Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sassy on October 11, 2015, 10:27:20 AM
-
King James 2000 Bible
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
King James Bible
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Note to reader: The NT did not exist and the scriptures they checked were OT.
So to ensure what you believe it must be checked out by the OT not the NT.
So discuss beliefs and origins without using the NT.
Show in the OT where the Prophets taught that the Messiah would be God made man. It is clear that the Messiah was to be a man raised from their own brethren.
Deuteronomy 18: 15-18.
God himself saying he would raise them up a Prophet from amongst their own brethren.
The NT must reflect the truth of the OT. If it cannot be found in the OT it must (as in the times of the disciples) be rejected. Because at no time during the preaching of the good news did a copy of the NT become included in scripture.
Christ fulfilled the scriptures about himself and he foretold of the things still to come.
-
I am of the opinion the life of Jesus was created by the gospel writers to fit in with supposed 'prophecies'.
-
Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.
-
Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.
There is no evidence Moses wrote anything. Funny most of the Jews didn't see that bloke Jesus as any sort of Messiah, and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!
-
Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.
There is no evidence Moses wrote anything. Funny most of the Jews didn't see that bloke Jesus as any sort of Messiah, and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!
The Jews are blind to the scriptures.
-
Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.
There is no evidence Moses wrote anything. Funny most of the Jews didn't see that bloke Jesus as any sort of Messiah, and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!
I agree with you about Moses; but you are entirely incorrect, again, about Jesus, After His death His brother, James became head of the early Church.
Is it really necessary to refer to Jesus as "that bloke?" As far as I'm concerned that sort of comment is far more unpleasant and abusive than anything I ever say. I wouldn't treat a poltergeist in such a cavalier manner. :D
-
Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.
So CHRIST is wrong when he claims that King James Bible
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
He doesn't claim to come to just fulfill the Torah does he?
In fact he claimed to King James Bible
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
I guess your use of the word heretic is again misused and deliberately done ignoring what Christ said:
Now if Christ never said that then you would have a point.
But in the NT Jesus meets up with Elijah the Prophet and Moses.
You see the Word of God in the OT and the works are confirmed by Christ.
Just as Christ did not mention any NEW scriptures nor the Prophets or the disciples then we can be sure that Christs words are living words. For the bible is about truth. The truth is that Jesus was to bring the truth to man about what God wanted.
But nowhere does the Father or the Son state New Scriptures will come. Hence the truth is that God changes life no more through the written but through the Spirit.
King James Bible
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
John 16:13
The Spirit teacheth all believers now.
What Christians write is not what saves but whom you believe in and whom teaches you.
-
Yes, you are a heretic, a follower of Arius, and you do not believe in Christ otherwise you would acknowledge that that Christ is God. You do not understand the scriptures.
-
You do not understand the scriptures.
The Oracle has spoken! ;D
-
You do not understand the scriptures.
The Oracle has spoken! ;D
Despite your snipe, what he says is true!
-
Despite your snipe, what he says is true!
No it isn't! There is no way to prove the truth of the ramblings of some long dead religious types ... and you know that as well as I do.
-
Well considering that a central aspect of Paul's preaching was to claim that Jesus was both God and Christ, and considering that after diligently searching the (OT) Scriptures to check Paul's claims, and considering once more that many of them became believers we can only come to one conclusion. Those 'more noble' Jews at Berea must have found OT evidence to their satisfaction that Paul's claims were indeed correct and that Jesus is in fact God.
-
Well considering that a central aspect of Paul's preaching was to claim that Jesus was both God and Christ, and considering that after diligently searching the (OT) Scriptures to check Paul's claims, and considering once more that many of them became believers we can only come to one conclusion. Those 'more noble' Jews at Berea must have found OT evidence to their satisfaction that Paul's claims were indeed correct and that Jesus is in fact God.
Such is the power of a charismatic teacher to sway people to his beliefs.
-
Despite your snipe, what he says is true!
No it isn't! There is no way to prove the truth of the ramblings of some long dead religious types ... and you know that as well as I do.
In more recent times we don't know for sure if people who do happen to have some historical basis, unlike the Biblical characters, said and did the things claimed for them.
-
Despite your snipe, what he says is true!
No it isn't! There is no way to prove the truth of the ramblings of some long dead religious types ... and you know that as well as I do.
In more recent times we don't know for sure if people who do happen to have some historical basis, unlike the Biblical characters, said and did the things claimed for them.
And such a point of view can be attributed to countless events in history, but we do not roundly condemn them all, unless we are pig-ignorant.
-
Despite your snipe, what he says is true!
No it isn't! There is no way to prove the truth of the ramblings of some long dead religious types ... and you know that as well as I do.
In more recent times we don't know for sure if people who do happen to have some historical basis, unlike the Biblical characters, said and did the things claimed for them.
Absolutely, Roses. We can only be guided by the strength of the evidence presented by their followers/detractors.
And n my opinion it is always better to err on the side of scepticism rather than credulity.
-
Well considering that a central aspect of Paul's preaching was to claim that Jesus was both God and Christ, and considering that after diligently searching the (OT) Scriptures to check Paul's claims, and considering once more that many of them became believers we can only come to one conclusion. Those 'more noble' Jews at Berea must have found OT evidence to their satisfaction that Paul's claims were indeed correct and that Jesus is in fact God.
Such is the power of a charismatic teacher to sway people to his beliefs.
Excepting that even a casual reading of Acts 17 makes it plain that those in Berea were not the sort to allow themselves to be swayed by a glib talker (which Paul by his own admission was not). Which is precisely why they were cautious enough and suspicious enough to search the Scriptures daily to check him out.
-
Despite your snipe, what he says is true!
No it isn't! There is no way to prove the truth of the ramblings of some long dead religious types ... and you know that as well as I do.
In more recent times we don't know for sure if people who do happen to have some historical basis, unlike the Biblical characters, said and did the things claimed for them.
Absolutely, Roses. We can only be guided by the strength of the evidence presented by their followers/detractors.
And n my opinion it is always better to err on the side of scepticism rather than credulity.
That's the whole point_ but you err on all counts, because you haven't the depth of knowledge to make informed judgements.
-
Despite your snipe, what he says is true!
No it isn't! There is no way to prove the truth of the ramblings of some long dead religious types ... and you know that as well as I do.
In more recent times we don't know for sure if people who do happen to have some historical basis, unlike the Biblical characters, said and did the things claimed for them.
Absolutely, Roses. We can only be guided by the strength of the evidence presented by their followers/detractors.
And n my opinion it is always better to err on the side of scepticism rather than credulity.
There is plenty to be sceptical about where that not so good book is concerned.
-
Despite your snipe, what he says is true!
No it isn't! There is no way to prove the truth of the ramblings of some long dead religious types ... and you know that as well as I do.
In more recent times we don't know for sure if people who do happen to have some historical basis, unlike the Biblical characters, said and did the things claimed for them.
Absolutely, Roses. We can only be guided by the strength of the evidence presented by their followers/detractors.
And n my opinion it is always better to err on the side of scepticism rather than credulity.
There is plenty to be sceptical about where that not so good book is concerned.
There is plenty to be sceptical about in the world: poltergeists, for example. What are your views on them?
-
Excepting that even a casual reading of Acts 17 makes it plain that those in Berea were not the sort to allow themselves to be swayed by a glib talker (which Paul by his own admission was not). Which is precisely why they were cautious enough and suspicious enough to search the Scriptures daily to check him out.
It's easy to find corroboration in the records of people who all believed the same thing.
However, that is a long way from it proving the truth.
-
Excepting that even a casual reading of Acts 17 makes it plain that those in Berea were not the sort to allow themselves to be swayed by a glib talker (which Paul by his own admission was not). Which is precisely why they were cautious enough and suspicious enough to search the Scriptures daily to check him out.
It's easy to find corroboration in the records of people who all believed the same thing.
