IMJerusha
New member
No, it had nothing to do with the way you put it. Not sure what you mean by "mud pie and all." I wouldn't worry about it.
OSAS
- Thread starter meshak
- Start date
No, it had nothing to do with the way you put it. Not sure what you mean by "mud pie and all." I wouldn't worry about it.
IMJerusha
New member
I was there defending you, Town, taking a good bit of heat for you...and it was many.
I'm praying that you will one day see that what you posted highlighted in red puts you smack in the middle of what you posted highlighted in blue. Malice cloaked in intelligent speech, double talk and slander is no less a weapon. BTW, Moses was never intended to bring salvation to God's people; obedience to God's Law was in accordance with the first Covenant. Yeshua fulfilled that obligation by His Blood and became the New Covenant through Whom man is saved.
Well, let me make it more helpful. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17 The doctrine of the Trinity was written solely by men built on the agendas of Constantine and Theodosius. Not every doctrine written by man is truth and we have no clue if all doctrine based on Scripture is God's Truth. Man's truth and God's Truth are two different things.
That's not exactly what I noted, Town, so again you're putting words in my mouth. We are to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Ruach (Holy Spirit). Nothing in Scripture states that we are to baptize in the Name of God. God is not His Name.
Why? You pretty much have posted the same thing right here in this thread.
Amen!
Declaring one a heretic is pretty much the same thing when one considers that heretics are those outside the Body and believers are those in the Body. Heresy has nothing to do with man's parameters but rather God's.
And that means one must understand by Scripture's description, not by man's, and before there was Scripture, Paul called it preaching Christ crucified; personal witness and testimony.
The Son of God? Yes, that He wasn't the least bit confused about.
Don't jump from 24 to 58 without hitting 28 and 29 Town. "So Jesus said, 'When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."
The "I am" usage of Yeshua is an echoing of His Father's pronouncement as found in Exodus 3:14. It is not an exclamation that He is the Father but rather with the Father and the Father with Him and if one goes back to verses 12-19 that's beyond clear. "When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, 'I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.' The Pharisees challenged him, 'Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.' Jesus answered, 'Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.' Then they asked him, 'Where is your father?' 'You do not know me or my Father,' Jesus replied. 'If you knew me, you would know my Father also.' "
So anyone claiming Yeshua is the Son of God and Savior of the world is a Christian and not a heretic. Getting that? Because they know EXACTLY Who He Is.
Last edited:
Sod, LH. Who else? Many? I don't think so. I knew most of the players in that dust up, which started before you arrived. Unless you're talking about heretics, like THall and his crew, which would be about as upsetting as hearing an anti theist called me names.
I think you've amply demonstrated, over time, that you don't understand me, have a real and negatively skewed picture of me, and the above is funny given how your speech toward me is wrapped in most of it.
I don't have malice for Koban or chrys and if I was going to it find it that would be the likely home of it. But life is too short. I dislike a few people, mostly because of the way they conduct their business, but that's a far cry from malice and I don't use my faith to harm anyone. I think this is probably the first time I've spoken to heresy and if anything I've been criticized in the past for being too light on the point.
The malice I was speaking to wasn't something you have to read in. It was Sod's gleeful dogging of Rusha to tell her how much he was looking forward to her suffering in hell. That sort of thing.
Now if I felt the way you need for me to I'd never have apologized to you for any mistaken thing I may have said or left so much of what you put out against me on the vine...while you couldn't even manage to acknowledge or accept.
No thanks, IMJ.
lain: It's like you read the words, but they just don't mean the same thing in your noggin. So you are a heretic, as I thought. No, you acknowledge the foundation of it in your notice that we are to baptize in the name of? The Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
I'm guessing who gets to decide the difference...you? Or, if we accepted that premise the best we could do would be to check our reading/understanding against our brethren. If you do that you'll find the orthodoxy you're outside of on the point.
You didn't note that we are to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy spirit?
