"Take my word for it, or his, or this book"

[Zzyzx]

Most of us probably know better than to believe everything said or written. If someone tells us they can fly by flapping their arms, our response is likely disbelief and a request that they ‘show me’. If they refuse to demonstrate or fail in flapping, we regard their claim as false. Agreed?

If a person claims to have come back to life after being dead for days none of us are likely to believe the claim unless it could be verified. Right?

If someone writes that fifty years ago a long-dead person came back to life and flew away into the sky, what would be your / our likely reaction? Would we be convinced if they say ‘many saw him’?

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

[OneJack]

[Replying to Real world jack in post #40]

How in the world can it be possible that I can demonstrate beyond any doubt what is being communicated in the passage, while you cannot, when you claim to have direct communication to Jesus, while I do not?

You can't be certain, at this moment right now, that you’ve demonstrated, beyond any doubt, what Paul was communicating in his passage about the phrase ‘we take every thought captive;’ wittingly or unwittingly, you’re portraying yourself here as if you were Paul yet you’ve not heard anything from him yet, much more so with the forever living Christ Jesus. How could you be so brazen with your mere assumption that you seem to believe in yourself that you can convince us (participants in this forum) easily, without any reservation, to favor your side over Tam’s? Don’t you see that you and Tam are just both taking each other for a ‘ride’ in a peanut nutshell?

[tam]

Peace again,

I am not responding to all of that text, but I will try and pick out the pertinent points and if anyone wants something specific clarified, then please point it out.

[Replying to tam in post #37]

Yeah, I think we are pretty much demonstrating that you are not receiving any sort of direct communication with Jesus. I mean, the simplest thing to do would be to give your interpretation of what Paul meant when he said, "we take every thought captive." We all know you have an interpretation,

I do not have an interpretation. I think his words are straightforward (and do not include mind control), but I have never felt the need to wonder (or ask) if they mean more that.

Paul was addressing the Corinthians, and when he said to the Corinthians, "we take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ" this was a warning to the Corinthians, that if they (the Corinthians) did not straighten up their act, they (the Corinthians) would discover that Paul & company (those traveling with Paul) had the ability to "take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ."

As you can clearly see, this passage has nothing whatsoever to do with Paul commanding us to "take every thought captive" and it does not tell us how in the world we could possibly "take every thought captive", nor does it tell us we even have the ability to "take every thought captive" (which btw the way we do not have such an ability). So then, what we can see from this passage alone is the fact that Paul & company possessed gifts and abilities which the Christians in Corinth did not possess, along with the fact that Paul & company possessed authority which the Christians in Corinth did not possess. In other words, it is clear from this passage that Paul & company, along with the rest of the Apostles possessed certain gifts, abilities, and authority which the average Christian did not possess. Certainly, those who have the ability, along with the authority to take captive the thoughts of others, and make the thoughts of others obedient to Christ, has some sort of direct communication with Jesus.

(Right or wrong) I never thought this verse was about a command for us to take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ (though that is certainly a goal).

However, you seem to be suggesting something more, something closer to mind control - rather than Paul (and friends) simply reminding, rebuking, sharing truth, correcting, 'tearing down arguments and presumptions' as he said just a verse earlier... and therefore, 'making every thought obedient to Christ'.

Is some kind of mind control what you are suggesting?

How in the world can it be possible that I can demonstrate beyond any doubt what is being communicated in the passage, while you cannot, when you claim to have direct communication to Jesus, while I do not?

If you are suggesting 'mind control' then you have not demonstrated anything other than your personal interpretation (and you certainly haven't demonstrated it beyond any doubt.)

For me - it might be the questions I have about how you know the things you claim to know; why you rely upon your own - or other men's - interpretations/deceitful hearts?

Does it not seem strange to you that your question is always ever, how others claim to know, and you never seem to question as to how you claim to know?

The things I have learned from my Lord - I learned from Him.

When I think I know something, myself, I often come to realize that I have NO idea. My Lord has corrected my thinking on numerous occasions.

Moreover, if there are those who are opposed to you, you accuse them of "relying on their own interpretation," while you can insist that you are not relying on your own interpretation, but are rather relying upon your direct communication with Jesus.

Not because they are opposed to me... but because they - YOU - claim that Christ does not speak. If Christ does not speak, then where are they/you getting their/your interpretations if not from themselves/yourself? And since you brought up the fact that man's heart is deceitful, if a man is relying upon his own interpretation, does that not include his 'deceitful' heart?

Throughout this post, you talk about YOUR interpretation, YOU know the truth, YOU will give me the correct interpretation. How are you now suggesting that I am accusing you of relying upon your own interpretation rather than simply stating a fact that you, YOURSELF, declare?

Then, you seem to want to accuse others of relying on the interpretation of others, as if your interpretations are your own, in no reliance whatsoever upon those who may have had any sort of influence upon you,

I do not interpret. If I do think something about a passage - but have not received confirmation or truth on the matter from my Lord - then I accept that my thinking can be wrong.

But as for being influenced by others - yes, most of us are influenced by others. It is something I had to (most of us have to) OVERCOME, because there is so much information out there about God, about Christ, from men and religion and media - and certainly some of that got to me. So when God drew me to His Son, and His Son taught me to listen to Him and remain in Him, I had to tear it all down (everything I thought I knew or believed) - straight down to cornerstone (Christ) and let Him build me up on Him. The Rock. The firm foundation.

