You Cannot Know Christ.

[David T]

Folks seldom understand the actual nature of the past. They seem to think the information we have now was available back then.

People create a past reality in their head which fits the people in the past to acting according to information we have in the present.

People assume themselves capable of separating truth from fiction. I think most everyone does but it's usually not the case.

You are aware of something that most people are not even awake, about. It would seem obvious but if that's not the case with how you are raised, the people you know, the world in which you navigate in, you might go this all seems so plastic!!!!

 

[sayak83]

Yes, for some people that question might be a logical response to the OP. And, I do apreciate your inquiry. In reality, I have neither the authority of definitive knowledge nor the directive authority over your mind to impact your future.

In view of what the original OP is meant to convey, I make the following suggestions:

1.) It is wholly inapproriate for anyone to claim they "know Jesus" or "have the Mind of Christ" when they are unable to speak the Words of Jesus or materially duplicate His Works. See John 14:12 and 1 John 2:6.

2.) It is a false effort to merely agree with statements in Scripture and thereby try to say those statements in Scripture are then operative in one's life.

3.) It is heresy to come up with humanly contrived rationale for one's supposed belief in Scripture, when it is God Himself who specifies the correct motivations for belief.

4.) One should seriously consider the vast differences in human mindset, world views, and cosmology between those who wrote The NT material and those today who claim to be able to grasp it and expound upon it.

5.) Some of the Arrogant Biblical Academicians, Babbling Preachers, Mindless Evangelists, Milque Toast Pewsitters, and White Knuckled Theology Pundits should now be alert to their own false claims of superior knowledge about Christ.

So how should Christians and Christianity be like in your view?

In Mark, the theme that the apostles were clueless about Jesus has been emphasized often. This did not appear to be bar discipleship. So the concern here for you is regarding false knowledge claims by church authorities? It's not about "since nobody knows Jesus, none can be a true follower of Christ" kind of argument, correct?

 

[Harrison]

(1Co 2:9) But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
(1Co 2:10) But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
8
(1Co 2:12) Now we have received... the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
(1Co 2:13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
(1Co 2:14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1Co 2:15) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
(1Co 2:16) For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Ask the right questions in the right spirit and I would be happy to show you Christ's answer out of His Word my friend.

I am no friend of arrogant pewsitters who claim to:

1.) Be able to recognize "The right questions."

2.) Be able to discern "The right spirit" in people.

3.) Have a rational and Godly reason to be hypersensitive and thin skinned about how other people seem to be. Lol.

4.) Think it is service to The Lord to be condescending.

5.) Have a superior view of what is already plainly given in Scripture, while they have no real answers for the difficult questions.

Your type of "friendship" happens strictly upon your personal terms, doesn't It? Did you forget during your prayer time that Jesus was a friend of sinners? Yes?

Lol.

 

[Harrison]

No, it has a specific understanding. I can provide a link if you like.

 

[Harrison]

Provide the link. Did you need my permission? Lol.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

loving other as self doesn't go beyond necessity, or a need. that would be promoting selfishness whether for self, or for other.

Then the classic statement "love your neighbor as yourself" is a misnomer. I am not about to stop paying my mortgage... no matter how "selfish" you think it makes me to want the roof over my head. I am also not about to stop attempting to fulfill some of my desires - something else you're saying doesn't apply to others - though obviously applies to self, and always will - because love for self is absolutely greater than love for neighbor - it has to be. And the justification (as if there needed to be any) is much like the "put your own oxygen mask on first" sort of thing... can't go helping others if you have incapacitated yourself through poor decisions on your own behalf. People need to stop saying "love your neighbor as yourself." It is a pie-in-the-sky, childish and naive notion.

 

[Fool]

Then the classic statement "love your neighbor as yourself" is a misnomer.

that is a personal opinion of course. if i expect myself to pay my expenses, i would expect another who has the same ability.

give a man a fish(money), you have fed him for a day. teach a man how to fish, give him a skill and you've fed him for a lifetime.

I am not about to stop paying my mortgage... no matter how "selfish" you think it makes me to want the roof over my head.

shelter is a necessity. extravagant and expensive shelters aren't.

I am also not about to stop attempting to fulfill some of my desires - something else you're saying doesn't apply to others - though obviously applies to self, and always will - because love for self is absolutely greater than love for neighbor

a desire is not necessarily a need. once a need has been met it goes beyond need to selfishness.

