Our supposed qualities

[KBCid]

EDIT: I was just told that the verses are tricky part for interpretation. So I may have been not so right. Will come back to it.]

ahh I see. I guess I won't get a fresh perspective then. Sorry to have bothered thx for your time though.

[1over137]

EDIT: I was just told that the verses are tricky part for interpretation. So I may have been not so right. Will come back to it.]

ahh I see. I guess I won't get a fresh perspective then. Sorry to have bothered thx for your time though.

Fresh perspective? What do you mean?

[KBCid]

EDIT: I was just told that the verses are tricky part for interpretation. So I may have been not so right. Will come back to it.]

ahh I see. I guess I won't get a fresh perspective then. Sorry to have bothered thx for your time though.

Fresh perspective? What do you mean?

I was looking for a interpretational perspective from another person not already wrapped up in the discussion from the other threads. No worries though I see whats happening.

[1over137]

EDIT: I was just told that the verses are tricky part for interpretation. So I may have been not so right. Will come back to it.]

ahh I see. I guess I won't get a fresh perspective then. Sorry to have bothered thx for your time though.

Fresh perspective? What do you mean?

I was looking for a interpretational perspective from another person not already wrapped up in the discussion from the other threads. No worries though I see whats happening.

I guess you do not see what is happening. I looked into no other threads and spoke about Hebrews 12 with nooone formthis forum. I really wonder that you are not curious what I will come up with.

[KBCid]

I guess you do not see what is happening. I looked into no other threads and spoke about Hebrews 12 with no one form this forum. I really wonder that you are not curious what I will come up with.

I will certainly read what you will write. But you should realise you stated;

"I was just told that the verses are tricky part for interpretation." Did I miss something about you being told?
A fresh perspective is the initial understanding we get from reading the verses and this was what I was interested in but if you were told that they are tricky then you will likely not give me the first impression I was looking for. Nothing is wrong or bad I was just trying to do an english comprehension check on myself and make sure that the initial meaning of what I read was not an illusion in my own mind.

[1over137]

I guess you do not see what is happening. I looked into no other threads and spoke about Hebrews 12 with no one form this forum. I really wonder that you are not curious what I will come up with.

I will certainly read what you will write. But you should realise you stated;

"I was just told that the verses are tricky part for interpretation." Did I miss something about you being told?
A fresh perspective is the initial understanding we get from reading the verses and this was what I was interested in but if you were told that they are tricky then you will likely not give me the first impression I was looking for. Nothing is wrong or bad I was just trying to do an english comprehension check on myself and make sure that the initial meaning of what I read was not an illusion in my own mind.

Aha, I see your point. My first fresh on verse 15 (to make sure that no one falls short of the grace of God) is that I at the first sight am not sure with the presise meaning. So i have to look at the Bible, at the Hebrews book to understand better.

[RickD]

But, KBC also fails to realize that scripture says Jesus Christ came in the flesh. What scripture says is that anyone who denies Christ has not come in the flesh is a deceiver.
2 John 1:7:Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

I do? this is news to me. I entirely endorse that Christ existed in the flesh and the full Godhead dwelled within him. Its written in as plain an english as one can get;
John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

But what does this have to do with asking a question in this thread? Do you have an intent to make me out to be a deciever as I ask questions to try and determine what is correct ? I am not here to teach anyone anything since I don't absolutely know what is right yet but if you want to have a discussion about the trinity POV you are welcome to throw a thread together and we can explore it but, to be honest I haven't research everything about it yet so I can only voice what I have read so far directly from the bible itself and the words of Christ himself state "but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works". Past that point I don't have any outside input into the subject. If my POV is incorrect then that is what I hope to eventually find out. However, at this point in time I am trying to work on a subject that I am researching which is what you have seen me discussing within the other two threads which began with laws and now appears to be coming down to a sanctification issue. So what exactly is your intent?

Yes KBC, you do deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.(Jesus Christ the Son of God God incarnate). Saying that you believe Jesus Christ is a "human" saviour, is deceiving. John was most likely warning his readers of the Gnostics of his day. The Gnostics, among other things, denied the deity of Jesus Christ. Here's a little on Gnosticism:
http://carm.org/gnosticism From the carm Gnosticism link:

The danger of gnosticism is easily apparent. It denies the incarnation of God as the Son. In so doing, it denies the true efficacy of the atonement since, if Jesus is not God, He could not atone for all of mankind and we would still be lost in our sins.