However, that is a long way from it proving the truth.
I have no recollection of you ever debating any specific points about Christianity on this forum. Yet you dismiss it all. Show some knowledge and perception by actually debating, rather than this across-the-board dismissal.
-
Excepting that even a casual reading of Acts 17 makes it plain that those in Berea were not the sort to allow themselves to be swayed by a glib talker (which Paul by his own admission was not). Which is precisely why they were cautious enough and suspicious enough to search the Scriptures daily to check him out.
It's easy to find corroboration in the records of people who all believed the same thing.
However, that is a long way from it proving the truth.
There are plenty of people who cannot recognise the truth even when it is staring them in the face, amongst them a certain Pontius Pilate.
-
I have no recollection of you ever debating any specific points about Christianity on this forum.
That will be because your memory is not that good.
Yet you dismiss it all.
More lies!
Show some knowledge and perception by actually debating, rather than this across-the-board dismissal.
Debating with you, my dear Tony, is like talking to a robot.
-
There are plenty of people who cannot recognise the truth even when it is staring them in the face, amongst them a certain Pontius Pilate.
No to mention most of the Christians on this board! :)
-
Excepting that even a casual reading of Acts 17 makes it plain that those in Berea were not the sort to allow themselves to be swayed by a glib talker (which Paul by his own admission was not). Which is precisely why they were cautious enough and suspicious enough to search the Scriptures daily to check him out.
It's easy to find corroboration in the records of people who all believed the same thing.
However, that is a long way from it proving the truth.
There are plenty of people who cannot recognise the truth even when it is staring them in the face, amongst them a certain Pontius Pilate.
How do you know you have the elusive 'truth'? All you have is a belief with no evidence to support it.
-
There are plenty of people who cannot recognise the truth even when it is staring them in the face, amongst them a certain Pontius Pilate.
No to mention most of the Christians on this board! :)
Well as the saying goes it is the exceptions which prove the rule. And no prizes for guessing the name of the star exception on this Board. :P :P
-
Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.
There is no evidence Moses wrote anything. Funny most of the Jews didn't see that bloke Jesus as any sort of Messiah, and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!
I agree with you about Moses; but you are entirely incorrect, again, about Jesus, After His death His brother, James became head of the early Church.
Is it really necessary to refer to Jesus as "that bloke?" As far as I'm concerned that sort of comment is far more unpleasant and abusive than anything I ever say. I wouldn't treat a poltergeist in such a cavalier manner. :D
That's only what it states in your manual and no one has established the authenticity of the so called facts this manual of yours contains and no you don't need to be a scholar to be aware of that.
ippy
-
Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.
There is no evidence Moses wrote anything. Funny most of the Jews didn't see that bloke Jesus as any sort of Messiah, and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!
I agree with you about Moses; but you are entirely incorrect, again, about Jesus, After His death His brother, James became head of the early Church.
Is it really necessary to refer to Jesus as "that bloke?" As far as I'm concerned that sort of comment is far more unpleasant and abusive than anything I ever say. I wouldn't treat a poltergeist in such a cavalier manner. :D
That's only what it states in your manual and no one has established the authenticity of the so called facts this manual of yours contains and no you don't need to be a scholar to be aware of that.
ippy
Maybe not, but it would be something if you could actually debate it sensibly instead of just the inane, carpet condemnation.
-
Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.
There is no evidence Moses wrote anything. Funny most of the Jews didn't see that bloke Jesus as any sort of Messiah, and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!
I agree with you about Moses; but you are entirely incorrect, again, about Jesus, After His death His brother, James became head of the early Church.
Is it really necessary to refer to Jesus as "that bloke?" As far as I'm concerned that sort of comment is far more unpleasant and abusive than anything I ever say. I wouldn't treat a poltergeist in such a cavalier manner. :D
That's only what it states in your manual and no one has established the authenticity of the so called facts this manual of yours contains and no you don't need to be a scholar to be aware of that.
ippy
Maybe not, but it would be something if you could actually debate it sensibly instead of just the inane, carpet condemnation.
What's the point of discussing something like your manual until there can be some some sort of conformation that it contains at the very least something that would establish the magical, mystical and superstitious as factual happenings/events; something no one has managed to do unless there is something somewhere I've missed.
ippy
-
Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.
There is no evidence Moses wrote anything. Funny most of the Jews didn't see that bloke Jesus as any sort of Messiah, and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!
I agree with you about Moses; but you are entirely incorrect, again, about Jesus, After His death His brother, James became head of the early Church.
Is it really necessary to refer to Jesus as "that bloke?" As far as I'm concerned that sort of comment is far more unpleasant and abusive than anything I ever say. I wouldn't treat a poltergeist in such a cavalier manner. :D
That's only what it states in your manual and no one has established the authenticity of the so called facts this manual of yours contains and no you don't need to be a scholar to be aware of that.
ippy
Maybe not, but it would be something if you could actually debate it sensibly instead of just the inane, carpet condemnation.
What's the point of discussing something like your manual until there can be some some sort of conformation that it contains at the very least something that would establish the magical, mystical and superstitious as factual happenings/events; something no one has managed to do unless there is something somewhere I've missed.
ippy
I'm only concerned with the NT, and it has come under intense debate since its formation; and it continues to do so - that is amongst serious students and scholars, and that's where you miss out.
-
I have no recollection of you ever debating any specific points about Christianity on this forum.
That will be because your memory is not that good.
Yet you dismiss it all.
More lies!
Show some knowledge and perception by actually debating, rather than this across-the-board dismissal.
Debating with you, my dear Tony, is like talking to a robot.
I never knew you debated Len....when did all that start?
-
I never knew you debated Len....when did all that start?
Many years ago on the BBC forums. Over the years I have come to realise that debating religious belief is a sterile and thankless pastime. It just consists of the same old arguments trotted out endlessly ... so now I usually restrict myself to correcting false claims.
Christians are prone to claiming as fact what they read in the Bible, quite forgetting that none of the supernatural stuff can be backed up with evidence.
-
... and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!
Other than his mother and his brother James, of course.
Sass, in respect of this thread, it should be noted that some of the material that makes up the New Testament may have been written by Jewish disciples of Jesus Christ. Other documents were written by a Jewish scholar who would have known the Old Testament's understanding of the Messiah - as well as the Jewish leadership's understanding of the concept. I think that I would rather believe what they understood than what you do.
-
Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.
There is no evidence Moses wrote anything. Funny most of the Jews didn't see that bloke Jesus as any sort of Messiah, and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!
I agree with you about Moses; but you are entirely incorrect, again, about Jesus, After His death His brother, James became head of the early Church.
Is it really necessary to refer to Jesus as "that bloke?" As far as I'm concerned that sort of comment is far more unpleasant and abusive than anything I ever say. I wouldn't treat a poltergeist in such a cavalier manner. :D
That's only what it states in your manual and no one has established the authenticity of the so called facts this manual of yours contains and no you don't need to be a scholar to be aware of that.
ippy
Maybe not, but it would be something if you could actually debate it sensibly instead of just the inane, carpet condemnation.
What's the point of discussing something like your manual until there can be some some sort of conformation that it contains at the very least something that would establish the magical, mystical and superstitious as factual happenings/events; something no one has managed to do unless there is something somewhere I've missed.
ippy
I'm only concerned with the NT, and it has come under intense debate since its formation; and it continues to do so - that is amongst serious students and scholars, and that's where you miss out.
But it does not establish the existence of a God.
All the miracles claims it contains are just claims. Claims that are almost certainly false.
The book as no one information in it that was not known at the time.
-
Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.
There is no evidence Moses wrote anything. Funny most of the Jews didn't see that bloke Jesus as any sort of Messiah, and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!
I agree with you about Moses; but you are entirely incorrect, again, about Jesus, After His death His brother, James became head of the early Church.
