Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[Audie]

What story? And Paul's Lord, whom he called on in Jerusalem, was Augustus Caesar to save his life from the Zealots. As for Paul's supernatural overseer, that was according to Paul, Satan, who supposedly put a thorn in Paul's side, according to Paul. I think all Paul said was that he spoke for God, not that God protected him. If God protected him, then Nero wouldn't have strangled him. As for what God said about Paul, who he called "Favor" (Zech 11:10), was that he along with Peter, were to be the two "staffs", shepherds, to "pasture the flock (Gentile church) doomed for slaughter"(Zech 11:7), and that all three of the shepherds, which would include Judas Iscariot (Zech 11:12-13), would be annihilated in the same month (generation). A generation is about 30 to 40 years. Judas was supposedly hung around 30+ A.D. and Peter was hung around 60 + A.D., and Paul was strangled around 60 + A.D. I have to assume they hung on their trees (wooden crosses) throughout the night and therefore were cursed (Dt 21:23).
Deuteronomy 21:23 you must not leave the body on the tree overnight, but you must be sure to bury him that day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse.

The snake story! Focus!

 

[Soandso]

Audie, Jayhawker, 2ndpillar, and other cynics...

I used to be like you.

No you didn't. People will never fit into the boxes you try to place them in. Try judging others on an individual basis instead of being "all-knowing" when it comes to what you think people's motivations and convictions are based on how they compare to a way you used to be. That's a you problem, so keep that to yourself

 

[blü 2]

Audie, Jayhawker, 2ndpillar, and other cynics...

I used to be like you. I went out of my way to be clever and and all-knowing, until I was saved by Jesus Christ. I feel sorry for you all, wallowing in negativity and trying to show how smart you are. But then I discovered God's love and I have had "the peace that passes all understanding" for 47 years. Believe me, it's a lot better than trying to show others how smart you are, which is nothing but an ego trip.

I'm not cynical but I am skeptical.

I wish you well with God's love. It's not something I believe in ─ the evidence against it, in my view, is overwhelming ─ but if it suits you, grab it.

But if I might beg a favor, please lay off the condescension. It really clangs on the page, diminishes whatever you're saying.

 

[Audie]

Yeshua and God both spoke in parables (Isaiah 6:8-9 & Mt 13:13-14). A parable is the use of language which gives a broad overview without being specific enough for the wicked to understand the hidden message. For God, a day is not necessarily a day, but can be a thousand years, or a month can be used as a generation, as stated in the Tanak. In Daniel and in Revelations, an emperor was represented as a beast, or a head of a beast, or a horn of a beast, or a statue. Empires were imaged as mountains and as beasts. The "devil" was referenced as the "serpent', or "Satan", or the "dragon", etc. Isaac Newton studied the bible most of his life to find its secrets of creation, and while he was one of the foremost scientists of all times, he only scratched the surface with his many writings, which because of the church, most of those writings have only become recently available. Poor Galileo wrote down his findings in a fictional book and wound up being put before the Inquisition and wound up broken and then locked up in his house for the rest of his life. As stated by Daniel 12, all his hidden until the "end of the age". The door is now open, but only the truthful in all things will peer under the rock. Whether one lies to themselves or to others, liars will be left outside of the gates (Rev 22:14-15). One has to seek the truth, which means one has to know geology, science, history, as well as have the light which is found buried in the bible, along side of the "message" of the "devil" (Mt 13). Newton noted he found the philosophy stone, and I believe he did, but he couldn't figure out how to use it. He was too early in the discovery period. Knowing the geometry of DNA doesn't help if you don't know what DNA is. Even if you do know somewhat about DNA, and particle and wave physics, you still have problems putting things together. I am way past the mandatory retirement age, and my interest now is why people do what they do, not on the physics of creation. I can tell you how things end, and where (Zech 12), as it is fairly well laid out in the bible, but the timing is a bit difficult, even if Newton pointed between the 2030 to the 2040, I disagree, for he seemed to be using a solar calendar (Gregorian/Julius), and the Jews used a lunar calendar. It is good to be an honest skeptic, but at some time you have to make a deeper dive, or just become a boring atheist, or agnostic. Probably better than being a hypocritical "believer" (Christian/Moslem/Hindu/Marxist Progressive, etc.) If your entirely honest, which often calls for independence, then you should have no trouble finding every truth, but not without perseverance and patience. Being you don't appear to trust government then you have one foot up.

