*

+
                More Hermeneutical Presuppositions
.
/ Subject >  Re: God talking in NT [#8] / 13Feb03 /
/ Newsgroup >  soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
>>>> tx said: On the Meaning of Creeds/1   [snip'a'byte']
>>>> The only way to derive such a conclusion from this
>>>> passage is by deliberately forcing it into the texts!
.
>>> Matthew objects: No, that is not true. On the contrary:
>>> the only way to _avoid_ the conclusion is by
>>> deliberately forcing the text. See below.
.
>> tx asks: See below the text? 
.
> On Feb5 Matthew Johnson <matthew_member@newsguy.com>
> didst verily scoffeth: What part of 'see below' did
> you fail to understand?
.
 textman answers: It was just a *joke*, MATTHEW!
.
>>>> A very NOT valid interpretation here.
.
>>> On the contrary: it is the only valid interpretation.
.
>> Because of the "_uncreated_ light that flows from God
>> Himself"? Your own statement suggests that the light
>> flows *from* God *to* JC.
.
> The key word is 'suggests'.
.
 I see. So the Word and I are in agreement about this,
but *you* suggest otherwise! How very nice indeed 
.
>> I do not see any equality of divinity here, but
>> rather distinction and uniqueness of identity.
.
> That, of course, is because you are confused;) In reality
> the distinction is not between Father and Son but between
> the uncreated light, which is equally of the Father and of
> the Son, and the human nature of Jesus Christ, which only
> now (i.e. at the time of the Transfiguration) is shown to
> be capable of being transfigured in this uncreated light.
.
 Has it not yet occurred to you that this irrational emphasis
upon this uncreated-light thingy of yours is utterly irrelevant
to a sensible reading of this passage? And in fact serves only
to obscure a right reading by deflecting attention away from
the text and onto the path of futile-fundy-fabrications? ...
I'm not so confused as to mistake the logos-light of the
Transfiguration for an external, imposed reality, when it is,
in fact, an inner and spiritual reality. Yet you, Matthew,
mistake the symbolic and suggestive language of the scriptures
(which you perversely recognize *IS* indeed symbolic and
suggestive) for external, objective *things*, rather than as
poetic and imaginative language referring to universal and
spiritual realities. Obviously then, it is you, sir, that
art confused, not eye.
.
>> The New Testament teaches that Jesus is the Messiah, which
>> is then interpreted as 'Lord' and 'Son of God' for the
>> ignorant Gentiles who did not know the meaning of phrases
>> like 'son of man' and 'the anointed one'. None of the
>> inspired authors ever thought that 'Messiah' *really*
>> means 'God the Son'!
.
> So you love to assert.
> But you have offered no convincing proof.
.
 Here is a believer who is not convinced by the testimony of
the scriptures because these are not sufficiently substantial
so as to act as convincing proof. Thus the fact that 'God the
Son' is nowhere to be found in the NT is deemed inconclusive.
In the same way, the fact that 'God the Son' *does* appear
in the 2C 'Epistle of the Apostles' is deemed irrelevant
because its semi-inspired author had not the concepts of
'consubstantial' and 'homoousios' at his disposal. But
there's nothing irrelevant about it! The idea that the 'Son
of God' is the exact equivalent of 'God the Son' had to
come from somewhere. It didn't just magically appear to
everyone at the same time; although perhaps the fundies
may like to think otherwise.
.
> You have offered none because none is possible.
.
 I cannot show you the truth if you refuse to accept it.
Moreover, in Socratic dialogues, such as this, offering up
irrefutable and absolute "proofs" that demand immediate
universal assent is NOT the point. And it's not the point
because such a demand made on any side of any dialogue is
highly unrealistic (and perhaps even absurd). No. The whole
point of apologetic discourse and/or rational debates and
controversies is 'influence to the end of persuasion'. That
is, the Reader (Matthew excepted) can be expected to be
influenced in their personal thinking about these particular
matters under discussion to *some* extent (more or less
depending on the unique nature of each individual reader).
.
