Born is the King

[Perry Staltic]

There are several verses which corroborate these points, but suffice it to say that a person who is born again cannot be unborn, nor can their spirit be degenerated.

This sounds like gnosticism. That's what Christian (and other) gnostics believed.

 

[Twohandsondeck]

This sounds like gnosticism. That's what Christian (and other) gnostics believed.

What is the "that" that you're referring to?

Of relevance:

2 Peter 1:20-21
[20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
[21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Webster's 1828 has this entry for Gnostics:

GNOS'TIC, n. nostic. [L. gnosticus; Gr. to know.]
The Gnostics were a sect of philosophers that arose in the first ages of christianity, who pretended they were the only men who had a true knowledge of the christian religion. They formed for themselves a system of theology, agreeable to the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato, to which they accommodated their interpretations of scripture. They held that all natures, intelligible, intellectual and material, are derived by successive emanations from the infinite fountain of deity. These emanations they called oeons. These doctrines were derived from the oriental philosophy.
GNOS'TIC, a. nostic. Pertaining to the Gnostics or their doctrines.

 

[Perry Staltic]

What is the "that" that you're referring to?

Just what I included in your quote - "that a person who is born again cannot be unborn, nor can their spirit be degenerated." Irenaeus wrote about the gnostics of his time, and what you wrote sounds like what he wrote about them. This is from Against Heresies, book 1, chapter 6. I highlighted the relevant parts, namely the impossibility of their spiritual nature becoming corrupted, which sounds like your "their spirit cannot be degenerated", and they cannot lose their spiritual substance (grace received as a seed), which sounds like your "a person who is born again cannot be unborn". Pleroma below refers to heaven.

They further hold that the consummation of all things will take place when all that is spiritual has been formed and perfected by Gnosis (knowledge); and by this they mean spiritual men who have attained to the perfect knowledge of God, and been initiated into these mysteries by Achamoth. And they represent themselves to be these persons.

2. Animal men, again, are instructed in animal things; such men, namely, as are established by their works, and by a mere faith, while they have not perfect knowledge. We of the Church, they say, are these persons. Wherefore also they maintain that good works are necessary to us, for that otherwise it is impossible we should be saved. But as to themselves, they hold that they shall be entirely and undoubtedly saved, not by means of conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature. For, just as it is impossible that material substance should partake of salvation (since, indeed, they maintain that it is incapable of receiving it), so again it is impossible that spiritual substance (by which they mean themselves) should ever come under the power of corruption, whatever the sort of actions in which they indulged. For even as gold, when submersed in filth, loses not on that account its beauty, but retains its own native qualities, the filth having no power to injure the gold, so they affirm that they cannot in any measure suffer hurt, or lose their spiritual substance, whatever the material actions in which they may be involved.

3. Wherefore also it comes to pass, that the most perfect among them addict themselves without fear to all those kinds of forbidden deeds of which the Scriptures assure us that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. ...

4. And committing many other abominations and impieties, they run us down (who from the fear of God guard against sinning even in thought or word) as utterly contemptible and ignorant persons, while they highly exalt themselves, and claim to be perfect, and the elect seed. For they declare that we simply receive grace for use, wherefore also it will again be taken away from us; but that they themselves have grace as their own special possession, which has descended from above by means of an unspeakable and indescribable conjunction; and on this account more will be given them. ... they tell us that it is necessary for us whom they call animal men, and describe as being of the world, to practise continence and good works, that by this means we may attain at length to the intermediate habitation, but that to them who are called the spiritual and perfect such a course of conduct is not at all necessary. For it is not conduct of any kind which leads into the Pleroma, but the seed sent forth thence in a feeble, immature state, and here brought to perfection.

