Posted by debz View Post
    Do we honestly believe this verse reflects the heart of God? It cannot be. Paul is quoting those who held to a degrading view of women–and who actually described women in Jewish writings as vile and disgraceful… Examples:

    From the Jewish Talmud: 'Out of respect to the congregation, a woman should not herself read in the law. It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men. The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness.'

    'Men should not sit and listen to a woman…even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since they came from the mouth of a woman.' –Origen
    You are now setting Scripture against Scripture. The Book of Revelation explicitly states that the mere sexual act with a woman defiles a man:
    Revelation 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
    Now it matters not if the "women" in this passage are meant as "wicked women" or as symbols of unfaithfulness or whatever because any symbolic meaning is based upon the premise that "sex with women defiles men." We know this because the text contrasts male virginity (no sexual contact with any kind of women). Virtuous sex within marriage cannot be a possibility here because then they would not be called "virgins." Furthermore, we see the same thing in the Old Testament:
    Exodus 19:14 So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and sanctified the people, and they washed their clothes. 15 And he said to the people, "Be ready for the third day; do not come near your wives.".
    And this echos Paul's statement that is it is "good for a man not to touch a woman." And on top of these biblical witnesses we know that women were seen as causing "defilement" in the Ancient Near East culture in which the Bible was written. Given all these convergent witnesses, it seems impossible to deny the male bias in the Bible. And I still do not see how "explaining them away" helps, since that only shows that God was incompetent and failed to produces Scriptures that could be trusted or properly understood by his own people even though they were supposed to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

    And where did the ideas in the Talmud come from? The same culture that produced the Bible. The male bias in the Talmud confirms the fact of male bias in the culture that produced the Bible.
    Quote Originally Posted by debz View Post
    But because Paul opposed this degrading view of women, he responds to the Corinthians in verse 36 with a sharp answer (a very sarcastic answer, similar to Jesus’ response to the Pharisees): 'WHAT?! Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only?' This strange response makes no sense if we believe that Paul penned verses 34 and 35. But if he is contradicting the statements made by the Judaizers of Corinth, then we can understand the defiant tone of verse 36. To paraphrase him: 'What??!! (or 'what the $#@%#!') …You are going to silence women when the gospel was first preached by women after they saw Him at the tomb following the resurrection? Do you really think preaching the gospel is only for men??!!'

    This passage is one of the most misunderstood parts of the Bible. I believe the only way it can logically be interpreted is to accept the fact that Paul is responding to a quoted statement. This view was repeated by theologian Kenneth S. Kantzer in Christianity Today: 'In 1 Cor 14 we are caught in an intricate interplay between quotations from a missing letter from the Corinthians and Paul’s solutions to problems the letter had raised. The verse is clearly not repeating a law of Scripture and cannot be taken as a universal command for women to be silent in church. That interpretation would flatly contradict what the apostle had just said three chapters earlier.'

    (Continued next post...)
    You have presented the argument very well, but unfortunately it is inconclusive because much of it is speculative. And even if it is correct, it only shows that God did not give us trustworthy Scriptures so the Bible remains either in the frying pan or the fire.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Colorado Mountains
    Posts
    163
    Hiya Richard!

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I'm familiar with this proposed solution and agree that this is a pretty good possibility. It makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways to me. Unfortunately, there are two problems with it. First, it is a speculative solution. There is no way for us to know whether or not Paul was quoting the letter from the Corinthians on this point.
    My argument is in response mostly to Rose's (and your) claims that Paul was sexist, didn't allow women to teach, etc. So let's stick with that for now. My point was that if he allowed it in other places, then something must be amiss with the couple of verses that seem to contradict that. This is one of those verses, and this seems the only logical conclusion to the whole picture. Particularly because he is quoting a statement that is not found in The Law -- there is no O.T. Law saying women can't speak in the church/synagogue, so he therefore MUST have been quoting the Judaizers quoted statements--THEIR horrible beliefs about women. He was not condoning it.


