SOLA SCRIPTURA is not biblical...

Fireinfolding · Dec 7, 2015

sculleywr said:
Scripture is clear

Thats why I will stick with the apostles being a witness to the traditions they told us they spoke to them about in 2 Thes (one which had to do with their commandment about working) which they wrote about. The tradition itself conveyed in two manners (in person and in letter) and so whether it be in word or epistle the two forms of communications there spoke the same thing.

And John was talking about what Jesus DID as even John puts a difference between what folks say (in tongue) and what they do in his epistle, and it also shows that Jesus did things in secret.

John 21:5 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Keeping with what was previously written "the making of many books there is no end" (Ecc 12:12) as that which Jesus Christ did up to this point is being addressed from that which Jesus said even in the book of John by Jesus Christ

His brethren say,

John 7:3 His brethren (after the flesh)therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

John 7:4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.

So he did do things he was encouraged by his own brethren to show his disciples which John acknowledges in John 21:5 even after the fact. Concerning what Jesus said up to even this point, Jesus also said this

John 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

What was done was done in secret and Jesus said in secret he said nothing.

And concerning what was written he wrote,

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Scripture would be sufficient. At least sufficient enough that the man of God be perfect even thoroughly furnished unto the good works we are created unto in Jesus Christ.

John also speaks to what one says and what they do as distinguishable in other places for ourselves.

Even as this is my fault for answering again, and I am trying not to do that, but you seem to make Jesus into a liar so often. I will now unsubscribe from this thread and apologize for answering.

sculleywr · Dec 7, 2015

Thinking-Out-Loud said:
Thats why I will stick with the apostles being a witness to the traditions they told us they spoke to them about in 2 Thes (one which had to do with their commandment about working) which they wrote about. The tradition itself conveyed in two manners (in person and in letter) and so whether it be in word or epistle the two forms of communications there spoke the same thing.

And John was talking about what Jesus DID as even John puts a difference between what folks say (in tongue) and what they do in his epistle, and it also shows that Jesus did things in secret.

John 21:5 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Keeping with what was previously written "the making of many books there is no end" (Ecc 12:12) as that which Jesus Christ did up to this point is being addressed from that which Jesus said even in the book of John by Jesus Christ

His brethren say,

John 7:3 His brethren (after the flesh)therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

John 7:4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.

So he did do things he was encouraged by his own brethren to show his disciples which John acknowledges in John 21:5 even after the fact. Concerning what Jesus said up to even this point, Jesus also said this

John 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

What was done was done in secret and Jesus said in secret he said nothing.

And concerning what was written he wrote,

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Scripture would be sufficient. At least sufficient enough that the man of God be perfect even thoroughly furnished unto the good works we are created unto in Jesus Christ.

John also speaks to what one says and what they do as distinguishable in other places for ourselves.

Even as this is my fault for answering again, and I am trying not to do that, but you seem to make Jesus into a liar so often. I will now unsubscribe from this thread and apologize for answering.

Good job ignoring the clear message of scripture and replacing it with a 600 year old interpretation of Scripture based on an English translation that ignores the difference in how the Greek text was written. Congratulations. You completely missed the point of what I said by taking it out of context. Because of that, you score no points.

Address the question of what the difference between word and epistle is, or don't respond. You've been asked MULTIPLE TIMES and given ZERO answers. They are two separate and equal things.

Dave-W · Dec 10, 2015

bigsurfer63 said:
now HOME in the 1 True Church

LOL!!!!

I know a guy on another forum that changed from being catholic to being in the Church of Christ. He jokes that TWICE he was in the "1 True Church."

sculleywr · Dec 10, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
LOL!!!!

I know a guy on another forum that changed from being catholic to being in the Church of Christ. He jokes that TWICE he was in the "1 True Church."

If there is no one Church that has the true interpretation of Scripture, then the truth can never be known and God doesn't truly want us to know Him

Dave-W · Dec 10, 2015

sculleywr said:
If there is no one Church that has the true interpretation of Scripture, then the truth can never be known and God doesn't truly want us to know Him

I have a verse for that:

Rom 3.1 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?
2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.

The only proper arbiters of scripture are Jews.

sculleywr · Dec 10, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
I have a verse for that:

Rom 3.1 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?
2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.

The only proper arbiters of scripture are Jews.