Can you just answer?

 

[jimb]

No you didn't. People will never fit into the boxes you try to place them in. Try judging others on an individual basis instead of being "all-knowing" when it comes to what you think people's motivations and convictions are based on how they compare to a way you used to be. That's a you problem, so keep that to yourself

I will judge people as I think appropriate.

a) I don't need your advice on this matter. b) I will not keep my thoughts to myself. This is a forum.

 

[jimb]

I'm not cynical but I am skeptical.

I wish you well with God's love. It's not something I believe in ─ the evidence against it, in my view, is overwhelming ─ but if it suits you, grab it.

But if I might beg a favor, please lay off the condescension. It really clangs on the page, diminishes whatever you're saying.

I am not condescending, I am simply stating facts.

 

[jimb]

For those of you who are criticizing me (without understanding) for my faith ), READ THIS...

1 Corinthians 2:14-16,"The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one. For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him? But we have the mind of Christ."

As I said above, I am not condescending, I am simply stating facts.

 

[2ndpillar]

Can you just answer?

The "Word of God" was proffered in parables, which is to say, it provides imagery, not verifiables. If you want to "understand" the basis of the imagery, you will have to work harder than you have. Although you are free to walk in the vagaries of you present situation, as to who you are, how you got here, and what is the next segment of your situation. You can always turn to Satan, and become a witch, and howl at the moon, along with the atheist, and the Marxist Progressives. You can seek truth, and observe observable standards, or you can stand with the walking dead, and make your own standards, and become overrun by chaos (blue cities and states), because you seem critical of what you don't understand. Those who walk in lawlessness, except the laws of their own making, such as defunding police, and releasing felons, will never understand (Daniel 12:10). They will eventually lose all connections with reality, and believe men are women and women are men, and that the best woman tennis player, is a better tennis player than the best man tennis player, of which, the best tennis woman player says she would lose 6-0 6-0 in five minutes of play to a top man tennis player. The current equity nonsense is going to kill a lot of people. A single call by by single Marxist idiot, Mao, killed around 58 million Chinese, by simply killing all the sparrows, and having the country overrun by insects, causing the starvation of 58 million Chinese people. The humanistic values you rely on have killed millions, time and time again. The rule of Law, espoused by the Tanak, is that you cannot even "covet" your neighbor's goods or wife, nor can you lie or steal, or bear false witness. If you have a better standard, based on your subjective opinions, get it off your chest. If you prefer to die on the mountain of the number of animals that can be fitted on a boat, be my guest. Bite off your nose to spite your face.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No you didn't. People will never fit into the boxes you try to place them in. Try judging others on an individual basis instead of being "all-knowing" when it comes to what you think people's motivations and convictions are based on how they compare to a way you used to be. That's a you problem, so keep that to yourself

In my opinion, the post you cited is yet another example of a smug Christian who patronizes others on an internet forum. In my experience as a former Christian, most of the Christians I encounter either in person or online are sanctimonious hypocrites who use 1 Corinthians 2:14–16 as an excuse to justify their self-righteous patronizing of non-Christians and boast about how they are "sinners saved by grace." They appear to think quite highly of themselves.

 

[jimb]

In my opinion, the post you cited is yet another example of a smug Christian who patronizes others on an internet forum. In my experience as a former Christian, most of the Christians I encounter either in person or online are sanctimonious hypocrites who use 1 Corinthians 2:14–16 as an excuse to justify their self-righteous patronizing of non-Christians and boast about how they are "sinners saved by grace." They appear to think quite highly of themselves.

Claiming that most of the Christians you encounter are sanctimonious hypocrites is nothing more than a subjective opinion. Apparently, you have been seriously "burned" by Christians and/or Christianity.

May I asked what happened that caused you to not only reject Christianity but to attack Christians?

! Corinthians 2:14-16 says, "The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one. For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him? But we have the mind of Christ."

a) The first sentence is self-defining. Either you accept the things of the Spirit of God (and are a believer) or you don't (and are an unbeliever)
b) The second sentence clearly explains why: they are spiritually discerned. Notice it doesn't say "intellectually discerned".
c) The last two sentences summarize the above.

