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.
Sure I did, yet you have yet to prove your assertion. Do you have any evidience that paul was converted before the church came into existance. make sure the evidience is not religious in nature now. Until then this will be my last post to you as you are not offereing any evidience, only saying, "no you didn't" which is your opinon that is not based on fact.Fideist said:No you didn't.
Nope. You have asserted that the church existed before Paul came along and used the narrative in Acts to support your claim. But you have not shown Acts to be a reliable source for the history you claim. I submit that Jesus' immediate followers were Temple Jews who followed the law. That can and has been supported by both historical elements in the religious literature itself, such as Jesus being Jewish, and such sources as Hegesippus. He describes sectarian Jews, not the members of a Christian church as decribed in Acts. Josephus also mentions James the Just. Unless you can show Acts to be a reliable historical source in support of your position, your attempt at refutation is merely unsupported assertion.Outspoken said:Sure I did,
Outspoken said:Ahh, no you're not. this is the problem. If you look later in the text (ie the whole bible) you see the laws you are talking about. If you want to pick out one specific one, then we can and I'll show you how you are ripping it out of context. As far as the romans 1 passage, its not taken out of context, for no passage in the bible says homosexuality is an okay practice nor refers to it being okay to do.
No, we practice what is taught about not using liberty as liscense, inasmuch as "we" all who disagree with you should be classified as fundamentalists. It seems you use the label rather freely.UberLutheran said:I am quoting verses in exactly the same context as fundamentalists do with Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Ephesians 5:3-4, and Galatians 5:19-20.
It appears that fundamentalists don't like having Scriptures thrown at them which challenge their own "lifestyle". Why do fundamentalists reject these parts of the Scripture which THEY don't like, but gleefully (and pridefully) proof-text Scripture out of context against people whom they claim to love, but whose "sin they hate"? Do fundamentalists really feel justified in using Scripture as a weapon against other people, when fundamentalists are doing the very same things they judge others for doing (Romans 2:1-4, alluding to Romans 1:29-32)?
Why do so many fundamentalists preach "justification by grace, through faith" and PRACTICE "justification by the law"?
This is, in fact, a VERY serious conversation.
Shane Roach said:As "we" all who disagree with you should be classified as fundamentalists. It seems you use the label rather freely.
Umm..the documents you prepose are religious in nature and therefore by your critera are invalid. I'm still waiting for you to prove Paul converted before the church was formed. The church says he was not, if you disagree, then prove it.Fideist said:Nope. You have asserted that the church existed before Paul came along and used the narrative in Acts to support your claim. But you have not shown Acts to be a reliable source for the history you claim. I submit that Jesus' immediate followers were Temple Jews who followed the law. That can and has been supported by both historical elements in the religious literature itself, such as Jesus being Jewish, and such sources as Hegesippus. He describes sectarian Jews, not the members of a Christian church as decribed in Acts. Josephus also mentions James the Just. Unless you can show Acts to be a reliable historical source in support of your position, your attempt at refutation is merely unsupported assertion.
1. No, fundimentalists do not pick and choose.UberLutheran said:Fundamentalists DO pick and choose which Scriptures are applicable; and which Scriptures MUST be followed in order to obtain righteousness before God -- which negates the entire doctrine of justification by grace, through faith.
And yes, fundamentalists DO take Romans 1 out of context. Romans is one of those those books (like Galatians, and Ephesians, and 1 and 2 Corinthians) which HAS to be read in the context of the entire letter or serious doctrinal errors -- such as the blanket condemnation of gays, or refusing to allow women to teach or preach in churches -- WILL occur.
Romans 1 is NOT about homosexuality. Romans 1 is about non-Jews who should be able to figure out that there is a Supreme Being -- and don't.
If we were to apply labels in accordance to their definitions, I am far from the conservative wing. I simply do not agree with your assertion that homosexuality is not a sin, if that is indeed what you are saying, and I do believe that discipline plays a role in the church, as does every major denomination.UberLutheran said:It's called "discernment".
I realize the fundamentalist-PC term for this is "conservative Christian."
razzelflabben said:Should we not always excersice caution in judging others?[/QUOTE]
Pointing out something is sin is not judgement.
Outspoken said:Umm..the documents you prepose are religious in nature and therefore by your critera are invalid.
I'm still waiting for you to prove
Paul converted before the church was formed.
The church says he was not, if you disagree, then prove it.
Outspoken said:And yet the Original Post says nothing about whether homosexuality is a sin or not.razzelflabben said:Should we not always excersice caution in judging others?[/QUOTE]
Pointing out something is sin is not judgement.
