Any other book

[herev]

I see you didn't read the post at all, as you responded immediatly after I posted it...

This passage contradicts your philosophy:

John 14:21 ESV
21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”

So, does this one:

1 John 4:6 ESV
6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.


We are not allowed to cast aside God as revealed in scripture to make up our own religion.


I know I'm postint this on one of the most liberal and errant boards in all of CF. I imagine it's a waste of time showing you anything from scripture at all since you have professed many times on these boards to simply not believe it.

So, I have wrote what I have wrote. It is true, you can read it or not. The links are there for anyone who cares.

Goodbye.

the passage in John--Jesus had 2 commandments
ETA: it is also important to know that Paul (in Acts 15 and throughout his writings) distinguishes between the responsibility that Jewish Christians have to Torah and the responsibility that Gentile Christians have to Torah. I have no Jewish blood, I am not under under Torah.
the passage from 1 John is concerning those who were being swayed towards gnosticism and its kin
errant? that is a matter of opinion. You have yours, others have theirs
no one has said they don't believe the Bible, they don't agree with your interpretation--is that so hard to understand? From this side, it appears that your side consistently confuses God with your interpretation. They are not equal.

 

[DD2008]

My last post in this thread.

YouTube - "Why Do People Interpret the Bible Differently?"

To the utterly liberal Methodist who has proven to be consistantly wrong about everything:

James 3:1 ESV
3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

Matthew 12:36 ESV
36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,

As, pointed out before.

I know you don't believe a word of it, and will make a foolsih statement that reveals your utter lack of faith in the power of God, but I still think there's hope for you if you turn from your personal adgenda and repent.

1 John 2:1-6 ESV
2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.


Good bye.

 

[Tissue]

That video is absolutely hideous. The very idea that all disagreements, all variances in thought and, thus, action in our Christian walk is the result of sin is utterly ridiculous, and is the height of arrogance.

I disagree with other godly people because I have had different experiences, and have different philosophical inclinations. NOT because I have an idol in my heart, or they do.

Not only is this assumption false, it's destructive to fair and open conversation. Any person who enters a discussion with such an assumption will not be able to contribute to the subject, and possesses a closed-mind.

Foundationalism is dead. It has been for decades (some would say over a century). Yet so many are clinging on to it as a bastion of hope, and when they are confronted by other people who disagree, they must invent a myth to explain it, so that their worldview remains intact.

And that myth is ridiculous, and is nothing more than the invention of a disrupted mind which cannot grapple with the idea that its worldview may not be accurate.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Is it truly believed this claim gives your interpretations of scripture more power over anyone who may disagree?

1. Christ was referring to the commandment that was learned by all from the Scriptures, thus he was teaching scripture is the Word of God. In Matthew 15 and Mark 7. That is abundantly clear.



2. This passage:

2 Peter 3:15-16 ESV
15 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, 16 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.

Prooves beyond a shadow of a doubt that NT authors writings (Paul explicitly) were received as Holy Scripture and used in the worship of the Church during their lifetimes.

 

[Poverello78]

That video is absolutely hideous. The very idea that all disagreements, all variances in thought and, thus, action in our Christian walk is the result of sin is utterly ridiculous, and is the height of arrogance.

I disagree with other godly people because I have had different experiences, and have different philosophical inclinations. NOT because I have an idol in my heart, or they do.

Not only is this assumption false, it's destructive to fair and open conversation. Any person who enters a discussion with such an assumption will not be able to contribute to the subject, and possesses a closed-mind.

Foundationalism is dead. It has been for decades (some would say over a century). Yet so many are clinging on to it as a bastion of hope, and when they are confronted by other people who disagree, they must invent a myth to explain it, so that their worldview remains intact.

And that myth is ridiculous, and is nothing more than the invention of a disrupted mind which cannot grapple with the idea that its worldview may not be accurate.

I would agree with this assessment of the video if he had said the things he said and then tried to promote some particular view as being the right one and in accordance with what he was saying, but that's not what happened in the video.

Cheesy as the presentation was, all I took from the guy was a warning about recognizing that you could be wrong in what you believe. Whether or not we call a belief held without doubt an "idol" or not is merely semantics; If it causes some sort of negative emotional response it can be thrown right out and replaced with something more simple and practical like "false belief".