Well, Matthew did. "19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" Matthew 28:19
lain: I'm sorry for you, genuinely.Were I you this is where I'd say you're wrong and putting words in my mouth.
.
The heresy of concern here, that would be salvific in nature, would be the understanding Christ set out as to who he is and how that matters in terms of forgiveness, as per my last set out and scripture.
He said "I am".
They aren't on the point that they don't contradict.
The "I am" is God. That's who Jesus is, as is the Father and as is the Holy Spirit.
Rather, anyone who denies Christ (as God) denies the reality and root of grace. Jesus was clear about it as scripture records. We should be in our witness, as well.
:e4e:
glorydaz
Well-known member
You're desperate and hoping he'll feel guilty for holding your feet to the fire. Instead of hoping he'll stop, you should be listening to what he's been saying. It's for your own good, but your pride has got such a grip on you, that you will go down in it's clutches unless you put it off. Put it off, IMJ...it isn't too late yet.
IMJerusha
New member
Please, a shrink you're not. Besides, tell me what is wrong with having pride in Yeshua?...for keeping with His Words as opposed to man's?...for moving with the guidance of the Ruach? Why do you always find that distasteful?
A Christ who is man only and no God can save nobody.
IMJerusha
New member
Sod, LH. Who else? Many? I don't think so. I knew most of the players in that dust up, which started before you arrived. Unless you're talking about heretics, like THall and his crew, which would be about as upsetting as hearing an anti theist called me names.
All those who thought you were pro-abortion. It was quite a while ago. Some involved I don't think are even here anymore. If you have the thread name, I wish you'd pull it up just for the sake of....well, you know, whatever. I just can't remember it right now. I seem to recall it being a call-out thread but that may not be correct.
Why?...because I disagree with your twist on the doctrine of the Trinity?
Oh please, the next thing you'll be posting is that I have some sort of obsession with you like you stated about Res.
:idunno: When you go around calling Brothers and Sisters in the Body heretics, condemning or making fun of their faith practices such as confession or their use of the Hebrew, that's most definitely a form of malice. Not that you're the only person around here doing it but it's sort of silly for you to deny you're doing it.
So make the most of it!
You don't think calling Christians heretics is hurtful to the Body?
Well congrats for embracing the OSAS mentality.
We are each responsible for our own behavior. Stop deflecting to the behavior of others.
I'm not asking you to feel the way I need you to feel. I've asked you to seek and stand on God's Word as opposed to man's. I've even asked you to stay on the thread topic. Why do you have a problem with any of that?
IMJerusha
New member
While some might say that I'm open to the discernment of the Ruach.
Why?...because I accept history's account that the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople were convened to control Arianism? Heresy is not for man to judge. If you want to get all picky about it, Protestants are heretics by Catholic standards (that would be the church of Constantine and Theodosius). If all you want to do, Town, is use the faith to feel bigger and better than others you've chosen the wrong faith. That's not what Christianity is about. We've got denominations galore splintering the Body of Yeshua with their doctrinal differences. What I am, quite frankly, is sick of it.
I acknowledge Scripture's Word on the subject and, like so many others in the past and no doubt the future, thoughtfully and prayerfully consider the nature of God. I certainly don't consider myself or any other man/woman capable of nailing that down. Obviously, you do.
That such an obtuse thing to post in the face of the many times I have stated that God and His Word is what we should defer to as opposed to the doctrines of men, and in the very sentence you've responded to here.
When you look to man for your orthodoxy instead of to God, you've just made yourself a heretic by God's standard. Don't you understand that? The doctrine of the Trinity began in the Roman Catholic Church and was brought forward into the Protestant Church by the Reformers. Not all believers hold with the doctrine. Do I?...yes, but not as you do. You've stepped into "twistland" with it dismissing the Headship (a very popular thing to do what with womens liberation, big surprise).
I did, but that doesn't make Yeshua "I AM", it makes Him in the Father and the Father in Him.