Next, it is always, ever others who have to be the ones with the "deceitful hearts" because that could never be you, since you are hearing directly from Jesus.

I never once made the claim that it is only ever others who have the deceitful hearts. But it sounds like one very good reason NOT to rely upon oneself (myself included) and to instead rely upon Christ - the Truth (and He does not have a deceitful heart.)

And why - if scripture is enough - do you accept and promote things that are neither supported by what is written and even contradict it?

My friend, I have just demonstrated to you from the scripture that the Apostles, and prophets had different gifts, abilities, and authority over the average Christian,

All you did was share your interpretation of one line in the bible. Is 'mind control' ever mentioned as a gift of the spirit? Do Christ and God force us to think a certain way, do they force us to be obedient?

Of course not. If they do not, then what in the world makes you think the apostles could or even should do such a thing?

We - as Christians - are supposed to SERVE one another. Not enslave one another. Not control one another. We are meant to be FREE, are we not? Did Christ not come to FREE the captives? And are we not - as Christians - supposed to follow the example that Christ set?

"and one of the reasons these folks had this sort of authority over the average Christian is because of their direct communication with Jesus.

Your understanding seems to contradict this (and many other verses like it):

Sitting down, [Jesus] called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the last of all and the servant of all.”

Again, allow me to stress the fact that it is abundantly clear from the scripture that all Christians did not possess the same direct communication with Jesus, and had to rely upon others who had such an ability

John disagrees with your interpretation:

As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

The reason I support the things I share with what is written is so that you and others can see for yourselves what is written. Because although we are called to walk by faith, most people walk by sight until (and unless) they learn to walk by faith... faith, which is heard.

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

All you are doing is to continue to demonstrate one who does not even possess the ability to interpret the revealed Word to us all correctly. I mean, did you even bother to look and see what came before this small little verse you are insisting backs your idea that you are receiving this direct communication? Let's go back the verses just before this.

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent?

I did read those verses. But I also read 'and hearing by the Word of God.'

The Word of God is Christ.

A - You know that is not how faith works, right?

.

So now, when we come to a place where we cannot explain what it is we believe, nor why we believe as we do, we appeal to faith, and in this way, we do not have to defend what it is we are claiming, since we can insist it must be taken by faith.

When was faith ever not an issue?

But I have never once said that you need to take my word on faith. Nor would I even want you to do something like that. Who would want that kind of pressure? If people are looking to me, they will be disappointed. I can make mistakes. I am not the Truth. I am just one person pointing TO the Truth (to Christ.)

But he must ask in faith, without doubting, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. James 1:6-7.

How exactly does the passage above back your claim that you are hearing directly from Jesus?

It was not meant to back that claim (Jaheshua though, not "Jesus".) It was meant to demonstrate that your 'test' did not come from faith; you were not even looking for the truth of the matter.

B - Do you even realize what it is you are asking me to do:

Yeah, I think I am asking you to tell us what you believe Paul meant when he said, "we take every thought captive" and you are attempting to suggest that if you were to give us an interpretation of what Paul had in mind, this would somehow be working against what you refer to as faith. How you can make this make sense in your mind is beyond me? However, it is too late now since I have given you the correct interpretation,

So it is terrible for me to give credit to my Lord if I share something I have received from Him...

But it is all good and well for you to state outright that YOU are the one giving the correct interpretation. That's all you, your own wisdom, your own knowledge.

which sort of demonstrates one who cannot even engage in talking about the revealed Word to us all, in fear that this will demonstrate they do not even possess the ability to interpret correctly what has been revealed to us all, who wants to convince us that they have a direct line to Jesus,

I am not trying to convince you of anything about me. Why should anyone care at all about me?

I came on this thread to respond to Z. I don't expect Z to take my word for anything (and I think from past conversations that Z knows I don't expect that). He asked the question from the OP, and I just wanted to remind him that some of us are not 'taking others' word for it'. Just food for thought - whether he considers it or rejects it, or maybe somewhere down the road it comes to his mind.

Since you first responded to me, I have been sharing with you (or the reader if it is not for you), that Christ does speak and that we can listen to His voice; His sheep DO listen to His voice. I can share my testimony, and I can back that up with what is written for anyone who needs to see it. The rest is not up to me.

“If You are the Son of God,” he said, “throw Yourself down. For it is written: ‘He will command His angels concerning You, and they will lift You up in their hands, so that You will not strike Your foot against a stone.’ ”

[Jesus] replied “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

How in the world did I know you were going to refer to "testing God?"

Because that is what you were asking me to do?

How in the world can you imagine that my asking you to tell us what you believe Paul meant by "we take every thought captive" would be testing God,

Because you were not asking me to tell you what I believe Paul meant.

I was not insisting that you give us what Jesus revealed to you directly.

Were you not?

