Religion II

[hcap]

I am not a Christian, but it seems clear "sowed in his field" refers to the inner man. The old boxcarian argument about the The kingdom of heaven being in the midst of a group is just denial of within.

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:

Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

..Matthew 13:31, 32

Btw, the growth of the lowly mustard seed and its RISE is a common metaphor in different forms appearing in many religions and teachings. Jews eating matzoh or UNLEAVENED bread during Pesach is a remembrance of the difficulties wandering in search of the promised land and lacking manna to help RISE the spirit, not some sort of evilness(again and again, holy shit!) as boxcar claimed.

Further "the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof" in Sufism refers to the higher mental and spiritual powers.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

My use was sarcasm, duh. Yes, saying, "We" walked along the path, literally means. "Mankind" walked along the path.

I use duh, because it conveys such meaning. You are the gift that keeps on giving.

Because you did not comprehend Calvin's meaning on his commentary, I provided more clarification for you. Providing you more information, in order to, answer your question if Calvin meant individuals men by partakers of the Holy Spirit or some mob is appropriate.

Could you please refer the so-called rule about not providing additional information to clarify someone's question? What is this rule called and where do I find it? Is it a rule in Humpty Dumpty land?

Calvin taught individual men partake of the Holy Spirit and Jesus dwells along with the Holy Spirit in said individuals and these individual men are cleansed of sin. Individual men are made Holy by Christ's presence.

Will you ever make a responsive answer? BTW prove to us Christians you were specially raised up by God's providence to preach the Gospel, tell us
[sic]who went you. (Calvin's commentary on Romans 10:15).

Apparently you thought the mob was all mankind, hence your use of the term "man" in your 3605. If you didn't mean the entire world in the distributive sense, then by "man" did you mean Christians, saints, God's elect, Jesus' sheep, what? Gotta be one or the other -- either saints or sinners. Which group did you mean by "man"? Tell me and I'll give you a responsive answer once I understand the question.

Who went you? I told you a few days ago you were totally shot!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

My use was sarcasm, duh. Yes, saying, "We" walked along the path, literally means. "Mankind" walked along the path.

Of course, it does. This is why you used "man" in 3605 which is synonymous with "mankind". But I gotta ask you: when you go out for a walk, and the entire world in the distributive sense is walking with you, don't you get severe, acute attacks of enochlophobia with all those people around you?

I use duh, because it conveys such meaning.

Yes, it conveys your total inadequacy the communicate intelligently in the English language. (See example below.)

Because you did not comprehend Calvin's meaning on his commentary, I provided more clarification for you. Providing you more information, in order to, answer your question if Calvin meant individuals men by partakers of the Holy Spirit or some mob is appropriate.

Did I ever say I had a problem with Calvin's commentary. I have repeatedly asked you to define "man" in your question to me. It's always been YOUR question in 3605 that didn't make any sense to me. Now, you're going to lay the blame on Calvin for for your worse-than-poor communication skills?

Could you please refer the so-called rule about not providing additional information to clarify someone's question? What is this rule called and where do I find it? Is it a rule in Humpty Dumpty land?

The "rule" is that you are deceptive and an equivocator. So, with you I stay on target. My question to you has always pertained to your one question to me in 3605 in which I have repeatedly asked you to define "man". How very odd that you absolutely refuse to define your own term. The fact that you have steadfastly refused to define your own term tells me immediately that you had some slick agenda up your sleeve, and the evidence for this are your numerous follow-up rabbit trail questions to me. But I don't do rabbit trails. Either clarify what YOU meant by "man" in your question or go play in traffic.

Calvin taught individual men partake of the Holy Spirit and Jesus dwells along with the Holy Spirit in said individuals and these individual men are cleansed of sin. Individual men are made Holy by Christ's presence.

Will you ever make a responsive answer? BTW prove to us Christians you were specially raised up by God's providence to preach the Gospel, tell us who went you. (Calvin's commentary on Romans 10:15).

Calvin did not talk about "individual men" in your 3605. He talked about "we" and "us". Both of these pronouns refer to a group. So...who is this group -- all mankind, regardless of spiritual standing before God or God's elect?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I am not a Christian, but it seems clear "sowed in his field" refers to the inner man. The old boxcarian argument about the The kingdom of heaven being in the midst of a group is just denial of within.

..Matthew 13:31, 32

Btw, the growth of the lowly mustard seed and its RISE is a common metaphor in different forms appearing in many religions and teachings. Jews eating matzoh or UNLEAVENED bread during Pesach is a remembrance of the difficulties wandering in search of the promised land and lacking manna to help RISE the spirit, not some sort of evilness(again and again, holy shit!) as boxcar claimed.

Further "the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof" in Sufism refers to the higher mental and spiritual powers.

Hey, Hcap...your chronology is a wee bit off. The Passover Feast and its rules was instituted in Egypt long before the Jews grumbled about the lack of food or manna. Therefore, your interpretation makes no sense because in Egypt they lacked no food!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Have I idea good. Quote me words actual Calvin saying man's soul, as in men all. Interpretation you by not enough proof good.