 So then the strengths and weaknesses of the various arguments
used on both sides of the dialogue will figure prominently in
this matter of influencing the Reader's own set of opinions,
assumptions, and absolute-conclusions. But these arguments
cannot compel anyone (eg. by logical necessity) to change
their thinking against their will (as it were). Rather, all
arguments must be willingly accepted by the Reader during the
course of the debate. Opinions will sometimes change owing to
various factors (such as validity, plausibility, rhetorical or
logical finesse, the X-factor, etc), but strict proof is not
normally required in general discourse (as opposed to more
scientific discourse). And when concrete proof is demanded
from one side, this usually suggests a weakness on the other
side. It's an attempt to make points with the Reader by
asking the other guy to do the impossible!
.
 But estimates of overall validity depend on credibility,
plausibility, logic, philosophical and literary astuteness,
and the level of general rationality visible on one side or
the other. Now I would ask the Reader to compare all this
against the frightful and irrational logiks employed by
Matthew in his most recent outburst of theological sophistry:
"In reality the distinction is not between Father and Son but
between the uncreated light, which is equally of the Father
and of the Son, and the human nature of Jesus Christ, which
only now (i.e. at the time of the Transfiguration) is shown
to be capable of being transfigured in this uncreated light."
.
 I mean really! What kind of talk is that? Obviously human
nature is capable of being transformed and improved by the
spiritual light of the inner logos-spark. We do not require
any fancy Transfiguration episode to teach us these things
that all the great saints and teachers and religions are well
aware of. Therefore a dispassionate and scientific evaluation
shows Matthew's biblical interpretations and exegesis to be
approximately 90% theological hot air, and 10% pure nonsense!
.

.
> The inspired authors _did_ know that the Messiah who actually
> came was revealed to be far greater than expected (at least
> by the major schools of thought at the time). For the Messiah
> proved to be the consubstantial Son to the Father.
.
 And yet what you say cannot be true because the scriptures
do not support your reasoning. They witness to Jesus as the
Messiah and Son of God. They do *not* witness to "God the
Son", nor to consubstantiality, nor to the Trinity, nor to etc
etc. All this nonsense the fundies *add* to the sacred-text
AS IF it had every right to be there, when, in fact, ALL such
extra-biblical notions ARE extra-biblical, and THEREFORE ought
not to be treated as if they were inspired. They are NOT! If
Jesus the Son is really consubstantial to the Father, I'm sure
that the NT authors could have found a way to say so (for
example, by using the phrase 'God the Son', just like the
author of the Epistle of the Apostles did). Thus the plain
historical fact that the EA did not make it into the canon
constitutes positive evidence against any notion that the
Nicene Creed does not contradict the Word.
.
>> So why should believers today suppose that they know better
>> about these mysteries than the testimony of the scriptures?
.
> I didn't say they did. Where do you get your red herrings?
.
 You don't have to say it explicitly, Matthew. It's an element
that's deeply embedded in your whole approach to the scriptures.
.
>> btw: where is your validity hiding?
.
> Just as the Pharisees never saw the uncreated light,
> but James, John, Peter did, so you might never see the
> validity, but others will. It is not 'hiding'. It is
> you who hide it from your own eyes. <snipsome>
.
 Hmmmm. It's true enough that validity cannot really "hide".
It can only be there, or not. In this case it's hiding from me
because you're failing to manifest it through your arguments;
which, I dare say, are somewhat thin. Not that I'm blaming
you or anything, friend Matthew, rather it is that the
theologically top-heavy paradigm you're so accustomed to
using, or rather 'abusing' (in the case of the NT), is
(necessarily) thin all over! :)
.
 Here's another prophetic maxim for would-be students of the
Bible: Never *ever* suppose that the New Testament is or
was ever intended to be primarily (or exclusively) a set of
theological textbooks and/or doctrinal sourcebooks of dogmas,
rituals, ideologies, and assorted Christian "laws" or "rules".
Very few early Christian documents had such a use deliberately
built into them. Thus there is a subtle distinction between
'proclamation' as such (being chiefly preaching and teaching)
and 'doctrine' (being chiefly dogmatic and/or absolute
declarations intended to define and solidify "orthodoxy").
Hence the difference between 'gospel' and 'creed'.
.
>>>> Actually the transfiguration episode is about
>>>> religious *authority*;
.
>>> It _does_ cover religious authority, true.
>>> But it is about _so much more_.
.
>> Right.
.
> Now you finally admit it. So why did you claim that the
> 'episode is about religious *authority*, as if about
> nothing else?
.
 Because the matter of religious authority is the main thing.
Everything else is very secondary.
.
>> The pericope functions effectively on various levels.
.
> So why did you speak as if to deny this before? Can't you
> see what this does to your own credibility?