From your previous posts:

I noticed that you avoided giving any sort of interpretation of what Paul was saying in the passage, since this would have been the easiest thing to do, seeing as how Jesus communicates with you. In other words, if you are so in tune with Jesus, then you should have a full understanding of the whole of scripture,

If, however, you cannot give us the correct interpretation, then this would indeed demonstrate you do not have a direct line to Jesus,

It's pretty simple. Jesus would not want someone He has found so special as to have direct communication to Him have a faulty view of scripture. The passage is, "we take every thought captive." What do you and Jesus say is the meaning?

I am not even sure you know what faith is. You used a passage earlier which states, "we walk by faith and not by sight." Do you have any idea who Paul was referring to when he said, "we walk by faith and not by sight?" I can tell you for certain, he was not referring to us as Christians, and it is absolutely clear this is the case by simply reading the passage. Paul is addressing the Corinthians, and he is defending himself, and those traveling with him from the Corinthians, and he tells the Corinthians, "We (meaning Paul and those traveling with him) walk by faith, and not by sight. So then, when Paul says, "we walk by faith and not by sight" he is not referring to us as Christians. Rather, he is referring to himself, those traveling with him, and the other Apostles.

Were the apostles traveling with him when he said this?

Just because he is talking about his group does not mean he is saying the Corinthians can't (or shouldn't) be walking by faith. Are you suggesting that he is telling the Corinthians that they should be walking by sight, and not faith?

As for this distinction that you are making - two classes of Christians I suppose - there is no such thing. One group of Christians does not have authority over another group of Christians (Christ said that we are to serve one another, that the one who wanted to be greatest must be least). One group might be more mature in their faith, and assisting/serving others out of love for them and for Christ - but the hope is that these younger ones grow and mature in Christ as well.

Christ also said,

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

If Christ commanded the apostles to wash one another's feet, then that is what they were to teach disciples to do. If Christ commanded the apostles to walk by faith, then that is what they were to teach disciples to do.

And (as the spirit has just reminded me of),

Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.

Imitate their faith.

The author of Hebrews is straight out saying to the people he is writing to to imitate the faith of those who have gone before them. If they were listening to Christ, then so should the rest. If they were walking by faith, then so should the rest.

You see, you want to include yourself when Paul says, "we walk by faith and not by sight" when you were clearly not included, but I wonder if you include yourself in the "we" when Paul talks about the beatings, imprisonments, riots, sleepless nights, and hunger?" Continuing on Paul says in chapter 6, "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians." Do you see that? I did not even have to place the word Corinthians in there this time because Paul supplied it. Paul goes on,

Just because Paul is writing a letter to the Corinthians and speaking of himself (and those traveling with him) doesn't mean that the Corinthians weren't meant to walk by faith. See above regarding 'imitate their faith'.

It doesn't even mean that Paul is drawing a line between himself and the Corinthians. There were other factions out there preaching a different gospel. Remember? The circumcision group?

If you want to know the truth of this matter, then you should take the matter to Christ and ask Him.

I have demonstrated that I know the truth of the matter, and I do not have direct communication with Jesus.

Well then I guess you need no one other than yourself to know the truth of the matter.

I, however, need Christ.

I am just a witness to Christ - I can only point to Him.

Where exactly do you point, when you claim to be pointing to Jesus?

Not to a 'where'. Rather to a 'whom'.

Well let's clear this up as well: of course *I* can have an incorrect view on something written. This would prove nothing more than that *I* have an incorrect view on something written (perhaps I did not wait on my Lord and decided to rely upon myself or other men for understanding; perhaps I added my own 'spin' to His words based on my own bias or desire. I try not to do these things - I know it is of great importance to share 'just so' - but no man is without sin, and we can all make mistakes.)

And perhaps, as we have demonstrated in that you have been incorrect when placing yourself in scripture where you do not belong, that you have misunderstood the passages which convince you that you hear from Jesus directly.

As I said in my post (concerning Jaheshua),

I know this is true - not because I am relying upon 'my view' of scripture - but because I know His voice (He is my Shepherd.)


Peace again to you and the reader,
servant to the household of God and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #0]

You can't be certain, at this moment right now, that you’ve demonstrated, beyond any doubt, what Paul was communicating in his passage about the phrase ‘we take every thought captive

I certainly can, and in just a moment I am going to make you certain as well and there will be no doubt about it. However, before we do that, you seem to be saying that we cannot be certain about what we read in scripture. I will agree there are certain passages which may be unclear, but I would say that most of the scripture has a pretty clear meaning. Again, you seem to be saying that we cannot be certain about the meaning in scripture, but for some strange reason you do not seem to have trouble coming to the correct meaning while you are here on this site most every day. But for some strange reason we cannot be certain about what the authors contained in the Bible have to say. Moreover, it is a fact that you would not have known a thing in the world about Jesus, in fact you would have never known the name Jesus, nor would you have known about his crucifixion, death, or resurrection had it not been for the Bible.

At any rate, let's get to it, as I demonstrate to you that even you can be certain concerning Paul's meaning when he said, "we take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ." Paul begins in verse 1 of chapter 10 in 2 Corinthians,

Now I, Paul, myself urge you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ

Okay, so Paul is making a plea here, and who is he making this plea too? Well, that would be the Corinthians, since this is who the letter is addressed to. Paul then goes on to say,

I who am meek when face to face with you, but bold toward you when absent!

Okay, what does Paul mean here? Well, if we take a look at verse 10 we can see exactly what Paul is saying above.

because some say, “His letters are weighty and forceful, but his physical presence is weak and his speech is of no account.

