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

[holo]

I know you don't. All you do is say that you don't.

You've not argued why you think the verses I cited have nothing to do with tithing. You've had ample opportnity to, but you simply prefer to say "No it's not".

Based on your say so. The church took money from the community as it does today to support enterprises.

Most New Testament discussion serves to promote giving over tithing. 2 Corinthians 9:7 talks about giving cheerfully; 2 Corinthians 8:3 encourages giving what you can afford; 1 Corinthians 16:2 discusses giving weekly; 1 Timothy 5:18 exhorts supporting the financial needs of Christian workers; Act 11:29 promotes feeding the hungry wherever they may be; and James 1:27 states that pure religion is to help widows and orphans.

But none of that is tithing. There were actually several tithes, and they were part of the covenant God made with Israel. It has nothing to do with the new covenant that is by faith, and which is between God and all who believe (jews and gentiles alike). We can't just pick and choose commandments from the old covenant and apply them as we see fit.

BTW, Abraham didn't tithe, at least not in the way that is preached in many churches. There was one instance where he gave 10% of some spoils (not his own income or riches) to the priest Melchisedek.

And anyway, if I should try to copy the original way of tithing, it would be to use 10% of my income at restaurants and pubs, and giving some to the priests in town who have no income of their own;

Deuteronomy 14:26-27
Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice. And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no allotment or inheritance of their own.

Another of your trade-mark truisms

Don't you agree though? Everybody from Hitler to universalists are using the bible for "proof".

Refuted? Based on what? You claimed that Paul supported slavery, now you argue against this.

No, I don't argue that Paul doesn't support slavery. In fact it looks like he does support it! Or at least it seems like he accepts that it exists. Perhaps not what we usually think of as slavery (like in early America), but still.

Anyway, slave holders and racists would use bible verses to support their atrocities. For example, "what fellowship does light have with darkness" and so forth. That single verse could be used, of course, but if you hold it up against the bible as a whole, it doesn't really work. That's why slave holders would only allow the slaves to read the old testament, by the way. Restricting what scripture people are allowed to read is just one way to abuse the bible. Another is to get people to believe that they don't have the right or ability to understand it on their own - instead they must rely on some sort of church or clergy to interpret it for them - which obviously allows for (but doesn't necessarily lead to) a lot of abuse.

Then read the threads.
a) the Church put the Bible together.
b) the bible doesn't say it contains all of what Jesus said or did.
These are points I've made quite a bit

Yes, but they don't make me much wiser, because the Catholics, who disagree with you, are saying the exact same thing. It's kind of like saying "it's in the bible!" Well, yes, it is, but just because something is in the bible (like wars or slavery or circumcision) doesn't mean we should naturally do those things today.

But I agree with you that the church put the bible together and that the bible doesn't record everything Jesus said or did. But that doesn't mean the church recorded everything He said or did, either. And there's the question of which canon we should use. That's one area where I really can't offer any argument for or against any canon, as I haven't really studied that. Which canon do you use? Do you have a particular reason for using that?

Yes, you say it is flawed.

I say the bible does have errors, like the one I posted about the crucifixion (I haven't seen you reply to that, btw). That doesn't mean I reject it. I'm sure you've read christian literature, or heard priests, that you don't agree with 100%. That doesn't mean you reject them.

I don't reject any part of the bible. I interpret it differently than you do.

Anyway, I think it's perfectly natural to assume that the bible, written by people over thousands of years, by many different people, in many genres, in ages before people even knew that the Earth circles the sun and not vice versa, that it's not flawless. And indeed that it doesn't need to be, at least not about the less weighty matters. I think that if you claim that the bible is inerrant, the burden of proof is on you. Not that I need proof, I'm just curious about why you believe the bible is inerrant.

 

[holo]

There's a special unity though here amongst Protestants as all those who cherish the Bible have ignored Holo saying the Bible is flawed.

Actually, I'm not saying the bible is flawed. If the bible itself had claimed to be 100% flawlessly inerrant about absolutely everything it contains, then it would be flawed. But the bible doesn't say that. In fact, the bible doesn't mention the bible at all. It mentions the OT and certain letters, and if I'm not mistaken it also cites a book that is NOT in the canon.

The bible isn't "flawed" any more than a poem or a novel is "flawed". You just have to have the right idea about what the bible is.

 

[holo]

There's a special unity though here amongst Protestants as all those who cherish the Bible have ignored Holo saying the Bible is flawed.

Actually, I'm not saying the bible is flawed. If the bible itself had claimed to be 100% flawlessly inerrant about absolutely everything it contains, then it would be flawed. But the bible doesn't say that. In fact, the bible doesn't mention the bible at all. It mentions the OT and certain letters, and if I'm not mistaken it also cites a book that is NOT in the canon.

The bible isn't "flawed" any more than a poem or a novel is "flawed". You just have to have the right idea about what the bible is.

 

[holo]

What's the point. You say everyone can read into the Bible whatever they like. Why your interpretation of the Bible then is more valid than mine, if we can both eqaully interpret the Bible, is something known only to you.

Well, that's the whole point of this forum...

We have different interpretations, the discussion is about which interpretation makes the most sense.

If God were so unconcerned, I expect that this then is another part of the Bible that you can discard.

I don't discard any part of the bible. I interpet certain passages differently than you do.

Paul was obviously wrong to mention it

He wasn't wrong to mention it, but you are wrong to believe it applies to you. Just like you would be wrong to think the regulations about animal sacrifices applies to you.

The bible doesn't specifically say that "these regulations do not apply to Montalban", but it follows, as a matter of common sense and knowing the context.

He doesn't say it should only be for his time, and in point of fact he argued against 'cutlural' things such as circumcision. Where Paul says "Do this only for now" I don't know. I've not seen it.

He didn't say "these are instructions for the church for ever and ever" either. He wrote to different churches and individual people, addressing their individual issues. Paul didn't say that that how he preached to the greek was something that should be repeated forever and ever either. He quoted their pagan philosophers, but that doesn't mean we necessarily go about doing the same every time we talk to a greek person. Instead we hold it up against the big clear lines of the bible, let "scripture interpret scripture", use common sense, and conclude that it was an example of how one person did one thing in a certain time. A valuable lesson? Absolutely. An eternal rule? No.

You again offer no proof from the Bible... which you don't really believe anyway.

I believe the bible.

Your whole confused stance is one of contradiction and self-annihalating argument.

I'd appreciate it if you'd bother to answer my questions.

 

[holo]

You're not answering mine, so I don't see any reason to answer yours, you just go on asking.

You've not shown that Paul's particular direction on hair was cultural. Of course there were cultural things in his day - another of your many truisms.

I've told you why I believe they are cultural, and like I said, I'll be happy to elaborate on that if you want.

You may not agree with my conclusions, but you know what they are.

You've not answered several I've asked before you asked me that. All you did is say you're trying your best.

Actually, I did post the conflicing verses about the crucifixion. It's a long and untidy thread, so no suprise if you missed it. Here's the post;

Matt 27:44
In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

Luke 23:39-41
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"

But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."[ /I]

Surely you can see why I see that as a "bible error"? Even if you don't agree?

But anyway, now you know a little about why I believe the bible is NOT flawless. How about letting me know why you think it is?

But anyway, yes, I am trying to answer your questions. OK, you don't think the answers are good enough. So be it. Is that a reason for you not to answer mine?

You've also not acknowledged your mistake about tithes which I evidenced from the Bible.

I obviously won't "acknowledge my mistake" when I don't actually believe I am mistaken. I acknowledge that I disagree with you on certain things, like tithing. Everybody can "evidence" pretty much anything from the bible. The point is how we interpret the bible. For example, SDAs can "evidence" all sorts of stuff about the sabbath - the question is whether or not they're reading the bible the right way.

 

[holo]

You're not answering mine, so I don't see any reason to answer yours, you just go on asking.

You've not shown that Paul's particular direction on hair was cultural. Of course there were cultural things in his day - another of your many truisms.

I've told you why I believe they are cultural, and like I said, I'll be happy to elaborate on that if you want.

You may not agree with my conclusions, but you know what they are.

You've not answered several I've asked before you asked me that. All you did is say you're trying your best.

Actually, I did post the conflicing verses about the crucifixion. It's a long and untidy thread, so no suprise if you missed it. Here's the post;

Matt 27:44
In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

Luke 23:39-41
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"

But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."[ /I]

Surely you can see why I see that as a "bible error"? Even if you don't agree?

But anyway, now you know a little about why I believe the bible is NOT flawless. How about letting me know why you think it is?

But anyway, yes, I am trying to answer your questions. OK, you don't think the answers are good enough. So be it. Is that a reason for you not to answer mine?

You've also not acknowledged your mistake about tithes which I evidenced from the Bible.

I obviously won't "acknowledge my mistake" when I don't actually believe I am mistaken. I acknowledge that I disagree with you on certain things, like tithing. Everybody can "evidence" pretty much anything from the bible. The point is how we interpret the bible. For example, SDAs can "evidence" all sorts of stuff about the sabbath - the question is whether or not they're reading the bible the right way.

 

[holo]

Are you admitting your reasons were circular, or not?

We are all "circular" in our reasoning, sooner or later. Sooner or later it boils down to assumption. For example, what you know about astronomy you know because you assume the astronomers and textbooks are trustworthy and knowledgable. Of course we have good reason to believe that they are trustworthy, but we still have to make the assumption.

In a way, all knowledge is just different levels of assumption. Many christians I meet, for example, believe the bible is flawless. When asked why, it turns out that they're just assuming it to be. Some people have studied the bible and other scriptures and history etc, and have better grounds for saying that the bible is flawless. Others come to a different conclusion. But most of them are biased to begin with; either they assume from the beginning that the bible is flawless, or they assume that it's full of disrepancies.

So I'm asking you why you believe the things you believe. If you believe, for example, that the Orthodox church is inerrant, why do you believe that? If you believe the bible is flawless, why do you believe that?

To repeat myself from an older post;
Do you believe you are 100% flawlessly correct about everything you believe and that you can't possibly change your mind? No? Well neither do I. It's no more complicated than that.

 

[holo]

Incorrect interpretation.

And the correct interpretation would be...?

Not yours.

And the correct interpretation would be...?

 

[Uphill Battle]

And the correct interpretation would be...?

whatever the Roman Catholic church says it is. didn't you know?

 

[benedictaoo]

And the correct interpretation would be...?

Not yours... k? According to your logic, blowing someone's brains out with a riffle would be permitted just not beneficial.

 

[holo]

Not yours... k? According to your logic, blowing someone's brains out with a riffle would be permitted just not beneficial.

Well, yes, if you for some reason decide to see it from that extreme angle which has little to do with reality.

The point is, why don't you steal from people, for example? Because the law prohibits it? If so, you are only confirming that the law is for the wicked and ungodly. What are some things you do, or don't do, that are motivated by the law?

Personally, I can only say "amen!" to Paul's words that "we love because He loved us first." The law isn't my motivation for anything at all.

 

[holo]

Not yours... k?

No, that's not k, because I'm not asking what you think the wrong interpretation is, but what the correct interpretation is.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Not yours... k? According to your logic, blowing someone's brains out with a riffle would be permitted just not beneficial.

I've never seen a riffle before. Is it as deadly as a rifle?

and I would think that a church that supported the notion of a standing church army, wouldn't be as judgemental about the whole violence thing. Ah well.

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

I've never seen a riffle before. Is it as deadly as a rifle?

and I would think that a church that supported the notion of a standing church army, wouldn't be as judgemental about the whole violence thing. Ah well.

You know what a riffle is -- it's that thing we Protestants do in our churches to raise money!

Go Cards!

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

I've never seen a riffle before. Is it as deadly as a rifle?

and I would think that a church that supported the notion of a standing church army, wouldn't be as judgemental about the whole violence thing. Ah well.

You know what a riffle is -- it's that thing we Protestants do in our churches to raise money!

Go Cards!

 

[Koey]

Sure thing. Now we can get back to any Protestants showing me where Scripture says Scripture alone should be counted.

Let me put my 2 cents worth in there. Neither Catholics, nor Protestants, nor Orthodox are right on this issue. Protestants say sola scriptura, Catholics kowtow to the pope, and Orthodox seem to have a slightly more balanced view here with their idea that if it was not approved by an ecumenical council (i. e. Catholic so-called Ecumenical Councils were not truly ecumenical) then it cannot be right.

