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

:smilielol5: You have quite the sense of humor sometimes.

Are you now accusing God of "planting evidence"?

Once again, the whole thing is unintelligible and I would appreciate it if you would explain the whole thing or is that you don't understand it yourself or maybe you just remember what you were talking about when you said.

Say it as many times as you want, Jesus was not talking about an "enlivening experience" and that is probably why you don't understand what he was saying.

So your good spirit buddy doesn't know, so I guess that means he doesn't teach all things after all.

Oh I'm stabbed to the heart by your false accusations.

 

Rude is back. Where have you been?

 

Dope you made the statement;

And I asked you to prove it and you still have not. It is not my job to help you prove statements you have made. It is your job to do so. So get on with it or admit that it can't be proved.

 

Wasabi sauce :afro:

 

To say that the bible gives the reader the knowledge of what is being said is another way of saying the bible interprets itself. The bible is a storage device. It contains written or symbolic representations of ideas. In the first instance the writer by whatever inspired device puts those ideas on paper using symbols. Once those symbols are on the paper they are of themselves without dynamic presence. They lie fallow, dormant, potential transmission only. Those symbols are only meaningful when they are again first translated and then interpreted. The living word only lives in living beings.

This statement is again another way of saying the bible interprets itself.

No friend, I have no remorse. What research do you refer to? I will present you with some questions about meaning and you can tell me which is correct and which is not and perhaps you could demonstrate the process of how the bible provides it's own meaning, if you care to of course.

Let's take the question I asked you that you didn't quite get.

it is written that jesus said that it is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out. If this is so, why then is it written that jesus also says unless you eat and drink there is no life in you?

First, do you see that the two statements are exactly opposite of each other in direction? If you do how do you explain the inconsistency?

I understand your interpretation of the eating flesh statement to be in eating the transmuted substance you somehow participate in or acknowledge the sacrifice of christ? It is written as often as you do this, remember me.

What is "this", and how often is, as often?

Waterbrother has stated that it should be once a year at the historic time of year that that particular feast was celebrated. Some say it is as often as you take any meal after blessing. I am taught it is not about eating at all but
investing wholly of our own flesh and blood into remembering.

What say you and why?

The comparison is to an actual sword or the qualities of an actual sword.

I will further reflect on the meaning of those words by saying that the word of god is living and active. The word of god does not lie fallow in a storage device, it never has. By our words we are justified and by our words we are also condemned. We are created in the likeness and image of the creator and we create in turn, as our creator does. God said, let there be light, and there was light. As you narrate the environs of your own experience, measure*, so the world appears to you. In this way the living word tears right into the fabric of our sensational experience.

"It judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart", is the same expression in content as, "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks"

Can you tell me why the teaching just given is or is not consistent with the qualities of god's word?

measure*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEzRdZGYNvA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEzRdZGYNvA

 

http://www.e-speec.com/functions.htm

I have asked you direct questions that have nothing to do with proving anything
except the extent of your answers. Why do you leave so many direct questions unanswered and instead attempt to divert?

 

I asked you a question.

I am saying it happened exactly as it is written. Those things were done, to fulfill prophecy. Many actors were involved in the making of this product. I do not deny that they were inspired.

Next post then.

What is it you don't understand about the fact that we know life as the experience of life? Enlivening means giving life, or life giving.

Give to him who asks. I asked you.

Prove that they are false. I would refer you to your little game found in the previous quote above, beginning "so your good spirit buddy doesn't know"

 

A major problem with this line of thinking is that when Jesus speaks in parables it is quite clear - in fact the text will usually say "The Parable of the ..." (two out of three of your examples have this) and afterwards, Jesus will explain to them what it means. The Lazarus and the rich man is one of the few parables where it is not overtly said, but it is still clearly a story, one Jesus is unlikely to have witnessed first hand so we can easily infer its nature.

Examples abound where Jesus will explain himself when the crowd begins to murmur: Matthew 13:36,51, Matthew 19:24-26, Matthew 17:9-13 to name just a few. But in the case of John 6 we have something quite different - when they murmur "How can he give us his flesh to eat?" He reaffirms saying: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." It truly would have been impossible for him to be any clearer about what he was trying to say.

Then of course you have Paul in Corinthians saying, "A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." Here we have Paul clearly reminding people that the bread and wine is the body and blood.

 

"The difference between what I am taught, and what you have been taught through what is known in the tradition of biblical studiers or scholars as "proper exegesis", is a ritualistic observance once a year on the anniversary of passover and being perfect even as our father in heaven is perfect."

The above means the practical effect, the living conditions that are invoked by your method of interpretation, state that as often as you do this "remember me", means the eating of flesh once a year at the historical time of the year that the passover meal was taken. Consequently we are to remember christ once a year. The way I am taught the practical effect is we remember christ with every moments effort and desire. Do you understand?

Eating something even symbolically as a condition of salvation is antithetical to the teaching that it is not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out. Do you understand this?

