you'll hate this thread, I guarantee it. (2)

[holo]

Tithing derives from giving a 'tenth'. I noted you'd dispute the amount. For me tithing is giving money to the Church. I gave you Biblical proofs. Your response is not to engage in discussion of those proofs, but to repeat your opinion 'no it's not'.

I'm still saying that supporting your church isn't tithing. You are free to call it that if you wish, just like you're free to call sunday the sabbath, but they're not one and the same. Sure, it appears like the practice of supporting your priest originated with the law about tenthing, but it isn't actually tenthing. That's all I'm trying to say. So when a lot of preachers refer to some sort of LAW to get people to give them a tenth of their income, they're getting it wrong.

The basis for giving money to the church is in the Bible. They gave this. I evidenced this.

And I never disputed it

No. In the NT people with-held money and Peter struck them down. If that's not a 'command' (based on that motivation) then I don't know what is.
In point of fact we're less commanded now to do so, because we don't face being struck down by the bishop for with-holding money.

I still don't see any law that I should give a tenth of my income to a priest. Or any other amount for that matter. I've neglected to give both to priests and to the poor many times (nowadays I prefer giving only to the poor as I'm not a member of a church at the moment), and God has never struck me down. But then again I've always been honest with the Spirit, and I believe the story about Ananias isn't about some amount of money, but about their hearts.

You said it did. I disputed this.

It does look like Paul supports it. But I don't think the bible as a whole supports it, at least not in the form we know it today.

Then you came up with the comment that any criticism that it did support slavery was easily refutable.

You got it the wrong way around
I mean that to use the bible to defend slavery, like they did in early America, is easily refutable. Unless, of course, you deny people to either read or interpret the bible for themselves.

Please make up your mind. Please evidence your statements.

# Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

1 Timothy 6:1
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.

Titus 2:9
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them

1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

 

[holo]

.

Tithing derives from giving a 'tenth'. I noted you'd dispute the amount. For me tithing is giving money to the Church. I gave you Biblical proofs. Your response is not to engage in discussion of those proofs, but to repeat your opinion 'no it's not'.

I'm still saying that supporting your church isn't tithing. You are free to call it that if you wish, just like you're free to call sunday the sabbath, but they're not one and the same. Sure, it appears like the practice of supporting your priest originated with the law about tenthing, but it isn't actually tenthing. That's all I'm trying to say. So when a lot of preachers refer to some sort of LAW to get people to give them a tenth of their income, they're getting it wrong.

The basis for giving money to the church is in the Bible. They gave this. I evidenced this.

And I never disputed it

No. In the NT people with-held money and Peter struck them down. If that's not a 'command' (based on that motivation) then I don't know what is.
In point of fact we're less commanded now to do so, because we don't face being struck down by the bishop for with-holding money.

I still don't see any law that I should give a tenth of my income to a priest. Or any other amount for that matter. I've neglected to give both to priests and to the poor many times (nowadays I prefer giving only to the poor as I'm not a member of a church at the moment), and God has never struck me down. But then again I've always been honest with the Spirit, and I believe the story about Ananias isn't about some amount of money, but about their hearts.

You said it did. I disputed this.

It does look like Paul supports it. But I don't think the bible as a whole supports it, at least not in the form we know it today.

Then you came up with the comment that any criticism that it did support slavery was easily refutable.

You got it the wrong way around
I mean that to use the bible to defend slavery, like they did in early America, is easily refutable. Unless, of course, you deny people to either read or interpret the bible for themselves.

Please make up your mind. Please evidence your statements.

# Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

1 Timothy 6:1
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.

Titus 2:9
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them

1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

 

[holo]

may I field this one?

I do not see a contradiction. It is viewpoints based on different points in time.

person "a" sees both criminals hurling insults. person "b" sees LATER, where the one has had a change of heart.

not proof positive, it doesn't say as much. However, very, very plausible.