Notice that non-believers do not understand those verses. Why? Again, because they are spiritually discerned.

As Soandso wrote earlier, "Try judging others on an individual basis instead of being "all-knowing" when it comes to what you think people's motivations and convictions are".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Believing Christians are sinners saved by grace. That is a perfect definition!

Why shouldn't Christians think highly of ourselves? I take pride in who I am, as do most people. Do you not think highly of yourself?

 

[2ndpillar]

The snake story! Focus!

The snake story is universal. People have worshipped snakes and dragons around the world. Snake Gods and Goddesses: 19 Serpent Deities from Around the World Looking for a face value misses the underlying premise. The Japanese emperor was the sun god, as identified by the Japanese flag, but in fact, if you had ever read Revelation, the emperor was simply a man, "beast"/emperor/kings, who got their authority from the "dragon" (sun god/Sol Invictus)/"serpent"/"devil". You might want to turn your focus on from whom do the leaders of today get their authority, besides from the "deceived" public, who vote for bread and circus. The public drinks from the well of deception, watered by the "beast with two horns like a lamb", Constantine, the Roman emperor who established the dogmas of the Roman Church in 325 A.D., and whose position of Pontifex Maximus (keeper of the gods) was passed onto the Roman Catholic pope, who is destined to "fall" (Isaiah 22:25) "in that day", which will be the "day of the LORD" (Joel 2:31-3:8), when the nations/Gentiles will be judged (Joel 3:2). The judgment location will be north of Jerusalem (Har-Magedon)(Rev 16), in which a preview was the battle of Meggido, whereas the Ottoman and German army were defeated in 1918, and subsequently, the shepherds, Israel, ultimately became a nation in 1948, subsequent to the declaration by the British government official in 1917. Without sufficient background information, you are apparently trying to build a Lincoln longhouse, without logs. What is important is why people are doing what they are doing and why they are doing it. Now if you don't know what a Lincoln longhouse is, you are reading in the dark. When people walk in the dark, they often fall into a hole.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

1 Corinthians 2:14-16,"The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one. For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him? But we have the mind of Christ."

As I said above, I am not condescending, I am simply stating facts.

Yes, that's condescending, and no to it being a fact. Believing in spirits is not spiritual discernment, and nothing the believer believes is difficult to understand including why he believes it. He's motivated by hope or fear and finds his beliefs comforting. The atheist is somebody for whom none of that is true. He's comfortable without a god belief or a religion.

Furthermore, I'd say that you have the wisdom and foolishness reversed. I consider it foolish to embrace creationism and reject science, or to consider faith a virtue and reason foolishness - things people with too much religion do routinely. To me, studying scripture is a waste of time. Much better to study life empirically and accumulate rational values and beliefs through trial and error than accepting the religious version of those uncritically.

It's self-serving to call one's own beliefs truth and those who disagree fools. The proof of what is wise is in the pudding - how well one's beliefs bring lasting satisfaction. If one has arrived at a place where his needs are met - where he has his material and social needs met, is relatively free of anxiety, regret, shame and the like, likes and respects himself and is liked and respected by others, is fulfilled intellectually, and has love and beauty in his life, he has been wise. He can stop searching for answers. If any of those needs are as yet unmet and he is still unfulfilled, he needs to keep searching.

You seem like you might be centered and happy, but I see a lot of religious fools on these threads. They're agitated or angry due to their beliefs (you just finished putting one on ignore in another thread), or they're atheophobic or homophobic bigots, or they come into threads to argue science with the scientifically literate. They believe the scripture you quoted, which reassures them that they're on the right path. They see rejection by critically thinking empiricists as an indication that they're right. How's that for foolishness?

