by Rotherham » Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:39 pm
Sulla,
You seem to forget that you are here to actually challenge the article and the article makes the claim that we should listen first to what the Bible has to say. Is that really so hard to grasp? Do you really think that any scholar would disagree with that conclusion? Even the ones you quote?
Now why does the article make that claim? Well, as I have been trying to point out, it is because it is HOLY SPIRIT in written form. How can anyone deny that we should first listen to the holy spirit before we listen to men? I really could care less how you claim that a proper interpretation should be made when we have supplied to us ample evidence to determine the proper interpretation from the holy spirit itself. Why in the world anyone, you or any of those scholars you find companionship with, would choose to go another route merely bespeaks the fact that they can not allow themselves to follow the guidance of the spirit in this matter.
Your entire objection to this approach is simply to say that's not how the others do it, but I'll make a challange for you. Find a single one who would deny that we should first follow the direction of the word of God, the direction of the spirit, over the words of scholars and commentators. Could you do that for me? I am not presenting anything new as a thought for interpretation because it has for centuries been presented that we should follow the guidance of the holy spirit when it comes to interpretation. And every one involved agrees that the Bible IS holy spirit, or should, in fact, they will mostly agree that is ALL that we have by way of indisputable, tangible holy spirit. To say that we should approach this from the standpoint of peer reviewed writings of scholars is actually contrary to the standpoint taken by the scriptures, by the holy spirit, and you and they know it. Never once does the the holy spirit recommend such a course, but it does, often, recommend itself and the holy spirit as that which will guide us into all truth. Well, that's what the Bible is, HOLY SPIRIT, and it will guide us into all truth.
The Bible clearly and undeniably points in one direction for the word arche and you know it does. Your only hope is to appeal to scholars who say something contrary and massage the words of the English language well enough that it sounds good to you, but that is not what the scriptures recommend, and it is not really what these scholars believe themselves. They would invariably state that we should first rely on the word of God, on the holy spirit, and accept what it tells us over and above all the words of men. That's all I am saying we should do, but when we do, it squarely lands on an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that tells us Jesus is not God and that he is a creation of God. So that is the real reason you just can't accept what the holy spirit is telling you, and neither can they, and in so doing, they resist the spirit of God by resisting what his spirit has shown them in the Bible. it's really a simple equation. You're simply trying to complicate it to muddy the waters of what is otherwise, clearly taught.
So again, based only on the Bible, on the direction of the holy spirit, this discussion ended some time ago and the position taken by the article is vindicated.
If you have some other source of holy spirit to prove otherwise, then please do so. That's really what you need to have an argument that means anything.
Regards,
Rotherham