Well, I agree that this is the most plausible explanation, but only if the bible can't give two conflicting accounts. I believe that it can.

I think it shows that different people witnessed the same things independently of each other, and from different viewpoints. IMO it makes the gospel accounts all the more credible, because it shows that they can't be the result of a conspiracy. Even when they were passed on from generation to generation, and the texts were copied over and over, they still didn't dare to change obvious contradictions like this.

The bible agrees with itself on the major points, and different writers/witnesses emphasise different things.

 

[holo]

.

may I field this one?

I do not see a contradiction. It is viewpoints based on different points in time.

person "a" sees both criminals hurling insults. person "b" sees LATER, where the one has had a change of heart.

not proof positive, it doesn't say as much. However, very, very plausible.

Well, I agree that this is the most plausible explanation, but only if the bible can't give two conflicting accounts. I believe that it can.

I think it shows that different people witnessed the same things independently of each other, and from different viewpoints. IMO it makes the gospel accounts all the more credible, because it shows that they can't be the result of a conspiracy. Even when they were passed on from generation to generation, and the texts were copied over and over, they still didn't dare to change obvious contradictions like this.

The bible agrees with itself on the major points, and different writers/witnesses emphasise different things.

 

[Montalban]

Holo, you said that the arguments that the Bible supports slavery are easily refutable. Is this still the case?

You both 'evidence' an argument that the Bible is for slavery and then in the same post say "It does look like Paul supports it. But I don't think the bible as a whole supports it, at least not in the form we know it today." (your evidence includes quote from Peter!). You didn't say this before, you've tried a slight of hand by now using modified terminology. Before you said
a) the Bible supported slavery
and
b) arguments it supported slavery were easily refutable.

You now change this to 'on the whole' and 'it does look like'.

You said that the Bible was erring on issues such as the earth being flat. I mentioned that there's 'poetry'. Suddenly you find yourself using this argument yourself. What point did you want to make?

Not only do you try a slight of hand with your argument, you neatly plagarise mine, taking on my argument as if it was yours all along.

 

[Montalban]

The same place they made icons.

So you're saying that the Pharisees venerated Mary? Where is this?

You are desperately stretching ,
Something can be in the bible, like rape is therefore "biblical", but that doesn't make it an approved practice.

The Bible itself doesn't say it approves of rape, anyway, so I don't understand your point. If you believe what you just said then the very fact it doesn't say "Go out and rape" shows you that it's not sufficient to rely on the Bible!

Show me where Jesus forbids one from marrying an 11 year old.

Verses having "something to do with tithing" do not establish & approve that Levitical law as a NT norm.

It's still not 'anti-Biblical', now is it? You've also shied away several days now from showing where the Bible says that it is the only thing you should be accounting for? (taking heed of, if you will).

The slavery Paul addressed was voluntary or financialy caused, not racist imperialism. Slavery then & there was not what we think of as slavery here at the end of the 21st century.

Paul doesn't support it. He's giving directions to those who are already in the binds of slavery. It's like if I wrote to a person who murdered someone and was in jail and said "This is to give you comfort that God still wants to love you", and then someone like Holo saying "Montalban supports murder!"

Paul is not 'supporting' the instituion. No where does he say "It is good to own slaves". He is giving comfort to those in slavery

The Bible doesn't even contain all of scripture

Which is, in fact, what I've been arguing!

, & yet IT is profitable for doctrine, IT is profitable for reproof, correction, & for instruction in righteousness . Nothing essential was left out.

What's 'essential'?

The Bible doesn't direct one to the knowledge that the Holy Spirit comes from God alone, or from God and the Son, as a kind of double procession. This 'essential' doctrine, in understanding the nature of the Trinity is not explicit.

By your logic then, you should now be able to tell me where Scripture says that only scripture should be relied upon, or more relied upon than the spoken word - given that you say that nothing essential was left out. So, it's either there, because it's essential. Or, it's not, because it's not 'essential'.

Balls in your court.

But like a lot of people here you're very good at asking questions, just not answering them.

 

[Montalban]

The same place they made icons.

So you're saying that the Pharisees venerated Mary? Where is this?

You are desperately stretching ,
Something can be in the bible, like rape is therefore "biblical", but that doesn't make it an approved practice.

The Bible itself doesn't say it approves of rape, anyway, so I don't understand your point. If you believe what you just said then the very fact it doesn't say "Go out and rape" shows you that it's not sufficient to rely on the Bible!

Show me where Jesus forbids one from marrying an 11 year old.

Verses having "something to do with tithing" do not establish & approve that Levitical law as a NT norm.

It's still not 'anti-Biblical', now is it? You've also shied away several days now from showing where the Bible says that it is the only thing you should be accounting for? (taking heed of, if you will).

The slavery Paul addressed was voluntary or financialy caused, not racist imperialism. Slavery then & there was not what we think of as slavery here at the end of the 21st century.

Paul doesn't support it. He's giving directions to those who are already in the binds of slavery. It's like if I wrote to a person who murdered someone and was in jail and said "This is to give you comfort that God still wants to love you", and then someone like Holo saying "Montalban supports murder!"

Paul is not 'supporting' the instituion. No where does he say "It is good to own slaves". He is giving comfort to those in slavery

The Bible doesn't even contain all of scripture

Which is, in fact, what I've been arguing!

, & yet IT is profitable for doctrine, IT is profitable for reproof, correction, & for instruction in righteousness . Nothing essential was left out.

What's 'essential'?

The Bible doesn't direct one to the knowledge that the Holy Spirit comes from God alone, or from God and the Son, as a kind of double procession. This 'essential' doctrine, in understanding the nature of the Trinity is not explicit.

By your logic then, you should now be able to tell me where Scripture says that only scripture should be relied upon, or more relied upon than the spoken word - given that you say that nothing essential was left out. So, it's either there, because it's essential. Or, it's not, because it's not 'essential'.

Balls in your court.

But like a lot of people here you're very good at asking questions, just not answering them.

 

[Montalban]

Just because we don't decide something and try to disregard it from the Bible, it doesn't mean its right.

Where in the Bible does it say you should only use the Bible?

 

[Montalban]

Just because we don't decide something and try to disregard it from the Bible, it doesn't mean its right.

Where in the Bible does it say you should only use the Bible?

 

[holo]

This is the very argument I put to you when you claimed the Bible was erring on the matter of a flat earth. That you would consider doing this speaks volumes about the mess your argument is, as you can't make up your mind what it is you want to argue.

Now you've simply assumed my argument. And what argument are you having now?

What a waste of time! You seem intent on arguing for its own sake, first this cause, then the opposite.

Another reminder; you evidence your statements and then ask me more questions.

And another note; this is another case of where you're attacking the Bible for being flawed, and yet you say you don't think it is. When you make up your mind what stance you wish to have, get back to me

I think we actually agree here, basically, but we word it differently, hence the misunderstanding. I'll try to explain what I mean again.

You seem to use "flawed" and "inerrant" in the exact same sense here. I don't. IF the bible was SUPPOSED to be factually inerrant about every single detail, then it would be flawed, because it's simply not 100% factually correct. But the bible ISN'T supposed to be factually correct about everything, so it's not flawed - it's correct for the purposes it's written for.

If we see the bible as a tool, for instance - if you tried to use a screwdriver as a hammer, the screwdriver itself would be faultless, but used as a hammer it would be a flawed tool.

The question is what we think the bible is. Do you think for example, like many other christians, that the bible is a sort of guide book or rule book? If so, why?

 

[holo]

This is the very argument I put to you when you claimed the Bible was erring on the matter of a flat earth. That you would consider doing this speaks volumes about the mess your argument is, as you can't make up your mind what it is you want to argue.

