S
Servant19
Guest
Ok, can you tell me as precisely and concisely as you can what that means please?
- Status
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Only God is Divine, depending on how you’re using the word “Divine,” that is.
Man was made in the image of God, so that’s about as close as we can get
to “Divine.” As sinners, our basic design is after the image of God, but still
sin makes us ALL corrupt caricatures of God.
Recall what Jesus said to the rich man who called him “Good Teacher.”
“Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone,” said Jesus
(Mark 10:17-18 Luke 18:18-19. Now Jesus did not say that he was not
God, mind you. The man did not know that Jesus was God and Jesus
was aware of this, so he made the point that NO ONE except God is
Good. YOU, however, seem to take the position that Jesus is not the
same being as God, but is a creation, who with Muhammad, Krishna,
Zoroaster, etc are good along side God. That is made evident by how
you defend Abraham, like he was sinless.
So was Jesus wrong? Or “BIBLE BAD” again?
S
Servant19
Guest
So repeatedly starting threads talking about the falsity of other religions is not an agenda??
Are you being just with your thoughts here Jharek?
The experiential transformation of souls by the Holy Spirit is JUST AS valid when experienced by the Muslim, the Baha’i and the Catholic. Calling it a falsity is also an agenda…
.
Are you being just with your thoughts here Jharek?
The experiential transformation of souls by the Holy Spirit is JUST AS valid when experienced by the Muslim, the Baha’i and the Catholic. Calling it a falsity is also an agenda…
.
S
Servant19
Guest
You’ve just twisted Jesus’s Words to give your agenda weight here…
I’m not buying it brother
.
S
Servant19
Guest
It’s my honour
Thankyou…I pray for God to bring me lower…
.
Thankyou…I pray for God to bring me lower…
.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Myself no, I kinda like you guys, Not that I agree but that’s not of issue. This conversation in general is more difficult than most in a couple ways. One is a modern interpretation of a religion which we would have to acknowledge history can be represented in an inherently biased way.
Second and most problematic is the scholastic approach to Catholicism is geared exactly to address this issue, yet we here are restricted by the medium of the internet forum, 6000 words, which may go right over anothers head or be completely ignored. So its a more complex frustrating situation. For example I’m reminded of a past conversation of Gods essence thus the existence of God. This is difficult enough with Christians, let alone others, thus then to the Trinity. Its complex speaking in terms of essence/energies let alone from the scholastic approach.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Remember what Malachi said of God, “For I am the LORD, I change
not” (Malachi 3:6), so God’s view of certain actions does not change.
Now as for the subordinate and silent deal, it must be read in context. The King James Version does something
horrible to the subordinate part, saying that it is expected of women to submit to their husbands, no matter what.
What the text actually says in better translations is that the woman’s subordination to her husband is expected
because of the husband’s obligation to love and treat her well.
So if her husband is mean and abusive, she is not bound by Scripture to submit to him. Also, Marriage is supposed
to mirror the relationship of the Father and the Son (not saying they’re wedded), for just as Christ submitted to the
Father, the wife ought to submit to her husband, but that is only of course if the husband is mirroring the love of the
Father to the Son. Look this up else where, for I feel that I didn’t explain that perfectly.
As for the silent part, according to God’s design, women have no ecclesiastical position
in the Church, like to be priests and so forth, and THAT is what Paul was talking about.
Women are, like men, to preach the Gospel, example being Mary Magdalene, who was
a wonderful evangelist.
Context is important and I think you’re the one who doesn’t under-
stand the time and social circumstance of either Abraham or Paul.
Revisiting Abraham, it doesn’t matter what the time and social circumstances were like,
sin is sin, and Abraham’s act with Hagar obviously had a bad outcome, as it was not in
accord with God’s perfect will.
S
Servant19
Guest
This is incorrect. Again, it is an extreme example of something said in an attempt to falsify an entire religion.
Unfair and unjust…
.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
I did not twist the words of Jesus. How do you think I did?You’ve just twisted Jesus’s Words to give your agenda weight here…
I’m not buying it brother
S
Servant19
Guest
Yes, and Baha’u’llah states emphatically:
Why do you think therefore the Baha’i Faith advocates relativism?
Because it is social relativism that is advocated, not divine relativism.
