you'll hate this thread, I guarantee it. (2)

[holo]

Yes it is. Tithing is giving money to the church. They gave money to the church. What might be different is
a) how much they give
b) what the church uses it for.
But the BASIS of it is there in the NT. That's all I needed to establish. I've done this.

Supporting your church financially is not tithing. Tithing is and old covenant practice that deals with giving one tenth of your income/treasure to the priests etc. When we pay a pastor's wages or give to the poor, that's not tithing.

It's good, it's commendable, but it's not tithing. There's no law that says you should give a tenth of your income to your church.

Another example. They met and had prayers, and the Eucharist. We meet. We meet now in a church, and it, by tradition faces east, but although the 'east facing church' is not in the Bible the act of gathering together in community is. The basis for it is in the Bible.

I agree.

Make up your mind. You said that the arguments that the Bible supported slavery are EASILY REFUTABLE. You can't make up your mind which stance it is you wish to take here.

You don't know whether or not I think the bible supports slavery?

Well, Paul apparently supported it. Perhaps in a different form than what springs to mind when somebody says the word "slavery", but still. The question is, should we use what Paul wrote about slavery to justify modern day slavery? What do you think?

I wasn't talking about my own personal stance here, by the way, I'm just trying to show that the bible can be taken to support slavery, and it can be taken to oppose it. But if you want my personal opinion, it is that slavery sucks in every way, but in Paul's day it was common and accepted, and he, like everybody else who has ever lived, was influenced by that. Just like he was influenced by his day's ideal about men not having long hair and such.

I don't think God likes slavery. And I have no reason to think God should care about the length of my hair or whether or not my fiancé covers her head when she prays.

Back to a truism. Your argument is all over the place.

What exactly is the problem with the "truism"?

 

[holo]

Yes, you claimed it had errors in it, such as a flat earth. Again you show you can't keep to one argument.

Unless you think that it's not flawed, but has errors in it?

If you read a poem that says the stars are blinking, would you say the poem is flawed?

 

[holo]

Yes, you claimed it had errors in it, such as a flat earth. Again you show you can't keep to one argument.

Unless you think that it's not flawed, but has errors in it?

If you read a poem that says the stars are blinking, would you say the poem is flawed or has errors i it?

 

[holo]

Yes it is. Tithing is giving money to the church. They gave money to the church. What might be different is
a) how much they give
b) what the church uses it for.
But the BASIS of it is there in the NT. That's all I needed to establish. I've done this.

Supporting your church financially is not tithing. Tithing is and old covenant practice that deals with giving one tenth of your income/treasure to the priests etc. When we pay a pastor's wages or give to the poor, that's not tithing.

It's good, it's commendable, but it's not tithing. There's no law that says you should give a tenth of your income to your church.

Another example. They met and had prayers, and the Eucharist. We meet. We meet now in a church, and it, by tradition faces east, but although the 'east facing church' is not in the Bible the act of gathering together in community is. The basis for it is in the Bible.

I agree.

Make up your mind. You said that the arguments that the Bible supported slavery are EASILY REFUTABLE. You can't make up your mind which stance it is you wish to take here.

You don't know whether or not I think the bible supports slavery?

Well, Paul apparently supported it. Perhaps in a different form than what springs to mind when somebody says the word "slavery", but still. The question is, should we use what Paul wrote about slavery to justify modern day slavery? What do you think?

I wasn't talking about my own personal stance here, by the way, I'm just trying to show that the bible can be taken to support slavery, and it can be taken to oppose it. But if you want my personal opinion, it is that slavery sucks in every way, but in Paul's day it was common and accepted, and he, like everybody else who has ever lived, was influenced by that. Just like he was influenced by his day's ideal about men not having long hair and such.

I don't think God likes slavery. And I have no reason to think God should care about the length of my hair or whether or not my fiancé covers her head when she prays.

Back to a truism. Your argument is all over the place.

What exactly is the problem with the "truism"?

 

[holo]

.

Yes it is. Tithing is giving money to the church. They gave money to the church. What might be different is
a) how much they give
b) what the church uses it for.
But the BASIS of it is there in the NT. That's all I needed to establish. I've done this.

Supporting your church financially is not tithing. Tithing is and old covenant practice that deals with giving one tenth of your income/treasure to the priests etc. When we pay a pastor's wages or give to the poor, that's not tithing.

It's good, it's commendable, but it's not tithing. There's no law that says you should give a tenth of your income to your church.