Now you've simply assumed my argument. And what argument are you having now?

What a waste of time! You seem intent on arguing for its own sake, first this cause, then the opposite.

Another reminder; you evidence your statements and then ask me more questions.

And another note; this is another case of where you're attacking the Bible for being flawed, and yet you say you don't think it is. When you make up your mind what stance you wish to have, get back to me

I think we actually agree here, basically, but we word it differently, hence the misunderstanding. I'll try to explain what I mean again.

You seem to use "flawed" and "inerrant" in the exact same sense here. I don't. IF the bible was SUPPOSED to be factually inerrant about every single detail, then it would be flawed, because it's simply not 100% factually correct. But the bible ISN'T supposed to be factually correct about everything, so it's not flawed - it's correct for the purposes it's written for.

If we see the bible as a tool, for instance - if you tried to use a screwdriver as a hammer, the screwdriver itself would be faultless, but used as a hammer it would be a flawed tool.

The question is what we think the bible is. Do you think for example, like many other christians, that the bible is a sort of guide book or rule book? If so, why?

 

[holo]

Where in the Bible does it say you should only use the Bible?

Good question. It boils down to a matter of faith, and choosing who to trust.

 

[holo]

Where in the Bible does it say you should only use the Bible?

Good question. It boils down to a matter of faith, and choosing who to trust.

 

[holo]

Holo, you said that the arguments that the Bible supports slavery are easily refutable. Is this still the case?

You both 'evidence' an argument that the Bible is for slavery and then in the same post say "It does look like Paul supports it. But I don't think the bible as a whole supports it, at least not in the form we know it today." (your evidence includes quote from Peter!). You didn't say this before, you've tried a slight of hand by now using modified terminology. Before you said
a) the Bible supported slavery

No, I said that Paul appears to support slavery.

b) arguments it supported slavery were easily refutable.

Yes, because seeing the ethics and values in the bible as a whole, I don't think you can defend stealing people and forcing them to work for you.

I've never meant anything different than that. I may have worded myself poorly earlier, or you may have misunderstood it. In any case, what you see above here is what I actually mean. If you wonder what I mean, or if it seems like I've changed my mind, ask me what I mean, don't tell me what I mean.

Can we please move on? What do YOU think? Do YOU think Paul supports slavery? Do you think the bible as a whole supports it?

 

[holo]

Holo, you said that the arguments that the Bible supports slavery are easily refutable. Is this still the case?

You both 'evidence' an argument that the Bible is for slavery and then in the same post say "It does look like Paul supports it. But I don't think the bible as a whole supports it, at least not in the form we know it today." (your evidence includes quote from Peter!). You didn't say this before, you've tried a slight of hand by now using modified terminology. Before you said
a) the Bible supported slavery

No, I said that Paul appears to support slavery. Paul isn't the bible. The bible isn't Paul.

b) arguments it supported slavery were easily refutable.

Yes, because seeing the ethics and values in the bible as a whole, I don't think you can defend stealing people and forcing them to work for you.

I've never meant anything different than that. I may have worded myself poorly earlier, or you may have misunderstood it. In any case, what you see above here is what I actually mean. If you wonder what I mean, or if it seems like I've changed my mind, ask me what I mean, don't tell me what I mean.

Can we please move on? What do YOU think? Do YOU think Paul supports slavery? Do you think the bible as a whole supports it?

 

[Uphill Battle]

.Well, I agree that this is the most plausible explanation, but only if the bible can't give two conflicting accounts. I believe that it can.

I think it shows that different people witnessed the same things independently of each other, and from different viewpoints. IMO it makes the gospel accounts all the more credible, because it shows that they can't be the result of a conspiracy. Even when they were passed on from generation to generation, and the texts were copied over and over, they still didn't dare to change obvious contradictions like this.

The bible agrees with itself on the major points, and different writers/witnesses emphasise different things.