.
 No, because the complexity of the text does not undermine the
fact that this pericope is primarily about religious authority.
You're the one who seeks to deny this with your irrational
over-emphasis on the "uncreated-light".
.
>> That's why I love it to pieces!
.
> A rather poor sort of 'love', especially since you show
> such a poor knowledge of the 'various levels'.
.
 Well I never intended to give a complete and exhaustive
account of the entire passage, but only a general orientation
to the overall meaning of the passage as a whole.
.
>> It even has considerable historical value; IF you can see
>> your way beyond a strictly literal reading. MJ here does
>> NOT seem to understand that the transfiguration episode is
>> a prophecy story about the sources of spiritual authority
>> within the churches after Paul (about 60CE+).
.
> The reason I do not 'see' this and you do, is because you
> show a greater love of hallucinations. No, it is not a
> 'prophecy story about the sources of spiritual authority'
> in the churches. To believe this malarkey, you have to
> seriously misunderstand the history of these churches.
.
 The effort to seriously NOT misunderstand the history of
these wonderful and amazing early Greek-speaking churches
is most certainly my primary concern, Matthew. Alas it is
the popular and invincible Christian paradigm as a whole
that diverts and impedes our progress in this direction. :(
.
> After all: by the time Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem had
> emerged as the 'four spiritual authorities',
.
 That's only three. The missing fourth tradition is, of course,
the pauline churches in the Aegean region. If you look on a
map you'll notice that these four traditions nicely cover the
eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea, this region being the
original cradle of the Faith.
.
> the text of _all_ four canonical Gospels had been quite
> static for many decades, if not two centuries.
.
 "two centuries"!?!  Good Grief . . .
.
> But such misunderstanding seems to suit you just fine.
.
 There is no misunderstanding on this end, Matthew. The "four
church traditions" were well in place even before the first
Gospel (ie. Mark) was written. Obviously you have things back-
wards if you think that the gospels preceded the churches. Mk
(c.65CE) and Mt (c.80CE) came out of the church in Antioch.
This was soon followed by the Gospel of John out of Alexandria
(c.90CE), and then all three gospels were used as source
materials for the first 'history of the church', Luke-Acts
(c.105CE), which came out of Rome. Now Rome was the fifth major
church tradition, but the fourth to make contributions to the
still emergent NT, since no NT document came out of the mother
church in Jerusalem (ie. the reason for this being that the
Aramaic believers were not much disposed to write anything,
and even less disposed to write it down in Greek).
.
>> Within the four major traditions as they struggled to
>> define themselves in those turbulent and apocalyptic times.
.
> And what twisted point of view did you adopt to come up
> with precisely 'four major traditions'?
.
 A geographical point of view, as explained above.
.
> Especially at a time early enough to explain the presence
> of the Transfiguration in _all_ the synoptics?
.
 The presence of the Transfiguration story in Mk, Mt, and Lk
can easily be explained on the basis that it is a great story.
Mark and Peter wrote it. The author of Mt expanded it. And the
author of Lk borrowed it, changed it, and ended up with the
most anemic and least authoritative version of the three. That
is about par for the course. The farther removed we get from
the apostolic period (up to 70CE) the less authentic, and
more historically confused, the accounts become.
.
 Hence the authority of Mark's account is vastly superior to
that of the copy-cat versions that purport to "correct" the
alleged errors and deficiencies of the original, authentic,
and apostolic first-gospel. Matthew's Gospel in turn required
correcting of its own (see 1Peter2). John's Gospel was written
to correct *and* supplement both Mk and Mt. And Luke-Acts was
quite deliberately written as the final and definitive record
of the early days, meant to replace and supercede (not merely
supplement) the earlier accounts:
.
 "Since many *attempted* to compile a narrative ... it seemed
good to me also ... to write to you in an orderly way ...
that you may know the certainty of the words about which you
were taught" (Lk.1:1-4). Here already we see traces of that
profound Romish arrogance that would so characterize the
Latin churches for the next nineteen centuries!
.
 [snip remainder]
.
       - the exceedingly unromish one - textman ;>
.
P.S. "My own belief is that education must be subversive if
it is to be meaningful. By this I mean that it must challenge
all the things we take for granted, examine all accepted
assumptions, tamper with every sacred cow, and instill a desire
to question and doubt. Without this, the mere instruction to
memorize data is empty. The attempt to enforce conventional
mediocrity on the young is criminal." -- Bertrand Russell
x

+
         How to Spank a Kid Generously!