The only thing that did bother me about the video is that he a couple of comments about how scripture ought to be proven instead of having scripture prove things, but then at other points appealed to scripture as being the litmus test upon which to prove them. He basically said "doubt and test everything" except for this (that is, God, the Bible, etc), which to me lacks integrity and is rather circular.

However, I must say that I'm very impressed to see a Christian organization or church creating a video that promotes only the idea of questioning things, without also promoting any particular and obvious doctrine. (I here use the word 'obvious' because "there is no such thing as unbiased news", and and anything anyone ever says will always have some underlying principle or doctrine which we could disagree with; But when a doctrine isn't being obviously and militantly promoted, I find it much easier to understand the point the person wants to make.)

 

[wayseer]

He was doing alright until he got to the bit about 'checking with scripture' at which point he got the flick - whoever he was.

I wonder if he listened to himself because he fails to acknowledge that the so-called Christians of the 1st Century, which he loves to quote, had no scripture against which to check anything. The only records were the scrolls of the OT and these were few and far between.

Of course, failing to gain any sense of irony contained in his words, our would-be preacher fails to realise that he has turned the Bible into the very icon against which he apparently rails.

 

[herev]

My last post in this thread.

I believe you already implied that in another post, no?

YouTube - "Why Do People Interpret the Bible Differently?"

really, before you go pointing fingers, you should know that the Bible can be an idol too. Raising the Bible to the same level as Christ is idolatry. Confusing your opinion for God's is blasphemy.

To the utterly liberal Methodist who has proven to be consistantly wrong about everything:

oh, if you only knew me. I am actually UNITED Methodist if you want to be on target with your flaming arrow. I have not been proven consistantly (sic) wrong. You just disagree. You keep confusing fact for your opinion, which is no proof
I am actually quite conservative on most things--fairly moderate for CF, but when someone wants to elevate the Bible to the level of Christ or confuses the two or thinks their interpretation is equal to God's words, then I speak up

James 3:1 ESV
3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

yes, you seem to be prooving that in your judgment of me now....but interestingly how often you've tried to teach over and over and over on this forum. And yet you are not so scared of that same judgment. Remember that proverb about pride going before destruction and a haughty spirit going before a fall? Might want to be careful in that judgment. The same judgment you pass out will be used to judge you if this consistently wrong liberal methodist remembers the words of Christ correctly.

Matthew 12:36 ESV
36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,

and yet again, somehow my words are careless, but yours are perfect and you once again demonstrate no fear of such a day of judgment, but you want me to be. My faith is in Christ. He is my advocate. I fear not this day of judgment as my heart belongs to him.

As, pointed out before.

yes, you did--same post where you said you were done with this thread last time. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean we aren't reading your words

I know you don't believe a word of it,

that's not entirely true, I just don't believe your interpretation of it

and will make a foolsih statement that reveals your utter lack of faith in the power of God,

foolsih (sic)? You are coming close to calling me a fool, but you wouldn't do that, would you? Mt 5:22: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. I know you wouldn't do that as you are such a literalist.
And I have complete faith in the power of God. I have very little faith in your power of exegesis or hermeneutics while teaching interpretations as fact. To say I have no faith in the power of God has come out of nowhere, has no bearing on this conversation, and is slander (you wouldn't do that either, would you--remember Proverbs 10:18--this is ironic--he that uttereth a slander, is a fool--told you it was ironic).

but I still think there's hope for you

1. My hope is built on nothing less
than Jesus' blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
but wholly lean on Jesus' name.
Refrain:
On Christ the solid rock I stand,
all other ground is sinking sand;
all other ground is sinking sand.

2. When Darkness veils his lovely face,
I rest on his unchanging grace.
In every high and stormy gale,
my anchor holds within the veil.
(Refrain)

3. His oath, his covenant, his blood
supports me in the whelming flood.
When all around my soul gives way,
he then is all my hope and stay.
(Refrain)

4. When he shall come with trumpet sound,
O may I then in him be found!
Dressed in his righteousness alone,
faultless to stand before the throne!
(Refrain)

if you turn from your personal adgenda and repent.

I have no personal adgenda (sic) here any more than you do. We disagree. My repenting is between Christ and myself, thank you. Why do you insist on trying to get yourself into HIS seat?