However, in all this we miss one big thing: Jesus told his disciples to teach what HE taught them. We do not find that in the councils, nor in the Protestant reformers' writings, but in the Gospels.

The main thing that ALL of us Christians need to focus on, make central, prioritize, is what Christ taught. After all, it is HE who is the Head of the Church, not the Pope, not the Magisterium, not the Archbishops, not the Protestant Demi-Popes, but Jesus.

Anything else, ANYTHING else, is a lesser, inferior, secondary, non-essential teaching. That would include just about EVERYTHING that divides us, one from another.

 

[Montalban]

But none of that is tithing.

Yes it is. Tithing is giving money to the church. They gave money to the church. What might be different is
a) how much they give
b) what the church uses it for.
But the BASIS of it is there in the NT. That's all I needed to establish. I've done this.

There were actually several tithes, and they were part of the covenant God made with Israel. It has nothing to do with the new covenant that is by faith, and which is between God and all who believe (jews and gentiles alike). We can't just pick and choose commandments from the old covenant and apply them as we see fit.

That's still ignoring that they gave money to the church.

BTW, Abraham didn't tithe, at least not in the way that is preached in many churches. There was one instance where he gave 10% of some spoils (not his own income or riches) to the priest Melchisedek.

irrelevant.

And anyway, if I should try to copy the original way of tithing, it would be to use 10% of my income at restaurants and pubs, and giving some to the priests in town who have no income of their own;

Irrelevant again. I established that they give money to the church in the NT and we still do.

Another example. They met and had prayers, and the Eucharist. We meet. We meet now in a church, and it, by tradition faces east, but although the 'east facing church' is not in the Bible the act of gathering together in community is. The basis for it is in the Bible.

Don't you agree though? Everybody from Hitler to universalists are using the bible for "proof".

You've said this time and again. I noted it's a truism

No, I don't argue that Paul doesn't support slavery. In fact it looks like he does support it! Or at least it seems like he accepts that it exists. Perhaps not what we usually think of as slavery (like in early America), but still.

Make up your mind. You said that the arguments that the Bible supported slavery are EASILY REFUTABLE. You can't make up your mind which stance it is you wish to take here.

Anyway, slave holders and racists would use bible verses to support their atrocities.

Back to a truism. Your argument is all over the place.

 

[Montalban]

Let me put my 2 cents worth in there.

Which still doesn't answer the question I put to you

However, in all this we miss one big thing: Jesus told his disciples to teach what HE taught them. We do not find that in the councils, nor in the Protestant reformers' writings, but in the Gospels.

No. Paul himself notes in the Epistles that he taught communities by Epistle, and by word of mouth.

The main thing that ALL of us Christians need to focus on, make central, prioritize, is what Christ taught.

Which simply assumes that we Orthodox don't

 

[Montalban]

Actually, I'm not saying the bible is flawed. If the bible itself had claimed to be 100% flawlessly inerrant about absolutely everything it contains, then it would be flawed. But the bible doesn't say that. In fact, the bible doesn't mention the bible at all. It mentions the OT and certain letters, and if I'm not mistaken it also cites a book that is NOT in the canon.

The bible isn't "flawed" any more than a poem or a novel is "flawed". You just have to have the right idea about what the bible is.

Yes, you claimed it had errors in it, such as a flat earth. Again you show you can't keep to one argument.

Unless you think that it's not flawed, but has errors in it?

 

[Montalban]

Well, that's the whole point of this forum...

I don't believe in lots of different valid truths. You both argue the NT is for, and against slavery. That the Bible is both got errors in it, but not flawed.

I don't discard any part of the bible. I interpet certain passages differently than you do.

No. You say that the thing with long hair is now irrelevant. You can't keep having both arguments

He didn't say "these are instructions for the church for ever and ever" either.

He didn't have to. By saying "Do this..." and offering no end date, it would be then presumptious to believe there was an end date

It would also suggest that the instructions given to Jesus weren't sufficient for us, because some how the rules don't now apply to us.

You must be expecting Bible 2.0 to come along.