I'm aware that this is in Matthew, Town. I believe I quoted it as such earlier in this thread.
You have no reason to feel sorry for me, genuinely or otherwise. Come down off your horse.
When you call someone a heretic, you are declaring them outside of the Body. It's tantamount to stating they aren't saved, so no, I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Yeshua never stated he is "I AM". Just refer to any simple study reference and you'll find that in the John 8 verses you posted, Yeshua is echoing His Father's affirmation as found in Exodus 3:14. Your twist on it is that Yeshua is "I AM", the Creator. The Father is "I AM", the Creator, and Yeshua is His One and Only Son through Whom all things were created.
Supra. The Son is not the Father. Stop twisting.
Oh come on, of course Scripture doesn't contradict itself. It does, however, contradict man.
Supra.
The way you use the Scriptural reference found in John 8 implies that the Son is the Father and that is just not so. The Son, by His own Word, is not omniscient or did you forget the fact that the Son does not know the day of His return?
And you say you don't make your twist on the doctrine of the Trinity salvific! This is just case in point. If one acknowledges the Son, they acknowledge the Father. "No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also." 1 John 2:23 Stop casting out what you have no authority to cast out. Stop using the doctrines of men to usurp God's authority. As I stated before, you're responding outside of your league.
Some people might like to pay themselves a compliment through the mouths of others.
"But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction." 2 Peter 2:1
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." 1 John 4:1
It isn't Catholic teaching that our differences are salvific in nature, however serious. And I have long agreed that absent the salvific being central to the issue it is better to have a gentle discussion on a point and then, having been heard, to rest and keep peace between you, which is another reason why I mostly read and rarely enter into discussion of particular dogma.
Anyone who believes that "unmerited grace" should feed the ego fails to understand either word as you fail to understand me.
Obviously you project whatever ill suits your impression of me.
No, obtuse is choosing to not understand that everyone with an oar in this water begins with their understanding of scripture and that your charge on that point isn't really one that distinguishes at all.
Same answer. Orthodoxy is nothing more or less than the elders and church fathers contemplating the Holy Scriptures. You can attempt to make that an insult, but it really isn't.
So the larger contemplative collective of the Body cannot say what you can?
lain: And aren't you then malicious by your own light? Rather, it begins with scripture, I've noted a bit of it, and was formalized in understanding by the early church and continues to this day, outside of heretical sects.
I believe that Jesus is God, that the Father is God and that the Holy Spirit is God. You do or you don't.
No, I advance the orthodoxy of the Body. Your political muddying is...nuts.
Keep playing word games and I'll keep declaring this simple truth: Jesus is God.
I know you can read. That isn't the question.
That's not how it seems to me.
That's just the narrative you have of me. It's no more real than the one you had when you thought I was terrific.
When you reject the orthodoxy of the Body you place yourself in the heretic's role, but heresy simply denotes a deviation from that orthodoxy. Whether it's salvific or not is another question. Belief in Jesus as God, as I noted in quoting the Author, is crucial.
No, it isn't tantamount. Or, it depends on who you're talking to, whether they distinguish the formal and terial heresy, by way of.
You are unless you don't understand that distinction, in which case the thing to do would be to ask.
Ultimately that's for God to know and judge. What I would say to the Body is what we have been taught, that anyone preaching a gospel contrary to His should be corrected or barring the will to be corrected should be removed from among us and our witness.
Yes, he did. I quoted him doing it. I reject your attempt to alter the words he spoke and to fit them to your desire on the point. I suppose you see it the same way, but that's life for you.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers:
He is the I AM, present equally in the human “was,” and “is,” and “is to come.”
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
"Before Abraham was, I AM. This speaks Abraham a creature, and our Lord the Creator; well, therefore, might he make himself greater than Abraham. I AM, is the name of God, Ex 3:14; it speaks his self-existence; he is the First and the Last, ever the same, Re 1:8. Thus he was not only before Abraham, but before all worlds..."
