Do you understand the New Testament

[AK4]

I don't feel I understand Christianity, let alone the new testament.

The best way to understand christainity is to take their doctrines and put them up against all the scriptures and see if contradicts any one of them. On the surface traditional, mainstream christainity holds little truth, but the more you scrutinize their doctrines to scripture the more you see how theologians and the “church” created many false doctrines. The churches and theologians has confused many and it does really take a miracle to have their teachings erased from your mind. If you can get away from their doctrines it becomes sooooooooooo much easier to understand

 

[sojourner]

Four's a crowd, man.

This is quite obviously a threesome.

Menage au quatre???

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Menage au quatre???

Nope.

No camera - no action.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you can get away from their doctrines it becomes sooooooooooo much easier to understand

Yes - it's easier to just make up whatever you want.

 

[AK4]

The Church is the final authority, because it's Church that's the Body of Christ. The Church has always been the final authority, because it was the Church who wrote the NT and created the Bible, as we have it now. Before there were gospels, there was the Church who told stories and taught lessons. Whiile the texts are foundational, they are not the foundation. Sola scriptura was a knee-jerk reaction of reformation leaders to the authority of the Church. That's all.

The church huh? I believe the Word say Christ is the head and the head of Christ is God. Now the true church, you know the called out of the called out, the ones who have the Spirit of God in them, will be the channel in which God and Christ would "make the rules". With that being said, which church would be the right church? Catholicism, Protestantism, or any of the other ism's or ist's out there? Which is right? They all are full of false doctrines. These churches, oh dont forget judaism, all brought in false doctrines. Would you like me to list them? Im only allowed like 11,000 characters per post you know. The church brought up the doctrine of hell, Is it the final authority because it says it exists? What about the trinity? I believe they say if you dont believe in the trinity you are not a christain. What about tithing? the church is what has corrupted the Word of God. Why do you think they are addressed by Jesus in Revelations? The church you idolize despise the Word of God to keep their traditions and doctrine of demons. It amazes me on your ignorance of this since you THINK you are so well educated.

Matthew, at least, is. The birth narrative, for example, is clearly midrashic, because it wraps the OT prophecies in a narrative story about those prophecies. A midrash is a retelling of the story that's being talked about. Which is what Matthew does, explaining the prophecies and the Law.

Obviously you skimmed that article and "exegesis-ed"it and since it dont meet up with your god--the god of context--you disagree with it and despise it too.

As you have proven here, visions and dreams are no substitute for solid scholarship. Shoot, you even bow to scholarship by providing the bit fromt he article (above). Do you think these guys sat around dreaming and "having visions?" No. They did their homework. That their homework was done poorly, with a biased agenda is of no consequence. That merely shows that you either 1) also have a bias and an agenda, or 2) don't care enough, or know enough to screen who you're quoting as an "authority."

Did i say to disregard all "scholarly" work? I believe i said it can sometimes help in understanding and sometimes it can harm. Exaclty what Jesus told the scribes and pharisees.

There is only one authority i go by and that is God and His Word.

Truly, if "dreams and visions" are enough, why bother to post the article???

Ignorant statement

That depends entirely on what you do with the information -- not the information itself.

Right. So if "the church" and theologian provide me with unscriptural heresies or try to "teach" me unscriptural and agenda based ways of "rightly dividing the Word" then i will dump that info.

Good idea. Some Jews can get pretty irate when they're bashed.

I COULDNT care less about what they or someone else think about me. If someone think i am bashing them because i show them truth then tough tooty fruity. The pharisees didnt like it either when Jesus and did this too. Niether did they like Stephen.

I don't suppose you know that exegesis is an exercise in "searching the scriptures?" I've done the exegesis ... and found that the things you claim are not so.

You may have done it but your methods are flawed

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is only one authority i go by and that is God and His Word.

Don't you mean your own (authority)?

 

[AK4]

Yes - it's easier to just make up whatever you want.

Yet scripturally none of you can prove me wrong.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yet scripturally none of you can prove me wrong.

What devestating arrogance.

I assume then that you're practically perfect in every way, without need of any clarificaton or correction?

 

[AK4]

What devestating arrogance.

I assume then that you're practically perfect in every way, without need of any clarificaton or correction?

