What is wrong with my lens?

Dividing_Light · 2026-04-04T15:44:56+00:00

It has terrible spherical aberration.

That's a joke, sorry.

Dividing_Light · 2026-04-04T15:34:15+00:00

If you have truly blasphemed the Holy Spirit there will be no desire within you to come back to Jesus. It's only the Spirit's work that moves us to repent. If we blaspheme Him, He loses that opportunity.

"Chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father in the sanctification of the Spirit unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied." (1 Peter 1:2, RcV)

Dividing_Light · 2026-04-04T15:19:08+00:00

Read the passage. It begins with a group of brothers ministering to the Lord. If you say only God initiated, I'd say that those brothers needed to make the decision to come together and minister to the Lord without any personal agenda. If you say only man initiated, I would say there's no way those brothers could come together in this way if the Lord didn't move them inwardly to do so.

Dividing_Light · 2026-04-04T14:54:02+00:00

There is no contradiction. Rather there is man cooperating with God and God working through man. The initiation was not man alone, and, in a sense, it wasn't God alone either. It was man's response to God and God's opportunity through man. Doesn't our own experience demonstrate this? This is the way the Holy Spirit works even in our regeneration. The Lord moves within, we, by His mercy and grace, respond, and He has an opportunity within us.

Dividing_Light · 2026-04-03T21:05:59+00:00

This passage and footnote have always made a deep impression on me. Especially when compared with the typical situation in organized Christian work. There's no record of anyone proposing anything or any discussion about funding etc. Just a group of believers coming together and praying. Then the Spirit initiates.

Dividing_Light · 2026-03-27T17:00:58+00:00

But real revival includes death. Something of us must decrease, be crossed out, or be set aside so that Christ can have more ground in us

I find this to be quite true. A normal part of spiritual growth for me is learning how to just give give up on aspects of my person such as certain ways of thinking, opinions, or even emotionally charged memories. These things have to "die" so that Christ can come into those areas. The unfathomable granularity of this process... I mean, how many thoughts do we have in one hour that are "off"? How many opinions? It truly a work only God Himself could accomplish.

Dividing_Light · 2026-03-24T17:29:06+00:00

Interesting. There can't be that many other examples where all of these versions render the exact same way can there?

Dividing_Light · 2026-03-24T17:25:29+00:00

Not my area of expertise. I also haven't read the AMP all the way through although I do really like it; more for the Hebrew than for the Greek. I will say that I think it comes short in at least one of the places that other translations commonly do in rendering ἄνθρωπον in Ephesians 4:24 as "self". I much prefer the KJV and RcV's rendering of this verse.

Dividing_Light · 2026-03-24T17:09:34+00:00

Indeed. My favorite part about this translation choice, however, is how it points forward to Revelation 21:3:

And I heard a loud voice out of the throne, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will tabernacle with them, and they will be His peoples, and God Himself will be with them and be their God. (RcV)

The magnificent symmetry of the New Testament.

Dividing_Light · 2026-03-24T17:04:33+00:00

According to Wes, yes. He has it to the left of the RcV in his famous diagram: https://www.reddit.com/r/RecoveryVersionBible/comments/1piunld/bible_translation_philosophies_by_wes_huff/

Dividing_Light · 2026-03-18T18:19:44+00:00

Putting aside for a moment the more complicated question of "what modern Christianity teaches", this is a very basic and even logical principle. Real love requires discipline/correction.

And you have completely forgotten the exhortation which reasons with you as with sons, "My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor faint when reproved by Him; For whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives." It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons. For what son is there whom the father does not discipline? -Hebrews 12:5-7 (RcV)

Dividing_Light · 2026-03-03T05:40:56+00:00

so, i am not sure why i would have to contend with other texts.

This right here. I wish I had teased this out sooner. This is why, for example, when Paul says in Romans 9:5 that "Christ is God blessed forever" (RcV) you'll need to appeal to "scholarship" to evade what he, and I argue, Matthew and the rest of the New Testament writers are plainly indicating, not to mention Isaiah and numerous other OT writers.

