I had been thinking more on the topic as I was doing my morning checklist and I intended to note my conclusions in the other thread that had generated this one if I happened on an opening. But I think it might be relevant here also considering the answer you graciously provided (btw, ty). Considering what possible 'moment' that I was saved, without question, I reached the determination that, though I had known that God existed, it wasn't until the moment that it was revealed Who existed that I then continued, unshakable, in faith. That is, it was just that I knew Jesus existed, but that I came to realize Who He Is, exactly, rather than wonder if He was of this character or of that. The moment I "lifted up my eyes," as an ancient Hebrew idiom would put it (that implies within the it scales falling from my eyes and seeing clearly) and beheld the Truth, that I then bowed my eyes, with my head, and not without my knee, to the ground in reverence... that from which I arose (stood in) and was baptized in His Name, having my sins washed away, and danced with pure joy.
Where Wisdom Lies
- Thread starter Rhomphaeam
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Eloquently and convincingly put.
"We may well understand that we can go outside our shops and cry out to other children, and seeing their delight when we gave them that which they could lay hold of childishly, we may also have rejoiced and thanked God for their salvation. But we will never be able to drive the other children who are still babes in Christ and overgrown babes out of the shop and into the street. If we do, either by our attitude in turning away from them or else as others have done when they have rejected them with a cold heart, then we become necessarily accusers." From A Simile - Sweetshop. cccxiv
"We may well understand that we can go outside our shops and cry out to other children, and seeing their delight when we gave them that which they could lay hold of childishly, we may also have rejoiced and thanked God for their salvation. But we will never be able to drive the other children who are still babes in Christ and overgrown babes out of the shop and into the street. If we do, either by our attitude in turning away from them or else as others have done when they have rejected them with a cold heart, then we become necessarily accusers." From A Simile - Sweetshop. cccxiv
You still haven't given a definition for "truth."
The most that's happened is that Nehemiah, very kindly, sort of conjectured you were "implying" a definition of truth in a sentence where word "truth" did not appear, and didn't even appear in sentences before or after. You have, so far, given no clear definition of truth whatsoever.
Please offer a clear definition of truth.
That is a simple question, and a simple request.
For Nehemiah and others reading this, you are of course free to share your views, as always...
but I'm specifically asking the OP for HIS definition because I want to hear HIS definition.
In his Opening Post he mentioned the word TRUTH 4 times, and made many CLAIMS about it.
I'm merely asking him to define this word TRUTH, so I can understand and test the CLAIMS about it.
If I make claims about a thing, and can't define the thing... then the claims, definitionally, cannot be tested.
1.) If I claim that a booglywoogly makes a great pet... you'd need a definition of booglywoogly before you can test my claim.
2.) Any word that has confusing, vague, or poorly understoond meanings, leaves us in the same confused state as "booglywoogly" until we have definitions.
* If you make claims about a thing, you need to be able to clearly define the thing... otherwise the claims cannot be tested.
* Furthermore, if you cannot define the things you're talking about... it throws doubt on your understanding of the subject.
.
.
.
.
The most that's happened is that Nehemiah, very kindly, sort of conjectured you were "implying" a definition of truth in a sentence where word "truth" did not appear, and didn't even appear in sentences before or after. You have, so far, given no clear definition of truth whatsoever.
Please offer a clear definition of truth.
That is a simple question, and a simple request.
For Nehemiah and others reading this, you are of course free to share your views, as always...
but I'm specifically asking the OP for HIS definition because I want to hear HIS definition.
In his Opening Post he mentioned the word TRUTH 4 times, and made many CLAIMS about it.
I'm merely asking him to define this word TRUTH, so I can understand and test the CLAIMS about it.
If I make claims about a thing, and can't define the thing... then the claims, definitionally, cannot be tested.
1.) If I claim that a booglywoogly makes a great pet... you'd need a definition of booglywoogly before you can test my claim.
2.) Any word that has confusing, vague, or poorly understoond meanings, leaves us in the same confused state as "booglywoogly" until we have definitions.
* If you make claims about a thing, you need to be able to clearly define the thing... otherwise the claims cannot be tested.
* Furthermore, if you cannot define the things you're talking about... it throws doubt on your understanding of the subject.
.
.
.
.
