Another stupid idea???

[Protoevangel]

Since this forum has been dedicated to the more conservative Lutherans and I haven't read anyone of "us" yet who is opposed to having the non-conservative members visit here, why can't we ask administration for the right to debate the non-conservative members who want to visit us here at conservative.com?

Like I said,"another stupid idea"?

I think the only rule we would need in place is the general old forum rules "no flaming"

Anybody?

So, is this what you were hoping for Jim?

 

[LutherNut]

In it are contained the words of the Lord AND the opinions of man. If you can't without a problem separate the two maybe you should continue to study.

This is where you depart from Lutheran understanding of the nature and the authority of the Bible. My question still stands... where do you get the authority to determine what parts are God's word and what parts are the mere "opinions" of men? No one to date has been able to adequately answer that question.

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'

But Scripture is "God-breathed" and does not come from inside men but from outside, from God.

look it up for yourself Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy have been dated to 100ad-150ad the last "know" letter of paul we have is around 50-60ad

I have. They are part of the undisputed texts of the New Testament. Always have been. 1 Timothy and Titus are dated to approximately 63-65 AD. 2 Timothy is dated to 66-67 AD while he was imprisoned under Emporer Nero. Again, I don't know where you get your information, but it is obviously wrong.

serioulsy, and i have read a lot of them. Gospel of thomas, gospel of mary, gospel of peter(i really liked that one), seret gospel of mark, acts of pilate, protevangelium of james, dialogue of the savior, espitel of Barabas, the infancy gospel of thomas, gospel of the hebrews, etc etc etc...

Many of these that you have mentioned have been rejected as heretical.

 

[Jim47]

So, is this what you were hoping for Jim?

I've given up Dan. I'm really not even up to debate anymore. Gettin old I guess.

 

[LutherNut]

I've given up Dan. I'm really not even up to debate anymore. Gettin old I guess.

Scaredy-cat?

 

[Protoevangel]

I've given up Dan. I'm really not even up to debate anymore. Gettin old I guess.

So, just open the gate and run, huh?

 

[Flatscan82]

This is where you depart from Lutheran understanding of the nature and the authority of the Bible. My question still stands... where do you get the authority to determine what parts are God's word and what parts are the mere "opinions" of men? No one to date has been able to adequately answer that question.

the holy spirit

 

[Protoevangel]

the holy spirit

feathers and all

 

[keeptrying]

This is where you depart from Lutheran understanding of the nature and the authority of the Bible. My question still stands... where do you get the authority to determine what parts are God's word and what parts are the mere "opinions" of men? No one to date has been able to adequately answer that question.

According to you a person needs "authority" to read and interpret the bible outside the church. We don't need the permission of anyone to read and interpret the bible. The church was created by people not the other way around. Martin Luther left the Catholic Church because of that very thing.

But Scripture is "God-breathed" and does not come from inside men but from outside, from God.

and by whose authority do you decide that all the bible is "God-breathed". What about books that were not included in the bible? Are they "God-breathed" too? and by whose authority do you make that decision?

The other quotes you added were not from my posts please always include the name of the person being quoted.

 

[Jim47]

feathers and all

Hey! Take it easy on me will Ya?

 

[Jim47]

keeptrying
According to you a person needs "authority" to read and interpret the bible outside the church. We don't need the permission of anyone to read and interpret the bible. The church was created by people not the other way around. Martin Luther left the Catholic Church because of that very thing.

We are instructed by scripture to read The Word of God. The church was not created by man, but by Christ.

Mt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

and by whose authority do you decide that all the bible is "God-breathed".

2Pe 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

What about books that were not included in the bible? Are they "God-breathed" too? and by whose authority do you make that decision?

I'm sure you have heard of the term "scripture interprets scripture"

We know this is true because God does not lie and the books that were not included as cannon do not agree with the teachings of the books written by the Apostles. Why would you think that God would let just anyone write scripture? We have been warned many times about false teachers and many have attempted to change the message God has given us, so would you just believe anyone who writes? Or would you trust only that which has been written by prophets and Apostles?

 

[Flatscan82]

2Pe 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

was he talking about the prophets in the old testament or the new, because the new testament came around 100 years after peter died.

I'm sure you have heard of the term "scripture interprets scripture"

We know this is true because God does not lie
[/qoute]

but men do...

Or would you trust only that which has been written by prophets and Apostles?

I trust it when the holy spirit moves me to trust it.

 

[keeptrying]

The church was not created by man, but by Christ.

This one I will give you. I used a bad choice of words. The church was created by Christ and ran by men with all their faults and still is.

I have enjoyed debating with you all but now we are just going around and around.

God bless you all.

 

[LutherNut]

it seems like you get your information from the 1% of people that belive those letters where writen by Paul.

Yeah, like the Church fathers. Are you aware of the criteria to determine the NT canon?

Might I ask where you are getting your information?

Like I said, Paul's letters, all of them including 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, have always been part of the homologoumena, the undisputed books. And not lust recognized by your "1%", but by most if not all of the early church fathers and practically every credible scholar and theologian since.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

not always, if that being true then the bible has no flaws, even the gospel have a few interseting things.

if you turn to mathew 21 were jesus is riding into jeruslem. It says that Jesus is riding a donkey, and a colt at the same time. two animals at once. btw it also says a it was a female donkey, a colt is a male. it also says jesus rode both.

ahhh i just make it easy i will post what i am talking about

[FONT=&quot]As they approached [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jerusalem[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and came to Bethphage on the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Mount of Olives[/FONT][FONT=&quot], Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away." [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
"Say to the Daughter of Zion,
'See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' a[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them. A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
but the other 3 gospel either say a colt or a donkey. [/FONT]

This text has been edited by the Revisionists in the Vatican.