You see, back in verse 1 Paul is letting the Corinthians know that he has heard what some in the Church are saying about him behind his back when he is not there with them, and they are questioning Paul's authority over them. In other words, there were some in the Corinthian Church who were saying that Paul was mild and meek when he was present with them, but when he was away, he would write these weighty letters as if he had some sort of authority. Okay, in verse 2 Paul goes on to say this,

now I ask that when I am present I may not have to be bold with the confidence that (I expect) I will dare to use against some who consider us to be behaving according to human standards.

Okay, here is where Paul begins to start the warning to the Corinthians. It is clear Paul is referring to some in the Corinthian Church whom he may have to deal with on his return if things do not change. Now let's take a look at several verses at a time,

For though we (Paul & company) live as human beings, we (Paul & company) do not wage war according to human standards, for the weapons of our (Paul & company) warfare are not human weapons but are made powerful by God for tearing down strongholds. We (Paul & company) tear down arguments and every arrogant obstacle that is raised up against the knowledge of God, and we (Paul & company) take every thought captive to make it obey Christ. We (Paul & company) are also ready to punish every act of disobedience, whenever your (Corinthians) obedience is complete.

And there it is, plain as the nose on your face, and there is no doubt about it. Paul is clearly giving the Corinthians a warning, and when it says "we take every thought captive" this was a warning, and I can assure you this would be exactly how the Corinthians would have taken it, because there would be no other way to take it other than a warning. In fact, in verse 8 Paul actually refers to the authority he has over the Corinthians,

For if I boast somewhat more about our authority that the Lord gave us for building you up and not for tearing you down, I will not be ashamed of doing so.

In other words, Paul is acknowledging his authority over the Corinthians, but he is saying I would rather use such authority to "build you up" rather than to "tear you down." So, you see, you are now certain of what Paul meant when he said, "we take every thought captive" and the reason why I know you have to be certain now is because there is no other way in which to make this passage make sense. If you think there is another way to make this, make any sort of sense, the floor is now yours. I highly doubt you take the offer though.

I mean, it is so easy that even an elementary student could read the passage and understand what is being said. You see, Tammy is accusing me of leaning on my own understanding, and or relying upon my own interpretation, but as you can clearly see, one does not have to have some sort of divine interpretation here since an elementary student could understand what is being said. The interpretation I am giving makes perfect sense of the passage, and there is no other interpretation which would make sense, but I will be more than happy for you to give us another interpretation which you believe can make sense of the passage.

wittingly or unwittingly, you’re portraying yourself here as if you were Paul

Well, no! Paul authored a letter, and he fully expected the Corinthians to understand the letter, and they would not have to portray themselves as Paul to be certain of what Paul meant, and we all can read the letter, understanding the letter was addressed to the Corinthians, and we would not have to portray ourselves as Paul to be certain about what he meant. I mean, you are insisting that we cannot really be certain about what is contained in the Bible, because if we claim to be certain then we are portraying ourselves as the author. Meanwhile, and again, you would have known nothing at all about Jesus had it not been for the Bible.

yet you’ve not heard anything from him yet

No, because unlike some folks, I do not hear voices in my head, and if I did, I hope my wife will seek me out some help. However, I do have eyes, and I am able to read, and I do have a brain, which I will assume God wants me to use, and I tend to understand what most folks are communicating through their writing. But to be clear, I am not bragging about my ability to understand what Paul meant by "we take every thought captive" because there would be nothing to brag about since an elementary student would not have any trouble understanding what Paul was communicating.

much more so with the forever living Christ Jesus.

Are you suggesting that I must have some sort of communication with Jesus in order to be certain about what Paul is saying when he says, "we take every thought captive?" I'm telling you that you do not need a divine revelation in order to know what is being communicated. It ain't that complicated!

How could you be so brazen with your mere assumption that you seem to believe in yourself

GOOD GRIEF! I do not have to have any sort of confidence in myself in the least to understand what Paul is saying when he says, "we take every thought captive." If it is so simple an elementary student could understand it, how in the world can I be placing confidence in myself? You have the interpretation I have given, and the ball is now in your court to supply us with another interpretation which could possibly make sense of the passage, and it is my guess we will not hear this alternative interpretation because there is none.

that you can convince us (participants in this forum) easily, without any reservation, to favor your side over Tam’s

My friend, as far as I can see, Tam is not disagreeing with the interpretation I have given concerning Paul saying, "we take every thought captive." What I was saying I can convince you of is the meaning Paul had in mind to the Corinthians when he said, "we take every thought captive."

I mean, you start this post arguing over my interpretation of Paul, and Tam as far as I can tell is not disagreeing with the interpretation I have given, and the only thing I have said that I could convince anyone of is the meaning Paul had when he said, "we take every thought captive."

Don’t you see that you and Tam are just both taking each other for a ‘ride’ in a peanut nutshell?

I can tell you that I have an average ability to read and understand things, and it only takes an average ability to understand what Paul was communicating, but I have to admit, I have absolutely no idea what a "ride in a peanut nutshell" would mean. But again, I can tell you this, the only thing I argued that I could convince anyone of, was what Paul meant when he said, "we take every thought captive."

