The Absent Christ?

[Nathan_Jr]

Got gloves?

 

When it's a bright, sunshiny, cloudless day in October, you'd rather have them and not need them than need them and not have them.

 

[waysider]

20 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

How does this relate to the absent Christ?

He wasn't absent 'cause he was in  Mary's belly, just floatin' 'round, havin' a good old time..

[Nathan_Jr]

5 minutes ago, waysider said:

He wasn't absent 'cause he was in  Mary's belly, just floatin' 'round, havin' a good old time..

He was so cute!  Baby's all grown up now.... and absent.

[T-Bone]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

I have already spent 50 years searching the scriptures (usually KJV) and found PLENTY of verses how God, Jesus Christ, and the gift of holy spirit guide us into understanding.

 

 

T-Bone’s response:  and yet  YOU  had previously said “Actually, I spent a lot of time working the KJV on the trinity, BEFORE JCNG came out.  I had in my research found a few more points of proof beyond what was in that book. He also had some points that I missed.  One of my scoops over JCNG regards the Holy Spirit, and I find it very powerful in discussing the trinity and Jesus being God to those in that prison.”

That’s very strange – because my statements were:

I think you may have fell for wierwille's  bull$hit  line "you can't go beyond what you're taught" says who?!?! wierwille that's who.

Besides cognitive skills, I think understanding  from God the Father / Jesus Christ / The Holy Spirit  is something wierwille did not have a clue about...maybe stubbornness, moral depravity, seared conscience, pride and delusions of grandeur gunked up his receptivity - I dunno...just a guess  

~ ~ ~ ~

I made NO  reference to the Trinity in that!  Matter of fact, I think the way I intentionally phrased that is probably a good middle ground for Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians to meet. You’ve said it yourself – that  you’ve spent over 50 years searching the scriptures (usually KJV) and found PLENTY of verses how God, Jesus Christ, and the gift of holy spirit guide us into understanding … Looks like we’re in agreement on that – so why did YOU launch into the big JCING promo?

When you backpedal like this – it makes me think you bring up stuff just to be argumentative.

[waysider]

Silly question: If you can't go beyond what you're taught, what's the point of doing Biblical research?

[So_crates]

4 hours ago, Twinky said:

Some of us look at Jesus Christ and his accomplishments.  Some of us also look at our magnificent God and his wonderful works.  Some of us read various versions of the Bible to try to get a fuller picture and understanding.  Some of us study other people's theological thinking, and then check that out.

Some of us look at the Christ in our Christian brothers and sisters, and endeavour to learn from them, too.

But...

Some look at thieves, bullies, and corrupt individuals.

Some are still stuck in a rut that has ever deepening sides, such that the bigger picture gets smaller and smaller.

If Mike were female, I'd say he was alpha widowed, he found that one man that he measures everyone by, yet nobody can meet up to that measurement.

[So_crates]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

Instead you are like-minded on loving to hate and focus on the sins of others. 

So tell me, Mike, as per your previous statement, what are you focused on?

Hint: it's in front of, I mean, above your nose. (That's a hint.)

[Nathan_Jr]

Ok. To sum up.

 

"Christ in you" is more mathematically exact and more scientifically precise when rendered as supplied literally according to usage as "the absent Christ in you."

Except for that little kid. Victor said Jesus was in him, not Christ. That's the ONLY exception. That's grace, y'all. Just tremendous!

We've learned that it is, indeed, true to fact, even when the gloves appear not to fit.

Some are content to stay in the fifth grade forever and cling to that teaching - never going beyond it.

Snow starts with the letter B.

Murder has been legal in California since 1995.

 

 

This summary trip - it's a real dandy! 

 

 

Thanks for starting this thread OldSkool! Just a tremendous kernel!

[T-Bone]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Waysider I am willing to give you partial credit for your answer, which was "God."  But the question originated in T-Bone's claim that VPW did not understand the Holy Spirit.  He did understand; it is here that I sense a lack.

I never, ever heard anyone, including VPW, use this simple way to unravel the trinity.  The Father is the Holy Spirit; different titles for the same True God.  So, I am copyrighting it, and you all have to cite me if you use it.

Let’s review and get the details right…

I had said:

Anything wrong with those guys  or  letting God the Father / Jesus Christ / The Holy Spirit guide you?

I think you may have fell for wierwille's  bull$hit  line "you can't go beyond what you're taught" says who?!?! wierwille that's who.

Besides cognitive skills, I think understanding  from God the Father / Jesus Christ / The Holy Spirit  is something wierwille did not have a clue about...

~ ~ ~ ~

I never claimed I was unraveling…or explaining…or clearing up any issues with the doctrine of the Trinity. YOU  are saying that.  

 

Maybe  YOU  should start reviewing those 66 or so posts I made on that Trinity thread I told you about so YOU  can get it straight what I have said about the Trinity. I mean, come on –  are you lazy or tired or afraid of listening to someone who has little regard for wierwille’s mischaracterization of Trinitarians?

 

I’ll tell you WHY I said Besides cognitive skills, I think understanding  from God the Father / Jesus Christ / The Holy Spirit  is something wierwille did not have a clue about…I won’t address wierwille’s poor cognitive skills because myself and other Grease Spotters have gone round and round with you on many threads about his inability to reason, his penchant for plagiarism, and his manipulation of language and Scripture and his goofball definitions – and all you seem to know how to do is disparage the use of critical thinking skills, defend his plagiarism and reinterpret his twisted interpretations of Scripture…that’s like a double-twist I guess  ...should we go over the laundry list of wierwille's bad behavior - which must have grieved God/JC/HS but you wish to turn a blind eye to it all...but then again you've already stated God tolerates bad behavior...is TWI paying you good money to defend that little fraudster? inquiring minds want to know.

 

what I will say about his LACK of knowledge and experience of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is what I’ve garnered from wierwille’s own body of work. I mean – didn’t he teach God can only speak to what He is which is spirit? Didn’t he teach God’s spirit teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit, and your spirit teaches your mind? God can only speak to spirit – but your spirit can speak to your mind? Huh?    Didn’t wierwille claim God would teach him the Word like it hadn’t be known since the 1^st century? Except they didn’t have the written Word in the 1^st century. Didn’t wierwille teach “the Word takes the place of the absent Christ” ?  For a charlatan who couldn't discern his way out of a porn video soaking in a 252-gallon vat of Drambuie - I have very little confidence he knew anything about the Bible/ God/Jesus Christ/the Holy Spirit.

wierwille was a fraud!

 

Edited October 5, 2022 by T-Bone
Oh, typos my typos

[Mike]

4 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

"Christ in you" is more mathematically exact and more scientifically precise when rendered as supplied literally according to usage as "the absent Christ in you."

 

No again.  What's the problem?

The absent Christ is the physical man. Remember Acts chapter 1 ?

You have the SPIRIT of Christ in you, not the physical man! 
That is equivalent to saying you have the the gift, pneuma hagion in you.

So, the rest of your summary is in the mud and not worth commenting on.

[Mike]

58 minutes ago, waysider said:

He wasn't absent 'cause he was in  Mary's belly, just floatin' 'round, havin' a good old time..

That same human, the Christ, Jesus became absent some years later in Acts chapter 1

 

 

[Nathan_Jr]

Just now, Mike said:

No again.  What's the problem?

The absent Christ is the physical man. Remember Acts chapter 1 ?

You have the SPIRIT of Christ in you, not the physical man! 
That is equivalent to saying you have the the gift, pneuma hagion in you.

So, the rest of your summary is in the mud and not worth commenting on.

So, really, a more accurate phrasing would be the "absent Jesus."

Except that little kid. He had Jesus, the Nazarene, the physical man in him, according to victor. 

[Nathan_Jr]

6 minutes ago, Mike said:

So, the rest of your summary is in the mud and not worth commenting on.

You mean in the soup, right? In the soup. Not the mud.

[Mike]

1 hour ago, Nathan_Jr said:

He was so cute!  Baby's all grown up now.... and absent.

ONLY temporarily.  He could be back tomorrow.

[Nathan_Jr]

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

ONLY temporarily.  He could be back tomorrow.

Right. Baby Jesus is absent. But the Christ is not absent. The Christ is within. The spiritual Christ.

It's more accurate to say absent Jesus, present Christ. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by Nathan_Jr

[Mike]

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

When you backpedal like this – it makes me think you bring up stuff just to be argumentative.

No, that is not the case.  There is no need for me to invent arguments; there are plenty that I see here plain as day begging my ministering to.  In fact there are tTOO MANY of them for me to handle.

If you could clearly document the back-peddling you sense, maybe I can explain it quickly and not derail anything.

[T-Bone]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

No, that is not the case.  There is no need for me to invent arguments; there are plenty that I see here plain as day begging my ministering to.  In fact there are tTOO MANY of them for me to handle.

If you could clearly document the back-peddling you sense, maybe I can explain it quickly and not derail anything.

No need to - because you're doing it right now     

[Mike]

1 minute ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Right. Baby Jesus is absent. But the Christ is not absent. The Christ is within. The spiritual Christ.

It's more accurate to say absent Jesus, present Christ. 

I actually LIKE that! 

You got it right!

And on every point you just posted.  

Good job.

Adding to it:  the absent Jesus, the man, can be expressed as the figure of speech "The absent Christ" but only as long as we are talking about the PHYSICAL Christ.

The PHYSICAL written Word takes the place of the PHYSICALLY absent Christ (figurative).

which is equivalent to:

The PHYSICAL written Word takes the place of the PHYSICALLY absent Jesus (literally).

 

[Nathan_Jr]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

I actually LIKE that! 

You got it right!

And on every point you just posted.  

Good job.

Adding to it:  the absent Jesus, the man, can be expressed as the figure of speech "The absent Christ" but only as long as we are talking about the PHYSICAL Christ.

The PHYSICAL written Word takes the place of the PHYSICALLY absent Christ (figurative).

which is equivalent to:

The PHYSICAL written Word takes the place of the PHYSICALLY absent Jesus (literally).

 

Before we start talking about replacing things, let's get the usage accurate and precise so as not to cultivate any more confusion. Victor established this confusion, but right here right now, he is getting corrected. (Bless his little heart.)

Figures of speech are usually used when the literal words just aren't enough. So, let's toss out the the inadequate phrase, coined by victor, that has caused so much confusion since the beginning. Don't say absent Christ when you mean absent Jesus, the Nazarene.

The point is, mean what you say and say what you mean.

The absent Nazarene, Jesus.

[Rocky]

3 hours ago, Twinky said:

Mike derails every thread.

FACT!

Also fact, I tried to warn you guys.

[Rocky]

46 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

scientifically precise

Btw, generally speaking, and notwithstanding Wierwille's years of gaslighting, science isn't precise.

[Nathan_Jr]

Just now, Rocky said:

Btw, generally speaking, and notwithstanding Wierwille's years of gaslighting, science isn't precise.

Ha! I know! I was trying to quote him. Did I get it wrong? I always seems to screw up that phrase. Mathematically exact and scientifically precise?

[Mike]

10 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

 

Figures of speech are usually used when the literal words just aren't enough.

 

No, we were taught that when God wants to emphasize something in His Word He uses a figure of speech.  They didn't have the option of bold fonts, or exclamation points, or large fonts, or ALL-CAPs characters.  We do have them.  When we teach we can use figures of speech to emphasize, but often will be misunderstood, unless our students are sharp and pay close attention.

[Mike]

1 hour ago, waysider said:

Silly question: If you can't go beyond what you're taught, what's the point of doing Biblical research?

The Biblical writers teach you there, along with God.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Mike

[Nathan_Jr]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

No, we were taught that when God wants to emphasize something in His Word He uses a figure of speech.  They didn't have the option of bold fonts, or exclamation points, or large fonts, or ALL-CAPs characters.  We do have them.  When we teach we can use figures of speech to emphasize, but often will be misunderstood, unless our students are sharp and pay close attention.

Well, you were taught wrong. But that's ok. You don't have to cling to that teaching anymore. You can, indeed, go beyond what you were taught.

It's not always about emphasis. Often it's about poetry. It's about illustration. It's about descriptive conveyance of meaning that a literal construction just can't convey.

If chosing to use a figure of speech for emphasis causes confusion, then you should write plainly, say what you mean and mean what you say, otherwise, you risk emphasizing confusion.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Nathan_Jr
A correction profitable unto righteousness.