- This topic is empty.
- Posts
GB,
Spiritual interpretations?
Or carnal minded assumptions?If you want spiritual ones let scripture speak and give us witnessing verses as proofs.
“My words are spirit and truth”
Nick…..were did Newton say something different then Jesus, is it wise to condemn some one even when you don't understand exactly what the were saying if Newton is not speaking What Jesus said then explain where and what is wrong with what He or anyone else says. But to cast dispersions on someone Faith is not very Godly epically if they disagree with what you think brother
love and peace to you and yours………………………gene
Nick…..As Newton studied further He began to realize that Satan us no a person , But to say He denied the Spiritual influence of evil existing is false. He grew to understand as Jodi and I have also that Satan is symbolic of of whats evil There is no created being call SATAN. Genesis describes the Serpent as the devil and we all know it's symbolic there is no literal serpent going around deceiving people. If you could only understand God represents good and evil is an adversary of Good.
These two intellects are at odds with each other.They are apposing forces or ADVERSARIAL POSITIONS. They can and do exist in all to one degree or another and must be mastered. remember what God told Cain when he rejected his offering, if you do good you will be accepted, but if not (SIN) CROUCHES at your door and you must master it. Sin Hear is Pictured as a Lion ready to pounce or stocking a persons life and it must be mastered, and doesn't it say Satan goes around like a roaring lion seeing who it can destroy. These are all allegories not real beings and they are allegories of what ever is a ADVERSARY of GOD .
If you look very closely at what Jesus said, it will become apparent that a any person can be a SATAN or a DEVIL, even Peter or the Pharisees or you or me can also, and possible are at times. Human mature is certainly describe as a serpent or worm and is devilish in nature you know that. “for the Carnal mind is deceitful above all things”, you see you don't need someone else, Human beings are deceivers themselves. Nick if you would study more of what Newton wrote i believe you might come to see what he was talking about.
love and peace tto you and yours…………….gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 27 2008,03:49) EP………What make you think they were mans thoughts, Man thoughts are fine as long as they guided by the SPIRIT and are backed up with the scriptures, But TRINITARIAN TEACHINGS Have NO SCRIPTURAL BACKING ONLY PAGAN ORIGINS. Thats why trinitarians have to give these long explanations to try to give understandings to their Pagan teachings. And when did I say I did not care about Mans opinions, as long as they are scriptural i see no Problem with them. It's you trinitarians who care more about mans opinions as WJ “600 Scholars” as well as your own Scholars you quote all the time to try to shore up your Trinitarian belief , when simply a few scriptures clarify the whole thing. So if i were you I wouldn't cast stones.
Peace to you………….gene
not casting stones gene… just pointing out inconsistency and hypocrisy…… I have no problem quoting other men of God, the Holy Spirit has given the church teachers after all, however many here at this forum have repeatedly been hypocrites in this area, and this thread just happens to be the most blatant example of the hypocrisy present here…. of course it is fine to refer to a man as “brilliant” when he agrees with your theology eg anti-non-trinitarian…. but when I or someone else tries to refer someone to a teacher of God's word who DOES believe in the Trinity, well then, that's just “man's tradition” or “man's philosophy”!!! LOL….. you guys are just too much sometimes… I get such a kick out of you!! LOL!!! whew….. thanks for the laugh…. needed that….. and whats more, not only is it apparently ok to refer to a “man's teaching” when he agrees with your preconceived philosophy, I say again, because if he DOES agree with you, well then “of course” he is guided by the “Spirit” LOL… what a bunch of rot…. Go ahead and agree or disagree, but cloaking it all with the “Christianese” that says he is “spiritual” when he agrees with you, that he is guided by the Spirit when he agrees with you…. and if someone does not agree with you then they are merely “spouting man's traditions” and “speculations”…. is all just a cheap cop out, its the easy way out.And whats possibly even worse is the blindness people have that whenever they themselves post, they are simply posting “man's thoughts” on the Scriptures… there isn't a single one of us who is infallible, we are men after all, sinners each and every one. So if it is ok for a “Gene” or a “t8” or a “Nick” to post THEIR interpretations, theological reflections, speculations, etc…. then it MUST ALSO be perfectly fine to post the reflections of John Calvin, John Newton, John Murray, John Brown of Haddington, John Brown of Wamphrey, John Gerstner, John Piper, John Stott, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Newton…… sorry…. just got on a roll listing some of my favorite theologians who happened to be all named “John” LOL…. anyways, I hope you see the point… it is hypocritical and inconsistent to complain about someone referring to, listing as a resource, paraphrasing another man's thoughts, etc. on the Scripture and God just because they are Trinitarian, while at the same time extolling another man's intellect, teachings, and spirituality just because he is non-anti-trinitarian. If it is fine for the anti-trinitarian to refer to the “greatness” of a Issac Newton, then it is fair for a Trinitarian to refer to the greatness of John Owen or Jonathan Edwards, who far superseded Newton on theological matters.