KBC, also, in John 14:10, " the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" means literally "the Father remaining in me. And it denotes the union between God the Father, and God the son.
KBC, the reason I point this out is to make readers here aware that you don't believe Jesus Christ is God incarnate. This is not a simple denominational difference. It is the difference between salvation, and eternal separation from God. And, readers here need to know that you deny a doctrine that is most essential to the Christian faith.

[KBCid]

But, KBC also fails to realize that scripture says Jesus Christ came in the flesh. What scripture says is that anyone who denies Christ has not come in the flesh is a deceiver.
2 John 1:7:Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

I do? this is news to me. I entirely endorse that Christ existed in the flesh and the full Godhead dwelled within him. Its written in as plain an english as one can get;
John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

But what does this have to do with asking a question in this thread? Do you have an intent to make me out to be a deciever as I ask questions to try and determine what is correct ? I am not here to teach anyone anything since I don't absolutely know what is right yet but if you want to have a discussion about the trinity POV you are welcome to throw a thread together and we can explore it but, to be honest I haven't research everything about it yet so I can only voice what I have read so far directly from the bible itself and the words of Christ himself state "but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works". Past that point I don't have any outside input into the subject. If my POV is incorrect then that is what I hope to eventually find out. However, at this point in time I am trying to work on a subject that I am researching which is what you have seen me discussing within the other two threads which began with laws and now appears to be coming down to a sanctification issue. So what exactly is your intent?

Yes KBC, you do deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.(Jesus Christ the Son of God God incarnate). Saying that you believe Jesus Christ is a "human" saviour, is deceiving. John was most likely warning his readers of the Gnostics of his day. The Gnostics, among other things, denied the deity of Jesus Christ. Here's a little on Gnosticism:
http://carm.org/gnosticism

KBC, also, in John 14:10, " the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" means literally "the Father remaining in me. And it denotes the union between God the Father, and God the son.

I have read nothing in the bible that specifies that dwelling = remaining. This is where we would need to delve into interpretations

KBC, the reason I point this out is to make readers here aware that you don't believe Jesus Christ is God incarnate. This is not a simple denominational difference. It is the difference between salvation, and eternal separation from God. And, readers here need to know that you deny a doctrine that is most essential to the Christian faith.

What you are doing is misrepresenting me. Plain and simple. I told way too many times now that I am relaying the understanding that I have been given from my own reading of the bible. This does not mean that it is what I believe. If I held to a specific belief then I would have no need to investigate anything as I would already be convinced of a specific doctrine.
I have spelled this out to you how many times now and yet you still wish to directly insult me with the accusation of belief in a doctrine that I am not yet convinced of the truth of. Here it was stated in plain english in the other thread;

"I would at this point like to restate my purpose in this thread so that you can see exactly what I am after as this may have some effect on how you reply to me. I have been given an understanding of scripture entirely from my own personal reading of scripture and I have accepted that Christ is the only way to eternal life. With this understanding I am testing foundational specifics of it against other Christian faiths / sects to see if I have somehow made an error in understanding because I am after all just a man. In order to test my understandings I must of course present them and then my hope is that using scripture as a foundation you can correct what you feel is an error on my part. Simply saying I am wrong holds no power of conviction for me. Specifically showing a scriptural reference along with the defining of the rationale used for your interpretation is what I seek.
I have no desire to prove to anyone that you are wrong even if in the greater scheme of things you may be. I don't possess the Godly understanding to judge your position. I can merely choose to agree with you and adapt my way to more closely resemble your own or I can assert that your understanding doesn't fit with mine in which case we would be done with profitable interactions on the subject at hand."

So are you going to continue to misrepresent me or are you going to let me investigate and learn. I asked you this a long time ago and it seemed that there was no problem but it seems now there is a problem. You decide because at this point I am not going to investigte and discuss any religious subjects here if I am going to get misrepresented at every turn.