                  [or: On Not Sparing That Darn Rod]
.
/ Subject >  Re: God talking in NT [#9] / 14Feb03 /
/ Newsgroup >  soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
>>>> On Jan25 John McComb <jmccomb@shaw.ca> answered
>>>> Edgar thusly: All of the verses that are printed in red in
>>>> the Gospels, Acts and Revelation to John.
.
>>> On Jan26 rmeyers5@charter.net replied:
>>> A very simple, clever, and neat answer;
.
>> textman comments: Right. The very kind that are so beloved
>> of the fundies (who love to reduce the Faith to snappy and
>> absurd slogans just like this). The reason seems to be that
>> simplicity and absurdity together constitute divine-wisdom
>> (ie. in the pious Fundy eye, of course).
.
> On Feb9 Pat Brown" <pacharlee@aol.com> wrote:
> You need the Spirit Textman!
.
 textman answers: Hi Pat. Good news: I have the Spirit!
I call Her: 'the Encourager' (ie. after the manner of
the prophetic gospel (Jn). Isn't that just SO yummy? 
.
> Stop closing the door to Christ.
.
 My door is always open to our Savior & Teacher.
.
> I am a child
.
 Yes, Pat, I rather figured as much when you said in another
post of yours: "Yes, you do DARE say, because you deny the
Spirit." Only a child (spiritual or physical) would dare to
say that I deny the Spirit without bothering to sample any of
my many *many* previous epistles, just to see whether or not
this is so. To just assume this is the case is a sure sign
of a childish mind. To just leap to such a sweeping judgment
without justification is a sure sign of a childish mind. To
then go on and claim that this judgment is not yours, but is
rather given by the Spirit is also a sure sign of a childish
mind.
.
 I can forgive you all of these indiscretions - owing to my
exceedingly loving and generous nature :D - but to say to a
prophet of the Lord that he denies the Spirit (when in fact he
doesn't) more than verges on the edge of blasphemy. Now this
is a serious matter, and cannot be simply excused on the basis
of rampant immaturity. So my suggestion to you, friend Pat,
is that after milk and cookies tonight (and every night for
the next month or so) you pray long and hard to the Lord to
send you some humility. And be sure to tell Him that you
desperately require a great deal of it!
.
> and all of their post made perfect sense to me!
.
 Of course it does! I have been saying for years that fundy
exegesis is suitable only for children (and those unfit to
feed upon the strong meat of the written Word of God).
After all, how can U project if U can't also reflect?
.
> Through the spirit not mine own understanding! The helper,
> the comforter. Through Christ, only, Pat.
.
 Perhaps you should work on improving your own understanding,
rather than relying on the Holy Spirit to do all of your
thinking for you, eh? ... She could use a break maybe.
.
     - the almost over-qualified one - textmaan ;>
.
P.S. "It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor
to be hasty and miss the way." -- Proverbs 19:2 / NIV
.
P.P.S. In other words, don't assume anything, when you
can investigate everything!
x

+
        More Anti-Prophetic Ranting
.
/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT [#10] / 20Feb03 /
/ Newsgroup >  soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
     "There is definite truth." -- ICL/14Feb03
.
>> On Feb3 ICL wrote: The position that the Mt of
>> Transfiguration provides Jesus equality to God
>> is difficult to see
.
> On Feb3 rmeyers5 say: very much agreed.
.
 textman say: It would appear, then, that the three of
us are in complete agreement! Isn't that just amazing? 
.
>> so let's put this in simple terms and deal with the
>> scriptures. [ Snip a fancy list of disenfranchised
>> and misunderstood bible-bytes ... then ... ]
>> Jesus says in Matt 22:32 "I am the God of Abraham,
>> the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"
.
> whoops, on this one ... The Deity argument does exist
> in this passage,
.
 Whatever. At this point in the discourse Jesus is just quoting
from the scriptures. As was his habit and custom and intention.
.
> but far from this verse alone. Using this verse
> alone leaves one wide open to the accusation of
> "handling the Word of God deceitfully"  [snipsome]
.