blessings,
KenQuote (Gene Balthrop @ July 16 2008,04:10) To all….Isaac Newton ….did more on the bible then he did on all his scientific research and applied the same diligence to the bible as he dis his scientific and mathematics and finding to this day not been disprovable. Einstein Said he thought he was the most brilliant man who ever lived . He kept his chastity all his life He never married or fornicated and was fluent in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Language and could both read and write them. He was a intense studier of scripture and disagree with many of the “orthodox” teachings of his day but keep most his understandings to himself and a few friends for fear of church persecutions.
When he died His things were sold at auction and a Jewish man brought a trunk of his that had a lot of His private papers , the man family had them for years and his decedents moved to Israel and when they died their heirs gave them to the Hebrew university, where they have been given public access and many are being published now on His religious findings.
I personally agree with many of His findings epically of the trinity and demonic spirits and the devil and Satan. He also did much on bible prophesy.
Very good reading His God given logic is impeccable He gives meaning to a lot of scriptures.
IMO…….gene
there is nothing whatsoever especially “spiritual” about “never marrying”… this is a Roman Catholic teaching, is overly ascetic and the bible says that for a man to find a wife is a good thing…. marriage was an institution started by God after all, and if He would not have done this, then you would not be here to proclaim the nonsense that “never marrying” was somehow supposedly an especially spiritual activity. He also had a deep hatred for Hooke, a rival (and it seems very petty) scholar at Cambridge, while also being described as having a tyrannical control of the Royal Society and the lives of younger scientists. It turns out that Newton was just a sinner like everyone else ehh? It just so happens that his sinful nature tainted his theological view, sadly enough. Pity he did not have the works of Jonathan Edwards to straighten him out on the trinity, I mean, the bible alone should have, but given his scientific mind, perhaps he would have respected a likewise brilliant scientific mind like Edwards, who did believe that the Trinity was a reasonable doctrine, because it was and is profoundly biblical as well. In any case, being 'brilliant” or “scientific” does not seem to really be all that important in whether or not a person ends up believing the Trinity is true or not, for there are many brilliant people who do believe that the Trinity is biblical, and many who do not.blessings,
KenEP………we (all) have our opinions on matters, you have your and you use your “scholars” to back up you opinions as well, each one thinks He is right and in some points he might be and in others he might not be each must be convinced in his or her own mind, I could also quote from Michal Servetus , whom John Calvin Had burned at the stake because of his paper on the (Errors of the Trinity) and there are many others who disagree with your trinitarian view myself, Newton, and Servetus, are only a few. There are many even on this site who disagree with it. How is it that if we were to quote from someone that would make use a hypocrite. When have I ever said that quoting from some one makes you a hypocrite, I certainly do not recall saying that , I think that Just you assumptions talking.
The reason I even used Newton was to show His views on Satan and demons and devils issue is because i agree with him on that subject and his views on the Trinity i also agree with and the definition of the word GOD, are a few others. The point of contention with you was that your quotations were so long and drug out, to prove, to me is a simple point that Just a few scriptures proves without a long presentation, How can the truth about something so simple take so many word to explain, that was my point, it was not that you quoted from others. Truth is Truth no matter where or who it comes from. I have agreed with many of your posts i just don't agree with ypour views on the trinity EP , we all have our own views on subject matter here, and each one thinks their right and that alright in time we will (ALL) come to understand the complete truth brother.
A hypocrite is someone who tell you to do something that he does not do, or not to do something he does do, and if I am guilty of that then please produce the evidence and i will concede to it, but if not you shouldn't falsely accuse others.
O and by the way we still are flying our space flights using Newtons mathematics and the refractory telescope is also still used (Hubbal) i believe is one also. And also the fact He studied scripture for over 72 years of His 85 year life. Even Einstein said He was probably the most brilliant man he knew of. Do i put Him above Jesus (NO) i don't, Nick likes to make it appear that way but that Nick way changing subject matter, if He can't disprove some one he begins to attack there motives or character. but i still love Him and You, i have learned from both of you.
I mean this as no offense brother. peace to you and yours…………………….gene
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 07 2008,02:49) GB,
Why try to learn from Newton when the words of Jesus are spirit and life?