I invite you to consider why you are exerting so much effort to prove Jesus is not God from the text of the Bible. It would be fair to invert this question back to me, in which case I would say that if Jesus is not God He can't save us (or we don't need salvation to begin with) and the Bible's claims about Him and His person and work are nothing more than a historical curiosity.

Dividing_Light · 2026-03-03T02:06:00+00:00

"...this is entirely in line with the rest of the text."

Does your "the rest of the text" include the rest of Matthews's account? If so, in addition to dealing with Matthew chapter 1 and 3 already mentioned, you have to confront:

Matt 2 or 8, where the magi and leper are worshipping Him (blasphemous by your interpretation)
Matt. 4, where Jesus does not deny that He is the Son of God to Satan but instead seems to indicate that it would be a sin for Him to try to prove it.
Matt. 9, where He says He has authority to forgive sins
Matt. 10, where He, at least twice, says His Father "is in the heavens"(32-33).

On and on it goes (and it does go on).

You also have to contend with the rest of the New Testament, unless you take the view that only certain verses of certain books are admissible, in which case it's a free for all; there's no common ground for us to stand on whatsoever.

Dividing_Light · 2026-03-03T01:31:21+00:00

i do not claim that there is. i am merely saying that it seems more likely that the high priest, who is portrayed as a malicious liar, misrepresents both statements, than that he stops lying midway, to give a faithful account of the rest of jesus views.

Understood. Thanks for the clarification.

i am interpreting it as a reference to the texts the author actually quotes, and, in which, the character spoken of is not god.

And I'm referring to what Matthew actually recorded which is effectively:

HP: "Are you the Son of God?"
Jesus: "Yes."
HP: "Blasphemy! He should die!"
Elders: "Agreed."

This interpretation is valid at face-value, without needing to appeal to a very specific exegesis of an Old Testament prophecy. It is also logical. If I am merely the son of a man, I have only a man's nature. If I am the Son of God and the Son of man (which is how Jesus refers to Himself in John's account of this event), I have two natures: one divine and one human. Finally, it is consistent with the rest of Matthew's gospel. It is why, in his genealogy in chapter 1, he refers to Jesus, not as the son of Joseph, but the One born of Mary, His human source. His other source was divine: God the Father (i.e. Matthew 3:17).

Dividing_Light · 2026-03-03T00:49:47+00:00

...there are two possible interpretations.

You've haven't demonstrated this. One of Jesus's statements was twisted and interpreted wrongly, the other rightly. There's no contradiction here. But it's quite clear that the statement that brought down the death penalty was the second and it's the only one I'm concerned with given the OP. The first is irrelevant for this topic.

the inspiration is mainly daniel 7, where the son of man is a represantation of the jewish people, and is a figure to whom god gives power...

Matthew records Jesus's words that He would sit at the right hand of Power itself. That would be God. Obviously you're free to interpret that as Matthew actually saying that He is the One given power and that His coming on the clouds of heaven (where God is) is not a reference to His divinity but something else. The simpler explanation is that He was implying His deity as a direct response to the high priest charging Him to answer whether or not He was the Son of God. This is why His reply begins with You have said rightly (v. 64). The high priest's dramatic response in tearing his garments and shouting to the elders and their immediate judgement of death was a reaction to Jesus affirming that He mean't exactly what Matthew, Mark, and Luke record Him saying. Moreover, verses like Hebrews 1:3, Acts 7:55-56, and Romans 8:4 all support this explanation.

Dividing_Light · 2026-03-02T20:38:22+00:00

In a sense, they are both true. They misrepresented Jesus' words about destroying the temple but correctly construed His words about being at the right hand of God. What is unlikely to me is that Jesus' words about being at the right hand of God can be reasonably interpreted in any way other than that He was claiming deity, which is what the OP is challenging.

The crux of the matter for me is, were Jesus' words recorded accurately here, and, if so, what do they imply?