    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Second, if it is correct it reveals an equally serious problem - how can we trust Scripture if God was so careless as to let Paul quote a letter without attribution, thereby allowing his words to be misinterpreted for 2000 years to oppress women, thereby causing untold suffering to countless people in the name of Holy Scripture? So which is it? Is God mysoginist or is God incompetent?
    Neither mysoginist nor incompetent. Remember, I do agree with you that things have been mis-translated and mis-interpreted to present a male bias, but that was not God's original intent. If you'll view my Post #31, it all hinges on how He set it up "in the beginning" -- that's what Jesus pointed to, that's what Jesus came to redeem us from. In the beginning there was not a hierarchy, no matter how men have tried to teach that there is. At that time God's delegated authority was also transferred to the serpent (from Adam/Eve, who had it first). It is the serpent who has twisted this and oppressed women in the name of religion, and still continues to do so.... remember that part of having enmity between the serpent and the woman? Still going on.


    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    You are now setting Scripture against Scripture. The Book of Revelation explicitly states that the mere sexual act with a woman defiles a man:
    Revelation 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

    Now it matters not if the "women" in this passage are meant as "wicked women" or as symbols of unfaithfulness or whatever because any symbolic meaning is based upon the premise that "sex with women defiles men." We know this because the text contrasts male virginity (no sexual contact with any kind of women). Virtuous sex within marriage cannot be a possibility here because then they would not be called "virgins."
    The book of Revelation of Jesus = "the book of the unveiling/revealing of the Christ." It is predominantly allegorical. This verse is not literal--if it was, they would have to literally be following a sheep that goes "baaa" out in a field, or whatever. This is in reference to the "remnant" -- the number has hidden meaning (discussed on other posts), and the remnant are not just Jewish men! This is all in TYPOLOGY that must be UNVEILED to understand. Same with your next quote:

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Furthermore, we see the same thing in the Old Testament:
    Exodus 19:14 So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and sanctified the people, and they washed their clothes. 15 And he said to the people, "Be ready for the third day; do not come near your wives.".
    This is all disclosing typology for the THIRD DAY...that's why this ties in so well with the Revelation verse on the remnant...but as you weren't understanding this Third Day revelation yet, based on many comments on other posts, let's just leave this topic for a bit and stick with the issue at hand: Was Paul a sexist, did he say women can't teach or speak in churches, did he "come along and undo all of Jesus' liberating words?


    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    And this echos Paul's statement that is it is "good for a man not to touch a woman."
    The beginning of that verse says, "Now, about the things you wrote..." It's likely he is quoting them again, and I say this because of keeping the "big picture" in mind.


    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    And on top of these biblical witnesses we know that women were seen as causing "defilement" in the Ancient Near East culture in which the Bible was written. Given all these convergent witnesses, it seems impossible to deny the male bias in the Bible. And I still do not see how "explaining them away" helps, since that only shows that God was incompetent and failed to produces Scriptures that could be trusted or properly understood by his own people even though they were supposed to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit.
    I believe they were understood for what they were originally saying--before men (and the enemy's influence on them, coming as an angel of light...) messed it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    And where did the ideas in the Talmud come from? The same culture that produced the Bible. The male bias in the Talmud confirms the fact of male bias in the culture that produced the Bible.
    That is not relevant to this discussion. We know that cultures everywhere treat women with disdain, contempt, oppressing, abusing, etc. But that was not God's intention, nor His command, at any time.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    You have presented the argument very well, but unfortunately it is inconclusive because much of it is speculative. And even if it is correct, it only shows that God did not give us trustworthy Scriptures so the Bible remains either in the frying pan or the fire.
    If we are looking at one piece at a time, it very well could be inconclusive. But I am looking at the WHOLE -- it is the "SUM of His Word that brings Truth." Moreover, women have a very critical role in the "Third Day" -- no wonder the enemy has been trying to take them out and silence them. But one day, soon, these prophecies will be fulfilled:


    'The Lord gives the command; The women who proclaim the tidings are a great host.' Ps 68:11 NASU

    'O you (fem.) who bring good tidings to Zion, get up to the high mountain. O you (fem.) who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your (fem.) voice with strength, lift it up, be not afraid; say to the cities of Judah, Behold your God! Behold, the Lord God will come with might, and His arm will rule for Him. Behold, His reward is with Him, and His recompense before Him.' Isa 40:9-10 AMP

    This last verse sounds very much like wording from Revelations too, no?? "His reward is with Him..." This is prophesying about the voice of women in this Third Day/Tabernacles age...

    ~Deb
    He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. Eph 1:9-10

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by debz View Post
    Hiya Richard!