Is it really necessary to refer to Jesus as "that bloke?" As far as I'm concerned that sort of comment is far more unpleasant and abusive than anything I ever say. I wouldn't treat a poltergeist in such a cavalier manner. :D
That's only what it states in your manual and no one has established the authenticity of the so called facts this manual of yours contains and no you don't need to be a scholar to be aware of that.
ippy
Maybe not, but it would be something if you could actually debate it sensibly instead of just the inane, carpet condemnation.
What's the point of discussing something like your manual until there can be some some sort of conformation that it contains at the very least something that would establish the magical, mystical and superstitious as factual happenings/events; something no one has managed to do unless there is something somewhere I've missed.
ippy
I'm only concerned with the NT, and it has come under intense debate since its formation; and it continues to do so - that is amongst serious students and scholars, and that's where you miss out.
No matter how serious anyone likes to be about the NT as you call it, unless you can find or in some way introduce some credibility into it's claims about the mythical, magical and supernatural happenings it contains, something that hasn't yet been achieved, it might as well be a discussion forum of something like the Sherlock Holms society and add a very similar amount of value to our daily lives.
ippy
-
No matter how serious anyone likes to be about the NT as you call it, unless you can find or in some way introduce some credibility into it's claims about the mythical, magical and supernatural happenings it contains, something that hasn't yet been achieved, it might as well be a discussion forum of something like the Sherlock Holmes society and add a very similar amount of value to our daily lives.
ippy
Spot on. Ippy ... but don't expect BA and his like to acknowledge that.
-
Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.
On this occasion I'm with Sassy.
What you have basically said is that you believe in the theology of the church, which was invented to explain the things they didn't have answers for.
Like how Christians can worship one God if Jesus was in some way God.
IMO the Jesus of the "scripture" isn't the one invented by the church either.
Sassy has as much chance of getting it right as anyone else.
It's all POV and opinions.
The "theology of the Church" comes straight from the Apostles who were taught by Christ himself but, of course, you first have to discern where the Church is.
-
... and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!
Other than his mother and his brother James, of course.
Sass, in respect of this thread, it should be noted that some of the material that makes up the New Testament may have been written by Jewish disciples of Jesus Christ. Other documents were written by a Jewish scholar who would have known the Old Testament's understanding of the Messiah - as well as the Jewish leadership's understanding of the concept. I think that I would rather believe what they understood than what you do.
Jesus seemed to be dismissive of his family, including his mother. As his father, Joseph, didn't get mentioned after his childhood, one assumed he might have died. I wonder who was supporting Mary whilst her eldest son was making a nuisance of himself where the religious mafia was concerned?
-
34 Then Jesus looked at the people sitting in a circle around him. He said, “Here is my mother! Here are my brothers! 35 Anyone who does what God wants is my brother or sister or mother.â€
i.e., if you don't believe what I believe, get lost.
A tad conceited, no?
-
Yes, you are a heretic, a follower of Arius, and you do not believe in Christ otherwise you would acknowledge that that Christ is God. You do not understand the scriptures.
It is you who is an heretic because you go beyond the teachings of Christ. As for scripture you only have manmade teachings but I was taught by God. He opened my mind to the Scriptures so I know the truth of OT and was taught that before the NT. So when it comes to your two line replies which has nothing to prove me wrong about Scripture you are telling the whole world you have nothing but tradition and manmade beliefs.
You cannot answer the fact that both Peter and John teach Christ was a human being and that God gave Jesus power and anointed him with the Holy Spirit.
You cannot bear the truth like those Stephen spoke to before he was stoned.
John warning people that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Because as Jews they knew the truth about the Messiah.
HERETIC is more befitting of you because your beliefs are not biblical and you have no way of producing anything from the OT which says the Messiah would be God made man. Even Luke tells you that God through an angel told Mary that Christ being a Holy Thing...that he was to be called the Son of God.
You ignore the things written for a manmade belief which started out even at the time of the disciples preaching. But the disciples DID NOT TEACH but warned against it.
-
Sass you are a 'larf'. ;D I suspect there are quite a few Christians on this forum who think you are a naughty heretic too! ;D
-
Depends how you read it Len :)
If you took it as he was teaching the golden rule ( and was just a man) you could take it as a lesson in equality.
That those doing the golden rule ( what God wanted) were those that were important, rather than just because they were relatives.
:)
They are still your parents and should have some importance in your life.
Sadly, Jesus didn't just teach the Golden Rule, with which I entirely agree. He taught a lot of other crap about the god he believed in.
-
I'm only concerned with the NT, and it has come under intense debate since its formation; and it continues to do so - that is amongst serious students and scholars, and that's where you miss out.
Hi Tony,
As you say, the NT is one of the most long- and widely-studied works in history, and yet there is still no clear consensus on what several sections mean, who may or may not have authored certain elements and similar issues.
Do you think this lack of clarity indicates that the work itself is not divinely inspired, is the work of 'mere' mortals? (Regardless of whether the content is accurate or not, simply the construction of the documents)
O.
-
As for scripture you only have manmade teachings but I was taught by God.
Don't be so idiotic, Sass! You simply absorbed like a sponge the religious belief of your time and culture. THAT is what 'taught' you ... not your non-existent "God".
-
::)
All through the ages, there have been different groups of Christians calling each other heretics because of some opin... Um theology.
You've had Popes excommunicating each other.......
It would be funny, except too many people have got hurt. :(
Well, it rather serves them right for believing such patent rubbish,
-
Have you ever spoken to a Jew about the scriptures?
I have, a chief Rabbi no less who had written a book with a Christian that highlighted their different answers.
And did either of them offer any testable evidence of the truth of their different answers?
Of course not ... there isn't any.
-
Depends how you read it Len :)
If you took it as he was teaching the golden rule ( and was just a man) you could take it as a lesson in equality.
That those doing the golden rule ( what God wanted) were those that were important, rather than just because they were relatives.
:)
They are still your parents and should have some importance in your life.
Have to disagree with that, I'm afraid - you owe your parents nothing unless they merit it through their actions. They choose to have children for their reasons, and whilst it would be nice if all parents cared well for their children that isn't the case. The majority, yes, but you don't merit anything simply by producing offspring, you earn love, respect and care by how you treat them.
O.
-
In more recent times we don't know for sure if people who do happen to have some historical basis, unlike the Biblical characters, said and did the things claimed for them.
Yet most of us happily accept the claims anyway, Floo, especially when informed by so-called 'experts'. ;)
-
Absolutely, Roses. We can only be guided by the strength of the evidence presented by their followers/detractors.
And n my opinion it is always better to err on the side of scepticism rather than credulity.
So, despite the strength of the evidence of the time being considerably greater than that of the detractors (who, of course, would have had the best opportunity to produce contradictory evidence - such as a body), you choose to side with theose detractors. Where is your scepticism regarding their un-evidenced argument?
-
You do not understand the scriptures.
The Oracle has spoken! ;D
Despite your snipe, what he says is true!
It isn't true... It is a fact that John warned against the very thing of who came in the flesh.
1 John 4King James Version (KJV)
4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Jesus Christ came in the flesh NOT God.
The OT does NOT teach God will come in flesh.
It teaches God will raise them up a Prophet from amongst their own people whom he will put his words into his mouth.
All the Prophets and men of God spoke by the power of Gods Holy Spirit.
Christ himself said: "My Words are SPIRIT and they are life."
He also taught he did not speak of himself but whatever the Father gave him he spoke.
Acts 10:38King James Version (KJV)
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
As you can see Peter lays it out as it is...
Luke spells it out:-
Luke 1:35King James Version (KJV)
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The Mystery is that it is the false teaching of SAYING that Christ is God made flesh is what stops the Jews believing he is the Messiah. For they knew he would be a Prophet from amongst their own people. To be called the Son of God would be blasphemy if Christ was not Gods Son. Hence the teaching of Blasphemy dealt with. We know to be called a Son of someone was to be like the Father.
