Mike 2

From Wikipedia Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina, meaning "teaching", "instruction" or "doctrine") is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or in a belief system. The etymological Greek analogue is "catechism".[1] Sooooo, What is sound doctrine? How do we determine or know if it needs correction?

Why do you suppose God wants to glorify Himself? It can't be for a selfish reason........ Did He create us solely so that we would glorify Him or is there more to it than that?

Northern Ontario....hmph need I say more..... hittin the slopes.yeeeehaw

So this is what God instructed Nathan the prophet to say to David about Uriah's death 2Sa 12:9 "'Why did you despise what the LORD has promised by doing what is detestable in his sight? "'You struck down Uriah the Hittite with a battle sword. "'You took his wife to be your own. "'You killed him with the sword of the Ammonite army. These bible verses make pretty clear the weapon David chose to use and as it comes to this story are very easy to find and verify. I am beginning to think you are taking some teaching from something extra-biblical and notholding those teachings thouroghly up against the bible as a principle source of truth.

Yes it is about a sin offering. And murder is not accepted as atonement. Yes I agree, its about a sin offering and more so the drinking of blood was intentionally reserved since the animal was killed for the skin given to Adam and Eve up until Jesus said to drink His blood and eat His flesh...to take his life (spiritual ) into us. As you said the verse is about something other than murder, so I don't think it should be included in the topic of murder simply because that verse doesn't apply.

How does that relate to the verse you were using below.....trying to understand what you are getting at.... "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:22, KJV) what is the tzadik? In regards to your staement and the verse I quoted that you are responded to These are Yeshua's (Jesus) own words. When he says every sin will be forgiven I think there isn't much opportunity for misunderstanding that...... is there? To contradict that would require a very clear biblical staement. Can you show me something difinitive that I can consider? There is a particular meaning to this verse. I'm not sure what your interpretation of it is. Would you be able to take a moment and explain your thoughts on it and what it means to you?

You missed the hilited part shall be in danger.... ...that is to say you're walking a slippery slope towards turning completely away if you don't change your attitude

I don't know where that came from or which God's forgiveness they were talking about but the God of the bible says this.... Mat 12:31 So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

Heb 7:27 He has no need to offer sacrifices every day like high priests do, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he sacrificed himself. For all sin for all people

hmmmm the "Church of the Holey Dough"

For me it's how God is working in ways and through people we write off. No one in the Jewish faith would have looked at her as acceptable because she wasn't "one of us" yet there is God showing us that He is at work where we least expect it. King David's ancestor?!?!

I can't help but wonder what kind of influence the book would have if it were in the cannon. Would we be distracted with what was written in it. What really are the different areas of heaven?..... what about the studies of the different angels and what they did here on earth?.... In the whole scheme of things obviously God himself did not inspire it to be in the cannon, if He wanted it in there it would have been. I think that has to be foremost in our thinking.

I have come to understand that "God" means different things to different people. Saying 'the God of the bible" seems to narrow it done for Christian discussions. Something I noticed in the first part of this discussion that has led us to different definitions of God is something that happens a lot, not just in this forum, but any time we talk about God..... .....we forget that when we talk of biblical things we are talking about 2 realities that we live at the same time... ......a physical reality and a spiritual reality. A person can be physically a Jew but spiritually a Christian. Just as a person can be physically a Gentile but spiritually a Jew. The bible uses the physical to describe the spiritual right from the get go, not just in the parables. We often get confused with this and it is important that we learn to distinguish the two and clarify which we are talking about when there is confusion. The following verses are a good example Rom 2:28 For a person is not a Jew because of his appearance, nor is circumcision something just external and physical. Rom 2:29 No, a person is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, brought about by the Spirit, not by a written law. Eph 2:11 So then, remember that at one time you gentiles by birth were called "the uncircumcised" by those who called themselves "the circumcised." They underwent physical circumcision done by human hands. Eph 2:12 At that time you were without the Messiah, excluded from citizenship in Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise. You had no hope and were in the world without God.

Let's add this into the mix.... Joh_14:6 Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Joh_18:37 Pilate asked him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. I was born for this, and I came into the world for this: to testify to the truth. Everyone who is committed to the truth listens to my voice." Joh_18:38 Pilate asked him, "What is 'truth'?"

Sorry that was my misquote

Well said Hazard, I just had a thought.......what if God had just left it at' thou shall not kill'. Ultimately we are not to kill but there must be a provision for our weak and sinful state. Hence the order from God "Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, BY MAN shall HIS BLOOD BE SHED (Gen. 9:5-6) ( ....this was a very rudimentary and simple order given before the Mosaic Laws and it might be argued that it is not part of the following covenant to never flood the earth again)... that aside..... If there is no law, there is no sin. If there is no consequence there is no reason to follow the law, particularly in the context of an unspiritual secular life.

Some might say that Jesus is saying not to use a weapon / not to defend yourself based on the following. Mat 26:52 Jesus told him, "Put your sword back in its place! Everyone who uses a sword will be killed by a sword. But how does that weight out against this........ Rom 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live in peace with all people. Rom 12:19 Do not take revenge, dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath. For it is written, "Vengeance belongs to me. I will pay them back, declares the Lord." Rom 12:20 But "if your enemy is hungry, feed him. For if he is thirsty, give him a drink. If you do this, you will pile burning coals on his head." Rom 12:21 Do not be conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good. Is it possible to wield a weapon to stop an altercation but not go one step further and get revenge, to not kill someone that has just killed 6 people near and dear to you? Is there a middle ground. I think the default is towards peace but if I have the ability to save the life of someone and won't because my religious belief tells me not to, should they die because of my religious belief? What does that say to them about my God? Now if I suffer for them, that's another story. Keep in mind , in the garden it was Jesus, the victim, telling his defender, ' no I choose the path of suffering'. Peter did not impose that on Jesus. Once the killing starts...how do we stop it? Definitely an ethical discussion.

I too have often thought that we are assuming there was evident wrath in what Jesus was doing. The very boldness to do what he did would be evidence of his zeal. I, like everyone else, automatically go to the vision of an angry face like I have seen in so many re-enactments of this, but as I said, I often wonder if he did it with some sense of calmness and purpose letting the act portray the power of the message. Something I also wonder about is what is the significance of this happening at the beginning and the end of his ministry. Pretty sure God had a reason for that. That may be a part of and an interesting factor in this discussion.

I'm considering that the Holy Spirit is not a possession of the Father but is separate and working in unity with Simply because the process of creation is from the Fathers will, through the Holy Spirit to the Son. Jesus asks the Father to now share His will through the Holy Spirit to us as new sons (and daughters) who then do His will on earth.....(or should)

You've given me some reasoning to consider. I'll do that in view of John 14:26, 16: 14-15 Thanks

Hmmm, Although John 14:26 seems to indicate the Holy Spirit coming from the Father. John 15:26 seems to be rather strongly stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, so much so that I would have to see something that definitely says "proceeds from the Son" as well There's got to be something strong that would compel the writers of the creeds to make the statement they have.

At the very beginning God told us we were made in His image (Gen. 1:27). Why in the world would He then make it so hard for us to understand how that is so? All the evidence of how we are made in his image must be in the first 27 verses of the bible! Creating from a thought and into the physical is something we all do. There is a process and there are good and bad choices. I don't think it is Him but rather, it is us that have made this difficult. It is our willingness not to transgress the rules that we have had made up for so long because.....well, look at the people of Jesus time that believed all the religious rules, because they didn't want to be rejected by the theologians of the time. Catch is thousands of those rules were created.... by men, trying to better explain the scriptures. And they confused the heck out of it! Jesus was the only one that would stand up and state the obvious....they got it wrong. And, yep, they killed him I'm still having a problem with the use of the word "persons" particularly in the way it is understood today compared to it's original created meaning for the purpose of defining the trinity. I would think that a definition of the trinity should create an understanding of God and not all the confusion that we see around what was determined 2000 years ago and was to be accepted under penalty of persecution or even death. Rather than think outside the man made box to find a better understanding we just say....it's a mystery. We are talking about us being made in His image, I have to believe God wants us to understand how that is, in fact, I believe having an understanding of that not only helps us understand how and why we sin, but how God helps us change our ways. When we refer to the Father as God, the Son as God or the Holy Spirit as God it is making it clear that we are not talking about the Father, Son or Holy Spirit of anything else but God. The 3 of them together make up God. God cannot be whole, cannot be completely God if one of them is missing. The Holy Spirit and the Father by themselves are not the full representation, they fully represent God and nothing else. No different than a piece of apple pie is apple pie but is not the pie (whole) because the pie can only exist if it is together as one. As a result, any time we refer to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, we are referring to God, we are referring to.........Him (God). That is why we read the Holy Spirit is "Him" Only the Son is the full representation of God and that is only seen in the physical in whichever way He chooses. Whenever God has manifest in the past, whether as a burning bush, a finger on the wall, a talking donkey, pillar of fire etc. we see the full deity at work, the Fathers will, through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.2:11 In the same way, no one can know the thoughts of God except God's Spirit) to the Son who creates in the physical. Many of us call that Jesus working in the past, but the reality is it's the Word, the Son creating out of the Fathers will in heaven. Being born out of God into the physical. All 3 are working together. In regards to Jesus we see the Word made flesh (John 1:14), the full deity (Col. 2:9) "(KJV) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." I often wonder about the reference in the man made creeds to the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son and how that was determined. Hazard, do you have any other references that would support the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son. The ones you have given, in context seem to indicate that the Son is asking the Father to send the Holy Spirit. I'd really like to get a different perspective from mine that although the Holy Spirit is like a "go between" from God He originates only from the Father (the thoughts of God) to His Son(s).