Originally the text had Jesus sitting on one of the animals and His wife, Mary Magdalene, sitting on the other.

It's just a really bad editing job by the Roman Patriarchal Oppressors. The original text, where now we read "and Jesus sat on them" originally read, "[FONT=&quot]and Jesus and Mary sat on them".

No, I'm not serious, I just thought it might be fun to play Dan Brown for a moment.

More seriously, I've seen this before and I do understand that it's somewhat facile to say that the "them" referred to are the cloaks rather than both animals, but it could be so...

Similarly, Jesus may have ridden on one animal and then on the other...We don't know, either way, it poses no real difficulty for the Christian who accepts inerrancy.

However, even leaving it aside, I'll draw your attention to the fact that I did say that the H-C method has some value. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen to be an area where it is any more help than the H-G.
[/FONT]

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

was he talking about the prophets in the old testament or the new, because the new testament came around 100 years after peter died.

But isn't it fascinating that in the third chapter of that same Second Letter of the Apostle Peter he equates the writings of Paul with Scripture and even, effectively, calls them such?

2 Pe. 3:15-16
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Peter seems to have no trouble at all discerning what Scripture is, so references to "prophecies of Scripture" would seem to refer extensively to Scripture itself regardless of the time of it's writing or the human author involved.

 

[LutherNut]

According to you a person needs "authority" to read and interpret the bible outside the church. We don't need the permission of anyone to read and interpret the bible. The church was created by people not the other way around. Martin Luther left the Catholic Church because of that very thing.

I never said anything about authority to interpret the Bible. Scripture interprets Scripture. There is a hermeneutic that prevails, that being faith in God and His inerrant, inspired Word.

My question again is by whose or what authority do you determine what parts of the Bible are God's word and what parts are not?

Still waiting...

and by whose authority do you decide that all the bible is "God-breathed".

2 Peter 1:21
2 Timothy 3:16

...in other words, God's authority...

...and a little something called "faith."

What about books that were not included in the bible? Are they "God-breathed" too?

Apparently not. The books of the canon were codified by those who were moved by the Spirit to do so.

 

[LutherNut]

[FONT=&quot]

More seriously, I've seen this before and I do understand that it's somewhat facile to say that the "them" referred to are the cloaks rather than both animals, but it could be so...[/FONT]

You intrigued me with this so I dug out the Greek text and discovered that you are absolutely right about this. Let's take a look, shall we...

Matthew 21:7 (translated from the Greek), "They brought the donkey and the colt, and upon them they put the cloaks and Jesus sat on them."​

Now, the first "them" (they placed their cloaks on them) refers to the donkey and the colt. When talking about mixed genders (the donkey is female and the colt is male according to the Greek text) the masculine term is always used. In Greek a pronoun must always match its referent in case, number, and gender. The word for "them" used here is masculine because it is referring to both the donkey and the colt.
The second "them" refers to the cloaks. We know this because the word for "cloaks" is "imatia" which is a neuter word. The pronoun used for the second "them" is also neuter. It also must refer to the closest referent in the sentence, otherwise another word in Greek would have been used. It therefore MUST refer to the cloaks. It cannot refer to the animals at all.​

Bottom line, Jesus didn't sit upon two animals, He sat upon a number of cloaks, placed upon the animals. It cannot be deduced at all that Jesus sat upon more than one animal. Therefore, this passage agrees perfectly with the other Gospel accounts.​

 

[Flatscan82]

You intrigued me with this so I dug out the Greek text and discovered that you are absolutely right about this. Let's take a look, shall we...

Matthew 21:7 (translated from the Greek), "They brought the donkey and the colt, and upon them they put the cloaks and Jesus sat on them."​

Now, the first "them" (they placed their cloaks on them) refers to the donkey and the colt. When talking about mixed genders (the donkey is female and the colt is male according to the Greek text) the masculine term is always used. In Greek a pronoun must always match its referent in case, number, and gender. The word for "them" used here is masculine because it is referring to both the donkey and the colt.
The second "them" refers to the cloaks. We know this because the word for "cloaks" is "imatia" which is a neuter word. The pronoun used for the second "them" is also neuter. It also must refer to the closest referent in the sentence, otherwise another word in Greek would have been used. It therefore MUST refer to the cloaks. It cannot refer to the animals at all.​

Bottom line, Jesus didn't sit upon two animals, He sat upon a number of cloaks, placed upon the animals. It cannot be deduced at all that Jesus sat upon more than one animal. Therefore, this passage agrees perfectly with the other Gospel accounts.​

[FONT=&quot] "Say to the Daughter of Zion,
'See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.'


[/FONT][FONT=&quot]you forgot to do that veruse
[/FONT]

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

you should take care of the things you say, some may consider it blasphemey agaisnt the holy spirit. since you not know me or how the spirit works in me.


Mark 3: 29
But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.

I don't believe that was blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but I will take seriously your warning...although...now that I think of it, Mark may not have actually written that. It may have been added later by puritanical Montanists...

You don't really know.

 

[Flatscan82]

I don't believe that was blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but I will take seriously your warning...although...now that I think of it, Mark may not have actually written that. It may have been added later by puritanical Montanists...

You don't really know.

your right, we dont