-
1
- Show all
N
wouldn't the experience of actually having this thing for a pet outweight the simple description of it?
and then, consider the different personalities owning it and how the experience might differentiate from pet to pet
also, I am pretty much convinced I have entertained a booglywoogly in church as well. more than one in fact
and then, consider the different personalities owning it and how the experience might differentiate from pet to pet
also, I am pretty much convinced I have entertained a booglywoogly in church as well. more than one in fact
-
1
- Show all
Humorous post, but interesting point.
1.) Your experience of owning the pet provides no experience or clarity to the OTHER PERSON to whom you're speaking ABOUT it.
2.) If you want to communicate verbally to another person about a thing, then that person needs to understand your words.
3.) If you're asked to explain or define your words, and you cannot, then people would naturally presume you don't know what you're talking about.
Funny post btw.
: )
.
1.) Your experience of owning the pet provides no experience or clarity to the OTHER PERSON to whom you're speaking ABOUT it.
2.) If you want to communicate verbally to another person about a thing, then that person needs to understand your words.
3.) If you're asked to explain or define your words, and you cannot, then people would naturally presume you don't know what you're talking about.
Funny post btw.
: )
.
-
1
- Show all
N
1. well, those with like experience would certainly be able to compare notes and the liklihood of thousands testifying to the same experience (as any person with a pedigreed animal knows, they are bred to obtain specific traits that are passed on to following generations. note: inbreeding is greatly frowned upon as it often exaggerates the undesireable traits and in some cases results in limited intelligence leading to an exaggeration of traits which are actually wanted)
2. I see what you mean here. I think you are once again objecting to the wording of the op
3. or perhaps have patience to see a response properly developed in order to appreciate the comprehension or to determine if the original thought is warranted, specifically There is a reality in the life of the believer, in that many believers find it difficult to draw a distinction between experience, discernment and the revelation of God
enough from me tho
2. I see what you mean here. I think you are once again objecting to the wording of the op
3. or perhaps have patience to see a response properly developed in order to appreciate the comprehension or to determine if the original thought is warranted, specifically There is a reality in the life of the believer, in that many believers find it difficult to draw a distinction between experience, discernment and the revelation of God
enough from me tho
-
1
- Show all
May I ask you whether you read the response that was made to Nehemiah @ #17 ?
I can't say whether Nehemiah ' sort of conjectured' that I was implying a definition of truth. What I can say is that I considered agreeing with his post in an 'agreed' emoji but then decided to post @ #17 to explain a point of reason. I did wonder if you yourself would extract anything which would be useful to yourself from that post.
Your present emphatic post is so precise that in its own standing it exerts a cogent force that requires an equal force in reply, to simply demonstrate equitability and respect. AND that would graciously be by MY offering MY OWN definition of 'truth'. And what is more, that force must be met in an honesty that eludes simplicity when speaking to a man who is in the wilderness yet desires to invite other attendees to 'speak' else to possess their own words, when the only man present with him is speaking of Christ.
So if I now said that 'truth' is the Person of Christ in all of His preeminent cogency when He 'claims' that ALL power has been given to Him, and that arsing from that power He has the authority also to lay down His life of His own free will, and has the authority to take it back again, will you say that I have NOT answered your request? It was NOT by the hand of Nehemiah that his most 'worthless' inflections gained a momentary risk of my escape, it was by the hand of Nem @ #21.
Without qualification or caveat, ordinarily, to have been given ALL power can only mean that ALL power is given to Christ, as He is the one speaking, and yet without a witness or a proven qualification, His standing in that meaning, speaking to His disciples, is worthless. Unless John bears witness of Him as The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, how will the Father speaking from heaven be believed of His Son when He commands men to listen to Him? And right in that meaning this schismatic function which I am applying here, is revealed in its spiritual meaning. Some heard the voice of God and others the rumbling of unspecified thunder.
Should I go on in that manner and refuse to give you a definition of a necessarily neutered 'truth' or shall I speak of Christ on a Christian forum?
Should I give a lexical definition or perhaps a domain conception of the semantic properties of phonetic nuance - or else simply make a declaration and say, "Christ so spoke "I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life?