Again, are women to be subordinate to men in the Catholic Church today?
.
S
Servant19
Guest
Because when Jesus says that “No-one is good but God alone”, thats what He means, otherwise He would say “No-one is good but Me alone”
Anything else is “twisting” and reading more into it than what it says…
Doesn’t matter, my position is corrupt anyway
.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Wrong again. Abraham did something wrong. It is wrong today, so it was wrong
in Abraham’s time even. Not because of man’s laws, but because of God’s Laws.
If the husband is good to her, YES!
Remember, don’t just ignore this, the wife’s submission is predicated
on the husband’s love and kindness to her, because Marriage is sup-
posed to be a mirror the Trinity.
IF the husband SUCKS, the wife would not be out of line to not submit.
S
Servant19
Guest
Whats your source for this emphatic statement of fact, please?
S
Servant19
Guest
Where does it say that?? I never read that “if the husband is a good boy, the wife should be subordinate”
Besides, why not the other way around?
Women are the globes peacemakers, let them run the house for a while…
Do you know what submission means?
None of these “conditions” are mentioned in the Bible, from memory (I will go check now, intact)
.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
If the context of Jesus’ words there STOPPED there, you might have a point, you couldBecause when Jesus says that “No-one is good but God alone”, thats what He means, otherwise He would say “No-one is good but Me alone”
Anything else is “twisting” and reading more into it than what it says…
Doesn’t matter, my position is corrupt anyway
construe it that way, but Jesus made no extreme effort to point out to everybody that he
is God-incarnate. John 1:1, John 17:5, Philippians 2, and so many more parts affirm the
DEITY of Jesus, but you ignore that, and isolate that dialogue between Jesus & the rich
man, and lay the Scriptures to your destruction as Peter warns us about.
Also, if Jesus had said “Me alone,”
he would have excluded the Father
& Holy Spirit who are also God.
You’re position is corrupt, yes, as you said first, but
I don’t want you there, I want you with the Lord. :sad_yes:
S
Servant19
Guest
So, you too have an agenda…
See Jharek…Judas, he’s the one you should be pointing fingers at… LOL
Thankyou brother Judas, I honour and appreciate your genuine love and heartfelt care for my spiritual welfare!
I would like to reciprocate and mirror that love and tenderness back to you also
.
S
Servant19
Guest
This is not related to the point I am making brother. I am not questioning if Jesus is God for the purposes of this discussion, I am questioning if the human representative of God is all good.If the context of Jesus’ words there STOPPED there, you might have a point, you could
construe it that way, but Jesus made no extreme effort to point out to everybody that he
is God-incarnate. John 1:1, John 17:5, Philippians 2, and so many more parts affirm the
DEITY of Jesus, but you ignore that, and isolate that dialogue between Jesus & the rich
man, and lay the Scriptures to your destruction as Peter warns us about.
Also, if Jesus had said “Me alone,”
he would have excluded the Father
& Holy Spirit who are also God.
You’re position is corrupt, yes, as you said first, but
I don’t want you there, I want you with the Lord. :sad_yes:
Jesus, the Son said He should not be called good, when compared to the Entity known as the Trinity…
.
S
Servant19
Guest
Thankyou for the warm gesture Gary
I do agree the forum is a difficult arena for such dialogue, but we try
(often, as in my case, failing miserably
).
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Because you may read the Bible, but you don’t READ the Bible.
I have a good idea of what it SHOULD mean,
you might define it as something different.
READ . . .
Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is
the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ,
so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave
himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might pres-
ent the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates
his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this
reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a
great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself,
and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
– (Ephesians 5:21-33)
You see? No lovey-dovey, no respecty-ecty.
S
Servant19
Guest
This is the concern. When one READS the Bible, all sorts of conclusions result.
Which denomination of Christianity should I join if I choose to be a Christian?
Everyone READS the Bible.
God said thats enough, lets UNITE in Truth…
Only God READS the Bible correctly…
Yes I read it fully before. Nowhere does it say that if your husband is not loving that wives should not be submissive.
Paul sets a high standard for husbands to achieve in moral excellence and righteousness, yet, never gives the woman a “buy-out clause”
The relativism exists in the CREATION of a “buy-out clause” which you interpreted and offered earlier.
In reality there is no “buy-out clause”
.
- Status