How do you figure? They can have faith without being cognizant that they do.
Extrabiblical Evidence about Jesus in the First 2 Centuries
- Thread starter Mystic
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
Pavlos Maros
Well-Known Member
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
As I said "It sounds to me like you aspire to become mentally handicapped. It appears you would rather gaze in wonderment at the invisible barriers on the bus than have the intellectual capacity to identify them as windows."
Easy to make such comments. Anything more meaningful than that to offer in response?
Pavlos Maros
Well-Known Member
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
No! As you are made no sense, with your original statement. So not worthy of a response any more. This is the last one on that ridiculous statement of yours.
blackbelt1961
Well-Known Member
why do you equate Jesus with a natural child?, are you suggesting Jesus should have listened to His Earthly Parents before His Heavenly Father?, which mistake in your view is Greater? or do you not believe that Jesus is God in the Flesh?
Ok. Merry Christmas
blackbelt1961
Well-Known Member
And it seems to me that you view windows as barriers.
Pavlos Maros
Well-Known Member
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Lol. and where does it get this doctrine and belief from? Lol
Pavlos Maros
Well-Known Member
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Lol. That would be correct. If they were unbreakable glass they would be, and as they are; They are barriers to the elements. Lol.
But whoosh right over your head completely missing the point.
He was delving into the realm of fantasy. Too much eggnog possibly.
Too much fantasy and thus we bass right through the un imaginative window as if our thoughts weren't free in the extreme form ... thus out of here as IT! IT; redacted form to save space on the medium ... thus incarnation, or it isn't as it appears.
This is a head ache for some people to think partially as the bible say thinking (knowledge) was evil and thus with smooked windows we don't ... as we can't see IT for the complexity of the pile that is near eternal ... as word can be given the definition of some archaic John! But many ministerial sorts that lead tell be they distrust the Gospel of John as it is spooky ... ghostlike. Perhaps it gives them a headache as it causes things to move in their heads ... psycho-somatic dissonance .... being psycho has to do with the head or "Sr" in old tongues, pathos has to do with pain and pain can make one confused, or dissonant.
Can you imagine the extremes some folk would go to to keep their friends in the dark ... when simple po'ET'ihc will do ... the same ... or metaphoric accomplishment? And there they were not having a clue ... Dia Blow, or Dante in that other tongue! All thought quickly went ... because of being told ... and we all know the authority in us hates to be told anything or everything or even have nothing elaborated upon ... thus diminishing consequences.
You don't believe what appears as floating thoughts? Just look about ... why we have light to illuminate dense spots ...
Did you see the discovery of the lantern shark that glows to hide its shadow? Tis an odd thing too ... like mortals in an eternal universe ...
This is a head ache for some people to think partially as the bible say thinking (knowledge) was evil and thus with smooked windows we don't ... as we can't see IT for the complexity of the pile that is near eternal ... as word can be given the definition of some archaic John! But many ministerial sorts that lead tell be they distrust the Gospel of John as it is spooky ... ghostlike. Perhaps it gives them a headache as it causes things to move in their heads ... psycho-somatic dissonance .... being psycho has to do with the head or "Sr" in old tongues, pathos has to do with pain and pain can make one confused, or dissonant.
Can you imagine the extremes some folk would go to to keep their friends in the dark ... when simple po'ET'ihc will do ... the same ... or metaphoric accomplishment? And there they were not having a clue ... Dia Blow, or Dante in that other tongue! All thought quickly went ... because of being told ... and we all know the authority in us hates to be told anything or everything or even have nothing elaborated upon ... thus diminishing consequences.
You don't believe what appears as floating thoughts? Just look about ... why we have light to illuminate dense spots ...
Did you see the discovery of the lantern shark that glows to hide its shadow? Tis an odd thing too ... like mortals in an eternal universe ...
Seeler
Well-Known Member
I've mainly stayed off this thread until now, It seems to simply be going round and round without the major participants even agreeing on some basics. (I did ask Pavlos Maros a question a few pages back but he hasn't given me a direct answer, so I gave up on that.)