    My argument is in response mostly to Rose's (and your) claims that Paul was sexist, didn't allow women to teach, etc. So let's stick with that for now. My point was that if he allowed it in other places, then something must be amiss with the couple of verses that seem to contradict that. This is one of those verses, and this seems the only logical conclusion to the whole picture. Particularly because he is quoting a statement that is not found in The Law -- there is no O.T. Law saying women can't speak in the church/synagogue, so he therefore MUST have been quoting the Judaizers quoted statements--THEIR horrible beliefs about women. He was not condoning it.
    Hi Debz,

    I think Richard's main point was that no matter who Paul was quoting, God allowed a very ambiguous passage to find its way into the Bible, that has been interpreted by men for hundreds of years to suppress women. If God inspired Scripture to begin with, why were these verses allowed to become part of "his word"? Why does it appear that Paul has undone what Jesus taught?




    Quote Originally Posted by debz View Post
    Neither mysoginist nor incompetent. Remember, I do agree with you that things have been mis-translated and mis-interpreted to present a male bias, but that was not God's original intent. If you'll view my Post #31, it all hinges on how He set it up "in the beginning" -- that's what Jesus pointed to, that's what Jesus came to redeem us from. In the beginning there was not a hierarchy, no matter how men have tried to teach that there is. At that time God's delegated authority was also transferred to the serpent (from Adam/Eve, who had it first). It is the serpent who has twisted this and oppressed women in the name of religion, and still continues to do so.... remember that part of having enmity between the serpent and the woman? Still going on.
    If it was not God's intent for women to be ruled over by men then why didn't he do a better job of using men to write "his word", so it couldn't be mis-interpreted so easily? You seem to think you know what God's intent was, but so do the men who you say mis-translated and mis-interpreted Scripture. Remember you are talking about the creator of the universe, it shouldn't be too hard for him to say what he wants to say in plain language in his own book...




    Quote Originally Posted by debz View Post
    The book of Revelation of Jesus = "the book of the unveiling/revealing of the Christ." It is predominantly allegorical. This verse is not literal--if it was, they would have to literally be following a sheep that goes "baaa" out in a field, or whatever. This is in reference to the "remnant" -- the number has hidden meaning (discussed on other posts), and the remnant are not just Jewish men! This is all in TYPOLOGY that must be UNVEILED to understand. Same with your next quote:
    Once again, the plain reading of Revelation says men are defiled by women, and that is preciously how it's been interpreted, and if God truly knows the beginning from the end he surely would have known how these verses would be interpreted.



    Quote Originally Posted by debz View Post
    This is all disclosing typology for the THIRD DAY...that's why this ties in so well with the Revelation verse on the remnant...but as you weren't understanding this Third Day revelation yet, based on many comments on other posts, let's just leave this topic for a bit and stick with the issue at hand: Was Paul a sexist, did he say women can't teach or speak in churches, did he "come along and undo all of Jesus' liberating words?
    From the plain reading of the text Paul did say that women can't teach or speak in churches. It matters not if his intent was different because practically nobody interprets it that way.


    Quote Originally Posted by debz View Post

    That is not relevant to this discussion. We know that cultures everywhere treat women with disdain, contempt, oppressing, abusing, etc. But that was not God's intention, nor His command, at any time.

    If we are looking at one piece at a time, it very well could be inconclusive. But I am looking at the WHOLE -- it is the "SUM of His Word that brings Truth." Moreover, women have a very critical role in the "Third Day" -- no wonder the enemy has been trying to take them out and silence them. But one day, soon, these prophecies will be fulfilled:

    ~Deb
    Apparently no one really knows God's intent because he chose to have his word written in such an ambiguous way that no one knows for sure what it means, but since men have been in control of how Scripture is interpreted, their word rules!


    All the best,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Colorado Mountains
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hi Debz,

    I think Richard's main point was that no matter who Paul was quoting, God allowed a very ambiguous passage to find its way into the Bible, that has been interpreted by men for hundreds of years to suppress women. If God inspired Scripture to begin with, why were these verses allowed to become part of "his word"? Why does it appear that Paul has undone what Jesus taught?






    If it was not God's intent for women to be ruled over by men then why didn't he do a better job of using men to write "his word", so it couldn't be mis-interpreted so easily? You seem to think you know what God's intent was, but so do the men who you say mis-translated and mis-interpreted Scripture. Remember you are talking about the creator of the universe, it shouldn't be too hard for him to say what he wants to say in plain language in his own book...






