Believe the Bible - bend the Bible - deny the Bible... pick one

[BobRyan]

Because the topic is whether other people twist the Bible. Your accusation is that people that do not hold your view will willingly admit to bending the Bible, despite the fact that absolutely nobody here will admit that.

There are a numberof "bible-bending" votes in the question and response as already noted. I don't "force them" to vote that way -- as we all know.

I ask "what do you choose" and people "choose".

This thread is not about me forcing people to vote one way or the other (obviously) so then back to the actual much-to-be-avoided irrefutable details in the first two posts.

 

[Extraneous]

I can understand minor differences of opinion, however i cant understand how people dont see Galatians 5-6. I mean look at it. You have works of flesh and fruit of spirit. SIMPLE. Sow to the spirit, not the flesh. SIMPLE.

I just don't get why people don't see how SIMPLE it all is. No, we cant have that, we must invent apostolic succession, the need to idolize teachers, prosperity doctrine, Papacy, new holy days, days of fasting, new prayers, Sainthood, and many other such things. We have taken what was meant to be simple and turned it into a carnal mess.

 

[Hoghead1]

If you are saying that you are almost-ready to address the actual subject of the OP or the 2nd post that follows - then welcome.

I have asked the mods to jump in here and tell us exactly what this site is about. Your posts cro up under General Theology, not under some thread exclusively reserved for E-O people. However, I'm awaiting on the mods.

 

[BobRyan]

I can understand minor differences of opinion, however i cant understand how people dont see Galatians 5-6. I mean look at it. You have works of flesh and fruit of spirit. SIMPLE. Sow to the spirit, not the flesh. SIMPLE.

That is true - a very important aspect of the Gospel.

I just don't get why people don't see how SIMPLE it all is. No, we cant have that, we must invent apostolic succession

There is only one case of apostolic succession in the Bible - it is found in Acts 1 - and it is the "successor to Judas".

James is the first Apostle to die after Christ ascends to heaven - and there is no "apostolic succession" at all for him.

, the need to idolize teachers, prosperity doctrine, Papacy, new holy days, days of fasting, new prayers, Sainthood, and many other such things.

True all of that is problematic - but it is not simply because we have a different "preference" it is because of what we find in the Bible on those subject that indicate that they are problems.

Notice that in Luke 24:27 Christ is teaching "from all of scripture" -- we need to follow His example.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I have asked the mods to jump in here and tell us exactly what this site is about. Your posts cro up under General Theology, not under some thread exclusively reserved for E-O people. However, I'm awaiting on the mods.

General Theology has a baseline of requirement for posting - which is agreement with the "Nicene Creed" - there is a pretty good write-up on it here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed


When you say "E-O people" do you mean "eastern orthodox"?? This thread is not at all limited to EO - (I am not EO but I do agree with the Nicene Creed) -- and we have many different Christian denominations represented here.

 

[sculleywr]

I have asked the mods to jump in here and tell us exactly what this site is about. Your posts cro up under General Theology, not under some thread exclusively reserved for E-O people. However, I'm awaiting on the mods.

He's not Orthodox, not EOC anyways. He believes the EOC preaches a false gospel.

 

[Extraneous]

I have asked the mods to jump in here and tell us exactly what this site is about. Your posts cro up under General Theology, not under some thread exclusively reserved for E-O people. However, I'm awaiting on the mods.

Typical. You seem to tolerate non Christians posting here, although they are not permitted, and even tolerate people who deny the bible as sound doctrine which is as illogical at it comes, but you hit the report button over something like this? I think we should start an award for such things, we can call it the hogheaded award

 

[Extraneous]

That is true - a very important aspect of the Gospel.



There is only one case of apostolic succession in the Bible - it is found in Acts 1 - and it is the "successor to Judas".

James is the first Apostle to die after Christ ascends to heaven - and there is no "apostolic succession" at all for him.



True all of that is problematic - but it is not simply because we have a different "preference" it is because of what we find in the Bible on those subject that indicate that they are problems.

Notice that in Luke 24:27 Christ is teaching "from all of scripture" -- we need to follow His example.

in Christ,

Bob

Unless we embrace the simplistic command of Galatians 5-6, we will only fan the flames of discord. It matters not however, im trying to break my addiction to this website anyway. Im tired of discord. Shamefully i admit that im quite addicted to this website. Its my wish to break away. Breaking addictions take effort, time, and practice

 

[Extraneous]

This website has done irreparable damage to my desire for fellowship. When i first came here i was hungry for fellowship, learning, and to overcome things like depression, anxiety, fear, and other things. I since then have learned to endure suffering after reading scripture, and seeing how David endured difficult things, as well as Paul too. I found that following their example diminished my anxiety and depression, and that endurance, and waiting on the Lord in times of trouble was my strength. I grew in grace after fear wearied me so much that i decided to just trust God with my soul. If i live i live, and if i die i die, and worrying about it wont help me escape my fate. I let go of fear and let God be in control of my soul. Now if i fear, i pray and wait on God.