So when the Jews said: " Abraham is our Father" Christ said: " If Abraham was truly your Father you would do as he did." We know the rest. Jesus is Gods son because he did the will of his Father and did as God would do.
The Mystery is also the fact that if you call Jesus God and say God came in the flesh then you are breaking the first commandment and the commandment Christ gave you. " Love the LORD thy GOD with all thy heart, mind, body, soul and strength." Because this is what Jesus did. The NT are just letters but the OT is fact. The words of Christ are the truth to follow.
Christ shows that LOVE is the important role. That loving God and others is more important than anything else because this is the basis of his teachings.
So if you call Jesus God by saying God came in the flesh you deny the teachings of Christ.
It was the ONE way against Christs way that stopped the Jews coming to Christ and stopped the Roman Catholic Church losing it's power.
Not everyone who calls him Lord, Lord, will be saved.
So think about it... the only person who will make himself out to be God and put himself above God is the Son of Perdition spoken about by Daniel and in the book of Revelations. The Kingdom of God is within a person and perfectly safe from any outward attack in the world or by the teachings of men.
You need to guard your heart and mind because of false teachings.
Jesus is the Son of God and he came in the flesh.
He is the chosen Messiah and Saviour. As Paul taught when all things and powers are subdued under him then he place himself and all things back under God.
-
Have to disagree with that, I'm afraid - you owe your parents nothing unless they merit it through their actions. They choose to have children for their reasons, and whilst it would be nice if all parents cared well for their children that isn't the case. The majority, yes, but you don't merit anything simply by producing offspring, you earn love, respect and care by how you treat them.
O.
I agree! However, you wouldn't exist if your parents hadn't given you life, so at least be grateful to them for that.
-
There is plenty to be sceptical about where that not so good book is concerned.
Yet another airing for your unevidenced claim, Floo. How many times is that over the last 3 months?
-
Well considering that a central aspect of Paul's preaching was to claim that Jesus was both God and Christ, and considering that after diligently searching the (OT) Scriptures to check Paul's claims, and considering once more that many of them became believers we can only come to one conclusion. Those 'more noble' Jews at Berea must have found OT evidence to their satisfaction that Paul's claims were indeed correct and that Jesus is in fact God.
Wrong: Paul NEVER claimed that Jesus was God but that the truth of the OT showed God spoke through him.
There is NOTHING about the mention of Beareans which shows they had any evidence for such a notion as you suggest.
-
Absolutely, Roses. We can only be guided by the strength of the evidence presented by their followers/detractors.
And n my opinion it is always better to err on the side of scepticism rather than credulity.
So, despite the strength of the evidence of the time being considerably greater than that of the detractors (who, of course, would have had the best opportunity to produce contradictory evidence - such as a body), you choose to side with theose detractors. Where is your scepticism regarding their un-evidenced argument?
What could be a stronger argument from the 'detractors' as to think so little of you as to fail to pass comment at all?
The contemporaries of Jesus were so ambivalent about his existence they failed in their entirety to say anything at all. A cynic might suggest that the entire idea was invented after the fact...
O.
-
The Jewish answer made a lot more sense to me.
You would have to read it yourself Len, but I suspect the Rabbis answer would make more sense to you as well.
It wasn't about testafiable proof, but different perpectives on the same questions.
What book would that have been, Rose?
Like you, I have spoken to a number of Jewish people about the claims of Christ, and I have to say that I have found their arguments often contradict their own scriptures.
-
What could be a stronger argument from the 'detractors' as to think so little of you as to fail to pass comment at all?
The contemporaries of Jesus were so ambivalent about his existence they failed in their entirety to say anything at all. A cynic might suggest that the entire idea was invented after the fact...
O.
Actually, this is erroneous, O. The chief detractors - the Jewish religious leaders - were very vocal in their opposition to him.
-
So, despite the strength of the evidence of the time being considerably greater than that of the detractors (who, of course, would have had the best opportunity to produce contradictory evidence - such as a body), you choose to side with theose detractors. Where is your scepticism regarding their un-evidenced argument?
Both arguments lacked irrefutable evidence. It is all nothing more than what people claimed they saw (or didn't see).
-
What could be a stronger argument from the 'detractors' as to think so little of you as to fail to pass comment at all?
The contemporaries of Jesus were so ambivalent about his existence they failed in their entirety to say anything at all. A cynic might suggest that the entire idea was invented after the fact...
O.
Actually, this is erroneous, O. The chief detractors - the Jewish religious leaders - were very vocal in their opposition to him.
As alleged by the people who came after and lauded the tale of Jesus - no-one at the time was so incensed, aware or awake that they actually put anything down themselves, though.
O.
-
Well considering that a central aspect of Paul's preaching was to claim that Jesus was both God and Christ, and considering that after diligently searching the (OT) Scriptures to check Paul's claims, and considering once more that many of them became believers we can only come to one conclusion. Those 'more noble' Jews at Berea must have found OT evidence to their satisfaction that Paul's claims were indeed correct and that Jesus is in fact God.
Such is the power of a charismatic teacher to sway people to his beliefs.
Excepting that even a casual reading of Acts 17 makes it plain that those in Berea were not the sort to allow themselves to be swayed by a glib talker (which Paul by his own admission was not). Which is precisely why they were cautious enough and suspicious enough to search the Scriptures daily to check him out.
Those in Berea checked the scriptures to check Jesus was the Messiah not that he was God made man. Because the OT does not teach that Jesus would be God.
In fact it warns that on the Son of Perdition would place himself as God and above all that is God.
At no times did Bearean check scriptures to see if Jesus was God. WHY?
Because the disciples and Paul did not teach that.
Acts 10:38King James Version (KJV)
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
As you can see from Peter, he taught God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the HG and POWER. GOD WAS WITH HIM... it did not say he was God and went about doing these things.
So it is clear that NO ONE taught Jesus was God. But they knew the words he spoke came from God.
Deuteronomy 18:18King James Version (KJV)
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
So we know God was WITH Jesus and that the Words Christ spoke were from God.
The people then tried to change it to Christ being God rather than the truth that Peter taught. God was with Christ. It is clear John corrected the wrong teachings that God came in the flesh when he said:
1 John 4King James Version (KJV)
4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
So as you see Jesus Christ came in the flesh and God spoke through him. That is the teachings of the disciples and Peter would NOT lie because he stated clearly that Jesus was the Messiah Gods chosen one.
-
King James 2000 Bible
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
King James Bible
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Note to reader: The NT did not exist and the scriptures they checked were OT.
So to ensure what you believe it must be checked out by the OT not the NT.
So discuss beliefs and origins without using the NT.
Show in the OT where the Prophets taught that the Messiah would be God made man. It is clear that the Messiah was to be a man raised from their own brethren.
Deuteronomy 18: 15-18.
God himself saying he would raise them up a Prophet from amongst their own brethren.
The NT must reflect the truth of the OT. If it cannot be found in the OT it must (as in the times of the disciples) be rejected. Because at no time during the preaching of the good news did a copy of the NT become included in scripture.
Christ fulfilled the scriptures about himself and he foretold of the things still to come.
Which is why, when I want to know what the Jesus of the nt was probably like, I look at Judaism and then try and work out what Christianity has added.
You need to remove all that theology that was only made up to explain for example how Christians could also be worshipping one God, while having a Jesus with a divine nature.
Don't even get me started on the mythology that surrounds Mary :o
Immaculate conception?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
Some of these ideas are fairly modern and it's what you get when you shut a bunch of celibate men away for too long with their own thoughts ::)
It's Opinion, there's no proof. ( not even if you took the NT as proof)
Someone's opinion that then had to be accepted by everyone as some sort of ultimate truth.
It's still someone's opinion though.
But you are up against years of brainwashing and discouragement from questioning.
You will just get called a heretic.