Another example. They met and had prayers, and the Eucharist. We meet. We meet now in a church, and it, by tradition faces east, but although the 'east facing church' is not in the Bible the act of gathering together in community is. The basis for it is in the Bible.

I agree.

Make up your mind. You said that the arguments that the Bible supported slavery are EASILY REFUTABLE. You can't make up your mind which stance it is you wish to take here.

You don't know whether or not I think the bible supports slavery?

Well, Paul apparently supported it. Perhaps in a different form than what springs to mind when somebody says the word "slavery", but still. The question is, should we use what Paul wrote about slavery to justify modern day slavery? What do you think?

I wasn't talking about my own personal stance here, by the way, I'm just trying to show that the bible can be taken to support slavery, and it can be taken to oppose it. But if you want my personal opinion, it is that slavery sucks in every way, but in Paul's day it was common and accepted, and he, like everybody else who has ever lived, was influenced by that. Just like he was influenced by his day's ideal about men not having long hair and such.

I don't think God likes slavery. And I have no reason to think God should care about the length of my hair or whether or not my fiancé covers her head when she prays.

Back to a truism. Your argument is all over the place.

What exactly is the problem with the "truism"?

 

[holo]

I don't believe in lots of different valid truths. You both argue the NT is for, and against slavery.

No, I don't. I argue that the bible can be taken to both support slavery, and to oppose it.

That the Bible is both got errors in it, but not flawed.

The bible has errors in it, but it's not flawed. The bible isn't supposed to be 100% infallibly flawless in every miniscule detail. Therefore, the bible isn't flawed even though it does contradict itself in some instances.

But again, WHY do YOU believe the bible IS flawless and without error?

No. You say that the thing with long hair is now irrelevant.

Which is my interpretation. What's yours?

I don't discard any part of the bible. Do you think all the clear commandments in the mosaic law apply to you? No? So you're discarding part of the bible, aren't you? Or could it be that you're not discarding it, but you're just interpreting the bible, as a whole, to mean something else?

He didn't have to. By saying "Do this..." and offering no end date, it would be then presumptious to believe there was an end date

Did he address these instructions to every church on the planet? If so, how come he specifically notes who he's writing to? And why do you assume, in the first place, that he IS talking to every single believer, wherever and forever, and that it's NOT his personal and cultural opinion, which is the most reasonable way to see it, at least when reading any other ancient text?

It would also suggest that the instructions given to Jesus weren't sufficient for us, because some how the rules don't now apply to us.

Which instructions did Jesus give to us?

You must be expecting Bible 2.0 to come along.

It would be nice if you dropped the insults.

 

[holo]

Montalban,
what is your explanation for the disreprancies in the gospel accounts regarding the crucified criminals?

 

[holo]

It looks like if you post in the "Quick Reply" the post is displayed where it should be. If you click "Post Quotes" it ends up way back in the thread.

 

[LogosRhema]

Highly? In what sense? I believe that there is counterfeit spirituality. I believe Orthodoxy is not that. I don't know if that's considering myself 'highly'. I also don't know how this answers the question I asked.

Can you enlighten me on this matter?

Orthodoxy may not be your spiritual counterfeit, but for others? Are you now claiming that your religion is higher than everyone elses? Last I checked this was a relationship, brother, and also last I checked relationships are different between everybody. All of my friends are close, but each relationship I have established with them is different, I'm sure others could testify this for themselves, with each relationship being different. How much more does the Lord replicate this as His own creations are doing this? Jesus interacts with us through various ways. To one man one thing, to another something else. So I don't see the point in saying my doctrine is better than yours, actually I don't stand by religion or doctrine any more... It only separates us as brothers. I respect what you want to do, may you do that for me please?

But as far as your question goes. Many seem to have this attitude because they have some sort of doctrine thats been around for 1,000's of years that they are some how better and speak in words which show this. It's kind of degrading to hear, but I know where I stand with the Lord and I don't have to worry about it.

It's about understanding one another, we are all equal, none greater than the other. Only God is Great. And He's our Father, with this in common lets go forward in unity.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Montalban,
what is your explanation for the disreprancies in the gospel accounts regarding the crucified criminals?

may I field this one?

I do not see a contradiction. It is viewpoints based on different points in time.

person "a" sees both criminals hurling insults. person "b" sees LATER, where the one has had a change of heart.

not proof positive, it doesn't say as much. However, very, very plausible.

 

[Montalban]

.Supporting your church financially is not tithing. Tithing is and old covenant practice that deals with giving one tenth of your income/treasure to the priests etc. When we pay a pastor's wages or give to the poor, that's not tithing.