 Well now I don't normally go around accusing people of
'deceitful handling' since I take it for granted that most
bible students, scholars, and believers routinely abuse the
scriptures for many and various reasons and causes. Most
believers can be excused on the basis that they are too
ignorant to know any better. However, that is obviously NOT
the case here. In this case, ICL is quite deliberately
distorting the Word by taking just these particular words
out of context. In context we can see that Jesus is NOT
referring to himself as God, as ICL would have us believe:
.
 "But as for the resurrection, have you not read what was
spoken to you by God, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead
but of the living." When the crowds heard this, they were
amazed at his teaching. -- Matt 22:31-33 / NETbible
.
>> <snip> Let's see Isaiah called Jesus Almighty God,
>> Everlasting Father. Thomas called him God.
.
 Right. And *then* Jesus REBUKES him: Thomas replied to him,
"My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you believed
because you have seen me? Blessed are the people who have
not seen and yet have believed." -- Jn 20:28-29 / NETbible
.
>> John called Him God.
.
 No, actually the modern English translations call him
God. But the Greek of John's autograph undoubtedly read:
"... and divine was the Logos" (John 1:1).
.
>> Paul said He was equal to God.
.
 Paul said a lot of things. Not all of them are of equal value.
.
> Zechariah 13:7 calls Him the Man that is My Equal; but
> Paul says more than that, in Romans 9:5 and other Pauline
> Scriptures.  In those passages, like Romans 9:5, "out of
> them came Christ, Who IS GOD OVER ALL ..." <snip>
.
 "For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels,
nor rulers, nor things that are present, nor things to come,
nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in
creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in
Christ Jesus our Lord. I am telling the truth in Christ (I am
not lying!), for my conscience assures me in the Holy Spirit,
I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I
could wish that I myself were accursed - cut off from Christ
- for the sake of my people, my fellow countrymen, who are
Israelites. To them belong the adoption as sons, the glory,
the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple worship, and
the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from them,
by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all,
blessed forever! Amen." -- Romans 8:38-9:5 / NETbible
.
 What happened here is not too difficult to discern. During
the process of transmission some over-eager scribe added a few
choice words in order to liven things up a bit. The original
autograph probably ran something like this: "To them belong
the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the
Messiah, who is blessed forever." Within the context of Paul's
discussion in chapters eight and nine, this reading is *by
far* more consistent with Paul's intentions and theology.
.
 The "God over all" thing sticks out like a sore thumb, and is
obviously a crude, disruptive, and thoughtless addition. Thus
it smells far more Trinitarian than authentically Pauline. In
other words, the scribal additions are NOT inspired; ie. Paul's
original statement (eg. as given above) is more *authoritative*
than the corrupt canonical format! ! !
.
 Remember what I said earlier about the difference between
proclamation and creed? "God over all" is clearly a
trinitarian-type creedal statement, and is obviously intended
as such in reference to Christ (ie. irrespective of Paul's
direction and arguments). Therefore we cannot allow that
Romans 9:5 constitutes genuine evidence for 'God the Son',
consubstantiality, Trinity, or any of that guff. Sorry! -> 
.
> John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know
> Thee, the only true God, that is, Jesus Christ, whom thou
> hast sent," is the same as 1John 5:20, and absolutely
> required by the Granville Sharp rule of Grk grammar.
.
 "And we know that the son of the God has come and has given
us understanding that we may know the True One. And we are in
the True One, even in the son of Him: Jesus Christ. This One
is the True God, and eternal life. Little children, keep your-
selves away from the idols." -- 1John 5:20-21/Prophet Version
.
 "And this is the eternal life: that they may know you,
the only True God; and he whom you sent, Jesus Christ."
 -- John 17:3 / Prophet Version
.
 These three verses do indeed compliment each other, but it
is very difficult to see how the Greek term 'kai' can be
legitimately translated as "that is" as in the unknown
version you just gave us. Care to explain this discrepancy?
.
> Excellent Scriptures, all, and there are at least 30 more
> I can and have listed. But have you been out of town? You
> REALLY think you have "settled" anything, once and for all??
.
 Sure: The rampant abuse of scripture to support theology
is well *settled* in the popular customs of the people!
.
> Those who deny the Deity of Christ deny, ridicule,
> condescend, ignore, "interpret," and any other word you
> can think of, every Scripture under the sun we can present.
.
 Difficult to see how anyone could actually practice reading
the sacred texts without, you know, interpreting the texts
as you go along. Can you really read the Word without
bothering to interpret it? ... How does that work exactly?
