Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
You actually read through that garbage? Props.

Except that he clearly didn't.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Does my outright rejection of your teaching of the trinity doctrine preclude me from being filled with the spirit of Christ?

Does my outright rejection of your teaching of the trinity doctrine preclude me from being filled with the spirit of Christ?

That depends on what you mean by "filled with the spirit of Christ".
It also depends on what you think if my teaching.

If you create a strawman and define it as "sonship's teaching" and then grill me to see if disagreement with your strawman constitutes me saying you're not filled with the "spirit of Christ" that's just your debating tactic.

Is there a post on a thread written by me in the last five to six years in which you have an example of me saying someone was not "filled with the spirit of Christ" solely because they had a different opinion from me?

Lastly, if Christ is in you, you need NO-ONE's approval, You know that you know that you know that you know Jesus Christ.

And repetition and postscript. I have written on this Forum many times that Matthew 13 specifically teaches that Christians can and will make MISTAKES as to who is and is not with the Spirit of Christ.

So I am not infallible as to discerning WHO is or not in possession or filled with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, so says Jesus my Lord - Matthew 13:24-40 (with His own interpretation in 36-41).

And now below a question to you which I don't think I recall you answering directly (one of many) so handled.

==============================================
If physical death mean annhilation of the being of a man, AND God re-creates a man in the resurrection for judgement then -

Why cannot the new created man argue that he is NOT the same person as the one who died, and therefore is not at all accountable to THAT person's life ?

In other words, if there is no continuation of existence, what right does God have to judge a totally different person for the life of someone else who became non-existent?

Originally posted by @sonship
That depends on what you mean by "filled with the spirit of Christ".
It also depends on what you think if my teaching.

How many types of “being filled with the spirit of Christ” are there in your book of dodges? It’s the term you used when I first questioned you on this - you’ve avoided an unequivocal answer every time usually by simply refusing to even reply. It’s interesting behaviour to observe.

I think your teaching on it is completely and totally overblown and erroneous.

In your opinion, does my thinking this way preclude me from being “filled with the spirit of Christ” in any definition of the phrase that you choose to adopt?

Originally posted by @divegeester
How many types of “being filled with the spirit of Christ” are there in your book of dodges? It’s the term you used when I first questioned you on this - you’ve avoided an unequivocal answer every time usually by simply refusing to even reply. It’s interesting behaviour to observe.

I think your teaching on it is completely and totally overblown and e ...[text shortened]... ing “filled with the spirit of Christ” in any definition of the phrase that you choose to adopt?

[b]How many types of “being filled with the spirit of Christ” are there in your book of dodges? It’s the term you used when I first questioned you on this - you’ve avoided an unequivocal answer every time usually by simply refusing to even reply. It’s interesting behaviour to observe.

I think your teaching on it is completely and totally overblown and erroneous.

In your opinion, does my thinking this way preclude me from being “filled with the spirit of Christ” in any definition of the phrase that you choose to adopt?
ReplyReply & Quote

Originally posted by @sonship
[b]How many types of “being filled with the spirit of Christ” are there in your book of dodges? It’s the term you used when I first questioned you on this - you’ve avoided an unequivocal answer every time usually by simply refusing to even reply. It’s interesting behaviour to observe.

I think your teaching on it is completely and totally overblown and e ...[text shortened]... spirit of Christ” in any definition of the phrase that you choose to adopt?
ReplyReply & Quote

😕

Originally posted by @sonship
[b]How many types of “being filled with the spirit of Christ” are there in your book of dodges? It’s the term you used when I first questioned you on this - you’ve avoided an unequivocal answer every time usually by simply refusing to even reply. It’s interesting behaviour to observe.

I think your teaching on it is completely and totally overblown and e ...[text shortened]... spirit of Christ” in any definition of the phrase that you choose to adopt?
ReplyReply & Quote

Technical glitch here.
I have not replied.

Sorry for the technical confusion.

Originally posted by @divegeester
How many types of “being filled with the spirit of Christ” are there in your book of dodges? It’s the term you used when I first questioned you on this - you’ve avoided an unequivocal answer every time usually by simply refusing to even reply. It’s interesting behaviour to observe.

I think your teaching on it is completely and totally overblown and e ...[text shortened]... ing “filled with the spirit of Christ” in any definition of the phrase that you choose to adopt?

I think your teaching on it is completely and totally overblown and erroneous.

That certainly could be the case !

In the book of Acts there are two different words for the English "filled" in instances of the disciples filled with the Holy Spirit.

Plero and pletho (if I recall my rusty Greek rightly)

And when you ask this question I am never quite sure whether you simply mean HAVE the Holy Spirit ... period.

And of course you don't really specify what "my version" of the Trinity means. The Trinity as the nature of God, is a subject that has many important aspects to be examined.

Anyone who receives Christ is involved with the Trinity whether he likes it or not. That's how I see it.

"Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ he is not of Him." (Rom.8:9b)

Anyone who therefore has "the Spirit of Christ" is necessarily involved with "God" and "the Spirit of God" and "Christ" and "the Spirit of Christ" and "the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead."