Excellent observation. Thanks!razzelflabben said:And yet the Original Post says nothing about whether homosexuality is a sin or not.
Egads! This is not a fitting post!chalice_thunder said:PF - you never cease to provide me with a chuckle
My "barney-esque bless/release" statement was indeed as you said. I learned it some years ago in a 12 step meeting dealing with letting go of somebody for whom you care - because they make their own choices. It is a respectful way (for both parties) to disengage and move on...which is what I have done.
Now I just have to stop looking in the mirror and seeing a purple dinosaur
Thanks again for your support
*sigh* nooo..it is not.Outspoken said:*sigh* nooo..taking the bible literally is embracing scholarly hermeneutics.
So in context the verse didn't mean to stone your disobedient child?Outspoken said:*chuckles* I love how you rip things out of context. Great job..well not really, more of a very very poor job! Now, when you want to actually talk about christianity, let me know.
"Nope. It is not an all or nothing proposition."Fideist said:[/font][/size][/font]
Nope. It is not an all or nothing proposition. Religious documents dont intend, for the most part, to impart history. But that does not mean they contain NO historical elements. The problem is often discovering which are, which are not and which cant be determined one way or the other. This is determined through a combination of internal evidence, which you are apparently attempting to use exclusively, external evidence such as the text by Hegesippus, texts by Josephus and others that relate information that corroborates or contests. Then there are other texts of approximately the same time period that impart information that may not deal directly with the elements but may confirm or contradict. An example would be comparing an external text with Acts 15:
For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.
The above sort of agrees with the Noahide laws or the Seven Laws of Noah as distilled by Jewish people from the book of Genesis and recorded in Mishna Talmud. They are:
Do not murder.
Do not steal.
Do not worship false gods.
Do not be sexually immoral.
Do not eat the limb of an animal before it is killed.
Do not curse God.
Set up courts and bring offenders to justice.
The two separate pieces of information come from separate sources that were in force at approximately the same time (within about ten years give or take). So that even though it is a bit strange, we can fairly deduce that the statement in Acts 15:29 is reasonably accurate.
So, the criteria for determining historical evidence is as follows:. Internal evidence, or the Biblical stories themselves as well as other Biblical stories written by other authors that we can compare and contrast. External evidence such as confirming texts or contradictory texts, external evidence such as texts that contain similar evidence, and finally critical examination in combination with deductive reasoning.
I dont need to prove any such thing. All I need to show is that Acts was written 25-30 years after Pauls first letter (1 Thess). Most scholars of all persuasions agree that 1 Thess was written around 50 CE and that Acts was written around 75-80 CE. So, I have no trouble at all demonstrating this. But you say that the narrative in Acts describes accurately what took place before Paul converted, and you do so without any supporting evidence that this is so. Your argument boils down to this: the church was in place at the time of Paul because the church, through the narrative in Acts, says it was. Or to put it simpler terms yet: the Bible is correct because the Bible says so. This is a circular argument that I dont need to respond to, but for anyone lurking, I will anyway.
I say it is not that simple. I say Acts contains an apologetic for Pauline Christianity and at the same time, a polemic against Jewish Christians. I think the claim that the apostolic church was in place, is a retrojection by the Early church, in an effort to thwart any claim to legitimacy by so called Jewish Christians, while at the same time claiming legitimacy for itself. And the fact remains. Acts came on the scene 25-30 years after Paul wrote his first letter. I strongly suggest the information in Acts has more to do with politics than history.
I already demonstrated that the churchs claim through the text in Acts wasnt even written until 25-30 years after Paul wrote his first letter. Simple deduction tells us his conversion took place before he wrote the letter. You say the church is accurate by virtue of the narrative in Acts. Yet all your claim amounts to is an unsupported assertion combined with circular logic. It is your claim that Acts is an accurate source despite all the other information Ive provided in support of my claim. Its up to you to support your claim with historical information that corroborates Acts narrative.
No, but that is what the poster I was responding to was addressingrazzelflabben said:And yet the Original Post says nothing about whether homosexuality is a sin or not.
"*sigh* nooo..it is not."PastorFreud said:*sigh* nooo..it is not.
So in context the verse didn't mean to stone your disobedient child?
stone
v. To hurl or throw stones at, especially to kill with stones.
disobedient
adj. Neglecting or refusing to obey; omitting to do what is commanded, or doing what is prohibited; refractory; not observant of duty or rules prescribed by authority; -- applied to persons and acts.
child
n. A person between birth and puberty.
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?