Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Leaven again.
More to the point.

Matthew 13:33

“Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.”

King James Version (KJV)

Evil?

Not in that context -- but in the context of the passages I cited it is.

"Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." The Pharisees -- the sons of the devil, according to Jesus.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

FYI boxcar,

Personal pronouns show person and number.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/g...im-it-they-etc

A person, boxcar, is an individual not a non-collective.

Keep on digging, how deep is your hole? Apparently not deep enough.

BTW I am still waiting on your explanation of what "said distributively" means. How do you say something distributively? Do you move to different physical spaces and say a few words in each physical space?

What part of the dictionary definition of "we" don't you get? Tell me, so that I can try to deliver you from your self-imposed ignorance. Apparently, you didn't notice that "person" wasn't part of the definition.

And context of the sentence determines what is meant by "distributively".

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

How is asking you a question psycho-babble?

How? That's easy: It originated out of the labyrinth that is perpetually expanding between your ears.

Re your stupid "flip" question: I give a flip for Jesus and all writers of scripture.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, does "man" (mankind, your definition) have the indwelling Christ?

Quote me where I defined "man" as mankind as my definition? Do not quote examples of grammar regarding pronoun usage and their meaning, as a definition. Also, how do you define mankind?

The question is do you agree with Calvin that the Christ indwells in the hearts of individual men, individuals who are partakers of the Holy Spirit? I guess, in your speak, the question is Calvin correct in teaching that Christ indwells distributively in men.

We are waiting for a responsive answer.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How? That's easy: It originated out of the labyrinth that is perpetually expanding between your ears.

Re your stupid "flip" question: I give a flip for Jesus and all writers of scripture.

Jesus is not a writer of Scripture. Besides I asked which neo-calvinist teacher/preachers you gave a flip.

[Show Me the Wire]

Boxie:

These should be an easy questions.

You believe in double predestination, correct?

God determines who is saved and who is condemned in eternity past, correct

You believe you would be saved no matter what, even if you were born in a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist practicing nation or some isolated area, is that correct?

God preordained your salvation prior to you being born, correct?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Not in that context -- but in the context of the passages I cited it is.

"Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." The Pharisees -- the sons of the devil, according to Jesus.

The context of Matthew 13:33 was where and what he kingdom of heaven was . It further elaborated on yes a a similar metaphor for growth or something rising or expanding.

“Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.”

As the preceding parable about the mustard seed was. The Pharisees were believers in the Letter of the law versus the spirit of the Law. Exactly what you follow.And absolutely the wrong context to use.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.....Matthew 23:23

[hcap]

In fact a major teaching of the NT was not the letter of the law, but to search for what had been destroyed by literal minded interpretations. The Jews, metaphorically represented those that fell into this trap.

Of course further generations of literal minded pseudo Christians accused actual Jews of killing Christ and the actual Jews, not the metaphorical ones were ironically consequently murdered and persecuted for 2 millennia out here in the real world, not the analogous one written about in bible mythos.

Thanks to the LETTER of THE LAW

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Jesus is not a writer of Scripture. Besides I asked which neo-calvinist teacher/preachers you gave a flip.

I gave my answer. I give a flip to Jesus and the inspired writers of scripture. To who else should I give the right time of day in terms of understanding spiritual truth?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What part of the dictionary definition of "we" don't you get? Tell me, so that I can try to deliver you from your self-imposed ignorance. Apparently, you didn't notice that "person" wasn't part of the definition.

And context of the sentence determines what is meant by "distributively".

The false definition you are trying to pass off as true. I don't get that one.

Again the definition of "we".

we
wē/Submit
pronoun
1.
used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together.
"shall we have a drink?"
2.
used in formal contexts for or by a royal person, or by a writer or editor, to refer to himself or herself.
"in this section we discuss the reasons"

"We" is defined as referring to self and an one or more people (multiple selves). There is no reference to a non-personal collective, as you insist.

Your example sentence. As employees of this company, we are subject to it policies and rules.

In your example sentence the first person speaker may be talking to one other person, the listener. In this case, the pronoun "we" refers to the speaker and a listener. Two separate individuals and not a non-personal collective.

The first person speaker may be talking to a group, a group of employees, a mixed group of employees and non employees or a group of non employees. I don't know because you did not specify the number or group type.

In all, the above scenarios, the speaker is referring to himself and one or more other selves (people). Again, regardless of the number in the other group i.e one, two, three, etc, the proper interpretation of "we" is myself or himself to/with another self of some unknown number of people, unless the number is disclosed.

An author's written text allows the author (first person speaker), to speak to a reader. The reader reading the text, akin to the listener in your example sentence.

Calvin as the author, first person speaker, is talking to a specific listener. The reader who is the person actually reading the text. Thus, the context the written pronoun"we" used is to refer to the author, Calvin, and the actual current individual who is reading Calvin's text.

Apparently you failed to notice the non-collective is not used in the definition of "we" and continue to ignore that "self" is used. You failed to realize a speaker and a listener is not a non-collective. You failed to realize a reader of the words of an author do not comprise a non-collective. You fail to realize personal means a "particular" person. You don't comprehend the word personal modifies the word pronoun. Do you comprehend that there are non-personal pronouns too.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I gave my answer. I give a flip to Jesus and the inspired writers of scripture. To who else should I give the right time of day in terms of understanding spiritual truth?

Yes, you gave another non-responsive answer.

So you are stating, you never listen to or read any Scriptural interpretations of current teachers or preachers regarding any form of Reformed theology. You are also stating you do not have a preacher, who interprets Scripture, at the church you attend.

You are claiming you dismiss your preacher's interpretations, when he preaches his sermons.

Are you the preacher for your church community?

[Show Me the Wire]

Edit of post 3835.


Thus, the context the written pronoun"we" is used in, is to refer to the author, Calvin, and the actual current individual who is reading Calvin's text.

and not,

Thus, the context the written pronoun"we" used is to refer to the author, Calvin, and the actual current individual who is reading Calvin's text.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The context of Matthew 13:33 was where and what he kingdom of heaven was . It further elaborated on yes a a similar metaphor for growth or something rising or expanding.

As the preceding parable about the mustard seed was. The Pharisees were believers in the Letter of the law versus the spirit of the Law. Exactly what you follow.And absolutely the wrong context to use.

And that, sir, is precisely what made the Pharisees evil -- what made them sons of the devil, as well as their "leaven" (teaching) as being evil. Why do you think Jesus also said of the Pharisees:

"Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, you will in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven"?

In short, Jesus never taught about an internal, invisible kingdom. That did not come to fore in scripture until after His ascension.

Rom 14:17
17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
NASB

You have another severe chronology problem, since the Holy Spirit was not poured out on the Church until Pentecost -- 10 days after Christ's ascension. Therefore, the Pharisees in Luke 17 could not have had the kingdom of God within them!

Moreover, there is that equally pesky problem in Matthew 21 wherein Jesus told the Jews that the kingdom of God would be taken from them and given to another nation. That, too, occurred at the ascension when Christ was taken up into heaven. So...whatever you think it was that the Pharisees had in Luke 17, Jesus promised in Matthew 21 that it would be taken away from all Israel and given to another "nation" that would bear the good fruit of the kingdom.

Just as an aside -- Jesus' ascension recorded in Acts 1 fulfilled the prophecy in Daniel 7 where the Son of Man (Jesus, for your info) is going UP to the Ancient of Days (God the Father) to receive a kingdom. The kingdom Jesus received is the Nation to whom the kingdom was given, i.e. The Father's elect (a/k/a OT and NT saints). Jesus' Church is the "invisible" (borderless nation) and it's this nation that is filling the earth, i.e. the huge mustard tree in the parable. Is not Christ's Church literally all over the world? And the "birds" are the members of Christ's Church -- God's people live in that tree -- the kingdom. That "tree" in this age actually symbolizes the "tree of life" in the Garden and the "tree of life" in paradise restored in Revelation. The "birds of the air", in this age, receive all their substance and protection by residing in that tree.

But this isn't the end of it. Not by a long shot. At end of this age at the Second Coming, Christ takes the kingdom he received from his Father, when he ascended to the throne of God where He now sits at His Father's right hand, and He returns it to his Father!

1 Cor 15:24-26
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
NIV

Death will be destroyed when Jesus returns on Judgment Day which is also the Day of the Resurrection of the Just and the Wicked. And what is the Kingdom Christ delivers up to his Father? The Church, of course! The Holy Nation to whom the kingdom of God was given when it was taken from Israel.

See how perfectly seamless, consistent harmonious redemptive eschatology is? Anything else you'd like to know about the kingdom of God?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Edit of post 3835.


Thus, the context the written pronoun"we" is used in, is to refer to the author, Calvin, and the actual current individual who is reading Calvin's text.

and not,

Thus, the context the written pronoun"we" used is to refer to the author, Calvin, and the actual current individual who is reading Calvin's text.

How many persons does it take to comprise a group?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Yes, you gave another non-responsive answer.

So you are stating, you never listen to or read any Scriptural interpretations of current teachers or preachers regarding any form of Reformed theology. You are also stating you do not have a preacher, who interprets Scripture, at the church you attend.

You are claiming you dismiss your preacher's interpretations, when he preaches his sermons.

Are you the preacher for your church community?

I didn't say that. That's your insane interpretation. Do you know what the Bereans were noted for in Acts 17? (Well, whether you do or not, is irrelevant.) But I'm like them.