Nick……the only thing i cam say to you is (HOLY Spirit) is (HOLY Spirit) no matter (WHO) speaks from it. Their words will ring true.love and peace to you and yours……………gene
Of course your saying that my quotations are “long and drug out” is merely a subjective opinion. Newton's writings on theology are, by some estimates, over a million words. But, since you agree with him on numerous issues, I guess his writing is succinct and to the point!! lol…. Look, here is the thing…. I learned a long time ago that I cannot try to post in lengths that are pleasing to every one, because there is no pleasing some people, and most definitely there is no pleasing all the people all of the time!!!! In fact, if you are quoting teachers/scholars that disagree with a person's preciously held theology, ANY quotation contradicting their views would be “too long and drug out”!!
Again, if it was ok for Newton to write out his thoughts on theological matters, even if these run to a million words, then, comparatively speaking, I have done no wrong. The flip side of this issue (the length of posts) is that if I would post too little, then people would possibly scoff and say that the point has not been proven at all, not enough information has been given, is what they would say…. or something like “well you only quoted one person, and that doesn't prove anything”… so you can see the quandry…. everyone has something to complain about when it comes to how many words are used…. some complain that there are too few, others that it is not enough.
All I can do, then, is to follow my own conscience, and when I am researching an issue, I post my research on the issue, posting some of what I have personally read that proves my point via the quotations of other authors I have read, that way people can see why it is I believe as I do. They do not have to agree, they do not have to disagree. They just have to know that I put some time and effort into understanding the issues. In this way I respect them and their position, because I have not disagreed with something that is not their position, or created a straw man base don a caricature of what they believe. That is exactly what Nick does all the time.
And btw, he did that with you and your approval of Newton. There is nothing you have written (that I have seen) to suggest that you elevate Newton over Jesus, but then, that is Nick, isn't it? He introduces red herrings and straw men and a greater rater than anyone I have ever seen. Because it is easier to dismiss a caricature of someone's beliefs rather than what they do actually believe, si9mply because it is easier… ti doesn't take any work at understanding the other person at all. You just snip out a little portion of what someone has written, pour your own meaning into the phrase you have copied and pasted, and then voila! you think you have refuted their position, when in reality you have done nothing of the sort.
of course this raises the issue that many have accused me of the same things Nick is here accusing you of…. namely elevating other people's teachings over that of Jesus or the Scriptures, just because I cite them or approve of a given quotation I have given. Just my citing them, or copying and pasting them for others convenience, if they choose to read them, does not mean that I elevate man's teachings, traditions, speculations, philosophy, or any other term you can think of, over that of Jesus and the Scriptures. This is a double standard (hypocrisy) that happens here at this forum repeatedly, and primarily the sort of thing I was complaining about when I originally wrote my above post.
While you may not have been as direct as Nick or some others in criticizing the appealing to teachers/scholars to prove a certain point, I believe you do so indirectly by saying things like
Quote Just a few scriptures proves without a long presentation You see, even as you read your post above, you will not find one single scripture listed to support your views. And according to some, your post would be too lengthy and laborious to go through. So I might say to you, using your own “logic”: “why didn't you just post a few Scriptures and not give this long presentation?”
The fact is, none of us communicates with one another by only swapping scriptures with one another. Its the meaning of the scriptures that we are trying to get at. And so we have people like Nick for example, though there are others as well…. who write post after post of questions and statements without listing one single scripture at all, and then have the audacity to complain that others do not post scriptures in support of their view!! Of course he does post some scripture, but he also posts his interpretations of those scriptures, at least he does when he is being most responsible. But then again, the problem is that it seems perfectly legitimate for him to post his interpretations of the Scriptures, and then yet, for some really really strange reason, if others post their understanding of the scriptures, well then that is “just man's interpretation”!! This is my objection, not just about Nick, but about anyone who thinks along these same lines. He (and others) list scriptures at times and thinks that the interpretation of those scriptures is somehow self evident, and that if you end up denying his interpretation– of the scriptures, you have, in his view, denied the scriptures themselves, when all that is in fact being denied is his interpretation of the Scriptures, and not… I repeat NOT the Scriptures themselves. But the point is, we all must be involved in interpretation, and that takes explanation, and if you are dealing with a complicated subject, an infinite God for example 😉 then the explanations can get a bit lengthy, well at least according to some people's definition of “lengthy” or “complicated”, which may amount to describing the persons level of laziness more than anything else!! LOL….
We live in a day and age of non-readers, who want their 'truth” in microsecond sound bytes and do not want to have to read more than a line or 2 or they get impatient at anything longer. That is sad to be sure, but the point is, truth is both very simple and very complicated. If this were not the case, then you would not have people who say that all they need is the scriptures, and yet you see that they have hundreds upon hundreds of posts, many of which do not contain scripture at all!!!