[RickD]

KBC wrote:
So are you going to continue to misrepresent me or are you going to let me investigate and learn. I asked you this a long time ago and it seemed that there was no problem but it seems now there is a problem. You decide because at this point I am not going to investigte and discuss any religious subjects here if I am going to get misrepresented at every turn.

KBC, I'm not misrepresenting you here. You have represented yourself as a believer numerous times. Even after you have said that you don't believe Jesus Christ is God. And, even after it was shown to you that faith in Jesus Christ who is God, is essential to being a believer. It's my responsibility as a moderator to make sure readers here know that you are not a believer. You are posting your beliefs under the guise of a true believer. You have made posts where you lump yourself in with believers. For example, you wrote this:

KBCid wrote:
The way you say it, the moment I believed in God and Christ then I was given the Holy Ghost. This would also imply that my indwelling guide is opening my understanding to the truth right? So why aren't we both on the same page in doctrine?

This would imply that you are a believer. There are many other posts you made that are worded similarly.

Am I saying that you are willingly deceiving people? No, I'm not. It would be no different if you were a Mormon or JW posting here. It is my hope that your eyes will be opened to the truth of who Jesus Christ really is.
You are free to investigate and discuss whatever you choose, as long as you abide by the forum rules. Which you are presently doing.

[KBCid]

So are you going to continue to misrepresent me or are you going to let me investigate and learn. I asked you this a long time ago and it seemed that there was no problem but it seems now there is a problem. You decide because at this point I am not going to investigte and discuss any religious subjects here if I am going to get misrepresented at every turn.

KBC, I'm not misrepresenting you here. You have represented yourself as a believer numerous times. Even after you have said that you don't believe Jesus Christ is God.

One can belive in in God and have very different foundational beliefs about every part of the Christian faith. Saying that I hold a conviction / belief in God is true and I will not deter from it but all the foundational underlying interpretational points that diferentiate so many Christian faiths I do not currently hold a conviction / belief in which is the entire reason for laying out what my understanding is and questioning how others have derived their perspective.

So the bottom line answer you are giving me is yes you are going to keep representing my position as one that is already convinvced of every foundational point in Christianity that I have touched on regardless of what I am saying. Congratz You have found a way to insult me in a way that so far has not been done by anyone else.

[RickD]

KBC wrote:
One can belive in in God and have very different foundational beliefs about every part of the Christian faith.

KBC, the deity of Christ is a belief that is essential to the Christian faith. If one doesn't believe in Christ's deity, then one isn't part of the Christian faith. All true Christian denominations hold to the deity of Christ.

So the bottom line answer you are giving me is yes you are going to keep representing my position as one that is already convinvced of every foundational point in Christianity that I have touched on regardless of what I am saying. Congratz You have found a way to insult me in a way that so far has not been done by anyone else.

No KBC. The real bottom line is that until your faith is in the one real Jesus Christ, you are lost in your sins. As of right now, your belief is in a different jesus. How is that a misrepresentation. It's a fact.

[jlay]

KBC wrote:
One can belive in in God and have very different foundational beliefs about every part of the Christian faith.

KBC, the deity of Christ is a belief that is essential to the Christian faith. If one doesn't believe in Christ's deity, then one isn't part of the Christian faith. All true Christian denominations hold to the deity of Christ.

So the bottom line answer you are giving me is yes you are going to keep representing my position as one that is already convinvced of every foundational point in Christianity that I have touched on regardless of what I am saying. Congratz You have found a way to insult me in a way that so far has not been done by anyone else.

No KBC. The real bottom line is that until your faith is in the one real Jesus Christ, you are lost in your sins. As of right now, your belief is in a different jesus. How is that a misrepresentation. It's a fact.

I think it is one thing to claim you don't understand the divine nature of Christ, and another to deny it. THere are simply too many things in the scripture and from the early church fathers to say that Christ is not divine and a part of the God head. Does this mean you completely understand the Trinity? No. Or how God could exists eternally and then temporally exist in the person of Jesus? No.