- it has to be. And the justification (as if there needed to be any) is much like the "put your own oxygen mask on first" sort of thing... can't go helping others if you have incapacitated yourself through poor decisions on your own behalf. People need to stop saying "love your neighbor as yourself." It is a pie-in-the-sky, childish and naive notion.

again oxygen is a need. one has to be able to meet one's own needs before one can even begin to help another. if a person is drowning, they can't do anything to help another but will drag another down. at that point it's ok to accept help from someone who isn't drowning.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

that is a personal opinion of course. if i expect myself to pay my expenses, i would expect another who has the same ability.

But why do you pay your own expenses? Why do you do it? Is it not love for yourself that drives this? A love that sees you taking care of yourself and these perceived needs that you have? How are you to extend THAT SAME LOVE to your neighbor? That is what the command "love your neighbor as yourself" means. It isn't "just opinion"... that is literally how those words should be interpreted given no outside excuses.

give a man a fish(money), you have fed him for a day. teach a man how to fish, give him a skill and you've fed him for a lifetime.

Agreed, but beside the point. You love yourself enough to fish (make money) to take care of your own needs. You are not extending the same level of "love" to your neighbor when you do not also fish (make money) for him.

shelter is a necessity. extravagant and expensive shelters aren't.

Is shelter a necessity though? Truly? Homeless people are able to survive all across the nation, throughout all seasons... and many do so with or without seeking shelter that may be available somewhere for them. I knew a man who used to fill a water bottle with hot water from a soup kitchen, put it into his coat and sleep outside - simply because he preferred that to sleeping in the free shelters and the conditions those usually come with. He survived. When does something like shelter become "need" exactly? Point being... we want to claim "extravagance" and point a finger at those being "selfish", and sometimes that is pretty obvious... but really, ALL OF US do things or provide things for ourselves that we are unwilling to provide for others. Even small things. If we loved our neighbors as ourselves, would we not also offer them these "extra" comforts? If not, then why not? What is it about ourselves that we think makes us so special that we, individually, deserve that extra bit of cake? The larger meal when we are eating out? The car with the extended warranty? Nice clothes? Medicine for "extravagant" conditions like depression or anxiety? A watch - or any time-piece for that matter? The luxury of meat over the more basic need-providing substance of vegetation?

a desire is not necessarily a need. once a need has been met it goes beyond need to selfishness.

And doesn't "selfishness" arise out of a love for self? Wouldn't the command to love they neighbor as thyself then mean we should extend that "selfishness" to our neighbors? Actually be selfish for our neighbors benefit? I have already demonstrated that even commonplace items and things we take advantage of on a DAILY basis are unnecessary... therefore fall within your definition of "selfishness", are a part of self-love, and should therefore also be things we are willing to do for our neighbors if we follow the "love they neighbor..." directive. Why doesn't this follow?

again oxygen is a need. one has to be able to meet one's own needs before one can even begin to help another. if a person is drowning, they can't do anything to help another but will drag another down. at that point it's ok to accept help from someone who isn't drowning.

But if I love my neighbor exactly as I love myself... then shouldn't I BE SWIMMING FOR HIM? I love myself enough to exert the energy for a swim... why wouldn't I do the same for my neighbor? I should, instead, expect him to swim on his own (at least until he's drowning apparently)? Is it "love" - the very same love you show yourself - to let him swim for himself? Why is that?

 

[Fool]

But why do you pay your own expenses? Why do you do it? Is it not love for yourself that drives this? A love that sees you taking care of yourself and these perceived needs that you have? How are you to extend THAT SAME LOVE to your neighbor? That is what the command "love your neighbor as yourself" means. It isn't "just opinion"... that is literally how those words should be interpreted given no outside excuses.

the same action of love for self is expected in the same action of love for other as self. what will this other do when self isn't present? you have failed. we aren't expected to carry those who can walk and refuse to walk. we expect all selves to walk that are able. i could use the logic that i refuse to walk and someone then must carry me. again that isn't loving, it's selfish. that isn't having the same expectation of other as self.

allow me to present it to you in another way, the golden rule can be expressed as service to all as self. what then are the expectations of self for self? that rule then applies to all selves. not exclusively to this self vs that self. the golden rule says do unto others as you would have done unto you. it doesn't say do unto others as they would have you do. offering love is not necessarily reciprocated in love. selfishness, abuse, neglect, are not acceptable from either polarity of self or other as self.

Agreed, but beside the point. You love yourself enough to fish (make money) to take care of your own needs. You are not extending the same level of "love" to your neighbor when you do not also fish (make money) for him.

here is where you and other as self diverge and disagree.

again if self is able then other as self is capable if able. there is no difference in action even if there is a difference in form.


loving your neighbor and abusing or neglecting self doesn't follow the golden rule, to love other as self is to require the action from both points of a straight line being in balance. one is not required to do more/less for other as self.


to idolize self is to demean other as self. to idolize other as self is to devalue self.


we all have the power to love. when we use that power wisely and without respect to persons we create a butterfly effect. love makes it to rain on friend or foe.

