Originally posted by pritybetta
Believing that Jesus Christ is the Lord is in the Bible, therefore it is Biblical not a tradition.
You can't even read your own quotation without bias:
kurios
koo'-ree-os
From kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.
Note that one definition is 'God,' but that other definitions are, 'master, sir' and most notably
the respectful title of 'Mr.' Not conclusive.
You quoted this passage: Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one. Conveniently, you left out the
previous verse, which reads: My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no
one can take them out of the Father's hand. This indicates a hierarchy, that Jesus is
subject to the Father, not equal. What verse 30 indicates in context is that God and Jesus are
of one mind, that the actions of Jesus are as the actions of God.
Compare my interpretation (based on the context of Jesus' speech) with Jesus' rebuke in St Mark
10:18, which reads: Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. This clearly
indicates in Jesus' own words the distinction between Jesus and God.
It is a Creedal tradition that Jesus is Divine (and that's fine; you can believe whatever you want),
not a Biblical one. You can extract the odd quote here and there out of context to try to justify
that position, but it's not substantiated by the bulk of the text.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the [b]Word was God. [/b]
I will address this passage, too. The 'Word' in the Greek is 'Logos' which means more than
'word' or even 'Word.' It's a philosophical notion meaning something like the 'wisdom of the
nature of things/being.' It's more complicated than that, but it's not simply 'Word' (just to be
clear).
But you will notice that you are merely inferring that Jesus = Word, which is not stated anywhere
until verse 14. Your translation undoubtedly reads something like 'And the Word became flesh
and made his dwelling among us....' This is a dubious translation. The Greek actual reads, 'And
the Word enfleshed and tabernacled among us.' Note what this changes, that the Word
which comprises God's being was enfleshed and tabernacled within the body of an
individual. This is very different than saying that the Word is this individual.
I prophesy that you will ignore the content of this post either wholesale or just regurgitate another
50 misquoted passages from the Christian Scriptures.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Conrau KYou do realize that this argument is really empty, right? I mean, it wasn't until St Jerome that
A "brother" is not necessarily a consanguineous brother. These brothers could be step-brothers (Joseph's previous children) or cousins (as I understand, Palestine had different familial notions. They did not have a precise terminology for familial relations that distinguished brothers, half-brothers, step-brothers, and cousins.)
this issue about 'brothers and sisters' became relevant. It's clear from the citations of the
Church Fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries that there was no question that the readers took
'brothers and sisters' to mean exactly what they said. It was only because of the developing
theology about Mary's virginity (first, that she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, next
that she remained a virgin after Jesus, next that her hymen wasn't broken during the birth process,
and so forth). This notion of 'step-brothers' and 'cousins' is wholly spurious. Even the NAB, the
official Roman translation of the Bible, admits that the 'question of meaning [for brother] would not
have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary's perpetual virginity, and that Sts Mark
and Matthew 'may have understood the term literally.' (This can be found in the note to St
Mark 6:3, incidentally). The interpretation as 'cousin' or whatever is a backwards formation;
it starts with the dogma and then reconciles the text to it.
Again, I don't care what people believe, just that they are honest about how they believe it
(as the note in the NAB is honest).
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesioexcellent post, very wel thought out, I disagree with you about the divinty of Christ , but the rest seemed spot on.
Originally posted by pritybetta
[b]Believing that Jesus Christ is the Lord is in the Bible, therefore it is Biblical not a tradition.
You can't even read your own quotation without bias:
[i]kurios
koo'-ree-os
From kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lor ...[text shortened]... misquoted passages from the Christian Scriptures.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by Conrau KWhat exactly are those beliefs and practices that were not written down and that existed in the apostle's communities? I know of none, except those the apostles had written to them to stop doing. And why would they write something they didn't believe in or practice? Just because a community did somethings does not mean the true believers did them. You can only authenticate what the community did and believed, not what a few from that community did or believed, so no, we would not have a second authority.