.
> Just as those in the recent threads advocating salvation by
> human merit do, and those in recent threads who deny the
> Creation in six days (Ex. 20:11), and the Flood of Genesis
> 6-9, and those in recent threads who deny that the Lord
> Jesus rose on the Third Day according to the Scriptures, and
> those who deny that the thief was in Paradise in Hades with
> the Lord on the Crucifixion day, and those who deny that
> the Scriptures cannot be broken, and those who deny that
> God has a Plan of the Ages, etc etc etc etc.
.
 The scripture cannot be broken. But they have been tampered
with, twisted, added to, changed, altered, softened, adjusted,
modified, edited, etc etc. The scripture cannot be broken. But
they can be misunderstood, abused, maltreated, perverted, and
(worst of all) obscured. The scripture cannot be broken. But
it can be strangled and frozen and made like unto a dead thing
by elevating the empty letters and words over the Living
Spirit that speaks through them. The scripture cannot be
broken. But they ARE dominated and subjugated and idolized!
.
> The WORD OF GOD proves NOTHING, with these people.
.
 Another thing that the Word proves to me is that the prophetic
teachings of the NT authors, while by no means monochromatic,
are remarkably consistent and self-supporting. Yet most of the
documents cannot be properly understood without bearing in mind
the complex relationships that these documents have with each
other. In the New Testament the Word does not speak with one
voice, but with many. The New Testament is a complex dialogue
of witnesses, and the failure to appreciate this literary /
theological fact can indeed only lead to nowhere and nothing.
.
> You might as well fart against the north wind, with them.
.
 hahaha ... right
.
> <snip> There is NO MAJOR DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE that is not
> denied by anywhere from a few to in most cases the majority
> of posters to this ng, and almost every other such ng. Not
> one! They do not have LIFE (Eph 2:1-3). The Scriptures mean
> as much to people like these as they mean to that skeleton
> of a cow out on the Texas desert. No; I'm not talking about
> "everyone who disagrees with me on some point." I'm talking
> about those to who NEVER HEAR THE SCRIPTURES (Luke 16:31),
> such as those you have presented.
.
 Nice rant, Bob, but there's nothing wrong with *my* hearing.
However, those who confuse the written Word with two thousand
years of doctrinal and theological developments are like those
trying to hear a pin drop after they have stuffed their ears
full of wax! Good intentions are NOT enough to do the job.
.
> I'm talking about their hearts: their roots, not their
> fruits, which latter are merely the evidences "by which
> ye shall know them." It is by their fruits that ye CAN
> know them, of course.
.
"Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice."Jn18:37
.
> When I hear a person contradicting one after another of
> the above doctrines, I am hearing fruit; and the accurate
> picture very quickly forms in my own mind that this person
> does not know God.
.
 Which God? You mean the God of Jesus Christ? The Heavenly
Father, the Only True God? Who is also the Father of Lights,
as proclaimed by the NT? OR do you mean some *other* God,
the "Trinity" proclaimed by the scribes and pharisees?
.
> But it's not because of these fruits that he does not know
> God; it's the other way around, the fact that he does not
> know God is what is causing the fruits. Those who know God,
> that is, those to whom God has looked are those who "are
> poor, and of a contrite spirit, and TREMBLETH AT MY WORD"
> --- Isa. 66:2. And it is those who are indwelt by the Spirit
> of Christ (Rom. 8:9) and it is those who therefore can
> discern the Truths of God (1 Cor. 2:14), and it is those
> who bring forth good fruit. -- Bob
.
 Are you claiming then that I don't bring forth good fruit?
And therefore have no measure of the Promised Spirit? And that
I have *less* respect for the sacred texts than the scribes
and pharisees do? Not so! I'll stack up my love for the Word
against anyone's for comparison, anywhere, anytime. I ain't
scared. As I see it, believers have a simple choice on their
hands. They can believe the testimony of the Word, rightly
understood. Or they can believe the confused and erroneous
testimony of the scribes and pharisees.
.
 And woe unto them that confuse the two!
.
  - one like unto a quivering mass of jelly - textman ;>
.
P.S. Then Pilate said, "So you are a king!" Jesus replied,
"You say that I am a king. I have been born and have come
into the world for this reason: to testify to the truth."
-- the Gospel According to John 18:37 / NETbible
x

Goto GodTalk #11

textman
*