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #0]

Okay, let's take one thing at a time in order to not get bogged down.

I do not have an interpretation.

Well, isn't that convenient for you? You are more than happy to share with us your interpretation of many other passages of scripture (although I have demonstrated error in these interpretations of yours, such as "we walk by faith and not by sight" which we will get to later in the conversation). However, I understand quite well why you are avoiding giving us your interpretation of "we take every thought captive." All you are doing is the demonstrate one who has very little knowledge of what is contained in the Bible. I mean, you might know what it says, but you are demonstrating a complete lack of ability to interpret what it means. And here is the question you need to answer, where did you get these faulty interpretations? You cannot possibly say you received them directly from Jesus. So then, this has to mean that you got these faulty interpretations by listening to others, or you have relied upon your own wisdom, which is exactly what you are accusing me of.

As just one example, you had no idea about the fact that when Paul penned the words, "we walk by faith and not by sight" he only had himself and those traveling with him in mind as he wrote these words, and this can be easily demonstrated. When you come to realize I am correct, you then go on to insist that certainly we as Christians are to walk by faith and not by sight and then go on to talk about how we are to imitate those such as Paul. But this is not the point. The point is you used a passage which would not apply to you at all, and when I correct you concerning this error, you do not in any way acknowledge the error, rather you go on to another passage where Paul talks about imitating him, and then claim that this somehow demonstrates we are to walk by faith and not by sight. But again, this misses the point, because the point is, you continue to demonstrate one who is not really a student of the Bible. You quote the Bible, which seems to mean you have some sort of regard for the Bible, but demonstrate one who could not have possibly spent very much time studying the Bible, otherwise you would not be attempting to use passages which do not apply to you. Moreover, if you were truly a student of the Bible, then you would have surely read where Paul makes the statement, "we take every thought captive" many, many times, which would mean you have some sort of idea what he was saying.

I am in no way an expert on the Bible, but I am a student of the Bible, and I strive to "rightly divide the word of truth." You on the other hand, are a student of hearing from Jesus, and it is clear you have not spent a whole lot of time ensuring that you are "rightly dividing the word of truth." I can certainly understand why you have so little concern as to having an interpretation of scripture, nor whether that interpretation would be correct, because I would imagine I would have the same attitude if I had convinced myself that I hear directly from Jesus. I mean, if one has a direct line to Jesus then what would such a one need with the Bible?

(Right or wrong) I never thought this verse was about a command for us to take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ (though that is certainly a goal).

According to you, you have never really thought about what Paul meant at all. It would seem to me that a Christian would have read this passage over, and over and at the very least have an idea about what Paul was saying or at least show some sort of concern since it is contained in what we call the scripture. And NO! It would not be a very good goal at all to attempt to take every one of your thoughts captive to obey Christ since we do not possess such an ability. Moreover, it is abundantly clear this is not what Paul had in mind. We as humans do not possess the ability to control our minds, or our hearts. This is the reason we have a Savior. With this in mind, do you mind giving us your interpretation of what Jesus meant when He said, "you have heard it said, do not commit adultery, but I say, if you lust after a woman in your heart, you have already committed adultery?" Seeing as how this was coming from Jesus, and you have a direct line to Jesus, maybe this would not be tempting God in order for you to give us what Jesus meant by this.

However, you seem to be suggesting something more, something closer to mind control

How in the world can you come to the conclusion that I am suggesting anything close to mind control? I am simply explaining to you the meaning Paul had in mind, and it can be easily demonstrated, and you do not seem to be suggesting that I am in error. So then, your argument is not with me, but rather your argument would be with Paul, in that you are suggesting that Paul may have been involved in some sort of mind control over the Corinthians. But the reality is, this is not what Paul has in mind in the least. Rather, Paul is demonstrating to the Corinthians, that he has a Christ given authority over them, and this is exactly why Paul is giving the Corinthians this warning. In fact, Paul even mentions this authority he has over the Corinthians in verse 10 where he says,

For if I boast somewhat more about our authority that the Lord gave us for building you up and not for tearing you down, I will not be ashamed of doing so.

As you can clearly see here, Paul is acknowledging the authority he has over the Corinthians, and he is saying that he would rather use such authority in order to build them up as opposed to tear them down, but he is saying if I have to use this authority I have in order to tear you down, then this is what I will have to do. Again, as a Christian you should have read this passage over, and over, and if you had you would have some sort of interpretation, but you say you do not have an interpretation of this passage. When I give you the correct interpretation, (and you will have to agree that it is indeed the correct interpretation, because you have no interpretation, and there is no way you will want to argue with me over the interpretation) you want to accuse me of suggesting some sort of mind control, when I am not the one who authored the passage, which means your argument is with Paul.

[historia]

The claim was:
"Tales of 'resurrection' are a common theme in ancient mythology and religions."

Yes, that is the claim that Zzyzx made. This is what you asked me to address, and thus properly the question under consideration.

The reason why our conversation has ground to a halt here before we even got out of the gate is because, in you last three replies to me, including this last one, you keep reframing the question under consideration to be whether tales of resurrection were more common in the past compared to today. That is not the claim that was made, and thus not the question under consideration.

You are confused here, my friend.

I don't believe I am confused.

