If you do not believe in God, you must not have read the Bible

Not at all, I asked you a question. I have no need of defense from you.

What is prophecy?

Is a genealogy written in the bible, prophecy?

What is the broadest sense of the word? Why the qualification? Show me the definition that constitutes it's broadest sense.

Further, how are you going to accomplish the feat of eating the flesh of christ and how can you eat it if you are not alive to eat it? Or how can you eat it when the body is not here to eat?

 

What is used in scripture?

 

if you want to remember me even better, break up the matzoh, mix with eggs, and fry in butter

[salt to taste]

 

The fact is I answered your questions and you did not even notice. We already discussed this and you were shown to be wanting. Further what I post in hip forums need not be confined to answers to your questions, even though answering your questions of me is something I choose to do.

If you had decent reading comprehension, or if you cared to comprehend rather than insert your own version, you would see that you had been answered.

Yes, in the way that you would like me to answer it. It seems my legitimate and concise answers are not adequate to prove your case, whatever that case may be, so you are not satisfied. It is not my requirement to prove your case.

Pay attention
That is not my implication, it is yours and you keep repeating as somehow I am going to relent and change my answer.

The holy spirit is the the route of communication between man and god.

You have shown me not one example of how the bible interprets itself, not one, so don't outright lie about it.

The bible is not the only holy scriptures there are. If someone writes the words, "the measure you give is the measure you receive", that is scripture being written. If someone is given a teaching by the holy spirit and that teaching is written down, that is holy scripture being written. At the time your famous quote was made, the new testament had not even been written yet. How would you know that nothing else had been written if your belief is not to allow anything else? It appears you believe that god is confined to the bible and you to the grave until the second coming. No salt.

Again, your reading comprehension is not very good. When you say who or what do we or should we believe, it is an authority question. Boy if it is not in your repitoire of belief, it just doesn't register.

"If you love me you will keep my commandments and I will pray the father and he will give you another counselor to be with you forever, even the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive because it neither sees him or knows him; you know him for he dwells with you and will be in you."

"But the counselor, the holy spirit, whom the father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance, all that I have said to you".

I said if you have a question of authority you should ask the holy spirit because that is what the holy spirit is for, to teach us all things and bring to our remembrance, all that christ has said to us. I would point out that he says not one darn thing about the bible here.

Now if this indwelling of the holy spirit does not occur for you then that represents a problem doesn't it? I've asked you straight up about it and it seems to be a phenomena that is beyond your recognition or your own experience. It seems you think the holy spirit and exegetics are the same thing. If this is not correct, I would like to hear your testimony about the holy spirit.

You stop making the same accusations or asking the same question over and over, I will stop giving the same answer.

 

Pathetic, just pathetic. I laugh at the idea of thedope typing his posts and thinking to himself "haha! They're going to think I'm really smart after this one! haha!"

thedope, I bet the words "ha!" or "aha!" often come into your head when you read other people's posts, mainly because you're trawling through looking to prove them wrong or hoping that they've tripped over their own words in some way.

If you asked me a simple maths equation, say 3+3, and I began a massively boring and inane monologue about the beginnings of 3 and the + sign, my personal feelings on the matter, how it is possible to also subtract 3 from other numbers, how many other numbers can be achieved by multiplying the number 3 etc, then somewhere in the middle I whispered "6" under my breath when you had zoned out because of all the superficial, irrelevant, non-consequential rubbish I was spouting. Would you come away from that experience feeling that you had a solid answer, or would you feel that I had not in fact answered the question, just danced around the issue like a Mexican around a hat?

The above situation is how your "answers" are being received. But, of course, the problem doesn't lie with you now, does it? Your answer are perfectly clear and concise and it's everyone else's problem that their perception is muddied by great clumps of smelly shit being tossed in their face while they are trying to glean understanding from your response. To put it simply, you don't make yourself understandable, so people don't understand you. And then you seem to frolick in the fact that nobody can understand your cryptic responses and use it as a basis for a stupid argument. You've been amusing me for so long that I'm starting to pity you and wonder what inadequacies would produce this kind of behaviour.

Anyone could be picking holes in your offerings but, in the words of a man offered a pin for his pony, it's not worth it. The only question I have now is when oh when will you take some of your own advice, heed your own words and stop being such a sad little man? Rather than trying to change anyone's mind, your posts suggest that inside you is a voice shouting "I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT!!!"