John said he wrote his Gospel so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31)
Nothing in the Bible directly says," God as three divine persons or hypostases: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". That is a doctrine of systematic theology. So, one isn't required to understand the trinity to be saved. It however, is something different to clearly deny something revealed scripturally about the divine nature of Christ.
The term "THE son of God" in itself denotes a form of divinity. Many of these scriptural clues lead us to a doctrine of the Trinity.
So K, just so it's clear. What specifically do you deny (not lack understanding) regarding the Trinity?

[RickD]

Jlay, you and I were involved in this conversation a while back with KBC. It begins on this page, when I asked KBC,

RickD wrote: Are you saying that the triune God hasn't existed eternally?

and continues onto the next page. You can see what KBC is saying for himself here:http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 3&start=75
Now to be fair, those posts go back a while, and KBC may have changed his views since then. Of course he can clear that up if he wishes. I certainly don't want to misrepresent what he believes.

[KBCid]

This was the UNDERSTANDING that I stated I had in this thread at the time shown;

RE: In the Beginning
by KBCid » Thu May 03, 2012 12:50 pm

God the father who is a unique being is eternal existing always.
God the father begot his Son Jesus (the Christ)
Christ (the word) who is the express image of his father came out of his father prior to any creative acts depicted in the bible.
Christ is composed of the same form that his father is since he came out of his Father.
therefore, Christ is also eternally existant.. He is simply another unique being which is why he can converse with his father. this is why in the scriptures we can see Christ speaking with his Father;

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us...

There cannot be an 'us' or an 'our' unless there are minimally two unique beings making and exchange. God the eternal father and Jesus (the word) his only begotten son. I did not write the bible, I simply read it and see what is meant by the words. If there was never any writing depicting a conversation between two unique entities then I would have no grounds for understanding it that way.

I stated correctly even then "I simply read it and see what is meant by the words." This is called comprehension / understanding of written words not belief.

I believed I clarified my original error of asserting a creation several posts ago. We were created. we were a design put together by The Father and his son. Christ was begotten. He was not designed nor created. He came directly out of his father as the word so there was no creative design involved. Christ emerged from the Father and has all the same unique qualities of his Father.
Christ emerged from his Father and became flesh and since he has all the same qualities as his father then when we know him we also know the Father who begot him. Both the father and the Son are eternal since this is a quality of the Father from which Christ emerged. Unlike Jesus who is directly begotten from the father we can only be adopted sons. We can never know the joy of being the directly begotten of the father. We are simply a creation and Christ is a direct emergence from the Father.

If you guys wish to assert that this is my belief in contrast to my specifically stating that this is my understanding or comprehension of what I read then that is your perogative. But to do such is a misrepresentation of my position which I have voiced and yet you continue to misrepresent. What I believe and understand are two very different things. If I already had a belief set then there would be no purpose in investigating and testing an understanding.
Scientists and I use the scientific method to test our understandings about the physical world. We typically don't hold a belief about something until enough empirical testing has been done to back the understanding and validate it as a rationale belief. I am applying a similar method for deriving believable conclusions about my current understandings about the word of God.
Of course I have no illusion now that you will not continue to focus on my stated understanding and represent it as my belief as this has been consistently how you have dealt with me which is why I will take the understanding and test them in a different place where I hopefully won't have to deal with being misrepresented.

Clark A. Chinn
Ala Samarapungavan
Distinguishing Between Understanding and Belief

A key distinction that underpins this article is the distinction between understanding an idea and believing that idea.

Understanding and Belief
It is easy to think of instances in which students understand or at least partly understand an idea learned in school while believing a completely
different idea. Creationists studying evolution may arrive at a good understanding of evolutionary theory but still believe creationism. Psychology students may develop a good understanding of B.F. Skinner’s behaviorist principles while believing a more cognitive theory themselves. Teachers generally recognize that their students may understand ideas without believing them when they are covering controversial issues (e.g., creationism; the causes of global warming; religious doctrines) or historically important ideas that are no longer widely believed (e.g., Greek mythology; the ancient scientific theory that matter is made of earth, water, fire, and air).