 

[Twohandsondeck]

Just what I included in your quote - "that a person who is born again cannot be unborn, nor can their spirit be degenerated." Irenaeus wrote about the gnostics of his time, and what you wrote sounds like what he wrote about them. This is from Against Heresies, book 1, chapter 6. I highlighted the relevant parts, namely the impossibility of their spiritual nature becoming corrupted, which sounds like your "their spirit cannot be degenerated", and they cannot lose their spiritual substance (grace received as a seed), which sounds like your "a person who is born again cannot be unborn". Pleroma below refers to heaven.

An accumulation of knowledge bears no weight in regard to whether a person has eternal life or not.

I know that I'm saved, but it's not an excuse to go out of my way to live in unrighteousness. Harboring an uncertain fear of a missing salvation is not of God, but of the deceiver. Similarly, it is not God Who tempts men, but Satan.

There's nothing special about the flesh of us saved folk, for we are all level at the foot of the cross, as I've heard it put before. God's ways are past finding out:

Romans 11:33-36
[33] O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
[34] For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
[35] Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
[36] For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

I cannot say much else about the gnostic crew, other than that they are not more wise than God.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20
[18] Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
[19] For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
[20] And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

 

[Twohandsondeck]

I'm afraid that nothing that follows this is justifying this view. Were they interchangeable, why would they be mentioned separately? I would argue that to suggest that the heart and the mind are interchangeable is to largely disregard 2000 years of Christian theology.

Just going by the Book, man. It's plainly written there.

What else could? As far as I know, there is no other way to define the quality of one's faith than the extent to which their actions are made subject to God.

Quality and quantity ("the extent to which") are separate. Something that cannot be physical substance (i.e. faith) can have no extent to which it is active. It's either present or it's not, 1 or 0. The quality of faith is whether it's present or not.

While *I* may not always be faithful to God, God is always faithful to me:

2 Timothy 2:13
[13] If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

If our actions do not reflect our faith, then we simply do not have faith, yes? Why did Peter deny Christ thrice? Because he lacked faith. Why do the martyrs willingly die for Jesus? Because they have tremendous faith. Both are faith-defining actions alike. Agree?

I think I understand where you're coming from.

Having or not having faith is a separate conversation from how much faith a person has.

To reframe your examples... Peter didn't have faith over that respective matter and the martyrs did have faith over their matters. The Spirit and the flesh lust against each other... only one may prevail at a time, and when the work of the flesh prevails, it appears as a work, but when the fruit of the Spirit prevails, it is merely a quality of goodness:

Galatians 5:17-23
[17] For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
[18] But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
[23] Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Now to your point, the outward exemplification of walking in the Spirit is elaborated in the next verse.

Galatians 5:24
[24] And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

What is the main product of faith, if not faith in action?

The product of faith is the manifestation of God's will, yet as men in the flesh we lack the capacity to definitively proclaim what is or what isn't God's will other than relating it to the perfect words which He has given us.

Use the Book as a lens to illuminate the world rather than rely on the world to illuminate the Book (the NIV's ongoing scriptural 'corrections' being one such example of this). There's no new thing under the sun.

as we are unable to approach God on our own in any case.

Wat

Hebrews 4:14-16
[14] Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
[15] For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
[16] Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Consider the possibility that you are attributing too much divinity to language.

Language is made of words. Words mean things. Without words, there is no meaning. Words mean what they mean.

I hear you to be emphasizing the point that intentions come before words and that the intention is of the greatest importance... Yet I say that there can be no intention without words. Every intention can be put into words. Thankfully, God has shown us this through the words He has given to us in His Book.

To clarify: actions define your faith in the eyes of God. How your actions are perceived by others has no relevance to the topic.

Of course.

Not sure I'm following, but if you agree that's a step forward.

Addressed above

1) Pick one. You can't simultaneously argue for both, at least not in the way you used these passages to deliver separate points in your post.
2) Consider that in these two passages, heart refers to two different things.
3) The point made in Hebrews 8:10 stands: Truth has been written on our heart, i.e. the core of our being, since the very beginning of our conception. Truth never left our hearts, we merely lost our sight on it.

