So, why is god punishing me?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Someone once told me that a person is very unsure of his own beliefs if he spends his time attacking and insulting someone else's beliefs.

LMAO that coming from you is very funny.

Originally posted by frogstomp
You sound just like the first inquisitor, Ireneus, of, course he, like you , knew not what he spoke of. None of the dogmatic church fathers really did, or else the religion wouldn't be so messed up.
The keys to the Kingdom are Christ's words and not anybody else's.

So you are an authority over scripture even more so than even the
Church fathers? Did not know you were that important or
knowledgeable! I guess God should have had you around at the
beginning to make sure those that God put there didn’t screw things
up they way you claim they are. You don’t think that your stand is
somewhat arrogant, that only you can rightly divide God’s Word, even
more correctly than those that walked with Christ and those that God
filled with the Holy Spirit?

I would also disagree with you on the state of God's church, there
is nothing wrong with it at all. Religion can be, and is messed up,
but that is man's doing not God.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you are an authority over scripture even more so than even the
Church fathers? Did not know you were that important or
knowledgeable! I guess God should have had you around at the
beginning to make sure those that God put there didn’t screw things
up they way you claim they are. You don’t think that your stand is
somewhat arrogant, that only you can ...[text shortened]... g with it at all. Religion can be, and is messed up,
but that is man's doing not God.
Kelly

Insofar as I dont interject my views into the message of Christ by claiming the Spirit inspired me: Yes, I probably do know more than the church fathers did, however there is only One authority,
and Paul wasn't Him.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Insofar as I dont interject my views into the message of Christ by claiming the Spirit inspired me: Yes, I probably do know more than the church fathers did, however there is only One authority,
and Paul wasn't Him.

Well your sources are different, I doubt you know more.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well your sources are different, I doubt you know more.
Kelly

Doubt all you want. Makes no difference to me since it's not me that you're doubting or Christ that you're affirming either.


edit: I have other things to do now : so I will have to tear myself away from the keyboard.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Doubt all you want. Makes no difference to me since it's not me that you're doubting or Christ that you're affirming either.


edit: I have other things to do now : so I will have to tear myself away from the keyboard.

What is there to doubt, you have your brain and your logic, and they
were being led by the Spirit of God, completely different sources for
truth.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If all God is, is a matter of study, any god would do would they not?
Kelly

Absolutely not. Not if you want to claim The Truth, as your brother dj2 has done.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of what possible difference to this topic does it make WHY the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution thought a Supreme Court would be useful? The point is they made the Supreme Court the ultimate authority on what the Constitution means. Not my law professors.

Obviously, if someone believes in a Supreme Diety and further belie ...[text shortened]... were just as authoritative as the US Supreme Court.

Please respond on topic this time.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of what possible difference to this topic does it make WHY the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution thought a Supreme Court would be useful? The point is they made the Supreme Court the ultimate authority on what the Constitution means. Not my law professors.

Oh dear, you're mixing up the analogies (there are two of them - one dealing with the role of Paul as a teacher and the other with his authority).

Why the people felt a Supreme Court would be useful in interpreting the Constitution provides you [part of] the answer to why an interpreting authority is needed for God's message to us as well.

Obviously, if someone believes in a Supreme Diety and further believes that said Supreme Deity walked on Earth and preached, his words must logically be the ultimate authority.

Of course. Do you see me disputing? 🙂

That idea that some other individual word's would be held equal in importance to God's is absurd.

Surely the concept of 'delegating authority' is not new to you?

The fact that he said he was speaking with God's authority is no more convincing as proof then if Professor Moriarty (actual law school professor) said his words were just as authoritative as the US Supreme Court.

You missed the point of the verse (I'll highlight it better next time). You asked why Christians felt Paul's teachings would be useful. That's what the verse talks about (of course, the Paul himself is talking about the OT, but the principle is the same).

Please respond on topic this time.

I have been on topic all along. Perhaps I should slow down while you catch up?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Like which argument ? I can safely say the the Summa Theologica doesnt once mention the U.S. Supreme Court.

Paul : Christ words :: Law professors : Supreme Court rulings

It might be possible for a Law professor to have a better understanding of the Constitution than the Supreme Court does ,,, but it ain't possible that Paul had ...[text shortened]... st's message than Christ did.

edit 3 ... I need a proof reader to eliminate my typos

Originally posted by frogstomp
Like which argument ? I can safely say the the Summa Theologica doesnt once mention the U.S. Supreme Court.