But here are some of my thoughts, not in answer to any particular person or post, except for Pavlos' statement that 'babies are born a blank slate'. That was a theory about a hundred years ago - nurture vs nature, meaning that all babies are born alike and that their personalities, culture and behaviour are shaped by their experiences after birth ie how they are raised by their parents. As any parent of more than one child knows, this theory was proven false years ago. Basic personality might be as inborn as the colour of their eyes, their body-mass index or a likelihood of developing diabetes. And certainly long before birth babies hear and feel - mom's heart beat and the rhythm of her breathing as she goes about her activities, or falls asleep. They may also experience when she is angry or frightened (perhaps being beaten by her husband), and certainly they are effected when she takes a drink of coffee or alcohol, or smokes a cigerette. They may be undernourished by a starving mother. And they hear - music or shouts, and the sounds of voices, the rise and fall of different languages. By the time they are born they will know the sound of their mother's voice (and maybe their father's), and they may respond to hearing Chinese spoken around them better than the foreign (to them) sounds of English.
And from birth on children are different: some relaxed and quiet, some nervous, or extra alert. Some experience colic and cry incessantly and are either 'spoiled' by having someone walk the floor with them by the hour, or learn early that they are alone shut in a dark room with nobody responding to their cries, or they may be abused. Some are physical and climb out of their cribs at nine months, others have to be helped out at three years. Kids are NOT blank slates.
So, what has this got to do with religion or spirituality? I will give you that babies at birth probably don't know much 'religion'. That doesn't mean that they are not spiritual beings. Just because they cannot recite a creed or perform a ritual doesn't mean that they do not experience the Holy. Just as a new born feels a bond with its mother whose heartbeat, voice and smell are already familiar (and who can switch this bond to another person, if the mother isn't available and someone else fills that role, although there may be a period of adjustment - and if no one person fills that role but physical care is shared by a series of nurses 'just doing their job', the baby may forever have trouble forming attachments.) - just as a baby feels a bond with its mother, so may it feel a bond with the world around it, a connection with the Spiritual, a sense of wonder and mystery and delight about this world of light and sound and touch - and love. I believe that babies are born spiritual beings (not to original sin, but blessed with an awareness that they may develop or lose as time goes by.
parents may be busy with the day to day raising of their children - perhaps it takes a grandmother like me to catch the glimpses.
Granddaughter calling to me excitedly to come and see - she has just looked out my back bedroom window and saw a lilac bush in full bloom - aand showed how she appreciated beauty.
Grandson, usually frightened by loud noises, listening with delight to an instrumental at church - and I know he appreciates music.
Graanddaughter amazed when I reach down in my garden and pull up a carrot (that doesn't come from the supermarket) - the miracle of food growing in the ground.
Granddaughter (the babysitter phoned me that she woke up from her nap with a fever and babysitter couldn't reach her mother but left a message.) - granddaughter is sobbing in babysitter's arms as I walk through the door. She reaches out her arms to me, and clings to me as I hold her and thank the sitter. Then granddaughter squirms; she's spotted Mommy arriving. She is finally in Mommy's arms, where she belongs.) Don't tell me that babies, and pre-verbal children don't experience love, belonging, connection ...
How their spirituality develops will depend upon their life situation, their family and their culture - but they are born spiritual. Their spirituality can be nurtured or suppressed, but it's there to begin with.
But here are some of my thoughts, not in answer to any particular person or post, except for Pavlos' statement that 'babies are born a blank slate'. That was a theory about a hundred years ago - nurture vs nature, meaning that all babies are born alike and that their personalities, culture and behaviour are shaped by their experiences after birth ie how they are raised by their parents. As any parent of more than one child knows, this theory was proven false years ago. Basic personality might be as inborn as the colour of their eyes, their body-mass index or a likelihood of developing diabetes. And certainly long before birth babies hear and feel - mom's heart beat and the rhythm of her breathing as she goes about her activities, or falls asleep. They may also experience when she is angry or frightened (perhaps being beaten by her husband), and certainly they are effected when she takes a drink of coffee or alcohol, or smokes a cigerette. They may be undernourished by a starving mother. And they hear - music or shouts, and the sounds of voices, the rise and fall of different languages. By the time they are born they will know the sound of their mother's voice (and maybe their father's), and they may respond to hearing Chinese spoken around them better than the foreign (to them) sounds of English.