 

[Audie]

The "Word of God" was proffered in parables, which is to say, it provides imagery, not verifiables. If you want to "understand" the basis of the imagery, you will have to work harder than you have. Although you are free to walk in the vagaries of you present situation, as to who you are, how you got here, and what is the next segment of your situation. You can always turn to Satan, and become a witch, and howl at the moon, along with the atheist, and the Marxist Progressives. You can seek truth, and observe observable standards, or you can stand with the walking dead, and make your own standards, and become overrun by chaos (blue cities and states), because you seem critical of what you don't understand. Those who walk in lawlessness, except the laws of their own making, such as defunding police, and releasing felons, will never understand (Daniel 12:10). They will eventually lose all connections with reality, and believe men are women and women are men, and that the best woman tennis player, is a better tennis player than the best man tennis player, of which, the best tennis woman player says she would lose 6-0 6-0 in five minutes of play to a top man tennis player. The current equity nonsense is going to kill a lot of people. A single call by by single Marxist idiot, Mao, killed around 58 million Chinese, by simply killing all the sparrows, and having the country overrun by insects, causing the starvation of 58 million Chinese people. The humanistic values you rely on have killed millions, time and time again. The rule of Law, espoused by the Tanak, is that you cannot even "covet" your neighbor's goods or wife, nor can you lie or steal, or bear false witness. If you have a better standard, based on your subjective opinions, get it off your chest. If you prefer to die on the mountain of the number of animals that can be fitted on a boat, be my guest. Bite off your nose to spite your face.

Seeing the block of text told me you were
not going to answer. So I didn't read it.

 

[Audie]

The snake story is universal. People have worshipped snakes and dragons around the world. Snake Gods and Goddesses: 19 Serpent Deities from Around the World Looking for a face value misses the underlying premise. The Japanese emperor was the sun god, as identified by the Japanese flag, but in fact, if you had ever read Revelation, the emperor was simply a man, "beast"/emperor/kings, who got their authority from the "dragon" (sun god/Sol Invictus)/"serpent"/"devil". You might want to turn your focus on from whom do the leaders of today get their authority, besides from the "deceived" public, who vote for bread and circus. The public drinks from the well of deception, watered by the "beast with two horns like a lamb", Constantine, the Roman emperor who established the dogmas of the Roman Church in 325 A.D., and whose position of Pontifex Maximus (keeper of the gods) was passed onto the Roman Catholic pope, who is destined to "fall" (Isaiah 22:25) "in that day", which will be the "day of the LORD" (Joel 2:31-3:8), when the nations/Gentiles will be judged (Joel 3:2). The judgment location will be north of Jerusalem (Har-Magedon)(Rev 16), in which a preview was the battle of Meggido, whereas the Ottoman and German army were defeated in 1918, and subsequently, the shepherds, Israel, ultimately became a nation in 1948, subsequent to the declaration by the British government official in 1917. Without sufficient background information, you are apparently trying to build a Lincoln longhouse, without logs. What is important is why people are doing what they are doing and why they are doing it. Now if you don't know what a Lincoln longhouse is, you are reading in the dark. When people walk in the dark, they often fall into a hole.

Another unread non answer.

 

[jimb]

Yes, that's condescending, and no to it being a fact. believing in spirits is not spiritual discernment, and nothing the believer believes is difficult to understand or including why he believes it. He's motivated by hope or fear and finds his beliefs comforting. The atheist is somebody for whom none of that is true. He's comfortable without a god belief or a religion.

Furthermore, I'd say that you have the wisdom and foolishness reversed. I consider it foolish to embrace creationism and reject science, or to consider faith a virtue and reason foolishness - things people with too much religion do routinely. To me, studying scripture is a waste of time. Much better to study life empirically and accumulate rational values and beliefs through trial and error than accepting the religious version of those uncritically.

It's self-serving to call one's own beliefs truth and those who disagree fools. The proof of what is wise is in the pudding - how well one's beliefs bring lasting satisfaction. If one has arrived at a place where his needs are met - where he has his material and social needs met, is relatively free of anxiety, regret, shame and the like, likes and respects himself and is liked and respected by others, is fulfilled intellectually, and has love and beauty in his life, he has been wise. He can stop searching for answers. If any of those needs are as yet unmet and he is still unfulfilled, he needs to keep searching.

You seem like you might be centered and happy, but I see a lot of religious fools on these threads. They're agitated or angry due to their beliefs (you just finished putting one on ignore in another thread), or they're atheophobic or homophobic bigots, or they come into threads to argue science with the scientifically literate. They believe the scripture you quoted, which reassures them that they're on the right path. They see rejection by critically thinking empiricists as an indication that they're right. How's that for foolishness?