But I really do have a good idea: Get lost. You are totally rattled and once that happens you become just as incoherent.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Hey, Hcap...your chronology is a wee bit off. The Passover Feast and its rules was instituted in Egypt long before the Jews grumbled about the lack of food or manna. Therefore, your interpretation makes no sense because in Egypt they lacked no food!

I tried to educate you on the importance of the growth of the inner man WITHIN. The parable of the mustard seed rising into a great oak is similar to why Jews remember what they lacked in the story of wandering in the dessert searching fort the promised land without food for helping the spirit rise

The origins of proceeding Egyptian feasts similar to Passover is totally beside the point. Many traditions of many religions draw from preceding, and culturally shared myths

And you insisted that leavening meant evil.

Stick to the mustard seed a man takes and sows in his field. Not the townsfolk who sow the seed(s) in the countryside distributively.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I am not a Christian, but it seems clear "sowed in his field" refers to the inner man. The old boxcarian argument about the The kingdom of heaven being in the midst of a group is just denial of within.

..Matthew 13:31, 32

You forgot one little detail in the parable: Who or what do the birds of the air symbolize? Are those birds WITHIN your cobweb-filled attic, utilizing all your empty space by building their nests?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You forgot one little detail in the parable: Who or what do the birds of the air symbolize? Are those birds WITHIN your cobweb-filled attic, utilizing all your empty space by building their nests?

I did not forget. I gave you the interpretation of the Sufis. You even quoted my entire post in which I said....

"Further.....
"the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof" in Sufism refers to the higher mental and spiritual powers.

Careful senility is a knockin' on your door.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I tried to educate you on the importance of the growth of the inner man WITHIN. The parable of the mustard seed rising into a great oak is similar to why Jews remember what they lacked in the story of wandering in the dessert searching fort the promised land without food for helping the spirit rise

The origins of proceeding Egyptian feasts similar to Passover is totally beside the point. Many traditions of many religions draw from preceding, and culturally shared myths

And you insisted that leavening meant evil.

Stick to the mustard seed a man takes and sows in his field. Not the townsfolk who sow the seed(s) in the countryside distributively.

No, it is the point! Furthermore, you have not explained why no leaven whatsoever was allowed on the premises.

For explanations on how "leaven" is used in scripture, read Mat 16:6, 11,12; 1Cor 5:6-8; Gal 5:9.

[Show Me the Wire]

quote=boxcar;2211838


The "rule" is that you are deceptive and an equivocator. So, with you I stay on target. My question to you has always pertained to your one question to me in 3605 in which I have repeatedly asked you to define "man". How very odd that you absolutely refuse to define your own term. The fact that you have steadfastly refused to define your own term tells me immediately that you had some slick agenda up your sleeve, and the evidence for this are your numerous follow-up rabbit trail questions to me. But I don't do rabbit trails. Either clarify what YOU meant by "man" in your question or go play in traffic.

Calvin did not talk about "individual men" in your 3605. He talked about "we" and "us". Both of these pronouns refer to a group. So...who is this group -- all mankind, regardless of spiritual standing before God or God's elect?

I have defined man for you several times, which is your irrelevant red-herring.

Calvin, is referring to persons, who are partakers of the Holy Spirit. As partakers of the Holy Spirit, they obtain Jesus in their hearts too. Christ dwells where the Holy Spirit dwells.

Prove Calvin did not talk about individual men (persons) as partakers of the Holy Spirit, with his actual words, and not you Humpty Dumpty land personal interpretations. Quote Calvin to prove your assertion.

Also, You need look up the meaning of first person plural personal pronouns. I already provided you with the definition of the word personal
.

Personal pronouns take the place of specific nouns (the names of people, places or things). Basically, they are used instead of a specific name to avoid repetition and to help ease the flow of sentences.

http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/pa...-pronouns.html

Calvin in his commentary refers to people, not places or things as partakers.

per·son
ˈpərs(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
a human being regarded as an individual.
"the porter was the last person to see her"
synonyms: human being, individual, man/woman, child, human, being, (living) soul, mortal, creature; More
2.
GRAMMAR
a category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms, according to whether they indicate the speaker first person, the addressee second person, or a third party third person.

[emphasis added]


We is a personal pronoun.

we
wē/Submit
pronoun
1.
used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together.

[emphasis]

self
self/Submit
noun
1.
a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action.
"our alienation from our true selves"
synonyms: ego, I, oneself, persona, person, identity, character, personality, psyche, soul, spirit, mind, (inner) being
"listen to your inner self"
pronoun
1.
oneself, in particular

[emphasis added]

Dictionary

selves
selves
selvz/Submit
plural form of self.

[emphasis added]


We is the plural form of self (first person) thus a personal pronoun. Mankind is not a form of self, mankind refers to the whole human race.

man·kind
noun
1.
human beings considered collectively; the human race.
"research for the benefit of all mankind"
synonyms: the human race, man, humanity, human beings, humans, Homo sapiens, humankind, people, men and women
"for the good of all mankind"

Once again, it is grammatically incorrect and improper to equate the word 'mankind",a non-personal collective, with the use of the personal pronoun "we".