Anyway, after learning those things i found sound doctrine. I also found that i dislike division very much. So much in fact that i dont desire fellowship anymore. I have enough mental distress without adding to it. I want no more politics, no more preachers, no more denominational theology, no more Church, no more anything but Christ and Him alone. With Jesus i have hope and peace, but with denominations i have only sorrow and stumbling blocks. I suppose im different than most people here, and thats because i dont have a denomination to fight for, all i have are Pauls instructions and he says that division and contention are carnal and unspiritual. I would gladly like to break free from this place, and never again seek fellowship with another Christian. All the posts about "not forsaking the assembly" mean nothing to me anymore, because no one takes that seriously anyway. THey love political, economical and denominational division. Thats not exhorting each other to do anything but be carnal. So in these last days, im happy to be a one man denomination.

 

[sculleywr]

This website has done irreparable damage to my desire for fellowship. When i first came here i was hungry for fellowship, learning, and to overcome things like depression, anxiety, fear, and other things. I since then have learned to endure suffering after reading scripture, and seeing how David endured difficult things, as well as Paul too. I found that following their example diminished my anxiety and depression, and that endurance, and waiting on the Lord in times of trouble was my strength. I grew in grace after fear wearied me so much that i decided to just trust God with my soul. If i live i live, and if i die i die, and worrying about it wont help me escape my fate. I let go of fear and let God be in control of my soul. Now if i fear, i pray and wait on God.

Anyway, after learning those things i found sound doctrine. I also found that i dislike division very much. So much in fact that i dont desire fellowship anymore. I have enough mental distress without adding to it. I want no more politics, no more preachers, no more denominational theology, no more Church, no more anything but Christ and Him alone. With Jesus i have hope and peace, but with denominations i have only sorrow and stumbling blocks. I suppose im different than most people here, and thats because i dont have a denomination to fight for, all i have are Pauls instructions and he says that division and contention are carnal and unspiritual. I would gladly like to break free from this place, and never again seek fellowship with another Christian. All the posts about "not forsaking the assembly" mean nothing to me anymore, because no one takes that seriously anyway. THey love political, economical and denominational division. Thats not exhorting each other to do anything but be carnal. So in these last days, im happy to be a one man denomination.

I'll say this point blank that dividing oneself from the Body does not connect one to Christ. As I have asked before, how can one have connection to the head and not the body? Can you accept the head of your wife without her body? Why then would you accept the head of the Church without the body it is attached to?

There is no such thing as an assembly of perfect humans. If you are looking for a museum of saints, then you will never find such. The Church is a hospital for the sick, where the sick help eachother to get better. Sure, the nurses and doctors around here are sick, themselves, but they are given the prescription which saves us and they are taught how to administer it. That is the Church. If you wish to never meet sin sick people, to never encounter division, then you will divide yourself not only from the people of the Church, but from Christ Himself, for meeting with Him is never separated from Communion with His people.

So I would not take pride in being a denomination unto myself, because doing so does not put Christ in the throne, but myself.

 

[Colter]

So then you think that observable science supports the idea that "a single celled animal (Amoeba) - will sure-enough turn into a horse over time, given a sufficiently talented amoeba - and a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories""?? Is that your faith-based claim?



Then is it also your "faith alone" claim that Genesis 1 says that or that Exodus 20:11 "legal code" says that??

Or do you simply make that up and declare that the Bible writers did not know what you know - but were trying to say whatever you claim as best they could?




I already covered that in the " single celled animal " and also in the "given a sufficiently talented amoeba"



Didn't know any better than to ?? contradict one of the stories you told?
Didn't know any better "than what"? than "do do what"??



What was the intended meaning of the author and the intention of that author for his contemporary reader?

I.E. "What does the text say"??

Is it your claim that the text actually does contradict your stories?? (I believe that is your claim -- but I give you the floor so you can remove-all-doubt )



True all over the world.

The existence of "stories" and your own ability to spin a story is not being doubted at all.

But when you claim to give the eye-witness reporter-on-the street account of the Bible being written --well that is more grandiose story-telling.



Sadly that is "another story" piled on top of "story" --- the question for you is whether you are claiming that the Bible is simply not true - or do you claim that the Bible is trying to tell one of your own stories and just not doing well at it?




If as you say - their source of 'information' was nothing more than their own tribal "assumptions" then the book is worthless except as an indicator of just how primative they were.

Is this your point??

Is this where blind faith in evolutionism has lead you?

Were you ever a Christian at one time??

At this point - I am curious to know.

in Christ,

Bob

* I'm a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, I believe he is Christ. As for Christ-ian I would have to ask which kind, their are thousands of variations of Christianity which evolved and is still evolving such as the SDA sect with it's failed prophecies.