Calling people that, means they don't have to look at the contents of your argument.
People's opinion became theology and dogma and no one reading just the NT and the OT would ever come up with the vast majority of it.
Rose, how did you know that our Sass has been through years of being tortured?
"But you are up against years of brainwashing and discouragement from questioning".
I think it's a certainty she was indoctrinated for years.
ippy
-
So as you see Jesus Christ came in the flesh and God spoke through him. That is the teachings of the disciples and Peter would NOT lie because he stated clearly that Jesus was the Messiah Gods chosen one.
Beliefs ... nothing more. Products of the human mind.
-
Wrong: Paul NEVER claimed that Jesus was God but that the truth of the OT showed God spoke through him.
There is NOTHING about the mention of Beareans which shows they had any evidence for such a notion as you suggest.
Sass, even your much-beloved King James Version has Paul stating that Jesus is God on a number of occasions. Romans 1: 3-7, 9: 5; Colossians 2: 9. If you add examples from the books that may or may not have been written by Paul, but traditionally bear his name as author, you also have 1 Timothy 3:16, 6: 14-16; Hebrews 1: 3.
Note that I have taken these examples from the King James Version Chain-Reference Bible by Frank Charles Thompson (4th Edition 1964)
Perhaps you ought to re-read your copy of the KJV rather more carefully.
-
It's easy to find corroboration in the records of people who all believed the same thing.
However, that is a long way from it proving the truth.
It should also be the case that it is easy to find corroboration of the detractors' argument in their writings and official pronouncements, Len.
-
King James 2000 Bible
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
King James Bible
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Note to reader: The NT did not exist and the scriptures they checked were OT.
So to ensure what you believe it must be checked out by the OT not the NT.
So discuss beliefs and origins without using the NT.
Show in the OT where the Prophets taught that the Messiah would be God made man. It is clear that the Messiah was to be a man raised from their own brethren.
Deuteronomy 18: 15-18.
God himself saying he would raise them up a Prophet from amongst their own brethren.
The NT must reflect the truth of the OT. If it cannot be found in the OT it must (as in the times of the disciples) be rejected. Because at no time during the preaching of the good news did a copy of the NT become included in scripture.
Christ fulfilled the scriptures about himself and he foretold of the things still to come.
Which is why, when I want to know what the Jesus of the nt was probably like, I look at Judaism and then try and work out what Christianity has added.
You need to remove all that theology that was only made up to explain for example how Christians could also be worshipping one God, while having a Jesus with a divine nature.
Don't even get me started on the mythology that surrounds Mary :o
Immaculate conception?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
Some of these ideas are fairly modern and it's what you get when you shut a bunch of celibate men away for too long with their own thoughts ::)
It's Opinion, there's no proof. ( not even if you took the NT as proof)
Someone's opinion that then had to be accepted by everyone as some sort of ultimate truth.
It's still someone's opinion though.
But you are up against years of brainwashing and discouragement from questioning.
You will just get called a heretic.
Calling people that, means they don't have to look at the contents of your argument.
People's opinion became theology and dogma and no one reading just the NT and the OT would ever come up with the vast majority of it.
Rose, how did you know that our Sass has been through years of being tortured?
"But you are up against years of brainwashing and discouragement from questioning".
I think it's a certainty she was indoctrinated for years.
ippy
What?
Did you actually read my post?
ad O stated Sassy was a heretic.
Go from there
Yes, I wondered why you thought Sass was brainwashed, a practice that was last used in the early fifties by the North Koreans and they abandoned it because they didn't have much success with it.
If you look it up you'll find that you were describing indoctrination and writing brainwashing.
ippy
-
Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.
On this occasion I'm with Sassy.
What you have basically said is that you believe in the theology of the church, which was invented to explain the things they didn't have answers for.
Like how Christians can worship one God if Jesus was in some way God.
IMO the Jesus of the "scripture" isn't the one invented by the church either.
Sassy has as much chance of getting it right as anyone else.
It's all POV and opinions.
The "theology of the Church" comes straight from the Apostles who were taught by Christ himself but, of course, you first have to discern where the Church is.
No it doesn't, that's just what you have been told to believe. No one in the NT gives any indication that Mary mother of Jesus was in any way special apart from being his mum, Jesus didn't make her one of his disciples.
In fact Jesus complains that those who knew him best had the greatest difficulty accepting his miracles.
At one point he is quite dismissive of his actual family, which leads me to believe that the "church " added all the stuff about Mary.
Mark 3:31-35New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
31 Jesus’ mother and brothers came and stood outside. They sent someone in to get him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Jesus. They told him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside. They are looking for you.â€
33 “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?†he asked.
34 Then Jesus looked at the people sitting in a circle around him. He said, “Here is my mother! Here are my brothers! 35 Anyone who does what God wants is my brother or sister or mother.â€
When did you become sola scriptura? It's bullshit.
-
What's bullshit?
The idea that the Catholic Church might have invented some of its own traditions and Dogmas?
No one has ever told me how to read a bible, Ad O. And if they did I've usually disagreed with them.
That includes much of the Protestant theologies as well.
If anything I tend to read it with an open mind and with the idea that many of the answers are humanitarian and is Jewish in origin.
If anything, over the years I have come to the conclusion that in many cases it is the theology that is the bullshit.
All of it.
If God exists, and if Jesus represented God in some way, it doesn't mean human beings could explain it.
It might not even be explainable in human terms.
So I prefer to go with the basic message of Jesus, who seemed to me, to be largely talking about an ethical and fair way of life.
The bullshit, ( theology) I am happy to leave behind.
I don't need any of it.
Wild speculation most of it.
I love you, Rose! :)
-
Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.
On this occasion I'm with Sassy.
What you have basically said is that you believe in the theology of the church, which was invented to explain the things they didn't have answers for.
Like how Christians can worship one God if Jesus was in some way God.
IMO the Jesus of the "scripture" isn't the one invented by the church either.
Sassy has as much chance of getting it right as anyone else.
It's all POV and opinions.
The "theology of the Church" comes straight from the Apostles who were taught by Christ himself but, of course, you first have to discern where the Church is.
No it doesn't, that's just what you have been told to believe. No one in the NT gives any indication that Mary mother of Jesus was in any way special apart from being his mum, Jesus didn't make her one of his disciples.
In fact Jesus complains that those who knew him best had the greatest difficulty accepting his miracles.
At one point he is quite dismissive of his actual family, which leads me to believe that the "church " added all the stuff about Mary.
Mark 3:31-35New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
31 Jesus’ mother and brothers came and stood outside. They sent someone in to get him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Jesus. They told him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside. They are looking for you.â€
33 “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?†he asked.
34 Then Jesus looked at the people sitting in a circle around him. He said, “Here is my mother! Here are my brothers! 35 Anyone who does what God wants is my brother or sister or mother.â€
When did you become sola scriptura? It's bullshit.
What's bullshit?
The idea that the Catholic Church might have invented some of its own traditions and Dogmas?
Or that the pope is not supposed to be able to make a mistake?
Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."[1][2]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
History alone has shown us that the Pope is anything but infallible.
You are putting your faith in a person.
No one has ever told me how to read a bible, Ad O. And if they did I've usually disagreed with them.
That includes much of the Protestant theologies as well.
If anything I tend to read it with an open mind and with the idea that many of the answers are humanitarian and is Jewish in origin.
If anything, over the years I have come to the conclusion that in many cases it is the theology that is the bullshit.
All of it.
If God exists, and if Jesus represented God in some way, it doesn't mean human beings could explain it.
It might not even be explainable in human terms.
So I prefer to go with the basic message of Jesus, who seemed to me, to be largely talking about an ethical and fair way of life.
The bullshit, ( theology) I am happy to leave behind.
I don't need any of it.
Wild speculation most of it.
Jesus also said you needed to be like little children to get into the kingdom of heaven, which IMO rules out half a ton of wild speculation known in churches as theology and dogma.
