- Aug 6, 2005
- 17,496
- 1,568
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Republican
He used it as such, by name. Some 50 times.
List for us all the times He used Eastern Orthodox Tradition as such.
Thank you.
.
Upvote
0
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.
Jesus never referred to scripture as a "rule".
I have described and mentioned before my dislike of manipulative strategy in discussion - as this is the equivalent of negating discussion.Okay. Then list for us all the references where Jesus states, "Jewish Tradition states....." and uses thus normatively.
Um, practices are rarely TAUGHT (nor do they need to be in order to be sound), but they might be exampled. Sola Scriptura certainly is.
And he taught from parables. Like the Good Samaritan. The "Love thy neighbour" rule the Jews understood was not enough.... their understanding was wrong.
Jesus had to use a parable to explain what God wants.
Again you repeat your assertion.
He also uses parables.
Therefore by your 'rationale' of him mentioning them, it's a rule.
You can deal with this if you want, why aren't parables also rules?
Yes. God ADDED to the corpus of Scripture during a period of 1500 years, roughly from 1400 BC to 100 AD. Have you checked your calendar lately?.
(I can't find where Christ used the equivalent of the English term "rule" ... help anyone ?)
Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah
How does one "prove" a practice? How would you "prove" your typically driving on the right hand side of the road or "prove" answering the phone with "hello" or "prove" sending your mother a card on Mother's Day? How do you suggest one "proves" a practice?You prove a practice by it's fruits. What is the goal of using such a practice, if not to establish doctrine and practice? How effective is this rule at doing this, based on it's track record over 500 years? Is there a general consensus of faith and practice for those who have applied this rule? Has the acceptance of this rule led to more unity or more division of faith and practice?
Yes. God ADDED to the corpus of Scripture during a period of 1500 years, roughly from 1400 BC to 100 AD. Have you checked your calendar lately?
Yes. In the USA, we embrace the Rule of Law. Is the "law" all completed? Probably not. But I'd love to hear the response of a policeman who stops you - noting that you were going 60 MPH in a 25 MPH zone (pointing to that big, white sign with the big black numerals and letters: "MAX SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH" and you replying, "the Rule of Law is moot because how do we know that in the year 2456, there might be a road here with the speed limit of 70 MPH?" How would the policeman respond? But it's moot - we're not having this discussion between 1400 BC - 100 AD when the corpus of Scripture was increasing. I think you know the year. Your "response" would have SOME relevance (however tiny) if you were a Mormon, but you aren't.
The only norma normans Jesus employed was Scripture. If you have an example of Him - by name - using something other normatively, give it. List them. I'm NOT saying God was not ADDING to the corpus of Scripture via the teaching of Jesus (etc.) - certainly He was, but what relevance does that have in 2011 (your not being LDS) or to Jesus using some other norma normans? Or to Eastern Orthodox Tradition being the more often referenced rule by Jesus?
This would be a valid analogy if the police officer and the person getting pulled over had equal interpretive authority of the rule of law.
Then in that case, if the person said, "I think the speed limit reads more like 75 instead of 50", then the police officer would have to let that person go because he could not bind their conscience either way as to a correct interpretation of the rule, because each of their opinions are equally valid.
Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah
To provide a sound norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines among us - particularly disputed ones. Read the link I've provided for you, it will help you a lot.What is the goal of using such a practice
Is the "goal" a big denomination or truth? What has been accomplished by exempting self from the question of truth? Have you studied any of the cults? What is accomplished by the reality that your denomination agrees with NONE but itself? What "unity" are you talking about, with self alone (as is the case with your denomination)?Has the acceptance of this rule led to more unity or more division of faith and practice?
My calendar says nothing at all about teaching ending in 100AD. Maybe you've got a special "Theology Caledar"?Yes. God ADDED to the corpus of Scripture during a period of 1500 years, roughly from 1400 BC to 100 AD. Have you checked your calendar lately?
Where have I said that theological laws keep changing.Yes. In the USA, we embrace the Rule of Law. Is the "law" all completed? Probably not. But I'd love to hear the response of a policeman who stops you - noting that you were going 60 MPH in a 25 MPH zone (pointing to that big, white sign with the big black numerals and letters: "MAX SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH" and you replying, "the Rule of Law is moot because how do we know that in the year 2456, there might be a road here with the speed limit of 70 MPH?" How would the policeman respond? But it's moot - we're not having this discussion between 1400 BC - 100 AD when the corpus of Scripture was increasing. I think you know the year. Your "response" would have SOME relevance (however tiny) if you were a Mormon, but you aren't.
No. He used parables too. He also used himself, performing miracles.The only norma normans Jesus employed was Scripture.
This would be a valid analogy if the police officer and the person getting pulled over had equal interpretive authority of the rule of law.
Then in that case, if the person said, "I think the speed limit reads more like 75 instead of 50", then the police officer would have to let that person go because he could not bind their conscience either way as to a correct interpretation of the rule, because each of their opinions are equally valid.
I know, after all why would someone want to be part of the pillar and foundation of Truth if they can't even be 100% certain that they have the whole and entire Truth available to themselves? A book can't say "Hey, you're interpreting me correctly" but a learned and stable teacher guided by the Holy Spirit can.
hmm not sure...
He thought it very important:
But he said to him, If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.
He called it unbreakable!
If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
He used it to defeat the devil!
"It is written, ...."
He's my "shepherd"Is that scriptural, though?
Do you think it's Scriptural to expect God to lead us
into truth?
Do you think that He leads us?
No. He used parables too. He also used himself, performing miracles.Josiah said:The only norma normans Jesus employed was Scripture.
In many cases his teaching was himself.
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?