To them WERE committed. They gave that position up when they murdered God in human form. The Truth was given to the Church by Christ, committed for safekeeping. Thus Paul tells Timothy that the Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth.

Dave-W · Dec 10, 2015

sculleywr said:
To them WERE committed.

Right.

They gave that position up when they murdered God in human form.

Wrong.

I have a verse for that as well:

Romans 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Irrevocable. Without repentance. Cannot be rescinded. STILL IN EFFECT.

I take that as a general principle, but the wider context of Romans 11 says it is specifically referring to the Jews who are "enemies of the gospel." (v 28)

Dave-W · Dec 10, 2015

sculleywr said:
ul tells Timothy that the Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth.

True. And at that time the leadership in the church was ALL JEWISH, including Paul and Timothy.

sculleywr · Dec 10, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
Right.

Wrong.

I have a verse for that as well:

Romans 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Irrevocable. Without repentance. Cannot be rescinded. STILL IN EFFECT.

I take that as a general principle, but the wider context of Romans 11 says it is specifically referring to the Jews who are "enemies of the gospel." (v 28)

Gifts of God are irrevocable. The promises to Israel were not gifts. They were conditional. "If my people, which are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray." In Deuteronomy, Moses warns the Israelites that the land and the promises would be taken from them if they stopped following God. This happened in the exile. The northern ten tribes were permanently evicted. The southern two tribes got to return, but by the time of Christ, they had devolved into a divided mess that only united once, in the murder of Christ. Christ told them point blank that the promise would be taken from them in the parable of the landowner, who sent his son to collect his portion of the crops. When the tenants murdered the slaves, then the son, the landowner destroyed the tenants, and brought in new tenants who would care for the land as ordered. Israel was the old tenant of the kingdom of God. When they refused to follow God's calling, He stripped them of land, title, and promise. That title now lies in the Church, which Paul distinctly calls the new Israel.

sculleywr · Dec 10, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
True. And at that time the leadership in the church was ALL JEWISH, including Paul and Timothy.

Wrong. Luke was a Greek and was a leader in the Church. As was Clement, leading in Rome (review the letter to the Philippians). Ignatius was also likely in a clerical role at the time as well, serving as an elder or deacon under Timothy. Also, this is long after the Apostles went to Samaria and ordained many Samaritans to leadership in the churches there. So that's an outright lie.

Dave-W · Dec 10, 2015

sculleywr said:
Gifts of God are irrevocable. The promises to Israel were not gifts.

The entrustment of the scriptures is a "CALLING." So it still qualifies.

When they refused to follow God's calling, He stripped them of land, title, and promise. That title now lies in the Church, which Paul distinctly calls the new Israel.

That is the heresy of "replacement theology;" and is a lie from hell.

sculleywr said:
Wrong. Luke was a Greek and was a leader in the Church.

A Greek [diaspora] Jew. His descriptions of Jewish practice were too detailed for him NOT to be Jewish.

Dave-W · Dec 10, 2015

sculleywr said:
Also, this is long after the Apostles went to Samaria and ordained many Samaritans to leadership in the churches there. So that's an outright lie.

Outright lie? Was not Paul still alive? Peter? James? Were they not all Jewish?

Were not all of those you mentioned subjected to those apostles?

sculleywr · Dec 10, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
The entrustment of the scriptures is a "CALLING." So it still qualifies.

That is the heresy of "replacement theology;" and is a lie from hell.

A Greek [diaspora] Jew. His descriptions of Jewish practice were too detailed for him NOT to be Jewish.

Nope. It is the first understanding of the early Church. Observe the following quotes from only one generation after the Apostles:

“For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham . . . are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ.” - St. Justin Martyr

Indeed it is ours; for Moses had hardly received it when they (the Jews) forfeited it forever -The Epistle of Barnabas (written by the disciples of Barnabas circa 130 AD)

And this view carries through time:

The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus. -St. Augustine of Hippo

Supersessionism historically predates the modern Zionist movement. Israel lost the land they had because they rejected God, and were taken into Babylon and Persia. God did not return them to the land until they had returned to Him, rejecting their idols. Israel has not yet returned to God.

sculleywr · Dec 10, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
Outright lie? Was not Paul still alive? Peter? James? Were they not all Jewish?

Were not all of those you mentioned subjected to those apostles?