Tithing derives from giving a 'tenth'. I noted you'd dispute the amount. For me tithing is giving money to the Church. I gave you Biblical proofs. Your response is not to engage in discussion of those proofs, but to repeat your opinion 'no it's not'.

The basis for giving money to the church is in the Bible. They gave this. I evidenced this.

It's good, it's commendable, but it's not tithing. There's no law that says you should give a tenth of your income to your church.

No. In the NT people with-held money and Peter struck them down. If that's not a 'command' (based on that motivation) then I don't know what is.
In point of fact we're less commanded now to do so, because we don't face being struck down by the bishop for with-holding money.

You don't know whether or not I think the bible supports slavery?

You said it did. I disputed this. Then you came up with the comment that any criticism that it did support slavery was easily refutable. You are the one who can't make up his mind. In point of fact you're about to reverse course once again…

Well, Paul apparently supported it.

Here I will cut my conversation with you short. Please make up your mind. Please evidence your statements.

If you continue to simply repeat your just-so statements then I can't be bothered writing anymore (noting the irony of taking time to write this).

 

[Montalban]

If you read a poem that says the stars are blinking, would you say the poem is flawed or has errors i it?

This is the very argument I put to you when you claimed the Bible was erring on the matter of a flat earth. That you would consider doing this speaks volumes about the mess your argument is, as you can't make up your mind what it is you want to argue.

Now you've simply assumed my argument. And what argument are you having now?

What a waste of time! You seem intent on arguing for its own sake, first this cause, then the opposite.

 

[Montalban]

Orthodoxy may not be your spiritual counterfeit, but for others? Are you now claiming that your religion is higher than everyone elses?

Higher? No. Closer to the truth, yes.

Last I checked this was a relationship, brother, and also last I checked relationships are different between everybody.

That's 'cause everyone is different from everyone else. God is God. Having a relationship with him is not based on the same as what you have with different people

People; some you don't like. Some you can barely stand. Some you're related to. Some you really like. Some you just see on a bus, etc. God is God.

It only separates us as brothers. I respect what you want to do, may you do that for me please?

Where have I treated you with disrespect? I've endeavoured to answer you questions. I note you've avoided mine; concerning the basis of sola scriptura

But as far as your question goes. Many seem to have this attitude because they have some sort of doctrine thats been around for 1,000's of years that they are some how better and speak in words which show this. It's kind of degrading to hear, but I know where I stand with the Lord and I don't have to worry about it.

Not all who call "Lord! Lord" shall be saved.

It's about understanding one another, we are all equal, none greater than the other. Only God is Great. And He's our Father, with this in common lets go forward in unity.

Great, but how about answering my question?

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,
what is your explanation for the disreprancies in the gospel accounts regarding the crucified criminals?

Another reminder; you evidence your statements and then ask me more questions.

And another note; this is another case of where you're attacking the Bible for being flawed, and yet you say you don't think it is. When you make up your mind what stance you wish to have, get back to me

 

[sunlover1]

There's a special unity though here amongst Protestants as all those who cherish the Bible have ignored Holo saying the Bible is flawed.

I'm not a protestant, I do cherish the Bible (dont you?),
and I have no idea what Holo's stand is nor have I
discussed it with him.
AFAIK the Bible is not flawed.


Heres a post you've missed a couple
of times. It's an answer to you from
Rick Otto.
This is the second time that I've
brought this post to your attention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montalban
Where did the Pharisees venerate Mary?

The same place they made icons.
You are desperately stretching , Monty.
Something can be in the bible, like rape is therefore "biblical", but that doesn't make it an approved practice.
Verses having "something to do with tithing" do not establish & approve that Levitical law as a NT norm.

The slavery Paul addressed was voluntary or financialy caused, not racist imperialism. Slavery then & there was not what we think of as slavery here at the end of the 21st century.

Quote:
the bible doesn't say it contains all of what Jesus said or did.

The Bible doesn't even contain all of scripture, & yet IT is profitable for doctrine, IT is profitable for reproof, correction, & for instruction in righteousness . Nothing essential was left out.

Quote:
By the way, where in the Bible does it say you should only follow the Bible?

It is spelled out quite explicitly in the illustrated example of the Bereans verifying apostolic verity by examining the prophecies and truths of the OT scriptures they had.
The example isn't about "only following the bible", which is a phrase that attempts to over-broaden the intent of relying only on the scriptures for authoritative moral, spiritual truths that either affirm or reprove & correct messages we get from men & traditions. That phrase makes it sound like we don't wipe our butts because nobody in the bible does.