Or perhaps post a string of Scripture reference that speak to profound truth - yet in their expression may be lifeless and dead, as was the word of God a lifeless and dead thing in the hands of those Phaisees who came to test Him when they saw Christ with their own eyes and witnessed numbers of miracles and so much detail that the apostle John declares that if all the things which Christ spoke and did were written down their number of volumes would fill the entire world. And yet John also bore witness of that which He had seen, whom he had sought with his own hands (touched) and listened too.
That is what Nem narrated in that @ #21 post.
Shalom
I can't say whether Nehemiah ' sort of conjectured' that I was implying a definition of truth. What I can say is that I considered agreeing with his post in an 'agreed' emoji but then decided to post @ #17 to explain a point of reason. I did wonder if you yourself would extract anything which would be useful to yourself from that post.
Your present emphatic post is so precise that in its own standing it exerts a cogent force that requires an equal force in reply, to simply demonstrate equitability and respect. AND that would graciously be by MY offering MY OWN definition of 'truth'. And what is more, that force must be met in an honesty that eludes simplicity when speaking to a man who is in the wilderness yet desires to invite other attendees to 'speak' else to possess their own words, when the only man present with him is speaking of Christ.
So if I now said that 'truth' is the Person of Christ in all of His preeminent cogency when He 'claims' that ALL power has been given to Him, and that arsing from that power He has the authority also to lay down His life of His own free will, and has the authority to take it back again, will you say that I have NOT answered your request? It was NOT by the hand of Nehemiah that his most 'worthless' inflections gained a momentary risk of my escape, it was by the hand of Nem @ #21.
Without qualification or caveat, ordinarily, to have been given ALL power can only mean that ALL power is given to Christ, as He is the one speaking, and yet without a witness or a proven qualification, His standing in that meaning, speaking to His disciples, is worthless. Unless John bears witness of Him as The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, how will the Father speaking from heaven be believed of His Son when He commands men to listen to Him? And right in that meaning this schismatic function which I am applying here, is revealed in its spiritual meaning. Some heard the voice of God and others the rumbling of unspecified thunder.
Should I go on in that manner and refuse to give you a definition of a necessarily neutered 'truth' or shall I speak of Christ on a Christian forum?
Should I give a lexical definition or perhaps a domain conception of the semantic properties of phonetic nuance - or else simply make a declaration and say, "Christ so spoke "I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life?
Or perhaps post a string of Scripture reference that speak to profound truth - yet in their expression may be lifeless and dead, as was the word of God a lifeless and dead thing in the hands of those Phaisees who came to test Him when they saw Christ with their own eyes and witnessed numbers of miracles and so much detail that the apostle John declares that if all the things which Christ spoke and did were written down their number of volumes would fill the entire world. And yet John also bore witness of that which He had seen, whom he had sought with his own hands (touched) and listened too.
That is what Nem narrated in that @ #21 post.
Shalom
-
1
- Show all
I merely asked for a definition of the English word "truth."
You made claims about this word in your opening post, and I asked for a definition.
Very simple.
Several pages later we finally land here, with a rambling litany of verbosity, from which, if I use a pair of tweezers, I might just possibly extract some kind of definition.
Just for absolute clarity, it seems your definition of the English word "truth" is "Christ."
Is this correct?
Your definition of truth is Christ... that is your sole definition?
Christ?
Truth means Christ?
So anytime we use the word "truth", in English, we can merely replace it with the word "Christ"?
Your sole definition of truth, is that is means Christ?
Is that correct?
If not, then please give me a definition.
All I've wanted, this entire time, is for you to give me a clear definition of one simple English word.
Thank you.
.
You made claims about this word in your opening post, and I asked for a definition.
Very simple.
Several pages later we finally land here, with a rambling litany of verbosity, from which, if I use a pair of tweezers, I might just possibly extract some kind of definition.
Just for absolute clarity, it seems your definition of the English word "truth" is "Christ."
Is this correct?
Your definition of truth is Christ... that is your sole definition?
Christ?
Truth means Christ?
So anytime we use the word "truth", in English, we can merely replace it with the word "Christ"?
Your sole definition of truth, is that is means Christ?
Is that correct?
If not, then please give me a definition.
All I've wanted, this entire time, is for you to give me a clear definition of one simple English word.
Thank you.
.