Sola scriptura is bullshit and btw I'm not a Roman Catholic. The scriptures cannot be understood apart from the life of the Church, which is the work of the Holy Spirit confirming the faith of the Apostles.
-
Yes, you are a heretic, a follower of Arius, and you do not believe in Christ otherwise you would acknowledge that that Christ is God. You do not understand the scriptures.
It is you who is an heretic because you go beyond the teachings of Christ. As for scripture you only have manmade teachings but I was taught by God. He opened my mind to the Scriptures so I know the truth of OT and was taught that before the NT. So when it comes to your two line replies which has nothing to prove me wrong about Scripture you are telling the whole world you have nothing but tradition and manmade beliefs.
You cannot answer the fact that both Peter and John teach Christ was a human being and that God gave Jesus power and anointed him with the Holy Spirit.
You cannot bear the truth like those Stephen spoke to before he was stoned.
John warning people that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Because as Jews they knew the truth about the Messiah.
HERETIC is more befitting of you because your beliefs are not biblical and you have no way of producing anything from the OT which says the Messiah would be God made man. Even Luke tells you that God through an angel told Mary that Christ being a Holy Thing...that he was to be called the Son of God.
You ignore the things written for a manmade belief which started out even at the time of the disciples preaching. But the disciples DID NOT TEACH but warned against it.
The faith confirmed by the holy councils is the faith of the Apostles taught to them by Christ himself. You are no better than a Marcionite in rejecting the scriptures that disagree with you and you are a follower of men in your Arian beliefs. Quite frankly your Christ, which is not the Christ of the scriptures, cannot save you.
-
Sola scriptura is bullshit and btw I'm not a Roman Catholic. The scriptures cannot be understood apart from the life of the Church, which is the work of the Holy Spirit confirming the faith of the Apostles.
... he asserted, with authority. However, the Pope just as firmly asserted that Sola Scriptura is the dogs bollocks (perhaps not a direct quote) and he's infallible on issues of scripture, because he asserted so, authoritatively...
You see the problem we have?
O.
-
There is plenty to be sceptical about where that not so good book is concerned.
Yet another airing for your unevidenced claim, Floo. How many times is that over the last 3 months?
That is a good one coming from you, who believes in the unbelievable without any evidence to back it up! ::)
-
Yes, you are a heretic, a follower of Arius, and you do not believe in Christ otherwise you would acknowledge that that Christ is God. You do not understand the scriptures.
It is you who is an heretic because you go beyond the teachings of Christ. As for scripture you only have manmade teachings but I was taught by God. He opened my mind to the Scriptures so I know the truth of OT and was taught that before the NT. So when it comes to your two line replies which has nothing to prove me wrong about Scripture you are telling the whole world you have nothing but tradition and manmade beliefs.
You cannot answer the fact that both Peter and John teach Christ was a human being and that God gave Jesus power and anointed him with the Holy Spirit.
You cannot bear the truth like those Stephen spoke to before he was stoned.
John warning people that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Because as Jews they knew the truth about the Messiah.
HERETIC is more befitting of you because your beliefs are not biblical and you have no way of producing anything from the OT which says the Messiah would be God made man. Even Luke tells you that God through an angel told Mary that Christ being a Holy Thing...that he was to be called the Son of God.
You ignore the things written for a manmade belief which started out even at the time of the disciples preaching. But the disciples DID NOT TEACH but warned against it.
The faith confirmed by the holy councils is the faith of the Apostles taught to them by Christ himself. You are no better than a Marcionite in rejecting the scriptures that disagree with you and you are a follower of men in your Arian beliefs. Quite frankly your Christ, which is not the Christ of the scriptures, cannot save you.
Nor can yours if you need saving from anything!
-
Sola scriptura is bullshit and btw I'm not a Roman Catholic. The scriptures cannot be understood apart from the life of the Church, which is the work of the Holy Spirit confirming the faith of the Apostles.
... he asserted, with authority. However, the Pope just as firmly asserted that Sola Scriptura is the dogs bollocks (perhaps not a direct quote) and he's infallible on issues of scripture, because he asserted so, authoritatively...
You see the problem we have?
O.
There is no problem if you happen to have eyes with which to see.
-
Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.
On this occasion I'm with Sassy.
What you have basically said is that you believe in the theology of the church, which was invented to explain the things they didn't have answers for.
Like how Christians can worship one God if Jesus was in some way God.
IMO the Jesus of the "scripture" isn't the one invented by the church either.
Sassy has as much chance of getting it right as anyone else.
It's all POV and opinions.
The "theology of the Church" comes straight from the Apostles who were taught by Christ himself but, of course, you first have to discern where the Church is.
No it doesn't, that's just what you have been told to believe. No one in the NT gives any indication that Mary mother of Jesus was in any way special apart from being his mum, Jesus didn't make her one of his disciples.
In fact Jesus complains that those who knew him best had the greatest difficulty accepting his miracles.
At one point he is quite dismissive of his actual family, which leads me to believe that the "church " added all the stuff about Mary.
Mark 3:31-35New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
31 Jesus’ mother and brothers came and stood outside. They sent someone in to get him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Jesus. They told him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside. They are looking for you.â€
33 “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?†he asked.
34 Then Jesus looked at the people sitting in a circle around him. He said, “Here is my mother! Here are my brothers! 35 Anyone who does what God wants is my brother or sister or mother.â€
When did you become sola scriptura? It's bullshit.
What's bullshit?
The idea that the Catholic Church might have invented some of its own traditions and Dogmas?
Or that the pope is not supposed to be able to make a mistake?
Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."[1][2]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
History alone has shown us that the Pope is anything but infallible.
You are putting your faith in a person.
No one has ever told me how to read a bible, Ad O. And if they did I've usually disagreed with them.
That includes much of the Protestant theologies as well.
If anything I tend to read it with an open mind and with the idea that many of the answers are humanitarian and is Jewish in origin.
If anything, over the years I have come to the conclusion that in many cases it is the theology that is the bullshit.
All of it.
If God exists, and if Jesus represented God in some way, it doesn't mean human beings could explain it.
It might not even be explainable in human terms.
So I prefer to go with the basic message of Jesus, who seemed to me, to be largely talking about an ethical and fair way of life.
The bullshit, ( theology) I am happy to leave behind.
I don't need any of it.
Wild speculation most of it.
Jesus also said you needed to be like little children to get into the kingdom of heaven, which IMO rules out half a ton of wild speculation known in churches as theology and dogma.
Sola scriptura is bullshit and btw I'm not a Roman Catholic. The scriptures cannot be understood apart from the life of the Church, which is the work of the Holy Spirit confirming the faith of the Apostles.
Which takes Jesus even further away from what a Messiah was supposed to do.
Isaiah 2:4: Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore."
Zechariah 14:9: Spread universal knowledge of the G-d of Israel - uniting the entire human race as one: "G-d will be King over all the world—on that day, G-d will be One and His Name will be One"
What has that in common with how you have just described what you belong to?
The scriptures cannot be understood apart from the life of the Church, which is the work of the Holy Spirit confirming the faith of the Apostles.
What you are describing is something which has its faith firmly rooted in things people tell you to believe, that cannot be worked out in anyway from what Jesus has actually said.
It sounds controlling Ad O.
You can't think your own thoughts on something but have to accept other people's? ( not Jesus, not God, but your particular church's "take" on it.)
As I said, the proof is there in the life of the Church, but you need eyes to see, otherwise you are lost in the dark. Christ founded his Church precisely so that we might know where to go, a light in the darkness so that we might not be overcome by that darkness.
-
The scriptures cannot be understood apart from the life of the Church, which is the work of the Holy Spirit confirming the faith of the Apostles.
The non-existent leading the gullible. ;D
-
I usually get my special from being eccentric, a loner, and having my own opinion and, being a bit odd ;D
I can cope with that. ;)
Very much my own opinion, too, Rose. But as long as we get along with others and are generally well thought of, what does it matter?