I have given two objections to epiphinehas' biblical criteria, which apply to you as well. My first is, if you give authority to the apostles who wrote the scriptures (which is a controversial claim), then shouldn't you also give authority to the beliefs and practices which existed in their communities but of which they did not write about? What is so more ...[text shortened]... role is only as intercessory who, closer to God, can pray on behalf of those alive.
"What I am getting at is that scripture is not self-validating, we must refer to outside authorities to validate it."
I am sorry, but outside authorities are man made, I will only put my trust in the Lord. Do you really believe that the Lord would let his children believe in something that is not true? Wouldn't you think he had the power to make sure his children know what is true and what is from Him? The Lord does not contradict himself. I believe the NT is divinely inspired because it does not contradict its self nor does it contradict the OT.
I never said they believed Mary was a redeemer, I said they believed she contributed to removing sin and redeeming. They teach that in their church and it has no Biblical standing. She gave birth to Jesus' physical body, that does not mean that she is the mother of God for the Lord was here long before she was. And how would her faith or lake of faith have anything to do with Christ's redemption? Christ could still have gave us redemption even if Mary didn't have faith. He was not bound by anything nor anyone to be able to do his work. Furthermore, the Catholic church teaches this only because a Pope claimed it to be true? That is also another problem I have with them, they rely on a man more than the Lord.
Why is there so much fuss over having Mary as one of the view points in their church? Is it because they originally worshiped the sun goddess and when the Gospel reached them they didn't want to abandoned their beloved goddess? They try to make Mary seem more and more like her.
How can men that have died pray? Others, here that are alive, can help someone with prayer, but how can those who have died pray or even hear prayers?
Originally posted by ZahlanziMat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
what do you mean by biblical? because if by biblical teachings you mean teachings supported by the bible there are quite a few that are doozies, including slavery, death sentencing and more.
However, she had no virginal body for she had other children by Joseph.
where in the bible does it say this? don't get me wrong, by logic she must have had children ...[text shortened]... pretation. are you more christian than the catholics because you are right and they are wrong?
Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
The Bible determines what is false teachings and what is not. On that chat site, if someone comes in claiming something to be true, the Mods go to the Bible and study on it to see if it is true or not. Then when they have determined it is not true, they explain to the person who made the claim why it is not and if they continue to promote it they will be removed.
And no, the Catholics do not base their faith on certain interpretations, they base their faith on outside influences.
Originally posted by Conrau KThere goes assumptions again just because you don't want to believe in something that is clearly stated in the Bible.
A "brother" is not necessarily a consanguineous brother. These brothers could be step-brothers (Joseph's previous children) or cousins (as I understand, Palestine had different familial notions. They did not have a precise terminology for familial relations that distinguished brothers, half-brothers, step-brothers, and cousins.)
Originally posted by epiphinehasThank you epiphinehas.
[b]...if you give authority to the apostles who wrote the scriptures (which is a controversial claim), then shouldn't you also give authority to the beliefs and practices which existed in their communities but of which they did not write about?
No. First of all, nobody gives authority to the apostles who wrote the scriptures except God. Second, ...[text shortened]... ture is also derived from those traditions. The NT must be and is self-validating.[/b]
I would also like to point out that I agree with you on your second statment about some Catholics may very well be born again. I just pray they come out of that church.
Originally posted by NemesioI can explain this better if you'd like on another thread, however, like it was pointed out, we do not want this one to go off course. 😉
Originally posted by pritybetta
[b]Believing that Jesus Christ is the Lord is in the Bible, therefore it is Biblical not a tradition.
You can't even read your own quotation without bias:
[i]kurios
koo'-ree-os
From kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lor ...[text shortened]... misquoted passages from the Christian Scriptures.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by duecerduecer. Forgive me if I am wrong, which I hope I am, but did you only replied to him because you wanted to me look bad. I only ask because you have posted like this before and it seems this is the only reason why. I really hope I am wrong, however, our history has not been that great between us. I hope that can change.
excellent post, very wel thought out, I disagree with you about the divinty of Christ , but the rest seemed spot on.