I mostly agree with you. I just see it as conflict, not contradiction.

P.O.V. of each other must be taken in to account. You can have passages that conflict, and a reasonable explaination must be forwarded. Such as the repentant thief. However, I don't think I've ever found anything that CONTRADICTS.

 

[LogosRhema]

Where in the Bible does it say you should only use the Bible?

All scripture is God breathed and is useful teaching... etc You know the verse correct? Now if I sat you down and told you that one book was written by God and another by man, but it your choice what you want to believe. You tell me who you trust. I'm not saying JUST the Bible we should read, because there are people out there that have useful things to say, but infallible truth comes from the Word of God... my 100% trust is in it. All other word, unless it agrees CLEARLY with it, I can't consider Biblical Truth. Besides its clearly our guide, everything we need to know is in it. It only makes sense to use the Manual to live by.

 

[LogosRhema]

Where in the Bible does it say you should only use the Bible?

All scripture is God breathed and is useful teaching... etc You know the verse correct? Now if I sat you down and told you that one book was written by God and another by man, but it your choice what you want to believe. You tell me who you trust. I'm not saying JUST the Bible we should read, because there are people out there that have useful things to say, but infallible truth comes from the Word of God... my 100% trust is in it. All other word, unless it agrees CLEARLY with it, I can't consider Biblical Truth. Besides its clearly our guide, everything we need to know is in it. It only makes sense to use the Manual that was given unto man from God to live by.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

All scripture is God breathed and is useful teaching... etc You know the verse correct? Now if I sat you down and told you that one book was written by God and another by man, but it your choice what you want to believe. You tell me who you trust. I'm not saying JUST the Bible we should read, because there are people out there that have useful things to say, but infallible truth comes from the Word of God... my 100% trust is in it. All other word, unless it agrees CLEARLY with it, I can't consider Biblical Truth. Besides its clearly our guide, everything we need to know is in it. It only makes sense to use the Manual that was given unto man from God to live by.

1. This verse doesn't tell you which books are scripture- the Church told you that.
2. "All scripture" is not synonymous with "only scripture."
3. All scripture was written by men, though under the inspiration of God.

I happen to believe that many things are written and said under God's inspiration, not just scripture. The point is that scripture- the canonical scripture- is the ruler by which all other writings and sayings must be measured. Scripture is the straight edge of Truth. More appropriately, it is the Gospels through which even scripture must be understood.

But understood by whom? Individuals? Yes. But does the understanding of one establish what is the best shared understanding? Obviously not. And why is shared understanding important? Anyone?

 

[christianmomof3]

1. This verse doesn't tell you which books are scripture- the Church told you that. I agree.
2. "All scripture" is not synonymous with "only scripture."
I also agree with that.
3. All scripture was written by men, though under the inspiration of God. I agree again.

I happen to believe that many things are written and said under God's inspiration, not just scripture.
I agree with that too!
The point is that scripture- the canonical scripture- is the ruler by which all other writings and sayings must be measured. That is where I totally agree!
Scripture is the straight edge of Truth.

More appropriately, it is the Gospels through which even scripture must be understood. Not quite sure what you are getting at there.

But understood by whom? Individuals? Yes. But does the understanding of one establish what is the best shared understanding? Obviously not. And why is shared understanding important? Anyone?

I believe that there are three things that should be in agreement - First - The Bible - as you said, it is the ruler by which all other writings and sayings should be measured.
One problem though is - which Bible would you use?
The Protestants - or rather non- Orthodox and non-Catholics - use the 66 book Bible and the Orthodox and Catholics use Bibles that have more books than that. Therefore, some things that they say are supported by scripture are not supported by the scripture in the 66 book canon, but in books which the rest of us do not consider to be divinely inspired.
The other two things that should be in agreement are the church and our own personal sense from God.
We should not follow only one of those by itself. There are lots of nuts out there who think God is telling them to do stuff that is not in the Bible.