And brothers throughout the centuries have labelled this mysterious matter as the triune God or the Trinity. And they were quite justified in doing so in my view.

The terms are used intercahngeably showing God is mysteriously three-one.

"But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin yet the spirit is life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you. He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." (Romans 8:9-11)

But only ONE GOD indwells the believers.

Originally posted by @rajk999

Your lengthy nonsensical posts which contain contradictions demonstrate that you are not a clear thinker but just a sycophantic dummy trying to promote the doctrine of a false prophet and false teacher.

Rajk999,
Okay, FMF and Divegeester gave you a good long spell to rest and collect your thoughts. How about you now point out to me the "synchphantic dummy" contradictions in thinking in my few posts on the millennium and afterwards ??

Originally posted by @sonship

Your lengthy nonsensical posts which contain contradictions demonstrate that you are not a clear thinker but just a sycophantic dummy trying to promote the doctrine of a false prophet and false teacher.

Rajk999,
Okay, FMF and Divegeester gave you a good long spell to rest and collect your thoughts. How about you now point out to me th ...[text shortened]... hantic dummy"[/i] contradictions in thinking in my few posts on the millennium and afterwards ??

Lets start with where I entered the conversation.

You said that men will be living through an unbelievably blessed time, and still they will rebel against Christ.

My response was that you are wrong, because the Bible says that some who rebel will not receive rain. Some will be blessed and some will not be so lucky.

Clearly you do not understand how things will play out during the reign of Christ and what is Christ's purpose.

Originally posted by @sonship
In the book of Acts there are two different words for the English "filled" in instances of the disciples filled with the Holy Spirit.

Plero and pletho (if I recall my rusty Greek rightly)

All other things being in line with scripture...in your opinion...does my rejection of your trinity teaching preclude me from being filled with the spirit of Christ?

By any definition of “being filled with the spirit of Christ” that you choose to pull out and using whatever Greek writer you choose, or any other type of obfuscation you can think of.

Please just try to be honest and answer the question directly and unequivocally.

Originally posted by @rajk999
Lets start with where I entered the conversation.

You said that men will be living through an unbelievably blessed time, and still they will rebel against Christ.

My response was that you are wrong, because the Bible says that some who rebel will not receive rain. Some will be blessed and some will not be so lucky.

Clearly you do not understand how things will play out during the reign of Christ and what is Christ's purpose.

Lets start with where I entered the conversation.

You said that men will be living through an unbelievably blessed time, and still they will rebel against Christ.

I pointed out that in the end of the millennial age there will be a great rebellion. This is obviously of a large number of people unhappy with the bounty and blessings of the past 1,000 years.

Whether they were unhappy throughout the ENTIRE period or are made unhappy suddenly upon hearing something towards the end by the loosened Satan, I am not sure.

I did not claim yet to know at what time they become rebellious
You brought to my attention, generally what is said in Zechariah 14:17 which I already knew about for years.

Zechariah 14:17 does not tell us whether this dispute between some nations and the Messiah is throughout the entire millennium or just a portion of it.

My response was that you are wrong, because the Bible says that some who rebel will not receive rain. Some will be blessed and some will not be so lucky.

Again. This verse is not enough by itself to determine that such shepherded nations will be continuously at odds with the Messiah in Jerusalem throughout the whole duration of the millennium OR that some portion of the transition to world wide peace is difficult for them to adjust to at first.

That they are at odds is not argued against by me.
I do not know HOW LONG they remain at odds.
If you have proof that it is throughout the ENTIRE millennium, I welcome your proof of evidence, IF you have some.

I saw none. I did see a couple of your standard ad homs, that's all.
I saw your suspicion that I cannot think any biblical matter through without referring to something written by two late servants of God, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.

I would have preferred you presented your evidence that I might consider it.

Clearly you do not understand how things will play out during the reign of Christ and what is Christ's purpose.

Up to this very last line -

1.) You have not demonstrated that I lack understanding of the matter.
2.) You have not presented evidence for your assumption that these nations not adjusting to the Messianic kingdom will be so throughout the ENTIRE thousand years.

Can you present this evidence or not ?
And if you cannot or will not, then ground for retorting " You don't understand and I DO " is very much weakened.

You're doing the gerbil on a spinning wheel thing.
Some strenuous exercise but no progress forward.

Originally posted by @divegeester
[b]All other things being in line with scripture...in your opinion...does

All other things being in line with scripture...in your opinion...does my rejection of your trinity teaching preclude me from being filled with the spirit of Christ?

And again, What do you consider "my trinity teaching" ?
And again, What do you define as being filled with the spirit of Christ?

Does "filled with the spirit of Christ" mean simply have the Holy Spirit - the Spirit [capital S] of Christ ?

If I have told you repeatedly that my Lord taught us in Matthew 13 that His disciples would sometimes make mistakes as to who was a genuine Christian and who was not, then why do think I am responsible to go against His teaching as if to insist that my discernment is infallible in that regard ?