They were not ALL of the leadership of the Church. There were many leaders other than them, men they had ordained as leaders. Two of the Gospel writers weren't Jewish, and were considered leaders in the Church: Luke and John-Mark. You said ALL of the leadership of the Church was Jewish. That is an outright lie.

Dave-W · Dec 11, 2015

sculleywr said:
They were not ALL of the leadership of the Church.

All of the TOP leadership. The local leaders were under the authority of of the Jewish apostles.

sculleywr said:
Two of the Gospel writers weren't Jewish, and were considered leaders in the Church: Luke and John-Mark.

Both were Jewish. I have already addressed Luke.

John-Mark was the cousin of Barnabas who was a Levite. So he was Jewish as well. Colossians 4:10 [URL='https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+4:36&version=NKJV']Acts 4:36[/URL]

Dave-W · Dec 11, 2015

sculleywr said:
Nope. It is the first understanding of the early Church. Observe the following quotes from only one generation after the Apostles:

“For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham . . . are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ.” - St. Justin Martyr

Yes. Given the Bar Kochba revolt of 135 ad, the church tried to distance itself from Judaism in every way. Martyr was COMPLETELY wrong in that statement. I know the TJCII** is trying to get the RCC to repent of this error. That may have happened already.

** Toward Jerusalem Council 2. tjcii.org

sculleywr · Dec 11, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
All of the TOP leadership. The local leaders were under the authority of of the Jewish apostles.

Both were Jewish. I have already addressed Luke.

John-Mark was the cousin of Barnabas who was a Levite. So he was Jewish as well. Colossians 4:10 Acts 4:36

Nope. They were not all of the top leadership. There is no indication that the Apostles saw themselves as superior to those they ordained. Also, Luke was, as far as history was concerned, Greek. He didn't, as far as we know, see Christ, though there is the wild theory that he was the man who ran away in the garden. That is unconfirmed speculation. You said ALL the leadership was Jewish. You're telling me that 12 men managed, ALONE, to be the leaders of thousands upon thousands of Christians spread across the empire and beyond. That is beyond ridiculous. ESPECIALLY since, by this point, persecution of Christians was well underway and several of the Apostles had been martyred by this time, Thomas was likely either on his way to or in India, and the Church was well-established with MANY leaders in unity from all different backgrounds.

You're trying to justify a theory that is essentially dead. The branch of Israel died with Christ. There is no life. There is no promise.

You're telling me that the country that intentionally targets schools, hospitals, and UN Refugee camps with smart missiles that could hit within 10 feet of an intended target (the accuracy of their weapons is evidence of intent), refuses to punish a sniper who intentionally hunts down children, fires on rescue workers from the Red Cross and the UN, bombs churches, and puts Palestinians in concentration camps is the promised children of God?

No, the Church are "Heirs to the promise" now. The secular country of Israel has no life in it, because it rejects Christ.

Dave-W · Dec 11, 2015

sculleywr said:
You're trying to justify a theory that is essentially dead. The branch of Israel died with Christ. There is no life. There is no promise.

Have you ever heard of Messianic Judaism?

The Redeemed Remnant of Jacob is still here. And growing.

sculleywr · Dec 11, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
Have you ever heard of Messianic Judaism?

The Redeemed Remnant of Jacob is still here. And growing.

Judaizers. Reborn and trying to mold Christianity into the dead Jewish faith. All that is left of Judaism is the Pharisaical sect. That was the only part that was able to survive. Judaism has NOTHING left of what God made it. None of the sacrifices, only token nods to the feasts. Modern Judaism is not the Judaism Christ was born into. It bears absolutely no resemblance to the faith given to Moses by God.

Dave-W · Dec 14, 2015

sculleywr said:
Judaizers. Reborn and trying to mold Christianity into the dead Jewish faith. All that is left of Judaism is the Pharisaical sect. That was the only part that was able to survive. Judaism has NOTHING left of what God made it. None of the sacrifices, only token nods to the feasts. Modern Judaism is not the Judaism Christ was born into. It bears absolutely no resemblance to the faith given to Moses by God.

We are recognized by your patriarchs. In the 1990s several leaders of the Messianic movement (including Dan Juster, Marty Waldman and David C Rudolph) showed up on the doorstep of the patriarch at Istanbul/Constantinople. The response:

"You're back? Already?"

Yes we are back. And no - we are NOT "judaizers."

SOLA SCRIPTURA is not biblical...

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Similar threads