To you, it's condescending (which is itself condescending!), to me it's not.

Why should I accept your interpretation of spiritual discernment? Let's look at that verse again: 1 Corinthians 2:14-16,"The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one.

a) The things of the Spirit of God are "foolishness" to an unbeliever. That has proven to be true over and over and over. Unbelievers simply cannot accept the things of the Spirit of God.

b) Saying "He's motivated by hope or fear and finds his beliefs comforting" is nothing more than your personal opinion. And it proves that a) is true.

c) "The atheist is somebody for whom none of that is true." No kidding!!!

d) "To me, studying scripture is a waste of time". Okay. So what?

e) "Much better to study life empirically and accumulate rational values and beliefs through trial and error than accepting the religious version of those uncritically". Again, simply your opinion.

f) If one has arrived at a place where he thinks his needs are met, but they aren't, he is deluded.

g) It's self-serving to call one's own beliefs truth and those who disagree fools. So you don't believe that your beliefs are true? Why do you call Christians "fools"???

h) They [Christians] see rejection by critically thinking empiricists as an indication that they're right. How's that for foolishness? "The pot calling the kettle black".

 

[Audie]

Yes, that's condescending, and no to it being a fact. believing in spirits is not spiritual discernment, and nothing the believer believes is difficult to understand or including why he believes it. He's motivated by hope or fear and finds his beliefs comforting. The atheist is somebody for whom none of that is true. He's comfortable without a god belief or a religion.

Furthermore, I'd say that you have the wisdom and foolishness reversed. I consider it foolish to embrace creationism and reject science, or to consider faith a virtue and reason foolishness - things people with too much religion do routinely. To me, studying scripture is a waste of time. Much better to study life empirically and accumulate rational values and beliefs through trial and error than accepting the religious version of those uncritically.

It's self-serving to call one's own beliefs truth and those who disagree fools. The proof of what is wise is in the pudding - how well one's beliefs bring lasting satisfaction. If one has arrived at a place where his needs are met - where he has his material and social needs met, is relatively free of anxiety, regret, shame and the like, likes and respects himself and is liked and respected by others, is fulfilled intellectually, and has love and beauty in his life, he has been wise. He can stop searching for answers. If any of those needs are as yet unmet and he is still unfulfilled, he needs to keep searching.​

You seem like you might be centered and happy, but I see a lot of religious fools on these threads. They're agitated or angry due to their beliefs (you just finished putting one on ignore in another thread), or they're atheophobic or homophobic bigots, or they come into threads to argue science with the scientifically literate. They believe the scripture you quoted, which reassures them that they're on the right path. They see rejection by critically thinking empiricists as an indication that they're right. How's that for foolishness?

I don't have patience for people who
behave that badly. Off to ig city with them.

 

[blü 2]

I am not condescending, I am simply stating facts.

Condescension is a matter of tone, regardless of what one is saying.

 

[jimb]

Condescension is a matter of tone, regardless of what one is saying.

So if I wish somebody a happy birthday, that is condescension? Here is a definition of condescension: showing or characterized by a patronizing or superior attitude toward others. If I share my belief and you read it as condescension, with whom does the problem lie? I could just as easily say that your comment is condescending.

 

[blü 2]

To you, it's condescending (which is itself condescending!), to me it's not.

Perhaps from time to time it's wise to listen to one's audience.

Why should I accept your interpretation of spiritual discernment? Let's look at that verse again: 1 Corinthians 2:14-16,"The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one.

Such a claim can be made by anyone about anything. Here, please tell me what real thing ─ what thing with objective existence ─ is intended to be denoted by the phrase "the spirit of God"?

Otherwise it seems to me that the "spirit of God" exists only as an idea not supported by examinable evidence in a context of other ideas not supported by examinable evidence ─ a problem faced by all theologies in all the world's supernatural religions.

 

[blü 2]

So if I wish somebody a happy birthday, that is condescension? Here is a definition of condescension: showing or characterized by a patronizing or superior attitude toward others. If I share my belief and you read it as condescension, with whom does the problem lie? I could just as easily say that your comment is condescending.

Depends on the tone you use, as I said.