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.
do all these different colors and underlining mean something? I can't seem to process it, so I tend to just skip your posts...
Exactly my point.Eyewitnesses of the death, burial, and resurrection. I doubt Peter, Andrew, James, and the others were there for the birth either
Exactly my point.
Mary must have told them about the birth. She relied on memory for events 30 years earlier.
However, where does it say that they have to be witnesses to these three? Paul wasn't.
I'm still waiting for scriptural verses to show we should only use scripture. Obviously Paul didn't have to be a witness.
In fact he 'recalls' things not found elsewhere in the Bible - so someone must have told him. Given that the gospels weren't yet written down, he must have been taught 'from tradition'.
Paul gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching. This does not make Paul a 'copyist'. Nor does it suggest a super-copy/source with which all the authors relied upon.
Paul also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn...
Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."
random quotes with no obvious tie-in to anything have no interest to me, either
The irony is you only know that these events were written down because a particular book, not authorising itself was authorised by the church. You've not yet shown how you know a particular book is of those events.The irony Montalban. You only know these things because they were written down.
I already talked about the formula of the trinity. The formula itself is not in scriptures, but certainly not contrary to scripture.Look, I'll ask again, give me a continous oral tradition that Paul spoke that wasn't written down that you know about.
They're from a woman. A little detail you missed.You missed his point.
Some of us do find the quoted connections incredibly tied-in, fascinating, revealing, and inspiring.
They're from a woman. A little detail you missed.
You're more than welcome to explain it. I asked the author who told me she's never going to reply to me ever again.
So far I've seen several people say how wonderfully apt these random quotes are. Perhaps it's the colours and underlining that does it for you?
Fireinfolding is a woman. She's the one who quoted random scripture. I made a comment on that.... that I didn't understand the meaning of HER post.Magentic is a man. The quotes are scripture.
Maybe it's like the tradition thing. You just know that tradition is true, correct, and never changing.
I don't believe that he witnessed the actual birthing of Jesus. Why do you ask?Did Luke witness Jesus' birth? Yes, or no?
The formula to the trinity is indeed wrtten down in scripture. From the begining.The irony is you only know that these events were written down because a particular book, not authorising itself was authorised by the church. You've not yet shown how you know a particular book is of those events.
I already talked about the formula of the trinity. The formula itself is not in scriptures, but certainly not contrary to scripture.
Perhaps you missed that?
Given you've not answered my challenge I don't see why you're asking me to address a challenge already met.
You've also not shown how Paul was a witness to the random events you've now chosen (as opposed to just being a 'witness' which was what you first stated one had to be)
Not it hasn't.The formula to the trinity is indeed wrtten down in scripture. From the begining.
So if your sister were to give birth and you were not right in the same room she was giving birth in does that mean you were not there to give witness that your sister actually did have a baby?Then how can he write about what he was not witness too? StandingUp said that they gospels were chosen because they were written by 'witnesses'
Sure it is the formula. This is where we come to the conclusion Trinity. The word itself is not in the scriptures the but the concept or the formula is.Not it hasn't.
What you cite is not a formula.
There were several different competing ideas on what the formula was and they were all based on the Bible.
One however also was based on tradition.
So if your sister were to give birth and you were not right in the same room she was giving birth in does that mean you were not there to give witness that your sister actually did have a baby?
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?