you'll hate this thread, I guarantee it.

[GenemZ]

And I'm trying to get you to show from Scripture where it says Scripture should be the ultimate judge

Which you've failed to do in sevearl days of posting here

Did Jesus many times say?

"This is how I think it should be."
​

Or?

"It is written."
​

Which?

 

[Montalban]

I do not see the word "prayer" anywhere in that passage.


.

Still waiting for you to cite where Scripture is the ultimate test for Christian truth

 

[Montalban]

Did Jesus many times say?

"This is how I think it should be."
​

Or?

"It is written."
​

Which?

That's still missing the point. I have no problem with Sctipure being a vessel for truth.

You've got to show it's the only test/ultimate test.

Which you've still avoided doing. I wonder why?

 

[Koey]

...a disconnect between what was, and is...looking in the bible, it is a very different picture. We are to imitate Christ, are we not?...

I feel almost exactly the same. Unlike you, I hope it offends so that people may reconsider what may be ancient traditions more in line those of the methods and traditions of the Pharisees than Christ, and modern fads more in line with those of false prophets than the Apostles.

Maybe the offense will produce some of the same thing that Jesus' purposeful offense of the Pharisees produced -- persecution from those who are only out to protect their power, and repentance in those who became Christians after the cross.

There is a HUGE disconnect between the Christianity of the Bible and traditional Christianity. Are not the logia, the sayings of Christ, the central teachings of Christianity? Are not many traditions and fads mere shadows, shams, counterfeits and in some cases even idolatrous substitutes?

 

[Montalban]

Don't worry genez, you're not the only one unable to answer this. Uphill Battle said scripture was not the reason he relied only on scripture, meaning that he has something 'else' OTHER THAN SCRIPTURE that tells him only to rely on Scitpure!


Crazy!

 

[E.C.]

There is a HUGE disconnect between the Christianity of the Bible and traditional Christianity. Are not the logia, the sayings of Christ, the central teachings of Christianity? Are not many traditions and fads mere shadows, shams, counterfeits and in some cases even idolatrous substitutes?

Define "traditional Christianity".

 

[Montalban]

I feel almost exactly the same. Unlike you, I hope it offends so that people may reconsider what may be ancient traditions more in line those of the methods and traditions of the Pharisees than Christ, and modern fads more in line with those of false prophets than the Apostles.

At least come up with some evidence. Where in scripture does it say "Only use scripture"?

There is a HUGE disconnect between the Christianity of the Bible and traditional Christianity. Are not the logia, the sayings of Christ, the central teachings of Christianity?

Where does it say they were all written down? In point of fact it's written down that they weren't all written down! (see last verse last chapter gospel of John)

Are not many traditions and fads mere shadows, shams, counterfeits and in some cases even idolatrous substitutes?[/COLOR]

Show that they are.

That's the only thing I'd take offence to. Someone entering the thread making generalisations about someone else's faith and offering no evidence.

oops! that's what you did! :o

 

[Montalban]

Define "traditional Christianity".

Indeed, it might suggest that we go against what Christians have always practiced!

 

[E.C.]

Indeed, it might suggest that we go against what Christians have always practiced!

What?

You mean... there was something before the Reformation?

"Nuts!"

 

[Montalban]

Jesus and the Apostles all taught without the Bible existing.

Paul did write to communities, but in his letters he tells them to keep to what he previously taught them, without reference to the Bible.

That document that we attribute to Paul existed with hundreds of other documents (see www.earlychristianwritings.com for a partial list). Up until the 300s no bible existed.

The Christian church existed, and spread without the Bible. They used the existing gospels, as well as the Epistles of Clement, Ignatius and others.

In the face of growing heresy the church decided to make on compilation of documents which we now call the Bible.

The Gospels and Epistles didn't 'authorise themselves' for even books such as the Acts of Peter claim to be genuine.

The church tested these book against what they always had taught; tradition.

The Holy Spirit saw fit to work within this non-Biblical church to help guide these bishops, deacons and priests in choosing those books.

Then they compiled the Bible

The Church created the Bible.

Protestants have to ignore everything that happened for 300 or so years and pretend that the Bible authorises itself. Or, they accept that the holy spirit worked with a church to compile the bible but ignore the fact that that same church believed the bread and wine to be the body and the blood of Christ, and that it lived a full liturgical life.

They ignore this because it sure beats explaining why the Holy Spirit worked with an 'apostate' church!

 

[GenemZ]

Still waiting for you to cite where Scripture is the ultimate test for Christian truth

Where in Scriptures does it say your church is the one true church?

 

[Montalban]

What?

You mean... there was something before the Reformation?

"Nuts!"

I'm sure there are people out there who believe the church began with Luther!

He took one book of the many that the church uses/used and said "This is the only book that we should test faith against" even though that very statement of faith is not found in that book. It fails its own test!


The whole basis of Protestantism is based on this flawed test for truth

There are people here like Uphill Battle who can't make up their minds if the divisions wihtin the Protestant community matter or not. He says both that it doesn't, but it's also 'sad' that they're divided. Why? Why would he be sad about something that doesn't matter to faith?

 

[Montalban]

Where in Scriptures does it say your church is the one true church?

Do you not get it? Wow!

Firstly, you've not met my challenge.

Secondly you would have me answer to your challenge which is based on the flawed premise that everything I believe must be written in the Bible in the first place.

You've not shown that it must be in the Bible! If you could do that, then your challenge to me would be valid.

You did the same thing to WarriorAngel a few days ago and I brought this up then.

Do you not get it? Obviously not!

 

[Montalban]

Was Paul's teaching valid only when it was written down?

 

[Rick Otto]

No, but it was finaly inarguable re: content. That gave it an extended shelf-life. Improved the expiration date.
Hi Monty,... everyone!
The "Annual March Sign-Demand Explosion" is taking off, so I might be scarce unless I get parked next to a terminal, feeding sheets of material onto my cuttin' machines here in the sign shop. It just got busy and I expect will geta little crazy before it levels off & then tapers down again next fall.

 

[Montalban]

No, but it was finaly inarguable re: content.

So he didn't need the NT then!

 

[Montalban]

No, but it was finaly inarguable re: content.

Hi Monty,... everyone!
The "Annual March Sign-Demand Explosion" is taking off, so I might be scarce unless I get parked next to a terminal, feeding sheets of material onto my cuttin' machines here in the sign shop. It just got busy and I expect will geta little crazy before it levels off & then tapers down again next fall.

genez had said that Paul, as an Apostle had a direct revelation from God, as a suggestion to explain why he didn't need the written word, but the Bible itself doesn't give this 'excuse'.

What do you believe?

 

[Rick Otto]

"the written word" includes the OT, correct?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I feel almost exactly the same. Unlike you, I hope it offends so that people may reconsider what may be ancient traditions more in line those of the methods and traditions of the Pharisees than Christ, and modern fads more in line with those of false prophets than the Apostles.

Maybe the offense will produce some of the same thing that Jesus' purposeful offense of the Pharisees produced -- persecution from those who are only out to protect their power, and repentance in those who became Christians after the cross.

There is a HUGE disconnect between the Christianity of the Bible and traditional Christianity. Are not the logia, the sayings of Christ, the central teachings of Christianity? Are not many traditions and fads mere shadows, shams, counterfeits and in some cases even idolatrous substitutes?

This is an appeal to opinion. Accoding to you there is HUGE- all caps- disconnect...but you nothing to rpove this.
Offensive? Not to me. Just get to the proof.

 

[Rick Otto]

As I remember, Paul had to undergo a couple yrs instruction before his 'semi-maverick' ministry, right?