-
1
- Show all
I exist within a world of violence and chaos that behind every action is spiritual warfare. I exist in a world where the realm of death of ending awaits behind every corner. I walk in the realm of Faith for I have witnessed these worlds and truths collide and have seen the confirmation given to us by God. What I see is not always what is being perceived. What I feel is not always fact understanding that excitement , the escape of tragedy, being shocked all present the same emotions. But when I am in the presence of God, I can tell I am more alive than at any other time in my life. When I am in the true presence of Evil I am more alert than at any other time in my life. God lives within me. And even though I may not physically see, audibly hear, emotionally feel, God Himself awakens me in all things. So I know when His presence is with me for I am comforted. I know when the Enemy is near me for my spiritual senses are quickened. I am able to discern my thoughts for I remember only God is able to hear them and every idle thought will not align to the Word of God.
As a follower of the Most High God, I am a test subject. God is creating in me the ability to walk not only in Faith, but in a mindset that is continually seeking Him. And as my life passes each day, each moment, every trial and victory, I have a good idea of what is coming my way. And my preparation is submitting to God. And when the situation presents itself, no matter what it may be, I say to God for trials that you are bringing me closer to You or in victories that You are rewarding me. But in all things I never stop going to God, giving Him Praise and seeking His guidance.
And yes, all of what I said is based off discovery and experience. From trying to understand in my own ability and producing the solution that I soon would learn was merely temporary. And that resulted in spending even longer periods of time overcoming the issue at hand. In one such situation, it was a 15 year period to overcome. 12 years of doing things according to how I understood them and 3 years of getting to a position of letting God settle it. After that, I do ask God if this is something I need to do on my own, because there are those times He wants us to solve them since He is aware of our spiritual growth. But generally, it's to give it to Him. And my Valley is quickly passed through and I find myself soon on the mountain top again.
Solomon said, he's seen it all and it was all nothing but vanity. As much Wisdom he was given, in the end it did nothing for him. It was the Wisdom to finally trust God that resulted in his happiness. I chose a long time ago not to be an "old man" before I figured this out. And now that I am what many would call mid life, and, if there's old age on the horizon awaiting me. It will be full of more pleasant and happier days because I learned when I was young enough so I could enjoy my life at the end. I learned to immediately go to God.
As a follower of the Most High God, I am a test subject. God is creating in me the ability to walk not only in Faith, but in a mindset that is continually seeking Him. And as my life passes each day, each moment, every trial and victory, I have a good idea of what is coming my way. And my preparation is submitting to God. And when the situation presents itself, no matter what it may be, I say to God for trials that you are bringing me closer to You or in victories that You are rewarding me. But in all things I never stop going to God, giving Him Praise and seeking His guidance.
And yes, all of what I said is based off discovery and experience. From trying to understand in my own ability and producing the solution that I soon would learn was merely temporary. And that resulted in spending even longer periods of time overcoming the issue at hand. In one such situation, it was a 15 year period to overcome. 12 years of doing things according to how I understood them and 3 years of getting to a position of letting God settle it. After that, I do ask God if this is something I need to do on my own, because there are those times He wants us to solve them since He is aware of our spiritual growth. But generally, it's to give it to Him. And my Valley is quickly passed through and I find myself soon on the mountain top again.
Solomon said, he's seen it all and it was all nothing but vanity. As much Wisdom he was given, in the end it did nothing for him. It was the Wisdom to finally trust God that resulted in his happiness. I chose a long time ago not to be an "old man" before I figured this out. And now that I am what many would call mid life, and, if there's old age on the horizon awaiting me. It will be full of more pleasant and happier days because I learned when I was young enough so I could enjoy my life at the end. I learned to immediately go to God.
There is no definition of the English word 'truth' unless you express a lexical or dictionary source.
If not then we must express all derivations and where will they be taken from?
The term is not absent of meaning in any derivation.
However, if that rambling verbosity of mine is that 'truth' means 'Christ'. expressed as an iterative function of reason - a replacement with 'Christ' then let that stand for my definition but let's not lose sight that the place holder IS Christ.
How does that sound?
If not then we must express all derivations and where will they be taken from?
The term is not absent of meaning in any derivation.
However, if that rambling verbosity of mine is that 'truth' means 'Christ'. expressed as an iterative function of reason - a replacement with 'Christ' then let that stand for my definition but let's not lose sight that the place holder IS Christ.
How does that sound?