Quote:
You've just continued like others here to give an opinion that seems to suggest you're your own pope; declaring for yourself what to keep, what to discard.

I AM my own "Pope". EVERYONE is "their own Pope", if they have a functioning ego & conscience.
EVERYONE decides for themselves what & who to believe. That is how we are individualy responsible for ourselves. Even if we declare we believe whatever "The Church" teaches, it is our own conscious decision to do so.There is no escape, nor should their be, from "being our own Pope".
In my Papcy tho, I lose the props & costumes, fancy titles, burdensome beaurocracy, delusions of infallibility, etc... and just try & stay with truths, the larger as well as the immediate & practical.



http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=45142975&postcount=89

 

[sunlover1]

Quote:
There's a special unity though here amongst Protestants as all those who cherish the Bible have ignored Holo saying the Bible is flawed.

I'm not a protestant, I do cherish the Bible (dont you?),
and I have no idea what Holo's stand is nor have I
discussed it with him.
AFAIK the Bible is not flawed.


Heres a post you've missed a couple
of times. It's an answer to you from
Rick Otto.
This is the second time that I've
brought this post to your attention.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montalban
Where did the Pharisees venerate Mary?

The same place they made icons.
You are desperately stretching , Monty.
Something can be in the bible, like rape is therefore "biblical", but that doesn't make it an approved practice.
Verses having "something to do with tithing" do not establish & approve that Levitical law as a NT norm.

The slavery Paul addressed was voluntary or financialy caused, not racist imperialism. Slavery then & there was not what we think of as slavery here at the end of the 21st century.

Quote:

Quote:
the bible doesn't say it contains all of what Jesus said or did.

The Bible doesn't even contain all of scripture, & yet IT is profitable for doctrine, IT is profitable for reproof, correction, & for instruction in righteousness . Nothing essential was left out.

Quote:
Quote:
By the way, where in the Bible does it say you should only follow the Bible?

It is spelled out quite explicitly in the illustrated example of the Bereans verifying apostolic verity by examining the prophecies and truths of the OT scriptures they had.
The example isn't about "only following the bible", which is a phrase that attempts to over-broaden the intent of relying only on the scriptures for authoritative moral, spiritual truths that either affirm or reprove & correct messages we get from men & traditions. That phrase makes it sound like we don't wipe our butts because nobody in the bible does.

Quote:
Quote:
You've just continued like others here to give an opinion that seems to suggest you're your own pope; declaring for yourself what to keep, what to discard.

I AM my own "Pope". EVERYONE is "their own Pope", if they have a functioning ego & conscience.
EVERYONE decides for themselves what & who to believe. That is how we are individualy responsible for ourselves. Even if we declare we believe whatever "The Church" teaches, it is our own conscious decision to do so.There is no escape, nor should their be, from "being our own Pope".
In my Papcy tho, I lose the props & costumes, fancy titles, burdensome beaurocracy, delusions of infallibility, etc... and just try & stay with truths, the larger as well as the immediate & practical.



http://christianforums.com/showpost....5&postcount=89

 

[Uphill Battle]

QFT:

I AM my own "Pope". EVERYONE is "their own Pope", if they have a functioning ego & conscience.
EVERYONE decides for themselves what & who to believe. That is how we are individualy responsible for ourselves. Even if we declare we believe whatever "The Church" teaches, it is our own conscious decision to do so.There is no escape, nor should their be, from "being our own Pope".
In my Papcy tho, I lose the props & costumes, fancy titles, burdensome beaurocracy, delusions of infallibility, etc... and just try & stay with truths, the larger as well as the immediate & practical.

 

[LogosRhema]

Just because we don't decide something and try to disregard it from the Bible, it doesn't mean its right. Obedience to the Holy Spirit is priority number one... He's our "pope", our teacher, our encouragement, helper, friend, guide... everything and more and more than what we could understand as a best friend.

I am not my own pope, I am nothing. It's in Christ I'm everything.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

It mentions the OT and certain letters, and if I'm not mistaken it also cites a book that is NOT in the canon.

Just adding for further clarity. That would be a direct link between the book of Jude and the book of Enoch.

 

[ticker]

Not yours... k? According to your logic, blowing someone's brains out with a riffle would be permitted just not beneficial.

You need a Godly law to get you to not blow someone's brains out??