 

[Nakosis]

I can't tell when your beliefs are, but find it extremely interesting that I, as an atheist, have made some of these same points myself. Truly loving your neighbor as yourself is simply too tall an order, and is completely counterproductive.

Love is a tricky word. How about have as much compassion for your neighbor as you have for yourself?

This seems better to me than the golden rule. The golden rule seems more self centered.

I feel I have the same compassion for others as I do for myself. That doesn't mean I can avoid the need sometimes to make hard decisions against others.

Why... why feel compassion for others? I don't know. If you honor this as a commandment, is that then really who you are? Or are you just doing what you think you should to please whoever you feel has the authority to request this from you?

Perhaps compassion is simply a by product of personal tragedy and misfortune. Knowledge of your own struggles and the hope that others may be able to avoid them.

This seems to me the easier of the commandments.

The prior, Love God with all your heart, soul and strength. How can you show love for a father who never shows himself?

What is there to love except some image of what you think God should be in your head. You can make God to be whatever you want God to be. The perfect parent. Hold this image in your head, love it and cherish it...

The second commandment I think I could live with. The first seems highly impractical.

What use really in creating some idea, belief, fantasy of God and loving it with all your heart?

 

[Whitestone]

Whoever says they don't know Christ, doesn't. We who do know Christ, simply shake our heads in sadness at those who divorce themselves from Christ through this type of evil nonsensical thinking, making it even worse for themselves attempting to convince others of their madness. It is as the scriptures says,
2Pe_2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
Jud_1:10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

the same action of love for self is expected in the same action of love for other as self. what will this other do when self isn't present? you have failed. we aren't expected to carry those who can walk and refuse to walk. we expect all selves to walk that are able. i could use the logic that i refuse to walk and someone then must carry me. again that isn't loving, it's selfish. that isn't having the same expectation of other as self.

allow me to present it to you in another way, the golden rule can be expressed as service to all as self. what then are the expectations of self for self? that rule then applies to all selves. not exclusively to this self vs that self. the golden rule says do unto others as you would have done unto you. it doesn't say do unto others as they would have you do. offering love is not necessarily reciprocated in love. selfishness, abuse, neglect, are not acceptable from either polarity of self or other as self.


here is where you and other as self diverge and disagree.

again if self is able then other as self is capable if able. there is no difference in action even if there is a difference in form.


loving your neighbor and abusing or neglecting self doesn't follow the golden rule, to love other as self is to require the action from both points of a straight line being in balance. one is not required to do more/less for other as self.


to idolize self is to demean other as self. to idolize other as self is to devalue self.


we all have the power to love. when we use that power wisely and without respect to persons we create a butterfly effect. love makes it to rain on friend or foe.

The command to love your neighbor as yourself does not, at all, take into consideration the "self" of your neighbor. I don't know where you are getting any of this in the relative quotes/statements. It is an extension of interpretation at best. There is also no mention of "necessity" or "beyond necessity" - no such lines are drawn.

In no way, have I even hinted at anything about the intentions of the neighbor - their slothfulness, or willingness to take advantage is not under scrutiny. I am only concerned with what "yourself" should actualize when taking the statement "love thy neighbor as thyself" at face value.

Besides... you BOTH teach yourself how to do something out of love for self and execute on the knowledge gained due to love for self. Meaning you learn to fish and go fishing, both in service to yourself. What is the objective distinction between those two activities that makes one more "right" to do for your neighbor and one more "wrong" to do? And this is an especially poignant question if the acts are being done because you are adhering to "love thy neighbor", and, in so doing, they are done out of "love."

 

[Fool]

The command to love your neighbor as yourself does not, at all, take into consideration the "self" of your neighbor. I don't know where you are getting any of this in the relative quotes/statements. It is an extension of interpretation at best. There is also no mention of "necessity" or "beyond necessity" - no such lines are drawn.

wrong, it does. again you treat others the way you wish to be treated and you expect others to treat you in kind. if they don't, that is their choice, but it leads to prejudicial treatment. tribalism, familialism, egoism, and selfishness are not followers of the golden rule. the rule is like a ruler. the measurement doesn't change when you measure from one end of the ruler to the other. those who change the standard are perverting the rule.