Perhaps you do not recognize the other side of that linguistic equation, it looks like this, it is not what goes into a man that redeems him, but what comes out, Do you understand that if it is not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out, then also it is not what goes into a man but what comes out, that redeems him. (the measure you give is the measure you receive)

Do you understand?

 

As you see this mystery is about making connection and keeping connection in the whole spirit, eternal life. To remember is to bring together the members, of transcendentally incorporating. We regard christ as living in and among us. The difference in our awareness of those we love that are here and those that have past, is the different narrative we tell ourselves about their state of being. When a loved one dies, the physical evidence is that person has ceased to be in touch. We actively deny life and in so doing we experience a sense of loss. This way of treating the deceased is diametrically opposed to the lesson that christ teaches here.
What christ teaches is a new awareness about our state of being. If we do as he says the comforter will come. We transcend the barrier or division of the body. Christ must go, that the comforter may come.

 

I hope you don't think this is some kind proof.

I guess you haven't noticed but you have a tendency to ask the same old questions over and over and over again, moving from thread to thread to ask them again. And I have answered them over and over and over again, just once in a while I wish you would just go back and look up one of hundreds of times I've already answered your question or at least remember that it has already been answered.

 

First, note that as usual you did not tell where these Scriptures can be found in the Bible. Is so you can take them out of context and misquote them to you hearts content?

Next the two Scriptures are not interconnected as you imply and are not as you say; "exactly opposite of each other in direction" and so there is no inconsistency. Thus there is no inconsistency to be explained.

 

What does that hope do for you?

I notice it is alright for you to insist on answers, and again you simply dodge the questions I ask saying now that you answered them in another thread.
Well no, you did not answer these questions in another thread.

Can you reconcile the ritual eating observance as giving life should be performed once a year during the anniversary of passover with, "it is not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out, or with "the measure you give is the measure you receive", or with "as you judge so you will be judged", or with "a man is justified by his words"?
Can you reconcile "the bible interprets itself" with, if salt has lost it's taste, what good is it for seasoning?

Now I know that you "can" at least try and answer the questions so that is not the question I am asking, but will you please actually answer the questions? Demonstrate to me how the bible interprets itself or abridges the direct contradictions these questions represent?

I understand the efforts of exegesis and why, it is an effort to arrive at a single absolutely authoritative interpretation. These kind of comparisons, section against section, word to word, word to historical meaning, do not appreciate whole meaning. Meaning must be consistent or it is no more than confusion. In applying traditional understanding the new wine is lost and now the old as well as the new becomes meaning-less.

 

Show how they are not connected or out of context.
Yes waterbrother they are connected as part of a whole teaching. You know the scriptures, you recognize the words. Jesus words are never out of context with each other. They are entirely consistent within themselves, no principle or instruction cancelling out any other principle or instruction.
As above, so below. Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall remain. This means that the words transcend time, place, or circumstance.
The context is the whole teaching of christ, not disparate events in the life of jesus.

Explain to me how they are not interconnected or not exactly opposite in premise? One says it is not what you eat or goes into man that defiles but what comes out, the other says unless you eat or consume this you are without life.

 

I really can't see why you keep asking each other questions and wanting things to be explained when you blatantly aren't interested in the answers, you're just trying to prove each other wrong and inconsistent in the same old horn-locking bullshit. Why don't you unite your combined intellects and put them to something useful like most successful human beings do? Or are you happy digging holes for each other? One day the holes will fall in and become your graves and you'll think "shit, I wasted my time being alive having stupid arguments that got me nowhere!!"

 

the matrix mainframe is going to explode and we will all be free..

 

better to waste life in argument than how most waste it

[thirty-five dollars and a six pack to my name]

 

Both christians and infidels have been wasting their lifes over stupid arguments for centuries, I'd say it's the human way

 

Darn it, I done started me another argument!!!

 

Yes it is quite clear, but it seems to be unclear to you what it means.

In more context: "The Lord’s Supper

23 For (AA)I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that (AB)the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took (AC)the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the (AD)new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death (AE)until He comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be (AF)guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord."

Never does Paul write that it is Jesus' literal blood or body or that those who do not believe such are being disrespectful, but those that take it must follow the faith in truth and not be as Judas and pretend to be a follower. This is done as a remembrance of the sacrifice.

"But a man must (AG)examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number (AH)sleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are (AI)disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with (AJ)the world."

Also note that Jesus' disciples asked the question: "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"

His answer was "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables (Matthew 13)

or "All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable."

So even though they heard it, they did not understand what Jesus was saying. If it was meant literally, it would be easy to understand. Even his disciples did not initially understand but they followed out of trust. Other than that, Jesus let his disciples know when he would speak plainly, these are not one of those moments.

Also, as for "truly, truly". It is also used here: "He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.” When he said that faith should be the size of a mustard seed, did he really mean that our faith should literally be the size of a tiny seed? Or that an entire mountain would literally move? I know many would think so but to me it makes the most sense if thought of as anything other than literal.