God WILL write in our heart. When He does, THEN it becomes righteous.

Until we ask Him to, we are still yet dead in our trespasses and sins, separated from the Holy Spirit. In this natural state that is cursed to die, our heart stoops towards unrighteousness.

You are still trying to turn this discussion into a works vs faith debate. As I already said, the debate has no contextual relevance to anything I'm discussing. Please don't do this anymore. If you refuse to acknowledge the difference between 'faith in action' and 'works' as used here, just say so, as there is little sense in continuing this exchange then.

To apply a finality to this subject:

A person can intend towards fulfilling God's will, which is great.

That intention can only be derived from one of two places:
A) the person's understanding of what they think God wants [to labour for God]
Or B) what God wants [to labour with God]

Which is where we are tasked with making ourselves a living sacrifice to the work of God, whereby we work with God instead of for Him.

Romans 12:1
[1] I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

Isaiah 64:8
[8] But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

1 Corinthians 3:9
[9] For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

1 Thessalonians 5:18
[18] In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

 

[Perry Staltic]

Something that cannot be physical substance (i.e. faith) can have no extent to which it is active. It's either present or it's not, 1 or 0. The quality of faith is whether it's present or not.

That's contradicted by Jesus' words that qualified faith, eg, O ye of little faith, I have not found such great faith. In both cases faith is present, but of different quality. I would say the saving efficacy of faith is whether it is present or not - 0 or 1.

 

[Perry Staltic]

The product of faith is the manifestation of God's will, yet as men in the flesh we lack the capacity to definitively proclaim what is or what isn't God's will other than relating it to the perfect words which He has given us.

The product of faith is doing God's will. There is no other endpoint for faith. Simply having faith, but not doing God's will is vain. And there is no law against or condemnation for doing God's will.

 

[Perry Staltic]

To reframe your examples... Peter didn't have faith over that respective matter and the martyrs did have faith over their matters. The Spirit and the flesh lust against each other... only one may prevail at a time, and when the work of the flesh prevails, it appears as a work, but when the fruit of the Spirit prevails, it is merely a quality of goodness:

It's not that the fruit of the spirit prevails, but that when the spirit prevails through our obedience the fruits of the spirit are produced, which are both inward qualities (eg, faith, self-control) and physical actions, (eg, brotherly love, mercy). The latter are works (out) of faith as opposed to works (out) of the flesh or works of law (ie, striving to please God apart from obedience to his spirit).

 

[Perry Staltic]

An accumulation of knowledge bears no weight in regard to whether a person has eternal life or not.

Correct. Neither does having a special knowledge or believing a certain way.

 

[Twohandsondeck]

That's contradicted by Jesus' words that qualified faith, eg, O ye of little faith, I have not found such great faith. In both cases faith is present, but of different quality. I would say the saving efficacy of faith is whether it is present or not - 0 or 1.

This is a fair point, but in defense of whether or not faith has been maintained over a matter, the following is written:

Matthew 25:21
[21] His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

The product of faith is doing God's will. There is no other endpoint for faith. Simply having faith, but not doing God's will is vain. And there is no law against or condemnation for doing God's will.

I think we're saying the same thing. A manifestation cannot exist unless it is done/brought to fruition. Indeed it is a vain thing to proclaim faith yet deny Christ in anything else.

And yes, if we have faith - which is to say that we believe the Book - then we would abide by the words that have been given to us out of respect of love for God's grace in saving us. Grace for grace.

A man who loves God is clearly witnessed (known) to others.
As a double entendre, that man is known of God:

1 Corinthians 8:1-3
[1] Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
[2] And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
[3] But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

John 14:14-15
[14] If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
[15] If ye love me, keep my commandments.

It's not that the fruit of the spirit prevails, but that when the spirit prevails through our obedience the fruits of the spirit are produced

True. If we draw nigh to God, He'll draw nigh to us.