And from birth on children are different: some relaxed and quiet, some nervous, or extra alert. Some experience colic and cry incessantly and are either 'spoiled' by having someone walk the floor with them by the hour, or learn early that they are alone shut in a dark room with nobody responding to their cries, or they may be abused. Some are physical and climb out of their cribs at nine months, others have to be helped out at three years. Kids are NOT blank slates.
So, what has this got to do with religion or spirituality? I will give you that babies at birth probably don't know much 'religion'. That doesn't mean that they are not spiritual beings. Just because they cannot recite a creed or perform a ritual doesn't mean that they do not experience the Holy. Just as a new born feels a bond with its mother whose heartbeat, voice and smell are already familiar (and who can switch this bond to another person, if the mother isn't available and someone else fills that role, although there may be a period of adjustment - and if no one person fills that role but physical care is shared by a series of nurses 'just doing their job', the baby may forever have trouble forming attachments.) - just as a baby feels a bond with its mother, so may it feel a bond with the world around it, a connection with the Spiritual, a sense of wonder and mystery and delight about this world of light and sound and touch - and love. I believe that babies are born spiritual beings (not to original sin, but blessed with an awareness that they may develop or lose as time goes by.
parents may be busy with the day to day raising of their children - perhaps it takes a grandmother like me to catch the glimpses.
Granddaughter calling to me excitedly to come and see - she has just looked out my back bedroom window and saw a lilac bush in full bloom - aand showed how she appreciated beauty.
Grandson, usually frightened by loud noises, listening with delight to an instrumental at church - and I know he appreciates music.
Graanddaughter amazed when I reach down in my garden and pull up a carrot (that doesn't come from the supermarket) - the miracle of food growing in the ground.
Granddaughter (the babysitter phoned me that she woke up from her nap with a fever and babysitter couldn't reach her mother but left a message.) - granddaughter is sobbing in babysitter's arms as I walk through the door. She reaches out her arms to me, and clings to me as I hold her and thank the sitter. Then granddaughter squirms; she's spotted Mommy arriving. She is finally in Mommy's arms, where she belongs.) Don't tell me that babies, and pre-verbal children don't experience love, belonging, connection ...
How their spirituality develops will depend upon their life situation, their family and their culture - but they are born spiritual. Their spirituality can be nurtured or suppressed, but it's there to begin with.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Seriously, people - this guy Pavlos Maros is a classic example of a troll. He's simply here, throwing around insults left, right and centre and looking for a response. You won't be able to have any sort of intelligent conversation with him because he doesn't want an intelligent conversation. He's simply looking for attention by trying to provoke. Ignore him. It will be best for everyone.
revjohn
Well-Known Member
Mystic,
Since you are convinced that I am ducking you in fear and the only way to confirm that I am not is to reply to your list of proof texts I should get started.
Your claim is that this statement proves that Elisha is the right prayer partner.
Prayer isn't even referenced in 2 Kings 5 at all. It is mentioned 4 times in 2 Kings with three of those references being 2 Kings 19: 4, 14, 20 and the fourth being 2 Kings 20: 5. Elisha instructs Naaman to go and wash seven times in the Jordan and be clean. At most that is advice and not prayer.
Trusting the narrative, Elisha knows what is needed and instructs Naaman on what he ought to do. No evidence of prayer occurring at all. I don't deny Elisha had the right answer to Naaman's plight. I simply do not find this lesson to be compelling with respect to the notion of proper prayer partner. In fact, Elisha appears to think that the importance of this episode is:
Unless you are equating proper partner with prophet. In which case why invite the term proper prayer partner when the term prophet already exists?