You misunderstood what I was saying here. Here is the context again:

What you failed to do was to show that tales of resurrections were not as common of a theme in the past as they are now. You know, from post 3 that you now falsely claim I'm trying to change the focus of pages later.

You are confused here, my friend.

I bolded the word here in my reply to point out that the bolded sections in this comment of yours are confused. If that was too subtle, my subsequent paragraphs explained further:

Nowhere in post #3 is there a comparative claim about the prevalence of "tales of resurrections" in the past compared to now. Nowhere in my original post or subsequent replies to you have I made a comparative claim about the prevalence of "tales of resurrections" in the past compared to now.

Acknowledged!

Okay, so here you seem to acknowledge that both the original claim that Zzyzx made and my replies are not about the prevalence of "tales of resurrections" in the past compared to today.

And yet, for some reason unknown to man, you went right back to reframing the issue in those terms later in the same post:

This is me arguing my position. Are you able to argue for yours, one where you think that returning to life stories were in fact less common then today.

Why do you keep changing the issue to be whether tales of resurrection are more or less common in the past when compared to today? That is not the claim we are considering.

Even in my last reply, where I, for the first time, commented on this other issue (see what I did there) that you seem to want to discuss, I didn't make a claim that it was more or less common, I just noted it wasn't clear whether that was the case depending on how you were using the word "resurrection."

But what you did say: "What I've challenged is the claim that 'resurrection' as we understand that term was a common theme in ancient religions and mythology."

Yes. Notice how that matches the original claim, and is not a claim about the prevalence of such stories in the past compared to today.

Let me attempt to steel man your position

I don't need you to steel man my position. I need you to stop misrepresenting it, or telling me I've failed to address this other issue that is not the one under consideration.

We can have an interesting debate here -- and, as time permits, I'm going to come back to address the rest of your post. But, in the meantime, can we agree what the question under consideration is and, even more importantly, stick to it?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #0]

The things I have learned from my Lord - I learned from Him.

Well, He is not doing a very good job in teaching you concerning the correct meaning of scripture.

When I think I know something, myself, I often come to realize that I have NO idea. My Lord has corrected my thinking on numerous occasions.

Every one of us can admit to thinking we knew something only to find out we had no idea. However, most of us are not claiming to have direct communication to Jesus. You know, like when I was a teen at youth camps, and would go up front to the altar, and was told that emotional feeling was from God speaking to me? Then I grew up and realized that it was all just emotions, and God does not communicate to us in that way. In other words, God does not communicate with us internally but has rather communicated to us all externally through the external word of God. Some of us believe that what God has supplied externally in scripture is sufficient, while others believe we need a direct line to Jesus, since the Bible is not enough.

Not because they are opposed to me... but because they - YOU - claim that Christ does not speak. If Christ does not speak, then where are they/you getting their/your interpretations if not from themselves/yourself?

GOOD GRIEF! I am getting my interpretation from the exact same place I am getting my interpretation when I am reading what you are saying. I mean, I do not need divine interpretation to understand what you are saying, but somehow, I have to have divine assistance in order to understand what the authors contained in the Bible are saying? How can you make this make sense in your mind? It is true that God must do a work in my heart for me to accept what is being said, but this has nothing to do with our ability to understand what is being said.

And since you brought up the fact that man's heart is deceitful, if a man is relying upon his own interpretation, does that not include his 'deceitful' heart?

Maybe the above will allow me to explain this to you. I do not need any sort of work in my heart in order to interpret the words in the Bible correctly. What I would need a work in my heart to do is to accept what I clearly understand the Bible to be saying as the truth. So then, my deceitful heart does not cause me not to be able to interpret correctly. Rather, my deceitful heart causes me to reject what I clearly understand. As an example, I do not need divine assistance to understand that the Bible is communicating to me that Jesus died for my sins. However, since I am "dead in trespasses and sin" it would take a mighty act of God, on the same level as the power it took to raise Christ from the dead, in order for me to be able to accept that the death of Jesus atones for my sin.

Throughout this post, you talk about YOUR interpretation

My interpretation of what? It is not "my" interpretation. Rather, it is the only interpretation which could possibly make sense if the passage, and you are more than welcome to supply us with another interpretation which could possibly make sense, but you claim you do not have an interpretation, and my guess is you will not attempt to supply us with another interpretation of this passage which would possibly make sense, because you are now aware of the fact that this is the only interpretation of the passage which could possibly make sense. The ball is now in your court. You can give us an alternative explanation which would make sense of the passage, which you are not going to do and that is because there is no other way to make sense of this passage.

YOU know the truth

I think we can both agree to the fact that "Jesus is the truth." The question is, where did we get this communication of the truth? You claim it is from your direct communication with Jesus, but the fact of the matter is, you would have never known the Name of Jesus had it not been for the Bible. Moreover, you would have never, ever known about His crucifixion, and resurrection if not for the Bible, and yet you claim some sort of direct communication with Jesus. If you indeed have this direct line from Jesus, then why in the world would you have to depend on the Bible to even have ever known of the name Jesus?

YOU will give me the correct interpretation

As far as when Paul said, "we take every thought captive" I have given you the correct interpretation, unless you would like to refute it, seeing as how you have a direct line to Jesus, but we both know that ain't goona happen. Why do you think that would be?