 

I do not know why it cannot be recognized that the teaching of human sacrifice to restore order is a throwback to primitive and barbaric tradition.

Unless the cause were tradition itself; tradition, "to give away or betray."

But a scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven takes from his stores some of what is old and some of what is new. The incorporation of learning and corresponding increase of understanding.
The traditionalist learns the tradition to the exclusion of modification. The ritual then substitutes for actual relationship instead of leading toward it. Being told about oranges, or reading about oranges, is not the same as eating oranges.

I don't know what to do about evangelism. We always choose with a guide and we at times, find ourselves uncertain in baring leaving us vulnerable to suggestion. What I'm saying is there would be no tillers of the soil if the field were not fertile. Seekers will have their answers and some are satisfied with comfort and some with allies that they can attack and defend with. Those that look for truth then, have a real advantage because reality supports truth and truth supports reality.

 

the difference between seeking and being sought out?

 

Understanding with love fears no attack,or belief of attack on ones basic comprehension of existance. To each his/her own and it will continue to flow. As ever.

 

Well you've done it again, you've hijacked a thread and taken it to places that were never even dreamt of when the OP started it.

I didn't say you did. I just said; You seem a bit defensive.

In the broadest sense of the word, yes.

Dope, seeing as you are "Mr. definition", I would think you would know this.

Anyway here goes, many people when they hear the word prophecy think of predictions of what will happen in the future and that is an outstanding feature of Bible prophecy but prediction, or foretelling, is not the basic thought conveyed by the root verbs in the original languages.

The root verbs for Prophecy in the original languages indicate an inspired message; a revelation of divine will and purpose or the proclamation thereof. Thus Prophecy may be an inspired moral teaching, an expression of a divine command or judgment, or a declaration of something to come. This would be the broader sense that I was talking about.

Well, for one thing it is important to realize that no one has ever eaten the actual physical flesh of Jesus, not even the Apostles. So eating his actual flesh is not what Jesus was talking about. Thus the "eating the flesh of Christ" is entirely symbolic.

 

I am glad your imagination amuses you. It is not at all the way I think however. I reach for understanding and communication. Sometimes people are frightened they might actually have to participate or entertain a strange thought to learn and so I have to wade through a lot of defensiveness before I can be allowed even to make a point.

If you perceive me as predatory then you are reacting defensively.

If?

To small a statistical sample.

Your level of understanding or appreciation of what I say has nothing whatever to do with me unless you ask me to contribute to it. Your mind, your choice of attention, is a kingdom you alone can rule. If you personally find what I say boring and your attention lapses to things that are more stimulating to you then that is the direction you care to go.

In this life people will embrace you or not, no matter what you do or say. Someone could simply be fond of your face or not like the way you smell.

A totally subjective soliloquy. Too small a sampling. I have never declined to offer clarification when asked, then again if you are already decided or expecting an answer that will necessarily prove your point then no amount I could offer will suffice.

Actually you are investing some effort to achieve some kind of satisfaction through me or at my expense. You cannot take from me what I freely offer.
Take your absolute best shot sweet pea.

 

OWB "eating thr flesh of christ is entirely symbolic"

^not in Catholicism

Transubstantiation, I think, is what it's called

Once you eat it, it's jesus

 

What I am saying is the poor we have with us always and conversely those who would profit from their misery or confusion. Thus, I don't know what to do about it.

I apologize to any of those I have unwelcomely engaged, although over the internet I don't see how that could be possible. If I thought what I write on a computer can be a genuine threat to someone, I wouldn't be writing on a computer. Conversely however, it is possible to share thoughts if we care to.

 

How can I hijack a thread? No one has heard nor have they seen all the good things god has prepared for those who love him.

What does that have to do with the thread? te he

[12th century. Via French and Latin < Greek prophētēs "somebody who speaks beforehand" < phētēs "speaker"]
Just to give you the english version. Perhaps the reason for "most peoples" impressions.
Thank you very much For your generous and thoughtful answer. What I know and what you know, could be complementary. I remember having a discussion with you about the nature of prophecy not being necessarily predictive of future events but rather is always a picture related of what is.

What is the relevance of biblical genealogies? How are they divine inspiration?

So it is important to correctly interpret the symbols. So if the act of eating wafers and drinking wine is entirely symbolic. What act is the genuine article and how is it accomplished?