James 4:6-8
[6] But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
[7] Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
[8] Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

 

[Twohandsondeck]

Correct. Neither does having a special knowledge or believing a certain way.

Of course. Narrow is the way!

Matthew 7:13-14
[13] Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
[14] Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

 

[TheSir]

There are so many branches to our conversation by now that I'll only address the parts to which I have anything intelligible to add (I'm not ignoring the other branches, in case it seems like that to you. I do appreciate your perspective in its totality):

Just going by the Book, man. It's plainly written there.

Note that your suggestion was that heart and mind are interchangeable. In the passages you quoted, heart and mind are separately mentioned, which does not imply interchangeability, does it?

Quality and quantity ("the extent to which") are separate. Something that cannot be physical substance (i.e. faith) can have no extent to which it is active. It's either present or it's not, 1 or 0. The quality of faith is whether it's present or not.

Heh, this is a delightfully unexpected reply. I like it. Question: when Jesus spoke of faith as small as a mustard seed, was he not quantifying faith?

Yet I say that there can be no intention without words

You think so? How do you figure out what you intend to write, if what you intend to write cannot exist before the words on the screen do? If your intent is to avoid a vehicle that is heading straight towards you, do you need to verbalize your intent before you can act on it? I feel that this would highlight a profound difference in our cognition, since I have always been able to think without words. So I must ask: am I misunderstanding you? From my perspective it is obvious that every word must be preceded by intent, and that no intent has an innate need to be bound to words.

Thankfully, God has shown us this through the words He has given to us in His Book.

Could we be in agreement here then? To recap, I suggested that godly words exist merely for our help: there is no innate power to such words beyond the intent which we funnel through them.

Wat

Hebrews 4:14-16
[14] Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
[15] For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
[16] Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

In simpler words: as you seek God, God will meet you halfway. This does not mean that you could approach God without God simultaneously approaching you. You could not come upon grace or mercy on your own -- this would be equal to implying that you could find a way to salvation on your own, would it not?

Use the Book as a lens to illuminate the world rather than rely on the world to illuminate the Book

I'm not quite able to do so. To me the Bible is 'good enough' rather than infallible, as there seems to exist no solid intra-Biblical reasoning to lead one to acknowledging its claimed perfection and infallibility. You'd think that a perfect book would make a strong case for its own perfection. Moreover, I'm not sure if the Bible would necessarily even have to be a perfect book in order to lead you to salvation. Hence, I'm kind of doing both.

 

[Donttreadonme]

Ridiculous.

I doubt you understand what meditation is. You don't even understand the concept of inner demons. The MSM promotes meditation because the elite see it as just another distraction.

Ridiculous? I began to practice meditation a long time ago before there was an msn or internet. There are a lot of quantifiable benefits that align with what I've read in scientific publications from 30 years ago plus.

Ok educate me on inner demons. I haven't met any inner nor outer. I also doubt anyone in msm or social media practices any meditation or practices any religion.

There is more evidence of ufos and sasquatch than demons.

Geez ask a simple question about someones beliefs that they write about on the raypeat forum and get attacked. If you're going to write about it in a public forum don't be shocked when someone asks a question.

All the answers ever seem to be "well its right there in the book of Ezekiel" type of answer.

And how does this thread count as breaking news? It happened 2000 years ago.

Having spent 12 years in Catholic schools taught me the people claiming to have the answers have not one answer and things seem to be geared to being a form of social control.... Its the original msm and the original echo chamber that social media is.

 

[Twohandsondeck]

There are so many branches to our conversation by now that I'll only address the parts to which I have anything intelligible to add (I'm not ignoring the other branches, in case it seems like that to you. I do appreciate your perspective in its totality):

Never had a doubt!

Note that your suggestion was that heart and mind are interchangeable. In the passages you quoted, heart and mind are separately mentioned, which does not imply interchangeability, does it?

I cite it as interchangeable on account that the action of what God says that He's going to do to the heart and mind are written with an exact inverse description with no variance.