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
"I am - The expression I am, though in the present tense, is clearly designed to refer to a past time. Thus, in Psalm 90:2, "From everlasting to everlasting thou art God." Applied to God, it denotes continued existence without respect to time, so far as he is concerned. We divide time into the past, the present, and the future. The expression, applied to God, denotes that he does not measure his existence in this manner, but that the word by which we express the present denotes his continued and unchanging existence. Hence, he assumes it as his name, "I AM," and "I AM that I AM," Exodus 3:14. Compare Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 47:8. There is a remarkable similarity between the expression employed by Jesus in this place and that used in Exodus to denote the name of God."
I didn't say he is the Father, so every time you keep saying that you lie willfully and God knows why.
I said Jesus was and is God. And that appears to bother you. God knows why that's the case. :idunno:
"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." Philippians 2:5-8
It isn't "my twist" IMJ, it's the orthodoxy of the Christian church you struggle against if you struggle against what I'm telling you.
I've been steadily speaking to the point of acknowledging the Son and what is sufficient, what Christ taught and what his church knows.
I know you said it. You'll likely say it again or something equally pointless and hostile.
Last edited:
No one who read me on abortion would ever have the least reason to think that. I suspect that the prior and still unnamed many and these those are a couple of malcontents and the previously noted...One of the first things I did here that had Knight take notice and a point I fought with for years after was my stand on that practice. So God alone knows who could have stumbled in with that foolish an inclination and want of understanding. No one of long standing who could read, at any rate.
there's a peculiar disconnect in that. First, go around? I think I've said as much generally about those who deny the divinity of Christ. Particularly? I can only think of a couple. Not exactly a pastime of mine.
I don't make fun of confession, I've said to those who don't find Christ's work quite finished, that they turn confession into a sort of lottery and have to hope they aren't hit by a bus on their way to it. If you think I'm picking at confession you miss the point entirely.
I don't and haven't made fun of Hebrew, but I do think you use a lexicon that invites confusion to no real purpose. I'm not averse to the use of complicated language where it serves a point, but when it obscures one in a way that's needless, like your not simply saying Holy Spirit, which would be understood by anyone, it begins to smack of something proud and indifferent to the want of understanding it invites, as something used more to self separate and elevate than to meaningfully communicate.
And given how you tried to use my reference to a decent plain language sum as something that should embarrass, and then went on to suggest repeatedly that it's where I obtained my theological understanding...I think you're in a poor position to lift that rock. You do that a lot, pick up stones that will likely explode in your hand.
No, it isn't. Malice is a desire to cause harm to another, by definition. It isn't difference, even difference where the difference may lead to harm or every Christian who believes those outside of grace are damned would be malicious. I don't particularly like you because of the way you approach difference (see: your treatment of AMR's reasoned and gentle difference), but I don't have a desire to see you harmed or come to harm and I'd rather you be in a different and, I think, better position. You'll never find me taking any pleasure in any particular pain you might experience or in the anticipation of it.
I think there are things we're called to do that aren't always pleasant, but I'd say that where the issue is salvific I'm not calling Christians anything. I'm calling out those who cry, "Lord, Lord" but who deny the truth of the word they use.
Isn't your yes supposed to be yes? How does that fit? Is it a kindness? Or is it malicious? Also, your response had no real relation to the quote that proceeded it. OSAS? Sure. Always have been. What He has He keeps.
No one can do that, but I'm illustrating the difference between malice and what isn't. Desiring the harm of someone is malicious. Desiring someone to refrain from bearing the wrong witness isn't.
I answer you directly on the mistaken assumption of this in my last.
You've wandered off the reservation, so it's a funny complaint. The topic came up and you went with it of your own volition. Blaming others for that and seeking shelter behind some feeble protest you made at some point while continuing to do what you criticize is hypocritical and goofy.
