unfinished business

[john w]

Note I said in some areas that are 'unknowable' I could claim 'agnostic' in those areas - but if you want to highlight the fact that 'gnosis' is needed to 'know' anything (even that you don't know), that gives props to 'gnosticism'. By these terms and their definitions then, even you could have both 'gnosis' and 'agnosis' at varying shifts or periods in space and time, isn't that possible? Obviously while I enjoy the path of the mystic, I also acknowledge such a place referred to some divines as "the cloud of unknowing",...that there is a realm of utter transcendence of knowledge that is in its essence 'unknowable', but is still intuitively recognized, so that a paradox of sorts exists in the contrasting worlds of both light and darkness, these existing in this conditional realm of space-time relativity. So, I'll let you play with the nauances therein

Wow! Amazing how many turn a simple question, into an encyclopedia/novel answer, long dissertation.


And you missed it-agnostic-"cannot know." Hence-how did you come to know that?

Breath deep......Let it sink in....

 

[freelight]

gnosis bytes.......

gnosis bytes.......

Wow! Amazing how many turn a simple question, into an encyclopedia/novel answer, long dissertation.


And you missed it-agnostic-"cannot know." Hence-how did you come to know that?

Breath deep......Let it sink in....

Its called 'creative dialogue', give it a try.

Your limiting the meaning of 'agnostic', it can also mean 'does not know' in the way I'm using it. It can also include something that is not knowable in the ordinary sense. - give yourself some 'wiggle room'.

If we apply this to 'God',....do you know 'God'?, or do you just have an intellectual concept or image of 'God', which may be different than the reality that we describe as 'God'. Its all relative isn't it? By a classical definition of being a 'theist', you accept that there are both knowable and unknowable aspects of Deity, unless you CLAIM full knowledge in toto. - in context then, you are 'agnostic' by default to a degree, considering the finite cannot fully know the infinite.

 

[john w]

Its called 'creative dialogue', give it a try.

Your limiting the meaning of 'agnostic', it can also mean 'does not know' in the way I'm using it. It can also include something that is not knowable in the ordinary sense. - give yourself some 'wiggle room'.

If we apply this to 'God',....do you know 'God'?, or do you just have an intellectual concept or image of 'God', which may be different than the reality that we describe as 'God'. Its all relative isn't it? By a classical definition of being a 'theist', you accept that there are both knowable and unknowable aspects of Deity, unless you CLAIM full knowledge in toto. - in context then, you are 'agnostic' by default to a degree, considering the finite cannot fully know the infinite.

Slower-you missed it-agnostic-"cannot know." Hence-how did you come to know that?

Breath deep......Let it sink in....

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Wow! Amazing how many turn a simple question, into an encyclopedia/novel answer, long dissertation.


And you missed it-agnostic-"cannot know." Hence-how did you come to know that?

Breath deep......Let it sink in....

Freelight might just get a book deal out of his last few posts. He has friends in "HIGH" places. In other words, other Galaxies.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Its called 'creative dialogue', give it a try.

Your limiting the meaning of 'agnostic', it can also mean 'does not know' in the way I'm using it. It can also include something that is not knowable in the ordinary sense. - give yourself some 'wiggle room'.

If we apply this to 'God',....do you know 'God'?, or do you just have an intellectual concept or image of 'God', which may be different than the reality that we describe as 'God'. Its all relative isn't it? By a classical definition of being a 'theist', you accept that there are both knowable and unknowable aspects of Deity, unless you CLAIM full knowledge in toto. - in context then, you are 'agnostic' by default to a degree, considering the finite cannot fully know the infinite.

Have you had any telepathic contact with the Mothership lately? There's a rumor going around that, your little green men with their shiny UFOs are getting impatient with you. Any truth in that vicious rumor?

 

[freelight]

good gawd........

good gawd........

Slower-you missed it-agnostic-"cannot know." Hence-how did you come to know that?

Breath deep......Let it sink in....

Already addressed the way I'm using the term within the context granted, - if you need more to go on, you'll have to go without 'knowing'. Funny how 'agnosis' creeps up on you like that, eh? :crackup:

 

[john w]

Already addressed the way I'm using the term within the context granted, - if you need more to go on, you'll have to go without 'knowing'. Funny how 'agnosis' creeps up on you like that, eh? :crackup:

No, you did not.