I believe your post is full of detail and if it were parsed to outline cognate meanings so as to define what you have said, and expressly in derivation to having experienced spiritual reality yourself as you describe it, then I feel certain that would be unwelcome to you.
The reason I say that is because you say that when you are in the presence of God, you are more alive than at any other time in your life.
I can understand your saying it.
Nevertheless your post is very detailed and grounded in a sense of 'colliding worlds' which you 'see' and yet not with your eyes, and so you hear yet not with your ears and you touch yet not with your own hands. Eve was tempted by a lie, but she had to see and reason to the acquisition of knowledge by sight and by touch with her own body to acquire the knowledge of both good and evil.
The reason I say that is because you say that when you are in the presence of God, you are more alive than at any other time in your life.
I can understand your saying it.
Nevertheless your post is very detailed and grounded in a sense of 'colliding worlds' which you 'see' and yet not with your eyes, and so you hear yet not with your ears and you touch yet not with your own hands. Eve was tempted by a lie, but she had to see and reason to the acquisition of knowledge by sight and by touch with her own body to acquire the knowledge of both good and evil.
But, they did give Paul a handshake of fellowship, after the went to them, for that, yet did not care if he got it. And he did not go to them at first, it took 14 years, before he went there for the handshake of fellowship. Yes, they did refute him afterwords, going there into Galatia, to spy out the freedom, Paul preached.
Paul even rebuked Peter, who removed himself from the gentiles, the eating with them, once he heard the others were coming there.
Later on Peter wrote about Paul as hard to understand, yet knows truth 2 Peter
2 Peter 3:14-18
Living Bible
14 Dear friends, while you are waiting for these things to happen and for him to come, try hard to live without sinning; and be at peace with everyone so that he will be pleased with you when he returns.
15-16 And remember why he is waiting. He is giving us time to get his message of salvation out to others. Our wise and beloved brother Paul has talked about these same things in many of his letters. Some of his comments are not easy to understand, and there are people who are deliberately stupid, and always demand some unusual interpretation—they have twisted his letters around to mean something quite different from what he meant, just as they do the other parts of the Scripture—and the result is disaster for them.
17 I am warning you ahead of time, dear brothers, so that you can watch out and not be carried away by the mistakes of these wicked men, lest you yourselves become mixed up too. 18 But grow in spiritual strength and become better acquainted with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be all glory and splendid honor, both now and forevermore. Good-bye.
Paul even rebuked Peter, who removed himself from the gentiles, the eating with them, once he heard the others were coming there.
Later on Peter wrote about Paul as hard to understand, yet knows truth 2 Peter
2 Peter 3:14-18
Living Bible
14 Dear friends, while you are waiting for these things to happen and for him to come, try hard to live without sinning; and be at peace with everyone so that he will be pleased with you when he returns.
15-16 And remember why he is waiting. He is giving us time to get his message of salvation out to others. Our wise and beloved brother Paul has talked about these same things in many of his letters. Some of his comments are not easy to understand, and there are people who are deliberately stupid, and always demand some unusual interpretation—they have twisted his letters around to mean something quite different from what he meant, just as they do the other parts of the Scripture—and the result is disaster for them.
17 I am warning you ahead of time, dear brothers, so that you can watch out and not be carried away by the mistakes of these wicked men, lest you yourselves become mixed up too. 18 But grow in spiritual strength and become better acquainted with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be all glory and splendid honor, both now and forevermore. Good-bye.
Thanks for that comment.
If I take from YOUR comment its direction on an assumption that MY own words, being - 'what I wrote, unfortunately, was NOT intended as an apologetic; rather, an 'assertion' based on the direction of Scripture' (taken from YOUR quoted text of MY words) THEN what you have implied is that my assertion to making a claim ' based on the direction of Scripture - is flawed because Paul didn't go to Jerusalem in the third year of his ministry - but his 14th year in Ministry.
That chronology along the lines of this one (below) is contrary to the mainstay of biblical scholarship.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/paul/timeline.cfm
For myself when I post something and find that almost every shred of spiritual gravity and sense of what is being told is resisted and directed internally to undermining the critical importance of how spiritual ministry MUST conform to Biblical Chronology even when asserting a function arsing out of that claimed Biblical chronology, then I can either step aside and let that effect continue unchallenged or else decide whether I can even challenge it.