It could. Jesus used parables to speak of spiritual things . Mat 13:10 Then the disciples came and asked Jesus, "Why do you speak to people in parables?" Mat 13:11 He answered them, "You have been given knowledge about the secrets of the kingdom from heaven, but it hasn't been given to them, If you look at the first part of the parable (Mat.25:14) it is introducing another "is like" following a number of others. The context of the parable actually starts in Chapter 24 when Jesus started talking about the end times and his second coming. He then gave physical examples/ parables that were familiar to the listeners to explain spiritual things. Keep in mind that this concept of living in the Kingdom of Heaven was a new way of thinking at the time. Jesus is talking about the Kingdom and the work we are called to do while he is away from the earth. I think R.Hartono expressed it pretty well I get a sense from what Jesus was saying in the parable, in part, that it is not so much that God is mad at the servant but that Jesus was stressing the point that if we don't use what we have been given, God will find someone else to do it and we will end up miserable when see we have missed out on the benefits of working in the Kingdom. I've likened the "putting away on deposit to gain interest" to , "if I can't completely use this gift yet, then I should be entrusting that "talent" to a mentor to help it grow in me and learn how to use it" Keep in mind the context of this parable as it is followed by the parable of the sheep and the goats being separated. Ultimately, if the servant is burying / hiding the talent, was he really ever a servant?

I would like to tag on to this because what JohnD is saying is the closest to getting it. Where we get confused is thinking that "God" is some separate entity from the Father, Holy Spirit and Son. Together the Father, Holy Spirit and Son make up God. Sorta like a tire, an engine and a body make up a car....the tire is not all of the car and neither is the body or the engine. A car is the sum of its parts and one part all by itself is not a car. There is no such thing as a car if you only have a tire...or a door...or an engine. In the same way we cannot have the WHOLE image of God without all 3 of them coming together. The bible talks plenty about parts in a body and how a body can't function without it's parts. Did it ever occur to you that that basis comes from God using himself as the pattern? The Son does nothing without first seeing the Father do it (John 5-19)....how does he know what to do? ..1Cor 2 .."no one can know the thoughts of God except God's Spirit" . In short, the Son cannot know what the Fathers will is unless it is through the Holy Spirit. What we are seeing is how God functions ....and wouldn't you know it, that's how we function as well (except our spirit is flawed). Everything originates from the Father through the Holy Spirit to the Son ....the Father has to will it first before the Son can possibly know what His will is, and when it comes to his will on earth as it is in heaven, the Father now works through the Holy Spirit in us so that now we as sons of God do his will on earth if we listen to His new Spirit in us rather than our old one. Before anyone starts into repeating the man made mantra " the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God" think about the interaction of them. By themselves we cannot experience God. If we are experiencing the Son then we will in that also have the Holy Spirit and the Father in the mix. If we are experiencing the Holy Spirit directly one on one with our spirit then we are experiencing through the Holy Spirit directly with the Father. (as a son) Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Holy Spirit is not God, what I am saying is the Holy Spirit is a part of God...without the thoughts of God (the Father) the Holy Spirit has nothing to share. The Son of God (as Jesus) quite plainly said that about himself. Joh 5:19 Jesus told them, "Truly, I tell all of you with certainty, the Son can do nothing on his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing, ...he sees what the Father (the thoughts of God) is doing through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:11). Soooo....the Father decides what to do, the Holy Spirit perfectly knows what that is and perfectly shares it with the Son (the Word) who then works it out perfectly into the physical world. This is the process of something spiritual creating something out into the physical. Again, this is how we create as well !! I know I'm going to have a drink, but I don't know what or when. I will finally decide in my soul (deep thoughts) it is time to have a drink and the part of me that decides (my spirit) how to create in the world will direct my body to choose a case of beer or a glass of water. Only my deep thoughts know the exact time.

Maybe the Original Poster should be encouraged to keep the thread on topic