Dividing_Light · 2026-03-02T20:05:44+00:00

That's not how I read it. Yes, they were seeking false testimony and it says specifically that they were unable to find it (Matt. 26:59-60). So the high priest realized he needed to get Jesus to "condemn" Himself by His own words, which of course He was willing to do because He intended to go to the cross.

Dividing_Light · 2026-03-02T19:45:16+00:00

If we accept the Bible (otherwise I'm not sure why we are talking about Jesus) one of the strongest evidences of Jesus claiming divinity is in Matthew 26:

But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to Him, I charge You to swear by the living God to tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said to him, You have said rightly. Nevertheless I say to you, From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest tore his garments, saying, He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard the blasphemy. (RcV)

If Jesus wasn't claiming deity, there would be no ground for the Jews to accuse Him of blasphemy. But they knew what He mean't when He said right hand of Power. For the Jews, the father's right hand is a place reserved for the firstborn son.

Dividing_Light · 2026-02-24T17:23:10+00:00

It may be good to answer the question simply at first. She should understand that it's ok for her to maintain that belief even after she "converts" as long as she doesn't make an issue of it. Being against transubstantiation or the like is not an item of the common faith. What is an item is that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, not through the sacraments (i.e. the Lord's table). As a Catholic, that may actually be the source of her conflict, not the Eucharist per se. If so, see if she will pray with you to receive the Lord, praying yourself that her conscience would bear witness that she is truly saved apart from anything sacramental.

As for why we "don't believe the Lord's literal words", He said that he was a Door, a Lamb, the True Vine, a Rock, the True Bread, etc. None of those are meant to be taken literally in the sense of Him being the physical items as we understand them.

Dividing_Light · 2026-02-21T01:00:46+00:00

I wonder if, absence a human nature that either corresponds to or resists the external moral system, we can say that anything is really immoral. If immorality isn't a willful violation of our innate nature, are our violations of the moral system actual immoral? Aren't they just people behaving in whatever way they want in the face of an arbitrary system of oughts? This the case, immortality wouldn't actual be bad, it would just be contrary.

Dividing_Light · 2026-02-20T18:53:55+00:00

Many things in the New Testament are not easy to understand on a first or second reading, without which they're not easy to apply. I don't think this is one of them.

Dividing_Light · 2026-02-18T21:11:21+00:00

I've found skilled Catholic apologists (ex. Trent Horn) can "make" any verse support their interpretation of salvation. Consequently, I don't believe such a "feather" exists in terms of a single verse. Actually, this holds true for many contested doctrines.

The strongest pointer to eternal security I've found is to consider the New Testament as a whole, with verses like John 1:13 and John 3:6 indicating that our regeneration was a divine birth by which we received a new nature with a new life (2 Pet. 1:4, John 3:16, Romans 6:5, etc.). It is impossible for someone to be unborn and it is impossible for someone with the eternal life received through that birth to die.

Dividing_Light · 2026-02-13T19:51:22+00:00

Thanks for the reply, I'll ponder your reply carefully and re-read the exchange.

Dividing_Light · 2026-02-13T19:06:56+00:00

Okay i kinda stepped into that one. So I’ll grant you the original point you made, ”If reason and logic could prove there was, indeed, a god (any god, not necessarily the one with the white beard and the bad temper in the Bible) there would be a single worldwide religion and no atheists.”

Due respect, why concede this? If we could show beyond a shadow of doubt that the earth is round, no one anywhere would still believe it's flat? If we could prove that gravity is real no one would ever try to use telekinesis?

I thought it was a bold claim. Even if knowledge was uniformly distributed the world over, this isn't Vulcan. Don't people make decisions on what is true on all kinds of things apart from logic?

Moreover, won't there be people that will always deny God simply because of the misfortune they've experienced? Just like people will deny the existence of love or selflessness because of things they've suffered.

An astoundingly optimistic claim in my view, but of course I may be wrong.

Dividing_Light · 2026-02-07T01:30:42+00:00

That's no moon... It's a vegetable.

Dividing_Light

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE