Interpreting the Bible

[Cribstyl]

Now listen carefully because I'm only going to say this once.

Romans 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things contained in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,

Though they don't have the Law, they do things contained in the Law. They do things contained in the Law. They don't do all that the Law says but they do some things contained in the Law because the last six commandments have to do with our relationship between each other and the first four have to do with our relationship with God and since they don't have God, being that they are Gentiles who are without God and without hope in the world, they will have to learn the first four when they become born again. Being born again God is able to write His whole Law in their hearts and mind and they would be a burden for them to keep.

Romans 2:13 For the ones that God will justify are not those who have heard the Law but those who have kept the Law.

Ooops! Sorry again. That veses just keeps sticking to my key board. Just disregard it I wouldn't want it to ship wreck your faith. I think you could even use white out in your Bible if you really wanted to. What's one more sin anyway?

Whatever dude...............
Your comment in this color above goes far beyond what these text plainly explains. So I have to front you with facts......

v11)There is a law.
v12part a)There are those without the law
v12part b)There are those with the law
K4c , v13 IS PART 2 of a complete sentence with v12 refering to those with the law that just hear and dont obey it. (PLEASE RESPOND)
v14)When those without the law do natural things that are within the law, it's seem like they too have a law within themselves.
v15)It's seem like the law is written on their hearts convicting or excusing them.




These 2 verses are 1 complete sentence. I also used orange to represent "without the law" and green to rep "with the law."





Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.



Anyone can see, if you isolate verse 13 from 12 it'll be a strategic move with added commentary.

Cheers.

 

[Cribstyl]

Matthew 15:3-9 Jesus replied, "And why do your traditions violate the direct commandments of God? For instance, God's law is `Honor your father and mother; anyone who reviles his parents must die.' But you say, `Even if your parents are in need, you may give their support money to the church instead.' And so, by your man-made rule, you nullify the direct command of God to honor your mother and father. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, `These people say they honor me, but their hearts are far away. Their worship is worthless, for they teach their man-made laws instead of those from God.''

Why would my worship be worthless if I'm dishonoring my parents or fogetting the Sabbath? Because God looks at the Ten Commandments as a chain with ten links. If I break one link the chain is broken.

Being reasonable, I see the point you're making about the law. The fact we dont agree with is; Jesus did not come to teach Gentile nations what He sent Moses to teach the Children of Israel. Why should we assume that the geneology given in the bible is meaninless and we're to take on the culture of the Children of Israel? What kind of God would create many cultures and demand them to act like one? We dont see no such requirement by God.

God never called Gentile nations to keep the sabbath, in order to prove that He is the creator who ended His work in 6days and rested on the 7th day.

Scriptures teach that God sent Apostles to preach the Gospel and baptize everyone in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
God called the Gentile nation to believe in His Son. Communion is the sign given by Jesus to prove we believe in Him.

Jesus did not send SDA to teach any doctrines about the law.

 

[k4c]

Whatever dude...............
Your comment in this color above goes far beyond what these text plainly explains. So I have to front you with facts......

v11)There is a law.
v12part a)There are those without the law
v12part b)There are those with the law
K4c , v13 IS PART 2 of a complete sentence with v12 refering to those with the law that just hear and dont obey it. (PLEASE RESPOND)
v14)When those without the law do natural things that are within the law, it's seem like they too have a law within themselves.
v15)It's seem like the law is written on their hearts convicting or excusing them.

These 2 verses are 1 complete sentence. I also used orange to represent "without the law" and green to rep "with the law."

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Anyone can see, if you isolate verse 13 from 12 it'll be a strategic move with added commentary.

Cheers.

God's righteous and holy character is manifested in His Law. We were made in God's image. Since we are made in God's image His Law is something we should be manifesting according to His will.

The Law on stone was not spelled out for them as something new, but rather, because they were not living in light of God's righteous will according to His image. This is why it says, "The Law was given because of transgression". This means people were not living up to God's image before the Sinai so He spelled it out for us in stone.

Now listen very, very carefully.

Those who sinned without the Law PERISHED without the Law and those who sinned with the Law also PERISHED. Both groups perished. Why would one group, who did not have the Law, perish while the other, who had the Law, also perished? Because the Law on stone was given to show something about our created nature and not something new.

God's Law defines God's righteous will at it's basic level. When we become the children of God, through the new birth, we will practice righteousness. But it's not only practicing righteousness it's also loving our brother. This is what separates the children of God from the children of the devil.

1 John 3:10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

Take away the Law and you take away God's identity in the world.

Romans 2:13 For the ones that God will justify are not those who have heard the Law but those who have kept the Law.

Satan is in the identity theft business. Don't be his employee.

1 Peter 1:15 Be as obedient children, be yourselves holy in all your activity, after the model of the Holy One who calls us.

 

[k4c]

Being reasonable, I see the point you're making about the law. The fact we dont agree with is; Jesus did not come to teach Gentile nations what He sent Moses to teach the Children of Israel. Why should we assume that the geneology given in the bible is meaninless and we're to take on the culture of the Children of Israel? What kind of God would create many cultures and demand them to act like one? We dont see no such requirement by God.

God never called Gentile nations to keep the sabbath, in order to prove that He is the creator who ended His work in 6days and rested on the 7th day.

Scriptures teach that God sent Apostles to preach the Gospel and baptize everyone in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
God called the Gentile nation to believe in His Son. Communion is the sign given by Jesus to prove we believe in Him.

Jesus did not send SDA to teach any doctrines about the law.

God never told anyone before Sinai not to murder, lie, steal, worship idols and so on yet they were judged as a liar, thief, idoliter and a murderer. The Law on stone was not something new and unique for Isreal only. The Law on stone reaveled what mankind should be manifesting as creatures made in God's image. This is why it says, "The Law was given because of transgression". In other words, they were not manifesting God's righteous image before Sinai.

 

[Cribstyl]

Since you keep raising new arguments rather than responding to replies I will ignor you statement too, but unlike you I will post what I can prove with scriptures.

 

[k4c]

Since you keep raising new arguments rather than responding to replies I will ignor you statement too, but unlike you I will post what I can prove with scriptures.

Convenient

 

[Soon144k]

The problem with the 'Bible' is that anyone can make it say anything they want it to (as was pointed out in the opening post). That is because the compendium of texts that we now term the Bible was not put together as a means of providing to Christianity an infallible source for truth, as it was put together by fallible humans at the direction of the Roman Emperor Consantine in order to help him solidify his splintering empire and keep it from falling apart. The New Testament was the result of the Council of Nicea, and later the council of Leodicea (c.325 CE) and was a religious solution to a POLITICAL problem. The intended purpose for the New Testament was to bring together the disparate religious factions within the Empire, the Jews, Christians and Pagans, into a unified religion. It did exactly that. It was designed as a counterweight to the Old Testament, which was seen as a document only for the Jews and Judaic Christians.

Please do some research on this as it will greatly affect not only how you view the New Testament in general, but in the writings of Paul that were included to counterbalance the teachings of Jesus Christ, which will show you how the New Testament is used in achieving Christian doctrine that actually disagrees with the OT and with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

There is lots of quality material on this subject, but a good place to start this study is with "The Spirit of the Church" by Dennis Neufeld and Rick Sterling (Tate Pub. 2007).

 

[Cribstyl]

The problem with the 'Bible' is that anyone can make it say anything they want it to (as was pointed out in the opening post).


That is because the compendium of texts that we now term the Bible was not put together as a means of providing to Christianity an infallible source for truth, as it was put together by fallible humans at the direction of the Roman Emperor Consantine in order to help him solidify his splintering empire and keep it from falling apart. The New Testament was the result of the Council of Nicea, and later the council of Leodicea (c.325 CE) and was a religious solution to a POLITICAL problem. The intended purpose for the New Testament was to bring together the disparate religious factions within the Empire, the Jews, Christians and Pagans, into a unified religion. It did exactly that. It was designed as a counterweight to the Old Testament, which was seen as a document only for the Jews and Judaic Christians.

Please do some research on this as it will greatly affect not only how you view the New Testament in general, but in the writings of Paul that were included to counterbalance the teachings of Jesus Christ, which will show you how the New Testament is used in achieving Christian doctrine that actually disagrees with the OT and with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

There is lots of quality material on this subject, but a good place to start this study is with "The Spirit of the Church" by Dennis Neufeld and Rick Sterling (Tate Pub. 2007).

You hit the nail on the head about the opening post..... but you ran out of facts after that.

 

[Soon144k]

You hit the nail on the head about the opening post..... but you ran out of facts after that.

Pray tell what was I wrong about? I appreciate specifics not generalities. Thanks.

 

[Cribstyl]

The problem with the 'Bible' is that anyone can make it say anything they want it to (as was pointed out in the opening post).

On that above I agreed

That is because the compendium of texts that we now term the Bible was not put together as a means of providing to Christianity an infallible source for truth, as it was put together by fallible humans at the direction of the Roman Emperor Consantine in order to help him solidify his splintering empire and keep it from falling apart.

The Biblical Canon
A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the Biblical Canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the Biblical Canon at the council at all.[45][46] The development of the Biblical Canon took several centuries, and was nearly complete by the time the Muratorian fragment was written, over 150 years before the council. Regional councils such as the Synod of Hippo in 393 and Council of Carthage in 397 gave formal recognition to the canon, but by then the canon was well ingrained in the church. Additionally no discussion or decisions regarding Gnostic Gospels were made by the council.
The Trinity

Although the council of Nicea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ, some maintain that it was not the originator of the doctrine of the Trinity. Over a century earlier the use of the term "Trinity" ("trinitas" in Latin) could be found in the writings of Origen (185-254) and Tertullian (160-220),[47] and a general notion of a "divine three", in some sense, was expressed in the second and third-century writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr.[48] But the doctrine in a more full-fledged form was not formulated until the Council of Constantinople in 360 A.D.[49]
The Role of Constantine

While Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons, he did not force the Homoousian view of Christ's nature on the council, nor commission a Bible that omitted books he did not approve of. In fact Constantine had little theological understanding of the issues at stake, and did not particularly care which view of Christ's nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church.[50] This can be seen in his acceptance of the Homoousian view of Christ's nature, only to abandon the belief several years later for political reasons, under the influence of Eusebius of Caesarea and others.[50]

The New Testament was the result of the Council of Nicea, and later the council of Leodicea (c.325 CE) and was a religious solution to a POLITICAL problem. The intended purpose for the New Testament was to bring together the disparate religious factions within the Empire, the Jews, Christians and Pagans, into a unified religion. It did exactly that. It was designed as a counterweight to the Old Testament, which was seen as a document only for the Jews and Judaic Christians.

Please do some research on this as it will greatly affect not only how you view the New Testament in general, but in the writings of Paul that were included to counterbalance the teachings of Jesus Christ, which will show you how the New Testament is used in achieving Christian doctrine that actually disagrees with the OT and with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

There is lots of quality material on this subject, but a good place to start this study is with "The Spirit of the Church" by Dennis Neufeld and Rick Sterling (Tate Pub. 2007).

Your history lesson and advice seems questionable at best. The Laodicean council was 364AD not 325
Click here for another view on the Nicean Council.

Hopefully we can get back to interpreting the bible as we've had it for almost 2thousand years.

 

[Soon144k]

Cribstyl said, "While Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons, he did not force the Homoousian view of Christ's nature on the council, nor commission a Bible that omitted books he did not approve of. In fact Constantine had little theological understanding of the issues at stake, and did not particularly care which view of Christ's nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church.[50] This can be seen in his acceptance of the Homoousian view of Christ's nature, only to abandon the belief several years later for political reasons, under the influence of Eusebius of Caesarea and others.[50]"

I actually meant for the 325 CE date to go with Nicea not Leodicea, sorry. And yes, I agree with the above statement, which makes my point. These councils were not primarily to propagate spiritual proof but to solidify an empire which later became the infamous RCC (Roman Catholic Church). In fact it wasn't until some 50 years after Leodicea that Revelation was 'voted' into the codex that became the New Testament. And yet today when you ask a Christian as to where one can go to find the unalterable, infallible 'Word of God' they will tell you to go to the 'Holy Bible'. Here is an example:

My beloved Father-in-law (now dead) was for over 50 years an SDA pastor and believed firmly that the KJV was the ONLY Bible a Christian should use. One day I asked him why he believed this, and he said because it was the only version that was 'authorized'. I then asked him 'who authorized it' and he said, "God". I then pointed out that is was not authorized by God but by King James in 1604 CE (which was first published in 1610). He was stunned, and didn't know what to say.

This is the same kind of misunderstanding that is prevalent when Christians quote Paul when he said in 2 Tim.3 that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God . . . etc." by which they mean the entire Bible cover to cover. I have had many argue this with me ad infinitum. When I point out that there was no 'New Testament' when Paul wrote this they usually get mad or huffy and say that even though that is true it still applies.

The problem as I see it is that people want an infallible source for truth that they don't have to process for themselves, a source that they can just believe and that is sufficient. That is why the Catholics have the Pope, the Mormons have Joseph Smith, and we SDA's have Ellen White.

So my follow up question is "Why should we consider the 'Holy Bible', especially the NT, to be the infallible, inerrant source for truth when it was put together by the Catholic church for the purpose of establishing the Catholic Church as the political and religious world dominating power that it was and still longs to be (but is no longer)?