It is a speculation to say that Paul didn't give a 'proverbial fig' whether the apostles in Jerusalem gave him the right hand of fellowship - in fact it breaks the Scripture because the Word of God is of a prophetic character (always either implied or else expressly stated) and so if we are to claim to teaching anything that conforms to a true spiritual claim ourselves utilising a claimed Scriptural scaffold on which to hang spiritual claims, then our efforts are likely to collapse even as the scaffold collapses if it is not properly fixed before hanging the malefactor.
I suppose that my saying this is simply a way to be clear before moving on with this OP.
Let those who believe that endlessly effecting 'the reasonable actor' is beneficial in the end - know that in the end the outcome will be utter ruin and decay. Whatever we believe we have received in Christ when we received Christ by faith - also SEE that its value is largely hidden and awaits for a future advent of Christ when our entire conduct in words and in deeds will be judged - UNLESS we judge ourselves NOW and confess our sins NOW when we do sin - and amend our ways.
The character of what I am intending in this OP is likely out of reach - unless a stark fact of how Christians function when presented with undoubted spiritual realities of an apostle (out of season) arriving in Jerusalem to visit the apostles in that city and was met by fear and disbelief by Christians in that city. - BEFORE that handshake occurred. The three year visitation or else a claimed fourteen year visit by Paul to Jerusalem does matter, though the scholastic fact of both claims may not agree, there cannot in truth be a contraction because if not 'three years to the handshake' then a reckless sense of Paul in Jerusalem after fourteen years in the faith and three years less in apostolic confirmation by the laying on of hands for anointing in Damascus. Paul was in essence newly anointed by to the apostolic ministry in the same meaning that Peter was called by Christ and confirmed after the resurrection three years later, so Paul was accepted by Peter in Jerusalem three years after he was called by Christ to the apostolic office on the Damascus Road.
If I take from YOUR comment its direction on an assumption that MY own words, being - 'what I wrote, unfortunately, was NOT intended as an apologetic; rather, an 'assertion' based on the direction of Scripture' (taken from YOUR quoted text of MY words) THEN what you have implied is that my assertion to making a claim ' based on the direction of Scripture - is flawed because Paul didn't go to Jerusalem in the third year of his ministry - but his 14th year in Ministry.
That chronology along the lines of this one (below) is contrary to the mainstay of biblical scholarship.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/paul/timeline.cfm
For myself when I post something and find that almost every shred of spiritual gravity and sense of what is being told is resisted and directed internally to undermining the critical importance of how spiritual ministry MUST conform to Biblical Chronology even when asserting a function arsing out of that claimed Biblical chronology, then I can either step aside and let that effect continue unchallenged or else decide whether I can even challenge it.
It is a speculation to say that Paul didn't give a 'proverbial fig' whether the apostles in Jerusalem gave him the right hand of fellowship - in fact it breaks the Scripture because the Word of God is of a prophetic character (always either implied or else expressly stated) and so if we are to claim to teaching anything that conforms to a true spiritual claim ourselves utilising a claimed Scriptural scaffold on which to hang spiritual claims, then our efforts are likely to collapse even as the scaffold collapses if it is not properly fixed before hanging the malefactor.
I suppose that my saying this is simply a way to be clear before moving on with this OP.
Let those who believe that endlessly effecting 'the reasonable actor' is beneficial in the end - know that in the end the outcome will be utter ruin and decay. Whatever we believe we have received in Christ when we received Christ by faith - also SEE that its value is largely hidden and awaits for a future advent of Christ when our entire conduct in words and in deeds will be judged - UNLESS we judge ourselves NOW and confess our sins NOW when we do sin - and amend our ways.
The character of what I am intending in this OP is likely out of reach - unless a stark fact of how Christians function when presented with undoubted spiritual realities of an apostle (out of season) arriving in Jerusalem to visit the apostles in that city and was met by fear and disbelief by Christians in that city. - BEFORE that handshake occurred. The three year visitation or else a claimed fourteen year visit by Paul to Jerusalem does matter, though the scholastic fact of both claims may not agree, there cannot in truth be a contraction because if not 'three years to the handshake' then a reckless sense of Paul in Jerusalem after fourteen years in the faith and three years less in apostolic confirmation by the laying on of hands for anointing in Damascus. Paul was in essence newly anointed by to the apostolic ministry in the same meaning that Peter was called by Christ and confirmed after the resurrection three years later, so Paul was accepted by Peter in Jerusalem three years after he was called by Christ to the apostolic office on the Damascus Road.