1 John 2:1-6 ESV
2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

I'm impressed though a bit perplexed that you would post about Christ being our propitiation and our advocate at the same time you are posting judgment for someone who disagrees with you on interpretation, but yes, Christ is my advocate--my faith is in HIM.

3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

Christ has two commandments--love God and love others. It is in these commandments that the love of God is actually perfected. What I need to repent of (and I will) is that I have such a hard time finding the perfect love of God in such posts that drip with venom and condemnation, slander, condescension, and contempt, which ironically is leading me to have judgmental thoughts. I will get past them though.

Good bye.

blessings

 

[OzSpen]

CatherineAnne,

We follow Christ, not his teachings. You may think this is the same thing, but actually it is not. It is a very different thing indeed.

Jesus said:

If you love me, you will keep my commandments (John 14:15 NIV)

Following Christ and loving him mean that I will follow his teachings, including his commandments. That's what Christ said. To affirm anything less is to deny the word of Jesus.

 

[Catherineanne]

CatherineAnne,
Jesus said:
Following Christ and loving him mean that I will follow his teachings, including his commandments. That's what Christ said. To affirm anything less is to deny the word of Jesus.

You have said it.

You might care to look again at what I actually said.

We follow the Lord. We do not follow his teachings; anyone of any faith can follow his teachings, but only Christians follow Christ himself. The teachings are part of that following, but by no means the whole story. Following him is about taking up our own cross, and following him even to death, which is far more than any teaching.

I know you are trying to twist what I say to equate it with me denying my Lord, but you will not be able to do that, because it is not true. The Godhead does not comprise Father, Son and Holy Scriptures.

 

[OzSpen]

CatherineAnne,

You have said it.

You might care to look again at what I actually said.

We follow the Lord. We do not follow his teachings; anyone of any faith can follow his teachings, but only Christians follow Christ himself. The teachings are part of that following, but by no means the whole story. Following him is about taking up our own cross, and following him even to death, which is far more than any teaching.

I know you are trying to twist what I say to equate it with me denying my Lord, but you will not be able to do that, because it is not true. The Godhead does not comprise Father, Son and Holy Scriptures.

You would know nothing at all about who Jesus is, to be able to follow Him, if it were not for the Scriptures. It is in the Scriptures that Jesus Christ is revealed.

The Godhead is Father, Son & Holy Spirit, revealed in the Scriptures.

There he states that if you follow Him and love Him, you will obey His commandments (his teachings).

 

[OzSpen]

Wayseer,

I wonder if he listened to himself because he fails to acknowledge that the so-called Christians of the 1st Century, which he loves to quote, had no scripture against which to check anything. The only records were the scrolls of the OT and these were few and far between.

The Scriptures were "breathed out by God" (2 Tim. 3:16) from the moment they became oral tradition prior to their written form. Luke 1:2 confirms the oral tradition that lies behind his Gospel: "Just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us" (ESV).


To confirm the reliability of "eyewitness testimony," Richard Bauckam has written the magisterial, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K. 2006). This has several chapters on the reliability of "eyewitness memory."


Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (3.39.3-4), records Papias's Prologue:

I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself.

If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders— what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.

Papias (ca. 60-130) was possibly a hearer/disciple of John, the Apostle, and a companion of Polycarp.

 

[wayseer]

Wayseer,

The Scriptures were "breathed out by God" (2 Tim. 3:16) from the moment they became oral tradition prior to their written form. Luke 1:2 confirms the oral tradition that lies behind his Gospel: "Just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us" (ESV)

Which particular oral tradition would you like to choose from?

Come off the grass off pal. I might admire your persistence but you argument is, similar to the so-called preacher guy, seriously flawed.

 

[OzSpen]

Wayseer,

Which particular oral tradition would you like to choose from?

Come off the grass off pal. I might admire your persistence but you argument is, similar to the so-called preacher guy, seriously flawed.

You are marvellous at making assertions and providing zero evidence (as you have done on this occasion).

As for a particular oral tradition, which of it do you reject?

Please read Richard Bauckham's book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, and refute it on this Forum.

 

[The-Doctor]

First you provide Scripture that the Bible was either

a Dictated by

or

b Written by God.

Mine only says 'inspired by', and any visit to a Christian bookshop will show that being inspired by God is no guarantee against mediocrity, pretention and downright drivel.