    Once again, the plain reading of Revelation says men are defiled by women, and that is preciously how it's been interpreted, and if God truly knows the beginning from the end he surely would have known how these verses would be interpreted.





    From the plain reading of the text Paul did say that women can't teach or speak in churches. It matters not if his intent was different because practically nobody interprets it that way.




    Apparently no one really knows God's intent because he chose to have his word written in such an ambiguous way that no one knows for sure what it means, but since men have been in control of how Scripture is interpreted, their word rules!


    All the best,
    Rose
    Hi Rose,

    Yes, I see what you're saying. And the obvious "vagueness" and questions as to why He didn't just make it more plain and straightforward are also summed up in Christ:

    Why did Jesus come speaking in parables? HIDDEN language. VAGUE language. He did not speak straightforward plain talk. For a reason. A very good reason.

    It's all the same reason.

    ~ Deb
    He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. Eph 1:9-10

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by debz View Post
    Hi Rose,

    Yes, I see what you're saying. And the obvious "vagueness" and questions as to why He didn't just make it more plain and straightforward are also summed up in Christ:

    Why did Jesus come speaking in parables? HIDDEN language. VAGUE language. He did not speak straightforward plain talk. For a reason. A very good reason.

    It's all the same reason.

    ~ Deb
    Hi Deb,

    If Jesus had a good reason, why has he chosen to keep that reason HIDDEN for two millennia? Jesus told his disciples that when he sent the Holy Spirit all things would be brought to their remembrance...well, we're still waiting...
    John 14:26 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.

    All the best,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Colorado Mountains
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hi Deb,

    If Jesus had a good reason, why has he chosen to keep that reason HIDDEN for two millennia? Jesus told his disciples that when he sent the Holy Spirit all things would be brought to their remembrance...well, we're still waiting...
    John 14:26 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.

    All the best,
    Rose
    Hi Rose,

    He hasn’t kept it hidden for 2 millennia. It has been available to be seen by any—but not all do see.

    He also added, in John 16:12-13
    "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.'

    Jesus didn’t say, 'I’m going away so that a book can be written about Me to guide you into all truth…' He said He had many more things to say…but they couldn’t bear them now. He said it was the Holy Spirit who would guide us into all the truth…that the Holy Spirit wouldn’t be speaking on His own initiative, but would be speaking only what He hears…and He would disclose to us what is to come. It is the Holy Spirit who discloses to us what is to come… it is the Holy Spirit who speaks to us the 'many more things' Jesus had to say, that aren’t written in 'plain language' in the Bible, when we are able to bear it.

    When I look around this forum and Christendom in general, everybody has an 'interpretation' on 'what is to come' (their eschatological views, etc.), but Jesus Himself said it was the Holy Spirit who would disclose this, NOT the logos ('plain language') of the Bible. Everyone is trying to deduce events based on the logos of the Bible, but without the Holy Spirit, this is impossible. This does NOT mean that I discount the Bible in ANY way. I believe the logos fully backs up the revealed, proceeding Word of God, when seen through the eyes of revelation. Until then, it is still 'hidden' from 'plain view'—even from professing Christians! Jesus said, "man doesn't live by bread alone, but by every word that PROCEEDS from the mouth of God" -- this is what is proceeding NOW, by the Holy Spirit--not was HAS proceeded in the past...(although, again, this does not discount the past Word/written Word--it will still confirm the proceeding Word if rightly divided...)

    Matt 13:13-15
    This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'

    Mostly this is taught in a way to mean that people will be ever hearing the gospel of salvation, but not understanding that…then they think that because they’re 'saved,' this doesn’t apply to them any longer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most professing Christians still don’t have eyes to see and ears to hear…but most think they do, and that is the big deception. Jesus didn't preach the gospel of salvation--He preached the gospel of the KINGDOM. The gospel of salvation says "you can go to heaven one day"; the gospel of the Kingdom says, "you can bring heaven to earth, if you understand the ways of the Kingdom." That's why we're taught to pray, "thy Kingdom come ON EARTH, as it is in heaven..."

    I wrote a bit more on this in Post #59 of the Higgs Boson God Particle Thread:
    http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...ay-night/page6

    That may give you more to ponder

    Deb
    He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. Eph 1:9-10

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •