Setting the Record Straight

[lesliedellow]

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Paul gives limited permission for natural theology. He certainly doesn't sanction "tradition" in the Catholic sense.

Thess. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

Paul was writing at a time when the ministry of Jesus was within living memory. He was not asking his readers to believe in traditions invented by the Vatican during the succeeding 2,000 years.

 

[miknik5]

The Bible said X, Jesus said Y. The people who killed Jesus went with X. That's what bible worship does to the brain. It's a fetishistic prison that incarcerates the mind.

Please supply the "X" and the "Y"

I would like an example of where the written WORD contradicted THE WORD made flesh

If you meant Matthew 5 where CHRIST said:

You have heard it said _________but I say to you


Remember HE would magnify THE LAW and name it honorable

 

[The Barbarian]

↑
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Paul gives limited permission for natural theology.

That's not what he says here. Why not just accept it as written?

He certainly doesn't sanction "tradition" in the Catholic sense.

His testimony is tradition in the Catholic sense. You're just not willing to accept all of it as it is.

Thess. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

[quotePaul was writing at a time when the ministry of Jesus was within living memory.[/quote]

And your scriptural source for declaring a limit on when tradition is acceptable is...? You seem to be arguing with yourself.

Do you have anything more than "this is where I'd like to draw the line because it fits my desires?" As you see, Sola Scriptura is directly refuted by the Bible itself.

 

[miknik5]

[

↑
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.



That's not what he says here. Why not just accept it as written?



His testimony is tradition in the Catholic sense. You're just not willing to accept all of it as it is.

Thess. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

[quotePaul was writing at a time when the ministry of Jesus was within living memory.

And your scriptural source for declaring a limit on when tradition is acceptable is...? You seem to be arguing with yourself.

Do you have anything more than "this is where I'd like to draw the line because it fits my desires?" As you see, Sola Scriptura is directly refuted by the Bible itself.

When you provide only a portion of the scriptures. In this case Romans 1 and Thessalonians 2, you distort what was truly said by the WORD

For example, with Romans, you implied that there will be those who by nature do the things that are required

Yet you don't tell the listener that Paul was making a point that none are justified by their own works

For as romans goes on to say:

GOD has turned all over to disobedience and that All mouths will be silenced and the whole world held accountable to GOD

So what can the Jew and the gentile bring before GOD that will justify them in HIS sight

Also in the letter to Romans we hear this:

To be just when HE judges and the justifier of all whose faith is in HIS SON


You are only picking verses out to justify your own personal stance that man"s input (traditions and teachings) are somehow needed to support one whose feet are already planted firmly on THE FOUNDATION of faith (which is CHRIST and HIM alone)

 

[Colter]

Please supply the "X" and the "Y"

I would like an example of where the written WORD contradicted THE WORD made flesh

If you meant Matthew 5 where CHRIST said:

You have heard it said _________but I say to you


Remember HE would magnify THE LAW and name it honorable

The Old Testament doesn't teach that God has a divine Son who is the creator of the earth. The Old Testament doesn't teach the Trinity.

Also, Jesus never taught anyone to stone people to death. He was very different than the OT concept of God.

 

[miknik5]

The Old Testament doesn't teach that God has a divine Son who is the creator of the earth. The Old Testament doesn't teach the Trinity.

Also, Jesus never taught anyone to stone people to death. He was very different than the OT concept of God.

You can't understand with your own mind unless you are born again

You're not born again

 

[miknik5]

And it wasn't until after CHRIST entered HIS GLORY that one would be born again

 

[AV1611VET]

The Old Testament doesn't teach that God has a divine Son ...

What's this then?

Daniel 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

... who is the creator of the earth.

What's this then?

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

The Old Testament doesn't teach the Trinity.

What's this then?

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Also, Jesus never taught anyone to stone people to death.

He made it clear why you can say that too.

John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

He was very different than the OT concept of God.

It's a dispensation thing.

We see 4000 years of God on the Old Testament, under all different conditions: in peacetime and war, being worshipped and blasphemed; being prayed to and ignored; etc.

By contrast, we see Jesus for three years under peace.

Lest you think He is a pacifist, I suggest you read the book of Revelation and get the full picture.

Jesus can be seen as the Psalm 23/Isaiah 53 Christ; or He can be seen as the Psalm 72/Isaiah 11 Christ.

Or in some severe cases: not at all.

 

[Colter]

What's this then?

Daniel 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.What's this then?

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:What's this then?

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:He made it clear why you can say that too.

John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.It's a dispensation thing.

We see 4000 years of God on the Old Testament, under all different conditions: in peacetime and war, being worshipped and blasphemed; being prayed to and ignored; etc.

By contrast, we see Jesus for three years under peace.

Lest you think He is a pacifist, I suggest you read the book of Revelation and get the full picture.

Jesus can be seen as the Psalm 23/Isaiah 53 Christ; or He can be seen as the Psalm 72/Isaiah 11 Christ.

Or in some severe cases: not at all.

The Jews had no concept of God having a Son. They rewrote the old fragments of pluralistic deity into monotheistic deity.

The bible is human, you belive God wrote it, so you will make excuses for its many errors.

 

[Colter]

You can't understand with your own mind unless you are born again

You're not born again

I was born again long ago, you are making excuses for inconsistency and error. The Jews still use scripture to reject Jesus. Jesus wasn't wrong, the scripture was.

 

[lesliedellow]

↑
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

That's not what he says here.

That is exactly what he says there.

Paul was writing at a time when the ministry of Jesus was within living memory.

And your scriptural source for declaring a limit on when tradition is acceptable is...?

My limit is the first couple of decades of the second century at the latest. After that, people who were in a position to know would no longer be alive, and don't give me any of that nonsense about tradition being passed down by word of mouth for the last 2,000 years.

 

[miknik5]

The Jews had no concept of God having a Son. They rewrote the old fragments of pluralistic deity into monotheistic deity.

The bible is human, you belive God wrote it, so you will make excuses for its many errors.

Who do you say He is?

Say it

So we can break it down and show you where your error is

 

[miknik5]

I was born again long ago, you are making excuses for inconsistency and error. The Jews still use scripture to reject Jesus. Jesus wasn't wrong, the scripture was.

Of whose SPIRIT?

(GOD's or CHRIST's)

 

[Colter]

Who do you say He is?

Say it

So we can break it down and show you where your error is

The Son of God, Judaism had/has no concept of God having a Son. But the mind of scripture fetish is dense and unteachable.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Jews had no concept of God having a Son. They rewrote the old fragments of pluralistic deity into monotheistic deity.

The Jews had no concept of God having a Son, yet they rewrote the 'old fragments.'

What am I missing here?

 

[Colter]

The Jews had no concept of God having a Son, yet they rewrote the 'old fragments.'

What am I missing here?

As Judaism evolved they eradicated pluralistic deity concepts. They also had a very difficult time believing that Melchizedek was an incarnate celestial who made the agreement with Abram. So they had God come down and talk with him directly.

 

[AV1611VET]

As Judaism evolved they eradicated pluralistic deity concepts. They also had a very difficult time believing that Melchizedek was an incarnate celestial who made the agreement with Abram. So they had God come down and talk with him directly.

Chicagoans were there?

 

[Colter]

Chicagoans were there?

If Judaism were to write another book today what would they do with Jesus?

 

[AV1611VET]

If Judaism were to write another book today what would they do with Jesus?

Completed Jews or Orthodox Jews?

 

[Colter]

Completed Jews or Orthodox Jews?

The ones that don't believe in Jesus, the Orthodox.