Originally posted by pritybettaFortunately RHP is far more tolerant & forgiving than your so-called Christian Chat site. Someone like you, would have been removed from this site had we followed their Pharisical rules. Most people have caught you talking rubbish, then corrected you, and yet you kept on giving nonsensical reasons why you are right. Just me alone, the least knowledgeable of the posters here have caught you several times with your panties down, parading your shame for all to see.
..... if someone comes in claiming something to be true, ...... they explain to the person who made the claim why it is not and if they continue to promote it they will be removed....
Originally posted by pritybettaThats pathetic ... if you want to beg for Duecer's support, send the guy a PM. Dont do it publicly. I dont think he is looking for friends though.
duecer. Forgive me if I am wrong, which I hope I am, but did you only replied to him because you wanted to me look bad. I only ask because you have posted like this before and it seems this is the only reason why. I really hope I am wrong, however, our history has not been that great between us. I hope that can change.
Originally posted by Rajk999You forget that this site is secular. The site I attend is not, it is for believers and those who are truly seeking, not for those who play the "convence me of God" game nor for those who teach lies.
Fortunately RHP is far more tolerant & forgiving than your so-called Christian Chat site. Someone like you, would have been removed from this site had we followed their Pharisical rules. Most people have caught you talking rubbish, then corrected you, and yet you kept on giving nonsensical reasons why you are right. Just me alone, the least knowledgeable of ...[text shortened]... s here have caught you several times with your panties down, parading your shame for all to see.
Tell me what it is that I have said that is rubbish? No one has corrected me with indisputable proof. If they have then I would have been glad to hear truth.
Originally posted by Rajk999I posted to him openly because he has posted like this openly. If his intentions are not what I feel they are then he can show they are not openly for other to see.
Thats pathetic ... if you want to beg for Duecer's support, send the guy a PM. Dont do it publicly. I dont think he is looking for friends though.
Originally posted by pritybettaNo I thought he made a very good case. His answer was thoughtful, intelligent and well presented. He did a nice job of exegetical interpretation.
duecer. Forgive me if I am wrong, which I hope I am, but did you only replied to him because you wanted to me look bad. I only ask because you have posted like this before and it seems this is the only reason why. I really hope I am wrong, however, our history has not been that great between us. I hope that can change.
I did however disagree with his assertation that Christ is not divine.
(I appreciate a well thought out and explained point of view, even when they disagree with my own)
Pritybeta,
I’m hoping I can help you understand why you seem to be running up against so much resistance in this forum even from other Christians. You keep saying things like “I only believe what is in the Bible” and “If it isn’t biblical then it is a false teaching” and so forth. The point everyone is trying to make is that it is not always easy to determine what the Bible is trying to say and/or what it means. You are looking for authorial intent (even worse, you’re looking for authorial intent once removed since God had people write the Bible for Him).
Take for instance, Moby Dick, one of the greatest pieces of American Literature ever…perhaps THE greatest. Experts have been debating exactly what Melville meant by certain passages in that book for decades and it was written only 150 years ago. Because, not unlike the Bible, Moby Dick is a complex and rich narrative that is engaging and insightful…it is rich in layers and can have numerous meanings to different readers. The bottom line is we can’t agree on authorial intent for Moby Dick in all instances, and the book is better for it.
Now, take the Bible, written a couple thousand years ago by multiple authors over a span of centuries. Since it is not simply a list of do’s and don’ts it must be studied to determine its meaning. Biblical scholars have studied and debated certain aspects of its meaning for eons. To simply claim you have (or have access to) the one true understanding is extremely brazen and borderline nuts because there simply isn’t one true understanding. The authors of the Bible did not write a television manual, they wrote a very valuable piece of literature the importance of which is certainly debatable. Your suggestion that it is simply a question of glancing at a particular passage to determine which tab to put in which slot is insulting to those of us that have actually studied the text and possess even the slightest degree of nuance and critical thought.
The fact is, you do not have the true and final understanding of the Bible, and neither do any of your friends. It is that simple!! Your continued insistence that everything in the Bible is absolutely clear and concrete, however, speaks volumes about your own simplicity.