Not that the Bible is any of those things, but just illustrating the problem with 'inspired by God' as a guarantee of infallibility, or anything else, for that matter.

So, you prove from Scripture rather than personal opinion the Bible's authorship as divine, and the text's incorruptible and infallible status, and then we can engage in discussion.

And incidentally you may care to note that nobody says the Bible is fiction, just that it is not literal history, for the simple reason that it does not anywhere claim to be literal history. In the same way as it does not claim to have been dictated by God, or to be infallible, or to be the final arbiter in all decisions.

It isn't rocket science.



In fact, the Bible does not say so. The Bible says that the Word of God is Christ himself. Which makes your above statement both unBiblical and idolatrous, in raising that which is in creation to the status of the Creator.

Nice going.

Well said

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Funny how this one post owns about 500 others on this issue.

First you provide Scripture that the Bible was either

a Dictated by


or

b Written by God.

Mine only says 'inspired by', and any visit to a Christian bookshop will show that being inspired by God is no guarantee against mediocrity, pretention and downright drivel.

Not that the Bible is any of those things, but just illustrating the problem with 'inspired by God' as a guarantee of infallibility, or anything else, for that matter.

So, you prove from Scripture rather than personal opinion the Bible's authorship as divine, and the text's incorruptible and infallible status, and then we can engage in discussion.

And incidentally you may care to note that nobody says the Bible is fiction, just that it is not literal history, for the simple reason that it does not anywhere claim to be literal history. In the same way as it does not claim to have been dictated by God, or to be infallible, or to be the final arbiter in all decisions.

It isn't rocket science.



In fact, the Bible does not say so. The Bible says that the Word of God is Christ himself. Which makes your above statement both unBiblical and idolatrous, in raising that which is in creation to the status of the Creator.

Nice going.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Why does it seem like the same camps who claim to know and love scripture the most also re-write it the most?

Wayseer,

The Scriptures were "breathed out by God" (2 Tim. 3:16) from the moment they became oral tradition prior to their written form. Luke 1:2 confirms the oral tradition that lies behind his Gospel: "Just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us" (ESV).


To confirm the reliability of "eyewitness testimony," Richard Bauckam has written the magisterial, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K. 2006). This has several chapters on the reliability of "eyewitness memory."


Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (3.39.3-4), records Papias's Prologue:

Papias (ca. 60-130) was possibly a hearer/disciple of John, the Apostle, and a companion of Polycarp.

 

[Catherineanne]

Why does it seem like the same camps who claim to know and love scripture the most also re-write it the most?

Every 'explanation' is an admission that the Bible as it stands is incomplete without their exegesis, and therefore every single such explanation/expansion/interpretation constitutes evidence against Sola Scriptura, and a rebuke to God for creating a frankly almost-but-not-quite perfect book.

Irony is a wonderful thing.

 

[David Brider]

Mine only says 'inspired by', and any visit to a Christian bookshop will show that being inspired by God is no guarantee against mediocrity, pretention and downright drivel.

Reminds me of the oft-quoted line about songwriters who say "God gave me this song," and then they sing it to you and you understand why God was so keen to get rid of it...



David.

 

[Catherineanne]

Reminds me of the oft-quoted line about songwriters who say "God gave me this song," and then they sing it to you and you understand why God was so keen to get rid of it...



David.

 

[OzSpen]

CatherineAnne,

And incidentally you may care to note that nobody says the Bible is fiction,

John Dominic Crossan claims:

Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, a village south of Jerusalem in the Judean hills. But once again we are in mythology rather than history (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography1994, p. 18).

Of Christ's burial, Crossan states:

Jesus' burial by his friends was totally fictional and unhistorical. He was buried, if buried at all, by his enemies, and the necessarily shallow grave would have been easy prey for scavenging animals (ibid., p. 160).

There are people who claim that parts of the Bible are fiction, Crossan being one prominent example.

Former Episcopalian bishop of Newark, New Jersey, John Shelby Spong, has no hesitation in identifying the Christian story as mythic. He asks:

What does it take to understand those mythic dimensions that fill our religious story? Can the universal elements of the Christian myth be identified?
Augustine [of Hippo] gave us the primary Christian myth. In that myth, God created a good world that centered in the Garden of Eden (Born of a Woman 1992, HarperSanFrancisco, pp. 12, 215).

What is mythical if it is not fictional?