How many feathers does the Holy Spirit have?/Why does the Holy Spirit have feathers?

Sunkist · 04-16-2005, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtlmouth

I thought that was in 4 John...

Maybe it was IV Maccabees...

Longhorn26 · 04-16-2005, 03:08 PM

haha

A Reading from the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20:

Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. . . And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals ... Now did the Lord say, "First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."

Mike Graham · 04-16-2005, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate

By the way, I can't help but try to let Scripture interpret Scripture:

Ecclesiastes 5:1-7
Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. To draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they are doing evil. Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven and you are on earth. Therefore let your words be few. For a dream comes with much business, and a fool's voice with many words. When you vow a vow to God, do not delay paying it, for he has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you vow. It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay. Let not your mouth lead you into sin, and do not say before the messenger that it was a mistake. Why should God be angry at your voice and destroy the work of your hands? For when dreams increase and words grow many, there is vanity; but God is the one you must fear.

Matthew 5:33-37
Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.' But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.

I think we emphasize the phrase "in vain" so much that we forget or ignore what it means to "take the Lord's Name." It has always seemed to me to refer to an oath / vow / etc, and I can't see where I have sworn any oaths or vows in this thread, much less to the Lord, much less in vain.

You, I would suggest, are not interpretting scripture with scripture here. You have indeed provided Scriptures instructing us not to swear by God's name dishonestly or lightly, but that does not necesitate the interpretation that this is the only way we can take it in vain.

The passage does not say "use it in an oath in vain," and I really don't see why "take" would suggest only that one application. Indeed, some looser translations would have it say not to "misuse" the name of the Lord (I am thinking of the NIV and CEV.) We are to "not idly utter the name," as Darby put it. Of this passage, Matthew Hendy says, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain... By using the name of God lightly and carelessly, and without any regard to its awful significancy." Calvin, concurs in his commentary, saying that "God's name, then, is taken in vain, not only when any one abuses it by perjury, but when it is lightly and disrespectfully adduced in proof of frivolous and trifling matters." Also Ryrie, in his notes, remarks, "Prohibition against false swearing and frivolous use of God's name(emphasis mine)." You claim to answer Scripture with Scripture, a noble goal, but when it comes down to it, what you have suggested is an understanding foreign to the text: the statement of the prohibition of false oaths elsewhere does not mean by any means that that is the only thing this passage could teach. I just don't find it in the "take" the rigid, limited scope you suggest here.