How are you now suggesting that I am accusing you of relying upon your own interpretation rather than simply stating a fact that you, YOURSELF, declare?

Again, as far as the passage concerning Paul saying, "we take every thought captive" I do not have to rely on my own interpretation, because it is the only interpretation which can make sense of the passage. You can correct me if I am in error, but again we know that ain't gonna happen. I do not need divine revelation to understand what Paul is saying, because it involves common sense. In other words, it is not like I am on a different plain than everyone else, since an elementary student would have no trouble interpreting what Paul was communicating.

[tam]

Peace again to you,

[Replying to tam in post #0]

Okay, let's take one thing at a time in order to not get bogged down.

I do not have an interpretation.

Well, isn't that convenient for you?

I do not interpret some other meaning into those words, as you have done. I am not apologizing for that. You may think whatever you wish to think about it.

However, I understand quite well why you are avoiding giving us your interpretation of "we take every thought captive." All you are doing is the demonstrate one who has very little knowledge of what is contained in the Bible. I mean, you might know what it says, but you are demonstrating a complete lack of ability to interpret what it means.

I have not argued that I am capable of interpreting the bible.

I have said straight out - more than once - that I need my Lord.

Even the apostles needed Christ to open their minds so they could understand the scriptures.

As just one example, you had no idea about the fact that when Paul penned the words, "we walk by faith and not by sight" he only had himself and those traveling with him in mind as he wrote these words, and this can be easily demonstrated. When you come to realize I am correct, you then go on to insist that certainly we as Christians are to walk by faith and not by sight and then go on to talk about how we are to imitate those such as Paul.

We are not to imitate Paul. I never once said that we are to "imitate those such as Paul."

We are to imitate Christ, to follow HIS example. That is HIS command. (John 13:15, Matt 28:20)

The passage I quoted from Hebrews states to the reader to imitate THE FAITH of those who came first. There is NO WAY to imitate their faith without ALSO 'walking by faith, instead of by sight.'

Moreover, if you were truly a student of the Bible,

I am not a student (aka disciple) of the Bible.

I am a student (aka disciple) of Christ.

However, you seem to be suggesting something more, something closer to mind control

How in the world can you come to the conclusion that I am suggesting anything close to mind control?

If that is not what you are suggesting, then please explain exactly what you are suggesting. I do not need an essay, just state it straight out.

(and you will have to agree that it is indeed the correct interpretation, because you have no interpretation, and there is no way you will want to argue with me over the interpretation)

Not having an interpretation does not mean someone else's interpretation is automatically correct.


Peace again to you.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #0]

I do not interpret some other meaning into those words, as you have done. I am not apologizing for that. You may think whatever you wish to think about it.

What I think is exactly what I said. It is convenient that you claim to have direct communication with Jesus, but somehow you cannot give us an interpretation of what is contained in the Bible. I mean you quote the Bible in order to back what you have to say, but you really have no clue as how to interpret what is said, and you are okay with this, as long as you can feel good about what you claim to believe.

I have not argued that I am capable of interpreting the bible.

I have said straight out - more than once - that I need my Lord.

Even the apostles needed Christ to open their minds so they could understand the scriptures.

This is one of the most unreal things I have ever read! You are actually admitting that Christ had to open the minds of the apostles to understand scripture, and you claim to have a direct line to Jesus and going on to claim that you are not capable of interpreting the Scripture? Then, it is this same scripture which you are now arguing you are unable to interpret, which you use in order to back up the fantasy that you hear directly from Jesus. I mean, SERIOUSLY! You cannot make this stuff up! Just think about what you are saying. You have continually used scripture to back up the fantasy that you have a direct line to Jesus, and now you are explaining to us that you may not possess the ability to interpret the scripture you are using correctly?

You then go on to compare yourself to the apostles, in that they had to have their minds opened to the scripture, but the apostles had just witnessed Jesus crucified and they believed that Jesus was the Messiah who had come to save Israel. It was then their minds were opened to come to realize that the Messiah must suffer. There is nothing mysterious about interpreting scripture. There is no hidden code. There is no need in divine assistance in order to understand it. Rather, it can be read and understood just like most any other literature. What we need divine assistance for, is to believe what we understand, and this does not involve direct communication with Jesus.

We are not to imitate Paul. I never once said that we are to "imitate those such as Paul."

Oh really? Well, here is what Paul said, "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ."

We are to imitate Christ, to follow HIS example. That is HIS command. (John 13:15, Matt 28:20)

This is TOO, TOO FUNNY! Again, you are using scripture which you admit you may not have the ability to interpret correctly, in order to back up what you say, and neither of the passages you use has a thing in the world to do with "imitating Christ" in the way in which you are referring, and they certainly do not back your fantasy that you are hearing from Jesus directly. So, let's take a look at the passages.

In the passage from John, Jesus has just washed the disciples' feet, and Jesus He tells THEM "I have given you an example." Jesus is only talking about the 12 disciples, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Jesus is only referring to the 12 disciples (really it is only 11 because Judas is about to betray Jesus) and an apostle is one who is sent into the world and has the authority of the One who sent them. Let's go back and look at what Jesus had said in verses 16 and 17.

I tell you the solemn truth, the slave is not greater than his master, nor is the one who is sent as a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you understand these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

You see, Jesus is only referring to the 11 at this time, because the 11 are the ones who Jesus later commissioned to "go into all the world preaching the Gospel." You have not been sent in all the world to preach the gospel. I mean, you want to include yourself when it is as simple as what you think it means to follow Christ, but somehow you do not include yourself in when the apostles are commanded to go into all the world. If you want to include yourself in this passage, you may be able to do it here,

I tell you the solemn truth, whoever accepts the one I send accepts me, and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me.

Because you see, you are not a "sent one", and you are not an apostle, and you do not have the authority the apostles possessed. You are placing yourself in scripture where you do not belong. Where did you get the idea that this scripture applied to you personally? Well again, you cannot say it was directly from Jesus. Ergo, this would seem to mean you are relying on your own understanding, or you are relying on those who have instructed you.

Now, let us move on to the passage in Matthew and we discover the same exact thing. Jesus had gathered the 11 and only the 11 were there, and it is at this point that Jesus commands the 11 to "go into all the world." This is clearly not a command to all of us as Christians. If it is, then why is the overwhelming majority of Christians sitting on their rear ends, in the same pews, at the same Church week after week, instead of going into all the world preaching the Gospel? You pick and choose what it is which pertains to you in scripture and then go on to tell us you may not even possess the ability to interpret this same scripture correctly. You then want to insist that you imitate Christ, but you certainly do not imitate everything He did, because again, you are picking and choosing what it is which applies to you, all the while admitting to the fact that you may not be interpreting these things correctly.

The passage I quoted from Hebrews states to the reader to imitate THE FAITH of those who came first. There is NO WAY to imitate their faith without ALSO 'walking by faith, instead of by sight.'

You see, I have already thought about this, in that one can appeal to this passage in Hebrews in order to understand how faith in the life of a Christian operates. However, you cannot use the passage where Paul tells the Corinthians "We walk by faith and not by sight" because it was not Paul's intention to instruct Christians in this passage to "walk by faith and not by sight." In other words, you cannot recklessly pull out a single verse out of its context, and insist it applies to you, without knowing what the author is actually attempting to communicate, because when you take such liberty, you are allowing other Christians see how you operate, and they could assume they too can take the same liberty in order to cause a passage to mean anything they wish.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #42]

I do not interpret.

That is for certain, and we have demonstrated as much.

If I do think something about a passage - but have not received confirmation or truth on the matter from my Lord

Okay, so you are saying that when you read scripture you never come to any conclusions at all concerning what the passage actually means until you get this "confirmation from the Lord?" And yet, you continue to use scripture which we have demonstrated would not apply to you. When you read other material can you understand it without any divine intervention? If so, why do you need divine intervention to interpret what is contained in the Bible? There is no reason anyone who has the ability to read, cannot understand most of what is contained in scripture. So then, we do not require divine intervention in order to understand what is being said in scripture. What we need divine intervention for is, to accept what we clearly understand as being true.

then I accept that my thinking can be wrong.

Well, I hope we all accept that we can be in error. However, the passages you claim which Jesus has confirmed the truth of, you cannot claim to be in error concerning these passages. Do you mind sharing with us some of the meanings of the passages which Jesus has confirmed to you? My guess is, this ain't gonna happen, because you will find a way to duck and dodge in order to keep from supplying us with what Jesus has confirmed to you just like you already have. Let us keep in mind that you are now confirming that there are certain passages which Jesus has indeed confirmed the meaning of, and if you do not supply us with some of these passages which have been confirmed to you by Jesus, this will speak volumes.

But as for being influenced by others - yes, most of us are influenced by others. It is something I had to (most of us have to) OVERCOME, because there is so much information out there about God, about Christ, from men and religion and media - and certainly some of that got to me. So when God drew me to His Son, and His Son taught me to listen to Him and remain in Him, I had to tear it all down (everything I thought I knew or believed) - straight down to cornerstone (Christ) and let Him build me up on Him. The Rock. The firm foundation.

The above is mighty bold Tammy. Because what you are saying is, your understanding of Jesus now is not at all influenced by those outside of you, and you could not possibly say your understanding is coming from the scripture. Rather, your understanding of Jesus is coming straight from Jesus. But here is a fact for you. You would not have known a thing about Jesus, his crucifixion, or resurrection apart from others, and the scripture. Why would Jesus have to expose you to the scripture? Certainly, He has the ability to reveal Himself to you and give you all the information you need concerning Him without exposing you to scripture. You are claiming to be on a different plain than the rest of us, in that you do not have to rely upon others, nor even the scripture, since you are hearing directly from Jesus, and yet you claim to not interpret scripture.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #42]

I never once made the claim that it is only ever others who have the deceitful hearts.

Does this mean you acknowledge that your heart could be deceitful, and it is possible that your deceitful heart is causing you to believe you have direct communication with Jesus?

But it sounds like one very good reason NOT to rely upon oneself (myself included) and to instead rely upon Christ - the Truth (and He does not have a deceitful heart.)

No one is arguing that Jesus has a deceitful heart. However, if we all acknowledge that our hearts are deceitful, then none of us are immune from being deceived by what it is we would rather believe.