Your claim is that this proves the 12 are designated as proper prayer partners while the rest of the disciples are not.
Interestingly prayer is a word which is absent from this particular text also.
There is no doubt that Jesus has given authority to the 12. Authority to cast out unclean spirits, as well as, cure every disease and sickness. Why is this authority given to the 12? Well according to Jesus it is:
If this is to be the normative mission, "Preach the Gospel to the lost sheep of Israel but not to the Gentiles or the Samaritans and it is going to be informative of my ministry then my ministry should be to the lost sheep of Israel and I should avoid both Gentiles and Samaritans. History shows that the Church experienced a rising of horizons as the 12 and then the 70 were ready for the work Jesus was handing to them.
Again. I don't find this compelling proof of proper prayer partners unless we are inventing new terminology for the 12. And if it is only the 12 and no one beyond that number the point is moot because you and I are not part of the 12. Or, speaking personally. I am not one of the 12.
Finally a text on proper prayer partners which includes prayer. Philip evangelizes and then Peter and John pop in to finish the job.
Optically there is, at the very least the image that Philip is responsible for the former and Peter and John are responsible for the latter. There is nothing, that convinces me that Philip could not accomplish what Peter and John are credited with nor is there anything which convinces me that there is nothing that Peter and John would have been incapable of accomplishing what Philip did.
The narrative does point to a division of labour. It does not even hint at that division being of necessity. Nowhere does the text claim "only Philip could have done this" or "only Peter and John could have done this." That appears to be a conclusion that you have arrived at. I do not find the text compels that reading or that understanding.
Not that the text connects prayer to Philip at all. Which makes giving him the designation of proper prayer partner a stretch. Even though prayer is cited as the primary ministry of Peter and John and they are the 12 we find them in Samaria where earlier text you appealed to forbids them to go.
The gifting of the Holy Spirit is probably the only place where a case for a proper prayer partner could be made. And if we are going to make it here we need to note that there are other proper ministry partners apart from proper prayer partners. In the text cited are we looking at one or more proper designations?
Those who have the gift to utter wisdom are they prayer partners or are they wisdom partners?
Those who have the gift to utter knowledge are they prayer partners or are they knowledge partners?
Those who have the gift of healing are they prayer partners or are they healing partners?
Further to that, while individuals are gifted in these various realms are they bereft of gifts suitable for other ministries? Is that why, in your above example Philip could only go so far before Peter and John could complete the task?
If that is the crux of your argument then what role is it that you are claiming the gifts for and which roles are you not gifted for?
Even if we reduce the notion of proper prayer partner to "certain occasions" what is the message that is being put forward. That we should pray at all times or that we should put the practice of prayer aside and focus on searching for the right prayer partner knowing that without the right prayer partner being present all prayer is in vain?
I presume this was the actual text you were wanting to be considered James 4: 14-16 doesn't speak at all to the comments you made.
This ties to the 1 Corinthians passage above and indicates that there need be no unnecessary restriction between gifts and offices. We have nothing within scripture that links the office of elder to the specific gift of healing. While the elders are called for what does the text cite as the grounds for healing?
Is the prayer of faith restricted to the office of Elder or might any person of faith offer it? And why in this instance do you hesitate? The Elders can be the right prayer partner? Why are they not the right prayer partners?
My issue is not that prayer results in healing. If we spin that out to without the proper prayer partner there can be no cure from disease or sickness then I have some quarrel with that but only insofar as the optic which presents in the event of a failure to heal eventually devolves to a blame the victim (or the victim's family) for failing to find the right prayer partner.
I do not believe that God fails to hear prayer.
I do not believe that God only listens to prayer from the "right" person.
I do not believe that God's only answer to prayer from the "right" person is "as you wish."
Nor do I believe that God's only answer to prayer from the "wrong" person is "hell, no."
While you may believe that these texts are convincing proof that in every situation there is a right prayer partner I am not lead to that conclusion.