 

[Cribstyl]

Cribstyl said, "While Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons, he did not force the Homoousian view of Christ's nature on the council, nor commission a Bible that omitted books he did not approve of. In fact Constantine had little theological understanding of the issues at stake, and did not particularly care which view of Christ's nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church.[50] This can be seen in his acceptance of the Homoousian view of Christ's nature, only to abandon the belief several years later for political reasons, under the influence of Eusebius of Caesarea and others.[50]"

I actually meant for the 325 CE date to go with Nicea not Leodicea, sorry. And yes, I agree with the above statement, which makes my point. These councils were not primarily to propagate spiritual proof but to solidify an empire which later became the infamous RCC (Roman Catholic Church). In fact it wasn't until some 50 years after Leodicea that Revelation was 'voted' into the codex that became the New Testament. And yet today when you ask a Christian as to where one can go to find the unalterable, infallible 'Word of God' they will tell you to go to the 'Holy Bible'. Here is an example:

My beloved Father-in-law (now dead) was for over 50 years an SDA pastor and believed firmly that the KJV was the ONLY Bible a Christian should use. One day I asked him why he believed this, and he said because it was the only version that was 'authorized'. I then asked him 'who authorized it' and he said, "God". I then pointed out that is was not authorized by God but by King James in 1604 CE (which was first published in 1610). He was stunned, and didn't know what to say.

This is the same kind of misunderstanding that is prevalent when Christians quote Paul when he said in 2 Tim.3 that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God . . . etc." by which they mean the entire Bible cover to cover. I have had many argue this with me ad infinitum. When I point out that there was no 'New Testament' when Paul wrote this they usually get mad or huffy and say that even though that is true it still applies.

The problem as I see it is that people want an infallible source for truth that they don't have to process for themselves, a source that they can just believe and that is sufficient. That is why the Catholics have the Pope, the Mormons have Joseph Smith, and we SDA's have Ellen White.

So my follow up question is "Why should we consider the 'Holy Bible', especially the NT, to be the infallible, inerrant source for truth when it was put together by the Catholic church for the purpose of establishing the Catholic Church as the political and religious world dominating power that it was and still longs to be (but is no longer)?

My source is the bible.....I cant help with any other source of truth. Good luck with your inspired writings.

 

[Soon144k]

My source is the bible.....I cant help with any other source of truth. Good luck with your inspired writings.

So, what is your reasoning behind your belief that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant "word of God"? Do you have a source for this belief that I don't know about, or do you believe this by 'faith'?

 

[Cribstyl]

So, what is your reasoning behind your belief that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant "word of God"? Do you have a source for this belief that I don't know about, or do you believe this by 'faith'?

Why are you in a forum where the only thing we have in common you're here to say is false? Actually I respect your possition better than those who add and twist what is written.

 

[Soon144k]

Why are you in a forum where the only thing we have in common you're here to say is false? Actually I respect your possition better than those who add and twist what is written.

I am only asking a question, not making a judgement for anyone else. For me the words of Jesus Christ that were written down by His eyewitness disciples are what I choose to use as my source for truth. I compare EVERYTHING written in the New Testament to the words of Jesus. Jesus is the ONLY infallible source in the NT because He is the Son of God, not a fallible human with a fallible mind.

 

[Cribstyl]

I am only asking a question, not making a judgement for anyone else. For me the words of Jesus Christ that were written down by His eyewitness disciples are what I choose to use as my source for truth. I compare EVERYTHING written in the New Testament to the words of Jesus. Jesus is the ONLY infallible source in the NT because He is the Son of God, not a fallible human with a fallible mind.

You being a SDA tells me that you cant be telling me the truth.
And by the way......2Ti 3:16All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[k4c]

You being a SDA tells me that you cant be telling me the truth.
And by the way......2Ti 3:16All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I find these verses very interesting.

2 Timothy 3:17 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was. But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[Cribstyl]

I find these verses very interesting.

2 Timothy 3:17 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was. But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

What is your point K4c? Are you in agreement with Soon 144k?

Should I have an inspired source other than the bible?; As far as I know, EGW said the KJV was the infallable word of God.

The problem as I see it is that people want an infallible source for truth that they don't have to process for themselves, a source that they can just believe and that is sufficient. That is why the Catholics have the Pope, the Mormons have Joseph Smith, and we SDA's have Ellen White.

So my follow up question is "Why should we consider the 'Holy Bible', especially the NT, to be the infallible, inerrant source for truth when it was put together by the Catholic church for the purpose of establishing the Catholic Church as the political and religious world dominating power that it was and still longs to be (but is no longer)?

If I'm not mistaken, This guy is saying the New Testament is Catholic Church properganda ...and EGW is an infallable source for truth.

Each book of the New Testament was written before 100AD. The Catholic Church was not organized with a pope until years after Constantine ruled in the 300's that's why he chaired the Council of Nicea. No bishop had authority or freedom to stage a gathering of over 300 bishops, because of the persecution of especially the previous two emperors.

 

[Cribstyl]

I find these verses very interesting.

2 Timothy 3:17 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was. But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Sheeeeze, that's along verse...Oh I get it,...knowlege of the sabbath, right?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Why are you in a forum where the only thing we have in common you're here to say is false?

Thats the exact same thing I wonder about you... why are you here. The things we as Adventists have in common are not truth to you.

The hypocrisy and hubris in your statement is astounding...