* Evolution is based on observable facts, young earth creation theory is a faith in captive Hebrew writers in Babylon.

* The Bible says different, contradictory things about the same events as the beliefs of it's authors evolved over time. I would have to ask which Bible story when?

 

[tickingclocker]

Bob, insist until your heart is replete with contentment. I am off to the beach to enjoy God's sunshine.

 

[BobRyan]

* I'm a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, I believe he is Christ.

Do you believe in the unscientific non-observable doctrine of the virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Christ, bodily ascension into heaven - or do you think this was just the writings of non-scientific men who knew other stories from pagan systems about virgin birth and resurrection and they were "borrowing"???

* Evolution is based on observable facts

About God coming to earth and "creating" amoebas right on the spot?
About amoebas turning into horses given a sufficiently talented amoeba and a sufficiently long and talented period of time filled with improbable just-so stories??

, young earth creation theory is a faith in captive Hebrew writers in Babylon.

Hint: Moses lived long before Babylonian captivity -as we all know.

Do you believe in the captive hebrew stories of the Gospel accounts - when Jerusalem was conquered owned-and-operated by Rome?? Or are you saying that their condition in captivity means we should not believe the Gospel accounts?

* The Bible says different, contradictory things about the same events as the beliefs of it's authors evolved over time.

So then - no " virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Christ, bodily ascension into heaven"?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, insist until your heart is replete with contentment. I am off to the beach to enjoy God's sunshine.

Protestant Reformation "sola scriptura" cannot be abandon quite that easily.

 

[BobRyan]

This website has done irreparable damage to my desire for fellowship. When i first came here i was hungry for fellowship, learning, and to overcome things like depression, anxiety, fear, and other things.

This General Theology section is a "debate board". But there are plenty of areas of CF that do not have that feature.

Debate boards are great for finding out how various opposing beliefs compare to each other - what is "irrefutable" and what survives only via "ad hominem, side-stepping and avoidance". But it is a poor place to find complete unity on points of doctrine.

 

[sculleywr]

Protestant Reformation "sola scriptura" cannot be abandon quite that easily.

I can, and did. Why? Because I can't accept innovation. SS is an unpracticeable doctrine, because in our time, the Canon stands in authority over the Scripture, and is an extrascriptural tradition dating to hundreds of years after Christ. The Scripture cannot be the highest authority if there is an authority over it, and the Canon is an authority over the Scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

Unless we embrace the simplistic command of Galatians 5-6, we will only fan the flames of discord. It matters not however, im trying to break my addiction to this website anyway. Im tired of discord. Shamefully i admit that im quite addicted to this website. Its my wish to break away. Breaking addictions take effort, time, and practice

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine, correction and instruction" -- I believe you are ok with that statement of Paul being in perfect harmony with Galatians 5-6. I would argue that Titus 1 is also in perfect harmony with Galatians 5-6.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Protestant Reformation "sola scriptura" cannot be abandon quite that easily.

I can, and did. Why? Because I can't accept innovation.

Try accepting Acts 17:11, Isaiah 8:20, Mark 7:6 Gal 1:6-9.

the Canon stands in authority over the Scripture

So then the Canon of scripture stands in authority over scripture???

How does that make sense?
Text please.

 

[sculleywr]

BobRyan said: ↑
Protestant Reformation "sola scriptura" cannot be abandon quite that easily.



Try accepting Acts 17:11, Isaiah 8:20, Mark 7:6 Gal 1:6-9.



So then the Canon of scripture stands in authority over scripture???

How does that make sense?
Text please.

Well, let's see, the Canon determines the content of Scripture. For instance, the canon used by Extraneous obviously excludes many of the works of Paul, and this SIGNIFICANTLY effects his theology, because his doctrine is drawn from what he calls Scripture. In this, Extraneous is the highest authority, because he places himself above Scripture.

The canon one subscribes to has a strong influence on the final theology that person will have. The Marcionite Canon, for instance, excludes all but an edited version of Luke, a handful of Paul's letters, and the book of James, as well as an additional gospel which is lost to time, but is simply called by Marcion "The Gospel of Christ". This canon was heavily edited to help support his Gnostic heresy.

If you could not believe as you do without every book which is in your canon, then you have the Canon as the higher authority over the Scripture.

This begs the question, what gives the Canon, the Table of Contents, such a high authority in the Protestant realm? Is the Canon a mutable thing which can be edited and changed as one wishes?

 

[sculleywr]

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine, correction and instruction" -- I believe you are ok with that statement of Paul being in perfect harmony with Galatians 5-6. I would argue that Titus 1 is also in perfect harmony with Galatians 5-6.

Credit where credit is due, this is exactly correct as a response to Extraneous.