At any rate, I appreciate that you disagree with me on the trinity, that's fine, I just don't want you to disagree with me for flimsy or irrational reasons. The length of my posts is not reason enough to disagree with me. Nor is the fact that I often quote others in support of my views. That is the bottom line here.
Lastly (thank God right!!) I never disagreed with Newton's contributions to science. I am just saying that there is no necessary correlation between his brilliance in science and math to his brilliance in theology. Jonathan Edwards was a brilliant scientist who believed in the Trinity, but I don't think you are going to change your views on the Trinity just because of this fact. Nor will I change my views on the Trinity just because a brilliant scientist and mathematician named Issac Newton disagreed with the doctrine of the Trinity.
And I mean no offense to you in anything at all I write. I am just trying to hear and to be heard.
blessings,
kenQuote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 07 2008,04:35) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 07 2008,02:49) GB,
Why try to learn from Newton when the words of Jesus are spirit and life?
Nick……the only thing i cam say to you is (HOLY Spirit) is (HOLY Spirit) no matter (WHO) speaks from it. Their words will ring true.love and peace to you and yours……………gene
GB,
What evidence can you show that Newton was influenced by the Holy Spirit?Miracles or resurrections perhaps?
Saying clever things is not evidence
NIck…….what evidence do we have you are influenced by the HOLY SPIRIT, you disagree with what many scriptures say. What miracles or resurrections you have performed. So are you saying what Jesus said is not evidence , He spoke quite cleverly didn't He. So clever most people could not figure out what he meant. You have no knowledge of Newton spiritual relationship with Jesus or GOD, To cast dispersions on Him is a SIN you need to repent of. I don't recall saying Newton was or was not influenced by the Holy Spirit Nick. I simply said He wrote a lot of Articles about the Devil and demons and was against the Doctrine of the Trinity and was able to speak and write, Greek , Hebrew languages, and spent much of His life involved in Bible subjects. Also i said i agreed with some of His writings on some subjects. Thats all and you moved this to a point of i am saying He is greater the Jesus in my life, which is pure foolishness and totally untrue. If you will recall I brought up Newton's ideas of a devil and demons and said they agree with Jodi and I on the subject we were talking about and you turned it to all this other stuff you continue to say. I believe He was a true Christian and i think i have that right to, Just as much as you believe he wasn't a True Christian. Your welcome to your opinion and I have my opinion.
Lets leave Newton out of this if it offends you Nick OK. peace Brother………….gene
GB,
You hold up this odd man as some sort of prophet so please show us the miracle work of God done through him.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 07 2008,05:34) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 07 2008,04:35) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 07 2008,02:49) GB,
Why try to learn from Newton when the words of Jesus are spirit and life?
Nick……the only thing i cam say to you is (HOLY Spirit) is (HOLY Spirit) no matter (WHO) speaks from it. Their words will ring true.love and peace to you and yours……………gene
GB,
What evidence can you show that Newton was influenced by the Holy Spirit?Miracles or resurrections perhaps?
Saying clever things is not evidence
you must not be influenced by the Holy Spirit either then…. lol…
since you have not done any miracles of revelation… so who is leading you N, if not the Holy Spirit?blessings,
kenQuote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 07 2008,14:10) GB,
You hold up this odd man as some sort of prophet so please show us the miracle work of God done through him.
where did Gene ever say Newton was a prophet?…. specifically now N….. where? or is this yet another one of your straw men?blessings,
kenNick………Show me one time i said Newton was a Prophet of God. How come you who uphold yourself as a Christian can't even get one thing i said about Newton right. In what way do i hold Him up as a prophet I nor Newton ever said He was a prophet as far as i know. Whats your real problem Nick. Are you jealous of Newton or something, He was Just another Man like we are, maybe more intelligent then us but so are a lot of people. You seem to be possessed by Him, He seems to be more of a God problem to you then to me by far. I ask you to just don't talk about him if it bothers you. You have not right to Judge him or anyone else as far as that goes.
love and peace Nick……………………….gene
Nick……when did E say that he knows more then Jesus does. I think your beginning to lose it Brother. I think its You who thinks he knows more then anyone else Not Newton, Me , or E. Come on Nick settle down. Were all Just giving opinions Here.
love to you and yours…………………..gene
GB,
He was teaching us about his new idea of trinity and we asked him why Jesus did not teach about it and did this mean he knew more than Jesus and his answer was “APPARENTLY”That seems to leave the obvious meaning as YES and either he is boasting dangerously or he has a particularly risky sense of humour.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