In Hebrews 8:10, the laws are put in the mind and written in the heart.
In Hebrews 10:16, the laws are put in the hearts and written in the mind.

With the assumption that there are no coincidences with God, the significance of the joint grammatical and lingual acuity of these two verses leads me to make this case that the heart and the mind are subject to the same patterning, or at least - to meet you halfway - when it comes to God's law(s) specifically.

Heh, this is a delightfully unexpected reply. I like it. Question: when Jesus spoke of faith as small as a mustard seed, was he not quantifying faith?

As I responded to @Perry Staltic just above, I submit that there a number of verses which paint a picture that faith has a grey area, but I am chiefly trying to make a case for the presence of faith being whether it's been kept or not over an isolated matter. It may well be the case that faith can be substantiated through a lens of either pretense... but at the very least it cannot only exist as a scale.

In so many expressions, the argument for whether faith is present (e.g. kept) or not (e.g. lost) is summarized by God being omnipotent as well as definitive when it comes to His certainty of declaring the end from the beginning, being alpha and omega. He establishes what is and what is not. As with all things good and holy, there are only ever two options. Righteous or unrighteous. Lawful or unlawful. God or mammon. Glory to the self or glory to God. Saved or unsaved. In the faith or out of the faith.

To use the above mentioned verse again, albeit it the only one I'm currently aware of, it asserts the point that God addresses faith in "things" which are - by extension - a complete entity. A "thing" has a beginning and an end. For God to have said that someone had faith over something is to say that they had faith over the whole matter, not 'most of the matter' or 'a little of the matter.'

Matthew 25:21
[21] His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

You think so? How do you figure out what you intend to write, if what you intend to write cannot exist before the words on the screen do? If your intent is to avoid a vehicle that is heading straight towards you, do you need to verbalize your intent before you can act on it? I feel that this would highlight a profound difference in our cognition, since I have always been able to think without words. So I must ask: am I misunderstanding you? From my perspective it is obvious that every word must be preceded by intent, and that no intent has an innate need to be bound to words.

I rest on the case that every intention may be verbalized if it is intended to be conveyed. There isn't any private structure that my imagination can come up with which is uniquely different from anything anyone else since the beginning of time has been able to conceptualize and consequently verbalize. There is no new thing under the sun, as it were. If it can be intended towards, it can be verbalized. It's literally impossible for me to have a thought that can't be structured with some arrangement of letters. Thank God for that. I couldn't imagine how nutty I'd become if there were these special, fleeting intentions that were bottled up in my own special genie lamp which existed as pure chaos, devoid of any ability for me to intentionally release the valve by translating the intention into an orderly structure of words. If hopelessness were a state, this is how I'd classify it: an inability to translate intention (chaos) into words (order).

Perhaps this fear is so incalculable to me that it warrants my belief of a perfectly ordered Scripture [i.e. 'I can't, therefore I must]

...Except that the ongoing existence of entire world continues to validate the 1611 KJV, which is a great relief to any potential skepticism that I lend towards my own sanity and subsequent willingness to be (certainly) wrong about the certain Truth of this world.

In conclusion, it seems to me that intent and words are bound at the hip by the mere ability for us to attach words to any intention.

Could we be in agreement here then? To recap, I suggested that godly words exist merely for our help: there is no innate power to such words beyond the intent which we funnel through them.

I thought I read you to say that the name of Jesus Christ is merely a guidepost to keep us straight.

Although that is something that His name graciously offers us, that is hardly the only purpose of It.

Power and name are synonymous:

Acts 4:7
[7] And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?

God shows His power so that His name might be declared throughout all the earth:

Romans 9:17
[17] For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Aside from these two verses, assorted cases of psychotic trouble that is reportedly from UFO abductions, demonic possessions, recurring domestic abuse, and/or contemplation of suicide, among an innumerable number of other instances of degenerate life are instantaneously restored upon calling upon the name of the only begotten Son of God.

