Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If there's a gap between 4 and 7, and one person fills it in with 5 and another with 6, it's not wrong.You're right, and it's unfair to Eryk to suppose so. But you must admit that among biblical literalists there is a tendency for them to take their interpretation as the same thing as the Word of God.
If there's a gap between 4 and 7, and one person fills it in with 5 and another with 6, it's not wrong.
As long as one doesn't fill it in with 3 or 8 or ...
Christ died on the Cross to save us from our sins.And also why I don't think our Genesis interpretation is a salvation issue.
That's not what the Bible teaches though.The Bible is not a message from God to individual Christians, but to the whole community of the faithful and must be read with all of the scholarly resources available--literary, linguistic, archaeological, etc. Anything less would demean the word of God.
I see what you mean. I had forgotten that you may think the whole thing to have been written by Jesus word by word.That's not what the Bible teaches though.
Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light for my path. (Psalm 119:105)
the law of the Lord is his joy; and on his law he meditates day and night. (Psalm 1:2)
“If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32)
“Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words (John 13:23-24)
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, as in all wisdom you teach and admonish one another, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. (Colossians 3:16)
What is that whole thing to have been written by Jesus word by word?I see what you mean. I had forgotten that you may think the whole thing to have been written by Jesus word by word.
The Bible. The literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of Plenary Verbal Inspiration. I don't know about you personally (notice I said "may") but it seems pretty standard doctrine among biblical creationists. And, there appears to be a rising fashion that whether one is talking about God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Ghost, He is to be called "Jesus." Still getting used to that one.What is that whole thing to have been written by Jesus word by word?
Didn't you say that the texts of the Bible are fully authoritative based on divine inspiration?The Bible. The literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of Plenary Verbal Inspiration. I don't know about you personally (notice I said "may") but it seems pretty standard doctrine among biblical creationists. And, there appears to be a rising fashion that whether one is talking about God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Ghost, He is to be called "Jesus." Still getting used to that one.
The texts of the Bible are fully authoritative based on divine inspiration, no matter what literary genre they happen to be.
I did, and I believe it. But I don't believe any of those other things. Nor Sola Scriptura, either, come to that.Didn't you say that the texts of the Bible are fully authoritative based on divine inspiration?
In what way are those other things that you mentioned different from what you believe?I did, and I believe it. But I don't believe any of those other things.
Where else do you base your faith in if not the Bible?Nor Sola Scriptura, either, come to that.
I do not believe that the Bible is literal, inerrant perspicupus and self-interpreting product pf Plenary Verbal Inspiration. I don't know how the Bible was inspired nor whether it was inspired by the same method throughout. There are other theories about it, older and more convincing than Plenary Verbal Inspiration. I don't believe that only scripture should be used to interpret scripture. There are many extra-biblical contemporary texts which need to be examined--not for doctrine--but for linguistic and narrative practices as an aid to interpreting biblical texts, as well as findings from archaeology and anthropology. I don't believe the Bible is perspicuous--it's not the National Enquirer. The layman, with instruction, can expect to find his Salvation revealed therein, but anything beyond that requires scholarly expertise and careful, prayerful study. I don't believe that the Bible is "literal and inerrant" in all that it affirms about any sphere of human knowledge. The knowledge of the natural world it contains is purely phenomenological and need not reflect the findings of modern science. Likewise, I see the Bible not as a single text by a single author but an heterogeneous collection of texts by many inspired authors, editors and redactors over a long period of time and widely scattered locations. Consequently, I don't expect the texts to be fully coordinated. I do not, for example, see a "Synoptic Problem" nor am I much concerned with the apparent discrepancies in Jesus' two genealogies.In what way are those other things that you mentioned different from what you believe?
Sacred Tradition, divinely inspired Scripture and reason--in about that order.Where else do you base your faith in if not the Bible?
What do you make of what Jesus said to the Pharisees and scribes here then?Sacred Tradition, divinely inspired Scripture and reason--in about that order.
So how does one get from there, to that only the Bible should ever be consulted?What do you make of what Jesus said to the Pharisees and scribes here then?
‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
In vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines human precepts.’
You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.” He went on to say, “How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition! (Mark 7:6-9)
You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things. (Mark 7:13)
So how does one get from there, to that only the Bible should ever be consulted?
Why does it have to be "or?"(3) What did Jesus see as more important? Human tradition or the word of God?
In the Bible and in the living witness of Sacred Tradition.(4) Where can we find the word of God?
Because if there is a contradiction between human tradition and the word of God, we would need to choose one over the other.Why does it have to be "or?"
How do you know the "living witness of Sacred Tradition" is the word of God?In the Bible and in the living witness of Sacred Tradition.
You asked a question and so I answered. You are free to believe whatever you like. God has given us free will after all. I am just showing you what the Bible says.But that's all--you can go and catechize somebody else. I belong to a recognized religious tradition with a well-established body of doctrine. Easy to find out about if you were really interested.
Sorry your attempt misfired. The way I read those texts, Jesus was only opposed to tradition when it was at odds with scripture, not when scripture and tradition corroborated each other.Because if there is a contradiction between human tradition and the word of God, we would need to choose one over the other.
How do you know the "living witness of Sacred Tradition" is the word of God?
You asked a question and so I answered. You are free to believe whatever you like. God has given us free will after all. I am just showing you what the Bible says.
That's how I read it as well. I never said human tradition is bad. It is only bad if it is opposed to the scripture, which would mean, we should use the scripture to verify human traditions, not the other way round.Sorry your attempt misfired. The way I read those texts, Jesus was only opposed to tradition when it was at odds with scripture, not when scripture and tradition corroborated each other.
Sacred Tradition, divinely inspired Scripture and reason--in about that order.
That order represents how I feel the strength of each supports my faith. The Bible is the source of our doctrine, but doctrine aside, the main reason I believe is tradition, not scripture. The Christian faith could survive without the Bible, but without tradition it would just be a moderately interesting collection of ancient texts.That's how I read it as well. I never said human tradition is bad. It is only bad if it opposes to the scripture, which would mean, we should use the scripture to verify human traditions, not the other way round.
My quoting of that Bible passage was actually in response to the order you decided which should take priority:
I'm not sure which traditions you have in mind.That order represents how I feel the strength of each supports my faith. The Bible is the source of our doctrine, but doctrine aside, the main reason I believe is tradition, not scripture. The Christian faith could survive without the Bible, but without tradition it would just be a moderately interesting collection of ancient texts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?