-
I'm not about to buy into the myth of
" only special people can see the light, I want to be special therefore I have to accept this belief system/theology to achieve it."
It's self affirming and because you re-affirm it in others, they do it in return.
So many religious groups do that.
I usually steer clear of them if I can.
I usually get my special from being eccentric, a loner, and having my own opinion and, being a bit odd ;D
I can cope with that. ;)
Good for you! :)
I can cope with being a senile old bat, I wouldn't be me otherwise! ;D
-
I usually get my special from being eccentric, a loner, and having my own opinion and, being a bit odd ;D
I can cope with that. ;)
Very much my own opinion, too, Rose. But as long as we get along with others and are generally well thought of, what does it matter?
How can you be so hypocritical as to say you hope to get on with others when you totally revile the cherished beliefs of thousands of them?
-
I usually get my special from being eccentric, a loner, and having my own opinion and, being a bit odd ;D
I can cope with that. ;)
Very much my own opinion, too, Rose. But as long as we get along with others and are generally well thought of, what does it matter?
How can you be so hypocritical as to say you hope to get on with others when you totally revile the cherished beliefs of thousands of them?
You should not have ANY cherished beliefs.
That is a STUPID thing to do.
You should try to believe things that are TRUE, and if they can be shown to be false, you ditch them.
-
There is no problem if you happen to have eyes with which to see.
Ah, the 'special pleading' fallacy. It's always nice to see the classics...
O.
-
There is no problem if you happen to have eyes with which to see.
Ah, the 'special pleading' fallacy. It's always nice to see the classics...
O.
They must have credence, otherwise they wouldn't be classics, as with literature, for example.
-
There is no problem if you happen to have eyes with which to see.
Ah, the 'special pleading' fallacy. It's always nice to see the classics...
O.
They must have credence, otherwise they wouldn't be classics, as with literature, for example.
So the Qu'ran must have credence, by that reasoning? No, it turns out that billions of people over hundreds of years, can just be wrong.
O.
-
Wrong: Paul NEVER claimed that Jesus was God but that the truth of the OT showed God spoke through him.
There is NOTHING about the mention of Beareans which shows they had any evidence for such a notion as you suggest.
Sass, even your much-beloved King James Version has Paul stating that Jesus is God on a number of occasions. Romans 1: 3-7
Romans 1:3-7King James Version (KJV)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
As you can see Paul called Jesus the Son of God.He refers to God and Jesus Christ as two persons and note he says Jesus was made flesh.
Romans 9: 5; 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Does not say Christ is God...
Colossians 2: 9.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Is Christ the God head or does the Godhead dwell in Christ...
We know God dwells in all men by the power of the Holy Spirit.
If you do not have the Spirit you do not belong to God. We see that Christ says;-
Make them one as we are one...
King James Bible
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
What Glory had God given Christ that he gave to us that we may be one as he and the Father are one.
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
If you add examples from the books that may or may not have been written by Paul, but traditionally bear his name as author, you also have 1 Timothy 3:16, 6:
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
No man has seen God the Son of God hath made him known to us.
Hebrews 1: 3.
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
These verses confirm that God sent Jesus, Spoke through Jesus and that Jesus made God known. Jesus was the image of Gods person. Nowhere does it give any belief that God was made flesh. It confirms that Christ was sent by God and God spoke through him,
Note that I have taken these examples from the King James Version Chain-Reference Bible by Frank Charles Thompson (4th Edition 1964)
Perhaps you ought to re-read your copy of the KJV rather more carefully.
It is you who need to see that what you proclaim is not confirmed in those verses. It confirms Christ sent by God and is the Son of God. Also I note you produced nothing from the OT. It is there where WE have confirmation.
What I have done is printed the KJV which shows you are misrepresenting what is actually written.
-
Sass
The verses confirm nothing and it is pointless to post them if you are debating with atheists.
We just do not give them any credence.
Why should I care what ANY scripture says about ANYTHING?
-
King James 2000 Bible
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
King James Bible
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Note to reader: The NT did not exist and the scriptures they checked were OT.
So to ensure what you believe it must be checked out by the OT not the NT.
So discuss beliefs and origins without using the NT.
Show in the OT where the Prophets taught that the Messiah would be God made man. It is clear that the Messiah was to be a man raised from their own brethren.
Deuteronomy 18: 15-18.
God himself saying he would raise them up a Prophet from amongst their own brethren.
The NT must reflect the truth of the OT. If it cannot be found in the OT it must (as in the times of the disciples) be rejected. Because at no time during the preaching of the good news did a copy of the NT become included in scripture.
Christ fulfilled the scriptures about himself and he foretold of the things still to come.
Which is why, when I want to know what the Jesus of the nt was probably like, I look at Judaism and then try and work out what Christianity has added.
You need to remove all that theology that was only made up to explain for example how Christians could also be worshipping one God, while having a Jesus with a divine nature.
The Sadducees and the Pharisees held different beliefs. Thos as because the Messiah was to bring the truth of all that God was teaching. As a person Christ would represent the person who is God and also live as God would live.
Don't even get me started on the mythology that surrounds Mary :o
Immaculate conception?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
Mary as a maiden would have been unmarried and therefore a virgin.
It is not really a surprise that Christ would be born of a virgin/maiden as in Isaiah.
But it takes away from the original teachings that Christ was the Son of God and died for sins. That change comes with belief in the truth and baptism of the Holy Spirit. We come to know God through Christ. Which is far greater than anything written.
Some of these ideas are fairly modern and it's what you get when you shut a bunch of celibate men away for too long with their own thoughts ::)
It's Opinion, there's no proof. ( not even if you took the NT as proof)
Someone's opinion that then had to be accepted by everyone as some sort of ultimate truth.
It is not a required belief. Because it was never part of the teachings of the disciples when coming to the truth about Christ from a personal conception.
It's still someone's opinion though.
But you are up against years of brainwashing and discouragement from questioning.
You will just get called a heretic.
Acts 10;35-46 shows that being saved is not about whether Mary was a virgin. The experience of life in God and Christ becomes a reality through belief in them.
Calling people that, means they don't have to look at the contents of your argument.
People's opinion became theology and dogma and no one reading just the NT and the OT would ever come up with the vast majority of it.
I am sure you would agree that when I have called them out... they have not produced scripture to prove their stance. Because the truth is that Christianity has to be something more than a belief i what men have taught. A powerful belief in the main things which Christ taught.
-
Sass
The verses confirm nothing and it is pointless to post them if you are debating with atheists.
We just do not give them any credence.
Why should I care what ANY scripture says about ANYTHING?
##Is Hope an atheist....
-
Sass
The verses confirm nothing and it is pointless to post them if you are debating with atheists.
We just do not give them any credence.
Why should I care what ANY scripture says about ANYTHING?
##Is Hope an atheist....
No I am pretty sure he is not.
But posting verses in relation to discussions with non Christians is pointless.
-
Mary as a maiden would have been unmarried and therefore a virgin.
It is not really a surprise that Christ would be born of a virgin/maiden as in Isaiah.
First sentence - complete assertion with no facts to substantiate it. Unmarried does not equate to being in/having a virginal status.
Second sentence - I thought the whole point of virgin birth was that it is only supposed to have happened once and is therefore a humungous surprise.
-
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Does not say Christ is God...
OK, Sass, let's look at this section. Who does the 'he' in verse 3 refer to? Similarly, why the stressing of "made of the seed of David according to the flesh"? Then verse 4 says that the resurrection 'declared' or 'marked/determined/defined' Jesus as the Son of God. The verb used here is 'ὁρισθέντος' - from 'orizo', which is used 8 times in the New Testament
Luke 22:22: "of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man"
Acts 2:23: "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,"
Acts 10:42: "that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick"
Acts 11:29: "every man according to his ability, determined to send relief"
Acts 17:26: "face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the"
Acts 17:31: "by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised"
Romans 1:4: " And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness,"
Hebrews 4:7: "Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, Today,"
-
Mary as a maiden would have been unmarried and therefore a virgin.