Okay, Thanks, not always easy to follow along with others intentions, I was just replying Scripture from Galatians 1-3 about Paul stating he did not go to flesh to get awarded from them.
Yes Paul is an Apostle of the Living risen Christ. Us, the people in need of new life, which is not in the death of Christ, it is in the risen Life that Father gives free of charge to us all that beleive without selfish motives. And see to not get caught in up under Law to do=, the tis done for us by Son first.
Yes Paul is an Apostle of the Living risen Christ. Us, the people in need of new life, which is not in the death of Christ, it is in the risen Life that Father gives free of charge to us all that beleive without selfish motives. And see to not get caught in up under Law to do=, the tis done for us by Son first.
-
1
- Show all
First and foremost, I am describing human life [with and without God]. Every human has a continual pattern of valleys and mountaintops. No one is exempt and I have never met anyone who has escaped valleys in their lives. Even the life of Jesus was demonstrated by this fact. And some valleys we make on our own but God still allows them. And other valleys God has placed. And when we look back each valley has done 2 things (for the Believer) educated us and more importantly brought us closer to placing our trust in God. So it brings us closer to God.
Secondly, it's the mountaintops that can trip us up. That's typically when the spiritual battle heats up. Yes, we overcame in the valley but the mountaintop we tend to relax and become unguarded. But wisdom, which we gain by experience more so than by watching others or even adhering to the Holy Spirit trains us to keep our ears and eyes opened to God. We become trainable and more reliant on God. And what I have discovered most is that I worship God and Praise Him more in the valley and on the mountain top I use the Gifts of the Spirit to battle the enemy. Don't be confused because I use my Gifts in both the valley and mountain top but in different ways.
This I have gained through wisdom.
Secondly, it's the mountaintops that can trip us up. That's typically when the spiritual battle heats up. Yes, we overcame in the valley but the mountaintop we tend to relax and become unguarded. But wisdom, which we gain by experience more so than by watching others or even adhering to the Holy Spirit trains us to keep our ears and eyes opened to God. We become trainable and more reliant on God. And what I have discovered most is that I worship God and Praise Him more in the valley and on the mountain top I use the Gifts of the Spirit to battle the enemy. Don't be confused because I use my Gifts in both the valley and mountain top but in different ways.
This I have gained through wisdom.
-
1
- Show all
N
I think this op is unnecessarily complicated and just vague enough to engender responses that indicate an understanding not intended by the author
More than half the people in this forum avoid it simply because they do not think or speak in that manner
I dunno, but if you want to discuss something, maybe direct yourself to your audience/responders or keep disagreeing with their posts
and they will argue their point to the death as this forum illustrates
I don't deny the premise...it just might be too complicated for folks who do not seem able to discuss salvation without offering several varieties of unusal perceptions.
More than half the people in this forum avoid it simply because they do not think or speak in that manner
I dunno, but if you want to discuss something, maybe direct yourself to your audience/responders or keep disagreeing with their posts
and they will argue their point to the death as this forum illustrates
I don't deny the premise...it just might be too complicated for folks who do not seem able to discuss salvation without offering several varieties of unusal perceptions.
-
1
- Show all
Believe God in risen Son, receive the truth of what is done by Son from God Father of Son. Then over time in troubles we all have or go through trying to just beleive God, that God, just loves us. We one day get to see it as Martin Luther saw it, "I see the Light" as my eldest brother saw it and said to my eldest sister
"God just loves me". I see this now too after a long walk off a short pier first also.
It is not a matter of any work to get in or be in or even to keep in. It is Belief Col 1:21-23, read from verse 1 please, then see Chapter 2 for you too. Amazing as they, those that got him killed, see him alive as if never died, what is up with that?
"God just loves me". I see this now too after a long walk off a short pier first also.
It is not a matter of any work to get in or be in or even to keep in. It is Belief Col 1:21-23, read from verse 1 please, then see Chapter 2 for you too. Amazing as they, those that got him killed, see him alive as if never died, what is up with that?