Not in the least bit. If i am wrong, show me scripturally, not by opinion. Show me where i contradict anything in the WHOLE CONTEXT (precept/meaning/plan) Word of God.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not in the least bit. If i am wrong, show me scripturally, not by opinion. Show me where i contradict anything in the WHOLE CONTEXT (precept/meaning/plan) Word of God.

But you've already said that it can't be done.

Don't you already know the WHOLE CONTEXT anyway? (If you did, that would be quite impressive)

Adding to this expansive knowledge base, it would be useful to add the definition of arrogance.

The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/arrogance

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I humbly suggest that anyone trying to prove me wrong about anything that I make up about the Bible would have quite a difficult time.

And they would have to use my intepretative methods, that I have unquestionably mastered.

Good luck, chumps.

EDIT: You smart-aleky scholars must answer in Greek poetry in the style of Euripides.

 

[AK4]

But you've already said that it can't be done.

Don't you already know the WHOLE CONTEXT anyway? (If you did, that would be quite impressive)

Adding to this expansive knowledge base, it would be useful to add the definition of arrogance.

Quote:
The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/arrogance

LOL. Thats funny. So you saying to bury someone in scripture is overbearing when you are proving a point. If this wasnt about religion and instead lets say a court this would be good thing right? to bring in as much evidence as possible. Its crazy how the rules change for defending the Word of God. I am but a worm and nothing else. I know it is even pointless to debate what i know with anyone. If it makes you feel good that you can apply this word to me, so be it.


I also said correct me if am wrong, which is an admission that maybe there is a possiblity. In no way do i say i know it all. There is alot more stuff in scripture that God will reveal to man. I have been blessed with what God has given me and that i apply it to my very being.

 

[AK4]

I humbly suggest that anyone trying to prove me wrong about anything that I make up about the Bible would have quite a difficult time.

And they would have to use my intepretative methods, that I have unquestionably mastered.

Good luck, chumps.

EDIT: You smart-aleky scholars must answer in Greek poetry in the style of Euripides.

Once again opinions, but no scripture

 

[sojourner]

The church huh? I believe the Word say Christ is the head and the head of Christ is God. Now the true church, you know the called out of the called out, the ones who have the Spirit of God in them, will be the channel in which God and Christ would "make the rules". With that being said, which church would be the right church? Catholicism, Protestantism, or any of the other ism's or ist's out there? Which is right? They all are full of false doctrines. These churches, oh dont forget judaism, all brought in false doctrines. Would you like me to list them? Im only allowed like 11,000 characters per post you know. The church brought up the doctrine of hell, Is it the final authority because it says it exists? What about the trinity? I believe they say if you dont believe in the trinity you are not a christain. What about tithing? the church is what has corrupted the Word of God. Why do you think they are addressed by Jesus in Revelations? The church you idolize despise the Word of God to keep their traditions and doctrine of demons. It amazes me on your ignorance of this since you THINK you are so well educated.

Boy! You sure got up on the wrong side of the religious bed this morning. Must have eaten some bad sauerkraut last night, because you're still having nightmares about the Church.

The Church is the Body of Christ, and has always had the authority to represent Christ.

Obviously you skimmed that article and "exegesis-ed"it and since it dont meet up with your god--the god of context--you disagree with it and despise it too.

Obviously, the article only deserved a skimming over, since its scholarship doesn't meet my standards.
What do you care? you despise scholarship in the first place.

There is only one authority i go by and that is God and His Word.

Bully for you! Now, if you only understood what "the Word" is actually saying, you might stand a chance...

Right. So if "the church" and theologian provide me with unscriptural heresies or try to "teach" me unscriptural and agenda based ways of "rightly dividing the Word" then i will dump that info.

Obviously, you've dumped the baby out with the bath water.

I COULDNT care less about what they or someone else think about me.

Nice, Christian attitude.

If someone think i am bashing them because i show them truth then tough tooty fruity.

I thought you "followed 'the Word.'" What happened to speaking the truth in love? Or is that a heretical, man-made, unbiblical doctrine, too?

The pharisees didnt like it either when Jesus and did this too.

You're not Jesus.
And you need to remember that they killed Jesus for what he said.

You may have done it but your methods are flawed

I would be highly entertained by you analysis of my methodology.

 

[sojourner]

I also said correct me if am wrong, which is an admission that maybe there is a possiblity. In no way do i say i know it all.

No, it's a challenge.

This:

I humbly suggest that anyone trying to prove me wrong about anything that I make up about the Bible would have quite a difficult time.

And they would have to use my intepretative methods, that I have unquestionably mastered.

Good luck, chumps.

is bang on the dot.

Every time a considered, well-thought out and researched answer has been given, you've rebutted with "That doesn't count," or "your methodology is wrong," or "That's not directly out of the Bible." No wonder nobody wants to play with you. Not only will you not allow us to play with our own marbles, but you make up your own rules as you go along, and foist them on the rest of us.

I guess you don't understand that "proving with scripture" requires non-textual commentary on that scripture. Otherwise, you're just saying, "come into my parlor (said the spider to the fly)."

 

[sojourner]

If this wasnt about religion and instead lets say a court this would be good thing right?

No, because not all evidence is helpful, or admissible.

 

[AK4]

You know its funny. Look at the book of Revelations as an example. That book alone is littered with so many references to the OT prophecies where it is "here a little, there a little" or where the Word was "rightly divided". Littered!!! You find many different references to a verse in one book like Zechariah and then one in Hosea then Ezekial then Isaiah and yet when this principle instructed by God on how to know the scriptures is done, the people who bow to their god and idol of their heart say "context, context, context". Is it not done in all the NT books? For example the new american standard bible has almost every verse cross referenced to some other verse in the bible. Are the "scholars" who did this taking verses out of context? Did they have to "exesegis" the writer to see that what he put was mentioned somewhere else in scripture if not word for word then similar? Christ says "I am the door" then Paul says you can only enter through Christ. Is that out of context? Do you have to exesegis to see the connection? Get outta here. Your arguments are silly and stupid. Theologians and the church try to make it seem so difficult that they "compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves" (Mt 23:15)


People dont understand that its all ONE. The old and new testaments are not seperate books or collection of books, they are ONE. The collection of books of the each testament make up ONE book. Is Jesus, you know THE WORD OF GOD, a collection of divided and seperate thoughts of different individuals? Is on His thigh when He returns "the word of Matthew, Luke, John, Mark, Isaiah,Hosea etc etc? You take the constitution and you sectionalise the bill of rights--does it make seperate from the constitution? Do you have to exesegis why they put something in one section of the constitution and say something similar in the bill of rights. Like i (no not i but Jesus) said of the "scholars" of His time

Mt 23:15 - Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.....(teaching them) doctrines of devils; (1Ti 4:1)

And i thought i addressed this before that no i am not Jesus, but scripture says we are to be like Him. Look at the scriptures and see how Jesus talked to those who claimed they knew the truth and how differently He talked to "sinners". Strong rebuke vs. compassion.

 

[MarvelousWorksofGod]

hi this is abilash. i am from india. i am a hindu i ahev recently read so called bible. to be frank i dont find any thing good in this..... all things i dont belive why do you guys say this is great.... i dont find any thing good in the so called holy book..*edit*

Can I ask what you have read in the bible?
Everything in the bible is good.
In the book of John it says:
"In the beggining there was the Word, and the Word was God, and it was with God."
Keep reading the bible, from what you see in there may 'interfere' what you believe, but you won't be discouraged because the bible is a very powerful useful tool, but you have to use it in the right way because in there it says that the devil even uses the bible to deceive.
This note is not a damand, but a encouragement.

 

[AK4]

Boy! You sure got up on the wrong side of the religious bed this morning. Must have eaten some bad sauerkraut last night, because you're still having nightmares about the Church

No. I just hate being lied to. And for most of my life and all the different churches and denominations did not teach the full truth of the Word and basically lied and distorted and twisted it and it ****** me off how pastors and preachers who are "supposed" to know what they preach actually preach heresy. They teach these church doctrines and theologians "exesegisises" and traditions that LIE and distort the truth. But knowing Gods plan i dont hold them at fault .

The Church is the Body of Christ, and has always had the authority to represent Christ.

So tell me, who/which is the real church of christ? This oughta be interesting, yet i know the question will be avoided.

Obviously, the article only deserved a skimming over, since its scholarship doesn't meet my standards.
What do you care? you despise scholarship in the first place.

Yeah i despise scholarship like Alexander Thomsons Whence Eternity that exposes more of the churches/theologians teachings and heresies on the words eternity, eternal, everlasting and for ever and ever. Yeah i despise stuff that exposes the church lies. NOT. But apparently you do.

Bully for you! Now, if you only understood what "the Word" is actually saying, you might stand a chance...

Ha! Hardly. I will give it one more chance....Since YOU know what It is actually saying and have such great exesegising powers tell me, What is the plan of God? Why did He create humanity? *holding breath*
Obviously, you've dumped the baby out with the bath water.

Nice, Christian attitude.

No if i was a christain i would tell my 3 in 1 god to condemn you to hell.

I thought you "followed 'the Word.'" What happened to speaking the truth in love? Or is that a heretical, man-made, unbiblical doctrine, too?

So tell me where it says that rebuke cant be done in love.

You're not Jesus.
And you need to remember that they killed Jesus for what he said.

And tell me, if we are to imitate Paul because he says he was trying to imitate Christ and both rebuked those who contradict then……
Oh by the way if that’s a threat I am not afraid, but I wont take that way either. Remember the disciples rejoiced because they were found worthy to suffer for Christ.

I would be highly entertained by you analysis of my methodology

I thought I posted that earlier in this thread.

 

[sojourner]

You know its funny. Look at the book of Revelations as an example. That book alone is littered with so many references to the OT prophecies where it is "here a little, there a little" or where the Word was "rightly divided". Littered!!! You find many different references to a verse in one book like Zechariah and then one in Hosea then Ezekial then Isaiah and yet when this principle instructed by God on how to know the scriptures is done, the people who bow to their god and idol of their heart say "context, context, context". Is it not done in all the NT books? For example the new american standard bible has almost every verse cross referenced to some other verse in the bible. Are the "scholars" who did this taking verses out of context? Did they have to "exesegis" the writer to see that what he put was mentioned somewhere else in scripture if not word for word then similar? Christ says "I am the door" then Paul says you can only enter through Christ. Is that out of context? Do you have to exesegis to see the connection? Get outta here. Your arguments are silly and stupid. Theologians and the church try to make it seem so difficult that they "compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves" (Mt 23:15)

Cross-contextual is not the same thing as contextual. The practice of Biblical writers borrowing texts, or citing texts is cogent to a theological point they want to make. But when exegeting a text, we understand that it's borrowed, and we seek to find out, not only what the borrowed passage originally meant in its own context, but what the editor had in mind for his purposes. Then we can correctly ascertain the correct cross-contextual meaning.

You need to remember that you're neither a Biblical writer nor a theologian. You're not writing text for others to read scripturally. You're reading what others have written. Therefore, what you're doing and what they're doing are two different things.

People dont understand that its all ONE. The old and new testaments are not seperate books or collection of books, they are ONE. The collection of books of the each testament make up ONE book.

You're dead wrong here, and that's why you disagree with so many here. Bible means "library" -- or, "a collection of books." They are the collection of texts that we hold as sacred. In fact, the Jews didn't have a book. They had separate scrolls.

Is Jesus, you know THE WORD OF GOD, a collection of divided and seperate thoughts of different individuals?

Yes. It's a collection of the whole Tradition -- a collection of separate thoughts of different individuals, editing stories that they've heard through the centuries. Sometimes the same story gets told in different books, with slightly different circumstances and different characters -- sort of like urban legend.

You take the constitution and you sectionalise the bill of rights--does it make seperate from the constitution?

The constitution is a completely different type of literature than the Bible.

Do you have to exesegis why they put something in one section of the constitution and say something similar in the bill of rights.

Yes, you do. What do you think the Supreme Court does? Interpret the constitution and Bill of Rights in light of the various circumstances that come before it. In essence, they exegete what the document is saying in that context.

And i thought i addressed this before that no i am not Jesus, but scripture says we are to be like Him. Look at the scriptures and see how Jesus talked to those who claimed they knew the truth and how differently He talked to "sinners". Strong rebuke vs. compassion.

Look how he served his God. Would you die on a cross to expiate the sin of the world?