 

As mustlivelife answered this post so well, I will just comment on this portion of your post, mainly because of you once again casting aspersions on me.

Here, once again, is one of the examples I've shown you before.

The Bible at John 10:30 says; I and the Father are one.
It is a relatively simple statement and is used by many Trinitarians as proof of the trinity.

So one interpretation could be that Jesus and the Father are one in the same and thus part of the trinity.

But another interpretation of the same statement could be that they are as one in mind or purpose, that they are unified.

So which is right? Do we, as some do, say that it is open to interpretation and that both are right. Is there some way to see which is correct? Do we take a vote? Is there any way the Bible itself can help us to know which one is the correct interpretation or as I would say interpret itself? Or is it like Dope would have us believe, that it is just not possible for an "inanimate" book to interpret itself.

Well, just looking the the context should help us. Just before Jesus made that statement he said; "What my Father has given me is something greater than all other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father." and then Jesus said; "I and the Father are one.” So it would appear just from the context that Jesus was not here saying he was part of a trinity but still some would cling to that very interpretation.

So let's look at another place in the Bible where Jesus talks about being one, in other words as I would say, let the Bible interpret itself.

That would be John 17:20-26; “I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word; in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth. Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, that the world may have the knowledge that you sent me forth and that you loved them just as you loved me. Father, as to what you have given me, I wish that, where I am, they also may be with me, in order to behold my glory that you have given me, because you loved me before the founding of the world. Righteous Father, the world has, indeed, not come to know you; but I have come to know you, and these have come to know that you sent me forth. And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”

If we just look at the underlined part, are we seeing Jesus saying that all of his disciples are one and thus part of some massive "disciple trinity" and when Jesus says that they are all in unity is he saying that now his disciples also part of the trinity?

No, It is easy to see that when Jesus said; "the Father and I are one", he was talking about a unity of purpose. And all by just by taking the time to see what the Bible has to say on the subject, rather than just arbitrarily picking an interpretation and sticking to it no matter what the rest of the Bible says. Or as I would say, taking the time to let the Bible interpret itself.

 

Every instance you describe is your effort, and your conclusions. You practice exegesis. The bible does not interpret itself.
ex·e·ge·sis
1. analysis of texts: the explanation or interpretation of texts, especially religious writings
2. interpretation of specific text: an explanation or interpretation of a specific text, especially a religious one
[Early 17th century. < Greek exēgēsis < exēgeisthai "interpret" < hēgeisthai "to guide"]

 

For someone who has no idea how to do it, I must say you are mighty proficient at it.

The genealogies are important because they show the working out of God's prophecies regarding the Messiah, also the coming true of other promises that God made to those in the line of the Messiah. The Messiah was to be of the line of David and of the royal house of David. The genealogies show that through Mary he was a natural heir of David and through his adoptive father Joseph he was of the royal house of David.

Yes.

I would say that looking to what Jesus did when he set it up at the "last supper" would be a good place to start. There were no "special wine and wafers". Jesus used what was available at the meal he was eating. Since the meal he was eating was the passover meal, the only thing available was a simple red wine with no additives and unleavened bread. When he broke the bread and passed it to his disciples he said this means my body and when he passed the wine he said this means my blood and then said do this often in memory of me. It is as simple as the that. Some believe that the "often" means to do it daily, weekly or monthly but since Jesus did it at the time of passover, I believe that once a year at the time of passover is when it should be done.

 

Yep, same shuck an' jive. Whenever someone shows you an answer you don't like, rather than trying to understand it, you hide behind literalism.

 

It is interesting to me that you say "the working out" of god's prophecies. It smacks of planting evidence. How many times do we have the suffix, it was done to fulfill the prophecy.

I will try to sharpen my question because you haven't addressed it, unless you mean that unless you carry out a symbolic act you have no life in you.
The act of eating bread is a symbol for something, what is it a symbol for. Symbols represent conditions, what actual condition is established in a man that gives him life, or does it exist simply for the sake of aping ritual?

 

I don't hide behind anything. I am exposing an area of blindness and fantasy in your consideration of your own contributions when you read text. Text does not explain itself. Symbols on paper have no meaning without their experiential conjugations.

 

thedope hides behind the pseudonym thedope. He's wrong again. *Gasp* That was worse than blasphemy.