Originally posted by TheSkipperWell said.
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 ...[text shortened]... n the Bible is absolutely clear and concrete, however, speaks volumes about your own simplicity.
I think she is one of those Christians that suffer from a persecution complex. I'll bet this is her favourite verse :
Matt 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Originally posted by TheSkipperI never said I know everything that is in the Bible, nor have I said that my interpritaions are undisputable. I simply point out what I see is not taught in the Bible, and I also do not do any assumption to try and change the meaning of passages. I compare scripture to scripture to find the true meanings of passages. All I ask of people who want to teach something to be true is to make sure they are in fact sure it is true using scripture, instead of making assumptions and twisting scripture into what they were never ment for.
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 ...[text shortened]... n the Bible is absolutely clear and concrete, however, speaks volumes about your own simplicity.
Yes, God had people to write the Bible for him. However, the Lord can also keep those people from writting something that was not from Him. So if it is in the Bible then the Lord ment for it to be.
I will not compare Moby Dick to the Bible for Moby Dick was written by man from man, and man makes mistakes. The Lord is able to keep the men that wrote the Bible for him from making mistakes and writting something that does not need to be there. Granted, translations can have mistakes in them, however, we do have a way of going to the original writtings to see if the translation was wrong.
What says there is not one true understanding of the Bible? If there were not then the Bible would become void. There may not be one PERSON, other than Christ, that has the true understanding on all aspects of the Bible but that does not mean there is not one true understanding at all.
BTW, I have never suggested that it is a question of glancing at a passage to determine which tab to put in the slot. I said we have to study it with other parts of the Bible and pray for understanding.
Originally posted by duecerThank you duecer. I am glad I was wrong about why you posted, I appolagize.
No I thought he made a very good case. His answer was thoughtful, intelligent and well presented. He did a nice job of exegetical interpretation.
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)
Originally posted by Rajk999NO I did not say this site was for atheists and Christians that teach lies. Do not put words in my mouth. I said it was secular, meaning for anyone with anykind of view.
I see .. this site is for atheists and Christians that teach lies.
You are here to save our souls.
Tell you ? Incredible!!!
Originally posted by pritybettaJust 2 off the top of my head :
..... and I also do not do any assumption to try and change the meaning of passages. .....
1. You started a childish argument with DrScribbles about whether Christ was black or white. You even tried to twist certain passages about Christ having golden hear. Remember that? You argue like an fool.
2. You tried to convince me that a man must have one wife by twisting Pauls advice to deacons and bishops that they must have one wife. Again you make assumptions to suit whatever conclusion you want.
Worse .. You Lie about it after.
And there are more .. but you not worth the trouble.
Originally posted by Rajk999NO, again you are wrong about me. I do not suffer from a persecution complex, and my favourite verses are not those, though they are good ones.
Well said.
I think she is one of those Christians that suffer from a persecution complex. I'll bet this is her favourite verse :
Matt 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsel ...[text shortened]... for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Originally posted by pritybettaHere is what you said :
NO I did not say this site was for atheists and Christians that teach lies. Do not put words in my mouth. I said it was secular, meaning for anyone with anykind of view.
You 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.
The sentence is clearly comparing RHP with your Christian site. Therefore ... Your Christian site is not for those who teach lies implying that RHP is.
Originally posted by Rajk999You do remember I did say I was wrong when I thought the Bible said golden when it said white as wool?
Just 2 off the top of my head :
1. You started a childish argument with DrScribbles about whether Christ was black or white. You even tried to twist certain passages about Christ having golden hear. Remember that? You argue like an fool.
2. You tried to convince me that a man must have one wife by twisting Pauls advice to deacons and bishops that they ...[text shortened]... t.
Worse .. You Lie about it after.
And there are more .. but you not worth the trouble.
And I made no assumption to suit any conclusion. You are the one making assuptions on a man having more than one wife remember? You said that others can if they were not to be deacons and bishops, however, we are to follow the exampls of those who are leading us, if they are truly men of God.
I have not lied about anything on here, if I have please give me the link to my post where I have and quote me on it so I can see, and others can see also.
Originally posted by Rajk999No, it is not indicating that RHP is for those who teach lies, what I was pointing out is that the site I go to keeps those who do out, and this site does not. That does not mean this site is for those who teach lies, only more acceptable to them.
Here is what you said :
[b]You 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.
The sentence is clearly comparing RHP with your Christian site. Therefore ... Your Christian site is not for those who teach lies implying that RHP is.[/b]
Originally posted by pritybettaYou are sick in your head.
.. You are the one making assuptions on a man having more than one wife remember? You said that others can if they were not to be deacons and bishops, however, we are to follow the exampls of those who are leading us, if they are truly men of God.
I have not lied about anything on here, if I have please give me the link to my post where I have and quote me on it so I can see, and others can see also.
Paul states something specific to deacons and bishops.
I say it must be applied to deacons and bishops only.
You say it must be applied to all Chrisitans.
Who is making assumptions ? You or me ?
Originally posted by Rajk999Rajk999, with all due respect calling her sick in the head doesn't make your argument stonger, it just makes you look less tolerant
You are sick in your head.
Paul states something specific to deacons and bishops.
I say it must be applied to deacons and bishops only.
You say it must be applied to all Chrisitans.
Who is making assumptions ? You or me ?
Originally posted by pritybettaCan you give a link to that site?
No, it is not indicating that RHP is for those who teach lies, what I was pointing out is that the site I go to keeps those who do out, and this site does not. That does not mean this site is for those who teach lies, only more acceptable to them.
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioI am unclear about your point. Are you saying that 'brothers and sisters' could not mean cousins?
You do realize that this argument is really empty, right? I mean, it wasn't until St Jerome that
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 bec st about how they believe it
(as the note in the NAB is honest).
Nemesio
Yes, Jerome was the most prominent leader in the controversy over Mary's perpetual virginity. But he was not the first. In his treatise on perpetual virginity, he cites the works of other church fathers who were in agreement.
EDIT: I am not limiting myself to the idea that it could mean only cousin. As in Genesis 14:14, "brother" can even mean "nephew."
Originally posted by ZahlanziI have given my reasoning why it is ambiguous: it could refer to some family relation rather than maternal brother and sister. Hence, you no longer have a passage which proves that Mary had other children. As Catholics have a tradition which holds that Mary was a perpetual virgin, they can then dismiss these passages as uncontroversial because they could mean some other family relation.
nobody claims that. i just asked if there is a passage in the bible that suggests jesus had brothers because i thought there wasn't. there is such a passage. you say it is ambiguous and it doesn't have to mean mary's children. but then you must have something on which you base your claim that it is ambiguous. if you don't then both interpretations have equal chances of being valid.