It is not really a surprise that Christ would be born of a virgin/maiden as in Isaiah.
First sentence - complete assertion with no facts to substantiate it. Unmarried does not equate to being in/having a virginal status.
Trent, in 1st century Palestine, it would have done. You are applying 20th/21st century Western mores to an ancient civilisation. Mind you, the story of Jesus birth doesn't say that Mary was unmarried. In fact, it makes it very clear that she was married to Joseph; 1st century Jewish bethrothal is equivalent to out legal marriage.
Second sentence - I thought the whole point of virgin birth was that it is only supposed to have happened once and is therefore a humungous surprise.
I think that Sass is pointing out that Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a 'virgin'.
-
Can you cite the evidence that all those unmarried in Palestine in 1st century were virgins, Hope? If not it, it is merely longer assertion. Note 'mores' are not evidence of such an absolute claim.
-
Can you cite the evidence that all those unmarried in Palestine in 1st century were virgins, Hope? If not it, it is merely longer assertion. Note 'mores' are not evidence of such an absolute claim.
Anybody who believes that at any time in history all unmarried girls were virgins is seriously deluded.
-
Can you cite the evidence that all those unmarried in Palestine in 1st century were virgins, Hope? If not it, it is merely longer assertion. Note 'mores' are not evidence of such an absolute claim.
Anybody who believes that at any time in history all unmarried girls were virgins is seriously deluded.
Or rather possibly just wrong. Would it be at all possible to have discourse on here without simplistically and ignorantly using terms like deluded?
-
Can you cite the evidence that all those unmarried in Palestine in 1st century were virgins, Hope? If not it, it is merely longer assertion. Note 'mores' are not evidence of such an absolute claim.
Anybody who believes that at any time in history all unmarried girls were virgins is seriously deluded.
Or rather possibly just wrong. Would it be at all possible to have discourse on here without simplistically and ignorantly using terms like deluded?
The word describes accurately what such thinking is.
-
Can you cite the evidence that all those unmarried in Palestine in 1st century were virgins, Hope? If not it, it is merely longer assertion. Note 'mores' are not evidence of such an absolute claim.
Anybody who believes that at any time in history all unmarried girls were virgins is seriously deluded.
Or rather possibly just wrong. Would it be at all possible to have discourse on here without simplistically and ignorantly using terms like deluded?
The word describes accurately what such thinking is.
Only if you're willing to admit the possibility that you indeed are the deluded one.
-
When God said "let us make man in our image" who was He referring to Sass?
-
When God said "let us make man in our image" who was He referring to Sass?
Maybe he was just using the royal "we". ;)
-
You are applying 20th/21st century Western mores to an ancient civilisation.
I'm not. But never mind.
-
Only if you're willing to admit the possibility that you indeed are the deluded one.
No! That would be as good as admitting to be a fool, for only a fool would believe that ALL unmarried girls were virgins at any time in history.
-
Is virginity really something to be prized? I am not suggesting people should sleep around, or underage kids indulge in sex, however if you are in a steady relationship what is wrong with having sex? It is daft to go into marriage without seeing if you are compatible sexually.
-
Is virginity really something to be prized? I am not suggesting people should sleep around, or underage kids indulge in sex, however if you are in a steady relationship what is wrong with having sex? It is daft to go into marriage without seeing if you are compatible sexually.
"Sexual compatibility" is a mostly a myth.
-
Is virginity really something to be prized? I am not suggesting people should sleep around, or underage kids indulge in sex, however if you are in a steady relationship what is wrong with having sex? It is daft to go into marriage without seeing if you are compatible sexually.
"Sexual compatibility" is a mostly a myth.
Then your knowledge of sex is abysmal.
-
Is virginity really something to be prized? I am not suggesting people should sleep around, or underage kids indulge in sex, however if you are in a steady relationship what is wrong with having sex? It is daft to go into marriage without seeing if you are compatible sexually.
"Sexual compatibility" is a mostly a myth.
Then your knowledge of sex is abysmal.
No. For people with a normal sex drive sexual compatibility is not an issue. What it really means is "Is he/she into kinky shit?" or something like that but that's just bollocks. For people in a relationship nearly any problem can be sorted out over time.
-
Is virginity really something to be prized? I am not suggesting people should sleep around, or underage kids indulge in sex, however if you are in a steady relationship what is wrong with having sex? It is daft to go into marriage without seeing if you are compatible sexually.
"Sexual compatibility" is a mostly a myth.
Then your knowledge of sex is abysmal.
No. For people with a normal sex drive sexual compatibility is not an issue. What it really means is "Is he/she into kinky shit?" or something like that but that's just bollocks. For people in a relationship nearly any problem can be sorted out over time.
OK, AO, I think it is wiser to leave it at that. :)
-
No. For people with a normal sex drive sexual compatibility is not an issue. What it really means is "Is he/she into kinky shit?" or something like that but that's just bollocks. For people in a relationship nearly any problem can be sorted out over time.
The fact that you think 'kinky shit' is not a part of a 'normal sex drive' shows that there are a huge number of people out there with whom you would not be sexually compatible.
For people in strong relationships, yes problems can be overcome, but one of the ways to have a strong relationship in the first place is to have a broad range of areas where you are compatible - sexually is just one of those ways.
O.
-
No. For people with a normal sex drive sexual compatibility is not an issue. What it really means is "Is he/she into kinky shit?" or something like that but that's just bollocks. For people in a relationship nearly any problem can be sorted out over time.
The fact that you think 'kinky shit' is not a part of a 'normal sex drive' shows that there are a huge number of people out there with whom you would not be sexually compatible.
For people in strong relationships, yes problems can be overcome, but one of the ways to have a strong relationship in the first place is to have a broad range of areas where you are compatible - sexually is just one of those ways.
O.
Spot on, as usual.
-
It's just a modern buzzword for something that really doesn't exist outside the realm of normal people.
-
It's just a modern buzzword for something that really doesn't exist outside the realm of normal people.
Except that 'normal' is just a buzzword for mainstream people to mean 'not like me'. Sexual tastes and mores vary incredibly across the populace, and none of it is 'abnormal' or 'wrong' so long as the people participating are all doing so willingly.
Missionary position, with the lights on, but with your eyes closed, for the purposes of procreation, in less than three minutes (no talking) is not the start and finish of acceptable sex.
O.
-
Is virginity really something to be prized? I am not suggesting people should sleep around, or underage kids indulge in sex, however if you are in a steady relationship what is wrong with having sex? It is daft to go into marriage without seeing if you are compatible sexually.
"Sexual compatibility" is a mostly a myth.
You reckon? What if she wants it ten times a day, and him only on a Sunday, that could be awkward! ;D
-
Is virginity really something to be prized? I am not suggesting people should sleep around, or underage kids indulge in sex, however if you are in a steady relationship what is wrong with having sex? It is daft to go into marriage without seeing if you are compatible sexually.
"Sexual compatibility" is a mostly a myth.
You reckon? What if she wants it ten times a day, and him only on a Sunday, that could be awkward! ;D
It just makes birthday presents really easy - "Batteries!"
O.
-
It's just a modern buzzword for something that really doesn't exist outside the realm of normal people.
Except that 'normal' is just a buzzword for mainstream people to mean 'not like me'. Sexual tastes and mores vary incredibly across the populace, and none of it is 'abnormal' or 'wrong' so long as the people participating are all doing so willingly.
Missionary position, with the lights on, but with your eyes closed, for the purposes of procreation, in less than three minutes (no talking) is not the start and finish of acceptable sex.
O.
:D :D :D Beautiful!