Apart from these texts there are texts such as the following:
If it could only be cast out by the prayers of "the right prayer partner" would Jesus have not made that clear? Otherwise every disciple would simply continue to pray fruitlessly when they could have sent word to the right prayer partner and enjoyed success with less suffering to the afflicted individual.
Apart from that is Matthew 6: 6:
Why is this not proof of the right prayer partner? Because it is rather pointedly pointing at every audience member listening in. You and I should have our own payer rooms where we pray in secret and our Father will reward us accordingly. Is the proper reward of secret prayer a miracle? Possibly. I don't think that this particular text proves that their is a right prayer partner since it appears to establish a direct connection between God and the individual without the need for an intercessor of some kind.
And while the text does say that those who offer their prayers in secret will be rewarded it does not define what the reward will be or even suggest that it will be defined as being miraculous, indeed. If the reward (whatever it might be) is automatic it doesn't qualify as miraculous because it is automatic.
So there you have it. My conclusions are different than yours. If one must be wrong and the other right then one of us might just have the proper understanding. We could equally be wrong and some other understanding be the right one.
Since you are convinced that I am ducking you in fear and the only way to confirm that I am not is to reply to your list of proof texts I should get started.
2 Kings 5: 3 said:
Your claim is that this statement proves that Elisha is the right prayer partner.
Prayer isn't even referenced in 2 Kings 5 at all. It is mentioned 4 times in 2 Kings with three of those references being 2 Kings 19: 4, 14, 20 and the fourth being 2 Kings 20: 5. Elisha instructs Naaman to go and wash seven times in the Jordan and be clean. At most that is advice and not prayer.
Trusting the narrative, Elisha knows what is needed and instructs Naaman on what he ought to do. No evidence of prayer occurring at all. I don't deny Elisha had the right answer to Naaman's plight. I simply do not find this lesson to be compelling with respect to the notion of proper prayer partner. In fact, Elisha appears to think that the importance of this episode is:
2 Kings 5: 8 said:
Unless you are equating proper partner with prophet. In which case why invite the term proper prayer partner when the term prophet already exists?
Matthew 10: 1 said:
Your claim is that this proves the 12 are designated as proper prayer partners while the rest of the disciples are not.
Interestingly prayer is a word which is absent from this particular text also.
There is no doubt that Jesus has given authority to the 12. Authority to cast out unclean spirits, as well as, cure every disease and sickness. Why is this authority given to the 12? Well according to Jesus it is:
Matthew 10: 5-7 said:
If this is to be the normative mission, "Preach the Gospel to the lost sheep of Israel but not to the Gentiles or the Samaritans and it is going to be informative of my ministry then my ministry should be to the lost sheep of Israel and I should avoid both Gentiles and Samaritans. History shows that the Church experienced a rising of horizons as the 12 and then the 70 were ready for the work Jesus was handing to them.
Again. I don't find this compelling proof of proper prayer partners unless we are inventing new terminology for the 12. And if it is only the 12 and no one beyond that number the point is moot because you and I are not part of the 12. Or, speaking personally. I am not one of the 12.
Acts 8: 12-16 said:
Finally a text on proper prayer partners which includes prayer. Philip evangelizes and then Peter and John pop in to finish the job.
Optically there is, at the very least the image that Philip is responsible for the former and Peter and John are responsible for the latter. There is nothing, that convinces me that Philip could not accomplish what Peter and John are credited with nor is there anything which convinces me that there is nothing that Peter and John would have been incapable of accomplishing what Philip did.
The narrative does point to a division of labour. It does not even hint at that division being of necessity. Nowhere does the text claim "only Philip could have done this" or "only Peter and John could have done this." That appears to be a conclusion that you have arrived at. I do not find the text compels that reading or that understanding.
Not that the text connects prayer to Philip at all. Which makes giving him the designation of proper prayer partner a stretch. Even though prayer is cited as the primary ministry of Peter and John and they are the 12 we find them in Samaria where earlier text you appealed to forbids them to go.