According to your latter sentiment, if a person carried the same faith & intention when crying out to the arbitrary words of "leaf," or "McGinley," then they would receive a similarly miraculous psychic restoration of peace, except they don't... Because the power is in the name of God, not whatever we want it to be.

Also a noteworthy addition:

Ecclesiastes 8:4
[4] Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

1 Timothy 6:14-15
[14] That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
[15] Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

Also, the King James Bible.

In simpler words: as you seek God, God will meet you halfway. This does not mean that you could approach God without God simultaneously approaching you. You could not come upon grace or mercy on your own -- this would be equal to implying that you could find a way to salvation on your own, would it not?

I see what you mean. Right. At no point do we get to run our own show without consequences. We are always at the mercy of God, and to the extent that we draw towards Him, He draws towards us.

I'm not quite able to do so. To me the Bible is 'good enough' rather than infallible, as there seems to exist no solid intra-Biblical reasoning to lead one to acknowledging its claimed perfection and infallibility. You'd think that a perfect book would make a strong case for its own perfection. Moreover, I'm not sure if the Bible would necessarily even have to be a perfect book in order to lead you to salvation. Hence, I'm kind of doing both.

The only salvation that a man can know of himself is a momentary one. It's entirely up to his interpretation and continues infinitely in subjection to his own moral standards of what is absolute good or evil... which is fundamentally hypocritical because if any man draws his own line of moral absolutes, he is preemptively fallen in his own way; his speech condemns him before he yet speaks as the sinner that he is.

Instead. The Book is there. As far as I can reason, the only reason why someone wouldn't see It as the absolute truth is because they choose not to see what it is; from the mathematical probability of the prophecies of Christ being fulfilled to the last letter, to the calendar year being tied to the life of Christ, to the name of Lucifer, to the ever-appearing number of 666, to the inexplicable blasphemy of the name of Jesus Christ across the world, etc, etc, etc.

I more often here people to dismiss the perfection of the KJV on the grounds of circular reasoning: that the Book proves Itself and therefore the game of if God is actually God is rigged because of this very status.

In any case, it is clear that It wasn't written by men as to how intricately the Old Testament is concealed in the New Testament and likewise how intricately the New Testament reveals the Old Testament.
It writes the end (Revelation) in the beginning (Genesis).
It details the nature of men and gives reasoning as to why and how men and women interact with the world.
There is no corpse to the physical body of Christ.
The account of the creation of the universe is perfectly fitted throughout the entire Book.
Even the numbers of the verses themselves are frequently conveying the same theme throughout all 66 books. It's beyond comprehension to me how It even exists. Just amazing.

Anyhow, I pray for your unbelief, that it might be made sure.

 

[Kayaker]

Ridiculous? I began to practice meditation a long time ago before there was an msn or internet. There are a lot of quantifiable benefits that align with what I've read in scientific publications from 30 years ago plus.

Ok educate me on inner demons. I haven't met any inner nor outer. I also doubt anyone in msm or social media practices any meditation or practices any religion.

There is more evidence of ufos and sasquatch than demons.

Geez ask a simple question about someones beliefs that they write about on the raypeat forum and get attacked. If you're going to write about it in a public forum don't be shocked when someone asks a question.

All the answers ever seem to be "well its right there in the book of Ezekiel" type of answer.

And how does this thread count as breaking news? It happened 2000 years ago.

Having spent 12 years in Catholic schools taught me the people claiming to have the answers have not one answer and things seem to be geared to being a form of social control.... Its the original msm and the original echo chamber that social media is.

I quoted someone else, have you made a mistake? By inner demons, I meant repressed pain that eventually turns into a structure inside of oneself. Demons in the metaphorical, rather than literal sense.

There's evidence of UFOs right here. Not sure about Sasquatch.

10 Covid-Skeptic Memes to Get You Through the Day...We need some humor!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dOEpFlhecY I predict Biden will NEVER live this down, lol

raypeatforum.com