[Show Me the Wire]

edit;

Relevant part of boxcar's quote, in my post 2805, should be as follows:

The "rule" is that you are deceptive and an equivocator. So, with you I stay on target. My question to you has always pertained to your one question to me in 3605 in which I have repeatedly asked you to define "man". How very odd that you absolutely refuse to define your own term. The fact that you have steadfastly refused to define your own term tells me immediately that you had some slick agenda up your sleeve, and the evidence for this are your numerous follow-up rabbit trail questions to me. But I don't do rabbit trails. Either clarify what YOU meant by "man" in your question or go play in traffic.

Calvin did not talk about "individual men" in your 3605. He talked about "we" and "us". Both of these pronouns refer to a group. So...who is this group -- all mankind, regardless of spiritual standing before God or God's elect?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

I tried to educate you on the importance of the growth of the inner man WITHIN. The parable of the mustard seed rising into a great oak is similar to why Jews remember what they lacked in the story of wandering in the dessert searching fort the promised land without food for helping the spirit rise

The origins of proceeding Egyptian feasts similar to Passover is totally beside the point. Many traditions of many religions draw from preceding, and culturally shared myths

And you insisted that leavening meant evil.

Stick to the mustard seed a man takes and sows in his field. Not the townsfolk who sow the seed(s) in the countryside distributively.

The man does not understand personal pronoun usage and you expect him to understand the parable of the mustard seed?

Boxcar makes fun of you for your metaphorical interpretations. I believe boxie believes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit the partakers of the Holy Spirit is metaphorical.

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have, and ye are not your own?

(1Cor 6:19)

According to Humpty Dumpty world grammar the pronoun "you" has to mean the non-personal collective. To avoid the problem of indivisibility between Jesus and his Holy Spirit, 1Cor 6:19 must be interpretedmetaphorically.

The Holy Spirit cannot be in an individual man, because Christ would lose his status of Savior. Man is a pile of poop and, as such, contaminates God. Thus, the Apostle Paul must be speaking metaphorically.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

edit;

Relevant part of boxcar's quote, in my post 2805, should be as follows:

Post 3805, sorry for the typos

[Show Me the Wire]

boxcar,

Will you answer this question?

If you don't give a flip about Calvin's teachings, which neo-calvinist's interpretations of the Gospel do you give a flip? Is it interpretations of John Piper, of Mark Driscoll, of Al Mohler, and Justin Taylor, all of them, someone else or a combination of them?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Calvin did not talk about "individual men" in your 3605. He talked about "we" and "us". Both of these pronouns refer to a group. So...who is this group -- all mankind, regardless of spiritual standing before God or God's elect?

I have defined man for you several times, which is your irrelevant red-herring.

Calvin, is referring to persons, who are partakers of the Holy Spirit. As partakers of the Holy Spirit, they obtain Jesus in their hearts too. Christ dwells where the Holy Spirit dwells.

Prove Calvin did not talk about individual men (persons) as partakers of the Holy Spirit, with his actual words, and not you Humpty Dumpty land personal interpretations. Quote Calvin to prove your assertion.

Also, You need look up the meaning of first person plural personal pronouns. I already provided you with the definition of the word personal
.




http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/pa...-pronouns.html

Calvin in his commentary refers to people, not places or things as partakers.


[emphasis added]


We is a personal pronoun.


[emphasis]



[emphasis added]



[emphasis added]


We is the plural form of self (first person) thus a personal pronoun. Mankind is not a form of self, mankind refers to the whole human race.
(emphasis mine)




Once again, it is grammatically incorrect and improper to equate the word 'mankind",a non-personal collective, with the use of the personal pronoun "we".

Well, why did you do it, then? You are the one who made the connection between "we and "us" in the commentary to your "man". YOU made that connection!

Also, "we" is not defined as a "person" or as "personal". We refers to a group. "Man" can refer to a group, as "mankind". So...who are these "partakers of the Holy Spirit" -- "man"? In your question, and by your own admission above, you now admit that by using the term "man" you were indeed referring to all mankind. So, why did you ask me, ....is Calvin's teaching correct, does Christ dwell in man" (a/k/a mankind)?

The definition of "we" is follows:

Main Entry:we
Pronunciation:*w*
Functionronoun ,plural in construction
Etymology:Middle English, from Old English w*; akin to Old High German wir we, Sanskrit vayam
Date:before 12th century

1 : I and the rest of a group that includes me : you and I : you and I and another or others : I and another or others not including you — used as pronoun of the first person plural; compare I, OUR, OURS, US
2 : 1I — used by sovereigns; used by writers to keep an impersonal character

Also, you're totally wrong about the improper use of the pronoun "we". A personal pronoun can indeed be referring to a noun or collective noun. Example:

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

The "we" is referring back to the noun "employees". Therefore, according to how you phrased your question to me, you could only be referring back to "we" and "us" in Calvin's commentary. If not, then to what were you referencing, specifically, in the commentary itself?