To illustrate the importance of making the distinction between understanding and belief, we present a hypothetical example (but one based on our research programs) of a middle-school teacher who has just given her students a formative assessment of their basic understanding of molecules....
...She first asks the students to draw a picture of what water molecules look like and asks several questions about their pictures. She then asks other questions to find out whether students can apply their knowledge to explain a variety of physical phenomena, such as why water can be poured and why water expands when it freezes...
...Two students (Juanita and Aaron) give correct answers to all of the teacher’s questions. Asked to draw water molecules, they both draw appropriate pictures. Both write that water molecules can be divided, that the parts make up gases rather than water, and that there are empty spaces between the molecules. Both students give excellent answers to the wide range of transfer questions...
...When we take belief as well as understanding into account, however, we find that the picture is more complex. It is true that both students understand the molecular model of water, but when we examine their beliefs, we find that neither believes it...
...• Juanita thinks to herself, “If molecules are too small to see, how do scientists know they really exist? Maybe they just made all of this up.” Although Juanita does not have a model of her own, she does not believe it is reasonable to think that molecules really exist.
• Aaron understands the model he was taught well enough but does not believe it. “It’s crazy to think that something wet could be made of hard particles,” he thinks. He knows that on the exam he is supposed to write what the teacher has taught, so that is what he does. But if the teacher were to ask Aaron what he really believes, she would find that he has his own separate model: he thinks that water is simply water through and through and is not made up of particles of any kind.

Implications for Teachers: Teaching as Rational Persuasion
The research showing that belief and understanding often diverge has important implications for teachers. This research suggests the value of adopting the metaphor of teaching as persuasion, with persuasion viewed as a rational process based on reasoned argumentation. This rational persuasive process should be founded on respect for students’ conceptions rather than on any pressure to adopt new conceptions.

Conclusion
Our central recommendation is that both researchers and teachers should begin to gather information about students’ beliefs as well as their understandings in order to develop more accurate theories about the real learning process, which can involve changes in belief as well as changes inunderstanding of new ideas. By finding out about both, researchers and teachers will develop a much better understanding of the learning process and how to facilitate learning through a process of rational, evidence-based persuasion that respects students’ rights to make up their own minds.
http://www.cs.uml.edu/ecg/projects/cric ... anding.pdf

[RickD]

KBC wrote:
I stated correctly even then "I simply read it and see what is meant by the words." This is called comprehension / understanding of written words not belief.

So KBC,
What you're saying is it's not your belief what you posted? It's kinda like you were thinking out loud, and typing what you understood from reading the text? Like you were and are working your way through, to try to see what's really being said?
The reason why I thought it was what you actually believe, is because you stated it so matter- of-factly.
Your posts are no different than any other posts by others, including myself, that are stated to show what we believe. Your posts weren't written like a scientist would write when conducting an experiment.

If you guys wish to assert that this is my belief in contrast to my specifically stating that this is my understanding or comprehension of what I read then that is your perogative.

KBC, I think I was the only one here who has been misrepresenting what you've been saying.

What I believe and understand are two very different things. If I already had a belief set then there would be no purpose in investigating and testing an understanding.

Now I think this is a pretty good reason why I misunderstand you. For me, what I understand about scripture is what I believe. That's not to say that my understanding won't change, and so by belief about certain things would change as well. I just don't separate my understanding from my belief. Maybe it's just how my brain works.

. If I already had a belief set then there would be no purpose in investigating and testing an understanding.

Now that's different than how I see things as well. Maybe you don't really establish a belief until you see if in a system. Or in this case, a theological system. My mind is much less organized than yours. I really don't have any theologies that I hold to. I guess that's because if I hold to a theology, I feel like I would have to hold to the whole system the way it is.

Of course I have no illusion now that you will not continue to focus on my stated understanding and represent it as my belief as this has been consistently how you have dealt with me which is why I will take the understanding and test them in a different place where I hopefully won't have to deal with being misrepresented.

KBC, I honestly can't remember anyone else posting like they were posting their beliefs, but they were actually posting their understanding only. Like I said before, I don't separate understanding from belief.

Now I think I understand what you're saying, and I will go on your word that you ard working through this, and you don't have an established set of beliefs yet.

And I sincerely apologize for completely misunderstanding you. I hope you will forgive me, and I would like it if you would stay, and continue learning, and helping others as well.