I've been clear on every point I have a problem with and clear in why. You should try that. :cheers:
Last edited:
whew, when IMJ and Town engage, the posts are loooooooooooooooong
lain:
IMJerusha
New member
Uhm...you mean formal and material heresy, by way of? That's Catholic theology. Heresy in the Scriptural sense is that which is against the Truth of Scripture and which is destructive. BTW, I still think you are terrific. I'm tired now and heading to bed. I'll catch the rest of your post tomorrow.
***Just for you, PJ, I kept it short!
Yep.
It certainly originated with them, but then so much of what is Protestant did too.
I agree it's destructive. The larger point goes to whether it can deny salvation, or more accurately whether it may lead one off the path that would otherwise lead to salvation.
It really comes through.
At your leisure, though I don't know how much of tomorrow I'll have around here.
IMJerusha
New member
Careful, you're treading on those who believe they have already passed from death to life.
I'm glad! :cheers:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
freelight bytes...........
freelight bytes...........
Note that 'catholic' here is only meant to be 'universal' to itself (speaking of the RCC), which is really its own 'particularity' of dogmatic interpretation, creed and theology. That is it.
To be truly 'catholic' (universal) one would be more of a true Theosophist if anything else
freelight bytes...........
Note that 'catholic' here is only meant to be 'universal' to itself (speaking of the RCC), which is really its own 'particularity' of dogmatic interpretation, creed and theology. That is it.
To be truly 'catholic' (universal) one would be more of a true Theosophist if anything else
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
relative 'terms' they are......
relative 'terms' they are......
'Life', 'death',....'light', 'darkness',.....'heaven', 'hell'....just words of a 'contrast'
All one knows is that they are 'conscious', and that is all anybody knows about 'life', while all those factors which 'condition' the 'mind' are those factors that determine the 'heaven' or 'hell' that anyone is experiencing at any moment in time, thru-out eternity. There is nothing else, but this living awareness, the 'light' that 'I Am'
'Theology' concerns itself with conceptualizing it all, and putting it into a 'relatable' context as far as how we inter-act with 'God', the 'universe' and reality as far as we know it. One one level its futile to assume one is "saved" or 'not', since that depends on one's own terms whether they make it up, or its written in some religious book. And I'd like to see anyone here prove otherwise
relative 'terms' they are......
Careful, you're treading on those who believe they have already passed from death to life.
'Life', 'death',....'light', 'darkness',.....'heaven', 'hell'....just words of a 'contrast'
All one knows is that they are 'conscious', and that is all anybody knows about 'life', while all those factors which 'condition' the 'mind' are those factors that determine the 'heaven' or 'hell' that anyone is experiencing at any moment in time, thru-out eternity. There is nothing else, but this living awareness, the 'light' that 'I Am'
'Theology' concerns itself with conceptualizing it all, and putting it into a 'relatable' context as far as how we inter-act with 'God', the 'universe' and reality as far as we know it. One one level its futile to assume one is "saved" or 'not', since that depends on one's own terms whether they make it up, or its written in some religious book. And I'd like to see anyone here prove otherwise
Why not preach what the Bible says in John.?
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Why not preach what the Father told Peter--
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Why not preach Peters message--
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Act 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Act 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
You think like most that you understand what Jesus was saying when He said He was the I Am, but you do not.
LA
Because more was revealed to Paul than to Peter. Paul wrote 70% of the New Testament
'Life', 'death',....'light', 'darkness',.....'heaven', 'hell'....just words of a 'contrast'
All one knows is that they are 'conscious', and that is all anybody knows about 'life', while all those factors which 'condition' the 'mind' are those factors that determine the 'heaven' or 'hell' that anyone is experiencing at any moment in time, thru-out eternity. There is nothing else, but this living awareness, the 'light' that 'I Am'
And I'd like to see anyone here prove otherwise
Why should we when you can't prove what you say