In no way, have I even hinted at anything about the intentions of the neighbor - their slothfulness, or willingness to take advantage is not under scrutiny. I am only concerned with what "yourself" should actualize when taking the statement "love thy neighbor as thyself" at face value.

if i love my neighbor like myself, and i expect to be responsible for myself and my actions, then how is that outside the rule expecting the same for other as self? if i commit a wrong and expect to compensate for it, then why would i not have an expectation of another to do in kind?

Besides... you BOTH teach yourself how to do something out of love for self and execute on the knowledge gained due to love for self. Meaning you learn to fish and go fishing, both in service to yourself. What is the objective distinction between those two activities that makes one more "right" to do for your neighbor and one more "wrong" to do? And this is an especially poignant question if the acts are being done because you are adhering to "love thy neighbor", and, in so doing, they are done out of "love."

love makes things equal, it doesn't make them unequal.


the rule says do unto other as you would have done unto you. who then is this other that i would have an expectation of? having accepted that one is responsible for one's actions, one expects of the other to be responsible too. the rule doesn't say to exclude others from what one expects of self..there is no difference to be made between self and other as self. to make a difference and have no expectation of the other as self, is prejudicial. the law is blind to forms, it isn't blind to actions.

there is no exceptions to the rule. self is as other self and other self is as self.

there is no rule for this one and another rule for that one. that isn't the golden rule, or law of reciprocity.

true we have no control over another's choices but we do not change the rule and make it prejudicial because someone treats us differently. that perverts the rule. we have no control over anyone else but ourselves. if they do not wish to follow the golden rule, it will be to their own detriment. let them run after their "own" way vs the high way. they will eventually hit a wall.

the golden rule is like an open mind, something can go in and something can go out, but it isn't a one way only in and no out, or out and no way in.

the rule is based on action, it isn't a respecter of persons. for every action there is an opposite but equal reaction.

who would expect to receive hate for love? who would expect to receive indifference from attentative? who would expect to receive love for hostility?

 

[Fool]

If you expect people to be chatty and accepting of your thoughts, you are mistaken. If I want to hear personal thoughts, I will ask for them. Christ cares nothing about anyone's personal feelings or their individuality. Show Scripture to the contrary.

Jesus never asked anyone how they "felt." And, He only asked people's opinions so that He could either correct their ignorance, or tell them they were right. Do you speak and think like Jesus? Yes? No?

Yes, thank you for this rational question. However, if you are not a follower, and certainly not a leader, of Christianity, you will never grasp the issues in this Forum.

There are as many reasons to try to be Christian as there are people on Earth. But, not all of those reasons actually matter to God.

being a follower doesn't make anyone anything more than a follower. people run after all kinds of idols in their filthy rags.

Isaiah 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

he who loves his religion more than their neighbor, is not worthy of the truth

people can dress it up anyway they like, but a rotten apple isn't produced by a good tree.

every tree that doesn't produce good fruit is cut down and tossed into the fire.


Matthew 24:51
He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

[casianos5]

Instead of speaking excuses, state what you know of Christ beyond what is plainly disclosed in Scripture.

Amen. ! Amen Praise the name of Jesus Christ our savior who died a horrible horrible so we can have access to him amen ! Thank Jesus for blessing me even when I was sinning!

 

[casianos5]

Sorry he died a horrible DEAD!

 

[Whitestone]

Amen. ! Amen Praise the name of Jesus Christ our savior who died a horrible horrible so we can have access to him amen ! Thank Jesus for blessing me even when I was sinning!

A wonderful example of a man who truly knows Christ! Very pleased to meet you dear Brother, your witness of your faith arises as a rare and sweet smelling savor unto the Lord this Day!

 

[casianos5]

Excuses? What do you mean? And why would I share personal Holy Things with you? Read back your posts to me. I have nothing with you.

You I understand stand our personal opinions don't matter when it comes to GOD but we must get his attention and glorify and praise him for who he is the almighty God who loves us and reconciled with us through Jesus Christ bottom line. We need to get Gods attention so he can continue to bless us and have. Fellowship with us in the Holy Ghost amen

 

[casianos5]

Amen. ! Amen Praise the name of Jesus Christ our savior who died a horrible horrible so we can have access to him amen ! Thank Jesus for blessing me even when I was sinning!

It's all about the Holy Ghost amen

 

[casianos5]

Amen. ! Amen Praise the name of Jesus Christ our savior who died a horrible horrible so we can have access to him amen ! Thank Jesus for blessing me even when I was sinning!

Ha there is no no excuse when it comes to Jeusu Christ bottom line he tells us what we need to do to have beautiful fellowship with him just enjoy praising him and he will take care of you people make it complicated thanks to the enemy