1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI notice no mention of "blood sacrifice". And no specific mention of going from house to house. So it quite clearly could be seen as not "self evident from scripture" to another Christian. Does this disagreement, according to you, make whatever interpretation it is based on (and that differs from yours) a "self-certified opinion"?
It has as its basis a Biblical principle, mentioned by the apostle Paul in the book of
Hebrews,
(Hebrews 13:15) . . .Through him let us always offer to God a sacrifice of praise,
that is, the fruit of lips which make public declaration to his name. . .
notice the terms, sacrifice of praise and public deceleration, clearly Paul is drawing a the Most
High your vows;
These are not my opinions, they are self evident from scripture.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFOf course you dont because you have not read the entire book of Hebrews, where
I notice no mention of "blood sacrifice". And no specific mention of going from house to house. So it quite clearly would not be seen as "self evident from scripture" to another Christian. Does this disagreement, according to you, make whatever interpretation it is based on (and that differs from yours) a "self-certified opinion"?
Paul draws a parallel between blood sacrifices and the sacrifices of Christians,
(Hebrews 9:19-23) . . .he took the blood of the young bulls and of the goats with
water and scarlet wool and hyssop and sprinkled the book itself and all the people,
saying: “This is the blood of the covenant that God has laid as a charge upon
you.” And he sprinkled the tent and all the vessels of the public service likewise with
the blood. Yes, nearly all things are cleansed with blood according to the Law, and
unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place. Therefore it was necessary
that the typical representations of the things in the heavens should be cleansed by
these means, but the heavenly things themselves with sacrifices that are better
than such sacrifices.
and how else does one make a public deceleration except to the public. Acts 20:20
shows that the apostles clearly went from house to house declaring the Good News
of Gods Kingdom,
(Acts 20:20-21) . . .while I did not hold back from telling you any of the things that
were profitable nor from teaching you publicly and from house to house. But I
thoroughly bore witness both to Jews and to Greeks about repentance toward God
and faith in our Lord Jesus. . .
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePaul pointedly did not mention "blood sacrifices", though. And Paul did not equate "apostles clearly [going] from house to house declaring the Good News" with "blood sacrifice", certainly not explicitly and arguable not even implicitly. Anyway. The point being, if someone does not interpret these "parallels" and interpretations in the same was as you happen to, do you think you can somehow dismiss this difference of opinion as being a result of a "self-certified opinion" on the part of a Christian who happens to disagree with you?
Of course you dont because you have not read the entire book of Hebrews, where
Paul draws a parallel between blood sacrifices and the sacrifices of Christians,
(Hebrews 9:19-23) . . .he took the blood of the young bulls and of the goats with
water and scarlet wool and hyssop and sprinkled the book itself and all the people,
saying: “This i ...[text shortened]... itness both to Jews and to Greeks about repentance toward God
and faith in our Lord Jesus. . .
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWho are the Christians among the regular posters and which are not, according to you, on this forum?
Anything is possible however unlikely. If they fulfil the five Biblical principles that I
provided then they are Christians, not whether they belong to another religious
organisation or not, it has practically no relevance.