1 Corinthians 12: 7-9 said:
The gifting of the Holy Spirit is probably the only place where a case for a proper prayer partner could be made. And if we are going to make it here we need to note that there are other proper ministry partners apart from proper prayer partners. In the text cited are we looking at one or more proper designations?
Those who have the gift to utter wisdom are they prayer partners or are they wisdom partners?
Those who have the gift to utter knowledge are they prayer partners or are they knowledge partners?
Those who have the gift of healing are they prayer partners or are they healing partners?
Further to that, while individuals are gifted in these various realms are they bereft of gifts suitable for other ministries? Is that why, in your above example Philip could only go so far before Peter and John could complete the task?
If that is the crux of your argument then what role is it that you are claiming the gifts for and which roles are you not gifted for?
Even if we reduce the notion of proper prayer partner to "certain occasions" what is the message that is being put forward. That we should pray at all times or that we should put the practice of prayer aside and focus on searching for the right prayer partner knowing that without the right prayer partner being present all prayer is in vain?
James 5: 13-15 said:
I presume this was the actual text you were wanting to be considered James 4: 14-16 doesn't speak at all to the comments you made.
This ties to the 1 Corinthians passage above and indicates that there need be no unnecessary restriction between gifts and offices. We have nothing within scripture that links the office of elder to the specific gift of healing. While the elders are called for what does the text cite as the grounds for healing?
James 5: 15 said:
Is the prayer of faith restricted to the office of Elder or might any person of faith offer it? And why in this instance do you hesitate? The Elders can be the right prayer partner? Why are they not the right prayer partners?
My issue is not that prayer results in healing. If we spin that out to without the proper prayer partner there can be no cure from disease or sickness then I have some quarrel with that but only insofar as the optic which presents in the event of a failure to heal eventually devolves to a blame the victim (or the victim's family) for failing to find the right prayer partner.
I do not believe that God fails to hear prayer.
I do not believe that God only listens to prayer from the "right" person.
I do not believe that God's only answer to prayer from the "right" person is "as you wish."
Nor do I believe that God's only answer to prayer from the "wrong" person is "hell, no."
While you may believe that these texts are convincing proof that in every situation there is a right prayer partner I am not lead to that conclusion.
Apart from these texts there are texts such as the following:
Mark 9: 28-29 said:
If it could only be cast out by the prayers of "the right prayer partner" would Jesus have not made that clear? Otherwise every disciple would simply continue to pray fruitlessly when they could have sent word to the right prayer partner and enjoyed success with less suffering to the afflicted individual.
Apart from that is Matthew 6: 6:
Matthew 6: 6 said:
Why is this not proof of the right prayer partner? Because it is rather pointedly pointing at every audience member listening in. You and I should have our own payer rooms where we pray in secret and our Father will reward us accordingly. Is the proper reward of secret prayer a miracle? Possibly. I don't think that this particular text proves that their is a right prayer partner since it appears to establish a direct connection between God and the individual without the need for an intercessor of some kind.
And while the text does say that those who offer their prayers in secret will be rewarded it does not define what the reward will be or even suggest that it will be defined as being miraculous, indeed. If the reward (whatever it might be) is automatic it doesn't qualify as miraculous because it is automatic.
So there you have it. My conclusions are different than yours. If one must be wrong and the other right then one of us might just have the proper understanding. We could equally be wrong and some other understanding be the right one.
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
I'd like to observe that, like my auntie who was a kindergarten teacher her whole career, some people can't do much about the face they present to the world. (I cannot tell you how irritating I find that particular auntie, but I am compelled to love her.)
Then there are those that would rather know "nothing" about strange stuff ... and thus the dark god syndrome ... because they are not aware of that within them?
Some say it is something to shed to get out of the present state of believing they know eternal stuff ... alas not much of that comparatively speaking ...
Some say it is something to shed to get out of the present state of believing they know eternal stuff ... alas not much of that comparatively speaking ...