No, but it does talk about kinds of analogies. Read it sometime; it's fascinating.

Paul : Christ words :: Law professors : Supreme Court rulings

It might be possible for a Law professor to have a better understanding of the Constitution than the Supreme Court does ,,, but it ain't possible that Paul had a better understanding of Christ's message than Christ did.

No one's claiming he (Paul) did. But we are asserting that Paul had a better understanding of Christ's message than we do.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b/]Originally posted by no1marauder
Of what possible difference to this topic does it make WHY the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution thought a Supreme Court would be useful? The point is they made the Supreme Co ...[text shortened]... on topic all along. Perhaps I should slow down while you catch up?

You're wasting my time and you don't understand the US Constitution. The people did not choose to have a Supreme Court because they believed the Supreme Court would be better able to interpret the Constitution than anybody else; they choose to have a Supreme Court because an authority was necessary to resolve legal disputes. I ask one more time and please answer or I'm done with your circular arguments; why is Paul a better interpreter of your religion than anyone else (who made him a "law professor" to use your analogy?)? And who made Paul an authority on Jesus' words more than anybody else (who appointed him to the "Supreme Court" to use your second analogy?)?

EDIT: Perhaps you could lose the snottiness as well; it's not terribly "Christian".

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're wasting my time and you don't understand the US Constitution. The people did not choose to have a Supreme Court because they believed the Supreme Court would be better able to interpret the Constitution than anybody else; they choose to have a Supreme Court because an authority was necessary to resolve legal disputes. I ask one more time and ple ...[text shortened]... ogy?)?

EDIT: Perhaps you could lose the snottiness as well; it's not terribly "Christian".

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're wasting my time and you don't understand the US Constitution.

As I said before, no one's forcing you to post here.

The people did not choose to have a Supreme Court because they believed the Supreme Court would be better able to interpret the Constitution than anybody else; they choose to have a Supreme Court because an authority was necessary to resolve legal disputes.

I thought you said it was merely useful; now you say it was necessary.

One of the main functions of Paul's Epistles is precisely that - dispute resolution. But, just as the SC does not simply resove particular cases and leave it at that, but also elaborates on general constitutional principles, so does St. Paul.

I ask one more time and please answer or I'm done with your circular arguments; why is Paul a better interpreter of your religion than anyone else (who made him a "law professor" to use your analogy?)?

Simply because, along with the Twelve, he received the direct General/Public Revelation of God.

And who made Paul an authority on Jesus' words more than anybody else (who appointed him to the "Supreme Court" to use your second analogy?)?

God Himself.

EDIT: Perhaps you could lose the snottiness as well; it's not terribly "Christian".

Perhaps when you decide to tone down the [abusive] ad hominems and decide to debate like an adult. After all, you don't see the "snottiness" in my discussions with Nemesio or bbarr, do you?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by frogstomp
[b]Like which argument ? I can safely say the the Summa Theologica doesnt once mention the U.S. Supreme Court.

No, but it does talk about kinds of analogies. Read it sometime; it's fascinating.

Paul : Christ words :: Law professors : Supreme Court rulings

It might be possible for a La ...[text shortened]... ut we are asserting that Paul had a better understanding of Christ's message than we do.

1)Post your own views and I will debate them, I don't feel at all inclined to debate a dead man.

2)and that assertion is what brought the Error into Christianity.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b/]Originally posted by no1marauder
You're wasting my time and you don't understand the US Constitution.

As I said before, no one's forcing you to post here.

The people did not choose to have a Supreme Court ...[text shortened]... he "snottiness" in my discussions with Nemesio or bbarr, do you?

Paul said he received direct revelatory information from God and you accept this. Paul said he was granted authority by God and you accept this. The argument is circular.

Case closed.

Originally posted by KellyJay
What is there to doubt, you have your brain and your logic, and they
were being led by the Spirit of God, completely different sources for
truth.
Kelly

So little do you know about the Spirit , it's actually depressing that to read your words. Christ knew, maybe Paul did but that's a big maybe. Read Christ's words until you understand them and you will find that you have no need for the peanut gallery.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Paul said he received direct revelatory information from God and you accept this. Paul said he was granted authority by God and you accept this. The argument is circular.

Case closed.

Actually, I accept it because the Apostles accepted it. And they certainly did receive direct Revelation from God.