I have much to add to the “why” if you will allow it.
Are you and Duane the same person? You both are asking for permission to express your opinion, and you do not need it for this site. All you have to do is speak up man.
The very basics is summed up in One – You must be endwelt by the Holy Spirit, agreed ?
Will you allow me a reply before drawing such conclusions ?
You were the one who drew the conclusions when you said:
"This is skewed and self-serving is your opinion based on what ? Your own knowledge and understanding ? Need I say more ?"
It seemed that you had never read Col.2 since you did not appear to be aware of how Col.2 shows those ancient writings to be skewed.
Though clearly it is talking about men putting (or keeping as is the case) “ordinances” which God has changed. Hebrews chapters 7-8 ( 7:12 of note) explains this change and Hebrews chapters 9-10 describe the result of the change. If God has changed the law and “men” command to keep these doctrines, are they not become commandments and doctrines of men ?
You have to follow Colossians thoroughly. In verse 14, Paul acknowledges that the written code is cancelled "having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." However, a few verses further down (vs. 22) he states that "These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings." There is clear acknowledgement that the actual basis of these commands and teachings is human, even though it is acknowedged a few versus earlier that is was cancelled by God. The basis is and was always human commands and teachings. Now, that's not to say that God's laws were not in some part spiritually communicated, but the written code is and always was human constructed (which I tried to show to Duane with Jesus' condemnation of the divorce doctrine, but to no avail). If they were based on God's instructions, as you suggest, then it would be blasphemy for Paul to say they were self-imposed and human commands since it is a sin of the Holy Spirit to attribute to men or to dark principalities the acts of God.
Mark 3:2-3; 28-29 "'He is possessed by Beelzebub ! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.' (...) I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
I Samuel 15 is part of basic Christian doctrine.
If you really believe so, then you are not a Christian. I say that honestly and with all frankness.
John 8: "At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?' They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, 'If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.' Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' 'No one, sir,' she said. 'Then neither do I condemn you,' Jesus declared. 'Go now and leave your life of sin.'"
Now, Jesus could have said, "you know this law is given by God and it is okay for your to kill this lady since God says so, so I see no problem." No, he was presented this case because the Pharisees already knew Jesus' opinion on these issues. They knew that he disagreed with those laws, and they knew that they could catch him and force him to either deny the laws of Moses as human commands and human teachings, OR he would have to back down from his preaching of mercy and not following those commands and teachings that were clearly outmoded and not what God intended on how people should act out their justice.
What you fail to see is this basic, basic, basic, element of Christianity. This is so elementary that it makes your beliefs in Jesus a mockery. I'm sorry, but this is how I see it.
Again, it is the “this identity with the Logos” that throws me. I have never heard of “entering into a close intimate personal relationship” described as “achieving this identity with the Logos”. Are you substituting Logos for the Trinity ?
I told you, the Logos is Christ, and Christ is the Logos. The Trinity refers to the entire nature of God which the Logos is a member of that nature.
Do you concur that I Corinthians 10:4, and I Timothy 3:16 are part of that gospel ?
Thus it would serve us both well to try to understand one another’s descriptions in greater depth. I am willing if you are.
I know this is a step you cannot take, but I would look for you to condemn I Sam. 15. Your inability to condemn it makes me believe that you see God as a Suddam Hussein character, versus the God of love that Christianity holds dear. C'mon Eric. How can you reconcile this view of God with I Sam. 15, are you saying that God is kinder to birds than to human beings:
Matthew 6:26 "Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?"
Bottomline, I Sam. 15 is not compatible with Christian teaching, and like Col.2 suggests, we are to see such teachings as human and self-imposed on those who were blinded of God's nature. I still cannot believe that you lack this very basic understanding and still defend an indefensible command. You do so because you lack a proper biblical understanding of scripture, this is why you are blinded.