Fun!

 

[heir]

And I could put up three verses saying exactly otherwise- and we'd be right back to where we are now

That would just be you proving your rebellion against 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV.

What you don't realize is that you're just defending 'universalism'. You aren't making any argument against Calvinism.

No, what I am defending is a biblical due time world reconciliation as in 2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV!

 

[heir]

The referent of 'this' in v.11 is the gospel outlined in v.3-8.

You cannot show where Peter preached the gospel of Christ as the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; not in Acts 2,3,4,5, not ever!

 

[heir]

How did you come to "know" that you are an agnostic?

When he believed not and was blinded 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 KJV.

 

[jamie]

You cannot show where Peter preached the gospel of Christ as the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; not in Acts 2,3,4,5, not ever!

Which means what? Did Peter preach what the Holy Spirit led him to preach?

 

[Sonnet]

You cannot show where Peter preached the gospel of Christ as the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; not in Acts 2,3,4,5, not ever!

Since the 'this' of v.11 is the Gospel of vv.3-8 which Paul and the apostles preached then nothing more need be proven. Why on earth would you suggest otherwise?

11 Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

That 'this' refers to vv.3-8 is clear because Paul says 'this is what you (the Corinthians) believed.' Paul has just reminded them of the Gospel that they believed;

1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Which means what? Did Peter preach what the Holy Spirit led him to preach?

Give us your opinion on this.

 

[heir]

Since the 'this' of v.11 is the Gospel of vv.3-8 which Paul and the apostles preached then nothing more need be proven. Why on earth would you suggest otherwise?

There is no "this in verse 11 anymore than there is a we (as you say) in verse 3 (1 Corinthians 15:3 KJV)!

Your problem remains that Paul says of 1 Cor. 15:3, '...this is what we (the apostles) preach and this is what you (the Corinthians) believed.'

The context of verse 11 is resurrection as you were shown before. http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?118903-unfinished-business&p=4774420&viewfull=1#post4774420

What did Peter preach in Acts 2 was the reason that God raised Christ from the dead? What did Paul preach as to the resurrection of Jesus Christ? This:

Peter preached:

Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;


Paul preached:

Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.


Things that are different are not the same! It is not the same gospel!

 

[heir]

Which means what?

Peter did not preach Paul's "my gospel"! If Peter were preaching Paul's gospel, we would see evidence of it in Acts 2 at Pentecost when Peter preached to all the house of Israel. We don't!

 

[Sonnet]

There is no "this in verse 11 anymore than there is a we (as you say) in verse 3 (1 Corinthians 15:3 KJV)!

In verse 11, when Paul says, 'this is what you believed,' who is he talking to?

 

[heir]

In verse 11, when Paul says, 'this is what you believed,' who is he talking to?

1 Corinthians 15:11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

The "ye" who "believed" in the resurrection from the dead, specifically of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.


Those who heard the preaching of Peter would have heard and believed this:


Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Acts 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Acts 2:25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

Acts 2:26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:

Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Acts 2:28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.



Those who heard and believed Paul's preaching, this:

Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.



1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1 Corinthians 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

 

[jamie]

Peter did not preach Paul's "my gospel"!

Peter approved of Paul's gospel and extended fellowship, why do you believe Peter was required to preach anything other than what he was led to preach by the Holy Spirit?

Much to do about nothing. Peter and Paul were different people with different jobs to do.

Peter preached the gospel of God and so did Paul. There is only one body and one Spirit.

 

[Sonnet]

1 Corinthians 15:11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

The "ye" who "believed" in the resurrection from the dead, specifically of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

That you disassociate the 'ye' of v.11 from those before is baffling. Verse 11 is a continuation of them:

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

That which the apostles, including Paul, preached is:

1. Christ's death for the sinner
2. His burial
3. His resurrection
4. The sightings of Him

 

[heir]

Peter approved of Paul's gospel and extended fellowship, why do you believe Peter was required to preach anything other than what he was led to preach by the Holy Spirit?

I don't! Why don't you ask people who insist Peter preached the gospel of Christ as the power of God when he didn't?

Peter preached the gospel of God and so did Paul.

Yes. Neither of which preached that the gospel of God was salvation.

There is only one body and one Spirit.

Yes, What does this have to do with Peter?